![]() | 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 talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Hello, Independent Association of Georgian Journalists was deleted yesterday. I just want to confirm that this organization exists and the sources indicating the same. http://www.ifex.org/georgia/2009/11/10/georgia-russia-joint-statement.pdf http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/type,ANNUALREPORT,CPJ,GEO,47c566d825b,0.html http://cpj.org/2006/02/attacks-on-the-press-2005-georgia.php http://www.rjionline.org/mas/code-of-ethics/journalistic-ethics-code http://www.media.ge/en/node/12045 http://www.finchannel.com/Main_News/Press_Releases/51570_IFJ_Endorses_Joint_Russian_%10_Georgian_Demand_to_End_Media_Restrictions/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.240.242.140 ( talk) 14:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I need to look into the contents of this deleted page, where can i view these ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.247.138 ( talk) 15:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, when available your feedback here Template talk:Inappropriate comment would be appreciated. Thanks Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 21:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
User:HideTheDecline looks to me to fall under "user name created to push a POV". The edits support this William M. Connolley ( talk) 13:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Please could you provide some comments here. My inclination is to lance this boil, but not sure how. Cheers LessHeard vanU ( talk) 20:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the link on your user page for the Cohen Earth probably round paper is obsolete.
I found a possible replacement: http://www.projectimplicit.net/nosek/teaching/761/cohen.pdf
Great read! Thank you.
M.boli ( talk) 06:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
on the request for enforcement page per your requests of several editors including Scjessey. He appears willing to edit war here to keep that discussion alive and so I shall wash my hands of the situation and leave the matter to you. -- GoRight ( talk) 19:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I noted your request to atren just now. I think there is a more general problem with his line of argument, in that he tends to make unsupportable statements and, when challenged, to divert onto other poorly researched claims. Not that unusual, you may say, but not good for the atmosphere when the claims concern conduct issues and he just won't acknowledge corrections and simply fires off more complete tosh. I'm not unsympathetic to his concerns, but sloppily researched accusations slipped into discussions, at the level I saw tonight, amount to indiscriminate mud-slinging. Tasty monster ( TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 06:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand you're on wikibreak, but if you're available [1]. I'll leave a note on the other involved admin's talks also. Cla68 ( talk) 10:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Replying to your comment; I largely agree with the sentiment, but going back the original issue Scj was being reprimanded for using the term "sceincedenier". Now, continuous name calling without considered debate is pointless and does sully wikipedia, but I think Scj's mixing in a few pejoritives with his considered debate is mostly harmless. What I dislike is people who insist we pander to very very thin skinned individuals. Anyway, thanks for the debate. Enjoy your Wikibreak. NickCT ( talk) 21:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
this is a fictictious company that a person is going around saying he owns and operates after researching 2 sources for registered business's so how do i present this without you deleting it? the purpose of the article was to let people who look for this company that it is not real so that they would not get ripped off was my sources sunbiz and tess improperly marked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.156.4 ( talk) 18:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I see you unblocked MN, after he promised to leave articles alone and continue work on an article wip in my sandbox, and to prepare another RFC . He has already broken that William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you explain to me how you arrived at your decision that Crohnie was actually *not* edit warring at the Jeffrey R. MacDonald article? Seems to me that continually reverting stuff out of anger would most certainly constitute edit warring. I'd appreciate hearing from you on this. Thanks, SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 22:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
You have an admirer: User:2OverO William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I must say, s/he's willing to put some effort into her/his jokes [2] Guettarda ( talk) 22:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. My specific question: As you're the most recent administrator to enforce something at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Requests for enforcement, I thought I would inquire with you. It seems there is nobody currently reviewing that page. After a series of WP:3RR and other tendentious and pointy edits a few weeks ago, several bizarre edits there and elsewhere last night by the same user have been reported there. Another user was instructed to go to ANI. I'm wondering if the way to move forward is to request admins watch the Sanctions/Probation/Enforcement page, and if not, what that means about the page's status.
On a more general level, the problem of determining if there are really eyes on any page is a problem across the board. I recently posted an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies, and could get no response whatsoever as to how many if any are actually an active part of that project monitoring the page. It's one thing if the judgement of a couple interested parties determines your request doesn't merit action; its another thing if there's simply nobody there. There should be some way for users jumping through these hoops to know the difference. I just don't know where to bring up that issue, as the discussion here Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Hello, ello, llo, lo? was unproductive.
I realize the RfE and the RfC are two completely different realms at first glance, but beyond the respective issues that took me there in the first place is a common component, the lack of transparency whether the store is open and staffed or not, and where the doorbell is. Even if you don't want to be the policeman at that Enforcement page and all you can do is suggest where better to ask these two questions, I thank you for your response. Abrazame ( talk) 00:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
2/0 is going on a wikibreak for the next little while. My email is enabled and I subscribe to the RSS feed for this page, but please only bring up matters in which I am already involved. If it really cannot wait, grab a time machine and I will see you earlier. - 2/0 ( cont.) 17:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC) (post-dated for archival purposes)
Seven editors have commented, including Caleb Murdock and Verbal who are clearly involved. There is about equal support for indefinite block of Caleb and for a topic ban from the Seth Material. How do you see consensus there? Should we advertise for an uninvolved admin to close the thread, or is the situation already clear enough? EdJohnston, Guy, yourself and Brangifer favor the topic ban. Brangifer, Atama and Verbal (involved) want an indef block. A topic ban is weaker than an indef block, so in case of doubt, the topic ban might be a better choice. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 18:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I responded to your comment on my talk page here. Thank you taking the time to write me. Moogwrench ( talk) 07:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
2/0, how much longer do I have put with this for? Alex Harvey ( talk) 23:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe that consensus is [3] [4] [5] that the blog is unreliable and should be removed. WMC appears to be the only one pushing to use that blog as a source and is deleting selected comments from the discussion about it on his talk page. I looked up "Natural Resources Stewardship Project" in Infotrac and ProQuest NewsStand and am ready to begin giving that article better sourcing as soon as protection is lifted. If WMC insists on readding the blog as a source to the article, I can think of a more direct and effective fix for that than fully protecting the article. Cla68 ( talk) 23:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I swore that I would stay out of the whole AGW thing, but I came across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Marknutley who seems to have a fairly narrow field of interests. I don't know if he has come across your radar previously but I think a short review could be in order. Thanks, Unomi ( talk) 22:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
2004 Indian Ocean earthquake
the indian ocean is far away from the indonesian coast
should the name of this disaster be changed to "2004 indonesian tsunami" since it happened only a few miles off the west coast of indonesia
thanks Jigglyfidders ( talk) 09:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
An idea I have been kicking around for the last six months or so is finally live at User:2over0/SCIRS. This discussion on the "discovery" of magnetic monopoles shows part of why it might be handy to have a guideline devoted to reliable sources in the context of science - the research described was genuinely pretty cool, but the reporting of it in the popular press was across the board pretty awful. I would like to get the obvious problems ironed out before advertising this page a bit more widely, but all are free to contribute collegially. - 2/0 ( cont.) 21:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the DOI. As you noted, I did check dx.doi.org, but wasn't sure what to do next, except to leave a note. I now see that the template was typed wrong. Q Science ( talk) 10:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
[6] Try and put some time aside to get this sorted out :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley ( talk • contribs) 2010-01-31 22:12
Someone brought the naming of the article to Jimbo Wales's attention, where he said it should be named Climategate instead, and the billion page watchers all flooded onto the talk page of the CRU Hack. This is a total mess. Half the people are dogpiling JW - there are suggestions that he is violating AGF! - and the other half are white knighting him. You uh... might want to just go on vacation. Ignignot ( talk) 21:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
NW ( Talk) 20:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I guess here is the best place to start. After the discussion gets side-tracked onto content issues and the conduct of others I try to restore the theme, which is Hans's conduct. Hans replies with a justification for his behavior. You're usually quite good at this kind of thing. Would you like to take a look and see if you can help matters? -- TS 00:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
2/0, so what you like me to do with this standoff at RL? You've warned me for edit-warring despite the fact that I've waited at least 36 hours between all reverts. That wasn't my understanding of WP:3RR or 1RR. Meanwhile, the last comment in talk says, "revert it because it fails weight, but don't call it a BLP violation" (I paraphrase). So who's going to do that? Your note about "chilling effects" doesn't make any sense unless you interpret all BLP violations as being about libel (in which case, it should be called the LIBEL policy and it should have a LIBEL noticeboard). The BLP policy says that anything that is biased in a BLP = a BLP violation. End of story. In practice, of course, it seems to be interpreted as anything potentially libellous is a BLP violation worth edit warring over (and of course you need to be a lawyer to even have an opinion on libel). Anything that is not "verifiable" should go to the BLP/N, and as for blatant bias and just incorrect information, that goes to NPOV/N. Have I got this right now? Alex Harvey ( talk) 06:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Long answer - WP:Edit warring covers a lot more than just 3RR. I think you might have been around since before the latter was merged into the former, so it might be worth a reread. Basically, reverting thrice in any 24 hour period is a sufficient but not necessary bright line beyond which any revert is obviously and blatantly edit warring, not counting the vandalism and BLP exceptions. Slow edit warring, where the same or substantially the same text is returned to or removed from an article over the course of days (or longer - sometimes people will wait months before bulk-reverting to their preferred version), is also detrimental to the progress of building an encyclopedia. You make good arguments at the talk page, but the fact that these two exceptions allow (require) behaviour that is otherwise verboten means that they must be used sparingly. For instance, it would be equally inappropriate for someone else to describe your removal of that section as vandalism and claim a 3RR exception.
Reading the discussion page now as well as three weeks ago, I see an argument that Lindzen's view on global warming is {under/over}represented, a basically related argument about the meaning of contrarian vs. holds contrarian views, and a great deal of discussion of whether our article is an accurate synopsis of what other people consider important about Lindzen's ideas and life. This all falls within normal editing so long as there are reasonable arguments on all sides and everyone is discussing the matter.
As an example where it would also, in my opinion, be inappropriate to invoke the BLP exception, consider Brian David Josephson. This is a Nobel laureate who predicted the eponymous Josephson effect, which is kind of a big deal in condensed matter physics. He also has some ideas about telepathy and some sort of vitalism, and features them prominently on his website. It is my considered opinion that the latter are grossly overweighted in comparison to actual biographical detail or the history of his more widely applied ideas (though the primary treatment of the effect itself should, of course, remain at Josephson effect). Someday when I have the time I intend to prune the article a bit and expand it a lot. In the strong sense, any BLP that fails to treat every relevant particular with precisely measured weight is in violation of the policy - such an article would inform a reader differently than had they read and evaluated all possible sources themself. In practical terms, though, as long as an article is within the realms of reason we should stick to standard editing norms.
I hope that this clarifies my views a bit, and good luck with the talkpage and BLP/N discussions, - 2/0 ( cont.) 20:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Blank it please. PCE ( talk) 05:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your support at Placebo. I am working on the BullRangifer RfC/U, and as part of that I am documenting the extent of the recent disruption caused by him in connection to the misquoted Science and Engineering Indicators 2006, a policy-oriented executive report produced by the National Science Board for the US government. You may be interested to learn that the story, so far as I could trace it back, started with a very harmless and productive edit by you to Mediumship in September. [7] You quoted the previous SEI, SEI 2004, in what I consider a perfectly adequate way. Certainly if the SEI calls something pseudoscience, it's safe to say there is no scientific consensus that it exists.
The analysis is far from finished, but I think I can already guess one result: BullRangifer's belief in something gets stronger when the 'wrong' people contradict him, and that has caused the escalation. Shortly after Macromonkey removed the sentence for which you had provided a source, BullRangifer made it much stronger. Previous version: "The scientific consensus does not support the existence of spirits and the ability of people to communicate with them." (Source: SEI 2004.) After BullRangifer's edit: "The scientific consensus considers the claimed ability of people to communicate with the dead and belief in ghosts and spirits to be pseudoscientific beliefs." (Source: SEI 2006.)
Shortly afterwards he copied this and similar formulations to other articles, and the more resistance he got, the more he made out of this poor source. At times his version was longer than the original passage on which it was supposed to be based.
I noticed that you supported the use of the source as absolutely correct in one of the RfCs. Some things that probably escaped your notice:
I consider this an important test case for how Wikipedia can deal (sociologically) with the temptation to quote-mine sources that can be misunderstood as saying things editors want to be true. (Another example is the crowd at List of common misconceptions that believes everything that is written in popular "misconceptions" compilations, and that uncritically believes every journalist who begins a story with "It is a common misconception that...".) For this reason, and because of the RfC/U I am preparing, I have started to collect some relevant information at User:Hans Adler/Science and Engineering Indicators (practical overview over SEI 2006, zooming into the cited passage) and User:Hans Adler/NSF disruption.
I just thought I should let you know all this because I have a very good impression of you and would really like to convince you of my point of view. Or if I am wrong, you might be someone who could explain convincingly why that is so. Hans Adler 00:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
There is some confusion over whether you actually considered your indefinite block of me to be part of the Climate Change Probation, or not. See [8]. I don't really care which way you answer, but I would like to have a clear understanding of your position so that we can put the arguing to rest. Thanks. -- GoRight ( talk) 16:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, can you please review the latest from Mister Flash. He continues to stalk and revert my edits, and continues to leave personal comments on Talk pages and in edit summaries. Thank you. -- HighKing ( talk) 19:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Heya, I'm still having problems with this user on Newport County A.F.C., he continues to remove templates requesting sources, despite a section on the talk page, please could you take another look at the matter? Thanks. Jeni ( talk) 23:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
-- Brangifer ( talk) 06:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
On another note, I have banned User:Ludwigs2 from my talk page. I think the last time I had to do that (worth noting) was User:Ilena. There comes a point where one can only take so much abuse and incivility. The last was over the top. Hearing the same thing again and again just isn't worth it. -- Brangifer ( talk) 03:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Just so you are aware, the disruptive edit warring by Dikstr of the Global Warming page which has had the user blocked twice, most recently by yourself, is continuing. I believe this warrants further administrator attention. His changes clearly go against wikipedia policy, the current scientific consensus, and the talk page consensus. StuartH ( talk) 21:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your note on my talk page. Maybe some day I will read through there and figure out how to archive properly. I'm not very bright about technical computer/wiki stuff. (What an understatement! LOL) Did you create an archive page for me? If so, thanks, and please tell me how you did it. Does this mean anyone can archive my page? Best, Yopienso ( talk) 21:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, could you please semi protect my talk page due to continued IP vandalism by Caleb Murdock. Thanks, Verbal chat 07:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Not only you are calling homosexuality and bisexuality "immoral behaviours" here [9], you are also comparing them to drug use. I cant actually believe you can be so openly homophobic. Stop spreading such BS in Wikipedia. Phoenix of9 07:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Zazaban, if that is your opinion, I see no need in discussing anything further with you. Cla68, if you think that my response is more serious, you are too biased for me to take you seriously. Phoenix of9 08:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Initially I thought Phoenix took this seriously, but now it's just indistinguishable from trolling and I am no longer sure. I suggest that we all follow WP:Deny recognition now until 2/0 gets a chance to respond. Hans Adler 08:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
At this point, I feel that a greater community discussion is warranted concerning GoRight's editing behavior. I have started a discussion here. [10] As a possible interested party, your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Trusilver 01:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
2/0, sorry to bother you. I don't know what to do when outnumbered by a gang. I normally just ignore it when the gang deletes my comments, and restore the comments at my talk page, but in this case, John Quiggin has made accusations against me, and Atmoz is denying me a right to respond. If there is something wrong with my response, I'd appreciate it if someone can tell me what it is. Meanwhile, it seems fairly obvious that Atmoz is edit warring. E.g. [11] [12]. Are you able to ask him please to desist? Thanks. Alex Harvey ( talk) 03:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
What posts of mine have been removed? I just looked at the lindzin talk page and am sure they are all there? mark nutley ( talk) 18:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
So where is the response here Atmoz? Aside from the fact that you've added flawed material to the biography, you have simply created a new weight problem. This article now hides just about everything else that Lindzen really is known for: he's a world renowned expert on atmospheric dynamics. He wrote a textbook on this subject in 1990. After solving the paradox of the semi-diurnal tide, and then the quasi-biennial oscillations, he left this work behind. This was in 1970. He then went on to become a world renowned expert in other areas of atmospheric dynamics, the general circulation of the atmosphere, and cloud microphysics. The article is completely distorting Lindzen's career. Who is going to finish this I ask you? You can't. William can't. Kim can't. All other scientists sympathetic to Lindzen have been ostracised. How do you respond here? Alex Harvey ( talk) 14:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, I looked into the matter above a little more deeply. There's an unhelpful tiff going on with both sides right and wrong to an extent. Potentially of more serious concern is the offsite canvassing; the recent EEML case is relevant here. While the venue was not hidden it is "mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience" and the appeals themselves have not neutrally worded by any reasonable standard. [13] [14] I would like to ask 2/0 (or other impartial admin) whether this matter should be raised at the climate change probation board. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 00:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Please show me the diffs that you think reflect aggressive disruption on my part. I have no idea what you were referring to here. You seem to bear me some animosity that I have done nothing to deserve. What did I ever do to offend you? I would like to make amends if I have done something amiss. Mitsube ( talk) 05:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
2/0, I promised in another thread to post a correction to the comment about the disappearance of the RWP that was "deleted by andrew c" at this thread. Unfortunately, that thread was closed for comments. Alex Harvey ( talk) 12:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Per the above, I am advising you - as the admin who closed the Marknutley request - that I have reactivated the claim in respect of WMC's violation of his CC 1RR restriction. Although you made no comment upon it at the Marknutley close, you may wish to do so here. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Just in passing:
![]() |
The Anti-Flame Barnstar | |
For 2/0, a cool head in heated waters. Guy ( Help!) 16:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC) |
I responded to your message. Please reply. [15] -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 22:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Here might be an idea to lock it out for a few days mark nutley ( talk) 18:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I want to notify you of this comment i left on Mark's talk [16]. I find that the talk-space edits may have come from a confusion by Mark on what exactly the conditions were for his conditional unblock - but i see that he has also edited article-space (more than once). I'm not seeking any sanctions - but just a general notification, that i'm going to protest if he ever asks for a conditional unblock again. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 21:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Replied at User talk:Marknutley#This is not OK...., thank you everyone for remaining calm and polite. Incidentally, while as my userpage suggests I would feel silly if I blocked someone for making an unquestionably good and trivial edit, I would really appreciate not being put in that situation. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 22:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Per the discussion here, you and I neglected to log some of our actions. I have done so for me, but wish to give you the opportunity to reach closure in this matter... LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Given your concerns, these might be of interest. This, from a just-blocked editor, might be best ignored. [20] This one [21] doesn't have that excuse, and it's part of a recent pattern on his part. Maybe a discussion with him would do some good. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 01:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see the anisotropy section of the bulk modulus page removed. K = dP/(dV/V) = dP/(ex + ey + ez). Note that the denominator of the rightmost expression is an invariant of the strain tensor, hence insensitive to orientation of coordinate system, as is pressure as well. This reinforces the argument that both pressure and volumetric strain are scalars, so their ratio is also a scalar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibbits ( talk • contribs) 05:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see the anisotropy section of the bulk modulus page removed. K = dP/(dV/V) = dP/(ex + ey + ez). Note that the denominator of the rightmost expression is an invariant of the strain tensor, hence insensitive to orientation of coordinate system, as is pressure as well. This reinforces the argument that both pressure and volumetric strain are scalars, so their ratio is also a scalar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibbits ( talk • contribs) 05:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi You have just blocked Macai ( talk · contribs) as noted here User_talk:Macai#Blocked. Can you please give some diffs supporting this action? I also see that you have banned him for two months on articles related to climate change: User_talk:Macai#Topic_ban_from_articles_related_to_climate_change. I don't see any process on the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation / Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Log for this action to be justified. Nsaa ( talk) 15:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
AN RFE was filed against you. [25] You are welcome to respond. Macai ( talk) 23:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I was instructed to make it a sanction appeal. You can find it here. [26] Macai ( talk) 00:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I notice that you're still occasionally updating my list of articles covered by the climate change probation. I'm taking a back seat (little or no involvement) at the moment and have no imminent plans to ramp up my contributions, but in a recent check I noticed the absence of recent edits to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy in the related changes. Presumably this is because the article name was recently changed and the related changes module doesn't follow redirects.
If you're still using that page to track recent edits in the probation area, perhaps you should update the moved pages to the current name (or perhaps just add the new names and retain the old ones so as to track discussions of proposed disambiguations, etc). Tasty monster (= TS ) 15:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
BLP violation against and identifiable living person Blatant Vandalism
What is to be done about this? mark nutley ( talk) 20:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
His very first edit after returning is an attack. He hasn't learned anything. -- Brangifer ( talk) 01:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
What do you think? Is it OK to remove personal attacks? You removed his personal attacks, he restored them, and he was blocked for doing so. Now he's done it again. The attacks themselves are a blockable offense in his situation. -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, it's nice to see that you still make time to edit articles. I think it's important to keep editing articles so you remember what this is all about. Nice to see, hope you are well, -- CrohnieGal Talk 18:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
[27] -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 02:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I had hoped that User:Caleb Murdock might find some way to usefully occupy himself after the topic ban from Seth Material. Unfortunately, he won't do much except quarrel with other editors at Talk:Seth Material. His latest edit is here, which restores a bunch of argumentative material. This thread had been usefully transferred from Talk:Seth Material over to User talk:Caleb Murdock by Guyonthesubway, but Caleb restores it with the message "You people have a level of nerve that's just unbelievable. Not only do you act badly, you want to hide your bad behavior." If he would confine his sarcastic comments to his own talk page I'd be willing to ignore him, but he's continuing to interfere with the article by misusing its talk page.
When I imposed the original topic ban, as a result of the above thread, I withheld a proposed indef block of Caleb on a 'wait-and-see basis'. I think I've now seen enough for such a block, but wanted to check with you first, since you filed the original complaint against Caleb at the EW noticeboard. EdJohnston ( talk) 12:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I have made a number of attempts to have the article title changed to no avail. When this war first started it was limited to South Ossetia and as such the title was legitimate. The moment it expanded beyond South Ossetia and into Abkhazia and the west coast a number of editors began suggesting the name be changed to reflect the scope of the conflict. At the time there was no clear alternative name and it was subject to such constant edit-warring that the article was move-protected. Since then the only recourse has been to have discussions on the title in the hopes of reaching of a consensus. Unfortunately, no matter how much time passes and how much stronger the case for a change gets a group of editors with an extremely biased position always flood the discussions to prevent a change.
In the most recent discussion I started on the current talk page one editor supportive of a change decided it was a lost cause because he felt any discussion would see a number of pro-Russian editors flood the discussion and prevent a consensus from being seen. So far it seems the only way this title is ever going to be changed is by an admin's decision. I gave a decent summary of the arguments for a change a few months ago here, more importantly it contains the most recent arguments for keeping, and this earlier discussion showed strong support for a change, though there was some funny business done with the discussion by a non-admin. The admin reviewing it did however say that objections based on neutrality were invalid and only left the issue of descriptiveness and common name as no consensus. However, I do not see any legitimate argument for keeping this article and plenty for changing it. This is something I am sending to a few admins who appear to have no involvement in the article or the name dispute in the hopes of getting some authoritative position on the current title. If you can think of any admins who might be more interested in this then feel free to say-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 15:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind that I reopened the discussion. I feel that we should try to resolve this at ANI and it is worth keeping it open a while longer. Regards. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 17:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it was an accident, but why did you remove the user votes I added to the latest section? As per WP:TPO, resectioning is a valid reason to move a user's comment, and it was explicitly stated when this move request was opened, that votes from the previous request would count. I merely collapsed the old section to remove some pointless bickering about alternate names, and moved downwards those who had not already reexpressed their vote Fell Gleaming( talk) 15:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Duh - I can't believe I forgot to remove the speedy tag after I moved User:Moswento/For DYK. Thanks for cleaning up my mess.-- Kubigula ( talk) 12:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
My thanks to the folks who have been reverting the recent spate of sock vandalism here. I just set up User talk:2over0/opentalk in case this page needs temporary semi-protection. Right now I do not think it does (hence not doing it myself), but if it ever gets out of hand anyone should feel free to semi-protect this page for a brief period and let me know. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 17:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I just uploaded my first image to commons (pictured at right; PD so no worries about including it in talkspace) - if someone who does more work at Commons feels like checking it out I would appreciate it. - 2/0 ( cont.) 19:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed them when I realized I was in the wrong. Thank you for the help! Blindeffigy ( talk) 05:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you please take a look at this:
User WMC has reverted a page under Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Climate_Audit_(2nd_nomination). We don't discuss the deletion of the redirect, we discuss the deletion of the full content, and since he changes this under the ongoing discussion it distort the priors arguments and it's a combative behavior. Is this a blocking reason and should I go further with it? Nsaa ( talk) 21:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, hope you are well. I know you are staying away from all the climate control stuff but I thought you may want to at least watch this. I have to say, what is going on at the sanction page and other talk pages is nothing I've ever seen before. It's getting totally weird! You made the right decision to back off of everything and enjoy writing articles again. Anyways, I thought you would want to know about this. Take care, -- CrohnieGal Talk 19:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear Sir: Through speedy deletion, you deleted the article Twenty Two Points of Ulema, I added on Wikipedia The allegation made is that it was “Unambiguous copyright infringement" of “ http://www.voice.pk/?p=1939”. I strongly feel that the material I placed in the article is not “ copyright infringement” of any sort (including G12) and thus it does not become a valid candidate for deletion. I explain my viewpoint here:
I hope you will consider my arguments and will allow me to reconstruct the page you have deleted.
If there is some error in my understanding regarding copyright issue, or any other, please guide me. Looking forward for your advice. Bhaur ( talk) 15:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the propmpt response. As per your advice, I have presented my case at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I am adding the following tag as per instructions of the Wikipedia:Deletion review. Regards. Bhaur ( talk) 04:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Twenty Two Points of Ulema. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bhaur ( talk) 04:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback on deletion review page. I have responded in detail on the review page.
Here I only want to say that the original was in Urdu, so the English translation is, of course, copyrighted. Please do not restore the page. First let me get the original Urdu, and translate it in English myself. I’ll put it on your talk page. Then I’ll request you to restore, or allow me to reconstruct the page. Thanks.
Bhaur (
talk) 05:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
( [28]) Given the angst occasioned by Old-Fruitgate, it may be wise to refrain from implying that other editors are latent homophiles. :P MastCell Talk 16:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The shared IP I'm contacting you from has been responsible for vandalism after vandalism over the years. I was talking with the most recent person to post a warning about a potential block earlier, and he said I should talk to an admin about it. In particular, I'm wondering if IPs can be permabanned; but anything that stops the people using this IP from vandalizing works. -- 204.96.143.178 ( talk) 18:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Re [29], are you sure "evasion" is the right word? To me it implies sockpuppetry, or at least sneakiness. I don't want to see the guy pegged for something he didn't do. How about simply "violating" his ban? Signed, Mr. Language Person aka Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 05:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
So 2010-11-07 is 11 July or 7 November? Probably best to spell out. -- BozMo talk 14:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Whenever I try to edit under my Wikipedia account (in this case, Shatterheart), I get a message about opening a PHP file; this also happens whenever I try to edit something in the general Wikianswers hub (under my main Wikia account, Protostealth). Can you help me with this problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.44.72.119 ( talk) 00:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello 2over0. FellGleaming ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Sandstein 17:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Please look at the article on Diamond Cutters International & Fred Cuellar. I do not feel that it should be included, unless there is a complete section on the fraud this company committed and the conviction that Mr. Cuellar recieved. This company & individual has no importance other than a felony criminal record http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/1998/06/08/story3.html and extensive civil action taken against Mr. Cuellar & Canary Investments DBA Diamond Cutters International. Please review http://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=6476 The full civil & criminal history are available online from Harris County District Clerk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford Dunster ( talk • contribs) 07:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering, why was FellGleaming the only one blocked for edit warring at that article? I see several other editors involved in that edit war. Cla68 ( talk) 04:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Cla, all you have to do is read the article talk page William M. Connolley ( talk) 12:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Cla, don't bother appealing to 2/0, he's been handing out one-sided sanctions for months and shows no signs of stopping, even as he's critical of Lar, who has sanctioned no one. ATren ( talk) 12:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
2/0, I see one revert on that page from FellGleaming. I see NO recent discussion on article talk before FG's edit.I misread the history, there was one comment from WMC I see no warnings from you to FG, on the talk page or his user talk. So one revert in the absence of any warning or other action, and he gets blocked? Please explain, as I'm sure I must have missed something here.
ATren (
talk) 13:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
You asked, and I assume honestly, "If you would like to render your advice for how I might have better served the encyclopedia in this or any other instance, I would be happy to listen to your reasoning." I'd like to provide such. You have not tried topic banning the following editors from global warming for any period, all at the same time - WMC, Kim, Polargeo, Myself, Ratel, Guettarda, Atren, Cla68, FelGleaming, Heyitspeter, Nsaa, Marknutley and Zulu Papa 5. There is no reason not to try giving this large swath of editors (and any whom I forgot/missed/whatever) a one week break from the topic area and see what happenes. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Re [30]: thanks. It is nice to know there is someone competent in this probation area William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Any attempts to correct this (following reasonable Wikipedia guidelines) are met with aggressive reverts and edits. Intentional spinning and manipulation of article in favor of BP? Can this task force investigate this?
Currently there is no easily recognizable section on the current Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster, surprisingly since the US Government has held BP responsible. Instead the "Oil Disaster" Section in the article keeps being given obscure (hard to recognize) names (as if someone is trying to hide the section from the public).
That section also keeps getting pushed to the bottom of the article (attempts to bury it)?
It's as if the BP Public Relations department has staff people who are aggressively spinning the article. Could this Task Force investigate this?
75.71.192.54 ( talk) 02:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.179.110 ( talk)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Chiropractic controversy and criticism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic controversy and criticism (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - I am notifying you because you participated in the original AfD. DigitalC ( talk) 20:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Lar would rather you didn't see this [31] so I'd better point it out William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Well seems like following the section rules (process) might preempt faith assumptions. Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 01:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Whatever you were attempting to do to Eastman, Georgia, you also removed 3 links that were valid and not part of any "copyright violation". I restored the links, please be more careful in the future. Mjrmtg ( talk) 10:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Inside your collapsed section here. Don't hesitate to delete this once you've seen it.-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 09:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm disappointed, upset, angry, and probably some other things for all of my work being deleted, Dodge County High School, Georgia 4-H, Eastman, Georgia, and some other minor pages. Work that I've been gathering the past week for hours upon no end. Not all of the work that I uploaded to the pages I fixed or added stuff was copyrighted material. I know now that I need to reword stuff for the future though. For one thing about the Dodge County High School page. The article that was written there, I wrote, when I was in high school. I have no idea how to properly site it since it was from a website. But there it goes, gets deleted. Along with random pages that I fixed a few sentences or paragraphs and fixed source links. I give up. I'm afraid to add anything else because of fear of deletion because of the now bad reputation that my name has because of this incident. I don't know what to do. I have read all the new beginners editing things on Wikipedia, so I know what to do. I'm just scared to do it for fear of being blocked, when I shouldn't feel like that at all. I'm not even sure if I want to go back through all of that trouble retyping everything back out and finding all the sources again. Tamer of hope ( talk) 14:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
How is it possible to put something on here in your own words, then show where you got the source from then have it all deleted because one thing might have been wrong? To me it seems much easier to write something and not put the sources on there, because those pages get away with not being caught by bots. I'm not even sure how to begin to getting a license of copyright from my school for that article. Tamer of hope ( talk) 17:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Why exactly did you revert all of this work? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Georgia_4-H&diff=prev&oldid=362964403 There is no copyright violation in adding a template and filling in the blanks. -- Mjrmtg ( talk) 15:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I draw your attention to [32]. I don't think that reflects your opinion, or the balance of opinion on the RFE page. I invite your opinion William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. The fact remains, there are serious policy problems with this article and Hammy seems to think he owns the page, and ignores any attempts to discuss the problems. It is frustrating. But i appreciate your point. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
2/0, admins should contact the blocking admin before unblocking, should they not? There's no evidence you did so. Please reverse your action. ATren ( talk) 19:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I continue to respect your attempts to play a moderating role, and none of my comments mean to disparage your participation. I just think you are as involved as Lar. A bit more lawyerly, but probably as opinionated on the problematic editors if not more so.
There is the question: should admins exert social pressure in order to do their jobs, or only issue sanctions? By my reading Lar is trying to use a broader palate, all for the same purpose of encouraging a better editing environment. I suppose it comes back to bite him when editors then claim he is showing "bias," except to the extent I must say I've seen those claims to be self-evidently transparent, given that views about who is being disruptive and how are exactly what admins are empowered to decide. So should admins instead simply play the robot as if they take no stake in what is happening? If so, I think it would only be another sign of a highly factionalized environment. Regards, Mackan79 ( talk) 05:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Is Hammy's 24 hr. block a blanket block, or just a block from editing the patriarchy article? If it is a general block, then I think that this is a block evasion. FYI I have added comments to the talk page of the patriarchy article but have not been editing the article itself, in my own attempt to cool don a bit. I hope my edits to the talk page are conciliatory and constructive; you can judge. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
After asking Necrat not to post on my talk page again (what I figure is the best way to get rid of any conflict with him), he does so anyway (and admits sockpuppetry, but that is neither here nor there). It wouldn't have been a big deal if he hadn't moments later posted this on this user page. Clearly this is about me, just not using my name and clearly shouldn't be allowed. I got in trouble for this as a newbie when I put a list of "Editors to Stay Away From" (or something like that) on my userpage. Got busted for it. This shouldn't be allowed and the only reason I bring this to your attention. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I've mentioned your behavior in my comments at the Arbcom requests page, here [33] (meant to tell you this earlier, sorry). -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 21:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- *sigh* —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESB60 ( talk • contribs) 11:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I have started working on a Request for comment requesting community review of the Climate change general sanctions; the working draft is at User:2over0/GSCC RfC. I would appreciate help framing and evidencing the question of whether the extraordinary sanctions are currently necessary. Feel free to edit this page and discuss it at the talkpage, though no formal endorsements should be made until the page is "live". If you would like to be notified when the discussion is moved to projectspace, please leave a note on the talkpage there. Until I abandon this project or the discussion concludes, I will undertake no probation-related admin activities. - 2/0 ( cont.) 00:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
You realize, of course, that this makes you part of the conspiracy. 1/2 :) Naraht ( talk) 14:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with RfCs. If you think there's something inappropriate about what I added here [34] (if it somehow falls outside the RfC or would mess it up in some way), please tell me and I'll look into changing it or I'll withdraw it. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 02:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
It looks like I am going to be more than normally busy this week, possibly extending to mid-June. I will try to check in daily or so, but please understand if I am not able to offer prompt response. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 05:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Global warming and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The AfD at Chiropractic_controversy_and_criticism closed with no consensus to delete. DigitalC ( talk) 02:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
... to replace our current article on the " MMR vaccine controversy" with this graphical representation. (Come to think of it, the comic is actually more complete and informative than our article...) MastCell Talk 22:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I have just created my first article. Can you please look over it? Thanks Gabithefirst ( talk) 23:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, I didn't see the second bit of the edit when I reverted. It was incorrect of me to say that he claimed that he struggled to get hits. The bit I would like to change is that the Times article 'claimed' instead of 'suggested'. Saying 'suggested' seems to lend weight and credence to the opinion and anecdote of the author, yet if it were stated to be a claim of the journalist, I believe that this would be more neutral Valyard ( talk) 22:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've seen you now on a couple of articles on my watchlist. It's good to see you editing like, well, an editor.:) What you are doing now I think is much better than being at that sanction board. I suspect that you are a lot happier too. I hope you are well. Keep up the good work. -- CrohnieGal Talk 19:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of User:SamsX. He was reverting warnings and tags so quickly I wasn't sure what to do... Yworo ( talk) 22:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey! I'm currently dealing with two articles which are undoubtedly infringing on copyrights. Soon after tagging the articles for G12, the author posted an OTRS template on the talk page but it's been about 12 hours and no case number has been added. I haven't dealt much with OTRS tickets but I was wondering how long it usually takes for a ticket number to be posted on an article. From what I've seen, it's very fast. I want to make sure that a crafty editor hasn't placed the tag in the hopes that the deletion tags will just go away. Do you have any knowledge of how this works? It's apparently a very closed off section of Wikipedia so I'm having trouble getting information or find a good place to ask questions. Any help would be appreciated. OlYeller Talktome 04:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear sir/madam,
I understand that you may be the administrator who decided that the new page I created somehow is a copyright infringement of some sort and should be deleted.
Please help me understand what it is specifically that you believe my page is in violation of.
I am the Deputy Commissioner of the Maryland Collegiate Baseball League. We are a non-profit summer baseball league and have been since 2007 when the league was formed.
Please help.
Thanks.
Roy Snyder —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starflight7 ( talk • contribs) 20:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if this appropriate, but you closed the last AN3 report with a warning, yet the WP:SPA continues to be disruptive without seeking consensus. There was an active discussion on the talk page that they refused to constructively participate in yet when the PP expired, they continued on inserting contentious content. I'm not sure what is appropriate in this case. I filed a second AN3 report that references the one you closed, but if the appropriate thing to do would have been to report it somewhere else, please let me know. Thanks for the help. jheiv ( talk) 20:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This was a reasonable request, but I am afraid I do not have much Wikipedia time at the moment. EdJohnston generally has good judgement at AN3, and has protected the article now. Please discuss and come to some consensus at the talkpage, preferably with recourse to seeking outside input as recommended in WP:Dispute resolution. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 08:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi 2/0, there is a weird situation brewing that needs some help already. A SPI case has been open for awhile now without any checkusers or clerks looking at it. I am aware that they are short on help here but this needs to be checked already to stop the socking we all know she is doing. If you look at the comments made by the multiple IP's you will see that it is SkagitRiverQueen who is doing the editing, esp. in the two articles like Charles Karel Bouley and Margaret Clark. SRQ is following her usual pattern of edits and following User:DocOfSoc around like she did prior to her block/ban. If you read the comments in the edit summaries and the talk page at the Bouley article you will see that the same statements SRQ made against DOS are the same as the new editors are doing. SRQ is using her cell phone for most of her editing because she found out on Wikipedia Review that the cells IP change so frequently that it's hard if not impossible to locate the socking offender. I find it very disturbing that she should be allowed to edit like this and that the sock investigation has not been looked at. Do you know of any checkusers that can look at this case and give us a yes or no or something about all of this. Editors are getting very frustrated about this so I thought maybe you could help with you wisdom. :) Seriously, I don't want to let things get out of control. It's really hard to tell sometimes if it is SRQ and at other times it's totally obvious that it is her to those editors who had to deal with her in the past. I'm hoping you have some good ideas for this one. <at least I didn't come asking for help about the cc articles! :)> Thanks for anything you can do to help and if you can't that's ok too. You're a good guy in my book either way. Be well, -- CrohnieGal Talk 15:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
In light of:
would it make sense to clarify the statement in the RFC: Please do not edit others' View by sections except to add an endorsement. Threaded discussion should take place at the talkpage.
To emphasize that endorsements should be short, possibly contain caveats to indicate something short of compete agreement, but should not be used as an excuse to make a different point?
I am sure that is the intention, but not everyone is following it.-- SPhilbrick T 14:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
ENDORSE ... editors should stay in thier section, please. Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 14:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the word controversy should not be used in the article on Jim Joyce. It has \emph{clearly} been shown that the call was incorrect. There is no controversy whatsoever. I would make the change myself, but it is protected. 130.49.162.77 ( talk) 20:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
tb|CIreland}}
{{
tb|CIreland}}
Ah you need to be careful of putting ideas in my head. Joking of course. :) Thanks for the encouragement.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi There,
I think the recent page move you did on this article to Bach flower remedy is an inappropriate application of WP:SINGULAR. The Bach Flower system is a set of 38 remedies to be used as a group, and as a system is pretty much universally referred to in the plural. If you do a google search for the phrase 'Bach Flower Remedy', this wikipedia page is the only result that comes back with the singluar phrase. All the other results on the first page use the plural. The only place you routinely see the singular used is for Rescue Remedy, which is a specific combination of the remedies that is sold as a distinctive product (and indeed outsells all the basic remedies put together).
I think the usage here is more akin to say 'Power Rangers', where yes you can say Power Ranger singular, but in common usage they are a group are always refered to in the plural as there is a group of them, which is how the wikipedia page is named. (Sorry for the odd analogy, that and Transformers were all I could think of off the top of my head!)
I hope that makes sense, thanks. -- ThePaintedOne ( talk) 13:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure if it's your opinion I need or just some support to be honest with you. There is a big dispute going on between three editors. I just got this message left for me. I am not a meat puppet of anyone. This editor has accused about a half a dozen editors of being meat puppets of Wildhartlivie. He accuses her of even worse things. I need to know if his bad faith that he just repeated on my talk page is allowable. I responded to the message as honest as I could but without breaking my own feelings about things. WHL is my friend and I've never denied this. But that being said we all shouldn't have to be accused of being meat puppets or sock puppets like what has been going on lately. I am trying to make peace but it's really hard to when the conversation starts out so negative. If you look at Chowbok's history you will easily find what I am talking about. This is just the latest. The last couple of days have been bad. I'd appreciate your advice or even a comment at my talk page. I have a lot of respect for you which is why I've come to you now. Thanks in advance, -- CrohnieGal Talk 23:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
You have blocked Captain Occam. This is problematic because he is a central figure in a current case before Arb Con. Without his active participation, it will be hard/impossible for the case to proceed. Would you mind unblocking him until the case is over? If he still behaves poorly, you could, obviously, block him again at that point. David.Kane ( talk) 23:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The communication issue is more important, I think. Wikipedia:ADMIN#Accountability bullet 3, citing a well-worded ArbCom case, specifically notes communication such as warnings and specific reasoning are an important part of the administrative process. Could you explain why you decided to be evasive in justifying the block? II | ( t - c) 03:27, 11 June 2010 (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 talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Hello, Independent Association of Georgian Journalists was deleted yesterday. I just want to confirm that this organization exists and the sources indicating the same. http://www.ifex.org/georgia/2009/11/10/georgia-russia-joint-statement.pdf http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/type,ANNUALREPORT,CPJ,GEO,47c566d825b,0.html http://cpj.org/2006/02/attacks-on-the-press-2005-georgia.php http://www.rjionline.org/mas/code-of-ethics/journalistic-ethics-code http://www.media.ge/en/node/12045 http://www.finchannel.com/Main_News/Press_Releases/51570_IFJ_Endorses_Joint_Russian_%10_Georgian_Demand_to_End_Media_Restrictions/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.240.242.140 ( talk) 14:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I need to look into the contents of this deleted page, where can i view these ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.247.138 ( talk) 15:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, when available your feedback here Template talk:Inappropriate comment would be appreciated. Thanks Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 21:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
User:HideTheDecline looks to me to fall under "user name created to push a POV". The edits support this William M. Connolley ( talk) 13:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Please could you provide some comments here. My inclination is to lance this boil, but not sure how. Cheers LessHeard vanU ( talk) 20:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the link on your user page for the Cohen Earth probably round paper is obsolete.
I found a possible replacement: http://www.projectimplicit.net/nosek/teaching/761/cohen.pdf
Great read! Thank you.
M.boli ( talk) 06:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
on the request for enforcement page per your requests of several editors including Scjessey. He appears willing to edit war here to keep that discussion alive and so I shall wash my hands of the situation and leave the matter to you. -- GoRight ( talk) 19:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I noted your request to atren just now. I think there is a more general problem with his line of argument, in that he tends to make unsupportable statements and, when challenged, to divert onto other poorly researched claims. Not that unusual, you may say, but not good for the atmosphere when the claims concern conduct issues and he just won't acknowledge corrections and simply fires off more complete tosh. I'm not unsympathetic to his concerns, but sloppily researched accusations slipped into discussions, at the level I saw tonight, amount to indiscriminate mud-slinging. Tasty monster ( TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 06:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand you're on wikibreak, but if you're available [1]. I'll leave a note on the other involved admin's talks also. Cla68 ( talk) 10:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Replying to your comment; I largely agree with the sentiment, but going back the original issue Scj was being reprimanded for using the term "sceincedenier". Now, continuous name calling without considered debate is pointless and does sully wikipedia, but I think Scj's mixing in a few pejoritives with his considered debate is mostly harmless. What I dislike is people who insist we pander to very very thin skinned individuals. Anyway, thanks for the debate. Enjoy your Wikibreak. NickCT ( talk) 21:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
this is a fictictious company that a person is going around saying he owns and operates after researching 2 sources for registered business's so how do i present this without you deleting it? the purpose of the article was to let people who look for this company that it is not real so that they would not get ripped off was my sources sunbiz and tess improperly marked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.156.4 ( talk) 18:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I see you unblocked MN, after he promised to leave articles alone and continue work on an article wip in my sandbox, and to prepare another RFC . He has already broken that William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you explain to me how you arrived at your decision that Crohnie was actually *not* edit warring at the Jeffrey R. MacDonald article? Seems to me that continually reverting stuff out of anger would most certainly constitute edit warring. I'd appreciate hearing from you on this. Thanks, SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 22:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
You have an admirer: User:2OverO William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I must say, s/he's willing to put some effort into her/his jokes [2] Guettarda ( talk) 22:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. My specific question: As you're the most recent administrator to enforce something at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Requests for enforcement, I thought I would inquire with you. It seems there is nobody currently reviewing that page. After a series of WP:3RR and other tendentious and pointy edits a few weeks ago, several bizarre edits there and elsewhere last night by the same user have been reported there. Another user was instructed to go to ANI. I'm wondering if the way to move forward is to request admins watch the Sanctions/Probation/Enforcement page, and if not, what that means about the page's status.
On a more general level, the problem of determining if there are really eyes on any page is a problem across the board. I recently posted an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies, and could get no response whatsoever as to how many if any are actually an active part of that project monitoring the page. It's one thing if the judgement of a couple interested parties determines your request doesn't merit action; its another thing if there's simply nobody there. There should be some way for users jumping through these hoops to know the difference. I just don't know where to bring up that issue, as the discussion here Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Hello, ello, llo, lo? was unproductive.
I realize the RfE and the RfC are two completely different realms at first glance, but beyond the respective issues that took me there in the first place is a common component, the lack of transparency whether the store is open and staffed or not, and where the doorbell is. Even if you don't want to be the policeman at that Enforcement page and all you can do is suggest where better to ask these two questions, I thank you for your response. Abrazame ( talk) 00:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
2/0 is going on a wikibreak for the next little while. My email is enabled and I subscribe to the RSS feed for this page, but please only bring up matters in which I am already involved. If it really cannot wait, grab a time machine and I will see you earlier. - 2/0 ( cont.) 17:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC) (post-dated for archival purposes)
Seven editors have commented, including Caleb Murdock and Verbal who are clearly involved. There is about equal support for indefinite block of Caleb and for a topic ban from the Seth Material. How do you see consensus there? Should we advertise for an uninvolved admin to close the thread, or is the situation already clear enough? EdJohnston, Guy, yourself and Brangifer favor the topic ban. Brangifer, Atama and Verbal (involved) want an indef block. A topic ban is weaker than an indef block, so in case of doubt, the topic ban might be a better choice. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 18:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I responded to your comment on my talk page here. Thank you taking the time to write me. Moogwrench ( talk) 07:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
2/0, how much longer do I have put with this for? Alex Harvey ( talk) 23:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe that consensus is [3] [4] [5] that the blog is unreliable and should be removed. WMC appears to be the only one pushing to use that blog as a source and is deleting selected comments from the discussion about it on his talk page. I looked up "Natural Resources Stewardship Project" in Infotrac and ProQuest NewsStand and am ready to begin giving that article better sourcing as soon as protection is lifted. If WMC insists on readding the blog as a source to the article, I can think of a more direct and effective fix for that than fully protecting the article. Cla68 ( talk) 23:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I swore that I would stay out of the whole AGW thing, but I came across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Marknutley who seems to have a fairly narrow field of interests. I don't know if he has come across your radar previously but I think a short review could be in order. Thanks, Unomi ( talk) 22:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
2004 Indian Ocean earthquake
the indian ocean is far away from the indonesian coast
should the name of this disaster be changed to "2004 indonesian tsunami" since it happened only a few miles off the west coast of indonesia
thanks Jigglyfidders ( talk) 09:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
An idea I have been kicking around for the last six months or so is finally live at User:2over0/SCIRS. This discussion on the "discovery" of magnetic monopoles shows part of why it might be handy to have a guideline devoted to reliable sources in the context of science - the research described was genuinely pretty cool, but the reporting of it in the popular press was across the board pretty awful. I would like to get the obvious problems ironed out before advertising this page a bit more widely, but all are free to contribute collegially. - 2/0 ( cont.) 21:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the DOI. As you noted, I did check dx.doi.org, but wasn't sure what to do next, except to leave a note. I now see that the template was typed wrong. Q Science ( talk) 10:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
[6] Try and put some time aside to get this sorted out :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley ( talk • contribs) 2010-01-31 22:12
Someone brought the naming of the article to Jimbo Wales's attention, where he said it should be named Climategate instead, and the billion page watchers all flooded onto the talk page of the CRU Hack. This is a total mess. Half the people are dogpiling JW - there are suggestions that he is violating AGF! - and the other half are white knighting him. You uh... might want to just go on vacation. Ignignot ( talk) 21:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
NW ( Talk) 20:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I guess here is the best place to start. After the discussion gets side-tracked onto content issues and the conduct of others I try to restore the theme, which is Hans's conduct. Hans replies with a justification for his behavior. You're usually quite good at this kind of thing. Would you like to take a look and see if you can help matters? -- TS 00:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
2/0, so what you like me to do with this standoff at RL? You've warned me for edit-warring despite the fact that I've waited at least 36 hours between all reverts. That wasn't my understanding of WP:3RR or 1RR. Meanwhile, the last comment in talk says, "revert it because it fails weight, but don't call it a BLP violation" (I paraphrase). So who's going to do that? Your note about "chilling effects" doesn't make any sense unless you interpret all BLP violations as being about libel (in which case, it should be called the LIBEL policy and it should have a LIBEL noticeboard). The BLP policy says that anything that is biased in a BLP = a BLP violation. End of story. In practice, of course, it seems to be interpreted as anything potentially libellous is a BLP violation worth edit warring over (and of course you need to be a lawyer to even have an opinion on libel). Anything that is not "verifiable" should go to the BLP/N, and as for blatant bias and just incorrect information, that goes to NPOV/N. Have I got this right now? Alex Harvey ( talk) 06:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Long answer - WP:Edit warring covers a lot more than just 3RR. I think you might have been around since before the latter was merged into the former, so it might be worth a reread. Basically, reverting thrice in any 24 hour period is a sufficient but not necessary bright line beyond which any revert is obviously and blatantly edit warring, not counting the vandalism and BLP exceptions. Slow edit warring, where the same or substantially the same text is returned to or removed from an article over the course of days (or longer - sometimes people will wait months before bulk-reverting to their preferred version), is also detrimental to the progress of building an encyclopedia. You make good arguments at the talk page, but the fact that these two exceptions allow (require) behaviour that is otherwise verboten means that they must be used sparingly. For instance, it would be equally inappropriate for someone else to describe your removal of that section as vandalism and claim a 3RR exception.
Reading the discussion page now as well as three weeks ago, I see an argument that Lindzen's view on global warming is {under/over}represented, a basically related argument about the meaning of contrarian vs. holds contrarian views, and a great deal of discussion of whether our article is an accurate synopsis of what other people consider important about Lindzen's ideas and life. This all falls within normal editing so long as there are reasonable arguments on all sides and everyone is discussing the matter.
As an example where it would also, in my opinion, be inappropriate to invoke the BLP exception, consider Brian David Josephson. This is a Nobel laureate who predicted the eponymous Josephson effect, which is kind of a big deal in condensed matter physics. He also has some ideas about telepathy and some sort of vitalism, and features them prominently on his website. It is my considered opinion that the latter are grossly overweighted in comparison to actual biographical detail or the history of his more widely applied ideas (though the primary treatment of the effect itself should, of course, remain at Josephson effect). Someday when I have the time I intend to prune the article a bit and expand it a lot. In the strong sense, any BLP that fails to treat every relevant particular with precisely measured weight is in violation of the policy - such an article would inform a reader differently than had they read and evaluated all possible sources themself. In practical terms, though, as long as an article is within the realms of reason we should stick to standard editing norms.
I hope that this clarifies my views a bit, and good luck with the talkpage and BLP/N discussions, - 2/0 ( cont.) 20:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Blank it please. PCE ( talk) 05:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your support at Placebo. I am working on the BullRangifer RfC/U, and as part of that I am documenting the extent of the recent disruption caused by him in connection to the misquoted Science and Engineering Indicators 2006, a policy-oriented executive report produced by the National Science Board for the US government. You may be interested to learn that the story, so far as I could trace it back, started with a very harmless and productive edit by you to Mediumship in September. [7] You quoted the previous SEI, SEI 2004, in what I consider a perfectly adequate way. Certainly if the SEI calls something pseudoscience, it's safe to say there is no scientific consensus that it exists.
The analysis is far from finished, but I think I can already guess one result: BullRangifer's belief in something gets stronger when the 'wrong' people contradict him, and that has caused the escalation. Shortly after Macromonkey removed the sentence for which you had provided a source, BullRangifer made it much stronger. Previous version: "The scientific consensus does not support the existence of spirits and the ability of people to communicate with them." (Source: SEI 2004.) After BullRangifer's edit: "The scientific consensus considers the claimed ability of people to communicate with the dead and belief in ghosts and spirits to be pseudoscientific beliefs." (Source: SEI 2006.)
Shortly afterwards he copied this and similar formulations to other articles, and the more resistance he got, the more he made out of this poor source. At times his version was longer than the original passage on which it was supposed to be based.
I noticed that you supported the use of the source as absolutely correct in one of the RfCs. Some things that probably escaped your notice:
I consider this an important test case for how Wikipedia can deal (sociologically) with the temptation to quote-mine sources that can be misunderstood as saying things editors want to be true. (Another example is the crowd at List of common misconceptions that believes everything that is written in popular "misconceptions" compilations, and that uncritically believes every journalist who begins a story with "It is a common misconception that...".) For this reason, and because of the RfC/U I am preparing, I have started to collect some relevant information at User:Hans Adler/Science and Engineering Indicators (practical overview over SEI 2006, zooming into the cited passage) and User:Hans Adler/NSF disruption.
I just thought I should let you know all this because I have a very good impression of you and would really like to convince you of my point of view. Or if I am wrong, you might be someone who could explain convincingly why that is so. Hans Adler 00:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
There is some confusion over whether you actually considered your indefinite block of me to be part of the Climate Change Probation, or not. See [8]. I don't really care which way you answer, but I would like to have a clear understanding of your position so that we can put the arguing to rest. Thanks. -- GoRight ( talk) 16:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, can you please review the latest from Mister Flash. He continues to stalk and revert my edits, and continues to leave personal comments on Talk pages and in edit summaries. Thank you. -- HighKing ( talk) 19:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Heya, I'm still having problems with this user on Newport County A.F.C., he continues to remove templates requesting sources, despite a section on the talk page, please could you take another look at the matter? Thanks. Jeni ( talk) 23:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
-- Brangifer ( talk) 06:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
On another note, I have banned User:Ludwigs2 from my talk page. I think the last time I had to do that (worth noting) was User:Ilena. There comes a point where one can only take so much abuse and incivility. The last was over the top. Hearing the same thing again and again just isn't worth it. -- Brangifer ( talk) 03:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Just so you are aware, the disruptive edit warring by Dikstr of the Global Warming page which has had the user blocked twice, most recently by yourself, is continuing. I believe this warrants further administrator attention. His changes clearly go against wikipedia policy, the current scientific consensus, and the talk page consensus. StuartH ( talk) 21:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your note on my talk page. Maybe some day I will read through there and figure out how to archive properly. I'm not very bright about technical computer/wiki stuff. (What an understatement! LOL) Did you create an archive page for me? If so, thanks, and please tell me how you did it. Does this mean anyone can archive my page? Best, Yopienso ( talk) 21:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, could you please semi protect my talk page due to continued IP vandalism by Caleb Murdock. Thanks, Verbal chat 07:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Not only you are calling homosexuality and bisexuality "immoral behaviours" here [9], you are also comparing them to drug use. I cant actually believe you can be so openly homophobic. Stop spreading such BS in Wikipedia. Phoenix of9 07:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Zazaban, if that is your opinion, I see no need in discussing anything further with you. Cla68, if you think that my response is more serious, you are too biased for me to take you seriously. Phoenix of9 08:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Initially I thought Phoenix took this seriously, but now it's just indistinguishable from trolling and I am no longer sure. I suggest that we all follow WP:Deny recognition now until 2/0 gets a chance to respond. Hans Adler 08:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
At this point, I feel that a greater community discussion is warranted concerning GoRight's editing behavior. I have started a discussion here. [10] As a possible interested party, your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Trusilver 01:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
2/0, sorry to bother you. I don't know what to do when outnumbered by a gang. I normally just ignore it when the gang deletes my comments, and restore the comments at my talk page, but in this case, John Quiggin has made accusations against me, and Atmoz is denying me a right to respond. If there is something wrong with my response, I'd appreciate it if someone can tell me what it is. Meanwhile, it seems fairly obvious that Atmoz is edit warring. E.g. [11] [12]. Are you able to ask him please to desist? Thanks. Alex Harvey ( talk) 03:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
What posts of mine have been removed? I just looked at the lindzin talk page and am sure they are all there? mark nutley ( talk) 18:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
So where is the response here Atmoz? Aside from the fact that you've added flawed material to the biography, you have simply created a new weight problem. This article now hides just about everything else that Lindzen really is known for: he's a world renowned expert on atmospheric dynamics. He wrote a textbook on this subject in 1990. After solving the paradox of the semi-diurnal tide, and then the quasi-biennial oscillations, he left this work behind. This was in 1970. He then went on to become a world renowned expert in other areas of atmospheric dynamics, the general circulation of the atmosphere, and cloud microphysics. The article is completely distorting Lindzen's career. Who is going to finish this I ask you? You can't. William can't. Kim can't. All other scientists sympathetic to Lindzen have been ostracised. How do you respond here? Alex Harvey ( talk) 14:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, I looked into the matter above a little more deeply. There's an unhelpful tiff going on with both sides right and wrong to an extent. Potentially of more serious concern is the offsite canvassing; the recent EEML case is relevant here. While the venue was not hidden it is "mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience" and the appeals themselves have not neutrally worded by any reasonable standard. [13] [14] I would like to ask 2/0 (or other impartial admin) whether this matter should be raised at the climate change probation board. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 00:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Please show me the diffs that you think reflect aggressive disruption on my part. I have no idea what you were referring to here. You seem to bear me some animosity that I have done nothing to deserve. What did I ever do to offend you? I would like to make amends if I have done something amiss. Mitsube ( talk) 05:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
2/0, I promised in another thread to post a correction to the comment about the disappearance of the RWP that was "deleted by andrew c" at this thread. Unfortunately, that thread was closed for comments. Alex Harvey ( talk) 12:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Per the above, I am advising you - as the admin who closed the Marknutley request - that I have reactivated the claim in respect of WMC's violation of his CC 1RR restriction. Although you made no comment upon it at the Marknutley close, you may wish to do so here. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Just in passing:
![]() |
The Anti-Flame Barnstar | |
For 2/0, a cool head in heated waters. Guy ( Help!) 16:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC) |
I responded to your message. Please reply. [15] -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 22:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Here might be an idea to lock it out for a few days mark nutley ( talk) 18:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I want to notify you of this comment i left on Mark's talk [16]. I find that the talk-space edits may have come from a confusion by Mark on what exactly the conditions were for his conditional unblock - but i see that he has also edited article-space (more than once). I'm not seeking any sanctions - but just a general notification, that i'm going to protest if he ever asks for a conditional unblock again. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 21:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Replied at User talk:Marknutley#This is not OK...., thank you everyone for remaining calm and polite. Incidentally, while as my userpage suggests I would feel silly if I blocked someone for making an unquestionably good and trivial edit, I would really appreciate not being put in that situation. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 22:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Per the discussion here, you and I neglected to log some of our actions. I have done so for me, but wish to give you the opportunity to reach closure in this matter... LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Given your concerns, these might be of interest. This, from a just-blocked editor, might be best ignored. [20] This one [21] doesn't have that excuse, and it's part of a recent pattern on his part. Maybe a discussion with him would do some good. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 01:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see the anisotropy section of the bulk modulus page removed. K = dP/(dV/V) = dP/(ex + ey + ez). Note that the denominator of the rightmost expression is an invariant of the strain tensor, hence insensitive to orientation of coordinate system, as is pressure as well. This reinforces the argument that both pressure and volumetric strain are scalars, so their ratio is also a scalar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibbits ( talk • contribs) 05:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see the anisotropy section of the bulk modulus page removed. K = dP/(dV/V) = dP/(ex + ey + ez). Note that the denominator of the rightmost expression is an invariant of the strain tensor, hence insensitive to orientation of coordinate system, as is pressure as well. This reinforces the argument that both pressure and volumetric strain are scalars, so their ratio is also a scalar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibbits ( talk • contribs) 05:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi You have just blocked Macai ( talk · contribs) as noted here User_talk:Macai#Blocked. Can you please give some diffs supporting this action? I also see that you have banned him for two months on articles related to climate change: User_talk:Macai#Topic_ban_from_articles_related_to_climate_change. I don't see any process on the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation / Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Log for this action to be justified. Nsaa ( talk) 15:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
AN RFE was filed against you. [25] You are welcome to respond. Macai ( talk) 23:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I was instructed to make it a sanction appeal. You can find it here. [26] Macai ( talk) 00:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I notice that you're still occasionally updating my list of articles covered by the climate change probation. I'm taking a back seat (little or no involvement) at the moment and have no imminent plans to ramp up my contributions, but in a recent check I noticed the absence of recent edits to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy in the related changes. Presumably this is because the article name was recently changed and the related changes module doesn't follow redirects.
If you're still using that page to track recent edits in the probation area, perhaps you should update the moved pages to the current name (or perhaps just add the new names and retain the old ones so as to track discussions of proposed disambiguations, etc). Tasty monster (= TS ) 15:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
BLP violation against and identifiable living person Blatant Vandalism
What is to be done about this? mark nutley ( talk) 20:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
His very first edit after returning is an attack. He hasn't learned anything. -- Brangifer ( talk) 01:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
What do you think? Is it OK to remove personal attacks? You removed his personal attacks, he restored them, and he was blocked for doing so. Now he's done it again. The attacks themselves are a blockable offense in his situation. -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, it's nice to see that you still make time to edit articles. I think it's important to keep editing articles so you remember what this is all about. Nice to see, hope you are well, -- CrohnieGal Talk 18:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
[27] -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 02:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I had hoped that User:Caleb Murdock might find some way to usefully occupy himself after the topic ban from Seth Material. Unfortunately, he won't do much except quarrel with other editors at Talk:Seth Material. His latest edit is here, which restores a bunch of argumentative material. This thread had been usefully transferred from Talk:Seth Material over to User talk:Caleb Murdock by Guyonthesubway, but Caleb restores it with the message "You people have a level of nerve that's just unbelievable. Not only do you act badly, you want to hide your bad behavior." If he would confine his sarcastic comments to his own talk page I'd be willing to ignore him, but he's continuing to interfere with the article by misusing its talk page.
When I imposed the original topic ban, as a result of the above thread, I withheld a proposed indef block of Caleb on a 'wait-and-see basis'. I think I've now seen enough for such a block, but wanted to check with you first, since you filed the original complaint against Caleb at the EW noticeboard. EdJohnston ( talk) 12:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I have made a number of attempts to have the article title changed to no avail. When this war first started it was limited to South Ossetia and as such the title was legitimate. The moment it expanded beyond South Ossetia and into Abkhazia and the west coast a number of editors began suggesting the name be changed to reflect the scope of the conflict. At the time there was no clear alternative name and it was subject to such constant edit-warring that the article was move-protected. Since then the only recourse has been to have discussions on the title in the hopes of reaching of a consensus. Unfortunately, no matter how much time passes and how much stronger the case for a change gets a group of editors with an extremely biased position always flood the discussions to prevent a change.
In the most recent discussion I started on the current talk page one editor supportive of a change decided it was a lost cause because he felt any discussion would see a number of pro-Russian editors flood the discussion and prevent a consensus from being seen. So far it seems the only way this title is ever going to be changed is by an admin's decision. I gave a decent summary of the arguments for a change a few months ago here, more importantly it contains the most recent arguments for keeping, and this earlier discussion showed strong support for a change, though there was some funny business done with the discussion by a non-admin. The admin reviewing it did however say that objections based on neutrality were invalid and only left the issue of descriptiveness and common name as no consensus. However, I do not see any legitimate argument for keeping this article and plenty for changing it. This is something I am sending to a few admins who appear to have no involvement in the article or the name dispute in the hopes of getting some authoritative position on the current title. If you can think of any admins who might be more interested in this then feel free to say-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 15:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind that I reopened the discussion. I feel that we should try to resolve this at ANI and it is worth keeping it open a while longer. Regards. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 17:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it was an accident, but why did you remove the user votes I added to the latest section? As per WP:TPO, resectioning is a valid reason to move a user's comment, and it was explicitly stated when this move request was opened, that votes from the previous request would count. I merely collapsed the old section to remove some pointless bickering about alternate names, and moved downwards those who had not already reexpressed their vote Fell Gleaming( talk) 15:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Duh - I can't believe I forgot to remove the speedy tag after I moved User:Moswento/For DYK. Thanks for cleaning up my mess.-- Kubigula ( talk) 12:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
My thanks to the folks who have been reverting the recent spate of sock vandalism here. I just set up User talk:2over0/opentalk in case this page needs temporary semi-protection. Right now I do not think it does (hence not doing it myself), but if it ever gets out of hand anyone should feel free to semi-protect this page for a brief period and let me know. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 17:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I just uploaded my first image to commons (pictured at right; PD so no worries about including it in talkspace) - if someone who does more work at Commons feels like checking it out I would appreciate it. - 2/0 ( cont.) 19:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed them when I realized I was in the wrong. Thank you for the help! Blindeffigy ( talk) 05:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you please take a look at this:
User WMC has reverted a page under Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Climate_Audit_(2nd_nomination). We don't discuss the deletion of the redirect, we discuss the deletion of the full content, and since he changes this under the ongoing discussion it distort the priors arguments and it's a combative behavior. Is this a blocking reason and should I go further with it? Nsaa ( talk) 21:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, hope you are well. I know you are staying away from all the climate control stuff but I thought you may want to at least watch this. I have to say, what is going on at the sanction page and other talk pages is nothing I've ever seen before. It's getting totally weird! You made the right decision to back off of everything and enjoy writing articles again. Anyways, I thought you would want to know about this. Take care, -- CrohnieGal Talk 19:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear Sir: Through speedy deletion, you deleted the article Twenty Two Points of Ulema, I added on Wikipedia The allegation made is that it was “Unambiguous copyright infringement" of “ http://www.voice.pk/?p=1939”. I strongly feel that the material I placed in the article is not “ copyright infringement” of any sort (including G12) and thus it does not become a valid candidate for deletion. I explain my viewpoint here:
I hope you will consider my arguments and will allow me to reconstruct the page you have deleted.
If there is some error in my understanding regarding copyright issue, or any other, please guide me. Looking forward for your advice. Bhaur ( talk) 15:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the propmpt response. As per your advice, I have presented my case at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I am adding the following tag as per instructions of the Wikipedia:Deletion review. Regards. Bhaur ( talk) 04:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Twenty Two Points of Ulema. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bhaur ( talk) 04:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback on deletion review page. I have responded in detail on the review page.
Here I only want to say that the original was in Urdu, so the English translation is, of course, copyrighted. Please do not restore the page. First let me get the original Urdu, and translate it in English myself. I’ll put it on your talk page. Then I’ll request you to restore, or allow me to reconstruct the page. Thanks.
Bhaur (
talk) 05:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
( [28]) Given the angst occasioned by Old-Fruitgate, it may be wise to refrain from implying that other editors are latent homophiles. :P MastCell Talk 16:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The shared IP I'm contacting you from has been responsible for vandalism after vandalism over the years. I was talking with the most recent person to post a warning about a potential block earlier, and he said I should talk to an admin about it. In particular, I'm wondering if IPs can be permabanned; but anything that stops the people using this IP from vandalizing works. -- 204.96.143.178 ( talk) 18:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Re [29], are you sure "evasion" is the right word? To me it implies sockpuppetry, or at least sneakiness. I don't want to see the guy pegged for something he didn't do. How about simply "violating" his ban? Signed, Mr. Language Person aka Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 05:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
So 2010-11-07 is 11 July or 7 November? Probably best to spell out. -- BozMo talk 14:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Whenever I try to edit under my Wikipedia account (in this case, Shatterheart), I get a message about opening a PHP file; this also happens whenever I try to edit something in the general Wikianswers hub (under my main Wikia account, Protostealth). Can you help me with this problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.44.72.119 ( talk) 00:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello 2over0. FellGleaming ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Sandstein 17:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Please look at the article on Diamond Cutters International & Fred Cuellar. I do not feel that it should be included, unless there is a complete section on the fraud this company committed and the conviction that Mr. Cuellar recieved. This company & individual has no importance other than a felony criminal record http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/1998/06/08/story3.html and extensive civil action taken against Mr. Cuellar & Canary Investments DBA Diamond Cutters International. Please review http://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=6476 The full civil & criminal history are available online from Harris County District Clerk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford Dunster ( talk • contribs) 07:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering, why was FellGleaming the only one blocked for edit warring at that article? I see several other editors involved in that edit war. Cla68 ( talk) 04:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Cla, all you have to do is read the article talk page William M. Connolley ( talk) 12:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Cla, don't bother appealing to 2/0, he's been handing out one-sided sanctions for months and shows no signs of stopping, even as he's critical of Lar, who has sanctioned no one. ATren ( talk) 12:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
2/0, I see one revert on that page from FellGleaming. I see NO recent discussion on article talk before FG's edit.I misread the history, there was one comment from WMC I see no warnings from you to FG, on the talk page or his user talk. So one revert in the absence of any warning or other action, and he gets blocked? Please explain, as I'm sure I must have missed something here.
ATren (
talk) 13:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
You asked, and I assume honestly, "If you would like to render your advice for how I might have better served the encyclopedia in this or any other instance, I would be happy to listen to your reasoning." I'd like to provide such. You have not tried topic banning the following editors from global warming for any period, all at the same time - WMC, Kim, Polargeo, Myself, Ratel, Guettarda, Atren, Cla68, FelGleaming, Heyitspeter, Nsaa, Marknutley and Zulu Papa 5. There is no reason not to try giving this large swath of editors (and any whom I forgot/missed/whatever) a one week break from the topic area and see what happenes. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Re [30]: thanks. It is nice to know there is someone competent in this probation area William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Any attempts to correct this (following reasonable Wikipedia guidelines) are met with aggressive reverts and edits. Intentional spinning and manipulation of article in favor of BP? Can this task force investigate this?
Currently there is no easily recognizable section on the current Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster, surprisingly since the US Government has held BP responsible. Instead the "Oil Disaster" Section in the article keeps being given obscure (hard to recognize) names (as if someone is trying to hide the section from the public).
That section also keeps getting pushed to the bottom of the article (attempts to bury it)?
It's as if the BP Public Relations department has staff people who are aggressively spinning the article. Could this Task Force investigate this?
75.71.192.54 ( talk) 02:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.179.110 ( talk)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Chiropractic controversy and criticism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic controversy and criticism (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - I am notifying you because you participated in the original AfD. DigitalC ( talk) 20:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Lar would rather you didn't see this [31] so I'd better point it out William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Well seems like following the section rules (process) might preempt faith assumptions. Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 01:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Whatever you were attempting to do to Eastman, Georgia, you also removed 3 links that were valid and not part of any "copyright violation". I restored the links, please be more careful in the future. Mjrmtg ( talk) 10:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Inside your collapsed section here. Don't hesitate to delete this once you've seen it.-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 09:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm disappointed, upset, angry, and probably some other things for all of my work being deleted, Dodge County High School, Georgia 4-H, Eastman, Georgia, and some other minor pages. Work that I've been gathering the past week for hours upon no end. Not all of the work that I uploaded to the pages I fixed or added stuff was copyrighted material. I know now that I need to reword stuff for the future though. For one thing about the Dodge County High School page. The article that was written there, I wrote, when I was in high school. I have no idea how to properly site it since it was from a website. But there it goes, gets deleted. Along with random pages that I fixed a few sentences or paragraphs and fixed source links. I give up. I'm afraid to add anything else because of fear of deletion because of the now bad reputation that my name has because of this incident. I don't know what to do. I have read all the new beginners editing things on Wikipedia, so I know what to do. I'm just scared to do it for fear of being blocked, when I shouldn't feel like that at all. I'm not even sure if I want to go back through all of that trouble retyping everything back out and finding all the sources again. Tamer of hope ( talk) 14:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
How is it possible to put something on here in your own words, then show where you got the source from then have it all deleted because one thing might have been wrong? To me it seems much easier to write something and not put the sources on there, because those pages get away with not being caught by bots. I'm not even sure how to begin to getting a license of copyright from my school for that article. Tamer of hope ( talk) 17:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Why exactly did you revert all of this work? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Georgia_4-H&diff=prev&oldid=362964403 There is no copyright violation in adding a template and filling in the blanks. -- Mjrmtg ( talk) 15:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I draw your attention to [32]. I don't think that reflects your opinion, or the balance of opinion on the RFE page. I invite your opinion William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. The fact remains, there are serious policy problems with this article and Hammy seems to think he owns the page, and ignores any attempts to discuss the problems. It is frustrating. But i appreciate your point. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
2/0, admins should contact the blocking admin before unblocking, should they not? There's no evidence you did so. Please reverse your action. ATren ( talk) 19:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I continue to respect your attempts to play a moderating role, and none of my comments mean to disparage your participation. I just think you are as involved as Lar. A bit more lawyerly, but probably as opinionated on the problematic editors if not more so.
There is the question: should admins exert social pressure in order to do their jobs, or only issue sanctions? By my reading Lar is trying to use a broader palate, all for the same purpose of encouraging a better editing environment. I suppose it comes back to bite him when editors then claim he is showing "bias," except to the extent I must say I've seen those claims to be self-evidently transparent, given that views about who is being disruptive and how are exactly what admins are empowered to decide. So should admins instead simply play the robot as if they take no stake in what is happening? If so, I think it would only be another sign of a highly factionalized environment. Regards, Mackan79 ( talk) 05:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Is Hammy's 24 hr. block a blanket block, or just a block from editing the patriarchy article? If it is a general block, then I think that this is a block evasion. FYI I have added comments to the talk page of the patriarchy article but have not been editing the article itself, in my own attempt to cool don a bit. I hope my edits to the talk page are conciliatory and constructive; you can judge. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
After asking Necrat not to post on my talk page again (what I figure is the best way to get rid of any conflict with him), he does so anyway (and admits sockpuppetry, but that is neither here nor there). It wouldn't have been a big deal if he hadn't moments later posted this on this user page. Clearly this is about me, just not using my name and clearly shouldn't be allowed. I got in trouble for this as a newbie when I put a list of "Editors to Stay Away From" (or something like that) on my userpage. Got busted for it. This shouldn't be allowed and the only reason I bring this to your attention. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I've mentioned your behavior in my comments at the Arbcom requests page, here [33] (meant to tell you this earlier, sorry). -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 21:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- *sigh* —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESB60 ( talk • contribs) 11:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I have started working on a Request for comment requesting community review of the Climate change general sanctions; the working draft is at User:2over0/GSCC RfC. I would appreciate help framing and evidencing the question of whether the extraordinary sanctions are currently necessary. Feel free to edit this page and discuss it at the talkpage, though no formal endorsements should be made until the page is "live". If you would like to be notified when the discussion is moved to projectspace, please leave a note on the talkpage there. Until I abandon this project or the discussion concludes, I will undertake no probation-related admin activities. - 2/0 ( cont.) 00:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
You realize, of course, that this makes you part of the conspiracy. 1/2 :) Naraht ( talk) 14:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with RfCs. If you think there's something inappropriate about what I added here [34] (if it somehow falls outside the RfC or would mess it up in some way), please tell me and I'll look into changing it or I'll withdraw it. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 02:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
It looks like I am going to be more than normally busy this week, possibly extending to mid-June. I will try to check in daily or so, but please understand if I am not able to offer prompt response. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 05:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Global warming and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The AfD at Chiropractic_controversy_and_criticism closed with no consensus to delete. DigitalC ( talk) 02:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
... to replace our current article on the " MMR vaccine controversy" with this graphical representation. (Come to think of it, the comic is actually more complete and informative than our article...) MastCell Talk 22:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I have just created my first article. Can you please look over it? Thanks Gabithefirst ( talk) 23:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, I didn't see the second bit of the edit when I reverted. It was incorrect of me to say that he claimed that he struggled to get hits. The bit I would like to change is that the Times article 'claimed' instead of 'suggested'. Saying 'suggested' seems to lend weight and credence to the opinion and anecdote of the author, yet if it were stated to be a claim of the journalist, I believe that this would be more neutral Valyard ( talk) 22:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've seen you now on a couple of articles on my watchlist. It's good to see you editing like, well, an editor.:) What you are doing now I think is much better than being at that sanction board. I suspect that you are a lot happier too. I hope you are well. Keep up the good work. -- CrohnieGal Talk 19:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of User:SamsX. He was reverting warnings and tags so quickly I wasn't sure what to do... Yworo ( talk) 22:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey! I'm currently dealing with two articles which are undoubtedly infringing on copyrights. Soon after tagging the articles for G12, the author posted an OTRS template on the talk page but it's been about 12 hours and no case number has been added. I haven't dealt much with OTRS tickets but I was wondering how long it usually takes for a ticket number to be posted on an article. From what I've seen, it's very fast. I want to make sure that a crafty editor hasn't placed the tag in the hopes that the deletion tags will just go away. Do you have any knowledge of how this works? It's apparently a very closed off section of Wikipedia so I'm having trouble getting information or find a good place to ask questions. Any help would be appreciated. OlYeller Talktome 04:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear sir/madam,
I understand that you may be the administrator who decided that the new page I created somehow is a copyright infringement of some sort and should be deleted.
Please help me understand what it is specifically that you believe my page is in violation of.
I am the Deputy Commissioner of the Maryland Collegiate Baseball League. We are a non-profit summer baseball league and have been since 2007 when the league was formed.
Please help.
Thanks.
Roy Snyder —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starflight7 ( talk • contribs) 20:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if this appropriate, but you closed the last AN3 report with a warning, yet the WP:SPA continues to be disruptive without seeking consensus. There was an active discussion on the talk page that they refused to constructively participate in yet when the PP expired, they continued on inserting contentious content. I'm not sure what is appropriate in this case. I filed a second AN3 report that references the one you closed, but if the appropriate thing to do would have been to report it somewhere else, please let me know. Thanks for the help. jheiv ( talk) 20:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This was a reasonable request, but I am afraid I do not have much Wikipedia time at the moment. EdJohnston generally has good judgement at AN3, and has protected the article now. Please discuss and come to some consensus at the talkpage, preferably with recourse to seeking outside input as recommended in WP:Dispute resolution. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 08:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi 2/0, there is a weird situation brewing that needs some help already. A SPI case has been open for awhile now without any checkusers or clerks looking at it. I am aware that they are short on help here but this needs to be checked already to stop the socking we all know she is doing. If you look at the comments made by the multiple IP's you will see that it is SkagitRiverQueen who is doing the editing, esp. in the two articles like Charles Karel Bouley and Margaret Clark. SRQ is following her usual pattern of edits and following User:DocOfSoc around like she did prior to her block/ban. If you read the comments in the edit summaries and the talk page at the Bouley article you will see that the same statements SRQ made against DOS are the same as the new editors are doing. SRQ is using her cell phone for most of her editing because she found out on Wikipedia Review that the cells IP change so frequently that it's hard if not impossible to locate the socking offender. I find it very disturbing that she should be allowed to edit like this and that the sock investigation has not been looked at. Do you know of any checkusers that can look at this case and give us a yes or no or something about all of this. Editors are getting very frustrated about this so I thought maybe you could help with you wisdom. :) Seriously, I don't want to let things get out of control. It's really hard to tell sometimes if it is SRQ and at other times it's totally obvious that it is her to those editors who had to deal with her in the past. I'm hoping you have some good ideas for this one. <at least I didn't come asking for help about the cc articles! :)> Thanks for anything you can do to help and if you can't that's ok too. You're a good guy in my book either way. Be well, -- CrohnieGal Talk 15:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
In light of:
would it make sense to clarify the statement in the RFC: Please do not edit others' View by sections except to add an endorsement. Threaded discussion should take place at the talkpage.
To emphasize that endorsements should be short, possibly contain caveats to indicate something short of compete agreement, but should not be used as an excuse to make a different point?
I am sure that is the intention, but not everyone is following it.-- SPhilbrick T 14:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
ENDORSE ... editors should stay in thier section, please. Zulu Papa 5 * ( talk) 14:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the word controversy should not be used in the article on Jim Joyce. It has \emph{clearly} been shown that the call was incorrect. There is no controversy whatsoever. I would make the change myself, but it is protected. 130.49.162.77 ( talk) 20:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
tb|CIreland}}
{{
tb|CIreland}}
Ah you need to be careful of putting ideas in my head. Joking of course. :) Thanks for the encouragement.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi There,
I think the recent page move you did on this article to Bach flower remedy is an inappropriate application of WP:SINGULAR. The Bach Flower system is a set of 38 remedies to be used as a group, and as a system is pretty much universally referred to in the plural. If you do a google search for the phrase 'Bach Flower Remedy', this wikipedia page is the only result that comes back with the singluar phrase. All the other results on the first page use the plural. The only place you routinely see the singular used is for Rescue Remedy, which is a specific combination of the remedies that is sold as a distinctive product (and indeed outsells all the basic remedies put together).
I think the usage here is more akin to say 'Power Rangers', where yes you can say Power Ranger singular, but in common usage they are a group are always refered to in the plural as there is a group of them, which is how the wikipedia page is named. (Sorry for the odd analogy, that and Transformers were all I could think of off the top of my head!)
I hope that makes sense, thanks. -- ThePaintedOne ( talk) 13:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure if it's your opinion I need or just some support to be honest with you. There is a big dispute going on between three editors. I just got this message left for me. I am not a meat puppet of anyone. This editor has accused about a half a dozen editors of being meat puppets of Wildhartlivie. He accuses her of even worse things. I need to know if his bad faith that he just repeated on my talk page is allowable. I responded to the message as honest as I could but without breaking my own feelings about things. WHL is my friend and I've never denied this. But that being said we all shouldn't have to be accused of being meat puppets or sock puppets like what has been going on lately. I am trying to make peace but it's really hard to when the conversation starts out so negative. If you look at Chowbok's history you will easily find what I am talking about. This is just the latest. The last couple of days have been bad. I'd appreciate your advice or even a comment at my talk page. I have a lot of respect for you which is why I've come to you now. Thanks in advance, -- CrohnieGal Talk 23:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
You have blocked Captain Occam. This is problematic because he is a central figure in a current case before Arb Con. Without his active participation, it will be hard/impossible for the case to proceed. Would you mind unblocking him until the case is over? If he still behaves poorly, you could, obviously, block him again at that point. David.Kane ( talk) 23:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The communication issue is more important, I think. Wikipedia:ADMIN#Accountability bullet 3, citing a well-worded ArbCom case, specifically notes communication such as warnings and specific reasoning are an important part of the administrative process. Could you explain why you decided to be evasive in justifying the block? II | ( t - c) 03:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)