User talk:A Kiwi/Archive 1

Respond to Comments Only Where They are Made

Don't worry about my finding them as I use my watch list.

My Bookmarks

My Watch List

To-Do List

/User_Talk-Current_Tracked_Categories

/draft-Borderline_Personality_Disorder

/draft-Atlantis_Paradise_Island

/draft-Defense_Mechanisms

/draft-Pacific_Western_University

/draft-NPA_Personality_Theory

Travels with the Man of Danger

A Blank Tablet to Use Creatively

Curious New Place Another Admin Coaching Group

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Your subpages

About a week ago, I noticed that you had mistakenly created some user subpages in the User talk: namespace rather than the User: namespace. I moved them for you as a favour and notified you on your talk page. I now note that you have undone these changes by copying the text of the subpages back to their talk pages, and replacing the subpages with redirects to your main user page.

I want to inform you that this violates several Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Specifically:

Wikipedia:Subpages and Wikipedia:User page both state that user subpages are to be created in the User: namespace, not the User talk: namespace.
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines states, "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." By putting an article or project page in a talk: namespace, you are depriving other editors of the ability to post comments on it in the appropriate place.
Help:Talk page says much the same thing as Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines about the purpose of talk pages in general. It also makes some comments on user talk pages in particular: "…keep in mind that your user talk page has the important function of allowing other editors to communicate with you. People will get upset if they cannot use it for that purpose."
Redirecting your subpages to your main user page without redirecting the corresponding talk page, and continuing to use it for some other purpose, is misleading. Since you are using your user page and your subpages for substantially different purposes, the redirect fails to meet the acceptable purposes for redirects listed at Wikipedia:Redirect and Help:Redirect. Moreover, the redirects also give the impression that you are hiding your talk subpages from public scrutiny.
Even disregarding the above points, the method you used to move the content of the pages was improper. You used what is called a "cut-and-paste move", which has many detrimental effects. Please refer to Help:Moving a page to find out the correct way of moving a page.

In the past you have become upset when other users have proactively taken action to correct such mistakes for you, so I would like to ask that you fix these mistakes yourself. —Psychonaut 20:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your official objection to my violating "GUIDELINES" noted concerning my sandbox pages. Please keep your hands off my sandbox pages and bring me up on formal charges instead. I would prefer that route, particularly since we are already involved in mediation. Please don't stalk my edits. I ignore yours. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 01:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stalking your edits; I had your NPA page on my watchlist because I have all NPA-related pages on my watchlist. And I don't want to bring you up on "formal charges"; I just want to give you the opportunity to correct the errors before I or another editor takes the initiative and does it himself. —Psychonaut 01:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning some of your comments at Psycho's page, we have a problem where you tell users to email you only. The reason why that is bad is that since this is a wiki, it keeps a record of what occurs and for others to look at. With email, it is impossible to do, since it is only two people and others if invited. There are some things that we will have to use your talk page for. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scout. WHO is "WE"?????? --> Where you say, "WE have a problem". I want to know who "WE" is.

And I did not instruct "users" to email me. I did not even tell Naut that he had to email me. What I said to PSYCHONAUT was to 1) email me or 2) wait until the mediation begins or 3) take his problems with my editing to a higher authority so I can be offically sanctioned, punished, and forbidden from placing my sandbox edit pages where the instruction page instructed me.

And I would like to point out, Scout, that WP being a wiki does not make it "bad" for two users to communicate off-wiki. If it is officially "bad", would you please give me the link to the WP page that shows the official poliicy on off-wiki communications. Does it include snail mail? Phone calls? Meeting for coffee?

You indicate that communication concerning wikis is important to be public. See - permanent records of emails ARE permanent, indestructible and can be forwarded to anyone, and can be demanded from your ISP or email provider via court order. Emails are forever. Actually, if you really want or need to read copies of Naut's off-wiki emails, just ask him to send them round to you.

You say, "There are some things we will have to use your talk page for." Well, if "WE" need my page, then "WE" may certainly do so. But Naut is no longer welcome. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 07:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is welcome to add messages to anyone else's Wikipedia user talk page. You have no authority to prohibit or ban this action for any user - the only way that a person can be officially prohibited from editing any page is by an ArbCom decree. Do not repeat the point about Naut being unwelcome to post on your talk page - a) you have no right to prohibit it; b) you have no way to prohibit it; and c) it is incivil to describe someone's editing of another page as "unwelcome". Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If all of your communication is taking place in email, that is bad. Do Wikipedians meet for coffee and stuff, of course. But for things like mediation, warnings, deletions and blockings, they should occur here and not somewhere else. As for this meditation, while yall two sort this out, it would be best yall could communicate on here so me and the others who wish to mediate know what is going on. Plus, just because something is bad doesn't mean it is illegal or wrong. For example, while it might be bad to upload a specific image as the wrong format, no one is going to get blocked for it. There are plenty things that are bad form, but not written as policy in stone or people seek it out so they can just block someone. But, still, keep the lines of communication open, since you two have a problem that needs fixing now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Kiwi, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that we are involved in a mediation. We are not. Also, you claim that you placed your subpages "where the instruction page instructed me". I'm not aware of any instruction page which advises users to create subpages (except for discussion page archives) in the User talk: namespace. If you really did read this on an instruction page, then the instruction page was incorrect; please provide a link to that page so that it can be corrected. Obviously you should not be "punished" for having followed an incorrect instruction, or even for accidentally misinterpreting a correct instruction; however, once it is explained to you that what you did was incorrect, you should not repeat the behaviour. —Psychonaut 08:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Although you say that what's over a certain age is being archived, it clearly isn't: your archive is empty and what's here (1 Nov) and here (2 Nov) for example is nowhere to be found. You may wish to reword what's at the top of this page so that it's less misleading. (I don't say that there's an intention to mislead, but it's misleading all the same.) -- Hoary 00:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For formal purposes

For the issues for not letting editors edit your talk page and spurious claims of stalking, I have given you an block that lasts for an undetermined amount of time. Since you are emailing me already, there is nothing much to leave here now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]