This page 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. |
In your thoughtful post at ANI, are you saying that incompetent AfD nominations are ok because they result in article clean-up? It doesn't always work that way. In the case of María Viramontes I took the rescue approach of adding sources to document the notability. I have been attacked and hurt for this decision. My content work has been trashed, my work at the AfD discussion has resulted in personal attacks, and my work to restore reason at the DRV has been disregarded by a vote-counting close. In all this time no one has ever said that the topic failed WP:GNG. If it is really true that AfD nominations are inherently good for the project, we should have a robot create them. And the counterpart to saying that bad nominations are ok, is that it creates a two-tiered society of finger-pointers and clean-up-servants. I welcome your comments at WT:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes—if the current set of sources doesn't pass WP:GNG, no editor will say how many more sources are needed. Similarly at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Removal_of_sources_on_notability_grounds_at_Mindell_Penn, no editor has answered any of the four questions that I asked. Thanks, Unscintillating ( talk) 22:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nobody Ent. Just wanted to say thank you for picking up my unsigned comment in the workshop, I've dropped in and rectified the issue by adding my own signature, and noting what time I made the original comment there. I guess I was typing way too fast and missed out a tilde :) Have a good new year. BarkingFish 18:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
In this edit you appear to maintain that Deb implied that the other editors are either stupid or lying; now, that's quite unhelpful and also an assumption of bad faith. Would you be willing to remove that bit, please? Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Please do not add edits to Wikipedia policy pages, especially if controversial as you did at WP:NPA. Such edits are considered very controversial, and should have legal administration discussion and approval before placing the edits there. Abhijay ☎(Тalk)/ ✍ (My Deeds) 06:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
You know, if someone goes raking muck on ANI, I think they should be prepared to be treated like an adult. That's what happened in the case of Bouket. It's not as if s/he was minding his/her own business and Drmies or I came along and started picking on him/her - or biting him as you put it.
I think your conclusions are way off base and I should point out that none of my actions with either Aditya or Bouket were administrative. Telling someone - especially someone involved in wikihounding another editor - to "get over it" is very different than telling them to fuck off - which in most cases would be uncivil. I'd expect you to know the difference. Toddst1 ( talk) 00:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure thing, I was planning on it but didn't rush as this user follows my edits and nearly always comments on every edit I make in any talkspace. Thanks for the reminder though and I will follow the procedures more promptly going forward. Did I bring this issue forth at the right location? LuciferWildCat ( talk) 03:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for picking up that legal threat and referring it to the proper board. I left for lunch before he made the threat, and and he was already blocked and had his appeal denied by the time I got back. Mmyers1976 ( talk) 19:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The person to whom this comment was addressed has been on-wiki longer than MF himself, so it's a rather poor example of "newbie-biting". Did you mean something else? Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I responded on my talk page. LuciferWildCat ( talk) 05:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm always happy to answer questions, but in this case I'm afraid I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you asking if I think it's a personal attack to accuse a specific editor of incompetence, or if making the general statement that "some editors are incompetent" is a PA? I thought I would ask you directly here rather than clutter up the workshop page. 28bytes ( talk) 21:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you, Unscintillating ( talk) 04:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Please stop doing this [2]. It's disrespectful of the editors who have taken the the time to comment, is unnecessary, and not consistent with established Wikipedia WP:TPG and local convention Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/Volunteer_instructions11:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody Ent ( talk • contribs)
I just recently started Wikiproject Cooperation and I thought you would be interested. Thanks for your time. Silver seren C 01:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I gather something I wrote [3] offended you. Sorry, it wasn't intended to. If I could, I'd rephrase. Thanks for opening my eyes... so to speak. :-)
GRuban (
talk) 15:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I have replied to your comment. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Makes me think something wrong and another ANI was necessary. I would never have even paid any attention to him if he had t done that until today I didn't even have the article on my watchlist. I'm going to ask him politely to to post on my talk page for me that's it closed unless he starts again. I just hope he has read the links to the policies that I gave him at the very start. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I also object to your archiving that thread, again - why are you doing that? Youreallycan 15:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello!
Would you please give me an explanation/reason for deleting my entry in the article with a revert
to a version that user QuasyBoy has already reverted without a reason.
Thank you.
AmblinX 21:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I shall be taking your advice and will become the other duck (now with added helium for rising above the fray). [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack ( talk • contribs) 08:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate it, that's really all I am going to say on the matter. LuciferWildCat ( talk) 04:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I accidentally rolled back one of your recent edits at ANI. I self reverted within seconds. Sorry about that. I was simply looking through my watch list on my iPhone. One of the potential problems with a multitouch device. Again sorry. JOJ Hutton 14:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
[5] ... but will this case never end? Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment regarding the brief rangeblock causing presumed collateral damage to this editor; I am uncertain why you felt impelled to make it. Clearly one does not give IP exemtion without confirming the nature of the problem and in consultation with the blocking admin, however straightforward the situation may appear. As the block was set to expire in only a few hours, this procedure appeared unnecessary. A word to the editor, inviting his further input if the block did not release seemed, and still seems, entirely appropriate. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 11:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
oops! .. thanks :) — Ched : ? 11:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Nice piece. pablo 12:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I and everyone I know use the term "babe" affectionately. Whatever. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Nobody Ent. You have a userbox for your amusement at User:Begoon/Other Duck Userbox's talk page. Thanks. Begoon talk 07:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I have deleted the RFC/U as having been improperly certified, since it was premised on the unproven assertion that Ash and Fae are the same person. You are welcome to create a fresh RFC/U on Fae alone, but it should not include unproven allegations of other identities. Will Beback talk 07:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I think you've not fully signed here. Only the date appeared for some reason. ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 11:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
As you are quite involved in the RfC/U itself, it's probably best to leave the closure of the ANI stuff to an involved admin. ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 18:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
(>**)> Sorry if I seem to be being a pain; love you really! Despite the wry and wacky humour, I genuinely do think it's an important distinction for newbies, particularly, to be aware of. Pesky ( talk … stalk!) 11:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC) |
Please do not make me do this again. I don't care if you think a group a posts are off-topic: you should not be removing others' posts like this. I take extreme offense to people removing what I took the time to type when it was in good faith. If it went over your head: ignore it. Doc talk 13:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nobody Ent, regarding your response to me here; the way I have understood things, unless they have changed, blatant socks (as opposed to suspected ones) can be reported to AN/I. This being said, when I was told to report obvious socks to AN/I that was five years ago, and I rarely participate at AN/I now (it isn't even on my watchlist) and almost never at SPI. I hope that explains where I was coming from with what I said, and I will keep your note in mind in future. (Posted this here because it didn't seem relevant to explain over there.) Best. Acalamari 16:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you slap {{
uw-3rr}} on the talk pages of every user brought to
WP:WA? Removing copyright violations is clearly not a violation of 3RR and I was not even notified of the discussion about my edits.
Eagles
24/7
(C) 05:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite. Let me think about it. Right now I am focussed on Political operatives and chronicalling (sp) actions, conversations etc to provide a history for debriefing when the nomination process is over and the general election starts. ``` Buster Seven Talk 18:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Didn't notice your rename...I was wondering where you'd gone :-) Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 00:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice i'll give that a try. [[ JamieRothery ( talk) 10:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)]]
Hi there. I declined your recent taggings of pages in User:Joo's userspace. Those are apparently stale reports from back in 2010, so there is no need to speedy delete them. And they are not clear attack pages, so G10 does not apply anyway. If you believe they should be deleted, please take them to WP:MFD. Regards So Why 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Just FYI... That user was an obvious troll, and also apparently a sock, and was indef'd just as you were reprimanding it on the MSK page. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Nobody Ent. This is just a short note to express my thanks for your time and your wisdom on WP:WQA recently. I’m particularly grateful for the soundness of your contribution at diff. Many thanks.
I have made my closing remarks on the thread and I publicly acknowledged your contribution – see my diff. Dolphin ( t) 02:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC).
No problem. Thanks for letting me know. ---- Jack | talk page 17:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to get to a thread first and be able to say what I think. Geesh. I constantly see what you post and think "damn it .. that's what I wanted to say". I am truly impressed with the way you think and post here Nobody (although it's getting very hard to think of you as either a "nobody" or an "ent"). All my best, and thanks for all you do. — Ched : ? 21:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC) (yea, I know we don't always agree .. but who does?) :)
Ent, I couldn't post a reply to Mangoe's incident report on me, so I posted it temporarily to my Talk page. details are there. Redslider ( talk) 17:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
ent - anyway to chat with you? my email is red-at-holopoet-dot-com. thanx. Redslider ( talk) 18:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I really miss Gilda. Got to see her live in the glory days of my youth, back before I really understood what the big deal was about Mary Magdalen. Thanks for the smile. Risker ( talk) 01:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you've notified NYY51 yet. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 20:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your support over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Removal of templates from redirects. You seemed to be the only contributor who actually understood what happened. (If you wish to respond, please do so here.) HairyWombat 05:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 10:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Discussion and expression of different views is something I consider very important in a collaborative project. In my enthusiasm for understanding issues affecting Wikipedia, and expressing them as well as possible, my comments on your essay almost certainly came across as more sharply critical than I intended. I offer my apologies for that, Geometry guy 21:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Over here. There's an interesting discussion, which you might well want to contribute to. Pesky ( talk) 06:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Home-Made Barnstar | ||
I've really appreciated the wisdom of many of your recent contributions, but this seemed particularly apposite. Keep being a deep thinker. It was nice to meet you. John ( talk) 21:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC) |
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Lions in the Desert requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. DreamFieldArts ( talk) 01:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
You are a sockpuppet. What are you going to do about it. Midemer ( talk) 19:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Funny, you did not respond like you say I should. See my talk page for details.
Midemer (
talk) 19:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Nobody, have you had a chance to look at my draft for the Brian Lamb article? If so, I'd be interested in your feedback; the current discussion has gotten off-track, and it could certainly use new or returning voices. Hope you have a moment to take a look and offer your view. Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 17:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, can you ask DBigXray to stop this lame editwar adding my own name on top of my comment? [6] [7] [8] ...I also replied to your question. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 15:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Nice photo. Did you take it? Toddst1 ( talk) 16:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!
Mistress Selina Kyle ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.
Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{ subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
That's brilliant, thank you for sorting it out. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 22:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
If you move a page, which contains non-free images, than the non-free rationale of the images should be update. This is just a note for the future, as I have updated the fair-use rationales for this page move. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 00:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nobody Ent, you reverted a change in 479582181 commenting "see talk page". However, I cannot find a justification of that reversion on the Talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Reversion#Explain_reverts. Then, please either revert your reversion or explain it. If your reversion persists unjustified, it will not be possible to provide much justification if your reversion itself has to be reverted.
Thank you-- Chealer ( talk) 03:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey I replied on my page
But also, do you know anyone for a new mentor who you could recommend maybe (I said in that post at the end but you deleted that too )? I thought you might be a good person to ask? Thanks for any help -- Mistress Selina Kyle ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 13:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I should know by now that if you use strong language to make a strong point, people will ignore the strong point entirely and focus on the strong language. Anyway, frustrating as that is, you're right that the language was not serving to de-escalating the discussion, so I have refactored my comment. 28bytes ( talk) 17:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I hafta say, that I am utterly shocked and surprised that nobody came here to badger you regarding a recent close that you made (you know which one.) I mean, the closing statement basically said what many of us had said previously---that it was a farce and shouldn't have gone on as long as it did. The fact that you (as a contributor to the discussion and ostensibly 'endorser') could close it that way, and have nobody berate you over it or question the close shows how little people cared at the end. I'm not going to call it a good close, but will say it was a gutsy one that needed to be closed... and I definitely don' t think it is worth any more air than it got... but I've been watching your page/AN/ANI for somebody to object and to whine that you closed it the way you did (basically saying it should be deleted... but nobody has.)--- Balloonman Poppa Balloon 20:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
for being bold and taking on redlinks in the nursing template. looks much better now. DA Sonnenfeld ( talk) 16:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC) |
Thank you. Nobody Ent
...for this! I usually like to leave closing discussions until they have died down, but there are cases when it's right to step in and stop a going-nowhere discussion from pointlessly absorbing lots more time and energy. This was one of those times! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
...for this. EyeSerene talk 14:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up! Some fun coincidences going down there. — foxj 14:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I reopened that thread on AN with the agreement of the archiving admin, who had the same misunderstanding that you did. Please read it again and let it run its course. Your 3rr warning on my talk page was inappropriate and unnecessary. Please don`t do that again. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 15:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Excelsior (movie) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ~dee( talk?) 14:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello NE Ent/Archive. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
How is it not exactly true? "Functionally equivalent" is incorrect, in that it implies the physics definition of weight, in which case there would be functional equivalence at one g. The whole point of my addition is that "weight" in certain contexts is legally, and by definition, absolutely equivalent to what in physics is known as mass. Or to put it another way, nutrition labels and product packages, by law, mean the same thing on the moon as on earth. Zyxwv99 ( talk) 15:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the warning - I didn't realise my edits had nuked anyone else's comments - i certainly wasn't warned that I had an edit conflict or anything, but I will watch out for this in the future. Cheers! BarkingFish 15:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 April 2012.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 17:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Looking forward to more input from you on this :) Those participating sign on agree I guess to request a mediator. Y12J ( talk) 20:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
WGFinley (
talk) 19:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
In response to your "It's a collaborative effort which requires some time to get article content in a state which balances all the points of view. Best option is to use the article talk page to discuss with your fellow editors. Nobody Ent 10:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)" I was tempted to use a swear word. As anyone who reads the talk page of the article in question (shiatsu), in the last two weeks can see, IT IS NOT A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT, it is the opinion of IRWolfie who has a monopoly on what can be added , what sources are reliable (those that agree with his point of view), what BITS of those sources are reliable (those that agree with his point of view). When I add things from the sources HE likes he says that it is not supported by the evidence - "The text you added just isn't supported by the reference. IRWolfie - (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)"- and when I point out the exact sentences that support my additions he just doesn't reply and tries to get me blocked. What were your words? "State which balances all points of view?" Am I supposed to believe it too? Shiatsushi ( talk) 20:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
...that SPI on the new user from yesterday was declined, and the user appears to have left the project as a result (or possibly due to the AFD of his article...or both.) Quinn ✹SUNSHINE 19:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry, I won't pull out "Don't template the regulars". I'm okay with that. However, I would like to point out, on your messsage
"To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors.
Thing is, consensus already exists in WP:SOAP. The RFC is not needed as WP:SOAP already represents consensus on this issue. I claim IAR, (WP:SOAP of course ) on closing out the RFC.
‑KoshVorlon
| Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj... - 17:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I see your point, but I had *already* asked them to not discuss their spat on that page. Isn't there room for hiding tangential cruft in cases like that? -- KarlB ( talk) 19:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about this. I wasn't even editing at the time, just looking something up – but not actually looking at WP:AN. I must have somehow clicked on rollback by mistake. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
No problem at all, I just didnt want everyone getting bogged down in the technicalities of 'should he, shouldnt he' and ignoring (albeit unintentionally) the civility issue. While everyone can agree/disagree on the starting point, I think it should be noted the over-reaction afterwards was totally out of line. Especially when attacking someones character. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 17:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I was just waiting to see if DC might come up with it on his own. :)
-- Avanu ( talk) 11:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I was hoping to get them both to just agree on some wording so everyone could move on. Didn't mean to offend. --
Avanu (
talk) 02:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I trust that you made the right decision in closing the AndyTheGrump complaint on the AN/I. I noticed you left my section open. I don't understand, did you purposefully mean to do that or did you missed it in the closure ? -- POVbrigand ( talk) 12:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I note that you have closed this matter. Based on previous behaviour it is likely that AuthorityTam will now return to editing in a couple of weeks. If he returns but does not resume the previous behaviour, it may not be necessary to return to ANI. However, if the behaviour does continue, would it be better to resume the ANI, or raise the matter at ArbCom instead? If so, what's the process? Is it appropriate to reference the ANI from ArbCom, or does the whole process have to start from scratch? On a separate but related matter, it would be nice to see some improvement in Willietell's behaviour.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 03:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi- I do apologise if you took my comment
here as insinuating that you or cyberpower specifically were angry. I've amended decided to remove my comment anyway, I shouldn't have got involved. Cheers.
S
D
5 03:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I know that you were very upset that YRC was blocked, and that everything was resolved in your eyes when he was unblocked. However, there were two users blocked, and your closing of the thread makes it look like both blocks were resolved, which they were not. Try to be more careful. AniMate 19:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Can you explain this? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Ents are of course very kind, patient, and wise, as exemplified by your good self at this Entmoot. Thanks again-- Shirt "fool of a Took!" 58 ( talk) 12:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
closings | |
Thank you for your approach to be known by the quality of your contributions and for being somebody who closes threads that lead only deeper into WP:Great Dismal Swamp aka Endmoot, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC) |
This piece was particularly well said. -- Dianna ( talk) 14:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The other editor has already said his intent was not to get actions, therefore the use of ANI was useless, and the wrong forum. Besides, I've only posted there twice :-) ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
But then, what did you do?
You went on to claim patently illogical things. I was not playing a "game" when I said I didn't get warned properly. Your deliberate caricature of my position, predicated upon your high-handed bullishness, is chronically wearing too.
I say this with utmost humility, "grow up!"
Brendon is
here 07:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
This discussion isn't going in the direction where it would actually help improve wikipedia, but taking up space. Brendon is here 12:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report ( link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot ( talk) 00:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
You have closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ due to inactivity, but it was requested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, that the closure should be summarized. Could you do this? Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 10:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
An opener reports and their desire to close the report when the focus has moved to their actions is not something users should edit war about - shame on you Ent - there is discussion about this admin unresolved and your closure is not correct at all - Youreally can 20:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Its too late now - you remember this next time and keep out of it - leave things alone that are unresolved - who are you to force closure - Youreally can 21:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
This is not the first time you inappropriately closed threads on the admin noticeboards. Do not do this again. You need to leave adequate time for people to respond, and be much more conservative closing threads. Gimmetoo ( talk) 12:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of ANI is "reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." It is not for commenting, or mentioning related events -- long term issues are not handled well at ANI and better served by DRN or RFC/U or possibly WQA (depending on the exact nature of the circumstance). If and when I see a thread where historical observation leads me to be fairly certain the thread will not converge to consensus to take action and may, instead, lead to escalation and/or frustration, I'll put a close on it. This is not in violation of policy because, as near as I can determine, there isn't a policy.
In any event if you disagree with a particular closing I'd recommend you revert it. Nobody Ent 22:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
How could I be in an edit war on I Am... Sasha Fierce? I've only edited that article once in like the last month ( history) Dan56 ( talk) 22:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to know why I received a warning when I did one revert on the article; an addition of a second album cover which violates Wikipedia image rules. — Statυs ( talk) 23:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment; I cannot see any earlier contribution from you on this thread. I have made no further comment since 24 th May, nor did I intend to, although there are seven further entries by other editors. Accepting without question that any editor can edit antwhere, why do you feel that my edit was inappropriately placed? It was, after all, a continuation of an ongoing thread. Please note that I have since been in contact with Malleus by e-mail.-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 20:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notification that the request for amendment you are involved in or are a named party to has been declined.
For the Arbitration Committee
-- Lord Roem ( talk) 15:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I was about to rpp semi mal's page on your notice. I'm not sure if that would piss him off, however. Advice? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I mentioned you here. Cla68 ( talk) 00:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
What I mean is that removing the comments removes the context for what I said. If I reply to something and then you remove it, others can't understand what I said — my comments are meaningless to them. You also removed one of my comments entirely. Nyttend ( talk) 19:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for prematurely requesting closure on that ANI thread. I haven't been on in a while, but I suppose that's still no excuse. It shall not happen again, I assure you. One pier (Logbook) 23:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
The potential problem with a non-admin logging a ban, is that it's admins who have to enforce it with blocks. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nobody Ent. Recently you reverted an edit of mine on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, writing "See talk." I checked the talk page but wasn't sure what you were referring to. What was your rationale in reverting the edit? Thanks. — Iamthedeus ( talk) 05:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Ent. I know you're not an admin yet, but since you seem to be online at present, and the community seems to approve of your housekeeping efforts on the various noticeboards, I wonder if you'd have a look here? I'd be grateful, and will be glad to answer any questions you might have, right here, too. Will check back here every five minutes or so, for the next thirty. Thanks, -- OhioStandard ( talk) 12:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Please be aware that all trolling posts that are vaguely related to me from the IP ranges 94.196.1.1/16 and 94.197.1.1/16 are ipsocks of Echigo mole. This was explained in great detail in the the recent arbcom review in answer to one of the questions ("Is Mathsci being harrassed by socks?") and appeared also in the WP:AN report that resulted in Echigo mole officially being listed as a community banned user. (Very occasionally Echigo mole will also use the older vodafone range 212.183.1.1/16. In March 2011 that range was blocked by a CU/arbitrator for three months because of persistent abuse by Echigo mole.) So if other users see such messages, they are likely to remove them on sight per WP:BAN. In cases like that, there is no need to wait for an SPI report to come through. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 03:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I have created a rough draft of what could become WP:EASYMONEY at User:Dennis Brown/EASYMONEY for the purpose of helping COI editors actually understand what they are doing wrong, how to fix it, and how to actually become a contributor instead of a liability. I'm trying to avoid all the adhoc speeches given to the growing number of PR and marketing firms that are joining us, and at the same time avoid taking a stand on the policy or politics of the issue. I am interested in your opinion of the wisdom of this. If you like the concept, please feel free to participate or modify in any way you choose. I'm not married to any format or details in this, it is just a rough draft at this point. I will drop this same note to a few other editors whom I feel would be beneficial in considering this page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there a reason you uncollapse discussions closed up via wp:deny? I'm just not understanding why. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I notice that you archived an a/n/i discussion I just opened, which seems irregular. I've reopened it and hope that it may stay open for others' comments and possible aministrative action. Thanks.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 15:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Sondra Locke". Thank you. -- Canoe1967 ( talk) 19:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
But what if he was disruptive on article pages - reverting people correcting his mistakes? Have you considered that? He kept readding a grammar mistake, and also claiming that a source didn't mention a person when it did in the second para. Taking it to his talk page was better than the edit war he had started. Next, he disingenuously called my comments "trolling", his usual ploy when backed into a corner. Lastly, is it appropriate to swear at me in the edit summary on his talk page? Have you told him off for that? He did it to another editor recently as well ( calling him an "abusive asshole"). Btw, why did you decide to step in? Were you asked? Regards, Malick78 ( talk) 21:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
If you would like to apply to be a clerk, please let me know and I'll forward your request to the mailing list. If not, could you please refrain from performing clerking activities on the case pages? Thanks, NW ( Talk) 00:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I am IP from X-ray_computed_tomography. You can reply here, I'll check for a reply here. I read your post at the WQA. I seem to understand from your message, that the WQA & DRN are a waste of time. Is it?
I kind of suspected that, because both places say that they operate by discussion and agreement, and so far, jmh649 totally ignored both, so it seems like not much discussion and agreement are going to take place. I expect that he would continue to delete whatever he can, and without explaining. This is quite discouraging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.215.205 ( talk) 02:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rape_culture#RFC_-_Multiple_Factors. 4 Points for consideration - Synonymic Usage, Quotations, Sources. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) ( talk) 20:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, regarding [13] and other on the basis of the AGF doctrine - I ask why you remove problem notices from the articles before addressing the problems which they describe. These had already been reviewed and corrected by the editors who removed the CSD notices. They listed real problems which are now unlikely to be resolved if they are deleted and that they also function to inform both the general public of the quality of the article. I hope we can have a more productive cooperation in the future. I suggest that you should have a second look at those pages - rather than revert them like a robot. Good day BO | Talk 08:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry but I did not get you when you said "referred elsewhere" can you please clarify where. Thanks -- DBig Xray 11:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I think you have the wrong person, Salvio giuliano ( talk · contribs) and Tiptoety ( talk · contribs) clerked the civility case. ;) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Toddst1 ( talk) 04:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Admire your dispassionate professionalism. (Would you consider being Mentor?) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 11:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
I like your style. IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
Diff #6 ( [14]) looks fine to me - it looks like a legitimate on topic question. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 19:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Diff #6 ( [15]) looks fine to me - it looks like a legitimate on topic question. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 19:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello: Please avoid running afoul of WP:BITE and think carefully before you accuse someone of being a SPA, as you did with this edit. Thanks. T. trichiura Infect me 18:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Gerard, (hope you don't mind me calling you by your former name for which I have got use to from our last WQA discussion all those months ago).
A user submitted a report at WQA, in regards to a very complex and overheated issue. However, to date, only the involved parties have commented on the WQA thread, with exception to one uninvolved person who asked a question but never followed up the response to that question. A diplomatic proposal has been made in an attempt to resolve the issue, to which 3 of the 4 involved users have support the proposal. My question is, would it be possible to glance an eye on proceedings and act on anything that needs to be acted upon, in your own time of course. Much regards, Wesley Mouse 10:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
If you intend to keep the "as an engineer, I ..." comments in there, it must go back to being a userspace essay. Is there any way you can edit "personalization" out and make it generic ASAP? ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 12:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe that asking someone to consider if the language they're using hurts their case is a violation of AGF. I take them at their word that they didn't intend it that way. One can use an extremely poor choice of words in the best of faith (and people, myself included, often do just that.) 28bytes ( talk) 03:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notification that an amendment request involving you has been declined and archived.
For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem ( talk) 00:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
You may want to tweak your AN/I close as it can easily be read as saying that jayron was the one blocked for trolling. Monty 845 01:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey, there is a discussion about merging WQA to DRN: Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Committee#Time to shutter formal mediation?. IRWolfie- ( talk) 19:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, it would be good to get perspective from another volunteer on my response to this incident: [17] (I manually archived after the last comment following the WQA instructions), also User_talk:Bittergrey#Note. Do you have any comments on my handling of this incident? Cheers, IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Nobody Ent. If you have the time, can you please close this discussion at AN? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 19:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you open to trouting? Arcandam ( talk) 01:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
If your intention is to piss me off it is pretty successful. Please stop. Thanks in advance, Arcandam ( talk) 02:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
You know what I'm talking about. :) Manning ( talk) 13:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I declined because two other admins whose judgement I trust said they felt the block was valid without having to know exactly who the alleged sockmaster account was. Personally I feel every such block should at least try to identify a sockmaster, but I don't set policy. If you want to discuss this further, talk to those other two admins. I really can't add anything more by way of clarification. Sorry. Daniel Case ( talk) 01:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I have a question regarding WP:ROPE since HanzoHattori/Niemti was given a second chance. Based on the user's recent contributions, would the user be more likely to be blocked instantly? I want to tell you about this in case he gets in trouble again. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 02:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Just noticed your work at WP:WQA. You seem...insufficiently appreciated. Homunculus ( duihua) 13:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC) |
Another discussion about you going on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
What you just did is precisely what the discussion was all about. Please revert.-- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Please stop closing ANI reports. You are not an admin and based on your recent misjudgements I think you are unfortunately not experienced enough to know when discussions on WP:ANI should be closed. Arcandam ( talk) 16:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for moving that report to the bottom. I saw the poorly formatted request and didn't even think about the fact that it was on top too. Cheers! -- Tgeairn ( talk) 01:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
What on Earth was this about? If an admin raises a thread at ANI is it likely that said admin does not believe there to be some other more appropriate forum for it. Non-admins should certainly not be summarily shutting such threads ten minutes after they're opened. Don't do that again, please. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 11:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
H I - I know you were not there but please allow people that were to deal with their sharing - thanks - Youreally can 19:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Very Suspicious comments have come from a user on the Talk page of the Controversies at the 2012 Olympics. They have come on to the talk page and entered into what I can only describe as goading. To attempt to elicit a response from me. please see this latest edit and let me know what you think and if you have similar concerns that I do. Sport and politics ( talk) 18:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted some of your edits accordingly. If you wish to discuss further, there would be a good spot to do so. NW ( Talk) 20:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Well said. Please copy your first paragraph to the other section to which you refer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi - please note and change your comment if required - Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Youreallycan#YRC_Proposal
I have updated my position -
I think that the civility condition and the one RR restriction would render this BLP discussion clause as unnecessary and extreme punishment - if I cant revert and I cant make a single rude comment without being site banned then as I am not a BLP violator then I can be allowed to comment about living people but not allowed to edit content about such.
Youreally can 15:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Check your email. Dougweller ( talk) 16:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you want me to nuke all the pages under User:Gerardw? Cheers! Reaper Eternal ( talk) 12:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I noticed this. Did you think that was helpful? In light of the content of the guideline you referred to, did you honestly think that my single notification to a previously-involved admin was not "polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief" enough? Perhaps you might on reflection wish to strike your comment? -- John ( talk) 20:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I just came across comment you made a month ago on Ihardlythinkso's talk page. Although I have no particular opinion on Ihardlythinkso or his participation in that prior thread (I have encountered him recently, in a completely unrelated thread in which I have not have any problems with him), I'm very gratified to see that I'm not the only editor who is against the practice of breaking up another editors' messages with one's own responses. Thus far, when encountering others who did this to my messages, I responded by politely asking them not to, because (and I'm going off memory here), I seem to recall reading or being told somewhere that this was permitted as a matter of personal preference. But do you know if there's a specific policy or guideline to cite against it? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 20:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Please unprotect Penuylaps' talk page. There's no legitimate policy reason for preventing editors to edit it. Nobody Ent 22:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
for closing the YouReallyCan debate on AN/I - I haven't waded through so much aggression since Justin Bieber on Twitter got AfDed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC) |
I see you have made several contributions since the item I raised with you which is now archived here. I notice you did not respond to the serious question I asked you regarding the misstatement you made at AN/I. If this was an oversight, will you please rectify it at your earliest convenience? It is obviously too late for you to strike the inaccurate and unhelpful allegation you made about me, but I would appreciate your clarification. Thank you for your attention. -- John ( talk) 20:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be a shortage of people willing to close RfCs, and they are piling up. Most don't require an admin, just someone with good common sense, solid experience and an ability to judge consensus. You easily qualify. Please consider helping out by closing one or two a week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | ||
I see that WQA has now been closed. Even though that happened, I think that Wikipedia owes you proper recognition for all the good work that you did there. Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | ||
I see that WQA has now been closed. Even though that happened, I think that Wikipedia owes you proper recognition for all the good work that you did there. Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
You know, I'm actually trying to help. A guy coming in with a comment telling me the idea is dumb, and telling me that my request for people to comment isn't right, is not helpful or civil. One day, Wikipedia might actually show it cares about that generally. But it won't happen if people don't speak up for improvements. -- Avanu ( talk) 18:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Please do not interfere with my discussions with Sports and politics unless I specifically ask for help from other editors. I see your postings as being obstructive and possibly muddying the waters of the disagreement with unsolicited feedback. Thank You.-- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 10:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
He made a statement on an/i that i don't know what he means. how am i supposed to ask him/her then? if they aren't willing to clairify then why did they make the statement to begin with? just asking. 199.101.61.190 ( talk) 18:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I've added a talk page note, about an addition. It is a very useful and short essay, I hesitated before adding a new paragraph, wanting your input and perhaps some tweaking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
In case you didn't know, they for some reason quoted your userpage as the "Quote of the Now". Also, they took it out of context to make you sound like an anti-Jimbo anarchist. I know they're just trolls and if you respond to this at all they'll probably raise a huge stink about it and make your name a joke all over the internet, but just thought i'd let you know :) -- ████ ██ 12:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, but BSZ's comment now appears in the middle of yours... Giant Snowman 11:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Don't visit my page accusing me of incivility. I think you'll find I did no such thing and your interference is in itself incivil. J3Mrs ( talk) 11:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Nobody Ent...its pointless to remind some editors of some policies like NPA and CIVIL if they refuse to have any history of abiding by those policies, or have a posse of buddies which will defend them and Wikilawyer about why the policies don't apply to these editors, or we have an arbitration committee that is uncommitted to doing the very thing they were elected to do. I say to let anarchy prevail until it becomes so preposterous they'll simply be no rational defense for it, not that there is now. MONGO 15:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I thought I had let it go - what have I done now to make you think otherwise? Giant Snowman 12:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for closing that. Drmies ( talk) 15:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
FYI - Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Cover up of Administrator GiantSnowman's personal attack and edit warring. Giant Snowman 18:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. With regards to the ANI discussion of JHunterJ/Apteva, I was looking for a template to add to the warning notification [18] to make it look official and to make sure it is done properly, but there doesn't seem to be a template for MOS at WP:AC/DS. Is this something to be concerned about? Thanks. -- Neotarf ( talk) 21:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Outing is whatever admins say it is. Silly user, policies are for plebes. Viriditas ( talk) 22:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Once the outcome is certain, it's all about reducing drama, and the details are not as important.
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER 23:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
please discuss elsewhere |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
please discuss elsewhere |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The media file you uploaded as File:Northdumplingnavy.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.
It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.
Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).
{{
subst:usernameexpand|NE Ent/Archive/2012}}
will produce an appropriate expansion,Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 21:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Lions in the Desert.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 21:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Nobody Ent 20:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your look at this with an open mind and voicing oppose to the main stream! People like you make me stay, to be continued, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi NE. Thanks very much for your timely action at WP:AN. I tried my best to simply post links to discussions elsewhere, with a short neutral background and an explanation for doing it the way I did (=I'm lazy), with as little opinion as possible. I was amazed to see my note treated as an invitation to spread the "discussion" (=the repetition of angry things one has already said ad nauseam elsewhere) to yet another forum, with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests, User talk:Malleus Fatuorum, and User talk:Jclemens apparently not being felt to be large or numerous enough as arenas for all the self-expression and Sturm und Drang required by… by all the emotion, I guess. The way the section developed, I was afraid the whole thing would get removed soon, and since I still feel my links may be of use, I'm glad you shifted the discussion elsewhere. Bishonen | talk 11:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC).
"what respectful is in the consistent cultures ..." am I right in assuming you meant constituent cultures? pablo 11:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Reaper Eternal ( talk) 01:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
re your revert; similar edits from the same user at User:Jack Merridew and User talk:Davenbelle. I have no idea if they are supported by policy, fancy taking a look? pablo 10:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The discussion happened in the official IRC channel (even the bot uses Foundation resources), open to the public, and I disclosed it here at enwp. Your choice of word to describe it is unfortunate and imprecise. Just as a great deal of activity happens in email, a great deal happens on IRC, in part because it is in real time. Many discussion happen on IRC because an admin doesn't want to play cowboy and wants to get the opinions of others in a timely fashion but without causing drama in case they are wrong. It isn't an attempt to end-around the process here, it is a part OF the process. I've never hidden anything that happens via IRC, unless as instructed by ArbCom due to privacy or legal concerns. I've never taken part in any "back room deals" and I use the resource for the purpose of furthering the goals of Wikipedia, not to be secretive or to do illicit things, which is what you are accusing me of [19], by definition. As you are normally quite civil, I was disappointed by this. There are always going to be things you or others are not immediately aware of (or ever aware of in limited circumstances), but that doesn't mean my motives are nefarious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
[ http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/April08/Perspective.Turner.html War and the anthropologist: Why an academic society continues to agonize over clandestine research By Terence Turner The American Anthropological Association (AAA) is again caught up in a debate over the ethics of secret research] Clandestine may refer to: Secrecy, the practice of hiding information from certain individuals or groups, perhaps while sharing it with other individuals
I had forgotten about Wikipedia:There is no justice. I will be citing that essay quite liberally. MBisanz talk 12:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Re. I was nominated for Wikipedia Review's "Balls of steel" award once, lol. I don't exactly remember why — probably for blocking FT2 — but the balls of steel entered my sparsely-populated long-term memory. (Mind you, I don't exactly agree with you, I agree with Guerillero, who put the matter very well.) Bishonen | talk 13:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC).
This was very well said. His condescending demand that 'simple courtesies' be offered to a vandalism-only account that had already received four consecutive warnings before being taken to a noticeboard left me gobsmacked. We should be able to block a throwaway vandalism account without this much fuss; and I despair for the non-admins editors who believe that Bwilkins' instructions represent the 'right' way to get help. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
...for this. It is appreciated ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 15:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment on my talk page as well. Sorry, I didn't realize I was being uncouth- the only other ban I actively pushed for was for someone who refused to really even participate, so it went very differently. This is easily fixed. Thanks for the advice. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Just FYI, it was only a 48 hour block. We generally don't indef IPs. He'll get reblocked for longer if he comes back and continues, but the most we generally do is 2 years at a time for the worst socking/abuse.--v/r - T P 21:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
If you think this is meaningless complaining, it is a very wrong assessment. It's easy to watch it on TV. It's different being shot at.
Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 14:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The fundamental problem here is that AN/I is dominated by the irresponsible, the responsible generally won't go anywhere near it, and non-admins most clearly don't have the same rights there to speak as admins do. Admins can come in and lob charges at regular editors with narry a diff, but if a non-admin challenges them, they are ignored or chastized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is neither fair nor just, as I've attempted to explain in No justice. That is a situation I have neither the power to fix or the inclination to try. I'm always aware there are people on the other end of accounts, and what I can try to do, and sometimes succeed at, are to make things a little bit better for them. My goal today was simply help prevent Memento from getting chewed up in the ANI shark tank. I despise boomerang, it's a harsh overreaction bandied about by folks who think it's cute or clever or some such thing, as opposed to understanding it's just rude. So before someone jumps in, I'd rather throw a close tag around a nascent thread, hope it sticks, and hope they'll willing to accept my advice. . Nobody Ent 16:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Your efforts were in vain, and Elen jumped on to Pen's talkpage (apparently all in good fun), then, just after Pen filed a Checkuser Ombudsman against Courcelles, Corcelles blocked Pen, stating that he was trolling Elen. <shrug> Kinda crazy, but I'm not prepared to spend two months cajoling Courcelles into recognising the obvious.
Rich
Farmbrough, 22:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
support. What Elen said.-- Shirt58 ( talk) 00:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}wanna regen the archive index?
Hello again! An unregistered user changed back the name of the first song off The Poison. He added a reference from Last.fm, but I think that is not a reliable source. Moreover, I have added some references to the talk page such as the official BFMV website, itunes and BBC, among others. I can not reverse his edition due to Wikipedia: 3RR. So, I'd like to ask you to solve the problem, protect the page and block that user who insists on vandalism. Cristian MH ( talk) 10:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Please refrain from attacking yourself, as you recently did. [20] It's... um, uncivil? Yeah, let's go with that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
You're not Nobody no more!? (Neither nevermind if not, if NE is neither either.) </joke> Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 13:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
You might want to re-register the Nobody Ent ( talk · contribs) account to prevent a vandal from registering it and impersonating you. Cheers! Reaper Eternal ( talk) 22:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
You know what that is for. Tijfo098 ( talk) 03:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
For your message at the MfD page; that's a really accurate summary of what's going on. It's humor in situations like these that allow me to enjoy my time here on Wikipedia. So thank you. Go Phightins ! 03:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC) |
I dont recall getting an edit conflict at all. I usually mark an edit with one of them as (EC) in the edit summary. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 13:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that you deleted the COI tag Qworty placed on John Bassette. I was wondering if you could look over another few articles. Qworty has been tagging and generally chopping up about 30 articles I have edited. His/her issue is a long-settled arbcom from 2007 which did NOT result in a decision that I could not edit these articles nor that anything need be done about them. I have no idea what has spurred this sudden campaign, but whole reference sections and properly-constructed bibliographies are being deleted, then COI and Notability tags are being slapped on. I don't expect you to take this whole thing on, but if you could at least look into the COI tags I'd appreciate it; I've listed only those with the COI tag, but there are many more. I am loathe to do so since he/she is targetting me, and I don't want to be accused of a revert war.
Starwood Festival, ]], David Jay Brown, Jesse Wolf Hardin, Stephen Kent (Musician), Muruga Booker, M. Macha Nightmare, Baba Raul Canizares, Prem Das, Gavin Bone, George R. Harker, Armor & Sturtevant, Stratospheerius, Lauren Raine, Owain Phyfe, Lasara Firefox, Badi Assad, Chas Smith, Jim Donovan (musician), Robert Lee “Skip” Ellison, Yvonne Frost, Ed Fitch, Telesma, Phyllis Curott, Vivianne Crowley, Brushwood Folklore Center and Ian Corrigan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosencomet ( talk • contribs)
Good move. This is clearly going to grow and fester and it's a great idea to take it off the main AN/I page. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Several comments from further thoughts yesterday:
In order to make sure outside people have an opportunity to ask for reviews decisions to be reviewed you need a formal and basically by definition bureaucratic but transparent process to close discussions.
You're probably also going to have to block people for challenging stuff outside those rules (and have those blocks stand). -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 08:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Item on the bottom of my talk page you might be interested in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I've taken a stab at clarifying what I meant. Let me know if that answers your question. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 00:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
... a little harsh? ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 21:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
...for signing me! Leaky Caldron 13:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Would love your opinion. In user space now, designed to be both an informational guide for those that are crying "incivil!" prematurely and a bit of a guide for admin. If it isn't redundant to another essay and worth building up to mainspace, would like to get your input, and likely Kim's and a few others whom agree on the "threshold" issue regarding civility blocks. If it is redundant, please point me there so I can contribute. I get the feeling that civility is going to be a common theme in the upcoming year. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Response at User:Bluerim. -- JDC808 ♫ 02:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat ( talk) 05:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
This thread is not a content dispute. It's an editor edit warring and refusing to engage, IRWolfie- ( talk) 23:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
And all your edits have been undone. I have solid proof and I'm right and you're wrong. I know something you guys don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxXD1 ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
You're quick--maybe too quick for others' taste. Happy days, Drmies ( talk) 20:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
While I know you wrote Wikipedia:There is no justice, reading some of your recent noticeboard comments made me think of a post I wrote some time ago to Avanu. MBisanz talk 14:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
"As a general practice, we don't file ANIs on indeffed blocked users ... a passing admin will revoke talk page access if / when it becomes necessary", from the "Talk page access recovation for User:Pablo.morales.la.bomba" section of WP:ANI. Just a note: it's actually appropriate to report talk page abuse for blocked users at ANI; it's supported by the header text of WP:AIV, which tells people to go to ANI to report talk page abuse because bots won't realise that accusations of talk page abuse should be treated differently from other blocked users. Nyttend ( talk) 08:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
You know how yesterday you hid some of the comments there as ad hominem attacks? Well, there are now more for you to hide. Danjel called Epeefleche a meatpuppet and called me a "delicate little flower", again referencing a completely ungermane AfD. I have frankly had it with Danjel: he refuses to communicate on his talk page, but he forces interaction by continually lambasting me at an AfD of an article. Could you please tell him to step away from the AfD? p b p 07:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Huzzah. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 20:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"No editor has ever been physically harmed by posting on a talk page."
Ha. Has little user seen
this, or
the terrible fate of the little Bladestorm? Or ever been brave enough to post on
User talk:Darwinbish?
bishzilla
ROARR!! 11:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC).
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for all the helpful commentary on the various noticeboards. Pass a Method talk 16:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC) |
For the thoughtful cleaning up at Sandy hook. I'm trying to play mediator on the talk page after semiprotecting it, and it is good know someone without an agenda is watching over the actual content. This is going to be a long week or three over there, and with emotions running so high, it is going to take some vigilance to keep it neutral and clean. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say I think your close was a bad idea. It hasn't been 18 hours of mudslinging, it is a conflict that has lasted several months, and I fear it hasn't been resolved by tossing it back to the article talk page. I'll grant you that there has been poor conduct from both sides of the discussion, but not from all editors (barring rare lapses or poorly phrased comments, for which I have twice (if I remember correctly) given immediate apologies for). Here it is implied that after a certain point you will get help to deal with it. I hope you will not claim I have failed the criteria in the first paragraph as I have NEVER made a claim against another editor without providing diffs, or the diffs already being provided in the discusion (excepting asking someone to cease and desist in a direct reply to a comment). Furthermore, I have made reports at the designated forums. Why can't I receive help from experienced editors to deal with this? 85.167.109.64 ( talk) 22:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to distinguish between Wikipedia-That-Should-Be (WTSB) and Wikipedia-That-Is (WTI) in the following advice/explanation:
I would like to understand your perspective behind this edit [21]. Do you really believe that that discussion was moving toward improving the article, as opposed to trolling? I collapsed the discussion for reasons that I think you are very well aware of, having participated in the recent North8000 ANI. Is is really necessary for us to create a magnet for more drama? - Mr X 21:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Dude, I know you believe you're doing the right thing by warning us, but if you're paying attention, we're way in the process of burying the hatchet. Your warnings really add nothing of positive value to the situation right now, I hope you can see that. -- 213.196.218.39 ( talk) 13:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
You are being contacted because you participated in this RfC in February about the scope of the article on Indigenous peoples. The discussion has now been revived at Talk:Indigenous_peoples#Scope_of_article.2C_Definitions.2C_etc and your input would be appreciated. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 12:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
AutomaticStrikeout (
T •
C) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
You appear to be having issues at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents...? Giant Snowman 17:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
This page 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. |
In your thoughtful post at ANI, are you saying that incompetent AfD nominations are ok because they result in article clean-up? It doesn't always work that way. In the case of María Viramontes I took the rescue approach of adding sources to document the notability. I have been attacked and hurt for this decision. My content work has been trashed, my work at the AfD discussion has resulted in personal attacks, and my work to restore reason at the DRV has been disregarded by a vote-counting close. In all this time no one has ever said that the topic failed WP:GNG. If it is really true that AfD nominations are inherently good for the project, we should have a robot create them. And the counterpart to saying that bad nominations are ok, is that it creates a two-tiered society of finger-pointers and clean-up-servants. I welcome your comments at WT:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes—if the current set of sources doesn't pass WP:GNG, no editor will say how many more sources are needed. Similarly at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Removal_of_sources_on_notability_grounds_at_Mindell_Penn, no editor has answered any of the four questions that I asked. Thanks, Unscintillating ( talk) 22:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nobody Ent. Just wanted to say thank you for picking up my unsigned comment in the workshop, I've dropped in and rectified the issue by adding my own signature, and noting what time I made the original comment there. I guess I was typing way too fast and missed out a tilde :) Have a good new year. BarkingFish 18:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
In this edit you appear to maintain that Deb implied that the other editors are either stupid or lying; now, that's quite unhelpful and also an assumption of bad faith. Would you be willing to remove that bit, please? Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Please do not add edits to Wikipedia policy pages, especially if controversial as you did at WP:NPA. Such edits are considered very controversial, and should have legal administration discussion and approval before placing the edits there. Abhijay ☎(Тalk)/ ✍ (My Deeds) 06:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
You know, if someone goes raking muck on ANI, I think they should be prepared to be treated like an adult. That's what happened in the case of Bouket. It's not as if s/he was minding his/her own business and Drmies or I came along and started picking on him/her - or biting him as you put it.
I think your conclusions are way off base and I should point out that none of my actions with either Aditya or Bouket were administrative. Telling someone - especially someone involved in wikihounding another editor - to "get over it" is very different than telling them to fuck off - which in most cases would be uncivil. I'd expect you to know the difference. Toddst1 ( talk) 00:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure thing, I was planning on it but didn't rush as this user follows my edits and nearly always comments on every edit I make in any talkspace. Thanks for the reminder though and I will follow the procedures more promptly going forward. Did I bring this issue forth at the right location? LuciferWildCat ( talk) 03:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for picking up that legal threat and referring it to the proper board. I left for lunch before he made the threat, and and he was already blocked and had his appeal denied by the time I got back. Mmyers1976 ( talk) 19:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The person to whom this comment was addressed has been on-wiki longer than MF himself, so it's a rather poor example of "newbie-biting". Did you mean something else? Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I responded on my talk page. LuciferWildCat ( talk) 05:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm always happy to answer questions, but in this case I'm afraid I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you asking if I think it's a personal attack to accuse a specific editor of incompetence, or if making the general statement that "some editors are incompetent" is a PA? I thought I would ask you directly here rather than clutter up the workshop page. 28bytes ( talk) 21:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you, Unscintillating ( talk) 04:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Please stop doing this [2]. It's disrespectful of the editors who have taken the the time to comment, is unnecessary, and not consistent with established Wikipedia WP:TPG and local convention Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/Volunteer_instructions11:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody Ent ( talk • contribs)
I just recently started Wikiproject Cooperation and I thought you would be interested. Thanks for your time. Silver seren C 01:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I gather something I wrote [3] offended you. Sorry, it wasn't intended to. If I could, I'd rephrase. Thanks for opening my eyes... so to speak. :-)
GRuban (
talk) 15:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I have replied to your comment. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Makes me think something wrong and another ANI was necessary. I would never have even paid any attention to him if he had t done that until today I didn't even have the article on my watchlist. I'm going to ask him politely to to post on my talk page for me that's it closed unless he starts again. I just hope he has read the links to the policies that I gave him at the very start. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I also object to your archiving that thread, again - why are you doing that? Youreallycan 15:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello!
Would you please give me an explanation/reason for deleting my entry in the article with a revert
to a version that user QuasyBoy has already reverted without a reason.
Thank you.
AmblinX 21:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I shall be taking your advice and will become the other duck (now with added helium for rising above the fray). [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack ( talk • contribs) 08:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate it, that's really all I am going to say on the matter. LuciferWildCat ( talk) 04:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I accidentally rolled back one of your recent edits at ANI. I self reverted within seconds. Sorry about that. I was simply looking through my watch list on my iPhone. One of the potential problems with a multitouch device. Again sorry. JOJ Hutton 14:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
[5] ... but will this case never end? Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment regarding the brief rangeblock causing presumed collateral damage to this editor; I am uncertain why you felt impelled to make it. Clearly one does not give IP exemtion without confirming the nature of the problem and in consultation with the blocking admin, however straightforward the situation may appear. As the block was set to expire in only a few hours, this procedure appeared unnecessary. A word to the editor, inviting his further input if the block did not release seemed, and still seems, entirely appropriate. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 11:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
oops! .. thanks :) — Ched : ? 11:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Nice piece. pablo 12:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I and everyone I know use the term "babe" affectionately. Whatever. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Nobody Ent. You have a userbox for your amusement at User:Begoon/Other Duck Userbox's talk page. Thanks. Begoon talk 07:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I have deleted the RFC/U as having been improperly certified, since it was premised on the unproven assertion that Ash and Fae are the same person. You are welcome to create a fresh RFC/U on Fae alone, but it should not include unproven allegations of other identities. Will Beback talk 07:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I think you've not fully signed here. Only the date appeared for some reason. ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 11:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
As you are quite involved in the RfC/U itself, it's probably best to leave the closure of the ANI stuff to an involved admin. ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 18:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
(>**)> Sorry if I seem to be being a pain; love you really! Despite the wry and wacky humour, I genuinely do think it's an important distinction for newbies, particularly, to be aware of. Pesky ( talk … stalk!) 11:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC) |
Please do not make me do this again. I don't care if you think a group a posts are off-topic: you should not be removing others' posts like this. I take extreme offense to people removing what I took the time to type when it was in good faith. If it went over your head: ignore it. Doc talk 13:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nobody Ent, regarding your response to me here; the way I have understood things, unless they have changed, blatant socks (as opposed to suspected ones) can be reported to AN/I. This being said, when I was told to report obvious socks to AN/I that was five years ago, and I rarely participate at AN/I now (it isn't even on my watchlist) and almost never at SPI. I hope that explains where I was coming from with what I said, and I will keep your note in mind in future. (Posted this here because it didn't seem relevant to explain over there.) Best. Acalamari 16:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you slap {{
uw-3rr}} on the talk pages of every user brought to
WP:WA? Removing copyright violations is clearly not a violation of 3RR and I was not even notified of the discussion about my edits.
Eagles
24/7
(C) 05:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite. Let me think about it. Right now I am focussed on Political operatives and chronicalling (sp) actions, conversations etc to provide a history for debriefing when the nomination process is over and the general election starts. ``` Buster Seven Talk 18:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Didn't notice your rename...I was wondering where you'd gone :-) Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 00:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice i'll give that a try. [[ JamieRothery ( talk) 10:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)]]
Hi there. I declined your recent taggings of pages in User:Joo's userspace. Those are apparently stale reports from back in 2010, so there is no need to speedy delete them. And they are not clear attack pages, so G10 does not apply anyway. If you believe they should be deleted, please take them to WP:MFD. Regards So Why 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Just FYI... That user was an obvious troll, and also apparently a sock, and was indef'd just as you were reprimanding it on the MSK page. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Nobody Ent. This is just a short note to express my thanks for your time and your wisdom on WP:WQA recently. I’m particularly grateful for the soundness of your contribution at diff. Many thanks.
I have made my closing remarks on the thread and I publicly acknowledged your contribution – see my diff. Dolphin ( t) 02:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC).
No problem. Thanks for letting me know. ---- Jack | talk page 17:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to get to a thread first and be able to say what I think. Geesh. I constantly see what you post and think "damn it .. that's what I wanted to say". I am truly impressed with the way you think and post here Nobody (although it's getting very hard to think of you as either a "nobody" or an "ent"). All my best, and thanks for all you do. — Ched : ? 21:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC) (yea, I know we don't always agree .. but who does?) :)
Ent, I couldn't post a reply to Mangoe's incident report on me, so I posted it temporarily to my Talk page. details are there. Redslider ( talk) 17:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
ent - anyway to chat with you? my email is red-at-holopoet-dot-com. thanx. Redslider ( talk) 18:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I really miss Gilda. Got to see her live in the glory days of my youth, back before I really understood what the big deal was about Mary Magdalen. Thanks for the smile. Risker ( talk) 01:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you've notified NYY51 yet. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 20:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your support over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Removal of templates from redirects. You seemed to be the only contributor who actually understood what happened. (If you wish to respond, please do so here.) HairyWombat 05:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 10:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Discussion and expression of different views is something I consider very important in a collaborative project. In my enthusiasm for understanding issues affecting Wikipedia, and expressing them as well as possible, my comments on your essay almost certainly came across as more sharply critical than I intended. I offer my apologies for that, Geometry guy 21:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Over here. There's an interesting discussion, which you might well want to contribute to. Pesky ( talk) 06:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Home-Made Barnstar | ||
I've really appreciated the wisdom of many of your recent contributions, but this seemed particularly apposite. Keep being a deep thinker. It was nice to meet you. John ( talk) 21:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC) |
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Lions in the Desert requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. DreamFieldArts ( talk) 01:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
You are a sockpuppet. What are you going to do about it. Midemer ( talk) 19:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Funny, you did not respond like you say I should. See my talk page for details.
Midemer (
talk) 19:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Nobody, have you had a chance to look at my draft for the Brian Lamb article? If so, I'd be interested in your feedback; the current discussion has gotten off-track, and it could certainly use new or returning voices. Hope you have a moment to take a look and offer your view. Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 17:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, can you ask DBigXray to stop this lame editwar adding my own name on top of my comment? [6] [7] [8] ...I also replied to your question. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 15:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Nice photo. Did you take it? Toddst1 ( talk) 16:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!
Mistress Selina Kyle ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.
Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{ subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
That's brilliant, thank you for sorting it out. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 22:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
If you move a page, which contains non-free images, than the non-free rationale of the images should be update. This is just a note for the future, as I have updated the fair-use rationales for this page move. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 00:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nobody Ent, you reverted a change in 479582181 commenting "see talk page". However, I cannot find a justification of that reversion on the Talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Reversion#Explain_reverts. Then, please either revert your reversion or explain it. If your reversion persists unjustified, it will not be possible to provide much justification if your reversion itself has to be reverted.
Thank you-- Chealer ( talk) 03:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey I replied on my page
But also, do you know anyone for a new mentor who you could recommend maybe (I said in that post at the end but you deleted that too )? I thought you might be a good person to ask? Thanks for any help -- Mistress Selina Kyle ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 13:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I should know by now that if you use strong language to make a strong point, people will ignore the strong point entirely and focus on the strong language. Anyway, frustrating as that is, you're right that the language was not serving to de-escalating the discussion, so I have refactored my comment. 28bytes ( talk) 17:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I hafta say, that I am utterly shocked and surprised that nobody came here to badger you regarding a recent close that you made (you know which one.) I mean, the closing statement basically said what many of us had said previously---that it was a farce and shouldn't have gone on as long as it did. The fact that you (as a contributor to the discussion and ostensibly 'endorser') could close it that way, and have nobody berate you over it or question the close shows how little people cared at the end. I'm not going to call it a good close, but will say it was a gutsy one that needed to be closed... and I definitely don' t think it is worth any more air than it got... but I've been watching your page/AN/ANI for somebody to object and to whine that you closed it the way you did (basically saying it should be deleted... but nobody has.)--- Balloonman Poppa Balloon 20:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
for being bold and taking on redlinks in the nursing template. looks much better now. DA Sonnenfeld ( talk) 16:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC) |
Thank you. Nobody Ent
...for this! I usually like to leave closing discussions until they have died down, but there are cases when it's right to step in and stop a going-nowhere discussion from pointlessly absorbing lots more time and energy. This was one of those times! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
...for this. EyeSerene talk 14:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up! Some fun coincidences going down there. — foxj 14:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I reopened that thread on AN with the agreement of the archiving admin, who had the same misunderstanding that you did. Please read it again and let it run its course. Your 3rr warning on my talk page was inappropriate and unnecessary. Please don`t do that again. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 15:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Excelsior (movie) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ~dee( talk?) 14:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello NE Ent/Archive. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
How is it not exactly true? "Functionally equivalent" is incorrect, in that it implies the physics definition of weight, in which case there would be functional equivalence at one g. The whole point of my addition is that "weight" in certain contexts is legally, and by definition, absolutely equivalent to what in physics is known as mass. Or to put it another way, nutrition labels and product packages, by law, mean the same thing on the moon as on earth. Zyxwv99 ( talk) 15:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the warning - I didn't realise my edits had nuked anyone else's comments - i certainly wasn't warned that I had an edit conflict or anything, but I will watch out for this in the future. Cheers! BarkingFish 15:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 April 2012.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 17:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Looking forward to more input from you on this :) Those participating sign on agree I guess to request a mediator. Y12J ( talk) 20:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
WGFinley (
talk) 19:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
In response to your "It's a collaborative effort which requires some time to get article content in a state which balances all the points of view. Best option is to use the article talk page to discuss with your fellow editors. Nobody Ent 10:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)" I was tempted to use a swear word. As anyone who reads the talk page of the article in question (shiatsu), in the last two weeks can see, IT IS NOT A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT, it is the opinion of IRWolfie who has a monopoly on what can be added , what sources are reliable (those that agree with his point of view), what BITS of those sources are reliable (those that agree with his point of view). When I add things from the sources HE likes he says that it is not supported by the evidence - "The text you added just isn't supported by the reference. IRWolfie - (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)"- and when I point out the exact sentences that support my additions he just doesn't reply and tries to get me blocked. What were your words? "State which balances all points of view?" Am I supposed to believe it too? Shiatsushi ( talk) 20:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
...that SPI on the new user from yesterday was declined, and the user appears to have left the project as a result (or possibly due to the AFD of his article...or both.) Quinn ✹SUNSHINE 19:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry, I won't pull out "Don't template the regulars". I'm okay with that. However, I would like to point out, on your messsage
"To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors.
Thing is, consensus already exists in WP:SOAP. The RFC is not needed as WP:SOAP already represents consensus on this issue. I claim IAR, (WP:SOAP of course ) on closing out the RFC.
‑KoshVorlon
| Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj... - 17:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I see your point, but I had *already* asked them to not discuss their spat on that page. Isn't there room for hiding tangential cruft in cases like that? -- KarlB ( talk) 19:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about this. I wasn't even editing at the time, just looking something up – but not actually looking at WP:AN. I must have somehow clicked on rollback by mistake. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
No problem at all, I just didnt want everyone getting bogged down in the technicalities of 'should he, shouldnt he' and ignoring (albeit unintentionally) the civility issue. While everyone can agree/disagree on the starting point, I think it should be noted the over-reaction afterwards was totally out of line. Especially when attacking someones character. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 17:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I was just waiting to see if DC might come up with it on his own. :)
-- Avanu ( talk) 11:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I was hoping to get them both to just agree on some wording so everyone could move on. Didn't mean to offend. --
Avanu (
talk) 02:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I trust that you made the right decision in closing the AndyTheGrump complaint on the AN/I. I noticed you left my section open. I don't understand, did you purposefully mean to do that or did you missed it in the closure ? -- POVbrigand ( talk) 12:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I note that you have closed this matter. Based on previous behaviour it is likely that AuthorityTam will now return to editing in a couple of weeks. If he returns but does not resume the previous behaviour, it may not be necessary to return to ANI. However, if the behaviour does continue, would it be better to resume the ANI, or raise the matter at ArbCom instead? If so, what's the process? Is it appropriate to reference the ANI from ArbCom, or does the whole process have to start from scratch? On a separate but related matter, it would be nice to see some improvement in Willietell's behaviour.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 03:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi- I do apologise if you took my comment
here as insinuating that you or cyberpower specifically were angry. I've amended decided to remove my comment anyway, I shouldn't have got involved. Cheers.
S
D
5 03:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I know that you were very upset that YRC was blocked, and that everything was resolved in your eyes when he was unblocked. However, there were two users blocked, and your closing of the thread makes it look like both blocks were resolved, which they were not. Try to be more careful. AniMate 19:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Can you explain this? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Ents are of course very kind, patient, and wise, as exemplified by your good self at this Entmoot. Thanks again-- Shirt "fool of a Took!" 58 ( talk) 12:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
closings | |
Thank you for your approach to be known by the quality of your contributions and for being somebody who closes threads that lead only deeper into WP:Great Dismal Swamp aka Endmoot, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC) |
This piece was particularly well said. -- Dianna ( talk) 14:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The other editor has already said his intent was not to get actions, therefore the use of ANI was useless, and the wrong forum. Besides, I've only posted there twice :-) ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
But then, what did you do?
You went on to claim patently illogical things. I was not playing a "game" when I said I didn't get warned properly. Your deliberate caricature of my position, predicated upon your high-handed bullishness, is chronically wearing too.
I say this with utmost humility, "grow up!"
Brendon is
here 07:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
This discussion isn't going in the direction where it would actually help improve wikipedia, but taking up space. Brendon is here 12:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report ( link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot ( talk) 00:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
You have closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ due to inactivity, but it was requested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, that the closure should be summarized. Could you do this? Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 10:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
An opener reports and their desire to close the report when the focus has moved to their actions is not something users should edit war about - shame on you Ent - there is discussion about this admin unresolved and your closure is not correct at all - Youreally can 20:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Its too late now - you remember this next time and keep out of it - leave things alone that are unresolved - who are you to force closure - Youreally can 21:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
This is not the first time you inappropriately closed threads on the admin noticeboards. Do not do this again. You need to leave adequate time for people to respond, and be much more conservative closing threads. Gimmetoo ( talk) 12:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of ANI is "reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." It is not for commenting, or mentioning related events -- long term issues are not handled well at ANI and better served by DRN or RFC/U or possibly WQA (depending on the exact nature of the circumstance). If and when I see a thread where historical observation leads me to be fairly certain the thread will not converge to consensus to take action and may, instead, lead to escalation and/or frustration, I'll put a close on it. This is not in violation of policy because, as near as I can determine, there isn't a policy.
In any event if you disagree with a particular closing I'd recommend you revert it. Nobody Ent 22:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
How could I be in an edit war on I Am... Sasha Fierce? I've only edited that article once in like the last month ( history) Dan56 ( talk) 22:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to know why I received a warning when I did one revert on the article; an addition of a second album cover which violates Wikipedia image rules. — Statυs ( talk) 23:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment; I cannot see any earlier contribution from you on this thread. I have made no further comment since 24 th May, nor did I intend to, although there are seven further entries by other editors. Accepting without question that any editor can edit antwhere, why do you feel that my edit was inappropriately placed? It was, after all, a continuation of an ongoing thread. Please note that I have since been in contact with Malleus by e-mail.-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 20:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notification that the request for amendment you are involved in or are a named party to has been declined.
For the Arbitration Committee
-- Lord Roem ( talk) 15:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I was about to rpp semi mal's page on your notice. I'm not sure if that would piss him off, however. Advice? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I mentioned you here. Cla68 ( talk) 00:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
What I mean is that removing the comments removes the context for what I said. If I reply to something and then you remove it, others can't understand what I said — my comments are meaningless to them. You also removed one of my comments entirely. Nyttend ( talk) 19:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for prematurely requesting closure on that ANI thread. I haven't been on in a while, but I suppose that's still no excuse. It shall not happen again, I assure you. One pier (Logbook) 23:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
The potential problem with a non-admin logging a ban, is that it's admins who have to enforce it with blocks. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nobody Ent. Recently you reverted an edit of mine on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, writing "See talk." I checked the talk page but wasn't sure what you were referring to. What was your rationale in reverting the edit? Thanks. — Iamthedeus ( talk) 05:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Ent. I know you're not an admin yet, but since you seem to be online at present, and the community seems to approve of your housekeeping efforts on the various noticeboards, I wonder if you'd have a look here? I'd be grateful, and will be glad to answer any questions you might have, right here, too. Will check back here every five minutes or so, for the next thirty. Thanks, -- OhioStandard ( talk) 12:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Please be aware that all trolling posts that are vaguely related to me from the IP ranges 94.196.1.1/16 and 94.197.1.1/16 are ipsocks of Echigo mole. This was explained in great detail in the the recent arbcom review in answer to one of the questions ("Is Mathsci being harrassed by socks?") and appeared also in the WP:AN report that resulted in Echigo mole officially being listed as a community banned user. (Very occasionally Echigo mole will also use the older vodafone range 212.183.1.1/16. In March 2011 that range was blocked by a CU/arbitrator for three months because of persistent abuse by Echigo mole.) So if other users see such messages, they are likely to remove them on sight per WP:BAN. In cases like that, there is no need to wait for an SPI report to come through. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 03:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I have created a rough draft of what could become WP:EASYMONEY at User:Dennis Brown/EASYMONEY for the purpose of helping COI editors actually understand what they are doing wrong, how to fix it, and how to actually become a contributor instead of a liability. I'm trying to avoid all the adhoc speeches given to the growing number of PR and marketing firms that are joining us, and at the same time avoid taking a stand on the policy or politics of the issue. I am interested in your opinion of the wisdom of this. If you like the concept, please feel free to participate or modify in any way you choose. I'm not married to any format or details in this, it is just a rough draft at this point. I will drop this same note to a few other editors whom I feel would be beneficial in considering this page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there a reason you uncollapse discussions closed up via wp:deny? I'm just not understanding why. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I notice that you archived an a/n/i discussion I just opened, which seems irregular. I've reopened it and hope that it may stay open for others' comments and possible aministrative action. Thanks.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 15:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Sondra Locke". Thank you. -- Canoe1967 ( talk) 19:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
But what if he was disruptive on article pages - reverting people correcting his mistakes? Have you considered that? He kept readding a grammar mistake, and also claiming that a source didn't mention a person when it did in the second para. Taking it to his talk page was better than the edit war he had started. Next, he disingenuously called my comments "trolling", his usual ploy when backed into a corner. Lastly, is it appropriate to swear at me in the edit summary on his talk page? Have you told him off for that? He did it to another editor recently as well ( calling him an "abusive asshole"). Btw, why did you decide to step in? Were you asked? Regards, Malick78 ( talk) 21:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
If you would like to apply to be a clerk, please let me know and I'll forward your request to the mailing list. If not, could you please refrain from performing clerking activities on the case pages? Thanks, NW ( Talk) 00:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I am IP from X-ray_computed_tomography. You can reply here, I'll check for a reply here. I read your post at the WQA. I seem to understand from your message, that the WQA & DRN are a waste of time. Is it?
I kind of suspected that, because both places say that they operate by discussion and agreement, and so far, jmh649 totally ignored both, so it seems like not much discussion and agreement are going to take place. I expect that he would continue to delete whatever he can, and without explaining. This is quite discouraging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.215.205 ( talk) 02:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rape_culture#RFC_-_Multiple_Factors. 4 Points for consideration - Synonymic Usage, Quotations, Sources. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) ( talk) 20:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, regarding [13] and other on the basis of the AGF doctrine - I ask why you remove problem notices from the articles before addressing the problems which they describe. These had already been reviewed and corrected by the editors who removed the CSD notices. They listed real problems which are now unlikely to be resolved if they are deleted and that they also function to inform both the general public of the quality of the article. I hope we can have a more productive cooperation in the future. I suggest that you should have a second look at those pages - rather than revert them like a robot. Good day BO | Talk 08:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry but I did not get you when you said "referred elsewhere" can you please clarify where. Thanks -- DBig Xray 11:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I think you have the wrong person, Salvio giuliano ( talk · contribs) and Tiptoety ( talk · contribs) clerked the civility case. ;) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Toddst1 ( talk) 04:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Admire your dispassionate professionalism. (Would you consider being Mentor?) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 11:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
I like your style. IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC) |
Diff #6 ( [14]) looks fine to me - it looks like a legitimate on topic question. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 19:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Diff #6 ( [15]) looks fine to me - it looks like a legitimate on topic question. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 19:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello: Please avoid running afoul of WP:BITE and think carefully before you accuse someone of being a SPA, as you did with this edit. Thanks. T. trichiura Infect me 18:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Gerard, (hope you don't mind me calling you by your former name for which I have got use to from our last WQA discussion all those months ago).
A user submitted a report at WQA, in regards to a very complex and overheated issue. However, to date, only the involved parties have commented on the WQA thread, with exception to one uninvolved person who asked a question but never followed up the response to that question. A diplomatic proposal has been made in an attempt to resolve the issue, to which 3 of the 4 involved users have support the proposal. My question is, would it be possible to glance an eye on proceedings and act on anything that needs to be acted upon, in your own time of course. Much regards, Wesley Mouse 10:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
If you intend to keep the "as an engineer, I ..." comments in there, it must go back to being a userspace essay. Is there any way you can edit "personalization" out and make it generic ASAP? ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 12:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe that asking someone to consider if the language they're using hurts their case is a violation of AGF. I take them at their word that they didn't intend it that way. One can use an extremely poor choice of words in the best of faith (and people, myself included, often do just that.) 28bytes ( talk) 03:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notification that an amendment request involving you has been declined and archived.
For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem ( talk) 00:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
You may want to tweak your AN/I close as it can easily be read as saying that jayron was the one blocked for trolling. Monty 845 01:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey, there is a discussion about merging WQA to DRN: Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Committee#Time to shutter formal mediation?. IRWolfie- ( talk) 19:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, it would be good to get perspective from another volunteer on my response to this incident: [17] (I manually archived after the last comment following the WQA instructions), also User_talk:Bittergrey#Note. Do you have any comments on my handling of this incident? Cheers, IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Nobody Ent. If you have the time, can you please close this discussion at AN? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 19:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you open to trouting? Arcandam ( talk) 01:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
If your intention is to piss me off it is pretty successful. Please stop. Thanks in advance, Arcandam ( talk) 02:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
You know what I'm talking about. :) Manning ( talk) 13:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I declined because two other admins whose judgement I trust said they felt the block was valid without having to know exactly who the alleged sockmaster account was. Personally I feel every such block should at least try to identify a sockmaster, but I don't set policy. If you want to discuss this further, talk to those other two admins. I really can't add anything more by way of clarification. Sorry. Daniel Case ( talk) 01:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I have a question regarding WP:ROPE since HanzoHattori/Niemti was given a second chance. Based on the user's recent contributions, would the user be more likely to be blocked instantly? I want to tell you about this in case he gets in trouble again. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 02:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Just noticed your work at WP:WQA. You seem...insufficiently appreciated. Homunculus ( duihua) 13:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC) |
Another discussion about you going on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
What you just did is precisely what the discussion was all about. Please revert.-- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Please stop closing ANI reports. You are not an admin and based on your recent misjudgements I think you are unfortunately not experienced enough to know when discussions on WP:ANI should be closed. Arcandam ( talk) 16:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for moving that report to the bottom. I saw the poorly formatted request and didn't even think about the fact that it was on top too. Cheers! -- Tgeairn ( talk) 01:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
What on Earth was this about? If an admin raises a thread at ANI is it likely that said admin does not believe there to be some other more appropriate forum for it. Non-admins should certainly not be summarily shutting such threads ten minutes after they're opened. Don't do that again, please. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 11:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
H I - I know you were not there but please allow people that were to deal with their sharing - thanks - Youreally can 19:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Very Suspicious comments have come from a user on the Talk page of the Controversies at the 2012 Olympics. They have come on to the talk page and entered into what I can only describe as goading. To attempt to elicit a response from me. please see this latest edit and let me know what you think and if you have similar concerns that I do. Sport and politics ( talk) 18:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted some of your edits accordingly. If you wish to discuss further, there would be a good spot to do so. NW ( Talk) 20:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Well said. Please copy your first paragraph to the other section to which you refer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi - please note and change your comment if required - Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Youreallycan#YRC_Proposal
I have updated my position -
I think that the civility condition and the one RR restriction would render this BLP discussion clause as unnecessary and extreme punishment - if I cant revert and I cant make a single rude comment without being site banned then as I am not a BLP violator then I can be allowed to comment about living people but not allowed to edit content about such.
Youreally can 15:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Check your email. Dougweller ( talk) 16:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you want me to nuke all the pages under User:Gerardw? Cheers! Reaper Eternal ( talk) 12:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I noticed this. Did you think that was helpful? In light of the content of the guideline you referred to, did you honestly think that my single notification to a previously-involved admin was not "polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief" enough? Perhaps you might on reflection wish to strike your comment? -- John ( talk) 20:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I just came across comment you made a month ago on Ihardlythinkso's talk page. Although I have no particular opinion on Ihardlythinkso or his participation in that prior thread (I have encountered him recently, in a completely unrelated thread in which I have not have any problems with him), I'm very gratified to see that I'm not the only editor who is against the practice of breaking up another editors' messages with one's own responses. Thus far, when encountering others who did this to my messages, I responded by politely asking them not to, because (and I'm going off memory here), I seem to recall reading or being told somewhere that this was permitted as a matter of personal preference. But do you know if there's a specific policy or guideline to cite against it? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 20:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Please unprotect Penuylaps' talk page. There's no legitimate policy reason for preventing editors to edit it. Nobody Ent 22:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
for closing the YouReallyCan debate on AN/I - I haven't waded through so much aggression since Justin Bieber on Twitter got AfDed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC) |
I see you have made several contributions since the item I raised with you which is now archived here. I notice you did not respond to the serious question I asked you regarding the misstatement you made at AN/I. If this was an oversight, will you please rectify it at your earliest convenience? It is obviously too late for you to strike the inaccurate and unhelpful allegation you made about me, but I would appreciate your clarification. Thank you for your attention. -- John ( talk) 20:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be a shortage of people willing to close RfCs, and they are piling up. Most don't require an admin, just someone with good common sense, solid experience and an ability to judge consensus. You easily qualify. Please consider helping out by closing one or two a week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | ||
I see that WQA has now been closed. Even though that happened, I think that Wikipedia owes you proper recognition for all the good work that you did there. Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | ||
I see that WQA has now been closed. Even though that happened, I think that Wikipedia owes you proper recognition for all the good work that you did there. Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
You know, I'm actually trying to help. A guy coming in with a comment telling me the idea is dumb, and telling me that my request for people to comment isn't right, is not helpful or civil. One day, Wikipedia might actually show it cares about that generally. But it won't happen if people don't speak up for improvements. -- Avanu ( talk) 18:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Please do not interfere with my discussions with Sports and politics unless I specifically ask for help from other editors. I see your postings as being obstructive and possibly muddying the waters of the disagreement with unsolicited feedback. Thank You.-- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 10:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
He made a statement on an/i that i don't know what he means. how am i supposed to ask him/her then? if they aren't willing to clairify then why did they make the statement to begin with? just asking. 199.101.61.190 ( talk) 18:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I've added a talk page note, about an addition. It is a very useful and short essay, I hesitated before adding a new paragraph, wanting your input and perhaps some tweaking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
In case you didn't know, they for some reason quoted your userpage as the "Quote of the Now". Also, they took it out of context to make you sound like an anti-Jimbo anarchist. I know they're just trolls and if you respond to this at all they'll probably raise a huge stink about it and make your name a joke all over the internet, but just thought i'd let you know :) -- ████ ██ 12:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, but BSZ's comment now appears in the middle of yours... Giant Snowman 11:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Don't visit my page accusing me of incivility. I think you'll find I did no such thing and your interference is in itself incivil. J3Mrs ( talk) 11:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Nobody Ent...its pointless to remind some editors of some policies like NPA and CIVIL if they refuse to have any history of abiding by those policies, or have a posse of buddies which will defend them and Wikilawyer about why the policies don't apply to these editors, or we have an arbitration committee that is uncommitted to doing the very thing they were elected to do. I say to let anarchy prevail until it becomes so preposterous they'll simply be no rational defense for it, not that there is now. MONGO 15:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I thought I had let it go - what have I done now to make you think otherwise? Giant Snowman 12:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for closing that. Drmies ( talk) 15:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
FYI - Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Cover up of Administrator GiantSnowman's personal attack and edit warring. Giant Snowman 18:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. With regards to the ANI discussion of JHunterJ/Apteva, I was looking for a template to add to the warning notification [18] to make it look official and to make sure it is done properly, but there doesn't seem to be a template for MOS at WP:AC/DS. Is this something to be concerned about? Thanks. -- Neotarf ( talk) 21:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Outing is whatever admins say it is. Silly user, policies are for plebes. Viriditas ( talk) 22:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Once the outcome is certain, it's all about reducing drama, and the details are not as important.
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER 23:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
please discuss elsewhere |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
please discuss elsewhere |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The media file you uploaded as File:Northdumplingnavy.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.
It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.
Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).
{{
subst:usernameexpand|NE Ent/Archive/2012}}
will produce an appropriate expansion,Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 21:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Lions in the Desert.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 21:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Nobody Ent 20:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your look at this with an open mind and voicing oppose to the main stream! People like you make me stay, to be continued, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi NE. Thanks very much for your timely action at WP:AN. I tried my best to simply post links to discussions elsewhere, with a short neutral background and an explanation for doing it the way I did (=I'm lazy), with as little opinion as possible. I was amazed to see my note treated as an invitation to spread the "discussion" (=the repetition of angry things one has already said ad nauseam elsewhere) to yet another forum, with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests, User talk:Malleus Fatuorum, and User talk:Jclemens apparently not being felt to be large or numerous enough as arenas for all the self-expression and Sturm und Drang required by… by all the emotion, I guess. The way the section developed, I was afraid the whole thing would get removed soon, and since I still feel my links may be of use, I'm glad you shifted the discussion elsewhere. Bishonen | talk 11:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC).
"what respectful is in the consistent cultures ..." am I right in assuming you meant constituent cultures? pablo 11:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Reaper Eternal ( talk) 01:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
re your revert; similar edits from the same user at User:Jack Merridew and User talk:Davenbelle. I have no idea if they are supported by policy, fancy taking a look? pablo 10:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The discussion happened in the official IRC channel (even the bot uses Foundation resources), open to the public, and I disclosed it here at enwp. Your choice of word to describe it is unfortunate and imprecise. Just as a great deal of activity happens in email, a great deal happens on IRC, in part because it is in real time. Many discussion happen on IRC because an admin doesn't want to play cowboy and wants to get the opinions of others in a timely fashion but without causing drama in case they are wrong. It isn't an attempt to end-around the process here, it is a part OF the process. I've never hidden anything that happens via IRC, unless as instructed by ArbCom due to privacy or legal concerns. I've never taken part in any "back room deals" and I use the resource for the purpose of furthering the goals of Wikipedia, not to be secretive or to do illicit things, which is what you are accusing me of [19], by definition. As you are normally quite civil, I was disappointed by this. There are always going to be things you or others are not immediately aware of (or ever aware of in limited circumstances), but that doesn't mean my motives are nefarious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
[ http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/April08/Perspective.Turner.html War and the anthropologist: Why an academic society continues to agonize over clandestine research By Terence Turner The American Anthropological Association (AAA) is again caught up in a debate over the ethics of secret research] Clandestine may refer to: Secrecy, the practice of hiding information from certain individuals or groups, perhaps while sharing it with other individuals
I had forgotten about Wikipedia:There is no justice. I will be citing that essay quite liberally. MBisanz talk 12:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Re. I was nominated for Wikipedia Review's "Balls of steel" award once, lol. I don't exactly remember why — probably for blocking FT2 — but the balls of steel entered my sparsely-populated long-term memory. (Mind you, I don't exactly agree with you, I agree with Guerillero, who put the matter very well.) Bishonen | talk 13:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC).
This was very well said. His condescending demand that 'simple courtesies' be offered to a vandalism-only account that had already received four consecutive warnings before being taken to a noticeboard left me gobsmacked. We should be able to block a throwaway vandalism account without this much fuss; and I despair for the non-admins editors who believe that Bwilkins' instructions represent the 'right' way to get help. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
...for this. It is appreciated ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 15:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment on my talk page as well. Sorry, I didn't realize I was being uncouth- the only other ban I actively pushed for was for someone who refused to really even participate, so it went very differently. This is easily fixed. Thanks for the advice. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Just FYI, it was only a 48 hour block. We generally don't indef IPs. He'll get reblocked for longer if he comes back and continues, but the most we generally do is 2 years at a time for the worst socking/abuse.--v/r - T P 21:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
If you think this is meaningless complaining, it is a very wrong assessment. It's easy to watch it on TV. It's different being shot at.
Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 14:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The fundamental problem here is that AN/I is dominated by the irresponsible, the responsible generally won't go anywhere near it, and non-admins most clearly don't have the same rights there to speak as admins do. Admins can come in and lob charges at regular editors with narry a diff, but if a non-admin challenges them, they are ignored or chastized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is neither fair nor just, as I've attempted to explain in No justice. That is a situation I have neither the power to fix or the inclination to try. I'm always aware there are people on the other end of accounts, and what I can try to do, and sometimes succeed at, are to make things a little bit better for them. My goal today was simply help prevent Memento from getting chewed up in the ANI shark tank. I despise boomerang, it's a harsh overreaction bandied about by folks who think it's cute or clever or some such thing, as opposed to understanding it's just rude. So before someone jumps in, I'd rather throw a close tag around a nascent thread, hope it sticks, and hope they'll willing to accept my advice. . Nobody Ent 16:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Your efforts were in vain, and Elen jumped on to Pen's talkpage (apparently all in good fun), then, just after Pen filed a Checkuser Ombudsman against Courcelles, Corcelles blocked Pen, stating that he was trolling Elen. <shrug> Kinda crazy, but I'm not prepared to spend two months cajoling Courcelles into recognising the obvious.
Rich
Farmbrough, 22:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
support. What Elen said.-- Shirt58 ( talk) 00:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}wanna regen the archive index?
Hello again! An unregistered user changed back the name of the first song off The Poison. He added a reference from Last.fm, but I think that is not a reliable source. Moreover, I have added some references to the talk page such as the official BFMV website, itunes and BBC, among others. I can not reverse his edition due to Wikipedia: 3RR. So, I'd like to ask you to solve the problem, protect the page and block that user who insists on vandalism. Cristian MH ( talk) 10:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Please refrain from attacking yourself, as you recently did. [20] It's... um, uncivil? Yeah, let's go with that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
You're not Nobody no more!? (Neither nevermind if not, if NE is neither either.) </joke> Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 13:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
You might want to re-register the Nobody Ent ( talk · contribs) account to prevent a vandal from registering it and impersonating you. Cheers! Reaper Eternal ( talk) 22:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
You know what that is for. Tijfo098 ( talk) 03:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
For your message at the MfD page; that's a really accurate summary of what's going on. It's humor in situations like these that allow me to enjoy my time here on Wikipedia. So thank you. Go Phightins ! 03:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC) |
I dont recall getting an edit conflict at all. I usually mark an edit with one of them as (EC) in the edit summary. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 13:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that you deleted the COI tag Qworty placed on John Bassette. I was wondering if you could look over another few articles. Qworty has been tagging and generally chopping up about 30 articles I have edited. His/her issue is a long-settled arbcom from 2007 which did NOT result in a decision that I could not edit these articles nor that anything need be done about them. I have no idea what has spurred this sudden campaign, but whole reference sections and properly-constructed bibliographies are being deleted, then COI and Notability tags are being slapped on. I don't expect you to take this whole thing on, but if you could at least look into the COI tags I'd appreciate it; I've listed only those with the COI tag, but there are many more. I am loathe to do so since he/she is targetting me, and I don't want to be accused of a revert war.
Starwood Festival, ]], David Jay Brown, Jesse Wolf Hardin, Stephen Kent (Musician), Muruga Booker, M. Macha Nightmare, Baba Raul Canizares, Prem Das, Gavin Bone, George R. Harker, Armor & Sturtevant, Stratospheerius, Lauren Raine, Owain Phyfe, Lasara Firefox, Badi Assad, Chas Smith, Jim Donovan (musician), Robert Lee “Skip” Ellison, Yvonne Frost, Ed Fitch, Telesma, Phyllis Curott, Vivianne Crowley, Brushwood Folklore Center and Ian Corrigan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosencomet ( talk • contribs)
Good move. This is clearly going to grow and fester and it's a great idea to take it off the main AN/I page. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Several comments from further thoughts yesterday:
In order to make sure outside people have an opportunity to ask for reviews decisions to be reviewed you need a formal and basically by definition bureaucratic but transparent process to close discussions.
You're probably also going to have to block people for challenging stuff outside those rules (and have those blocks stand). -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 08:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Item on the bottom of my talk page you might be interested in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I've taken a stab at clarifying what I meant. Let me know if that answers your question. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 00:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
... a little harsh? ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 21:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
...for signing me! Leaky Caldron 13:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Would love your opinion. In user space now, designed to be both an informational guide for those that are crying "incivil!" prematurely and a bit of a guide for admin. If it isn't redundant to another essay and worth building up to mainspace, would like to get your input, and likely Kim's and a few others whom agree on the "threshold" issue regarding civility blocks. If it is redundant, please point me there so I can contribute. I get the feeling that civility is going to be a common theme in the upcoming year. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Response at User:Bluerim. -- JDC808 ♫ 02:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat ( talk) 05:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
This thread is not a content dispute. It's an editor edit warring and refusing to engage, IRWolfie- ( talk) 23:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
And all your edits have been undone. I have solid proof and I'm right and you're wrong. I know something you guys don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxXD1 ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
You're quick--maybe too quick for others' taste. Happy days, Drmies ( talk) 20:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
While I know you wrote Wikipedia:There is no justice, reading some of your recent noticeboard comments made me think of a post I wrote some time ago to Avanu. MBisanz talk 14:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
"As a general practice, we don't file ANIs on indeffed blocked users ... a passing admin will revoke talk page access if / when it becomes necessary", from the "Talk page access recovation for User:Pablo.morales.la.bomba" section of WP:ANI. Just a note: it's actually appropriate to report talk page abuse for blocked users at ANI; it's supported by the header text of WP:AIV, which tells people to go to ANI to report talk page abuse because bots won't realise that accusations of talk page abuse should be treated differently from other blocked users. Nyttend ( talk) 08:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
You know how yesterday you hid some of the comments there as ad hominem attacks? Well, there are now more for you to hide. Danjel called Epeefleche a meatpuppet and called me a "delicate little flower", again referencing a completely ungermane AfD. I have frankly had it with Danjel: he refuses to communicate on his talk page, but he forces interaction by continually lambasting me at an AfD of an article. Could you please tell him to step away from the AfD? p b p 07:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Huzzah. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 20:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"No editor has ever been physically harmed by posting on a talk page."
Ha. Has little user seen
this, or
the terrible fate of the little Bladestorm? Or ever been brave enough to post on
User talk:Darwinbish?
bishzilla
ROARR!! 11:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC).
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for all the helpful commentary on the various noticeboards. Pass a Method talk 16:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC) |
For the thoughtful cleaning up at Sandy hook. I'm trying to play mediator on the talk page after semiprotecting it, and it is good know someone without an agenda is watching over the actual content. This is going to be a long week or three over there, and with emotions running so high, it is going to take some vigilance to keep it neutral and clean. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say I think your close was a bad idea. It hasn't been 18 hours of mudslinging, it is a conflict that has lasted several months, and I fear it hasn't been resolved by tossing it back to the article talk page. I'll grant you that there has been poor conduct from both sides of the discussion, but not from all editors (barring rare lapses or poorly phrased comments, for which I have twice (if I remember correctly) given immediate apologies for). Here it is implied that after a certain point you will get help to deal with it. I hope you will not claim I have failed the criteria in the first paragraph as I have NEVER made a claim against another editor without providing diffs, or the diffs already being provided in the discusion (excepting asking someone to cease and desist in a direct reply to a comment). Furthermore, I have made reports at the designated forums. Why can't I receive help from experienced editors to deal with this? 85.167.109.64 ( talk) 22:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to distinguish between Wikipedia-That-Should-Be (WTSB) and Wikipedia-That-Is (WTI) in the following advice/explanation:
I would like to understand your perspective behind this edit [21]. Do you really believe that that discussion was moving toward improving the article, as opposed to trolling? I collapsed the discussion for reasons that I think you are very well aware of, having participated in the recent North8000 ANI. Is is really necessary for us to create a magnet for more drama? - Mr X 21:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Dude, I know you believe you're doing the right thing by warning us, but if you're paying attention, we're way in the process of burying the hatchet. Your warnings really add nothing of positive value to the situation right now, I hope you can see that. -- 213.196.218.39 ( talk) 13:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
You are being contacted because you participated in this RfC in February about the scope of the article on Indigenous peoples. The discussion has now been revived at Talk:Indigenous_peoples#Scope_of_article.2C_Definitions.2C_etc and your input would be appreciated. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 12:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
AutomaticStrikeout (
T •
C) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
You appear to be having issues at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents...? Giant Snowman 17:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)