Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
*I have stricken the "Please do not wheel war" part of my above request. Any administrator acting in good faith may reverse my action here. If you want it, its available. That is to say, if you would like to prolong that discussion that appears to be not generating consensus, and not going anywhere. My recommendation is to leave the protection. ] 18:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
*I have stricken the "Please do not wheel war" part of my above request. Any administrator acting in good faith may reverse my action here. If you want it, its available. That is to say, if you would like to prolong that discussion that appears to be not generating consensus, and not going anywhere. My recommendation is to leave the protection. ] 18:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
==Warning==
Mercury, to comment on ] is okay. But to use your admin tools with relation to it, since there is an obvious relationship between you and Durova because she co-nominated you for admin, is unethical. If you use your admins tools to interefere with that discussion again, I'm going to request your immediate desysopping, and I request that anyone else do the same. ] (]) 22:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The Tightrope Trophy, representing the amazing Charles Blondin carrying Jimbo Wales safely across the Niagara Falls, is hereby awarded by Bishonen to Mercury for his amazing balancing act at Homeopathy.
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I'm awarding you this Barnstar for all your work protecting[REDACTED] from the vandals, in particular the revert and protection of my talk page, Thanks! Tiddly-Tom16:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The Invisible Barnstar
For being with us for so long, and for fighting for this cause for years to come. Come, celebrate, raise a blass Marlith/C02:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Maxim has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
192.146.7.130 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
On WP:RPP, you said you had semi-protected RuneScape, as I requested; however, the page's log says you unprotected the already unprotected page instead, and it still isn't semi-protected. (I checked this by logging out and trying to edit it.) Could you please semi-protect the page? Pyrospirit (talk·contribs) 17:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I apologise for requesting those. I thought I was trying to be helpful, but I've done it wrongly requesting those. Sorry. --Solumeiras18:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Your request was civil and logical. There are guidelines and such the help us determine where to apply protection. There was no harm in the request. No apology is needed. Keep up the good work. :) Mercury18:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that I was actually able to see where you were coming from when Acalamari put it in terms of WP:Assume good faith. By the way, I just saw his RFA was closed, should that have been done? It was closed by a non-admin, which is unusual. Drop me a line and let me know what you think. Happy editing! Icestorm81521:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure. SNOW is not a policy, but something that we sometimes use. The RFA was highly unlikely to pass. Before I became an admin I've closed a couple that were highly unlikely to pass. It serves to prevent hard feelings and cuts a discussion short that has a particular end in sight. Only those experienced editors, admins or not, should be closing discussions as SNOW. Anymore questions be glad to answer. Mercury05:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You're usually good at these things. Can you protect the article. We've got me and bunch of others (some of whom are now participating admins), and some others on the other side edit warring. I'm at 3RR (no warning or blocking necessary). Can you protect the article and help build a consensus? The other side is wrong BTW :) OrangeMarlin19:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Best wishes with your candidacy! It was a pleasant surprise to see you'd thrown your hat into the ring. Warmly, Durova04:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, and you as well. I think I'm clueful enough to be an asset, so we shall see if the community will permit me to do this. I hope so, I have the desire. Mercury17:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome back. I'm not all up with the subject, I think it would be dependent on the source. What does the sourcing say? Regards, Mercury02:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick google link. :) When I change or add an assertion, I try to add a reliable source. It helps me to have some ground to stand on if ever my edits get challenged. In the beginning, I used external links but as I learned Misplaced Pages, I started using what I believe are reliable sources. I'm not saying that this is you saying headache, but its always better to point at a source and say "This source asserts "headache". Regards, Mercury03:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
This would be an area where niceties are going to be important. Propose the Source on the talk page, and leave Adam a message on his talk page pointing him to the talk page. Ask him if he has any objections, if not, re add the edit. This prevents hard feelings in a content dispute, Downside, it may take time for Adam to respond. But hey, the article won't rot in a day. :) Regards, Mercury03:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I see the confusion here, the edit history is concealed because there are several consolidated there. As far as it being a headache remedy, that is stated on the HeadOn article itself. Whig03:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not one of the defining facts about Potassium dichromate that it's used in homeopathy, funnily enough. Almost every basic substance and botanical is. Adam Cuerden08:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, this comment:
There are a number of physical models proposed, including Bénard cells, vibrations, etc. We don't have instruments that I'm aware can prove which physical model is correct at this time, but we do know by the first law of thermodynamics that all energy is conserved, and we do know from quantum mechanics that particles and waves are physically interchangable. The atomic limit is not a real limit in physics. Whig 00:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
In context, he's basically listing a lot of physics terms and claiming one of them is the proof of homeopathy, though he doesn't know which one. Adam Cuerden15:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
sigh* he hasn't changed. I've reblocked him. He was starting to advocate for removing all criticism of Homeopathy from the lead again. The fellow does not understand NPOV, and is incapable of doing so. Adam Cuerden20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Mercury, as you've been working with User:Whig and probably have a better perspective on this matter than I, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this block at AN/I. MastCell18:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Why consider blocking me? You can see that I didn't take the 3RR policy as a permission to 3RR anywhere (see the St Johnsbury article), in contrast to Polaron actually committing a 4RR; and that I noted that I'd not go any farther, despite the 4RR. Nyttend01:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Any xRR beyond one , is disruptive. What you two were doing warranted a block, but since you are both contributing editors and I did not see any aggravating factors, I protected the pages involved. I normally issue out userblocks for this sort of thing. See WP:Edit warring. Regards, Mercury01:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
OK. Sorry for not assuming good faith – just that the last time someone fiddled with the Main Page, it was because they'd found the passwords to three administrator accounts. Important to know that sort of thing isn't going to happen again. Thanks – Gurch16:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
No, no apology needed for this. When account security is concerned, any suspicious behavior is worth investigating. Had I known that was what you were getting at, I would have sent you the challenge to my committed identity hash, and the offer still stands if you would like to verify me. Regards, Mercury20:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm awarding you this Barnstar for all your work protecting[REDACTED] from the vandals, in particular the revert and protection of my talk page, Thanks! Tiddly-Tom16:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've looked over WP:Block and WP:Ban, and I'm still a little confused with the difference between a block and a ban? Is a ban a long, or indefinite form of a block? Could you please help me and clarify it for me? Thanks! Icestorm815 (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure...the most fundamental difference, is that a BLOCK is a technical feature in the software. If I BLOCK you, then the only thing the software will permit you to edit is your own talk page. If you become BANned, this is a social construct. If by discussion involving several uninvolved editors results on a consensus to ban you from editing pizza articles, then you don't edit Pizza articles. Once you edit a pizza article, it may result in a BLOCK of your editing. There are many types of BANs. The implications of both a BLOCK in a BAN are detailed in those policy documents. Let me know you have specific questions about those. Regards, Mercury22:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The vandalism is minor and no trouble to revert, so I'd prefer to keep my talk page open for any genuine IP questions. Thanks for looking out for me though. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Misplaced Pages Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.
Thank you for asking.
What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
First and always, I'm an editor. I also do some janitorial work for the project. I indirectly help by answering emails
sent to the wikipedia/wikimedia email addresses via the OTRS system.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I've done some dispute resolution, and I have what it takes to arbitrate. I'm on every day, and I know I would like the work.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they #handled poorly?
I won't question the arbiters. They do hard work, and since I'm on the outside looking in, I don't have all the information.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
I know the system, I have the aptitude, and I'm available.
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315»04:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You do realise that you will get admins reverting your reversions to the protected version, and that you will have to block and edit war to try and keep that page locked down? I'm not going to be around for the next few hours, but I'd recommend you lift the page protection and let this business sort itself out by discussion. It can't be contained by force by the time it's reached this stage. Protection doesnt' work because admins can edit the page. By reverting their addition to the page, you are effectively wheel-warring their use of admins tools to add their comments. Carcharoth (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Still waiting on an actual reason. In the past, closing active discussions has been frowned upon because it only adds more fuel to the fire (e.g., we now have another ill-considered administrative action to discuss). See e.g. the Daniel Brandt wheel war arbitration case. In any event I am stepping out so you have some hours. Christopher Parham(talk)18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted to the protected version, and admins should not be editing. Additionally, it is pretty obvious I've not protected the page to support myself in the discussion. Heck, I can't even find my edit. Mercury18:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I have stricken the "Please do not wheel war" part of my above request. Any administrator acting in good faith may reverse my action here. If you want it, its available. That is to say, if you would like to prolong that discussion that appears to be not generating consensus, and not going anywhere. My recommendation is to leave the protection. Mercury18:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Warning
Mercury, to comment on this thread about Durova is okay. But to use your admin tools with relation to it, since there is an obvious relationship between you and Durova because she co-nominated you for admin, is unethical. If you use your admins tools to interefere with that discussion again, I'm going to request your immediate desysopping, and I request that anyone else do the same. Cla68 (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
User talk:Mercury~enwiki: Difference between revisions
Add topic
