Thanks for your work. The page is looking better, although it also looks like there is still more work to be done to cover past ArbComm decisions, For example, you could probably add the Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute to both the 3RR and Consensus sections on the Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions page. That case decided the addition to the 3RR policy that the 3RR policy wasn't an entitlement, and was also a particularly egregious case of an editor going against overwhelming consensus.
Question: Have their been any RFAR cases that involved edit summaries as one of the principles involved, or have edit summaries only been mentioned as part of other principles? Blank Verse 07:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear David, thank you very much for your outside view at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irpen. Please find my comment here.-- Mbuk 19:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
As an advocate, I generally offer advice on not breaching policies, and reminding the party to maintain a cool head in the dispute. An advocate, in my opinion, should aid in making a dispute civil and also standing up for a party if they cannot do it themselves. The best way to learn is to try it. Computerjoe 's talk 07:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your help. At this point the help is needed with Sarner, who is acting as a spokes person for mercer. We are trying mediation in the article on John Bowlby, but sarner is not willing to cooperate, compromise, or collaborate. I don't see how we can reach consensus when he is a zealot with a specific agenda to eliminate all references to Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and related topics. His website and membership/leadership in ACT make this abundantly clear as do his comments on the Bowlby talk page. So, you help will be much appreciated.
Thank you. Dr. Art 11:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi David, thanks for the note. I must confess some ignorance at how these relationships work, but if you say I'm a second cousin once removed I will happily believe you! I don't think that I've seen either Leon or Jonathon for many years, although I know my mother has been in correspondence with Leon regarding a rather extensive family tree that she's been compiling (as extensive as it's possible to be when written records don't go back much beyond four or five generations). Anyway, good to catch up and, as an editor, I agree with your support for the serial comma (or Oxford comma, as I prefer to call it, of course). [[User talk:Brodders|Talk to me]] 21:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, don't say that. All the better, isn't it? Meditating is job full of headaches, and sometimes it can drag on for a very long time. With less edit spats, less meditating is needed and you can get involved more actively in real life. This is better, for me.
For now, after several stern warnings, I'm very sure that User:Fabshelly is aware of the consequences of violating wikipedia's rules, which he is aware. However, who knows? Maybe he might come back sometime later, or a supporter of Koh Gyudhae might do similar things as with Fabshelly. We, along with all other wikipedians will keep a lookout on the page now and then in the meantime. Cheers! Mr Tan 15:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
David, I hope you will put in place your proposed solution/compromise and put and end to the fruitless argument and discussion. It is obvious that there is a broad consensus for leaving the page as is or putting into effect your solution. Thanks for taking this on. SamDavidson 18:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: your message: Seriously, what's his deal? - Tapir Terrific 20:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind gesture! I'm verymuch honored :-) אמר Steve Caruso ( desk/ poll) 15:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
There is currently an AMA Roll Call going on. Please visit the page and sign your name to indicate whether or not you're still active. :-) אמר Steve Caruso ( desk/ poll) 18:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Nareek 19:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you David! I just replied on my page that I was going to look for another picture of Tyson, but you are so organized, and kind..you had already fixed the problem and also put another image in place. Thanks again. Best, Pia 21:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Fabshelly has returned and made some edits violating wikipedia's laws, again inspired by Koh Gyudhae. What am I to do now? I hope you will look into it again, and I need you now, meditator. Thanks. Mr Tan 01:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
{{ User PurePwnage}} |
|
Thanks and please continue this conversion at this location. I unlink the following 'dates' only: 'xx century', 'mmm' (month standing alone), 'yyyy' {year standing alone). By 'standing alone', I mean they are not part of the 'mmm dd' or 'mmm dd yyyy' combinations required for date formatting. As with all my other cleanup edits, I do not obtain permission ahead of time by posting notes to talk pages; nor do I post notes afterwords. I do not see any use for such links; to me, they are just unnecessary and wasteful clutter. An example is my work and the revert made to it is the 'Gregorio del Pilar' article. Thanks Hmains 20:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't see the difference. He would still be doing exactly the same thing - hitting random page, going to an article he's never been to before, and killing all the date links on sight, only he'd be leaving a pointless template comment on the talk page. It's exactly the same thing, if slightly slower. Rebecca 05:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, the rollback function is not just for simple vandalism. It is for reverting vandalism and other obvious reversions where the reason for making the revert is immediately obvious to all concerned. In this particular case, the user concerned is using an automated script to make the edits, and I see no good reason for me to waste several hours when the reason for my reverts is crystal clear to all involved. Furthermore, it is impossible to discuss individual changes when a) they number in the hundreds on any given day, and b) the user concerned repeatedly (and I stress repeatedly) refuses to discuss the matter with anyone at all. Rebecca 08:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Mr Mestel: what is the current status of my request. Thanks Hmains 00:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Spare me the patronising, David. I simply cite long-standing practice, and I care not enough to actually find some form of written basis for this. I have justified my rollbacks with reference to logic, reason, and common practice, and you have not given me one good reason why it benefits the project for me to do this manually, instead of reverting the edits in the same way they were made in the first place. Rebecca
Sigh. What possible benefit is there to going to such lengths to find some way that Hmains can fulfil his fetish? Some of us find date links useful. Some people don't. Everyone else in this entire dispute has accepted this, and just as I (nor the numerous people who agreed in the discussion we had about this) don't go running around mass-linking articles, neither do the other side mass-delink them. There are far more useful things that Hmains could be doing with his time than individually debating tons of individual links on tons of individual talk pages. How on earth does such behaviour help the encyclopedia? Rebecca 16:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Just saying hi...it may interest you to know that your little protégé, to whom you gave all that advice a few months ago, is now advising other people on dispute resolution - evidently your advice was sound! -- David Mestel( Talk) 19:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Handshake of Opponents Award | |
The customary handshake offered between opponents at the end of a sporting match is analogous to the attitude that dispute resolution is helping to create here on Wikipedia, which is desperately needed. In recognition of David Mestel's continued efforts towards advising people embroiled in disputes on how to bring them to an amicable state of truce, I hereby offer him this award, along with my sincerest wishes for his continued success and participation. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC) |
The page on the work of Royal Rife is incorrect in view of recent research. How can this be updated? Thanks Chris —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.253.113.251 ( talk • contribs) .
Hope you remember me I'm the one that "vandilized" Abraham Lincoln's page. Please explain to me, for I'm am in the dark, how telling everyone in the world, on a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, the truth about Abraham Lincoln. And no it's not an opinion. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.252.251.41 ( talk • contribs) .
I probably should have made the entire article the iniquities that made up Abraham Lincoln, also this a (as I have said) a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and people are going to change things whether you like it or not. And, yes, has hard as it may seem for you to believe Abraham Lincoln was not the person your liberal American History books make him out to be. And to the last comment, once again I will say it, this is a free encyclopedia that anyone, anywhere, anytime can change. Get used to the fact that people are changing it the way you don't like, its just a website and it doesn't have to be perfect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.252.251.41 ( talk • contribs) .
We are using using a talk page to resolve this. I had something else to ask, but it seems I have forgoten what it was. And a reply button would be helpful if someone is talking on these things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.252.251.41 ( talk • contribs) .
My case is this. I add iformation to the article Chaguanas, Guettarda removes or reverts the article immediately.
What were the steps taken? I posted my concern on the talk page of the article Talk:Chaguanas.
The issue is whether or not three musicians from Chaguanas qualify for being on the list of Famous people from Chaguanas or not, bearing in mind he was against this list prior to the intervention of a third party, user Grutness. On wikipedia, at the very end of the articles of cities and towns, most of the time there are always lists of either Famous people from..., Prominent people from.., Entertainers from...,etc. The editers/readers of that article have unanimously agreed that those people enlisted have achieved something significant in their city and are very proud to list them. It is the same here, except user Guettarda does not agree or comply.
One of the reasons can also probably be a tad taste of biasness. It may be unfair to suggest this, but you being my adovacate, I would like to share all my thoughts on the issue with you. There is hint of biasness in the way the article is being written and mantained. It, in my opinion, favours a particular ethnicity, co-incidentally being that of his own, Indian/Pathan. The artists enlisted are, apart from being wildly popular, have significantly contributed to the development of our Entertainment industry. Marlon Asher was one of the first artistes to recieve heavy airplay on the country's major networks, during a non-carnival season from a local artiste, which was not heard of prior to his entry into the industry. He has encouraged and inspired, and has set the way for other local artistes to break away from the once lone local genre of Calypsp/Soca and diversify our music to encompass Trinidadian reggae. A year after Asher's debut and success, many has followed his path and today local reggae is considered a huge success and is continually rising to new heights.
Marlon Asher is a pioneer to local reggae, and in years to come his name would be remembered by many as one of the first to break into the non-soca market and recieve massive airplay during a non-carnival season.
In one instance, Guettarda left this remark concerning another musician I enlisted, "Anyway, isn't Blazer far more notable as a murderer than a musician? Guettarda 20:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)". This has nothing to do with his music career and I consider it a very harsh attack.
Ken Marlon Charles, KMC is a local artiste, producer and songwriter. He has toured all over Europe and North America. He has signed a four album deal with Ultra Records of New York. He spots local talents and develops their progress. He has written a lot of local "riddims" and is a key figure behind soca music both locally and internationally.
I would like the advocate appointed to me to help me convey all these points, and somehow reason with Guettarda to let this information stand.
Thank You. -- Ryorye 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
RFC, I requested it but only recently realised it was removed and substituted with a third party's response which I thought was the completion of the RFC. See Talk:Chaguanas.-- Ryorye 17:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks -- Ryorye 19:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much Dave for your time and effort to look into this case. Initially, I felt "bullied" around by a particular elder editer, but I am happy to know that Wikipedia has systems in place, and people willing to help all editers. -- Ryorye 21:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on
my RfA, which passed with a final tally of
0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on
my talk page. Misza 13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing! NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated
ROT-26 algorithm. |
![]() |
I see. You don't have to talk to the deleting admin.-- momo 18:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: Re: Userbox article deletion
OK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Birdshot ( talk • contribs) .
Thanks for supporting me on User talk:King of Hearts! Kitia 21:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey Dave, you recently took up my case on the Chaguanas conflict, and put forth a proposal, which I followed. Unfortunately Dave, the user Guettarda has reverted my information again. I feel as if I am being bullied around, this should not be the case. He constantly reverts the article, even though people have suggested to him to let the information stand. What more can I do? I refuse to stand and see someone use "bully" tactics so the article stays in a way he deems fit. Thank You. -- Ryorye 21:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but no. I'm extremely busy next week. Computerjoe 's talk 07:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your work. The page is looking better, although it also looks like there is still more work to be done to cover past ArbComm decisions, For example, you could probably add the Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute to both the 3RR and Consensus sections on the Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions page. That case decided the addition to the 3RR policy that the 3RR policy wasn't an entitlement, and was also a particularly egregious case of an editor going against overwhelming consensus.
Question: Have their been any RFAR cases that involved edit summaries as one of the principles involved, or have edit summaries only been mentioned as part of other principles? Blank Verse 07:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear David, thank you very much for your outside view at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irpen. Please find my comment here.-- Mbuk 19:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
As an advocate, I generally offer advice on not breaching policies, and reminding the party to maintain a cool head in the dispute. An advocate, in my opinion, should aid in making a dispute civil and also standing up for a party if they cannot do it themselves. The best way to learn is to try it. Computerjoe 's talk 07:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your help. At this point the help is needed with Sarner, who is acting as a spokes person for mercer. We are trying mediation in the article on John Bowlby, but sarner is not willing to cooperate, compromise, or collaborate. I don't see how we can reach consensus when he is a zealot with a specific agenda to eliminate all references to Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and related topics. His website and membership/leadership in ACT make this abundantly clear as do his comments on the Bowlby talk page. So, you help will be much appreciated.
Thank you. Dr. Art 11:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi David, thanks for the note. I must confess some ignorance at how these relationships work, but if you say I'm a second cousin once removed I will happily believe you! I don't think that I've seen either Leon or Jonathon for many years, although I know my mother has been in correspondence with Leon regarding a rather extensive family tree that she's been compiling (as extensive as it's possible to be when written records don't go back much beyond four or five generations). Anyway, good to catch up and, as an editor, I agree with your support for the serial comma (or Oxford comma, as I prefer to call it, of course). [[User talk:Brodders|Talk to me]] 21:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, don't say that. All the better, isn't it? Meditating is job full of headaches, and sometimes it can drag on for a very long time. With less edit spats, less meditating is needed and you can get involved more actively in real life. This is better, for me.
For now, after several stern warnings, I'm very sure that User:Fabshelly is aware of the consequences of violating wikipedia's rules, which he is aware. However, who knows? Maybe he might come back sometime later, or a supporter of Koh Gyudhae might do similar things as with Fabshelly. We, along with all other wikipedians will keep a lookout on the page now and then in the meantime. Cheers! Mr Tan 15:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
David, I hope you will put in place your proposed solution/compromise and put and end to the fruitless argument and discussion. It is obvious that there is a broad consensus for leaving the page as is or putting into effect your solution. Thanks for taking this on. SamDavidson 18:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: your message: Seriously, what's his deal? - Tapir Terrific 20:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind gesture! I'm verymuch honored :-) אמר Steve Caruso ( desk/ poll) 15:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
There is currently an AMA Roll Call going on. Please visit the page and sign your name to indicate whether or not you're still active. :-) אמר Steve Caruso ( desk/ poll) 18:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Nareek 19:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you David! I just replied on my page that I was going to look for another picture of Tyson, but you are so organized, and kind..you had already fixed the problem and also put another image in place. Thanks again. Best, Pia 21:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Fabshelly has returned and made some edits violating wikipedia's laws, again inspired by Koh Gyudhae. What am I to do now? I hope you will look into it again, and I need you now, meditator. Thanks. Mr Tan 01:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
{{ User PurePwnage}} |
|
Thanks and please continue this conversion at this location. I unlink the following 'dates' only: 'xx century', 'mmm' (month standing alone), 'yyyy' {year standing alone). By 'standing alone', I mean they are not part of the 'mmm dd' or 'mmm dd yyyy' combinations required for date formatting. As with all my other cleanup edits, I do not obtain permission ahead of time by posting notes to talk pages; nor do I post notes afterwords. I do not see any use for such links; to me, they are just unnecessary and wasteful clutter. An example is my work and the revert made to it is the 'Gregorio del Pilar' article. Thanks Hmains 20:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't see the difference. He would still be doing exactly the same thing - hitting random page, going to an article he's never been to before, and killing all the date links on sight, only he'd be leaving a pointless template comment on the talk page. It's exactly the same thing, if slightly slower. Rebecca 05:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, the rollback function is not just for simple vandalism. It is for reverting vandalism and other obvious reversions where the reason for making the revert is immediately obvious to all concerned. In this particular case, the user concerned is using an automated script to make the edits, and I see no good reason for me to waste several hours when the reason for my reverts is crystal clear to all involved. Furthermore, it is impossible to discuss individual changes when a) they number in the hundreds on any given day, and b) the user concerned repeatedly (and I stress repeatedly) refuses to discuss the matter with anyone at all. Rebecca 08:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Mr Mestel: what is the current status of my request. Thanks Hmains 00:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Spare me the patronising, David. I simply cite long-standing practice, and I care not enough to actually find some form of written basis for this. I have justified my rollbacks with reference to logic, reason, and common practice, and you have not given me one good reason why it benefits the project for me to do this manually, instead of reverting the edits in the same way they were made in the first place. Rebecca
Sigh. What possible benefit is there to going to such lengths to find some way that Hmains can fulfil his fetish? Some of us find date links useful. Some people don't. Everyone else in this entire dispute has accepted this, and just as I (nor the numerous people who agreed in the discussion we had about this) don't go running around mass-linking articles, neither do the other side mass-delink them. There are far more useful things that Hmains could be doing with his time than individually debating tons of individual links on tons of individual talk pages. How on earth does such behaviour help the encyclopedia? Rebecca 16:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Just saying hi...it may interest you to know that your little protégé, to whom you gave all that advice a few months ago, is now advising other people on dispute resolution - evidently your advice was sound! -- David Mestel( Talk) 19:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Handshake of Opponents Award | |
The customary handshake offered between opponents at the end of a sporting match is analogous to the attitude that dispute resolution is helping to create here on Wikipedia, which is desperately needed. In recognition of David Mestel's continued efforts towards advising people embroiled in disputes on how to bring them to an amicable state of truce, I hereby offer him this award, along with my sincerest wishes for his continued success and participation. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC) |
The page on the work of Royal Rife is incorrect in view of recent research. How can this be updated? Thanks Chris —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.253.113.251 ( talk • contribs) .
Hope you remember me I'm the one that "vandilized" Abraham Lincoln's page. Please explain to me, for I'm am in the dark, how telling everyone in the world, on a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, the truth about Abraham Lincoln. And no it's not an opinion. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.252.251.41 ( talk • contribs) .
I probably should have made the entire article the iniquities that made up Abraham Lincoln, also this a (as I have said) a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and people are going to change things whether you like it or not. And, yes, has hard as it may seem for you to believe Abraham Lincoln was not the person your liberal American History books make him out to be. And to the last comment, once again I will say it, this is a free encyclopedia that anyone, anywhere, anytime can change. Get used to the fact that people are changing it the way you don't like, its just a website and it doesn't have to be perfect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.252.251.41 ( talk • contribs) .
We are using using a talk page to resolve this. I had something else to ask, but it seems I have forgoten what it was. And a reply button would be helpful if someone is talking on these things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.252.251.41 ( talk • contribs) .
My case is this. I add iformation to the article Chaguanas, Guettarda removes or reverts the article immediately.
What were the steps taken? I posted my concern on the talk page of the article Talk:Chaguanas.
The issue is whether or not three musicians from Chaguanas qualify for being on the list of Famous people from Chaguanas or not, bearing in mind he was against this list prior to the intervention of a third party, user Grutness. On wikipedia, at the very end of the articles of cities and towns, most of the time there are always lists of either Famous people from..., Prominent people from.., Entertainers from...,etc. The editers/readers of that article have unanimously agreed that those people enlisted have achieved something significant in their city and are very proud to list them. It is the same here, except user Guettarda does not agree or comply.
One of the reasons can also probably be a tad taste of biasness. It may be unfair to suggest this, but you being my adovacate, I would like to share all my thoughts on the issue with you. There is hint of biasness in the way the article is being written and mantained. It, in my opinion, favours a particular ethnicity, co-incidentally being that of his own, Indian/Pathan. The artists enlisted are, apart from being wildly popular, have significantly contributed to the development of our Entertainment industry. Marlon Asher was one of the first artistes to recieve heavy airplay on the country's major networks, during a non-carnival season from a local artiste, which was not heard of prior to his entry into the industry. He has encouraged and inspired, and has set the way for other local artistes to break away from the once lone local genre of Calypsp/Soca and diversify our music to encompass Trinidadian reggae. A year after Asher's debut and success, many has followed his path and today local reggae is considered a huge success and is continually rising to new heights.
Marlon Asher is a pioneer to local reggae, and in years to come his name would be remembered by many as one of the first to break into the non-soca market and recieve massive airplay during a non-carnival season.
In one instance, Guettarda left this remark concerning another musician I enlisted, "Anyway, isn't Blazer far more notable as a murderer than a musician? Guettarda 20:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)". This has nothing to do with his music career and I consider it a very harsh attack.
Ken Marlon Charles, KMC is a local artiste, producer and songwriter. He has toured all over Europe and North America. He has signed a four album deal with Ultra Records of New York. He spots local talents and develops their progress. He has written a lot of local "riddims" and is a key figure behind soca music both locally and internationally.
I would like the advocate appointed to me to help me convey all these points, and somehow reason with Guettarda to let this information stand.
Thank You. -- Ryorye 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
RFC, I requested it but only recently realised it was removed and substituted with a third party's response which I thought was the completion of the RFC. See Talk:Chaguanas.-- Ryorye 17:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks -- Ryorye 19:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much Dave for your time and effort to look into this case. Initially, I felt "bullied" around by a particular elder editer, but I am happy to know that Wikipedia has systems in place, and people willing to help all editers. -- Ryorye 21:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on
my RfA, which passed with a final tally of
0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on
my talk page. Misza 13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing! NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated
ROT-26 algorithm. |
![]() |
I see. You don't have to talk to the deleting admin.-- momo 18:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: Re: Userbox article deletion
OK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Birdshot ( talk • contribs) .
Thanks for supporting me on User talk:King of Hearts! Kitia 21:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey Dave, you recently took up my case on the Chaguanas conflict, and put forth a proposal, which I followed. Unfortunately Dave, the user Guettarda has reverted my information again. I feel as if I am being bullied around, this should not be the case. He constantly reverts the article, even though people have suggested to him to let the information stand. What more can I do? I refuse to stand and see someone use "bully" tactics so the article stays in a way he deems fit. Thank You. -- Ryorye 21:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but no. I'm extremely busy next week. Computerjoe 's talk 07:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)