Hello, Minos P. Dautrieve, and
welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for
your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our
intro page provides helpful information for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Also, I've left you a reply on my talk page. Happy editing! -
Spick And Span
[Talk]
[Contributions] 03:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I freely admit I may be wrong. Revert if you wish. HalfShadow ( talk) 03:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. It was no problem, the AfD template was broken in some way so I just replaced it with a fresh one and pasted your wording into it. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. It's on the AFD page, or on my talk page if you don't want to dig that address up. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
See here, here, and here, for starters. This caused quite a stir in the US two years ago. Groupthink ( talk) 22:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't call the mention of Oldham "losing his battle with drugs" derogatory; it's more of a statement of fact, from things I have read. He was, and it took him awhile to come back. You made an OK edit there, though... and indeed, it isn't really necessary to say Oldham was; it's not pertinent to Klein's history. (I didn't write that part, btw, so I'm not speaking from bias there.) Cheers. Zephyrad ( talk) 17:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Joachim Koester, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim Koester. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Marlith (Talk) 23:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
In case you missed it, you got hit by a vandal impersonating you. He's been blocked, and most of the damage removed, but if anything in the future comes up again, feel free to let me know on my talk page for a quick response. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for checking up about the festival - I could see nothing notable other than that, and had no idea how to confirm the value of the award one way or the other. Your work was much appreciated. - Bilby ( talk) 04:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I note that you have been removing material of late that is not referenced. I wonder if a more subtle (ie helpful) approach might be to simply add an unreferenced note such as this citation needed? The material you have removed may be true and it may be false, but with a note, it will alert 1) the reader to be cautious in using the info, or 2) an editor to go seek out the fact. With no info at all - ??? Verne Equinox ( talk)
Hi. I noticed you were unhappy at the Gary Lynch deletion. Rather than sounding off about Lar (who I happen to know is one of the best and fairest admins we have), can I suggest taking it to DRV? This was not a bad-faith deletion, and, while you are free to disagree with Lar's interpretation of policy or his gauging of the consensus, you should refrain from maligning his character as that is not how we work here. Best wishes, -- John ( talk) 14:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to thank you for raising Pamlico 140 at WP:AN/I - I was planning to do the same, but you managed to beat me to it. I'm glad it was resolved fairly. - Bilby ( talk) 02:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 5#Gary Lynch. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 16:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I will always change something like that on request from an established good-faith editor. I got a little confused and left a message on your page just now, thinking for some reason you had undeleted it yourself, but in fact it was an edit conflict with myself. Sorry if there was any confusion. DGG ( talk) 01:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem -- that sounds like an honest mistake. I hope my edit summaries weren't too churlish. CJCurrie ( talk) 23:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I have posted a question at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Christmas_with_The_Judds_and_Alabama which you may be able to answer. Can you please return to that discussion to answer it? Stifle ( talk) 08:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Minos P. Dautrieve ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This block is unjustified because it is not based in policy. The blocking administrator cites the vandalism page, although there is no allegation of vandalism, credible or otherwise. I have been engaged in a rather contentious dispute over the blocking of my spouse, which I believe to have been grossly inappropriate. My comments have centered on policy, and whether it has been appropriately applied. There are no allegations that my comments are not made in good faith. Under the applicable policy, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism." The blocking adminstrator also alleges that certain unidentified comments on my user page are inappropriate, but there is nothing there which matches his description. The block is completely unfounded. Finally, the blocking administrator was involved in an earlier stage of the dispute with my spouse, and is not at all uninvolved.
Decline reason:
Actually if you take a look in your block log, it is based on this, a derivative of our block policy. Please pardon the error of the above message. On Wikipedia, we block to prevent disruption if enough evidence warrants such an action. What happened here was that your wife was making personal attacks, calling various editors and their edits "stalker's vandalism", stalker", etc. That is a personal attack, an assumption of bad faith, and without any proof provided by you or her that such is an accurate assertion if it is neither of the above, inaccurate. She was warned and did not stop, and she was blocked for disruption, as is allowed by policy. Then you came in and queried endlessly, effectively taking up her role. The proof was in your face, but you engaged in wikilawyering. Please note that on Wikipedia, we follow the spirit of the rules, not the letter of the law, and words are used in their contemporary contexts. We look dimly on wikilawyering here, per the aforementioned reason, and your constant wikilawyering constituted disruption, and you were blocked, again as permitted by policy. Nothing has to be explicitly stated to be an offense, but after being warned of one, one should stop instead of continuing to engage in it. Perhaps it is merely a misunderstanding of our rules culture here (spirit > letter), but consider this an opportunity to acclimate yourself to such and other aspects of the Wikipedia community. — kur ykh 20:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Layperson comment: see [1] for an arbitration case that Minos P. Dautrieve urged the Arbitration Committee to accept. It was put forward by his wife, apparently. Behaviour surrounding AFDs of living people has been extremely dubious in my view of seeing Minos. This also applies to The Enchantress Of Florence, who brought forward the request (which incidentally, is being rejected by ArbCom.) Both of them need to knock it off. – How do you turn this on ( talk) 19:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Minos I will extend your block to indefinite if you don't stop wikilawyering. Gwen Gale ( talk) 21:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Minos, what exactly is your point throughout all of this? I haven't seen it stated once.— Dæ dαlus Contribs / Improve 21:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. So we're always willing to unblock early, if we have reason to beleive that the behaviour patterns are going to change. So far Minos has not indicated he understands why he has been blocked, much less indicate he's ready to change. So, I'd let this block ride out, I think... if after it expires, there is no evidence of intent to contribute meaningfully and collegially, then it would be time to consider extension, but not yet. It is understandably frustrating to be blocked, so editors are in practice given a certain amount of leeway on their own talk page. Within reason. But Minos needs to realise that this is a serious matter, that the issue lies with him (evidenced by unanimous views by everyone else that his behaviour has not been constructive) and that this time out is an opportunity to decide whether he can contribute here productively and collegially, or whether there are other hobbies that may be better suited to his talents and aspirations. ++ Lar: t/ c 22:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Minos, you've been editing here for many months, mostly biographies of living persons, which have by far the keenest needs for strong sourcing and neutral outlook. How can I put this more straightforwardly? You came to my talk page and straight off, began broadly hinting that I had no ethics, that I was not reasonable, that I should be ashamed, that I had "lynched" your wife and a lot more, which is to say, you began the thread on my talk page by framing it as if I was here with not a shred of good faith. Meanwhile, we'd not heard anything from your wife since the block, which was almost up and she never did put up an unblock request. Had she done, acknowledging that she understood why she'd been blocked and that she would honestly try not to do those things again, she would have been swiftly unblocked, happily, by either me or another admin. Now, I've been editing here for years, which in itself doesn't mean all that much, but I bring it up because I've interacted with a few thousand editors and I've learned that whenever someone has started a thread the way you did, they don't understand Wikipedia and are very likely to keep arguing until they can trip someone up on one or two technical points, which can take up hours of someone's donated, volunteer time here. However, Wikipedia is not a court of law, it's a web site with a very forgiving community: Since blocks can be (and often are) lifted on nothing more than a promise from the blocked editor, never mind these blocks are not prison terms or financial penalties but only have to do with allowing edits on a single web site, experienced editors and admins tend to care only about broad sweeps of behaviour and whether or not it helps build the encyclopedia. If unhelpful behaviour carries on, blocks happen. If it stops, blocks get lifted (and are often quickly forgotten). That's all there is to it, mostly. Getting along here does mean you'll need to put up with article content you don't agree with (it happens to me all the time). Instead, if one believes in the pith of the project, with all its faults and messes (welcome to the human race), one sways what one can here and there, with reliable sources, fit writing skills and a willingness to edit with folks one doesn't always agree with, at least in a neutral, civil way, which means skirting the kind of stuff you threw at me on my talk page. Few of us have time for that kind of shite, we're all volunteers. We do, however, have time for the helpful contributions you have made and would still like to welcome you into the fold. All the best, Gwen Gale ( talk) 10:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Minos P. Dautrieve, and
welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for
your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our
intro page provides helpful information for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Also, I've left you a reply on my talk page. Happy editing! -
Spick And Span
[Talk]
[Contributions] 03:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I freely admit I may be wrong. Revert if you wish. HalfShadow ( talk) 03:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. It was no problem, the AfD template was broken in some way so I just replaced it with a fresh one and pasted your wording into it. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. It's on the AFD page, or on my talk page if you don't want to dig that address up. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
See here, here, and here, for starters. This caused quite a stir in the US two years ago. Groupthink ( talk) 22:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't call the mention of Oldham "losing his battle with drugs" derogatory; it's more of a statement of fact, from things I have read. He was, and it took him awhile to come back. You made an OK edit there, though... and indeed, it isn't really necessary to say Oldham was; it's not pertinent to Klein's history. (I didn't write that part, btw, so I'm not speaking from bias there.) Cheers. Zephyrad ( talk) 17:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Joachim Koester, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim Koester. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Marlith (Talk) 23:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
In case you missed it, you got hit by a vandal impersonating you. He's been blocked, and most of the damage removed, but if anything in the future comes up again, feel free to let me know on my talk page for a quick response. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for checking up about the festival - I could see nothing notable other than that, and had no idea how to confirm the value of the award one way or the other. Your work was much appreciated. - Bilby ( talk) 04:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I note that you have been removing material of late that is not referenced. I wonder if a more subtle (ie helpful) approach might be to simply add an unreferenced note such as this citation needed? The material you have removed may be true and it may be false, but with a note, it will alert 1) the reader to be cautious in using the info, or 2) an editor to go seek out the fact. With no info at all - ??? Verne Equinox ( talk)
Hi. I noticed you were unhappy at the Gary Lynch deletion. Rather than sounding off about Lar (who I happen to know is one of the best and fairest admins we have), can I suggest taking it to DRV? This was not a bad-faith deletion, and, while you are free to disagree with Lar's interpretation of policy or his gauging of the consensus, you should refrain from maligning his character as that is not how we work here. Best wishes, -- John ( talk) 14:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to thank you for raising Pamlico 140 at WP:AN/I - I was planning to do the same, but you managed to beat me to it. I'm glad it was resolved fairly. - Bilby ( talk) 02:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 5#Gary Lynch. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 16:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I will always change something like that on request from an established good-faith editor. I got a little confused and left a message on your page just now, thinking for some reason you had undeleted it yourself, but in fact it was an edit conflict with myself. Sorry if there was any confusion. DGG ( talk) 01:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem -- that sounds like an honest mistake. I hope my edit summaries weren't too churlish. CJCurrie ( talk) 23:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I have posted a question at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Christmas_with_The_Judds_and_Alabama which you may be able to answer. Can you please return to that discussion to answer it? Stifle ( talk) 08:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Minos P. Dautrieve ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This block is unjustified because it is not based in policy. The blocking administrator cites the vandalism page, although there is no allegation of vandalism, credible or otherwise. I have been engaged in a rather contentious dispute over the blocking of my spouse, which I believe to have been grossly inappropriate. My comments have centered on policy, and whether it has been appropriately applied. There are no allegations that my comments are not made in good faith. Under the applicable policy, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism." The blocking adminstrator also alleges that certain unidentified comments on my user page are inappropriate, but there is nothing there which matches his description. The block is completely unfounded. Finally, the blocking administrator was involved in an earlier stage of the dispute with my spouse, and is not at all uninvolved.
Decline reason:
Actually if you take a look in your block log, it is based on this, a derivative of our block policy. Please pardon the error of the above message. On Wikipedia, we block to prevent disruption if enough evidence warrants such an action. What happened here was that your wife was making personal attacks, calling various editors and their edits "stalker's vandalism", stalker", etc. That is a personal attack, an assumption of bad faith, and without any proof provided by you or her that such is an accurate assertion if it is neither of the above, inaccurate. She was warned and did not stop, and she was blocked for disruption, as is allowed by policy. Then you came in and queried endlessly, effectively taking up her role. The proof was in your face, but you engaged in wikilawyering. Please note that on Wikipedia, we follow the spirit of the rules, not the letter of the law, and words are used in their contemporary contexts. We look dimly on wikilawyering here, per the aforementioned reason, and your constant wikilawyering constituted disruption, and you were blocked, again as permitted by policy. Nothing has to be explicitly stated to be an offense, but after being warned of one, one should stop instead of continuing to engage in it. Perhaps it is merely a misunderstanding of our rules culture here (spirit > letter), but consider this an opportunity to acclimate yourself to such and other aspects of the Wikipedia community. — kur ykh 20:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Layperson comment: see [1] for an arbitration case that Minos P. Dautrieve urged the Arbitration Committee to accept. It was put forward by his wife, apparently. Behaviour surrounding AFDs of living people has been extremely dubious in my view of seeing Minos. This also applies to The Enchantress Of Florence, who brought forward the request (which incidentally, is being rejected by ArbCom.) Both of them need to knock it off. – How do you turn this on ( talk) 19:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Minos I will extend your block to indefinite if you don't stop wikilawyering. Gwen Gale ( talk) 21:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Minos, what exactly is your point throughout all of this? I haven't seen it stated once.— Dæ dαlus Contribs / Improve 21:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. So we're always willing to unblock early, if we have reason to beleive that the behaviour patterns are going to change. So far Minos has not indicated he understands why he has been blocked, much less indicate he's ready to change. So, I'd let this block ride out, I think... if after it expires, there is no evidence of intent to contribute meaningfully and collegially, then it would be time to consider extension, but not yet. It is understandably frustrating to be blocked, so editors are in practice given a certain amount of leeway on their own talk page. Within reason. But Minos needs to realise that this is a serious matter, that the issue lies with him (evidenced by unanimous views by everyone else that his behaviour has not been constructive) and that this time out is an opportunity to decide whether he can contribute here productively and collegially, or whether there are other hobbies that may be better suited to his talents and aspirations. ++ Lar: t/ c 22:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Minos, you've been editing here for many months, mostly biographies of living persons, which have by far the keenest needs for strong sourcing and neutral outlook. How can I put this more straightforwardly? You came to my talk page and straight off, began broadly hinting that I had no ethics, that I was not reasonable, that I should be ashamed, that I had "lynched" your wife and a lot more, which is to say, you began the thread on my talk page by framing it as if I was here with not a shred of good faith. Meanwhile, we'd not heard anything from your wife since the block, which was almost up and she never did put up an unblock request. Had she done, acknowledging that she understood why she'd been blocked and that she would honestly try not to do those things again, she would have been swiftly unblocked, happily, by either me or another admin. Now, I've been editing here for years, which in itself doesn't mean all that much, but I bring it up because I've interacted with a few thousand editors and I've learned that whenever someone has started a thread the way you did, they don't understand Wikipedia and are very likely to keep arguing until they can trip someone up on one or two technical points, which can take up hours of someone's donated, volunteer time here. However, Wikipedia is not a court of law, it's a web site with a very forgiving community: Since blocks can be (and often are) lifted on nothing more than a promise from the blocked editor, never mind these blocks are not prison terms or financial penalties but only have to do with allowing edits on a single web site, experienced editors and admins tend to care only about broad sweeps of behaviour and whether or not it helps build the encyclopedia. If unhelpful behaviour carries on, blocks happen. If it stops, blocks get lifted (and are often quickly forgotten). That's all there is to it, mostly. Getting along here does mean you'll need to put up with article content you don't agree with (it happens to me all the time). Instead, if one believes in the pith of the project, with all its faults and messes (welcome to the human race), one sways what one can here and there, with reliable sources, fit writing skills and a willingness to edit with folks one doesn't always agree with, at least in a neutral, civil way, which means skirting the kind of stuff you threw at me on my talk page. Few of us have time for that kind of shite, we're all volunteers. We do, however, have time for the helpful contributions you have made and would still like to welcome you into the fold. All the best, Gwen Gale ( talk) 10:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)