As a previously interested party, I draw your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Rhodesia&oldid=175026836#More_irrational_reverts and I seek your acquiescence in the edit I propose.
You may also wish to comment here, if you choose: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Alice.S&oldid=175027524#Edit_war Alice.S 10:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You protected WP:SPOILER for 2 weeks. Why? From November 25 to December 7, there were no edits to the page. I have been discussing changes on the talk page. I added {{ disputedtag}} and other editors claimed it's guideline status was not disputed [1] [2]. Another editor added the {{ disputedtag}} and another editor claimed it's guideline status was not disputed [3]. I added the {{ underdiscussion}} tag and another editor claimed the guideline was not under discussion [4]. The {{ underdiscussion}} tag was then re-added to the page. [5] I have been discussing proposed changes to the guideline on the guideline's talk page. The current version of the guideline does not have consensus. On September 13, 2007, Kusma proposed a new version here. Around 3 1/2 hours later, Kusma rewrote the guideline. The current version of the guideline differs little from what Kusma wrote on September 13, 2007. [6] I have been making proposals on the talk page but certain admins have just been editing the guideline page and reverting any changes to it. The edit-warring on that page has been going on since May 15, 2007 [7], after an admin suggested on the WikiEN-l mailing list that all spoiler policies be "nuked." [8] and another admin suggested on the WikiEN-l mailing list that people remove Template:Spoiler from every article. [9] I don't think editing of the guideline should only be limited to admins, since a previous mediation case named multiple admins and a request for arbitration was made naming multiple admins. Edit-warring by admins is the problem. The current guideline does not have consensus. Could you change the page protection to a shorter period of time? If you think the page should be protected for 2 weeks, could you replace the page with just the {{ underdiscussion}} template? Thank you for your time. -- Pixelface ( talk) 05:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! :) - NeutralHomer T: C 08:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Please lift the protection from Bobby Petrino; by the time you protected it, the dispute had been resolved (negated by the ongoing events) and the full protection request had been revoked by the requester (who was over-reactive in asking for it in the first place). Thanks, AUTiger » talk 16:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain exactly what "gaming the 3rr" means especially in contrast to the behaviour of SqueakBox in this case, so I can learn to behave as properly as he (given that he wasn't blocked)? Bramlet Abercrombie ( talk) 00:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about unblocking Callmebc, per a discussion I've had via email with him. There's a thread here which you, as a blocking admin, might want some input in.-- Haemo ( talk) 08:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
user:Andranikpasha is insisting on removing sources. What should I do? -- Cat chi? 14:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I do think user:Andranikpasha could be a sockpuppet given how many had been circling around over Armenia-Azerbaijan related rfars. -- Cat chi? 14:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Drop it please, gentlemen. This has been/is being dealt with elsewhere, no point bringing it here. Thanks. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 22:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
May I point out that White Cat spammed every possible noticeboard and admin talkpage with this? I'll stop it when someone does something to stop him from deleting Armenian genocide pictures and pushing Turkish propaganda sites as reliable sources. VartanM ( talk) 23:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I received an e-mail from User:ScienceApologist indicating that he was having a software malfunction that prevented him from getting error conflict messages, and wasn't intentionally misusing the unblock template. I believe him, and in any event protecting a blocked user's talkpage is always a last resort, so I urge you to lift the page protection. Thanks, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 06:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I see you deleted the 2008 page. I'm not going to disagree with you, but when you determine the appropriate time, please remember to undelete instead of recreating. Please keep in mind that the page was created this early to improve collaboration, since many users objected to decisions made merely 1 to 2 months before they started. Thanks. - Mtmelendez ( Talk) 00:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
...with your statement. [10] In my tradition, a martyr is someone who dies for his or her beliefs without harming anyone else. Some new term probably ought to get invented for instances such as this one, but I regard martyr as not only loaded in this context but deeply disrespectful of actual martyrs. Durova Charge! 06:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Per this post I have decided to notify about the case as you were an administrators active on Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. -- Cat chi? 20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
What are you doing? Injunctions only take 4 net votes to pass, and may be passed 24 hours after the first vote, not the fourth vote. Thatcher 13:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
During our discussion, I proved most of the facts presented by Andranikpasha as being irrelevant or insignificant, to which he never replied. I argued that the facts presented are exaggerated, and his refusal to clarify some of the claims was an example of bad faith. Finally I discovered a source that fully supported my rationale and judging from the fact that it came directly from an Israeli official, I decided it was fair to use it instead of what Andranikpasha presented. Parishan ( talk) 22:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
As your assistance has previously been provided when the editing got hot at Adult-child sex, I was wondering if you could take another look, as there seems to be the same push to delete the article's content & replace the article with a redirect without a demonstrated consensus to do so. I'm not asking you to make a decision about the content of the dispute, just to look at whether the article should be left intact while the discussion plays itself out. It's been PROD'd, RfD'd, AfD'd, DRV'd, etc. This article may yet set a record for going through every administrative process we have. :-) Thanks for any help you can provide. -- SSB ohio 18:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I make out there are 7 people agreeing with the good faith edits of a relatively new user, User:Jack-A-Roe's merging the article with child sexual abuse, with no disagreement. Then Ssbohio comes along and ignores that, refuses to post on the talk page and reverts. This looks like disruption to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Much like the story of Br'er Rabbit and the tar baby, since you touched the article, I thought I'd ask you to evaluate the recent move of the article to adult-older teen sex. I've been through the talk page and I don't see a consensus for the move. Would I be out of line to move it back pending the development of a consensus to move? Would you be willing to look at the situation and make an objective determination, something I (an involved party) am not in a position to do? Thanks, SSB ohio 04:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Penwhale,
I've proposed an amendment to Wikipedia:No original research that would strengthen (or more accurately, reiterate) the requirement of editors to reliably source interpretations of images in articles. This would particularly apply to depictions of allegorical or symbolic artworks or artifacts, where the meaning was not immediately clear or was subject to differing interpretations. You can see the text of the proposed amendment at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images - please feel free to leave comments.
Another editor involved in the discussion has suggested providing an example of "an actual ongoing dispute to illustrate the problem". I believe you're active in editing or monitoring articles in controversial subject areas, and I was wondering if you were aware of any such ongoing or recent disputes. It would specifically have to concern something like an illustration of unclear meaning, which editors were disputing what it represented, maybe because of a lack of reliable sourcing about the image itself or about its interpretation. If you've come across anything like this scenario, could you please chip in at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images? -- ChrisO ( talk) 22:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).
Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
You're also invited to subscribe to the public
Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on
the invite list.
BrownBot (
talk) 03:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I immediately thought of you. ;) -- Cat chi? 19:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera ( talk) 01:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I am requesting a plea to the block that was placed upon me i have made a mistake on security matters by sharing my account i am going to change the password and tell my friend about his idiotic behavior thank you. again i am deeply sorry in the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourbackup ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).
We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog
Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 00:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
As a previously interested party, I draw your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Rhodesia&oldid=175026836#More_irrational_reverts and I seek your acquiescence in the edit I propose.
You may also wish to comment here, if you choose: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Alice.S&oldid=175027524#Edit_war Alice.S 10:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You protected WP:SPOILER for 2 weeks. Why? From November 25 to December 7, there were no edits to the page. I have been discussing changes on the talk page. I added {{ disputedtag}} and other editors claimed it's guideline status was not disputed [1] [2]. Another editor added the {{ disputedtag}} and another editor claimed it's guideline status was not disputed [3]. I added the {{ underdiscussion}} tag and another editor claimed the guideline was not under discussion [4]. The {{ underdiscussion}} tag was then re-added to the page. [5] I have been discussing proposed changes to the guideline on the guideline's talk page. The current version of the guideline does not have consensus. On September 13, 2007, Kusma proposed a new version here. Around 3 1/2 hours later, Kusma rewrote the guideline. The current version of the guideline differs little from what Kusma wrote on September 13, 2007. [6] I have been making proposals on the talk page but certain admins have just been editing the guideline page and reverting any changes to it. The edit-warring on that page has been going on since May 15, 2007 [7], after an admin suggested on the WikiEN-l mailing list that all spoiler policies be "nuked." [8] and another admin suggested on the WikiEN-l mailing list that people remove Template:Spoiler from every article. [9] I don't think editing of the guideline should only be limited to admins, since a previous mediation case named multiple admins and a request for arbitration was made naming multiple admins. Edit-warring by admins is the problem. The current guideline does not have consensus. Could you change the page protection to a shorter period of time? If you think the page should be protected for 2 weeks, could you replace the page with just the {{ underdiscussion}} template? Thank you for your time. -- Pixelface ( talk) 05:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! :) - NeutralHomer T: C 08:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Please lift the protection from Bobby Petrino; by the time you protected it, the dispute had been resolved (negated by the ongoing events) and the full protection request had been revoked by the requester (who was over-reactive in asking for it in the first place). Thanks, AUTiger » talk 16:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain exactly what "gaming the 3rr" means especially in contrast to the behaviour of SqueakBox in this case, so I can learn to behave as properly as he (given that he wasn't blocked)? Bramlet Abercrombie ( talk) 00:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about unblocking Callmebc, per a discussion I've had via email with him. There's a thread here which you, as a blocking admin, might want some input in.-- Haemo ( talk) 08:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
user:Andranikpasha is insisting on removing sources. What should I do? -- Cat chi? 14:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I do think user:Andranikpasha could be a sockpuppet given how many had been circling around over Armenia-Azerbaijan related rfars. -- Cat chi? 14:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Drop it please, gentlemen. This has been/is being dealt with elsewhere, no point bringing it here. Thanks. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 22:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
May I point out that White Cat spammed every possible noticeboard and admin talkpage with this? I'll stop it when someone does something to stop him from deleting Armenian genocide pictures and pushing Turkish propaganda sites as reliable sources. VartanM ( talk) 23:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I received an e-mail from User:ScienceApologist indicating that he was having a software malfunction that prevented him from getting error conflict messages, and wasn't intentionally misusing the unblock template. I believe him, and in any event protecting a blocked user's talkpage is always a last resort, so I urge you to lift the page protection. Thanks, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 06:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I see you deleted the 2008 page. I'm not going to disagree with you, but when you determine the appropriate time, please remember to undelete instead of recreating. Please keep in mind that the page was created this early to improve collaboration, since many users objected to decisions made merely 1 to 2 months before they started. Thanks. - Mtmelendez ( Talk) 00:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
...with your statement. [10] In my tradition, a martyr is someone who dies for his or her beliefs without harming anyone else. Some new term probably ought to get invented for instances such as this one, but I regard martyr as not only loaded in this context but deeply disrespectful of actual martyrs. Durova Charge! 06:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Per this post I have decided to notify about the case as you were an administrators active on Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. -- Cat chi? 20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
What are you doing? Injunctions only take 4 net votes to pass, and may be passed 24 hours after the first vote, not the fourth vote. Thatcher 13:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
During our discussion, I proved most of the facts presented by Andranikpasha as being irrelevant or insignificant, to which he never replied. I argued that the facts presented are exaggerated, and his refusal to clarify some of the claims was an example of bad faith. Finally I discovered a source that fully supported my rationale and judging from the fact that it came directly from an Israeli official, I decided it was fair to use it instead of what Andranikpasha presented. Parishan ( talk) 22:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
As your assistance has previously been provided when the editing got hot at Adult-child sex, I was wondering if you could take another look, as there seems to be the same push to delete the article's content & replace the article with a redirect without a demonstrated consensus to do so. I'm not asking you to make a decision about the content of the dispute, just to look at whether the article should be left intact while the discussion plays itself out. It's been PROD'd, RfD'd, AfD'd, DRV'd, etc. This article may yet set a record for going through every administrative process we have. :-) Thanks for any help you can provide. -- SSB ohio 18:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I make out there are 7 people agreeing with the good faith edits of a relatively new user, User:Jack-A-Roe's merging the article with child sexual abuse, with no disagreement. Then Ssbohio comes along and ignores that, refuses to post on the talk page and reverts. This looks like disruption to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Much like the story of Br'er Rabbit and the tar baby, since you touched the article, I thought I'd ask you to evaluate the recent move of the article to adult-older teen sex. I've been through the talk page and I don't see a consensus for the move. Would I be out of line to move it back pending the development of a consensus to move? Would you be willing to look at the situation and make an objective determination, something I (an involved party) am not in a position to do? Thanks, SSB ohio 04:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Penwhale,
I've proposed an amendment to Wikipedia:No original research that would strengthen (or more accurately, reiterate) the requirement of editors to reliably source interpretations of images in articles. This would particularly apply to depictions of allegorical or symbolic artworks or artifacts, where the meaning was not immediately clear or was subject to differing interpretations. You can see the text of the proposed amendment at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images - please feel free to leave comments.
Another editor involved in the discussion has suggested providing an example of "an actual ongoing dispute to illustrate the problem". I believe you're active in editing or monitoring articles in controversial subject areas, and I was wondering if you were aware of any such ongoing or recent disputes. It would specifically have to concern something like an illustration of unclear meaning, which editors were disputing what it represented, maybe because of a lack of reliable sourcing about the image itself or about its interpretation. If you've come across anything like this scenario, could you please chip in at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images? -- ChrisO ( talk) 22:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).
Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
You're also invited to subscribe to the public
Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on
the invite list.
BrownBot (
talk) 03:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I immediately thought of you. ;) -- Cat chi? 19:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera ( talk) 01:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I am requesting a plea to the block that was placed upon me i have made a mistake on security matters by sharing my account i am going to change the password and tell my friend about his idiotic behavior thank you. again i am deeply sorry in the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourbackup ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).
We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog
Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 00:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)