Where in the world did you get this idea: [1]? I'm currently under the impression that it's the exact opposite; after all, it is just a discussion. The Evil Spartan 15:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you give me a piece of advice, please? Let me tell the story.
1. Some time ago, I had a content disagreement with User:Commodore Sloat who deleted a relevant and referenced view of Yossef Bodansky and other sources he did not like [2] from article Operation Sarindar. This text is still deleted and the article is in terrible shape.
2. Besides that article, we had little interaction. I tried once to edit article Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, but csloat warned me that he will accuse me of wikistaling if I continue: [3], so I was afraid of editing this article. Next time, I tried to restore a more neutral version of article The Intelligence Summit (it is linked to Operation Sarindar), and this time csloat reported me as a "wikistalker" to WP:ANI: [4]. Administrators decided that his accusation was bogus.
3. When I made a comment in RfC of csloat (you know about it), he came uninvited to my talk page with a variety of personal accusations: [5]. I asked him several times to stop, but he refused. He stopped only after intervention of an administrator: [6] .
4. Csloat had constant arguments with Armon, but Armon is not active for more for two weeks. Now, when Armone is gone, Csloat came to edit an article that I am currently working with. He never edited this article before. Csloat is making massive deletions of relevant and perfectly sourced text [7] . Of course I object: [8], but he continue reverting the sourced text: [9]. Please note how he modified my comments at the talk page [10]
He blames me of WP:SYN. But I only cited work "Communism and terrorism" by Karl Kautsky in the article " Communist terrorism", and used other similar scholarly sources. What kind of WP:SYN is that? Finally, he nominated this article for AfD, exactly as he did previously twice with article Operation Sarindar.
So what do you recommend? May be I am wrong here? Well, I do have certain bias as everyone else, but I work hard to cite most reliable sources... and I am very frustrated when someone blindly deletes this work, instead of adding more alternative sources/content, as I always suggest. Biophys 20:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I will think about your recommendation. Biophys 21:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I saw where a temporary hold was placed on the article. Much appreciated... I think that was reasonable under the circumstances, and I will support that. My only concern at the moment is that regardless of whether the underlying problem is characterized as vandalism or merely as a content disagreement,* we're dealing with an anonymous IP user who refuses to hash out differences either on the article's discussion page or on my page. Additionally, what IP did--and I don't mean to belabor this--was not only to back out all my edits, but also to outright delete an entire section that was written by a third person. So, really, there are two issues: The content disagreement as to my own edits...but I still think the section deletion might qualify as vandalism.
(* Bear in mind this user was warned by other admins for vandalism due to similar edits made in the past.)
Thanks again, Witzlaw 04:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
How true! Thanks Egfrank 15:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I nearly wet myself laughing at the discussion of lame pages you linked to. -- Rocksanddirt 17:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I now have over 5,000 edits!! :) Thanks for allowing me to "return"! :) Things seem better this time around: [11], [12], [13] and [14]. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly where the best place is to report this, but User:Chrisjnelson is up to some personal attacks again today. I only bring this up to you, because I know that you dealt with him before. Frankly, i'm just sick of his disruptive antics. Bjewiki 02:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
From earlier tonight:
Okay, the proper place to report this kind of thing is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. The diffs certainly were uncivil and tu quoque is not a defense. I'll give this a very brief 24 hour block with the caveat that I may refuse to act in the future. My user talk page is not the site's complaints department. To Chris, I'm going easy this time, but bear in mind the arbitration decision states you may be blocked for a month after five blocks accrue. One down, four to go. Please don't continue the count. Durova Charge! 03:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Durova. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and " no personal attack" policies. Thank you. |
See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Discussion (FYI-explict link, Fra nkB 02:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC))
Hi! Haven't seen you for a while, but my bad--I've been off in RL--don't think we've EVER interacted outside Xfd spaces. Hope you don't mind the above note, but that {ANI-notice} template is pretty weird acting! I added the link since it took a while for me to find that ANI section, and only succeeded when I finally decided to search your user name. The template wouldn't let me edit the section (I suspect it's supposed to be subst'd--I'll ask CBD to check into that.), and the edit link button starts editing the template itself. That seems to be a Bad thing sort of effect. Not to mention, it's apparently not updating argument {{{1}}}} properly when whatever is generating it is, adding it here. That shoulda gave the link I added from a quick look at what I didn't want to edit! <g>
I only happened by as I was about to drop a question on Pats1 since I just recently began editing NE Patriots articles, saw the 'ruckess', and wandered over. So it's a good heads up (for me) to know a few of these guys have a "history" together. I'll see what I can do to keep a lid on things. Cheers! // Fra nkB 02:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you with this, but Global warming has taken a turn for the worse lately. You have taken an interest in the goings-on around that article from time to time. If you'd rather not get mired in it (which I could perfectly understand), would you be able to refer me to another neutral admin who could provide a voice of sanity? Thanks - Raymond Arritt 04:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Biophys ( talk · contribs) posted a note to my talk page threatening to take me to ArbCom if I don't stop removing violations of WP:SYN on two articles. I feel that his threat is out of line. All users should work to avoid original research on the encyclopedia, and I think it is inappropriate for him to ask me to "look the other way" while he creates articles in violation of Wikipedia policies. I have every intention of editing constructively and being cooperative, but I don't think Wikipedia policies on original research are meant to be bargaining chips.
Do you think I am being unreasonable here? I have to be honest and admit that my interactions with certain users on Wikipedia over the past few months have been extremely discouraging, and I have been on the verge of abandoning my participation in the project completely. I certainly have no wish to spend the next several months collecting evidence in a pissing match against Biophys (even though I think it's pretty clear and obvious that his violations of WP:SYN are severe and that my deletions of those violations are justified). The truth is, if editors here generally feel I do nothing to improve the encyclopedia then I don't think I should be here at all. I believe you have played fair with me as an admin even when I didn't agree with your decisions, so I'm asking you for advice -- how should I be responding to the kind of threat that Biophys is making on my talk page? Obviously I should try to be civil, but should I accept his offer and ignore the pages in question? Should I start the arbcom proceedings myself? Aren't there other ways of resolving the disputes on the two pages in question? Or do you think that the Wikipedia project in general would be better off without me? csloat 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I normally don't do this, but I see that you no matter who asks you, you're always willing to lend a helping hand.
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
for continually lending a helping hand to all those who come to your user page seeking help and for always providing options and solutions. -- Maniwar ( talk) 20:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you very much! Durova Charge! 04:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
While working, ironically, on the American wine article I came across your posting on seachengine land. Your posting is certainly an intriguing idea but out of idle curiosity, why did you decide to hone in on Wikipedia's wine articles as your examples for this piece? Agne Cheese/ Wine 00:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Durova: Per an earlier note I emailed you on but got no response via email or via myTalk page, I am asking that you check out the myTalk page for author/editor Ronz who (while perhaps in a noble effort to keep content vetted) has himself actually made matters worse on a number of topics he has no editorial expertise on (and hence should defer/recommend or solicit others to join in on) and/or has actually made changes that make entrees more partisian
Check out Knowledge Management software as being one - is it odd that after three requests of him he has not removed NetSuite and/or has left the companies listed in the body instead of relying on the external link (which by the way having a link to Lockheed (and allowing that) is clearly an omission he has enforced on others.
Durova, this is not a sarcastic/angry email, rather one out of concern. Again, read his myTalk page and you will see Ronz himself is guilty of many of the areas he feels he is defending against.
Respectfully
Topiarydan Dan Schramm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topiarydan ( talk • contribs) 03:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Administrator,
I have been a contributor for the Victory Christian Fellowship page. When Every Nation entry underwent mediation, the Victory Christian Fellowship page was also included in the process (as Victory is affiliated with Every Nation and they were facing the same issues on editing). I understand that when a page is under mediation, no one is suppose to alter it while an agreement is not reached.
I haven't been active with Wikipedia for a time because of work concerns but I have found a published material about Victory Christian Fellowship that is worth posting as a reputable source. Will I be allowed to do this now? Is mediation finished for this page?
Please let me know. I will put my posts on hold until I get permission from you. I would like to do this according to proper Wikipedia procedures.
Thank you very much for your time and advice.
Blessings,
Chickywiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickywiki ( talk • contribs) 09:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok - today I was in the midst of some SEO adventures, and have noticed a website that has been abusing wiki - at least I would call it abuse.
I went through their inlinks with yahoo site explorer and changed as many of their meddlings back to what they should have been. But I don't have the time to do it all - and would like to try to prevent this from happening again.
If you could help at all - I, and the other people in our search category would greatly appreciate it.
here is a link to their backlinks, so you can see what they were doing. http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/advsearch?ei=UTF-8&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.actionprintinginc.com
there were a few blatantly missrepresented links, and a few from wiki europe I believe.
Thank you, again.
Ok - today I was in the midst of some SEO adventures, and have noticed a website that has been abusing wiki - at least I would call it abuse.
I went through their inlinks with yahoo site explorer and changed as many of their meddlings back to what they should have been. But I don't have the time to do it all - and would like to try to prevent this from happening again.
If you could help at all - I, and the other people in our search category would greatly appreciate it.
here is a link to their backlinks, so you can see what they were doing. http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/advsearch?ei=UTF-8&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.actionprintinginc.com
there were a few blatantly missrepresented links, and a few from wiki europe I believe.
Thank you, again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matusz13 ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
If (when, relaly) the CSN is shut down and its operations folded into AN/I again, I was hoping that we can set it up that any ban archiving represents a duplication of the report, which ideally would still go into the AN/I archives, keeping AN/I holistic and intact, and allowing us to, if needed, group multiple threads regarding a ban into one section in the Ban archives, possibly (probably) identifying sections by user, not original AN/I thread titles? or is all of this so patently obvious that I'm wasting time typing it? ThuranX 05:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Durova, I believe there was a discussion going on a week or two ago about limiting the input in CSN debates of people who are personally involved in the case. Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to locate the thread now. I wonder if you can tell me if this debate still going on. Did it have an outcome, and where might I be able to read it? Gatoclass 03:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what it is, but I'm interested in being coached by an admin (Admin coaching?). I'm more experienced, but I'd like a little bit of a polish so I can move higher up the ranks later on. You mentioned at the Requests for Adminship RfC that's you're looking for new people to coach, so I thoguht I'd drop you a line. Thanks for your time. :) Cheers, Spawn Man 08:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you please admin coach me? I have 1,366 edits and my edit summary usage is 100% on both major and minor edits. Anyways, I was wondering, at least, if I am close to admin status? jonathan ( talk — contribs) 17:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Your input would be appreciated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Martinphi ScienceApologist 21:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Since there are a couple discussions above about Admin coaching, I'd like to ask you for your opinion on one question. Several times recently (over the summer) I have thought about possibly trying to become an Admin. While I don't have plans for that right now, I was just curious: because of the conflicts I've been in recently with guys like Chris and Jmfangio, how much time do you think I'd have to wait before having the best chance for a successful RfA? This would give me some assistance as to how long I'd need to clean up my image (relationships with other users) before I'd even be considered, since one of the first questions is "How have you resolved conflicts between you and other users in the past" or something like that, and I'd just like to know how long I should expect to wait before I can... well, not completely forget about those conflicts, but to have them not taken into consideration that much when reviewing the RfA.
In other words, what are the steps I need to take in order to have a legitimate shot at an RfA in the future? Ksy92003 (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to come back here... not sure if I'll ever be able to stop. It's like an addiction. Anyway, on Friday there was actually something that I didn't catch about the Chris situation. Fortunately, Sasha Callahan ( talk · contribs) did. She left a comment about a violation of Chris' restriction at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, but more than two days have past and there has yet to be a response. So, I'm coming here just to make sure this gets somebody's attention.
On Template:New England Patriots roster, he reverted twice within 13 hours. Here is the first revert: [19]. Here is the second revert: [20]. The first revert was a revert of 151.204.244.201 and the second was a revert of Swainstonation. Again, this all stems from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson which prohibits Chris from reverting a page twice in a week's span. Ksy92003 (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Per this comment on my talk page, I would like to make you aware of this report on Chrisjnelson. The quick version of it is that Chris reverted twice within a week, violating an arbcom ruling. As a disclaimer, I was involved in the dispute with Chris, but didn't get involved until after his reversions. Thanks. Sasha Callahan 04:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I've posted a request on WP:ANI for independent review and action. Durova Charge! 07:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm back, and somehow, Chris wasn't blocked at all first. Two admins were going for it at the same time, and the first one to get through didn't block him. The second one was going to, but the first had already acted. To be perfectly honest, I'm shocked that he wasn't blocked. I mean it's quite clear he violated the restriction, and he admitted it himself here, so I'm completely shocked. Sorry, the discussions led me to believe that there wasn't a block, but in an e-mail, Chris told me that he was, and I just verified. Sorry.
Ksy92003
(talk) 13:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, how's it going. I'm applying for an Imperial triple crown
Teemu08 05:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Delivered by grafikbot 09:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
...for the lovely barnstar. Doing the right thing is hard! But I'm hoping that everyone is ok, and I'm certainly prepared should such a situation arise again, on or off wiki. All the best, ~ Eliz 81 (C) 01:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I've just left a post at User talk:Charles Matthews about complex investigations. It's hidden away in this post. I mentioned you there, so I thought I'd invite you over to comment. Do you keep records of all the investigations you undertake? Carcharoth 15:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Erm, wondering if you'd forgotten about lil' ol' me. It's okay if you don't feel I need coaching or don't want to give it to me (Or if you were too busy lol!). :) Anyway, just checking. Cheers, Spawn Man 02:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
?? Erm, I thought you were my coach? And I'm not aware we've started yet, so I don't know how you could check how I'm doing - unless you're recording me secretly.... ;) Cheers, Spawn Man 04:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Some time ago you gave some helpful advice on the WP:BLP of Myron Evans. Consensus decided that this should be reduced to a biographical stub and the exact form of this was agreed by the editors at the time. Now it seems that a new sanitization spree has started. The following cautious statement has been challenged "Evans appears to have no current academic affiliation within the UK", again a formulation agreed on by consensus. There is in fact no need for caution as there is a complete listing of all UK universities and colleges, so that - albeit laboriously - the statement can be verified. (The process can be speeded up by knowing that Evans lives near Swansea.) Now an editor User:LinguisticDemographer, from Wales with a knowledge of chemistry, has said that this cautious statement is actually innuendo and potentially libellous. He has also implied that university websites are not acceptable as sources for such statements. I find that his WP:Wikilawyering is suspicious and that he is pushing a WP:POV. I suspect he has a WP:COI: he might in fact be a meatpuppet of Myron Evans. It seems Evans can no longer publish his work in recognized peer-reviewed journals; at the same time this editor is suggesting that only the affiliation appearing on such a paper is a valid source for WP. Self-published books by Evans on www.amazon.com list no UK affiliation. I cannot understand why a verifiable and innocuous statement of this kind has been challenged. Please could you give your advice? Thanks, Mathsci 03:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Durova, just to give you a heads up, I made a number of edits to the Jane Austen article today: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. I hope that's a good start. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Because of concerns over how I acted in semi-protecting the William Shakespeare article, I have opened a discussion on my use of my admin powers at User_talk:Alabamaboy#Request_for_comment_on_my_use_of_admin_powers. Based on how the comments go, I am prepared to give up my admin powers or accept other sanctions.
Since I've always admired and been impressed by your admin-related work, I'd appreciate it if you would consider looking at the situation and commenting. Part of me thinks I should give up the admin bit anyway since I enjoy creating articles more. Be nice to have time to create another FA or good article.-- Alabamaboy 01:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where the discussion is taking place, but I wanted to suggest that a way to ensure community sanctions and bans discussions get archived properly would be to tag them with a template (even an invisible one) that the bot would recognise. I'm sure it's already been suggested, it's a no-brainer, but I thought I'd offer it up anyway. Cheers! Anchoress 10:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Where in the world did you get this idea: [1]? I'm currently under the impression that it's the exact opposite; after all, it is just a discussion. The Evil Spartan 15:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you give me a piece of advice, please? Let me tell the story.
1. Some time ago, I had a content disagreement with User:Commodore Sloat who deleted a relevant and referenced view of Yossef Bodansky and other sources he did not like [2] from article Operation Sarindar. This text is still deleted and the article is in terrible shape.
2. Besides that article, we had little interaction. I tried once to edit article Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, but csloat warned me that he will accuse me of wikistaling if I continue: [3], so I was afraid of editing this article. Next time, I tried to restore a more neutral version of article The Intelligence Summit (it is linked to Operation Sarindar), and this time csloat reported me as a "wikistalker" to WP:ANI: [4]. Administrators decided that his accusation was bogus.
3. When I made a comment in RfC of csloat (you know about it), he came uninvited to my talk page with a variety of personal accusations: [5]. I asked him several times to stop, but he refused. He stopped only after intervention of an administrator: [6] .
4. Csloat had constant arguments with Armon, but Armon is not active for more for two weeks. Now, when Armone is gone, Csloat came to edit an article that I am currently working with. He never edited this article before. Csloat is making massive deletions of relevant and perfectly sourced text [7] . Of course I object: [8], but he continue reverting the sourced text: [9]. Please note how he modified my comments at the talk page [10]
He blames me of WP:SYN. But I only cited work "Communism and terrorism" by Karl Kautsky in the article " Communist terrorism", and used other similar scholarly sources. What kind of WP:SYN is that? Finally, he nominated this article for AfD, exactly as he did previously twice with article Operation Sarindar.
So what do you recommend? May be I am wrong here? Well, I do have certain bias as everyone else, but I work hard to cite most reliable sources... and I am very frustrated when someone blindly deletes this work, instead of adding more alternative sources/content, as I always suggest. Biophys 20:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I will think about your recommendation. Biophys 21:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I saw where a temporary hold was placed on the article. Much appreciated... I think that was reasonable under the circumstances, and I will support that. My only concern at the moment is that regardless of whether the underlying problem is characterized as vandalism or merely as a content disagreement,* we're dealing with an anonymous IP user who refuses to hash out differences either on the article's discussion page or on my page. Additionally, what IP did--and I don't mean to belabor this--was not only to back out all my edits, but also to outright delete an entire section that was written by a third person. So, really, there are two issues: The content disagreement as to my own edits...but I still think the section deletion might qualify as vandalism.
(* Bear in mind this user was warned by other admins for vandalism due to similar edits made in the past.)
Thanks again, Witzlaw 04:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
How true! Thanks Egfrank 15:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I nearly wet myself laughing at the discussion of lame pages you linked to. -- Rocksanddirt 17:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I now have over 5,000 edits!! :) Thanks for allowing me to "return"! :) Things seem better this time around: [11], [12], [13] and [14]. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly where the best place is to report this, but User:Chrisjnelson is up to some personal attacks again today. I only bring this up to you, because I know that you dealt with him before. Frankly, i'm just sick of his disruptive antics. Bjewiki 02:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
From earlier tonight:
Okay, the proper place to report this kind of thing is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. The diffs certainly were uncivil and tu quoque is not a defense. I'll give this a very brief 24 hour block with the caveat that I may refuse to act in the future. My user talk page is not the site's complaints department. To Chris, I'm going easy this time, but bear in mind the arbitration decision states you may be blocked for a month after five blocks accrue. One down, four to go. Please don't continue the count. Durova Charge! 03:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Durova. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and " no personal attack" policies. Thank you. |
See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Discussion (FYI-explict link, Fra nkB 02:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC))
Hi! Haven't seen you for a while, but my bad--I've been off in RL--don't think we've EVER interacted outside Xfd spaces. Hope you don't mind the above note, but that {ANI-notice} template is pretty weird acting! I added the link since it took a while for me to find that ANI section, and only succeeded when I finally decided to search your user name. The template wouldn't let me edit the section (I suspect it's supposed to be subst'd--I'll ask CBD to check into that.), and the edit link button starts editing the template itself. That seems to be a Bad thing sort of effect. Not to mention, it's apparently not updating argument {{{1}}}} properly when whatever is generating it is, adding it here. That shoulda gave the link I added from a quick look at what I didn't want to edit! <g>
I only happened by as I was about to drop a question on Pats1 since I just recently began editing NE Patriots articles, saw the 'ruckess', and wandered over. So it's a good heads up (for me) to know a few of these guys have a "history" together. I'll see what I can do to keep a lid on things. Cheers! // Fra nkB 02:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you with this, but Global warming has taken a turn for the worse lately. You have taken an interest in the goings-on around that article from time to time. If you'd rather not get mired in it (which I could perfectly understand), would you be able to refer me to another neutral admin who could provide a voice of sanity? Thanks - Raymond Arritt 04:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Biophys ( talk · contribs) posted a note to my talk page threatening to take me to ArbCom if I don't stop removing violations of WP:SYN on two articles. I feel that his threat is out of line. All users should work to avoid original research on the encyclopedia, and I think it is inappropriate for him to ask me to "look the other way" while he creates articles in violation of Wikipedia policies. I have every intention of editing constructively and being cooperative, but I don't think Wikipedia policies on original research are meant to be bargaining chips.
Do you think I am being unreasonable here? I have to be honest and admit that my interactions with certain users on Wikipedia over the past few months have been extremely discouraging, and I have been on the verge of abandoning my participation in the project completely. I certainly have no wish to spend the next several months collecting evidence in a pissing match against Biophys (even though I think it's pretty clear and obvious that his violations of WP:SYN are severe and that my deletions of those violations are justified). The truth is, if editors here generally feel I do nothing to improve the encyclopedia then I don't think I should be here at all. I believe you have played fair with me as an admin even when I didn't agree with your decisions, so I'm asking you for advice -- how should I be responding to the kind of threat that Biophys is making on my talk page? Obviously I should try to be civil, but should I accept his offer and ignore the pages in question? Should I start the arbcom proceedings myself? Aren't there other ways of resolving the disputes on the two pages in question? Or do you think that the Wikipedia project in general would be better off without me? csloat 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I normally don't do this, but I see that you no matter who asks you, you're always willing to lend a helping hand.
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
for continually lending a helping hand to all those who come to your user page seeking help and for always providing options and solutions. -- Maniwar ( talk) 20:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you very much! Durova Charge! 04:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
While working, ironically, on the American wine article I came across your posting on seachengine land. Your posting is certainly an intriguing idea but out of idle curiosity, why did you decide to hone in on Wikipedia's wine articles as your examples for this piece? Agne Cheese/ Wine 00:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Durova: Per an earlier note I emailed you on but got no response via email or via myTalk page, I am asking that you check out the myTalk page for author/editor Ronz who (while perhaps in a noble effort to keep content vetted) has himself actually made matters worse on a number of topics he has no editorial expertise on (and hence should defer/recommend or solicit others to join in on) and/or has actually made changes that make entrees more partisian
Check out Knowledge Management software as being one - is it odd that after three requests of him he has not removed NetSuite and/or has left the companies listed in the body instead of relying on the external link (which by the way having a link to Lockheed (and allowing that) is clearly an omission he has enforced on others.
Durova, this is not a sarcastic/angry email, rather one out of concern. Again, read his myTalk page and you will see Ronz himself is guilty of many of the areas he feels he is defending against.
Respectfully
Topiarydan Dan Schramm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topiarydan ( talk • contribs) 03:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Administrator,
I have been a contributor for the Victory Christian Fellowship page. When Every Nation entry underwent mediation, the Victory Christian Fellowship page was also included in the process (as Victory is affiliated with Every Nation and they were facing the same issues on editing). I understand that when a page is under mediation, no one is suppose to alter it while an agreement is not reached.
I haven't been active with Wikipedia for a time because of work concerns but I have found a published material about Victory Christian Fellowship that is worth posting as a reputable source. Will I be allowed to do this now? Is mediation finished for this page?
Please let me know. I will put my posts on hold until I get permission from you. I would like to do this according to proper Wikipedia procedures.
Thank you very much for your time and advice.
Blessings,
Chickywiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickywiki ( talk • contribs) 09:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok - today I was in the midst of some SEO adventures, and have noticed a website that has been abusing wiki - at least I would call it abuse.
I went through their inlinks with yahoo site explorer and changed as many of their meddlings back to what they should have been. But I don't have the time to do it all - and would like to try to prevent this from happening again.
If you could help at all - I, and the other people in our search category would greatly appreciate it.
here is a link to their backlinks, so you can see what they were doing. http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/advsearch?ei=UTF-8&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.actionprintinginc.com
there were a few blatantly missrepresented links, and a few from wiki europe I believe.
Thank you, again.
Ok - today I was in the midst of some SEO adventures, and have noticed a website that has been abusing wiki - at least I would call it abuse.
I went through their inlinks with yahoo site explorer and changed as many of their meddlings back to what they should have been. But I don't have the time to do it all - and would like to try to prevent this from happening again.
If you could help at all - I, and the other people in our search category would greatly appreciate it.
here is a link to their backlinks, so you can see what they were doing. http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/advsearch?ei=UTF-8&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.actionprintinginc.com
there were a few blatantly missrepresented links, and a few from wiki europe I believe.
Thank you, again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matusz13 ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
If (when, relaly) the CSN is shut down and its operations folded into AN/I again, I was hoping that we can set it up that any ban archiving represents a duplication of the report, which ideally would still go into the AN/I archives, keeping AN/I holistic and intact, and allowing us to, if needed, group multiple threads regarding a ban into one section in the Ban archives, possibly (probably) identifying sections by user, not original AN/I thread titles? or is all of this so patently obvious that I'm wasting time typing it? ThuranX 05:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Durova, I believe there was a discussion going on a week or two ago about limiting the input in CSN debates of people who are personally involved in the case. Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to locate the thread now. I wonder if you can tell me if this debate still going on. Did it have an outcome, and where might I be able to read it? Gatoclass 03:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what it is, but I'm interested in being coached by an admin (Admin coaching?). I'm more experienced, but I'd like a little bit of a polish so I can move higher up the ranks later on. You mentioned at the Requests for Adminship RfC that's you're looking for new people to coach, so I thoguht I'd drop you a line. Thanks for your time. :) Cheers, Spawn Man 08:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you please admin coach me? I have 1,366 edits and my edit summary usage is 100% on both major and minor edits. Anyways, I was wondering, at least, if I am close to admin status? jonathan ( talk — contribs) 17:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Your input would be appreciated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Martinphi ScienceApologist 21:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Since there are a couple discussions above about Admin coaching, I'd like to ask you for your opinion on one question. Several times recently (over the summer) I have thought about possibly trying to become an Admin. While I don't have plans for that right now, I was just curious: because of the conflicts I've been in recently with guys like Chris and Jmfangio, how much time do you think I'd have to wait before having the best chance for a successful RfA? This would give me some assistance as to how long I'd need to clean up my image (relationships with other users) before I'd even be considered, since one of the first questions is "How have you resolved conflicts between you and other users in the past" or something like that, and I'd just like to know how long I should expect to wait before I can... well, not completely forget about those conflicts, but to have them not taken into consideration that much when reviewing the RfA.
In other words, what are the steps I need to take in order to have a legitimate shot at an RfA in the future? Ksy92003 (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to come back here... not sure if I'll ever be able to stop. It's like an addiction. Anyway, on Friday there was actually something that I didn't catch about the Chris situation. Fortunately, Sasha Callahan ( talk · contribs) did. She left a comment about a violation of Chris' restriction at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, but more than two days have past and there has yet to be a response. So, I'm coming here just to make sure this gets somebody's attention.
On Template:New England Patriots roster, he reverted twice within 13 hours. Here is the first revert: [19]. Here is the second revert: [20]. The first revert was a revert of 151.204.244.201 and the second was a revert of Swainstonation. Again, this all stems from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson which prohibits Chris from reverting a page twice in a week's span. Ksy92003 (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Per this comment on my talk page, I would like to make you aware of this report on Chrisjnelson. The quick version of it is that Chris reverted twice within a week, violating an arbcom ruling. As a disclaimer, I was involved in the dispute with Chris, but didn't get involved until after his reversions. Thanks. Sasha Callahan 04:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I've posted a request on WP:ANI for independent review and action. Durova Charge! 07:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm back, and somehow, Chris wasn't blocked at all first. Two admins were going for it at the same time, and the first one to get through didn't block him. The second one was going to, but the first had already acted. To be perfectly honest, I'm shocked that he wasn't blocked. I mean it's quite clear he violated the restriction, and he admitted it himself here, so I'm completely shocked. Sorry, the discussions led me to believe that there wasn't a block, but in an e-mail, Chris told me that he was, and I just verified. Sorry.
Ksy92003
(talk) 13:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, how's it going. I'm applying for an Imperial triple crown
Teemu08 05:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Delivered by grafikbot 09:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
...for the lovely barnstar. Doing the right thing is hard! But I'm hoping that everyone is ok, and I'm certainly prepared should such a situation arise again, on or off wiki. All the best, ~ Eliz 81 (C) 01:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I've just left a post at User talk:Charles Matthews about complex investigations. It's hidden away in this post. I mentioned you there, so I thought I'd invite you over to comment. Do you keep records of all the investigations you undertake? Carcharoth 15:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Erm, wondering if you'd forgotten about lil' ol' me. It's okay if you don't feel I need coaching or don't want to give it to me (Or if you were too busy lol!). :) Anyway, just checking. Cheers, Spawn Man 02:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
?? Erm, I thought you were my coach? And I'm not aware we've started yet, so I don't know how you could check how I'm doing - unless you're recording me secretly.... ;) Cheers, Spawn Man 04:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Some time ago you gave some helpful advice on the WP:BLP of Myron Evans. Consensus decided that this should be reduced to a biographical stub and the exact form of this was agreed by the editors at the time. Now it seems that a new sanitization spree has started. The following cautious statement has been challenged "Evans appears to have no current academic affiliation within the UK", again a formulation agreed on by consensus. There is in fact no need for caution as there is a complete listing of all UK universities and colleges, so that - albeit laboriously - the statement can be verified. (The process can be speeded up by knowing that Evans lives near Swansea.) Now an editor User:LinguisticDemographer, from Wales with a knowledge of chemistry, has said that this cautious statement is actually innuendo and potentially libellous. He has also implied that university websites are not acceptable as sources for such statements. I find that his WP:Wikilawyering is suspicious and that he is pushing a WP:POV. I suspect he has a WP:COI: he might in fact be a meatpuppet of Myron Evans. It seems Evans can no longer publish his work in recognized peer-reviewed journals; at the same time this editor is suggesting that only the affiliation appearing on such a paper is a valid source for WP. Self-published books by Evans on www.amazon.com list no UK affiliation. I cannot understand why a verifiable and innocuous statement of this kind has been challenged. Please could you give your advice? Thanks, Mathsci 03:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Durova, just to give you a heads up, I made a number of edits to the Jane Austen article today: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. I hope that's a good start. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Because of concerns over how I acted in semi-protecting the William Shakespeare article, I have opened a discussion on my use of my admin powers at User_talk:Alabamaboy#Request_for_comment_on_my_use_of_admin_powers. Based on how the comments go, I am prepared to give up my admin powers or accept other sanctions.
Since I've always admired and been impressed by your admin-related work, I'd appreciate it if you would consider looking at the situation and commenting. Part of me thinks I should give up the admin bit anyway since I enjoy creating articles more. Be nice to have time to create another FA or good article.-- Alabamaboy 01:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where the discussion is taking place, but I wanted to suggest that a way to ensure community sanctions and bans discussions get archived properly would be to tag them with a template (even an invisible one) that the bot would recognise. I'm sure it's already been suggested, it's a no-brainer, but I thought I'd offer it up anyway. Cheers! Anchoress 10:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)