User talk:David.Mestel/Archive 03

Ryorye/Chaguanas

I missed your posting to Talk:Chaguanas. Can you please address the underlying policy issues. Thanks. Guettarda 04:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a list as per your request. Please provide input. Guettarda 21:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy first edit day?

I'm afraid you're 6 months off...my first edit day is January 23 :) --Schzmo 23:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Birthday Committee!

Welcome, David.Mestel/Archive 03, to the Wikipedia Birthday Commitee!!! You have met all of the membership requirements. Any concerns should be directed to Steveo2. (Between June 14 and September 10, 2006, speak to Mr. Turcotte instead.) See the Birthday Committee Project Page to see our userbox, and the Birthday Message Templates. Go to the bulletin board to see any new announcements concerning the committee. Remember, Be Bold!

Thanks for joining! If you have any questions, please contact me. Mr. Turcotte^talk 23:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 24th


Volume 2, Issue 30	24 July 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: Special report, writers wanted
Another country reportedly blocks Wikipedia	School files suit against anonymous user(s)
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	Wikipedia featured in The New Yorker
Election officials named to handle vote for board seat	Report from the German Wikipedia
News and Notes: Biographies of living persons, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. --Michael Snow 04:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Happy First Edit Day!

Thanks for the wiki-birthday wishes :) — FireFox ^(talk) _{11:43, 30 July '06}

Don't mention it - just taking an oppurtunity to spread Wikilove. --David Mestel^(Talk) 14:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Report On Lengthy Litigation

My only problem, and the reason why I've written it since I started at the Signpost, is the appearance of bias in writeups. For that reason, I'm always a little hesitant about other users doing it. If you want to do it, with the understanding that on any case where you're involved, you'll let me handle the writeup, I don't have a real problem with it. Ral315 (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just make sure it's written by 17:00 UTC tomorrow. Start it at User:David.Mestel/Arbitration report, or something like that, and post it to the newsroom when it's done. Thanks for your help. Ral315 (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The report is now finished. I hope it's OK. --David Mestel^(Talk) 21:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy request

Excellent :-) Could you take on DrL's case over at WP:AMARQ? Just sign with acceptance and set it to "(open)". Peace! אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 12:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:ScienceApologist barnstar cluster

Heya, rather detailed questions you got there. To be clear the barnstar cluster theme was a stylistic choice based on the user; rather than an actual journal article or formal review process. (eg. we used a gem theme for User:Vsmith) So it wasn't blind, but he had distinguished himself to merit our attention. As with any barnstar we informally judged his edits to be grammatically and scientifically excellent when compared to average edits... so that was kind of random. So since there was no actual methodology to review, no one reviewed it :'D, although several people signed the award after conducting their own reviews of SA's edits. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 13:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought that was likely... but you got me in the morning, I'm not exactly a morning person. :"D There are several candidates that need barnstar clusters. Sometime soon I'll be restarting the process on my meta. Feel free to vote/nominate someone, though it will take some time to get things going again. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 14:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re User:DrL and User:Hillman

This issue is already being discussed extensively and is nowhere near a clear violation. You should read WP:AN/I#Posting Personal Information, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DrL, and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-30 Hillman posting personal information. Posting such a comment to User_talk:Hillman without looking into the context and support he has is unlikely to be an effective way of helping with the issue - he has already been reported to AN/I, and was not blocked, and the MfD currently seems to be leaning rather heavily toward keeping the pages. --Philosophus ^T 13:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the Miscellany is deleted is irrelevant. I am simply requesting the removal of the personal information contained therein, and its removal from the history, as per WP:STALK. --David Mestel^(Talk) 13:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Hillman has placed on the page your "client" is worried about is based on nothing more than her own edit history, and the big quote which mentions past bad behaviour is a link which she herself posted. It is taken from a magazine article which mentions Gina Langan nee LoSasso, in which she herself told the interviewer certain things. The same GL posted that link to the Mega Foundation site (where it is hosted), since she's the webmistress there. All that Hillman has done is track DrL's edits, and conjecture, and it is clearly marked as conjecture that the two people are the same. WP:STALK states that information may not be posted unless the subject has offered it herself. All information on Hillman's page is offered by DrL and Asmodeus through their actions, and by DrL posting links on Wikipedia. Byrgenwulf 13:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can claim that she's giving away the information herself freely based on one edit, especially since she has repeatedly denied it on other occasions. --David Mestel^(Talk) 14:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, DrL has never denied anything, she has equivocated and prevaricated. She has, moreover, tacitly admitted her identity on a number of occasions, and you have made it clear who she is here. Anyway, I'm not going to get sucked into an argument about this, I was just pointing out what should be obvious. I'll go away now. Byrgenwulf 14:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, David. I am not going to respond to Byrgenwulf's comments. He is arguably another stalker and has been tracking and following me around on Wikipedia, often intimidating me. He is an improvement over Hillman in that he does not post a great deal of personal information. Just a little. I would appreciate any advice you may have as to how I might be able to appropriately set limits with this user.

Anyhow, Hillman continues to post personal information and conjecture to his page as well as other user talk pages. See the bottom of this page. Christopher Thomas kindly redacted that page, but he has also posted this type of personal information on other user's talk pages. He seems to be spamming WP with my personal information. Can this user be blocked? DrL 22:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 31st


Volume 2, Issue 31	31 July 2006	About the Signpost

Onion riff prompts some to cry for change	Professors criticize, praise Wikipedia in listserv discussions
Wikimania last-minute information	Report from the Polish Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks!

Hi! Thanks for wishing me a happy first edit day! =) That was a spirit lifter for sure! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaberwocky6669 (talk • contribs) .

Don't mention it. 'Twas nothing. --David Mestel^(Talk) 10:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re. RFAr

Sorry, I think I missed your last comment. Generally, just remedies are good in my opinion; during the evidence phase, we mention why there's an arbitration case going (pov editing, incivility, etc.) Ral315 (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryorye

Thank you David for your continued work on the Chaguanas case. I leave it in your hands and if there is anything you would like me to do, or if there is anything you wish to ask me, please feel free to do so. Thank You Ryorye 15:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hillman MfD

If you notice, the Hillman MfD was closed (IMO early). I would like to point out that Xoloz closed both the CTMU AfD and the CTMU DR. There were great procedural irregularities, here and here, in the CTMU AfD that were pointed out in the DR (and ignored).

In answer to your comment wrt WP:AGF in this MfD, Asmodeus pointed out that the same procedural irregularities had occured in the MfD and linked to Tim Smith's exposure of them in the DR. They were clearly documented. Not long after that, Xoloz moved in and closed the MfD (that should have run for 8 days according to policy).

Your comments and advice would be appreciated. DrL 17:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the best thing to do now would be to await the outcome of the ArbCom case, and then I'll go and talk to Hillman. --David Mestel^(Talk) 17:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but what ArbCom case are you referring to? I was unaware that a discussion was continuing on WP or behind the scenes. DrL 18:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iloveminum. This considers the validity of keeping notes on other users' edits. --David Mestel^(Talk) 18:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, is that still going on? I thought it was over. I also have another question. Is there any way I can get rid of some of the names and personal information on this page, which is coming up on Google? TIA for your time. DrL 19:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You forgot about the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcaesar case which was rejected, but has been merged with the Ericsaindon2 case, but was not included in your issue. It was a pretty big deal Sunday-Friday of last week. You might want to add that to your article about the Arbitration Happenings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.227.162.99 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks - I've added EricSaindon2's conterclaims to the report. --David Mestel^(Talk) 07:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the one that is published or your own version? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.227.162.99 (talk • contribs) .

It is the version that will be published, which I have written. By the way, it's helpful if you sign your comments by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. --David Mestel^(Talk) 07:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be a pain, but you forgot to add that Coolcaesar conducted over 200 Personal Attacks to the part regarding his actions and Ericsaindon2's. That was the big point. --69.227.162.99 08:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these alleged personal attacks? And even if they are there, it'll be hard to report them while remaining neutral. --David Mestel^(Talk) 10:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the Coolcaesar case was rejected by the ArbCom,[1] Ericsaindon2, acting solely on his own authority, merged it into the case against himself, and then tried to make that official.[2][3][4][5] I believe the Signpost description of the matter doesn't reflect the actual case accepted by the ArbCom, but rather the case that Ericsaindon2 wish they had accepted. -Will Beback 08:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy

I noticed that we nominated the page Arsebear for speedy deletion literally within seconds of each other! --David Mestel^(Talk) 09:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprising - an article with a title like that is bound to attract an NP Patroller's attention! "Arsebear"...honestly! ~Matticus ^T_C 09:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible VP malfunction?

You posted a {{drmspeedy}} warning to User talk:Lulzim using VP, but the diff link there seems badly wrong (it's got {{{2}}} in it for one thing, and the page title looks more like a revision number). Also, you don't seem to have ever reverted Lulzim. Could you check to see if it's malfunctioning? --ais523 13:24, 4 August 2006 (U T C)

OK, it seems probable that the revert's now been deleted out of the history with the rest of the article, which is why I couldn't find it; but the warning message is still malformed. --ais523 13:38, 4 August 2006 (U T C)

I used one of the templates that doesn't come as a default with VP, so I think that might be the reason. --David Mestel^(Talk) 14:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RoLL

Go ahead. Ral315 (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agent 11

If User:Chombawomba is blocked as collateral damage of another user they should post the {{unblock}} template complete with details on their own talk page. --pgk^(talk) 16:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trinidadian AfD

Thanks, Mr. Mestel. :) It should be fixed now. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. :) Your remark is generally correct; however, though I was born and reared in the South, I intended my self-desciption to imply I am a flaming liberal by American (that is, John Kerry's blue America) standards. This means, as a shorthand, that I would be a centre-left person by a continental European standard: Skeptical of capitalism (though not a Marxist), and existentialist in personal philosophy, for example.

There are cases in Wikipedia where I prefer formal distance; and then, there are cases where I feel my interlocuter deserves the respect of formality because I sense he or she is truly exceptional -- your case was among the latter, but I will dispense with the title at your request, David. :)

Ah well, I fell behind in DRV yesterday, so I'll get back to the grind! Best wishes, Xoloz 16:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Arbitration report

O.K. C a rm el apple 16:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

n-Trance Security

Shalom David,

Actually the aim of article that I was trying to post to Wikipedia was to define n-Trance and to distinguish from the British trance/ house/ techno (whatever) band. Your suggestion to delete the article and 150 ghits was not quite fair. I will be eternally grateful if you advise the best way of articles editing. I am ready to make all necessary changes to the article, actually I have done some already.

Sincerely --Eugene Cuprin 16:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David,

I do highly appreciate your comments. Unfortunately, I have no sufficient resources to demonstrate the significance of the described tool and its developer. Hope that my future posts will be accepted due to their informative value and trust-worthiness.

Kindest regards --Eugene Cuprin 21:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pudgenet RfArb

This is because the case hasn't been closed yet. It can be closed, but it hasn't been. HTH. Johnleemk | Talk 06:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the motion to close section. Johnleemk | Talk 07:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing cases

Hey Dave, it's Steve from the AMA. What's the status of the case you took with Ryorye (talk) on the 20th of last month? If it's finished, could you set it to (closed) for me so I know to archive it? Thanks! אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 13:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request for assistance

Thanks for asking. No, but I expect it can happen again at any time, given the conversation I saw you conducted with her. I did note the misrepresentations of fact that Rebecca made, but chose not to comment. Also to note the fact that another editor (Bobblewik) is currently blocked for a month by a different administrator for doing date edits and doing them 'too fast'. Once tagged as 'doing something wrong' (even if it was Rebecca doing all the original tagging), then it seems that an editor becomes fair game for others as well. All it takes is one date complaint by someone to activate administrator wrath. Once Bottlewik was blocked, other date cleanup editors seem to have quit their work. For Rebecca and cohorts, I suppose that was the goal. Anyway, thanks for your efforts. I know you tried. Hmains 17:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems; I am very cautious. Thanks. Hmains 02:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for August 7th


Volume 2, Issue 32	7 August 2006	About the Signpost

Guidance on publicity photos called dangerous	False death information survives for a month in baseball biographies
Wikiversity officially announced by Wales	Single-user login, stable versioning planned soon
Wales, others announce new projects at Wikimania	Wikipedia satire leads to vandalism, protections
Early history of Wikipedia reviewed	Report from the Polish Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	RSS Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Adminship

Would you consider accepting a nomination for adminship? I realise that you haven't got very many edits, but I think that your activities with the AMA prove your suitability for the mop. --David Mestel^(Talk) 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, you nearly killed me as, when reading this, I was taking a sip from my morning tea (which promptly got interesting). :-) I would certainly consider such an honor! :-) A few months ago, I nominated myself and the only thing that held me back on the vote was my edit count (which was a mere 500 at the time) so I withdrew my request, and tried to get myself involved in the Wikipedia community. The general consensus of the vote was that if I were to come back in a few months and try again, most of the people who voted the first time around would support me. Since it has been a few months, I'd be curious to see what people have to say. :-) So, in all, if you were to nominate me, I would surely accept, and be absolutely honored by it. :-) Peace! אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 16:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please stop Kgg from editing the Athletics Nation page. Jeandre has said that if Kgg continues to add in Pathetics Nation to the page that they will have a user block put on them. Kgg has done nothing to prove the value of that site in relation to Athletics Nation and yet continues to add the edit over and over again. Kgg has not met the standards for inclusion in the page so this should be an open and shut case. User: Ima Loser

Hey Daivd, Should it be listed at the RfA main page? Æon ^{Insane Ward} 19:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not until he formally accepts it. --David Mestel^(Talk) 19:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psephos

Hi David,

I realise you have yet to engage me in discussion on this. I hope you don't mind me approaching you first. I noted you proposed a compromise sentence:

The site reflects Carr's views and does not claim to be politically neutral, for example specifically claiming that "There have been no elections in Cuba since 1948", showing Carr's view that elections under the communist government are not worthy of being described as such (see Elections in Cuba).

I think that everyone would be happy with that; but Margana has already repeatedly reverted a virtually identical compromise sentence:

The site reflects Carr's views and does not claim to be politically neutral. For example, under Cuba the site simply states: "There have been no elections in Cuba since 1948", in accordance with Carr's view that elections in Cuba under the communist system are show elections.

[6][7][8][9][10] Snottygobble 00:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

For the first edit day wish. 15px --Dakota 03:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Advocate

David, I have a few thoughts that I'm putting of Morgana's talk page about the problem. Since this is your case, and I'm the fresh kid on the block, I'd like to say that you can delete my comments if you don't want my unwarrented input.

-- Wslack (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My (first) questions:

What happens when you realize you can't adequately support your candidate in front of ArbCom? (As in, you find out new damaging material)
Is an advocate supposed to be biased in the info they present? (Those bringing a complaint are biased, so the advocate should show bias as well) Lawyers are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wslack (talk • contribs) .

You do your best. Perhaps, for example, you encourage your client to be contrite, present a reformed image, and plead for clemency.
Weeell... I would say that you can put a positive spin on it, but, just like a lawyer, you are under a duty not to actually mislead. --David Mestel^(Talk) 14:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise Posted

I took yours and changed a few words. Just letting you know. I hope I haven't overstepped my boundaries as your co-advocate, but I felt WP:BOLD applied. If I did, please let me know. --Wslack (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]