Section title renamed from " WP:ADMINACCT"
Just to be sure there's no misunderstanding, several editors are now awaiting your response at [1]; I recommend you review the entire surrounding thread before responding. E Eng 23:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
If, as you titled the section, you are asking this per ADMINACCT, then I believe I have met my obligation by compiling and explaining the synopsis. ADMINACCT doesn't mean that an admin has to keep answering an unrelenting interrogation by an involved user.
But let's assume you asked because you are earnestly trying to understand the situation. In that case, thank you for asking. For quick answers, I can write the following:
A more promising path for understanding each other is if we could have a mutually respectful conversation, since I believe both of us made mistakes – I know I made mistakes, since the block was lifted by an admin who honestly tried to see both sides. (That's why I took a WP:WIKIBREAK – the same medicine that I was trying to force on you and decided not use blocks for some time.) I hope we can have a conversation in which each of us feels free to talk without it being misunderstood as a defense or accusation. I would like to start with our motivation.
I know, I failed to express this well, for reasons we can discuss at our leisure. I can imagine that when you originally posted your reply to user:Kasra tcme, your main motivation might have been just having some (harmless, as you felt) fun. But would you like to tell me what your motivation was later? — Sebastian 16:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The term "authority" is not mine, but it comes from Graham's hierarchy of disagreementto explain something you apparently can't explain yourself i.e. what in the world is meant by the "authority" of the IP? I suggest you start over at User_talk:Nagualdesign and answer my questions in a simple and straightforward way. E Eng 17:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC) E Eng 17:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Good idea to make light of the situation. Yes, I made a mistake. Big deal; I think my answers can be just as well understood as if I had given them to ND himself. I will correct my mistake of starting this section on the wrong foot and get back to my original plan of having a mutually respectful conversation with ND about what matters most to us. To avoid another bout of unproductive drama, it will be in a quiet tea room. — Sebastian 12:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
This section is a place for nagualdesign and Sebastian to calmly talk about what matters most to us and what motivates us. Other editors may chime in, but their messages may be removed by either nagualdesign or Sebastian if either judges them disruptive.
Hello nagualdesign, I would like a friendly conversation with you about what matters to us. There is still much you have done that I value; among others your long patience with Yahya in the links you posted. This shows a true commitment to the values of Wikipedia, which we share. I would like to understand why, despite our commonalities, we clashed. Would you like to write more about what motivates you or would you rather I started by talking about what else I can relate to? — Sebastian 12:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Storm in a teacup This delicious cup of Rosy Lee is to remind you not to take things too seriously around here. I appreciate the olive branch, though I don't really feel like getting into a discussion about what motivates me in general, to be honest. I'm willing to answer any specific questions you might have though. Earlier you wrote, "I can imagine that when you originally posted your reply to user:Kasra tcme, your main motivation might have been just having some (harmless, as you felt) fun. But would you like to tell me what your motivation was later?" I don't really know what you're referring to in that last sentence. If you can be more specific I'll give you an answer, and after that perhaps you could answer the questions posed to you on my talk page, that way we can all get back to building an encyclopedia. Deal? |
Ahh, thank you! Sorry that you had to bring the tea yourself; I'm a terrible host. And an interesting idea to use a box; shall we keep doing that as an alternative to the indents (which were just meant as a temporary crutch - nothing lasts longer!), just for fun? No worries, I didn't mean what motivates you in general; I poked already a little bit too far into your off-wiki life in our first conversation; sorry about that, btw.
What I meant by "later" was when you restored the witticism. When you first wrote it, it was funny, but why repeat an old joke? By "questions on your talk page", do you mean the ones I labeled Q1 through A3 in the previous section? I've already provided quick answers, do you really need more thorough replies before we can move on? — Sebastian 17:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Storm in a teacup from EEng
|
---|
|
Let's calm down and have another cup of tea
Now that was a storm in a teacup, wasn't it? Let's get one thing out of the way: WP:TPO is not what you think it is, as I explained to you in my block rationale ( diff). But I didn't prepare the tea room to rehash old quibbles. Maybe I should have explained what gave me the inspiration for the tea room: Nonviolent communication, which I'm still learning. It encourages us to "replace the phrase 'I am angry because [the other person] ...' with 'I am angry because I am needing'..." [1]: 144 (Emphasis in original). Instead of "motivation", NVC looks at the needs; maybe it would have been better if I had adopted that term. Whatever we call it, let's move on to what matters to us. In your reply, I sense that you still feel hurt about the block, so maybe you are needing freedom. Please accept my apologies if I hurt your feelings; I know I made mistakes, since the block was lifted by an admin who honestly tried to see both sides. I took the witticism more seriously, since I saw it as hurting my desire to fight violence and racism, which I didn't distinguish from the pertinent WP's policies. That was of course a mistake, as I realized thanks to Ivanvector. — Sebastian 11:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
|
What do you think this change says about your integrity? -- NeilN talk to me 01:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Sebastian, related to the discussion above, I have two more questions for you:
Thank you. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Category:Computer-related organizations, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Template:Country data Iroquois Confederacy has been nominated for merging with Template:Country data Iroquois. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpanishSnake ( talk • contribs) 2018-03-01T18:57:22 (UTC)
One of my calculus text books begins each chapter with a figure of a notable mathematician and a short bio. The 1st chapter (if memory serves me) cites Gauss’ complete name as: Johann Carl Friedrich von Gustav Gauss. You might want to include this as an update in your published Google doodle. All the best, MSR Marksrogers 1999 ( talk) 16:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of things named after Carl Friedrich Gauss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaussia ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 10:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that the little joke you included in your edit summary on ß did not go unnoticed or unappreciated. I chuckled quite a bit when reading it. Bnng ( talk) 00:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not at all free anymore. What has happened is that there is a section of people who has taken control over it. Those are the people from countries like Britain etc and their main responsilities (if i understand it correctly) is to ensure that the pages in Wikipedia stays as a western viewpoint, which itself is a doctored version of the truth. So any kind of legitimate edits with all the source etc, that contradicts these western viewpoint are immediately pulled down by so called administrators. The first thing that they say is you have to have consenses. There is no debate nothing in the talk page. But immediately reverses the edit and then if the user reverts that edit to the one he did with reasoning it's again reverted back by the so called admins with a warning and third time block that person from Wikipedia. How is it possible to provide a contratry view in Wikipedia, if there are admins who spend so much time as if they don't have any other work and is employed by someone just to ensure the whiteman's views in Wikipedia is kept intact. I don't know anyone who can so much time and effort to push for a western viewpoint on all pages, other than outfits with sinister motives to control the worldwide view to be on a positve note towards the west. Wikipedia being popular is used in such a manner. Those who are once blocked for simple three time edits are blocked forever and called as sockpuppets. I can't image how many good editors must have been banished by these crooks from editing wikipedia because they had a differece of opinion with these thugs and they use dedicated ips and cannot ever be back to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has completely transformed into a monster state that controls all information and all dissents are banished without a trace. Wpediaiswhitemanspropogandatools ( talk) 07:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I’m requesting under your accountability provisions that you explain why you restored vandalism to the talk page of the main page concerning a living person. I find it very disturbing that an administrator would do so, and even more disturbing as to why you appear confused as to the reason I referred to Elizabeth II by name rather than by what the vandal called her. RD3 and RD2 were both arguably applicable, and neither is at all limited to just articles (see ANI and the user talks of admins who deal with the trolls you are responding to above for some examples.) I’m sorry, but this has me seriously questioning your judgment as an administrator. TonyBallioni ( talk) 08:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello SebastianHelm,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Formal sector for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Xevus11 ( talk) 04:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Template:Boldmono has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno ( talk) 16:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, SebastianHelm. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Section title renamed from " WP:ADMINACCT"
Just to be sure there's no misunderstanding, several editors are now awaiting your response at [1]; I recommend you review the entire surrounding thread before responding. E Eng 23:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
If, as you titled the section, you are asking this per ADMINACCT, then I believe I have met my obligation by compiling and explaining the synopsis. ADMINACCT doesn't mean that an admin has to keep answering an unrelenting interrogation by an involved user.
But let's assume you asked because you are earnestly trying to understand the situation. In that case, thank you for asking. For quick answers, I can write the following:
A more promising path for understanding each other is if we could have a mutually respectful conversation, since I believe both of us made mistakes – I know I made mistakes, since the block was lifted by an admin who honestly tried to see both sides. (That's why I took a WP:WIKIBREAK – the same medicine that I was trying to force on you and decided not use blocks for some time.) I hope we can have a conversation in which each of us feels free to talk without it being misunderstood as a defense or accusation. I would like to start with our motivation.
I know, I failed to express this well, for reasons we can discuss at our leisure. I can imagine that when you originally posted your reply to user:Kasra tcme, your main motivation might have been just having some (harmless, as you felt) fun. But would you like to tell me what your motivation was later? — Sebastian 16:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The term "authority" is not mine, but it comes from Graham's hierarchy of disagreementto explain something you apparently can't explain yourself i.e. what in the world is meant by the "authority" of the IP? I suggest you start over at User_talk:Nagualdesign and answer my questions in a simple and straightforward way. E Eng 17:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC) E Eng 17:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Good idea to make light of the situation. Yes, I made a mistake. Big deal; I think my answers can be just as well understood as if I had given them to ND himself. I will correct my mistake of starting this section on the wrong foot and get back to my original plan of having a mutually respectful conversation with ND about what matters most to us. To avoid another bout of unproductive drama, it will be in a quiet tea room. — Sebastian 12:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
This section is a place for nagualdesign and Sebastian to calmly talk about what matters most to us and what motivates us. Other editors may chime in, but their messages may be removed by either nagualdesign or Sebastian if either judges them disruptive.
Hello nagualdesign, I would like a friendly conversation with you about what matters to us. There is still much you have done that I value; among others your long patience with Yahya in the links you posted. This shows a true commitment to the values of Wikipedia, which we share. I would like to understand why, despite our commonalities, we clashed. Would you like to write more about what motivates you or would you rather I started by talking about what else I can relate to? — Sebastian 12:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Storm in a teacup This delicious cup of Rosy Lee is to remind you not to take things too seriously around here. I appreciate the olive branch, though I don't really feel like getting into a discussion about what motivates me in general, to be honest. I'm willing to answer any specific questions you might have though. Earlier you wrote, "I can imagine that when you originally posted your reply to user:Kasra tcme, your main motivation might have been just having some (harmless, as you felt) fun. But would you like to tell me what your motivation was later?" I don't really know what you're referring to in that last sentence. If you can be more specific I'll give you an answer, and after that perhaps you could answer the questions posed to you on my talk page, that way we can all get back to building an encyclopedia. Deal? |
Ahh, thank you! Sorry that you had to bring the tea yourself; I'm a terrible host. And an interesting idea to use a box; shall we keep doing that as an alternative to the indents (which were just meant as a temporary crutch - nothing lasts longer!), just for fun? No worries, I didn't mean what motivates you in general; I poked already a little bit too far into your off-wiki life in our first conversation; sorry about that, btw.
What I meant by "later" was when you restored the witticism. When you first wrote it, it was funny, but why repeat an old joke? By "questions on your talk page", do you mean the ones I labeled Q1 through A3 in the previous section? I've already provided quick answers, do you really need more thorough replies before we can move on? — Sebastian 17:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Storm in a teacup from EEng
|
---|
|
Let's calm down and have another cup of tea
Now that was a storm in a teacup, wasn't it? Let's get one thing out of the way: WP:TPO is not what you think it is, as I explained to you in my block rationale ( diff). But I didn't prepare the tea room to rehash old quibbles. Maybe I should have explained what gave me the inspiration for the tea room: Nonviolent communication, which I'm still learning. It encourages us to "replace the phrase 'I am angry because [the other person] ...' with 'I am angry because I am needing'..." [1]: 144 (Emphasis in original). Instead of "motivation", NVC looks at the needs; maybe it would have been better if I had adopted that term. Whatever we call it, let's move on to what matters to us. In your reply, I sense that you still feel hurt about the block, so maybe you are needing freedom. Please accept my apologies if I hurt your feelings; I know I made mistakes, since the block was lifted by an admin who honestly tried to see both sides. I took the witticism more seriously, since I saw it as hurting my desire to fight violence and racism, which I didn't distinguish from the pertinent WP's policies. That was of course a mistake, as I realized thanks to Ivanvector. — Sebastian 11:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
|
What do you think this change says about your integrity? -- NeilN talk to me 01:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Sebastian, related to the discussion above, I have two more questions for you:
Thank you. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Category:Computer-related organizations, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Template:Country data Iroquois Confederacy has been nominated for merging with Template:Country data Iroquois. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpanishSnake ( talk • contribs) 2018-03-01T18:57:22 (UTC)
One of my calculus text books begins each chapter with a figure of a notable mathematician and a short bio. The 1st chapter (if memory serves me) cites Gauss’ complete name as: Johann Carl Friedrich von Gustav Gauss. You might want to include this as an update in your published Google doodle. All the best, MSR Marksrogers 1999 ( talk) 16:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of things named after Carl Friedrich Gauss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaussia ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 10:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that the little joke you included in your edit summary on ß did not go unnoticed or unappreciated. I chuckled quite a bit when reading it. Bnng ( talk) 00:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not at all free anymore. What has happened is that there is a section of people who has taken control over it. Those are the people from countries like Britain etc and their main responsilities (if i understand it correctly) is to ensure that the pages in Wikipedia stays as a western viewpoint, which itself is a doctored version of the truth. So any kind of legitimate edits with all the source etc, that contradicts these western viewpoint are immediately pulled down by so called administrators. The first thing that they say is you have to have consenses. There is no debate nothing in the talk page. But immediately reverses the edit and then if the user reverts that edit to the one he did with reasoning it's again reverted back by the so called admins with a warning and third time block that person from Wikipedia. How is it possible to provide a contratry view in Wikipedia, if there are admins who spend so much time as if they don't have any other work and is employed by someone just to ensure the whiteman's views in Wikipedia is kept intact. I don't know anyone who can so much time and effort to push for a western viewpoint on all pages, other than outfits with sinister motives to control the worldwide view to be on a positve note towards the west. Wikipedia being popular is used in such a manner. Those who are once blocked for simple three time edits are blocked forever and called as sockpuppets. I can't image how many good editors must have been banished by these crooks from editing wikipedia because they had a differece of opinion with these thugs and they use dedicated ips and cannot ever be back to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has completely transformed into a monster state that controls all information and all dissents are banished without a trace. Wpediaiswhitemanspropogandatools ( talk) 07:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I’m requesting under your accountability provisions that you explain why you restored vandalism to the talk page of the main page concerning a living person. I find it very disturbing that an administrator would do so, and even more disturbing as to why you appear confused as to the reason I referred to Elizabeth II by name rather than by what the vandal called her. RD3 and RD2 were both arguably applicable, and neither is at all limited to just articles (see ANI and the user talks of admins who deal with the trolls you are responding to above for some examples.) I’m sorry, but this has me seriously questioning your judgment as an administrator. TonyBallioni ( talk) 08:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello SebastianHelm,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Formal sector for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Xevus11 ( talk) 04:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Template:Boldmono has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno ( talk) 16:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, SebastianHelm. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)