User talk:WGFinley: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:43, 19 November 2011 editWGFinley (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users5,088 edits →Nableezy AE case ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 06:04, 24 July 2023 edit undoRreagan007 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers38,728 edits →Charles III requested move discussion: new sectionTag: New topic
Line 2:		Line 2:
	\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}		\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 70K		\|maxarchivesize = 70K
	\|counter = 6		\|counter = 13
	\|minthreadsleft = 0		\|minthreadsleft = 0
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 2		\|minthreadstoarchive = 2
	\|algo = old(~~31d~~)		\|algo = old(30d)
	\|archive = User talk:~~Wgfinley~~/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = User talk:WGFinley/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}


	<big>'''Feel free to use this page to reach me. If you are in need of more personal, private, or immediate assistance, feel free to . Thanks!.'''</big>
			{\|class="wikitable" width="60%" col="3"
	{{Userwhisperback}}
			\|- align="center" bgcolor="#ffffff" colspan="3"
			\| ] '''My Email Rules'''<br>
			\|- align="left"
			\|
			If you choose to email me using the email user function my rules are as follows:
			# I may not agree email is the appropriate place for the exchange, I will advise you on your talk page that I received the email and I think the conversation belongs on wiki.
			# If I do elect to have an email exchange with you then it is privileged and confidential, you '''do not''' have my permission to post it publicly without asking to do so.
			# Whether you follow my email rules is up to you but be aware I may refuse to engage in the use of email with you if you refuse to follow them.
			\|}

	{{archive box		{{archive box
	\|auto= yes		\|auto= yes
Line 19:		Line 29:
	{{Quotation\|The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do.\|Thomas Jefferson}}		{{Quotation\|The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do.\|Thomas Jefferson}}

			== Charles III requested move discussion ==
	== Making ] meaningful ==
			There is a ] in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. ] (]) 06:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

	Please consider how you might assist ], who you will know is the mediator at ].

	As context, please scan .

	Mediation involves conflated issues, but wider community intervention is needed in order to help, support and encourage ] so that we may reach those issues. --] (]) 18:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

	:I'm hesitant to wade into this at this time. MedCom is discussing this case per the request made, we should have something shortly. --] (]) 02:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
	::This was not an invitation to "wade in" -- no.<p>My purpose was more subtle, more indirect. In posting this note on your talk page (and on the pages of your mediator colleagues), it was a good guess that your "]" comments might bolster Feezo's resolve, patience and flexibility.<p>Also, I thought it very likely that Bobthefish2 would closely follow my edits. If so, he would notice the sequence of diffs posted on mediator talk pages; and the cumulative effect of my carefully mild words might cause him pause.<p>My guess is that this gesture achieved no discernible goal. At best, these were a small things. These small "nudges" represented the extent of my ability to affect the momentum of things spinning out of control.<p>I adopt Feezo's argument that This small strategy demonstrates both honesty and willingness <u>and</u> an investment in speculating about the probable consequences of a few words. --] (]) 03:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
	:::The MedCom mailing list is no secret, it helps coordinate the assignment of cases, manage caseload and handle requests such as those made in this case. It's not something I would reply to individually at this point as it's under review. --] (]) 05:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

	== Whisperback ==

	{{Whisperback\|The_Artist_AKA_Mr_Anonymous‎}}

	==Nableezy AE case==

	I'm sorry, but I must strongly disagree with some of your comments in this case. Nableezy made ''one'' revert, of two for the show. He then came up with a ''compromise'' edit which eliminated, or should have eliminated, the source of friction, by simply substituting "Israeli occupied territories" in place of the disputed list of territories. That was a good solution in my view, and the dispute ''should'' have ended there, except that an IP (since blocked), clearly bent on harassment of Nableezy, then began reverting him.

	Quite frankly I am getting extremely tired of seeing admins in effect enabling disruptive users by rewarding them with blocks and bans of the opponents they set out to harass. There is no moral equivalence here. Users are entitled to edit pages responsibly without fear of sanction. ] (]) 04:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

	:This is pretty simple, follow along.
	:# Two for the show did the 4th revert which brought it back to the status quo it had been for 5+ months and asked for the warring to stop and to discuss building a consensus.
	:# Nableezy appears to think that is ] and reverts = bad.
	:# He does explain on the talk page.= good. But he had already reverted which makes his claim of seeking consensus appear less than genuine. He ignored the call for discussion and consensus in favor of restoring his own preferred version.

	:This is the essence of P-I edit wars and as anyone who edits in P-I knows your actions are subject to sanction if you can't edit harmoniously. Nableezy has repeatedly been subject to sanction for ] in the P-I space, this is nothing new or invented on my part. --] (]) 04:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

	:: There was a brief edit war over this issue back in June; Nableezy wasn't involved. Sean Hoyland triggered it again a few days ago when he added an article about murdered Israeli settlers to the category and adjusted the definition accordingly. Two for the show reverted, calling for consensus. Nableezy reverted him, leaving a message on the talk page as to his reasons. Brewcrewer then reverted Nableezy, and Nableezy swiftly came up with a compromise edit. He did not "restore his own preferred version", he came up with a ''fresh'' solution which he obviously hoped would resolve the dispute quickly, and which indeed seems to have stuck.

	:: This is no more than standard BRD, and there is no reason to suppose the debate would not have ended there with no drama at all had not the IP turned up to continue his campaign of harassment against Nableezy. It's precisely what I meant when I said that users have a right to edit responsibly without having to constantly look over their shoulder for fear of sanction.

	:: As far as the charge of "tendentious editing" on Nableezy's part, I don't recall any such cases against Nableezy, all those I have seen have been about either technical breaches of the rules or incivility. AFAIK there have been no successful cases against Nableezy for adding substandard or biased content, ie tendentiousness. On the contrary, every time Nableezy has taken a longstanding dispute to the wider community, his position has been endorsed and that of his opponents rejected. That ought to tell you something about who is contributing positively to the topic area and who is not. ] (]) 05:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

	:::] -> search page "Nableezy" -> grok to the fullness of Nableezy's ]. I'm not saying he's the sole person at fault here, there's some blame to go around but Nableezy is always in the fray and can't seem to stay away from JJG no matter how many interaction and topic bans they get. --] (]) 05:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:04, 24 July 2023

My Email Rules

If you choose to email me using the email user function my rules are as follows:

I may not agree email is the appropriate place for the exchange, I will advise you on your talk page that I received the email and I think the conversation belongs on wiki.
If I do elect to have an email exchange with you then it is privileged and confidential, you do not have my permission to post it publicly without asking to do so.
Whether you follow my email rules is up to you but be aware I may refuse to engage in the use of email with you if you refuse to follow them.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do.
— Thomas Jefferson

Charles III requested move discussion

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)