![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
(To LuciferMorgan) Hi - It seems we had a bit of a spat over in Wikipedia talk:featured article candidates
I have appreciated input from you and did not act in bad faith deriving from your comments regarding my allegation of improper nomination - in fact my relationship with you goes back to when I read your comments regarding something different - I quoted you in fact - please see wikipedia talk:featured article candidates#Greater FA process Transparency. Furthermore I was pleased by your attempt at a Friendly Notice in the form of that topic in WP talk:FAC. I hope we can cooperate constructively in the future.
I understand my comments are hard to understand sometimes. I am often not very clear - I hope you will note my lack of clarity when I am unclear rather than respond aggressively sarcastically or in a similarly unconstructive manner. I am somewhat inexperienced, and I can very well learn from any mistakes, especially if you are civil.
Sincerely
--
Keerlls
ton 11:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on getting FA status for South of Heaven-- Keerlls ton 15:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you consider making a contribution to an exchange of views at either of the following:
As you know, Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management came up with entirely reasonable guidelines for naming articles about earthquakes, fires, typhoons, etc. However, the <<year>><<place> <<event>> format leaves no opportunity for conventional nengō which have been used in Japan since the eighth century (701-1945) -- as in "the Great Fire of Meireki" (1657) or for "the Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji" (1707).
In a purely intellectual sense, I do look forward to discovering how this exchange of views will develop; but I also have an ulterior motive. I hope to learn something about how better to argue in favor of a non-standard exception to conventional, consensus-driven, and ordinarily helpful wiki-standards such as this one. In my view, there does need to be some modest variation in the conventional paradigms for historical terms which have evolved in non-Western cultures -- no less in Wikipedia than elsewhere. I'm persuaded that, at least in the context of Japanese history before the reign of Emperor Meiji (1868-1912), some non-standard variations seem essential; but I'm not sure how best to present my reasoning to those who don't already agree with me. I know these first steps are inevitably awkward; but there you have it.
The newly-created 1703 Genroku earthquake article pushed just the right buttons for me. Obviously, these are questions that I'd been pondering for some time; and this became a convenient opportunity to move forward in a process of building a new kind of evolving consensus. -- Ooperhoofd ( talk) 18:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the
Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --
SineBot (
talk) 04:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Will do Lucifer, but gimme a few days, am in FAR hell at the moment. Ceoil ( talk) 18:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I plan to take care of all the points mentioned at the peer review this week, as well as give the article a final tune-up. Do you think there's anything I'm missing from the article? The only thing I know I need to add is description of the band's lyrics. WesleyDodds ( talk) 11:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, although it is not featured yet, I think. So far the review is really good.
Thank you,
Skeeker [
Talk] 22:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I've acted on most of your comments here. Thanks for reviewing, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I blocked the IP for disruption, not for voting. And I've already apologized to the IP for doing so. -- Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 02:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
In case you are looking for an 'outlet' to end your album format struggles... User:Rock Soldier is likely a alterego for permanently blocked User:Alterego269. Several discussions about the edit similarities between the two... especially the fascination with band member lists... have occured already. Admin Cholmes75 is familiar with Alterego269. If the two are linked then Rock Soldier created the alternate account to push through edits that were not supported by other editors (kinda like your Slayer album formatting issue) After Alterego269 got the banhammer the Rock Soldier persona began to take over the edit 'agenda' of the Alterego account. Wiki doesn't care too much about socks unless they are involved in vote stacking. But when an editor is permanently blocked from using one account already... the use of a different account could also be frowned upon. Just thought you'd like to know in case other editors (or IP's... look at Alterego's sock list... he's used many IPs in the past) start doing edits similar to RS. Merry Christmas. 156.34.211.133 ( talk) 22:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Please stop harassing the user. If you aren't planning on making a RFCU or a SSP Report, then there is no need to continue. Assume good faith when dealing with other editors, please. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 23:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Listen, I'd be more than happy to assist you in filing a report if you really believe the user is a sock. I just hope you understand where I am coming from here. None of the proper channels to deem somebody a sockpuppet have been met here. It very well may be a sock, but we just don't know. I apologize if you believe the message I left was uncivil, and I suppose I can understand that, thus I've struck it out. Reading the harassment policy, it does state that repeated personal attacks could be considered harassment. The fact that you calling the user a sock, when there has been no proof, could be (and I did) see it as a personal attack. Like I said before, the user might be one. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 01:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
is now at AN/I DGG ( talk) 12:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Earlier this year you voted to demote this article from featured status. I have recently been working to improve it and re-nominate it as an FAC. Please take some time to review the article's current form, as any feedback for further changes would be greatly appreciated. Harr o 5 22:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I took care of everything you listed on the peer review. Thank you by the way for reviewing. There are not a whole lot of metal bands that are at FA ststus, so I'm really working on getting some there, I don't like to stop at just GA! I was thinking that the big time metal editors (EX: You, M3tal H3ad, me) should all work on the founders of metal,
Black Sabbath sometime in the near future. What do you think?
Thank you,
Burningclean [
Speak the truth!] 01:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Will you comment again, hopefully a support? Burningclean [ Speak the truth!] 23:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Good christmas? Were you at any gigs? Ceoil ( talk) 13:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi mate, long time no see - how are you?
I'm cleaning up The KLF discography with the intention of resubmitting it as a Featured List Candidate. Since it's eerily silent over there, I could really use your help and input. Please see Talk:The_KLF_discography#Formatting_issues_and_data_needed for the most pressing issues. Cheers. -- kingboyk ( talk) 14:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, would you mind reviewing
Chevelle and commenting here:
Wikipedia:Peer review/Chevelle, please and thank you.
Thank you,
Burningclean [
Speak the truth!] 10:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
It's like the lunatics have well and truly taken over the asylum. 'Nuf said. Jeffpw ( talk) 22:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
First, that thread was closed. Posting personal accusations or attacks against someone into a closed thread is poor form, as it forces the accused to have to also post into it to defend himself. Second, that thread was closed for a reason: there is an ongoing request for arbitration, where all related statements should go. Third, your personal attack against me was unwarranted. Focus on the message, not the messenger. Crum375 ( talk) 23:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Good statement. You might want to add, though, since you're explaining the conection and why Slim is has reason to pursue this arbitration and use Zeraeph, something about the Wiki Review and how Zeraeph was openly attacking her there. Had Slim read that thread she would have seen in an instant how this could be used to her advantage. I also find it odd that LessHeard popped up in that Wiki Review thread, saying he had emailed Zeraeph, and suddenly is involved in this arbitration, working with Slim and Z. Give it some thought. Jeffpw ( talk) 10:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
(To LuciferMorgan) Hi - It seems we had a bit of a spat over in Wikipedia talk:featured article candidates
I have appreciated input from you and did not act in bad faith deriving from your comments regarding my allegation of improper nomination - in fact my relationship with you goes back to when I read your comments regarding something different - I quoted you in fact - please see wikipedia talk:featured article candidates#Greater FA process Transparency. Furthermore I was pleased by your attempt at a Friendly Notice in the form of that topic in WP talk:FAC. I hope we can cooperate constructively in the future.
I understand my comments are hard to understand sometimes. I am often not very clear - I hope you will note my lack of clarity when I am unclear rather than respond aggressively sarcastically or in a similarly unconstructive manner. I am somewhat inexperienced, and I can very well learn from any mistakes, especially if you are civil.
Sincerely
--
Keerlls
ton 11:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on getting FA status for South of Heaven-- Keerlls ton 15:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you consider making a contribution to an exchange of views at either of the following:
As you know, Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management came up with entirely reasonable guidelines for naming articles about earthquakes, fires, typhoons, etc. However, the <<year>><<place> <<event>> format leaves no opportunity for conventional nengō which have been used in Japan since the eighth century (701-1945) -- as in "the Great Fire of Meireki" (1657) or for "the Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji" (1707).
In a purely intellectual sense, I do look forward to discovering how this exchange of views will develop; but I also have an ulterior motive. I hope to learn something about how better to argue in favor of a non-standard exception to conventional, consensus-driven, and ordinarily helpful wiki-standards such as this one. In my view, there does need to be some modest variation in the conventional paradigms for historical terms which have evolved in non-Western cultures -- no less in Wikipedia than elsewhere. I'm persuaded that, at least in the context of Japanese history before the reign of Emperor Meiji (1868-1912), some non-standard variations seem essential; but I'm not sure how best to present my reasoning to those who don't already agree with me. I know these first steps are inevitably awkward; but there you have it.
The newly-created 1703 Genroku earthquake article pushed just the right buttons for me. Obviously, these are questions that I'd been pondering for some time; and this became a convenient opportunity to move forward in a process of building a new kind of evolving consensus. -- Ooperhoofd ( talk) 18:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the
Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --
SineBot (
talk) 04:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Will do Lucifer, but gimme a few days, am in FAR hell at the moment. Ceoil ( talk) 18:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I plan to take care of all the points mentioned at the peer review this week, as well as give the article a final tune-up. Do you think there's anything I'm missing from the article? The only thing I know I need to add is description of the band's lyrics. WesleyDodds ( talk) 11:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, although it is not featured yet, I think. So far the review is really good.
Thank you,
Skeeker [
Talk] 22:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I've acted on most of your comments here. Thanks for reviewing, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I blocked the IP for disruption, not for voting. And I've already apologized to the IP for doing so. -- Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 02:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
In case you are looking for an 'outlet' to end your album format struggles... User:Rock Soldier is likely a alterego for permanently blocked User:Alterego269. Several discussions about the edit similarities between the two... especially the fascination with band member lists... have occured already. Admin Cholmes75 is familiar with Alterego269. If the two are linked then Rock Soldier created the alternate account to push through edits that were not supported by other editors (kinda like your Slayer album formatting issue) After Alterego269 got the banhammer the Rock Soldier persona began to take over the edit 'agenda' of the Alterego account. Wiki doesn't care too much about socks unless they are involved in vote stacking. But when an editor is permanently blocked from using one account already... the use of a different account could also be frowned upon. Just thought you'd like to know in case other editors (or IP's... look at Alterego's sock list... he's used many IPs in the past) start doing edits similar to RS. Merry Christmas. 156.34.211.133 ( talk) 22:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Please stop harassing the user. If you aren't planning on making a RFCU or a SSP Report, then there is no need to continue. Assume good faith when dealing with other editors, please. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 23:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Listen, I'd be more than happy to assist you in filing a report if you really believe the user is a sock. I just hope you understand where I am coming from here. None of the proper channels to deem somebody a sockpuppet have been met here. It very well may be a sock, but we just don't know. I apologize if you believe the message I left was uncivil, and I suppose I can understand that, thus I've struck it out. Reading the harassment policy, it does state that repeated personal attacks could be considered harassment. The fact that you calling the user a sock, when there has been no proof, could be (and I did) see it as a personal attack. Like I said before, the user might be one. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 01:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
is now at AN/I DGG ( talk) 12:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Earlier this year you voted to demote this article from featured status. I have recently been working to improve it and re-nominate it as an FAC. Please take some time to review the article's current form, as any feedback for further changes would be greatly appreciated. Harr o 5 22:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I took care of everything you listed on the peer review. Thank you by the way for reviewing. There are not a whole lot of metal bands that are at FA ststus, so I'm really working on getting some there, I don't like to stop at just GA! I was thinking that the big time metal editors (EX: You, M3tal H3ad, me) should all work on the founders of metal,
Black Sabbath sometime in the near future. What do you think?
Thank you,
Burningclean [
Speak the truth!] 01:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Will you comment again, hopefully a support? Burningclean [ Speak the truth!] 23:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Good christmas? Were you at any gigs? Ceoil ( talk) 13:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi mate, long time no see - how are you?
I'm cleaning up The KLF discography with the intention of resubmitting it as a Featured List Candidate. Since it's eerily silent over there, I could really use your help and input. Please see Talk:The_KLF_discography#Formatting_issues_and_data_needed for the most pressing issues. Cheers. -- kingboyk ( talk) 14:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, would you mind reviewing
Chevelle and commenting here:
Wikipedia:Peer review/Chevelle, please and thank you.
Thank you,
Burningclean [
Speak the truth!] 10:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
It's like the lunatics have well and truly taken over the asylum. 'Nuf said. Jeffpw ( talk) 22:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
First, that thread was closed. Posting personal accusations or attacks against someone into a closed thread is poor form, as it forces the accused to have to also post into it to defend himself. Second, that thread was closed for a reason: there is an ongoing request for arbitration, where all related statements should go. Third, your personal attack against me was unwarranted. Focus on the message, not the messenger. Crum375 ( talk) 23:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Good statement. You might want to add, though, since you're explaining the conection and why Slim is has reason to pursue this arbitration and use Zeraeph, something about the Wiki Review and how Zeraeph was openly attacking her there. Had Slim read that thread she would have seen in an instant how this could be used to her advantage. I also find it odd that LessHeard popped up in that Wiki Review thread, saying he had emailed Zeraeph, and suddenly is involved in this arbitration, working with Slim and Z. Give it some thought. Jeffpw ( talk) 10:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)