User talk:Mindspillage/2006archive2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of my talk page from February 2006. Please add new messages to my current page.


Dyslexic agnostic and T-man[edit]

I thought you should be aware of the latest developments: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Evidence#Fourth asserion. Dyslexic agnostic 16:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE HAD IT WITH CONSTANT ATTACKS BY T-MAN. The arbitration is just a further opportunity to attack and attack and attack, a relentless illegible onslaught. PLEASE JUST MAKE IT STOP! Dyslexic agnostic 05:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eBaum's World AfD merge[edit]

I've left feedback for your entry on the eBaum's World talk page at Talk:EBaum's_World#Cleanup. I'm unhappy with the state that the article has been left in. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 19:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. The discussion resulted in a majority of Keeps. So why the merge? And why getting rid of all the content from the controversy article? 209.51.77.64 21:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See note on teh talk page of the eBaum's World article. I did a speedy cut of material that was potentially problemativ as we have received complaints about it. Material that is neutral and properly cited can be moved back in by anyone—I don't know enough about the site to be able to do this quickly; others can do this better. Just please do not let anyone insert material, especially statements about illegal activity, without referring to a credible cited source (and ebaumsworldsucks.com is not a suitably neutral and credible source). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:28, 31 January 2006
I strongly disagree with your statement that ebaumsworldsucks.com is not a "suitably neutral" source. AltF4 has e-mailed authors asking whether they granted eBaum's World permission to host material. Just because the domain has "sucks" in the name and the site DOES have an agenda does not render statements by the content creators untrue or even POV. There was a big thread at SA where AltF4 recruited users to track down original authors of stuff hosted at eBaum's. It's linked off of the talk page, and is the basis for the ebaumsworldsucks Complaints and Lies & Hypocrisy pages. It would behoove you to read the thread if you insist on arguing this. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 04:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible that those complaining that the article was "potentially problemativ" could have been Ebaum's World Employees or other people associated with the site? Is Wikipedia going to give in to demands of more cities to censor their articles if there are so many complaints? --Eldarone 22:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it ought matter who asks that we remove uncited material. If we can't prove it, we can't print it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the sources for the controversy page was citied. --Eldarone 02:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your kind note[edit]

Thank you for your flower -- it was very heartening. Not much of a scent though. . . :) Anyway, It's encouraging to hear so many distinguished Wikipedians give their support. May your day be bright. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there....[edit]

Congratulations, Mindspillage/2006archive2! Your user page has been nominated for the Esperanza User Page Award! Five judges will look over your user page and award it 1-10 points in four categories:

  • Attractiveness: general layout, considering colour scheme and/or use of tables if applicable
  • Usefulness: links to subpages or editing aids, helpful information
  • Interesting-ness: quirky, unique, captivating, or funny content
  • General niceness: at the judges' discretion

But first, you must be chosen as a finalist. If your user page is chosen as one of the five finalists, you'll have the chance to win an award created just for having a great user page!

More information can be found on this page.

KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 19:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick, userpages are important now! Add more userboxes! ;-) or, maybe not Kim Bruning 21:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes I've received similar messages and I expect a few more! I would like to let you know that TantalumTelluride nominated your page. I'm just one of the organizers of this project (the spammer too :-P) I'd like to leave you the following message: No need to worry about your userpage being designed by someone else, many of the userpages listed were not designed by the users themselves! We've all made alterations, which will make the pages stand out from the other nominees, not to mention the content on our user pages is very different. I have yet to make the acquaintance of one who is the same! :-D. The award program, for want of a better word, runs weekly, so If you'd like to nominate the user who helped design your page look no further. Anybody else you may wish to nominate can be nominated before long as well. Have a great day and good luck on your nomination! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 22:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly reminder[edit]

Hello, Mindspillage/2006archive2. Just a friendly reminder that I would appreciate it if you would answer some of the interview questions above; I would love to have complete responses from all of you for Monday's issue of The Wikipedia Signpost. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot; I really appreciate it! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Opinion on Robert I's Arbitration[edit]

I am a 61 year old retired English solicitor. I know both Robert Isherwood and Gregory Lauder-Frost. I can confirm that they are friends and that they live not far from one another (60 miles apart).

I was asked by Robert to examine what has happened to him and to give my opinion. My view is that he has been treated unfairly.

Robert made several attempts at complaints and also requested arbitration before other users. These were ignored. It may be that (like me) he is unable to properly find his way around the very confusing Wikipedia pages and headings.

User C.J.Curry however, made a request for arbitration which was immediately taken up. He appears to be the main protaganist in this dispute although he called in support from at least two other users, home on the range and ground zero, all of whom appear to know each other, and, indeed, praise each other. All three would appear to have the same political ideas.

Robert has one computer at his flat. He and his son use it. Gregory Lauder-Frost lives in Berwickshire and having remarried in 1998 has a young family. He has a very old computer which he and his wife both use. Gregory is not IT literate. He regards the internet as a dangerous source of disinformation.

It has been suggested that occasionally the same computer or computers with similar ISP number have been used, purportedly by one person using aliases. Without proof this would not stand up in our courts.

It has been suggested that several posters use similar language terms, phraseology, etc., and therefore it has to be the same individual making the postings. This would be thrown out of our courts. The majority of those attending a good public school, especially boarders, leave school with the same English language and linguistic attributes.

Robert has been banned for "aggressive editing". However, it was Robert's articles which were aggressively edited and often deleted, not visa-versa.

On several occasions "sources" were absolutely demanded and even when given were still ignored on the most specious grounds, such as assertions that a speaker/writer was being "sarcastic" or that the source had then to be checked. On several occasions sources were given in the references or publications and they were still ignored and the comment in the article deleted.

Robert's articles have been stated by Mr C J Curry to be "right-wing propaganda" which he a some sort of duty to eliminate. Having examined the original articles it may be contended that by quoting the organisation's won opinions and objectives may appear biased. But nor more biased than deleting them and relacing them instead with the detrimental opinions of a few journalists. In British courts a quote from a journalist is inadmissable without the journalist being present with the evidence used for the article concerned.

One of Robert's detractors has stated that Gregory Lauder-Frost's article was "vanity" and that Lauder-Frost was "on the fringe of the fringe". These statements were absolute opinion. The evidence does not stand up.

It may be that an article has not been written in a particular Wikipedia manner, but that should not make it inadmissable. Gregory was, in his time, a prominent figure. His activities in the various pressure groups, and indeed within the Conservative Party, made him, shall we say, a fascinating figure. He was a friend with Alec Douglas Home and numerous MPs. He was on a restricted guest list for a House of Commons Dinner on 4th October 1990 for John Major following his becoming Prime Minister (that is not on your article page) and he sat in front of Margaret Thatcher in a reserved seat for McWhirter's memorial service (deleted from the article). These things demonstrate that he was far from persona non grata, and definitely not on the fringe.

I have not the time to list here the seemingly endless lists of the manner in which Robert's comments and articles have been attacked. But it is unjust that these attackers are now confirmed as being wholly in the right and Robert wholly in the wrong. Articles on individuals and groups on the British Right should be fair and balanced and give some good idea of their opinions and views, of what they believe they stand for, and also the juxtaposed comments of others. Comments designed to place them in an unfair and bad light should at the very least be supported by evidence.

It has been suggested that the term "European" is meaningless. The Oxxford English Dictionary is cited with definitions. Some wors have numerous definitions. It is not possible to accept them all. most people would settle upon one. Robert has done this and been unjustly attacked as denying the "authority" of a dictionary which today carries words and definitions which would never have been acceptable to pre-1950 editors, and which are, at the end of the day, the opinions of the editors. Its all a matter of opinion.

The most appalling aspect of Robert's treatment appears to be that he has been treated as though he had made shocking or pornographic statements, that he had abused others in a dreadful manner etc. My reading is that he was very often provoked into robust responses by seemingly quite arrogant, even pompous, comments made by his detractors.

None of these points appear to have been noted by the arbitrators at all.

The arbitrators appear to have commenced their arbitration from an automatic position that Robert was absolutely wrong, and that he had committed some fantastic crime on Wikipedia. My own opinion is that he has obviously spent hours on end researching and submitting articles and information to Wikipedia, articles which previously were not there, and which filled a vital information gap. These were then attacked by ideological enemies under the guise of "neutrality" etc. In fact, what was criticised as opinion, was usually replaced by opinion.

Phrases such as "hard-right", "far-right", "extreme-right", "holocaust denier", "White-minority government" etc., are all loaded with political inuendo. They weould not be permitted when giving evidence in a British court as the court would be making the decision, not the witness.

His detractors' arguments, I submit, would not have the gravity of evidence in our courts for the drastic treatment/decision made by you on Robert Isherwood.

Michael.

Thank you[edit]

Rl is not exactly back. I just hate seeing people treated unfairly.

Unfortunately, the only thing Rl seems good for now is stirring up controversy. You may have noticed that the initiative by some people to reopen the RfA turned into a bloodbath before I got a chance to say anything. The account might as well be cursed :-/.

I read and appreciate the comments you and others have left, though. Thank you. Rl 23:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My big mouth[edit]

It's a mixed blassing, this mouth of mine, and Doc is (at least) partly right about the "last word."

But look at what happened with Cool Cat's oppose. CC said he didn't see any evidence of RC patrol, I said I do it but did he want more... and Tony pulls out an ArbCom reference. Left field much? I could just cry, I am so consistantly nice to newbiews, I had even prepared a long list at one stage. Is it really better to just leave something like that hanging there?

Looking at the RfA page now I am getting really depressed. It's just endless, one thing always leads to another, and then another longer thing and another. And that's when it's personal, trying to discuss policy is worse... I feel like I'm in quicksand. And I know also that, to extend the anology, struggling only makes you sink faster.

Throw me a lifeline? Guide this grasshopper, oh Alpha-tranche master.

brenneman(t)(c) 02:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what about me? I've been told I'm a master of many things, including, but not limited to, Islamic fundamentalism, rogue adminliness, and lovemaking. I could surely be of assistance! Now back to your regularly scheduled programming, film at 11.--Sean Black (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feared if I apporached you directly, Sean, I wouldn't be able to resist your animal mangnetism.
brenneman(t)(c) 03:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A rationale fear. In fact, the only reason I feel safe posting on a heterosexual female editor's talk page is because she's taken.--Sean Black (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean you've simply accepted me as a total wanton? · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More seriously, IMHO: just hang back Aaron, don't be so quick defend everything... Part of admining is doing the right thing and then not defending it in detail. A lesson I failed to learn at LUGNET. And, Sean, stay away from my daughter... ++Lar: t/c 03:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Aaron. Mostly my advice is not to turn it into a discussion thread; I mentioned your thoughts on that to Tony (who doesn't bite... much), but then he took off for a bit. Mostly: don't get worked up about it; don't respond to it if you think you've already said for yourself all you need to say; don't get drawn into a fruitless discussion just because you can. Probably better for both of you if you'd settle issues with Tony in private (email, IRC, what have you -- email probably better, as it's *slower* and more considered) so you don't get the crowd of onlookers ready to bring it up. Overall I think it's going well regardless; go off and take a few deep breaths and edit something peaceful (*not* deletion pages).
Oh, and Sean, careful spreading your animal magnetism around on my talk page; the ostriches on my user page are getting restless... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Essjay grabs mindspillage and stuffs her in the microwave for safekeeping*
Back! Back you sex fiends! If anybody is going to have witty suggestive banter with mindspillage, it's going to be me!!!
*Essjay wields Katefan0 like a bludgeon and threatens anyone who comes near mindspillage* Essjay Talk • Contact 19:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Proposed decision[edit]

I see that you edited this quite recently. There is currently a completed motion to close on that decision, so I'm just asking if you are still deliberating this? Could you check whether the other arbitrators are all finished? --Tony Sidaway 10:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post[edit]

In case you haven't noticed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020302610.html

"Kat Walsh of Herndon, a bassoonist and Wikipedia editor, said the site dissuades people from editing terms or profiles they feel personally invested in. But it happens, occasionally, and not just in politics: Some companies have tried to beautify their entries by entering press releases, she said."

You're front page news! (/continued on page A15 or something). — TheKMantalk 06:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because as we all know, being a basoonist is a very important position for a Wikipedian. The Basoonist Committee is a very select group.--Sean Black (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There Is No Bassoonist Cabal!... clarinetists need not apply? ++Lar: t/c 06:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zomg, that last round of BassoonComm elections was a woodwind bloodbath! ;-) FreplySpang (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zomghowdareyou!?[edit]

RANT

Just to keep the norms. Rob Church (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're like an abusive admin. Or something. Yeah. Totally.--Sean Black (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay.[edit]

I considered your comments before attempting to address your concerns. I think El C explained his position concerning his comments to Carnildo. As I see it, the argument he makes is "If you support the use of a pro-pedophilia user box, you are de facto supporting hate crimes against children". The issue seems clear to me. By equateing pedophilia with for example, homosexuality (or any other legal sexual behaviour) pedophilia is justified as an acceptable thought process. It is not. An argument that all sides of an issue must be represented to maintain a NPOV stance in article space is spurious. Shall we have statements saying for example "Murder is OK because I think about it all the time"? or similar material that could be included. If we have to have an article on for instance, NAMBLA, why should we worry how the peadophiles justify its existance? We just have to acknowledge the group, as an entity, explain its mandate and some of its history and that in itself is neutral. We don't need "opinions" from its supporters. Wikipedia certainly dosen't want to appear to condone pedophiles as editor/contributors. Compared to just about any degree of bad behaviour, copy right violations and libelous statements, there is nothing that would damage the reputation of this resource to a public at large. Let me put it this way, if I were an F.B.I agent, I would be watching these developments with a great deal of interest. As far a Greg's feelings, I am as solicitous about them as he is of mine. If you have any influence with him, convince him to tone down his rhetoric by several degrees, and perhaps I might give his comments more weight than I currently am of a mind to do. Regards, Hamster Sandwich 02:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Free Press article: Kofi Annan and Wikipedia[edit]

Hi mindspillage. I thought I should bring the following to your attention. Judi McLeod whom we've discussed before has published another article about Wikipedia. Freemasonry link to Kofi Annan's father disappears from Wikipedia

Do you know more about this? McLeod's article doesn't tell us what date the claim was first posted. I can't find any recent changes on Kofi Annan.

I intend to look into the Freemasonry accusations but I suspect that apart from legal considerations the information also constitutes original research. I may be wrong, though.

I wasn't sure who to ask but you are the only senior admin I'm familiar with. You have experience with the Canada Free Press page so I thought I should ask you first.

Thanks! --Cyberboomer 23:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McLeod may have confused Wikipedia with this website I've left a follow up message on Jimbo Wales' talk page asking if there were any covert edits to the Kofi Annan page. --Cyberboomer 23:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messiaen[edit]

Yes, the FAC nomination of Messiaen was a surprise: I was more than gratified by the positive feedback the article received. (It still needs improving, though!) Thanks for your support! By the way, keep up the good arbcom work - I see the arbcom is handling the user-box wheel-war case speedily, seriously and sensibly. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 10:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community Presentation Standards[edit]

Saw this: "As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page...". Just curious, was that a response to Radiant using white text on a black background on his user and talk pages as a way of making a statement? Or something larger? Thanks. I can see two sides of this, that one should be able to format as one chooses to make stylistic, artistic or even personal statements, but that doing so in a way that doesn't work for all (or at least a vast majority of) readers may not be goodness... (please respond here if you would, I'll watch for a while) ++Lar: t/c 20:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has absolutely nothing to do with Radiant! — it's the bigger controversy about "free speech", attack templates, and the like. I don't see anything wrong with how Radiant!'s page was. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well then we are totally on the (ahem...) same page then! This is a project, not a free speech zone, while personality is important to getting things done, it must be expressed in furtherance of the project. Thanks for the clarification. ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and further, thanks for templatising it. I've taken advantage of that. ++Lar: t/c 21:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honored. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop messing around with the color, or I'll have to subst it though... it now clashes with the "carefully considered" 93 other colors on my userpage... :) ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pinktulip[edit]

"we don't need to put up with this sort of user" <-- Can you post a description of the reasons for User:Pinktulip's block at Wikipedia:Account suspensions? --JWSchmidt 15:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me to the entry for Amorrow. Do you have a link to the page that contains the checkuser report linking all of these user accounts? --JWSchmidt 16:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that TulsaGal (talk · contribs) is a recreation/sockpuppet of Pinktulip (and by extension, Amorrow), especially based on this edit and the creation of this article he/she/it created as (IMO) an obvious attempt to get around what Pinktulip was doing. Just a heads-up. --Calton | Talk 01:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly. I blocked. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 07:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification[edit]

I figured that you were not up to nefarious activity... The only caveat I can think of of is that when the anonymous user returns under a different IP, proxy or username it might confuse the issue if it escalates again. I think that an explanation at the top of the RfC of what the Arbcom decision /consensus was and your reasoning for hiding the history and everything as well as a page lock so the user can't come along and vandalize it or obfuscate it might be in order. But you seem to know what's going on, so I leave it to your discretion. Cyberdenizen 17:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff and such[edit]

Hi Mindspillage - I've taken the step to protect Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/65.182.172.x; the editors involved have told me that they would feel more secure if they knew that the page is kept locked. At the moment, I don't see why the page should be edited any longer, so I have done just that for their peace of mind. The incidents have been drawn out for far too long, and I think giving them a little bit of a sense of security is a good thing.

Have you been able to track down all the edits which should be removed? Is the current plan to just delete them from the page history, or to get a developer to permanently delete them? --HappyCamper 18:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks again for your note. In that case, I will take the time to scan through the page histories and remove some other stuff. There are still a few lingering edits here and there, and I am keen on giving these editors some closure to this whole business. Although the information isn't quite so sensitive, I think it is important for them that they see that something has been done. Anyway, I'll see you around! --HappyCamper 18:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, I think I've got the last of it - I deleted an extra page. Thanks for everything. I'll follow up with the two editors who initiated the RfC as well. That should be the end of it I think. If I run into other things related to this, I'll let you know. --HappyCamper 19:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer for OTRS[edit]

Kat,

I was a volunteer on the soon to be disbanded help desk mailing list. I would like to volunteer for OTRS. My e-mail address is keithold@gmail.com and I would be grateful if you could add me to the list.

I would also be grateful if you could advise if there will be any differences in the operation of the system Capitalistroadster 23:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two to tango[edit]

It is clear by now that you have voted in an ArbCom case without bothering to look at the evidence.

Your only source for the decision was what Fred Bauder ( a self edmiting anti-Zionist) had to say about the case. This after he refused to recuse himself from a case he had a strong bias about.

Here is some of the evidence (which are on the case) that you choose to ignore:

User Zero was as much a party to edit wars as the people you voted to ban. Zero is continuing this edit war all over Wikipedia articles that deal with palestine/israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

I made an suggestion to discuss this, in a a civilized way, cause i think that with Fred leading you , you have not got to the bottom of the issue. Still wiling to do that. So far there was no reply. Not very civilized.

Zeq 17:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology[edit]

I took your name from the temopraray injuction page. This was a hastly mistake.

Suggest you look at the discussion page - 3rd parties made usefull comments there.

18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Motion[edit]

I would like to ask ArbCom to take the following steps:

1. Postpone closing the case

2. Return the dispute on Nakba to mediation

3. Extending the temporaray ban on editing Nakba to all parties (not just those from the Pro-Israel POV)

4. Appoint a mediator who will hear both sides and arrive into an agreed upon NPOV article on the subject

5. Dcalre that any party that will not accept the mediation results is banned from the article

6. Set guidelines to how future changes to this article take place


Thank You for considering my motion.

PS. I have no problem with banning me from this article cause I don't want to edit it. I want to help make it NPOV. However, baning only the Israeli side does not giv the correct "game theory" insentive tfor both sides to engare in mmgoood faith mediation. Therefor if banns are enacted they should be aon all parties to the edit war. It takes two to Tango. It is is mpossible to think that only one side edit wared on this article.

Zeq 19:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message from The Kindness Fairy[edit]

In celebration of Random Acts of Kindness Week, The Kindness Fairy wants to thank you for all the effort you have put into making Wikipedia an enjoyable place to work, especially by sorting through the messy disputes that make their way to ArbCom. Thank you and may all your wikidays be wonderful. The Kindness Fairy 03:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The photo on your user page is simply adorable.

Oh sensible one[edit]

Any chance the ArbCom might have quiet words with the "destroy all boxen" crew? What we've got are two small hard cores of discontent pushing each other further and further into more extreme positions, to the serious detriment of any person or process that's too close. We've already had a potentially valuable wikiproject as collateral damage, so just getting them to down tools for a little while as opposed to continuing to fan the flames of discontent would be a major step forward.
brenneman{T}{L} 05:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've jumped the gun and created Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop.
brenneman{T}{L} 02:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do the rest, either of you. The instructions are at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures. The case had its fourth acceptance, 16:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC), well over 24 hours ago, so it's openable. --Tony Sidaway 02:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, thanks for your comment on my userpage. I think we need a volunteer fire department to douse the flames... Bratschetalk 04:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

File:Plunger 250x410.jpg

Thanks for your kind words in my RfA, and for taking the time to vote. The RfA passed with a final vote of 54/2/1 despite my obvious inadequacy for the job. And also, thanks for being the first to suggest that I might become an administrator — it took me a while to overcome my initial reluctance, but having the support of someone as eminently sensible as yourself helped a great deal.

I'll do my level best to use the mop and bucket — or, as I said in my RfA, plunger — responsibly. Of course, in the best tradition of politicans everywhere, I've already broken a campaign promise (I blocked a vandal last night despite having said "I don't anticipate using the blocking tool very often"). Nevertheless, I'll try not to let the unbridled power corrupt me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DA[edit]

I have expressed some concerns at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision which you may wish to take a look at. Thanks. Dyslexic agnostic 20:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero[edit]

Here is some more proofs that Zero continue edit wars in the last 48 hours including removal of well sourced material .


This maybe of value:

  • [6] it is clear that Zero is using wikipedia against this directive in his case from 2004:
  • "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind".


Zeq 21:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Valentines Day![edit]

♥ Happy Valentines Day! ♥

May your days be filled with Wikilove!

- Quadell

T-Man ban[edit]

I also want to state that I think a six-month ban of T-Man is highly excessive, and further it is beyond the jurisdiction of this body at this time. His current one-month ban should be left, after which he is of course subject to scrutiny, and I hope would not conduct further personal attacks. A six-month ban all at once is unfair. I thought this was MY arbitration (see my name in the title: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision?) It would be procedurally unfair to ban T-man without him having the opportunity to defend himself; he didn't know he faced sanction at all in these proceedings! His comments were dedicated to showing why I should be banned or restricted. I think it is very important that this ban NOT be put in place, since T-man is entitled to make answer and defence. Dyslexic agnostic 01:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY
[edit]

Valentine's Day postcard, circa 1910


Wishing one of my favorite persons in Wiki a "Happy Valentine's Day". Tony the Marine 01:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(P.S. That ain't me on the picture (smile), Tony)

OTRS[edit]

Hi there I would like to volunteer for OTRS. My e-mail address is bcanderton@gmail.com. Thanks Brian | (Talk) 08:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution[edit]

As a retalvly new user at Wikipedia I have only came accross this page Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes in part of your decision in my ArbCom case.

It is enfortunate that I was not ware of this page before cause it would have allowed me ways to seeq what i have ben looking for in the case of Artcle Palestinia_Exodus which is ways to get wider participations and mediators.

I have noticed that ArbCom is mentioned only as "last resort"

Therefor I would like to make a motion to suspend the ArbCom case and to first ensure the dispute over this article goes through all the steps mention in the Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes policy. If I am not mistaken it is actually a pre-condition to any ArbCom case.

Thank You. Zeq 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I have mentioned many times I would not mind voluntarlity banning myself from this article once a mechanism to make it NPOV is found.

Zeq 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah!![edit]

Nice work: good to see (Concerto in E-flat (Dumbarton Oaks)) appear! Darn it, you make me think maybe I should be writing again too... :-) Antandrus (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PR group[edit]

Hello, I was wondering if you all needed help in the PR group answering emails? I really enjoy customer service and think I am pretty good at it and would enjoy this opportunity to help Wikipedia. I've been on Wikipedia for a while and know my way around. Which queues for what actions, the policies, licensing etc so I am fairly confident I could answer most questions but I'm certainly not afraid to ask questions either :) Anyway, I hope you still need some help because I think it would be something I am good at. Feel free to look at my talk pages and edit history of course so you can make sure I'm not a crazy :D - cohesion★talk 07:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


My arbitration case[edit]

Hi,

As you know, I am one of the editors in danger of getting banned from 1948 Arab-Israeli War. I ask you to take a look at the case, and hopefully vote against the ban. Especially some of the proposals at the Workshop may be of interest. I think most of those proposals suggest a better way of solving the issue, clarifying the policy about sources, rather than relying on banning people.

I know Zeq has been utterly counter-productive, at times rude during this case. I do not support his style, and tried to tell him to take it easy a couple of times per e-mail, apparently without success.

I hope that the arbitration case will get to the issue, which is (for the 1948 Arab-Israeli War) the legitimacy of the quotations of Haj Amin al-Husayni. Two quotations are disputed, you will find sources here , and here.


With best regards, -- Heptor talk 23:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • I am indeed "rude" but just banning people (from one side) without fixing the problem (lack of NPOV enforcment) is much much more rude. Zeq 07:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Mindspillage, do feel free to ask me any question if you feel that I left something unclear. -- Heptor talk 03:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PR[edit]

Ahoy! Just pinging to ask if you got my email about the PR department. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your comments[edit]

Thanks for clarifying wikipedia policy. I am troubled by it, but I guess there is not much I can do at this point. Is there? Travb 05:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing list[edit]

I have sent emails to both you and sannse asking if I can be added to whatever the successor list is to the prematurely-deleted Help Desk mailing list. Neither of you has been so kind as to reply. If you don't want my participation, please be so kind as to let me know.

"Go ahead punk" comment[edit]

You're right. Like I said to Robchurch, I was in an incredibly silly mood when I wrote that. I was out of line and have apologised to Travg. I didn't handle this one too well, I'm afraid, though my point on fair use images stands. I'm going to continue culling the images unless someone tells me otherwise. I don't care if Travg is a lawyer: those images aren't fair use, and no court will rule otherwise. I don't want to risk legal issues for Wikipedia. In fact, I'd go further: we need to "declare war" on fair use images: half of them aren't needed. Some are, obviously, but most not. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

desysop[edit]

Thanks for your comment at WT:RFA. In the end, I think you are right. You seem to have have no other sanction to apply once it goes beyond a minor infraction. And who should be an admin is ultimately determined by what is best for the project. NoSeptember talk 23:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I just got an okay from time magazine[edit]

I did something that administration didn't do:

I asked Time Magazine if it was okay to use the cover photos.

Subject: RE: AskArchivist

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:51:30 -0500

From: Bonnie_Kroll at timeinc.com Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert

To: travb****@yahoo.com


Thanks for submitting your question to Ask the Archivist.


Fair use doctrine allows you to use a reasonable text excerpt with a link back to the entire article at time.com.

You may also use a thumbnail of our cover images, as long as you link back to a page on time.com.


Best regards,

Bonnie Kroll

Ask the Archivist

http://www.timearchives.com

I've asked Tony (admin) to contact her himself to confirm this.

Signed: Travb 19:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*nudge*[edit]

Heya,

I'm back from my break. It was much needed and I feel that it did me a lot of good.

Can you tell me what I've missed within the last month or so? I'd like to get caught up.

Thanks, Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed you did vote[edit]

While your vote is similar to all the rest I was hoping that at least one (1) of the Arbitors would bother to look at what actually went on in this dispute. Here is one users comment on the obvious that all of you missed: [7]

Additionally, I think that if anyone of the arbitors would bother to read the talk pages of the articles in questions he would see the effort that I was putting in to reach a compromise. However, when the other side has higher numbers and refused any reasonable compromise (including the mediation results to which I agree but the other side refused) there is not much more I can do: So the other side and I engaged in an edit war, that much is true but it takes two to tango and Ian + Zero have edit wared and disrupted the article at least as I did. (in fact i think it eventually did the article good since now more editors have joined).

Not too late[edit]

Not too late for you to propose similar measures toward the other side (Zero, Ian) as you have voted for me. This is not only based on similar behaviour but also would ensure more calm editing in the future. As things stand now, they would strive for a fight in order to get me to breake the provisions of the probation. Placing them under similar provisions would help calm things down.

If you have time[edit]

And if you have time I'll be glad to explain the issues in the articles themselves in greater deapth. I'll say it in one line: NPOV Vs. Scholarly sources ?


What could I have done ?[edit]

What should an editor do when one side used carefully cherry picked quotes from a book (specificaly speech by Ben Gurion quoted in Benny Morris's book) to prove POV that the author of the book himself (Benny Morris, whom I know too well) sais is not true ?

The editor (me) placed a quote by Morris that explained this but that quote removed (with the argument that it is propaganda).

So resorted to remove some material that was violating NPOV and non relevant but I guess judging the relevancy of that material or the way it was used in the article is beyonf ArbCom to look at.

that you for your time allowing me to spill my mind, Zeq.

PS my request for mediation on a dfferent issue and on this issue have not been answered:Who would want to really bother to understand and resolve when it is much simpler just to ban an editor or two and move on. Zeq 08:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal of VeryVerily[edit]

Dear Arbitrator,

There is a vote under way which would maintain the main restriction on me which forced me off Wikipedia. If it goes through, I will be effectively hard-banned, since (as the last year has shown) I can't function under these conditions.

I don't really know you, and don't know if you know me, but I was a very productive user for a very long time. Though sometimes controversial, I believe I have always been a careful and conscientious editor. I once made hundreds of edits a week here, and every time I read Wikipedia I see how much more I could do to help were I allowed. But with that rate of editing and the expanded defintions of "revert", I am too vulnerable to the stress of constant blocking, and after seeing how this "enforcement" worked, I was forced to walk away.

I spent hours laying out a specific defense for everything the AC complained about last time. It will all be for nothing if this goes through.

And where is the justification for this restriction, the finding of facts, the matter of the evidence I presented? I explained those cases, why I didn't think a talk page "discussion" was needed (e.g., I was being stalked). And it's been a year I've waited now; what is enough?

I urge you, please don't go along with this.

Thanks for listening,

VeryVerily 19:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the refactor[edit]

it's probably too late to suggest that you spawn off archives, as you're part way done... but it's not the end of the world, the diffs show what went away. No reply necessary. ++Lar: t/c 04:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I might do that after. Or just let anyone else tidy up as they please—it is a wiki. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos. You missed your sig in two places on this one. - brenneman{T}{L} 04:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was watching the refactor as you did it, and I think you did a good job of it, thanks. Hope there weren't any personal attacks from me you had to remove. Hmm... it appears to be three in the morning in Florida, so I understand that you're tired. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ENCEPHALON 08:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent refactor, and a good idea for future pathological workshop pages. Probably be something an arb would have to do, not something you could farm out to a clerk. But good work. I added a diff at the top for the actual refactor - David Gerard 08:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. Good job. Haukur 09:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wearily yours eh? Poor you. :-/ Kim Bruning 11:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good; I did re-emphasize one of my points, since Tony explicitly agreed with it. When your weariness passes, you might want to convert the withdrawn points to a list with a single header, to get them out of the ToC. I'd do it myself, if it wouldn't be seen as meddling. Septentrionalis 16:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. I see the withdrawn proposals were already re-added. And David, don't you go giving anyone any bad ideas! Future cases... argh. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just slashed the page to 40K from the 160K it had grown back. I've removed anything that was withdrawn or already "official" and I've grouped all the "multiple version" together. I've also removed all discussion form the grouped ones, and placed to plea to stop chattering and edit the items that are there.
We're all senior enough that we should be able to work something out, is there any way that we can get some strong words to that affect? This whole "well, I don't like your finding so I'll make my own" has to stop. Forking is bad, as this should have the same rules of engagement an article does.
brenneman{T}{L} 03:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me it looks a bit of a mess, the format is nonstandard with lots of items lumped together making it difficult to see what's what and who is commenting on what item. However I think the case has cooked long enough that the workshop is a bit beside the point, and Aaron had the good sense to retain the pre-factoring version at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop (Alpha). I won't be using the refactored version; the evidence page is more than enough. --Tony Sidaway 04:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Wilkes has violated his probation[edit]

User: Ted Wilkes has violated his probation, as he is continuing edit warring and has removed content from the Nick Adams page which deals with Adams's supposed homosexuality. See, for instance, [8], [9], [10], [11]. Wilkes also included some additional passages in the Boze Hadleigh article which try to denigrate this author who has written on the homosexuality of celebrity stars. See [12]. The arbcom clearly said that "Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from any article regarding a celebrity regarding which there are significant rumors of homosexuality or bisexuality..." and that "Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality." See [13] and [14]. Wilkes also removed an external link to a Crime Magazine website which includes the best account of Nick Adams's life, presumably because this webpage makes mention of Adams's supposed homosexuality. See [15]. Onefortyone 03:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ted Wilkes has again violated his probation, although he had been blocked for doing so yesterday. He is still calling me a liar. This is certainly a personal attack. He has deleted some passages concerning Nick Adams's supposed homosexuality and an external link from the Nick Adams page, although he is banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality. See

[16] and [17]. See also his aggressive behavior on the Talk:Nick Adams page. This is unacceptable. Onefortyone 19:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have two things to say.

  • While I agree User:Ted Wilkes has violated his ban, Onefortyone is also violating his probation with all these dubious edits to the sexuality section of the article. I humbly suggest that both be given clear warnings to cease and desist from any sort of editing in the article for now and that neither be blocked unless it becomes necessary as a preventative step to enforce the existing ruling (which I strongly disagree with but respect in terms of process).
  • I think the RfAr should be re-opened, there is much to discuss and resolve. The last RfAr has not worked. Wyss 19:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth talker[edit]

Thank you for the barnphone, Mindspillage! FCYTravis 00:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at this[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fred_Bauder#This_is_the_section_-_can_you_read_it_.3F

I am still waiting for your answer. Zeq 07:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you have extar time please see this as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Talking_about_.22removing_sourced_content_and_replacing_it_with_Propeganda_sources.22

Kat, are you ingoring a polite request for a discussion ? Zeq 08:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mindspillage/2006archive2&oldid=1144702129"