Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:32, 15 May 2008 editWilliam M. Connolley (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,022 edits →State terrorism: mv to barnstars; thanks← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:51, 15 May 2008 edit undoWilliam M. Connolley (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,022 edits →Allegations of state terrorism by the United States: yes it wasNext edit →
Line 52:		Line 52:
	For life (] (]) 16:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC))		For life (] (]) 16:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

	== Allegations of state terrorism by the United States ==

	Was protection really needed? by my count only 2 of the last 50 edits had been by IP editors and those edits were seconded and thirded by named accounts.] (]) 19:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

	: The page is fragile enough without anons reverting. Were they adding something useful to the discussion or valuable new material it would be different. But having anons reverting on a page with quite enough socks already isn't a good idea ] (]) 19:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
	::Have you or someone else filed a SSP or Checkuser, or are you just ]? ] (]) 20:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
	::: That G33 is a notorious puppeteer is well known. In this case, they could just be random drive-by vandalism, who knows? Or, if you prefer: the page has been on semi for ages; there is no reason for the recent bout of full prot to end at unprot rather than semi ] (]) 20:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::More unsubstantiated accusations. Whatever. It would be much better for your reputation if you decided to play traffic cop or editor on that article and not both. ] (]) 20:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::: Sorry guv, not sure what you're challenging. That G33 is a notorious puppeteer is established by arbcomm. That the page has been on semi for ages is a matter of record. What precisely are you objecting to? ] (]) 21:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Your implication/accusation that the recent IP edits were a 'sock' of G33. Either put up and make a SSP claim or ] and stop making accusations. ] (]) 21:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: Quite how telling people to shut up fits in with your version of ] I don't know. As for AGF, see ]. As for G33 and his legion of socks... my opinion must be clear by now ] (]) 21:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::I assumed you would be familiar with the phrase "put up or shut up" - but I am sorry if there has been a communication gap. The phrase is similar to "put your money where your mouth is" - i.e. if you are not going to file SSP, then stop making accusations. ] (]) 22:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::It takes about 3 minutes to find evidence for G33 having been a sock-puppeteer (both confirmed - and extremely suspected), as well as a lot of evidence in his block log . So maybe you should've assumed good faith on WMC's part - and actually checked if he hinted at something real? (AGF does not go one-way). Perhaps you should've checked this ? --] (]) 23:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::WMC made an edit summary with wide open allegation of sock puppetry. And he brought it up here again. Then WMC seemed to indicate that his accusation of sockpuppetry was directed solely at one individual. If WMC (and you) are both so certain of continuted sockpuppetry by G33 then go file in the appropriate places. This continued imputation of guilt without evidence and without taking the matter to the proper forum is not called for. This is about WMC's behavior, not G33's. Past and ''suspected'' current misbehavior by G33 does not entitle WMC to misbehave. ] (]) 23:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

	Oh dear. This is all getting a bit tedious. You seem to be imputing improper behaviour on my part. Find the proper forum to complain to, you've had your say here. As to G33 - errrrm, well, I wonder if an arbcomm case might be the appropriate forum. Oh, wait... ] (]) 06:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

	== I hope you don't mind my volunteering you ==		== I hope you don't mind my volunteering you ==

Revision as of 22:51, 15 May 2008

I'm fairly busy in the Real World at the moment. Expect delays here... or not. But it's my excuse anyway...

If you're here to talk about conflicts of interest, please read (all of!) this.

You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there. If your messages are rude, wandering or repetitive I will likely edit them. If you want to leave such a message, put it on your talk page and leave me a note here. In general, I prefer to conduct my discussions in public. If you have a question for me, put it here (or on the article talk, or...) rather than via email.

The Holding Pen

Is empty!

Current

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 23:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Noted; thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Reversions...

Howdy... I see your doing alot of reversions on that article. Please consider discussing before reinserting text, when I removed it, I put OR in the edit summary. So I had "justified it". I've made some notes on the talk page. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we can discuss it there. But your attempt at asymmetry irritated me William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for that. What do you mean when you say asymmetry... I'm thinking mathematics, but I don't know the connotation. I want to know :). Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I meant "Please discuss reinsertion here before inclusion..." people are always trying to suggest that the default should be their version, forgetting symmetry. However, you included an OTRS ref in an edit comment, but I'm not familiar with that, and it was a redlink. Was that really the ref you meant? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand better. When a ticket number is the only reason for an action, certain additional steps for dispute resolution apply that time.. I meant to do it, and after I did it, after some conversation with other agents, I realized the method was not needed after asking the ticket to be reviewed by others. So I reverted my edit, but I think you got to it seconds before I did. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hobbes

Don't accuse me of vandalism, I'll edit that page if I please. I've given you more than enough reasons, and you refuse to agree to disagree. So I'll keep changing it, for life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackdelyelis (talk • contribs) 23:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I warned an anon about making unmarked reverts. If that was you, please learn to sign in, and please learn how to sign your posts. Promising to revert for life is unwise William M. Connolley (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

For life (Jackdelyelis (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

I hope you don't mind my volunteering you

Hi. I hope you don't mind me putting words in your mouth at User talk:Grazen#Your concerns about the William Connolley article -- a challenge.

Somewhat related, I added material about your National Post coverage and your blog response. If you have problems with this material, please leave a comment at Talk:William Connolley#Note about Solomons Column. Although I doubt it was his intent, Mr. Solomon's article just deletion-proofed this article. --A. B. 22:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern & ehlp. However, I've stopped watching that article. I no longer have any opinions about my notability - its better that way. As for Solomon, that article was quite amusing; see http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/05/who_am_i.php William M. Connolley (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Off-wikipedia harrassment

I don't know if you've noticed, but have a look at this. Looks pretty blatant that Inclusionist is the author. Rather petty if you ask me. He's spamming it on different talk pages. John Smith's (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Petty indeed, and all a bit weird. *I* undeleted it... and I'm sure there was another copy kicking around wiki somewhere. Ah well William M. Connolley (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Sure, I've had my say. I won't add anything else. John Smith's (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Shock, other people are commenting on Giovanni's proposals and they're not being told it's between Giovanni and the Arb-Committee! John Smith's (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Help needed OR Page-Protection requested

For Singapore Airlines (SIA) as there seems to be an edit warring going on between a couple of editors over the same issue which is currently under mediation. I really hate to get into a 3RR situation later if I were to revert the page again. Thank you. --Dave1185 (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that shouting DO NOT REVERT THIS PAGE whilst reverting the page isn't the way to go. Perhaps you could explain here why the deleted material doesn't belong; I didn't find a good explanation on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello William, sorry to trouble you like this but this dispute has been going on for quite some time now. IMO, the part of parent company info can be omitted since the facts are quite straight forwardly clear that Temasek Holdings is just the majority shareholder of SIA and that SIA has its own board of directors and other associated thingies. Btw, I worked for SIA so it's crystal clear to me who my bosses really are and I find this whole dispute thing amusing yet flabberghasted by the amount of dirt it has managed to attract. Here are the old archive of this ongoing dispute:

Regards. --Dave1185 (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that makes some kind of sense. I'll go and look William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for the shouting there because I had wanted to add a new cite but was disrupted by this constant edit warring there hence I blew my top. --Dave1185 (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Bullying spotted

William, I bring to your attention two individuals who are engaged in the edit warring against another user in the page of Singapore Airlines. These two individuals both issued the same notice but differ in only one minute apart. Read: User_talk:Huaiwei#3RR_-_May_2008 & User_talk:Huaiwei#3RR Warning. At that time, I had wanted to add a new cite and possibly make a few minor edits when I found that I was hindered from making such a change as the page was being see-sawed in a revert and re-revert kind of situation. And that was when I decided to ask you for help in arbitration. Again, I apologise for my rashness in shouting as it was really frustrating to be caught in the middle of it all, the edit warring that is. --Dave1185 (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why its bullying. H was indeed edit warring, though hadn't broken 3RR. Meanwhile, SA now appears quite stable, and people seem to be in agreement on the talk page, so... all is well? Shouting: OK William M. Connolley (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of comments from Singapore Airlines

Please note that with this edit which you made you have deleted comments which I have made. I have reverted the deletion, and have added back in your comments at the bottom. In regards to be my comments being considered confrontational, I regret that you think this way, but confrontational it is not, and considering that this issue has been ongoing now for over 12 months, and only now is it really receiving input from the wider community, it is somewhat disheartening. Not to mention that this request for mediation does not look like it will even go ahead. --Россавиа 18:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are being confrontational, and warn you again to be cautious there and avoid disruption. I think your revert was a mistake; posting the same material in bold twice is simply pointless. I hope you have read my comment that you replaced, and trust that you will reply to it William M. Connolley (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)