Jump to content

User talk:Andrevan/Archives/24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Former administrator and bureaucrat
This user is American
This user has autoconfirmed rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has extended confirmed rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user is a member of the Mediation Committee on the English Wikipedia.
This user has been editing Wikipedia for at least twenty years.
This is a User page.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

☕ A@📧mail ☕ 🐣c🐣 😎 💀d💀 😎 ⭐b⭐ 🧮 🗄️ 🧹



🌳 🍀 🌳 🌿 🌳 🌱 🌳 🗄️ClueBot Detailed Index Archive #24🗄️ 🌳 🌱 🌳 🌿 🌳 🍀 🌳
1 Sam Spade 2006-04-06 23:38 2006-04-06 23:38 1 251 User talk:Andrevan/Archives/24
2 Blanking Unknown Unknown Unknown 191 User talk:Andrevan/Archives/24
3 Esperanza Newsletter #2 2006-04-06 19:53 2006-04-06 19:53 1 5388 User talk:Andrevan/Archives/24
4 Shotokan 2006-04-07 18:10 2006-04-07 18:10 1 932 User talk:Andrevan/Archives/24
5 Meta Adminship 2006-04-07 22:31 2006-04-07 22:31 1 161 User talk:Andrevan/Archives/24
6 Version 1.0 "Release Version Qualifying" 2006-04-08 19:26 2006-04-08 19:26 1 311 User talk:Andrevan/Archives/24
7 WP 1.0 2006-04-09 09:03 2006-04-09 09:03 1 1624 User talk:Andrevan/Archives/24
8 Request for mediation on Sao Pan Thee and Shwebomin articles 2006-04-11 20:53 2006-04-11 20:53 1 2085 User talk:Andrevan/Archives/24
9 WP:ARCHIVES 2006-04-12 00:45 2006-04-12 00:45 1 336 User talk:Andrevan/Archives/24
10 Blocked Unknown Unknown Unknown 96 User talk:Andrevan/Archives/24
11 Request for mediation 2006-04-17 17:25 2006-04-17 17:25 1 1156 User talk:Andrevan/Archives/24
12 Seeking an advocate 2006-04-17 22:27 2006-04-17 22:27 1 228 User talk:Andrevan/Archives/24
13 Talk Ex-Yugoslavia Unknown Unknown Unknown 104 User talk:Andrevan/Archives/24
14 The Chronicles of Narnia 2006-04-18 03:44 2006-04-18 03:44 1 415 User talk:Andrevan/Archives/24
15 Advocate? 2006-02-22 22:00 2006-04-26 21:58 5 12723 User talk:Andrevan/Archives/24
16 Company Listings? 2006-04-21 17:51 2006-04-21 17:51 1 413 User talk:Andrevan/Archives/24
17 Old Skool Esperanzial note 2006-04-23 20:42 2006-04-23 20:42 1 492 User talk:Andrevan/Archives/24
18 RfC Woggly / Harassment / Request Unblock 2006-04-24 21:13 2006-04-24 21:13 1 569 User talk:Andrevan/Archives/24
19 Russian Language Learning Materials Unknown Unknown Unknown 696 User talk:Andrevan/Archives/24
20 A favor please 2006-04-29 10:31 2006-04-29 10:31 1 539 User talk:Andrevan/Archives/24

Sam Spade

I have responded to your comments on ANI. Bishonen | talk 23:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Blanking

I blanked the Talk:Freewebs page because most of it dated back to last year or last January, and needs to be refreshed since I was planning on starting my own revisions of the article.

Esperanza Newsletter #2

The Barnstar Brigade is a new program aimed at giving more very deserving yet unappreciated users barnstars. It will officially start on 2006-04-09, but signing up is encouraged before this date:
"Here in Wikipedia, there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go un-appreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go un-noticed. Sadly, these editors often leave the project. As Esperanzians, we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. A project the size of Wikipedia has thousands of editors, so there are plenty of people out there who deserve recognition, one just has to find them. The object of this program is not to flood editors with Barnstars, but to seek out people who deserve them, and make them feel appreciated."
The Stress alerts program aims at identifying users who are stressed, alerting the community of thier stress and works in tandem with the Stressbusters at trying to identify causes of stress and eliminating them.
Information
Welcome to the second issue of the new format Esperanza Newsletter - we hope you still like it! This week, it was delivered diligently by our new dogsbody. MiszaBot (run by Misza13): any execution complaints should go to him. Content comments should be directed at the Esperanza talkpage. Thanks!
  1. The next elections: Approval voting as before and, also as before, an previous leadership member can run. Please submit your name for voting in the relevant section of this page. Voting starts on 2006-04-23 and ends on 2006-04-30. There will be three places up for grabs as KnowledgeOfSelf is leaving Wikipedia. Please see the previously linked page for full details.
  2. The Code of Conduct is now ready for extensive discussion! Specific comments should go to the Code of Conduct talk page, discussion of having one at all should be directed to the main Esperanza talk page.
  3. The current process for accepting proposals for new programs has been deemed fine. All Advisory Council members and the Admin Gen are to endevour to be bold when viewing discussion. If they feel that consensus has been reached, they will act accordingly.
A plea from the editor...
The propsed programs page is terribly underused! Please leave any comments, good or bad, on the page, to help us determine the membership's thoughts on the ideas there.
Signed...

Shotokan

Please assist at the Shotokan page.

Brief history:

User CapJ put a story in about the “shoto” in shotokan meaning short sword. When corrected about its meaning by user Matt (who included a verifiable source), he still stated that it should be included. When I transliterated the Japanese, which I read/write, he accepted the fact but still wanted something about that story in there. Now he has changed it so that he believes we should include it because it is a homonym. I feel that he just wants this info on the page without it needing to be there. Though no other editor agrees with him, he puts it back each time we edit it. I am stalled on progress by this user and feel that he is vandalizing the page. I cannot, by the incorrect information he includes, believe that this is not a joke on his part. Any assistance you can provide would be grand. ron Southwick 18:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta Adminship

I am requesting adminship on Meta for the account m:User:Andrevan. Andre (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version 1.0 "Release Version Qualifying"

Hi, I'm interested in your feedback on Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Qualifying. It's essentially an idea to use a process similar to WP:FAC to identify and handle articles and lists that would go in a release version. Maurreen 19:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP 1.0

I thought since you are interested in this project you might be interested to see a CD version of en now exists see Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download & 2006 WP CD Selection. This is being discussed on the 1.0 project pages but progress breeds enthusiasm so I thought I would let you know. --BozMo talk 09:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review of politically biased editor. Hello, I am Ray Robison and I have been involved with providing original translations of the new documents under the heading "Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents" I have not been an editor to the article but have been following the progress. I think it is important that the process should not involve the principles. A editor screen name csloat, has been using incorrect information provided by a third party blog to scrub the article of legitimate original translations that have never been challanged. A link to that editors website has been provided and his extreme political view point needs to be reviewed as to his objectivity. As I have said, I am a proponent and do not think I should contribute and neither should csloat. In particular he qoutes a third party website that has tried to discredit the work on my site. I have shown that third party that his statements are incorrect and he continues to make those claims. Those claims are inaccurate as easily evidenced by the notes I left in the discussion page. Please review. My recommendation is that neither I or csloat should be allowed to edit that article. thanks for your assistance.

Request for mediation on Sao Pan Thee and Shwebomin articles

Anyone can write what they like on Wikipedia. It is up to the readers to decide if what they see is rubbish or not. What is Aung Win's motive? Rabid hatred or fear of Burma having a king again? A lot of Burmese, particularly the political activists, have slave mentality as a result of being colonised and subjugated by the British. They could not fathom the idea that monarchy is exactly what Burma needs to get out of its prolonged political crisis. It seems some Burmese political activists rather have military than a constitutional monarch. Jealousy plays a very import part in Burmese politics. In any case no one has ever seen any writing by Shwebomin or Schwebomin although hid pictures are everywhere.

Hi, I was wondering if you can mediate between User:Aung win and myself. In the Sao Pan Thee article, he removed the verify and accuracy templates on several occasions because it was brought up on the talk page regarding the accuracy of the article's contents. Also, I attempted to search online about Sao Pan Thee, but nothing significant came up. Similarly, on the Na Pal Gyi Shwebomin and South Pal Gyi Shwebomin articles, he removed the deletion templates. The user also added to the original Shwebomin article the following:

=== User Hintha is same person as Shwebomin ===
User Hintha is a same person as pro-claimed prince Shwebomin, who is insane and try to vandalize our shan prince page. He is not a proefssor , everyone can contect the college and find out.

Although I have asked him to cite his sources regarding the Sao Pan Thee article, to follow NPOV policy, and to refrain from vandalising the Shwebomin article, he deleted the discussion and vandalised my talk page with the following:

==19 you are scarm==
Why would you vandalize our prince of shan page????
i think South Pal Gyi page and Na Pal Gyi should not be delete because i think he is south pal gyi too lololololololol
and i know you are the same person as shwebmini

Can you please mediate between us? Thanks. Hintha 20:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARCHIVES

Hi again! Given the opinion you gave at the request for comment on archives I thought you might be interested to know the issue has now been put to a straw poll and could use your vote! Staxringold 00:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

someone blocked me, and they said it was because of my username. why? what's wrong with it?


Request for mediation

I would like to request mediation for the Flemish people page, as at least one person keeps reverting the page without much argumentation, and does not really want to go in on my remarks on the talk page. The problem is as follows: the Wikipedia (or any other academic) definition of ethnic group states that ethnicity is based on the fact that members identify with eachother, most of the times based on shared (cultural, linguistic, etc) traits. The user(s) however think that "genetical heritage" (ancestry, migration, etc) is the factor that determines ethnicity and therefore include emigrants in Canada, the US, France, etc (that total millions) without any evidence that these people identify themselves (or are identified by other Flemings) as Flemings. I have stated this (together with another user, Rick86) on the talk page, but (s)he/they ignore this or say I'm wrong. Moreover, I asked several times for references about "self-identification" that back these claims up, but they keep insisting on "ancestry". Could you mediate (as I can't get them to the talk page)? 134.58.253.131 17:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking an advocate

Dear Andre,

I am looking for an advocate. You can read about the case on my talk page. Are you willing to assist me? Otto ter Haar 22:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Ex-Yugoslavia

Talk:Kosovo#2 Administrator for Ex-Yugoslavien articels in Wikipedia- The voice of Kosovar

The Chronicles of Narnia

Hey, I was the first person who changed "Many believe" back to "It is clear from the texts". When you have a bit of time, could you offer some alternate interpretation for the texts cited? I'm just not sure where you're coming from. As other people have changed the wording back as well, it might be better to respond on the talk page for the article. LloydSommerer 03:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advocate?

Hi Andrevan. I've read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed. I think I may need an advocate.

I'm in an editing dispute with SlimVirgin. You supported her RfA and are familiar with her... which may or may not be an advantage in understanding the situation.

At this stage, however, I'm not asking you to intervene in the editing dispute.

I'm writing to you because I'm very concerned about SlimVirgin's conduct across a number of unrelated pages. This includes personal attacks, deleting AfD tags, protecting pages she herself has edited, refusing to research or check citations, and even libelling public persons: she accused an animal-rights activist of doing fur commercials. Some of her attacks are directed against experienced editors and administrators, some of whom she seems to have had an excellent relationship with until recently. It seems there have also been more complaints about her across a wide range of articles lately.

I discussed this with senior administrator Mindspillage [1] who could not hear the matter [2], and unless I've misread her, seems extremely uncomfortable. I also discussed this with GMaxwell [3], who had some thoughtful but depressing words of advice.[4]

I want to give you a chance to digest this before I post a full list. --Cyberboomer 23:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for replying so quickly. Thanks also for being so gentle. You write, I would be very surprised if she was responsible for anything like what you suggest. That should cover it - let me know, of course, if you have any further questions, comments, or want to run something by me. Please have a look at the list and tell me what I've misinterpreted.

Slim seems to be editing under some distress on a number of unrelated pages.

  • James, I can only assume you are very young, because this level of immaturity is extremely unusual, and you have no idea how tiresome. [5]
  • Then quit behaving like someone who's going through the terrible twos and needs to be put in the time-out chair. [6]
  • I'll read that (WP:CIVIL) if you read all our other editing policies and start editing in accordance with them. [7]
  • Pamela Anderson edit summary 1: (right, campaigns strongly for the right of animals to donate their skins to her) [8]
  • Pamela Anderson edit summary 2: (rv the burden of evidence is on you, and if she's an animal-rights activist, I'm the King of France) [9]
  • You're very close to being blocked indefinitely if you don't quit your personal attacks, snide remarks, bad editing, reverting, and whining. We've had enough. [10]
  • It doesn't surprise me because it's what all the trolls and trouble-makers do, but I'm disappointed to see it anyway. I can only repeat my requests once more: please stop attacking and bullying people, stop pretending to be an admin, stop threatening to block or have blocked anyone who disagrees with you. [11]

These outbursts seem to be increasing. The arbcom committee ruled against her for making personal attacks some time ago. [12]

  • User:SlimVirgin has made personal attacks in the course of the debates with Herschelkrustofsky/Weed Harper/C Colden. [13] [14]
  • User:SlimVirgin is cautioned not to make personal attacks, even under severe perceived provocation.

She also acts unilaterally and frequently cuts corners.

She deleted an AfD tag.[15] A senior editor with no bias in the disputed matter reverted the AFD tag she had deleted.[16] She then re-reverted it.[17]

An administrator blocked her for a 3RR violation. [18]

  • 02:53, 30 December 2004 Silsor blocked "SlimVirgin (contribs)" with an expiry time of $2 (sic) (inserted same content 5 times in 24 hours on List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2004)

This resulted in the following discussion. [19] [20]

She has protected pages she's actively edited.[21]

  • WP:PPol - "Admins must not protect pages they are engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism." (emphasis original) [22]
  • WP:PPol - "Admins should not protect pages which they have been involved with (involvement includes making substantive edits to the page or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page)." (emphasis original) [23]

She deletes paragraphs and sections without explanation. In fact, a glance at her edit history suggests that she's more interested in revert wars than calm discussion. This seems to be a reoccurring problem on several pages she actively edits. [24] [25]

In other instances, her explanations are unhelpful:

  • this article is a dog's breakfast
  • nonsense
  • boring puff piece
  • cruft

She rushes through edits:

  • Other users who endorse this summary - Partial and HESITANT endorsement.
  • Er, well, *sigh*. I'm not sure I should sign here, because I tried and failed to resolve the dispute. Today is definitely my failure day. Anyway, I think FW has put together a fairly cohesive report - even if I don't "endorse it" in every detail. Basically, Slim moved too far, too fast at Terry Schiavo. Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) Revision as of 00:47, 15 July 2005 [26]

She jumps into articles she has no prior knowledge of and makes egregious errors which other editors and administrators have to fix.

  • HOTR's edit summary: (wasn't a website when these folks wrote for it) [27]

I had to explain to her that the Toronto Star is a newspaper and not somebody's blog. SlimVirgin has allegedly made this same mistake elsewhere:

  • Slim, how can you judge the value of a source if you don't know what it is? First you incorrectly state its (sic) a blog and thus invalid, then when you realise you were wrong, you try to dismiss it without evern (sic) bothering to find out what it is? [28]

She also involves herself in articles where she has a clear emotional interest, such as animal rights. I refer you back to her overwrought Pamela Anderson edit summaries which I've already quoted. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." [29]

She also claims that Pamela Anderson once appeared in an ad about fur, but who has worn and advertised fur since then. and the incident is well known and the animal-rights movement is disgusted by her. Her opponent asked her to provide evidence for this but SlimVirgin said she didn't have the source to hand.[30][31] SlimVirgin told Arniep You're making Wikipedia look foolish by trying to claim she is an animal-rights activist, and as you know, we don't need your help for that. Do some research, please, and read the policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC) [32][reply]

I myself checked news indexes and found no proof whatsoever to support SlimVirgin's possibly defamatory statements. I did find many articles supporting Arniep's claim that Anderson is indeed an animal rights activist.

A senior administrator with over 55,000 edits [33] questioned some of her edits and requests for citations in a Canadian article which SlimVirgin had no prior familiarity with [34].

  • I've reviewed some of the disputed edits here. And while I will agree that some of the material does make more sense in the Canada Free Press article than it does here, I'm not too clear, for example, on why SlimVirgin seems to object to describing McLeod as a journalist and publisher. I'm not too clear on why SlimVirgin removed a significant number of the listed external sources, and then turned around and claimed there weren't enough citations. I'm not too clear on why SlimVirgin objects to mention of the award McLeod won at the same time as objecting to the description of McLeod as "award-winning". I'm not too clear on why the Rachel Marsden controversy requires extra sources here in addition to the sources already listed on Marsden's article. And so on, and so forth. Bearcat 04:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senior editors have also complained about her sourcing/researching skills.

  • I've taken note of today's edit warring on New anti-Semitism. Currie and I have provided sources, such as the Jonathan Sacks interviews and the Mearshimer article in LRB but you continue to ignore them and pretend that all we've come up with is The Australian. You may have several books on this topic, but that doesn't mean you can invoke authority over other editors when they are providing sourced edits. Many people (academics, political groups for whom we can source) contend that the body of anti-semitism does not come only from the left wing. Continuing to stand in the way of this angle being represented in the article is only making you look silly. TreveXtalk 17:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC) [35][reply]

I myself have asked her to check cited articles. She refuses. She has no access to Canadian newspapers or news indexes. She seems to be relying on Google and the British newspaper The Guardian. The pitfalls are obvious: an administrator's verifiability checks and sourcing abilities are only as good as the indexes and databases available to her. --Cyberboomer 21:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Company Listings?

Quick question. Can you point me to some guidelines for listing companies? I see a number of these, some clearly of a size to be worthy of coverage (e.g. SAP AG), but some that are very small (e.g. Bohica Associates). Is there a recognized cutoff of any kind? Or can any companies be listed as long as the article stays neutral? Thanks! Stephenpace 17:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Skool Esperanzial note

Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Woggly / Harassment / Request Unblock

I am seeking a RfC from User:Woggly but have been told that it has not been filed. Could you kindly assist me in filing this RfC and defending me / being free of her and her friends' open, destructive harassment. Thank you. IsraelBeach 21:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I keep getting messages saying im vandilising, why at first i wasnt even doing anything, researching a style of house then i discovered i had more info about its origins so i added it. please email me a monstercooke@hotmail.com and let me know why im getting nonsense emails.

Russian Language Learning Materials

I noticed that you prohibit posting some relevant language learning websites into the "Language Learning Material" section of the "External Links" while allowing other practically identical websites with lessons to stay there (e.g. http://www.russianlessons.net/ and http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/language/)? What is your seletion criteria? Are you discriminating against certain websites based on personal subjective opinions?

Entering above mentioned websites is not related with advertising as you stated in the warning. It is about directing users to a useful resource with Russian language lessons that are beyond the scope of what the related wikipedia article can cover.

A favor please

Hello friend, do you remember me? In the month of September 2005, your vote had made me an administrator. we all know that the life here is exciting and full of challenges. I would request you to please spare fem moments for me, and favor me with your comments and suggestions (here please) on my performance as a wikipedian. Let us continue to build the Better than the Best global encyclopedia. Thank you and regards. --Bhadani 10:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrevan/Archives/24&oldid=1109746313"