Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:16, 31 July 2008

Archives

1 2 3

Oops

Thanks for correcting me - here - on the community ban. Time to RTFM again! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Law/Assessment

Hello, I've made some suggestions for the assessment department for WP Law and listed them at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Law/Assessment. I can help with a lot of whatever is needed to update the assessment department for WP Law. I do some assessment in WP Tax but I want to include assessment in WP Law as well particularly since there are so many unassessed articles. EECavazos (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thnaks

thanks for order

Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 06:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI archiving

Ahhh, thank you so much for helping me try to archive WP:ANI! I thought I was the only one getting enraged at sitting there watching that whole stupid page load in my browser. (BTW, your talk page could use a bit of a snip too! ) —Wknight94 (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, no problem  :) Google is ticking me off so much though...refusing to load and all...of all the times it doesn't work. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just coming here to say the same thing! Isn't there a bot that archives, though, or has this seriously always been manually done? I'm sure I missed the memo. I can help as well here and there, what parameters are you using to archive? 24hrs? 48? Keeper ǀ 76 19:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The bot does it based on inactivity in the thread... which means that it can't use human judgment to see which threads are obviously over and done with, even if they've only been inactive for a short period of time. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)

That bot goes either too slow or too fast - not that I can blame it; it'll never know if something is actually resolved or not. It's set at archiving threads that don't get responses for 24 hours. I wanted to archive about 10 resolved threads (some aren't marked either!) yesterday, but thought I'd leave it for a day - got rid of them into the archives with some more now. :) Not using any real parameters - generally, if it's something that's done from my own judgement, I've put it away. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I wonder if a 12 hour absence of action might be a more useful parameter - it gives the half of the world that was asleep when the discussion paused chance to add to it if required... Obviously, there will still be the "Please will admin close XfD" - "Done" that can clear, but anything that has/requests opinion should be kept for a while longer (IMO). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LessHeard vanU (talk • contribs)

I just wanted to take the time to thank you for archiving AN/I. Great work. It needs it. Synergy 14:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please link in the edit summary the archive to which you are sending things. –xeno (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

I was doing several things at once and thought that was on the main AN/I page. Apologies. -Jéské 20:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's okay. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I read it

I read it quite clearly. If you had actually read what I wrote, you would notice that 1) I expressed dissatisfaction that the thread was closed only 8 minutes after the last message and 2) that I felt administrator action may still be required. Part of a section being "closed" doesn't mean the entire section is closed as I frequently see sub sections of discussions closed while the debate carries on around them. 90 minutes after a comment in a section is too soon to archive it, whether you feel further admin intervention is required or not, obviously another editor did.--Crossmr (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Kossack4Truth topic ban

MastCell just clarified this. Kossack4Truth is under restriction as per this discussion on ANI--Cailil 17:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What to do?

I guess you've followed it, so I'm not adding anything really. I just noticed (via an indirect mention on Talk:Obama), that Kossack4Truth filed both a 3RR and a WP:ANI with various accusations against me. No notice on my talk page about any of this, of course (by anyone, interestingly). It appears the complaint tries to muster together four distinct edits I made, concerning two completely unrelated topics on the Obama page. It's frustrating, obviously; but it does appear that the various admins, including you, did the right thing with the reports.

I'm a bit worried about what to do with such things into the future. Of course, I may or may not learn of any administrative pages at all. But I more-or-less assume that K4T will continue to try to incite conflict and engage in various wikilawyering. I suppose in this case, the fact I never saw it until everything was already closed was for the best. Any sage words on how to walk the line of contentious editors while trying to keep hot-button articles free of unencyclopedic content? LotLE×talk 00:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

Stop archiving the Bedford thread - it's now open to review, it's not just resolved like that. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it, but I hope you see NCM that I'm not the only bothered by your presumptive editing here. Beam 15:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right..

ANi is not a forum. And, following that correct statement, you are not the owner of that forum. I don't take particular issue with your manual archiving (others do), although it worries me that your judgement is apparently supreme, but 7 minutes after a unilateral 'founder backed and enacted' desysop and you want to stop the convo? C'mon, it's not a forum, but this is a big event. Until there is a satisfactory way to comment on this event or until the community decides that ANi isn't the right place to discuss this happening why don't you chill out? Go have a cigarette, come back in 20 minutes. Respectfully and peacefully, Beam 15:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it's funny like that. The most stupid lamest things end up being the loudest most asshole filled threads and then the most serious issues are calm and civil. Beam 19:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee report

You have been named as a party in a report seeking a hearing by the Arbitration Committee concerning events at Talk:Barack Obama and WP:ANI. I have posted the report at the Talk Page for WP:RFAR since the main page is semi-protected. Feel free to add your statement, and please transfer the report to the main RFAR page if you see fit to do so. Thanks. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I saw that you removed a personal attack from the above editor's Arbcom report. I suggest you leave these in (and consider self-reverting). On the one hand, yes, we should insist on civility. On the other, if you edit these messages to the point of incivility then you're inadvertently supporting their argument by hiding their misbehavior. Wikidemo (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay - I too think it's rubbish and I don't intend on submitting a statement at this point in time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for commenting in my RFA. I will try not to do anything wrong, but if you see me do something that I should not have, please tell me.

Cheers! J.delanoy_adds 21:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy note...

... that I've mentioned you at ANI, here. —Giggy 12:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your concerns

Hello. I am not sure that you were fully aware of the circumstances when you made your comments. If a group of editors join together as a team to insert libellous unsourced material on the BLP of one of the most eminent scientists in the world and one of them (in fact Abhimars (talk · contribs)) starts using language like "eurocentric history" and "exposing western idols" to describe their opponents or their intent, it is very hard not to use terms like "extremist" or "conspiracy theorist" to describe their position. At the moment a lot of libellous material remains on the talk page of Michael Atiyah which will appear in web searches for Atiyah. Various administrators have been monitoring this situation before you raised your concerns. I freely admit that I might have confused the opinions expressed by two different members of this group of editors pressing for the inclusion of attack material in flagrant violation of WP:BLP and actually said so much today. I am sorry if this has created any problems - this was quite unintentional and I certainly hope that this slip note might not be regarded as a serious offence. The gross BLP violations were quite extraordinary and administrators were slow to leave warnings. ELonka did nothing, but Slrubenstein kindly gave a long and careful explanation of the stringent BLP policy to the two newly arrived SPAs, following my explicit request. I was unhappy to spend my time activating administrators in this sorry tale, which has deeply upset a lot of mathematics editors. My mainspace editing today on Differential geometry of surfaces#Riemannian connection was completely disrupted. Might your reaction perhaps have been a little dispropertionate in these extraordinary circumstances? These SPAs have certainly achieved part of their goal if you even contemplated that I had committed a blockable offence.

Well that was just my two centimes worth. I can now at last have dinner here in France after a very long day, where like Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) I have felt at the end of my tether because of Perusnarpk's continual forum shopping and harrassment. I hope you will understand this. Very wearily, Mathsci (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Perusnarpk

This editor has opened an RfC against Fowler&fowler. For someone so new to WP, he seems expert in finding all the different noticeboards. Wouldn't you say this SPA in fact appears to be using WP as a battleground despite warnings from Slrubenstein and Nishkid64? He might have been encouraged by what you wrote to me. Mathsci (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the close

That might have been my most surreal experience yet on this Wiki. Absolutely strange. One thing I don't deal in--never have, never will--is personal attacks. To be accused--and so vociferously--was a new experience for me, especially given that all I did to "instigate" it was defend Blechnic from false accusations. As it stands, I hope that user will quit finding incivility where there is none and move on, as it's not fun defending one's self against baseless accusations. S. Dean Jameson 02:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Which comments here fit that? User:Fritzpoll commented that we needed tea, which I agreed with. User:TravisTX was talking about Blechnic and not on the situation with Jameson, as he states. That only leaves User:Eusebeus, which accuses me of impropriety and doesn't offer suggestions. User:Xenocidic doesn't comment on the situation. And User:Jaysweet recuse himself because I asked him to remove his calling someone else a liar as inflammatory to a discussion related to the matter.

And, if you are to suggest that there isn't problems communicating with User:S. Dean Jameson, then please explain these(in reverse chronological order): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, et al.

Note - number 2 proves that there is a relationship between Eusebus. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're willing to accept the third party input given by myself at least, however reluctantly, then this is resolved. Otherwise, I stand by the recommendation I closed it with. The evidence is meritless, and you really should consider moving on, or taking it to the next step of dispute resolution as we can't help you here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I just want Jameson to leave me alone. I just asked for a small redaction of a comment that said that someone else couldn't read. I didn't want it to escalate, and I definitely don't need an editor to follow me across multiple pages. I tried to move on, but as the diffs I pointed out above, the other user has refused to. If you think that the evidence that I gave on the Wikiquette page doesn't show difficulty between two users, then you are definitely are in contradiction with User:Fritzpoll on the issue. Also, you did not provide any actual advice. You also claimed that I ignored others advice without anyone actually providing it besides one user. I think this is enough to warrant you to reverse your decision and to strike your comments accordingly. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

And one last thing about Fritzpoll. You conveniently left out his first comment, when he expressed dismay and confusion that you had even brought the "issue" to WQA. Several different users commented there. None agreed with you that I had any issues with civility. This is my last post to you, unless you should choose to post to or about me in this or any other place. S. Dean Jameson 03:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Commenting where you comment is not "following you." And you escalated it, not me. I haven't been badgering you with false accusations. If anyone needs to leave anyone else alone, it's you letting this drop, and leaving me alone, which would be fine with me. S. Dean Jameson 03:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• No one in that discussion (or the Blechnic one that began it) had any problem communicating with me but you. Again, Vocalist, thanks for the close. It will be interesting to see if OR lets this go now. S. Dean Jameson 03:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you an admin? Because I can't find a documented RfA, and I can't find any information that suggests that you are. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Let me cut to the chase. The answer is no. I have already demonstrated above why your closure of the page was improper. I can further document your relationship with one of the people that S. Dean Jameson improperly canvassed. If needed be, I will apply for an admin to remove your close, but I would prefer that you remove it. It was improper, as I have demonstrated above, and it was further verified by Jameson's posts on this page. If you are unwilling to do so, this will be noted, as I have pointed out that you already misstated my actions and the actions of others, and that you are unwilling to actually attempt any kind of mediation, but instead closed the issue before it was resolved. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither S. Dean Jameson nor Ncmvocalist are administrators, but I am. Ottava Rima, it is time to stop this. You have refused to accept that other editors have interpreted the sentence involved in a different way than you have, and that you have interpreted it in a way that was not at all what was intended. This is not the first time you have demanded that your position is the only acceptable one. This behaviour is becoming increasingly disruptive and has absolutely nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia. I repeat - it is time to stop. The close was appropriate. Risker (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)