This is an archive of past discussions about User:Mercury~enwiki. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Re WP:CN#Gen. von Klinkerhoffen: closing as "There appears to be no substantial objection" after less than 11 hours open means that many people (on-Wiki at other times of day, or in other time zones around the world) never had the chance to comment at all -- which makes saying that no-one's objected not a very meaningful statement. I'd have expected leaving it open a full 24 hours before such a declaration. I hope you'll feel better soon. -- BenTALK/HIST18:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate it. I'm not sure where I'll start, prolly in the article proper. There are some things I want to do. Best regards, Navoubanter03:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I've restored that strong wording at the very top because I think it needs to be spelled out. Several recent discussions started on the noticeboard have been by people who just want someone blocked, and when you examine the target of the request it emerges that they've never even been blocked before. --Tony Sidaway19:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Just following up on your request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on open proxies/verified users. Your contributions look fine, and I'll be glad to add you to the list; however, I'd just like you to answer a couple of questions. 1) Do you know how to check if a proxy is open, including scanning for possibly open ports and actually connecting via the proxy? 2) What method(s) have you used / do you use to check open proxies? 3) What experience do you have in the way of checking open proxies (i.e., have you worked as an IT or server admin, do you use open proxies yourself, etc.)? Please feel free to respond here, as I will have your talk page watchlisted. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I can see you've been asked by several others not to close discussions prematurely. These discussions aren't votes and there are no clerks on that page. As for your other comment, this is a wiki. I asked you a question, you answered it elsewhere for some reason, and so I copied it to the page on which I had asked it, and I replied there. SlimVirgin(talk)10:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I would encourage you to look into the archives and the talk page, as this has been addressed. Discussion should not continue in certain cases. Cases being where community sanctions are inappropriate whereas the proposer is gaming the system, or it is unclear that a sanction is being proposed. As far a several folks, I can only count three, including yourself. Statistically, if I close a majority of discussion, there will be those where an editor disagrees with the close, and tells me about it. I do encourage you to peruse the archives of this board, to see how it has worked historically.
Also, while I understand this is a wiki, I, and I don't think anyone else, wants there comments taken out of context, or etc. See this differential edit where I have told the participants that I would post on the talk page. They way you have added those comments make it appear that I have posted in both places. One can infer two things, that I duplicate posted, or I have lied. I do not wish to discuss this issue in the main discussion and you can not compel my participation there. I would rather participate on talk regarding the process. That is my intent and if you must add my comments, please do so quoting me, not appearing that I have commented, which is the appearance now. I believe the applicable guideline that you are going againstWP:TALK states:
Don't misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means:
Be precise in quoting others.
When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs. The advantage of diffs in referring to a comment is that it will always remain the same, even when a talk page gets archived or a comment gets changed.
As a rule, don't edit others' comments. Exceptions are described in the next section.
I have again removed my comments. Please fix them for context. If you re add them, use diffs or quote me. Very respectfully, Navou12:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "historically." This is a very new board. There is no "historically." Discussions shouldn't be closed before they are finished, unless there is trolling or similar disruption, so please don't do it again.
As for your reply to my question, I placed it back in context. Please don't move other people's posts. If I had wanted to ask you something on the talk page, I'd have done it. SlimVirgin(talk)12:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that. However, I'm a little confused, I thought I was moving my own posts/comments. Navou12:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
No offense, really...I just think that my time of wikipedia could be better spent on some other projects. Good luck with the cows.—Gaffταλκ05:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: merge? I had the same idea earlier today! I suggest putting the merge template tags on both pages to see what folks think. I think that the cow tipping information would be a lot less troublesome tucked in as a section in the cow article. I'll back you up, if you want to propose this. —Gaffταλκ05:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
RapidWeaver
. My changes to RapidWeaver contain useful content.
. This article was in the process of being created in multiple saves, and was deleted way to soon after the initial creation.
. IT IS NOT ADVERTISING FOR ANY COMPANY. ESPECIALLY NOT BLATANT ADVERTISING. I am not promoting any company, product, group, service, or person. I am unaffiliated. It is intended to be all inclusive resource.
I have renumbered your comment. I'm not sure if you are talkinga bout the copy in your space, or the actual article. Which one are you talking about? Navou16:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
RapidWeaver discussion
Thanks for your support. In respond to the other post:
No, there is no misunderstanding on my part. The work I was doing was originally intended to be on the RapidWeaver page. When that work was deleted in its entirety, I took the exact same work and posted it on my user page. I made some additions to that work, on my user page. Then someone deleted my entire user page. Right, I would of been happy to remove the price list, no one even mentioned that before either deletion. Actually, two people, on separate occasions decided to remove the whole project that I had been working on. I am not advertising in any way. I am simply listing the prices as a reference.
If one looks at the list, without the prices, there is no remote way it can be construed as being an advertisement. The current RapidWeaver lists the third party developers with less thoroughness, clarity and detail.
The bottom line is this: Where can I put the work that I have done? Preferably with the prices, worse case without the prices. Ideally, the invaluable links and information will be accessed by everyone. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THAT SOMEONE CAN NOT JUST COME, RANDOMLY ON A WHIM, WITH GIVING WARNING, WITH DEFINING, DISCUSSING OR DEFENDING THEIR ARGUMENT, WITHOUT ASKING ME TO CHANGE THE ARTICLE, AND DELETE THE ENTIRE ARTICLE (WITHIN SECONDS). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taylorluker (talk • contribs).
If the work is questionable and may be construed or misconstrued as advertising, you might try to work on it in a place other than User:Taylorluker Like User:Taylorluker/testpage as a location not as visible if your intent is to improve an article and you need a sandbox. You might want to place a notice at the top of the page explaining to other editors what you are doing so there is not misunderstanding. Regards, Navou18:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I'm thinking of using Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation but for the mediation to work, we need a mediator who is willing to involve himself/herself, review all the evidence, and make a final remedy decision. Would you like to be that mediator? I'd really appreciate it. If you would like more information please feel free to ask. Thanks.Hajji Piruz02:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, please take a look at Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/faq to familiarize yourself with the process a bit. If you still feel this process is for you, come let me know. If not, there are many other options available at dispute resolution. If you have any questions, also let me know. Cheers, and hope to hear back from you soon, Navou02:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I was not looking for unanimous discussion, I was looking for rough consensus. I'm ok with the reopening. Navou04:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If you read the comments, you'll see that (not including the nom), there are 4 deletes, 4 keeps and one convert to category. - Richfife04:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
How could you say this article isn't blatant nonsense:
Born December 1990---thus is only 16 years old right now.
When he was 10 years old---After the millenium, the life of Kearns would become twisted like a merry-go round due to his own stupidity and bad-luck.
"Athenry Road Armed Forces" no hits whatsoever on google.
granted Israeli citizenship in 2000---when encouraged by his batallion commander (again 10 years old)
Age 10---tried to make name for himself in both soccer and rugby.
Ballygaddy Road--appears to be a real road---probably where the 16 year old eco-terrorist lives? Couldn't find anything on the Rise of Ballygaddy Road
Francis Craeven---the new leader of the battalion this kid belongs to happens to have the same name as the articles creator.
A.R.A.F. has NO hits on Altavista
I could go on, but the entire article is nothing but blatant nonsense... creative... but blatant nonsense of some 16 year old kidBalloonman06:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
PS absolutely no google hits on this 16 year old kid. No references in the article (how can there be, it's pure fiction) How is this anything but nonsense?Balloonman06:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but as a LoCE member, I just wondered if you would be willing to have a look through the Sheerness article. It is currently a Featured Article Candidate and needs a copy-edit for grammar by someone who hasn't yet seen it. Any other ways to improve the article would also be welcome. Thank you very much, if you can. Epbr12317:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Possible CEM candidate
Durova suggested that I talk to you about an ongoing situation with regards to a subset of articles relating to Ireland and Northern Ireland. As you can imagine, such a charged set of articles has a series of editors who have turned editing of articles into a battlefield. I suggested something similar to CEM, but it was noticed that CEM is designed for two folks. Do you think it can be stretched for the amount of editors this has? (maybe 5-6 a side). SirFozzie23:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Some of us would hope that this would not degenerate into a "team game" but rather come up with some binding proposals on the lines of what Sony has proposed here...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 00:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I have returned from my trip, and I'm looking forward to editing the encyclopedia again. I don't know much about the dispute, but perhaps we can list it at WP:CEM under the requests section, and go from there. It is likely that if it is accepted, I will ask Durova to assist. Thanks, Navou22:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Great! There is not necessarily a (singular) dispute - more that many editors feel they are wasting time on the same old revert and counter-revert and may need guidance on techniques, policies and consensus building. ...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 22:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but as a LoCE member, I just wondered if you would be willing to have a look through the Sheerness article. It is currently a Featured Article Candidate and needs a copy-edit for grammar by someone who hasn't yet seen it. Any other ways to improve the article would also be welcome. Thank you very much, if you can. Epbr12317:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I just made a revert to the above article. It actually reverted to another version with vandalism. After that I realised the entire article was nonsence, I was about to tag it with a speedy but you beat me to it. Thanks.--Ad@m.J.W.C.03:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Anytime. I assume you are on a recent changes patrol. Keep up the good work, keeping these articles clean and free of test edits, vandalism, etc. Cheers! Navoubanter03:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Might want to read that, as the message you left to danny ( a long time contributor since 2002 ) does not quite match up. Why are you welcoming him to wikipedia? If you have a point to make about his conduct, thats fine, just don't "welcome" long time contributors. The template you left was intended for new users, not for long time users. Just a heads up. —— Eagle101Need help?18:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I've got a couple of editors who have agreed to participate in this process, and I believe they would benefit significantly from it. Durova said to talk to you about finding a mediator for them, so well, here I am! If you can help with that, would be appreciated. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Just letting you know, I have posted my entire argument (at least all I could gather) on the mediation page. Thanks for your patience.►Chris Nelson03:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I have moved this article to Eagles Nest, New Zealand, as per the comments of some people noting that this might divert from the disambig at Eagle's Nest. I then turned Eagles Nest into a redirect to the above disambig.
The actual question: is it acceptable to change the links in the Eagles Nest AfD discussion so that they point to the moved article? Ingolfson03:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
If you don't mind...could you to change the desired outcome to the specific behavior you would like for the other party to stop doing. This section should be things like "Editor stops making personal attacks" for a generic example. Regards, Navoubanter03:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Happy to, just trying to make this as "unoffensive as possible". I've got a couple more people that I'm going to notify and then i'll make the adjustments. Please let me know if i've screwed up the format somewhere, I'm happy to correct it. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 03:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. The object of a RFC is to get outside comments, and suggestions to how editors can modify their own behavior. Navoubanter03:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your direction on this. I'm sort of warn out, but trying to make sure i get in enough relevant information. There is more, but i think what's there is sufficent. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 03:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I encourage disclosure. I would be worried if you did not disclose your actions in the RFC. A good place to disclose might be the "Description" section. Navoubanter03:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, would you please take a look at the very bottom topic at Template talk:Infobox NFLactive? Jmfangio has reverted an edit I made (one that placed "Undrafted free agent in (year)" in the infobox) because he says there are other issues with the infobox and there is an RFC going on about me. He also refuses to discuss the edit and its topic, and I feel in that case he is holding the template hostage by reverting my edit then saying he will not discuss it. I do not feel like my edit is very controversial, it's simply adding a bit of information for undrafted guys, and I feel like Jmfangio is only reverting it because of our past history. That's wrong in my opinion.►Chris Nelson22:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope you will forgive me, I do not want to get that deeply involved in the content dispute itself. However, they may be some options over at WP:30 if a third opinion is what you are after. Respectfully, Navoubanter22:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
You do not have to get involved in the specifics of the content. But do you not feel it is wrong to revert edits and then refuse to discuss them until YOU feel it is appropriate? That is disrespectful to others on Wikipedia, and I know you wouldn't do that. So please, at least glance at the situation and if you feel I am right in my perception, say something to him. I know our bouts have been obnoxious but I am not trying to get into it with him, I'm just trying to make productive changes and engage on content discussion. Please, just look at the situation. This is not fair.►Chris Nelson22:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
As a general personal policy, I will usually not choose to not appear or act partisan if I have mediated or attempted to mediate a dispute. This is why I would find it uncomfortable to do this thing. I hope you will understand and grant me leave in this case to not enter the discussion on that talk page.. Very respectfully, Navoubanter22:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Just letting you know: I just extended the "archive template" to cover the most recent comments on PR's CSN. I'm not sure if you left them out intentionally. If that's the case, feel free to revert my change. MarkChovain04:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I did not know if folks were done discussing in the suggestion header... but yeah, thats fine as well. I think the overall direction of the discussion is clear. Best regards, Navoubanter04:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Also your references, whenever possible it is better to used the extended formats,
particularly nice if articles have abstracts on pubmed.
All you need is a pubmed id.
<ref>Epilepsia 2002; 43 (1):87-95</ref>
gave me the PMID 11879392 when searched in pubmed (sometimes this works).
It gives you this output:
<ref name="pmid11879392">{{cite journal | author = Gleissner U, Helmstaedter C, Schramm J, Elger CE | title = Memory outcome after selective amygdalohippocampectomy: a study in 140 patients with temporal lobe epilepsy | journal = Epilepsia | volume = 43 | issue = 1 | pages = 87-95 | year = 2002 | pmid = 11879392 | doi = }}</ref>[1]Pdeitiker18:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
See references section I created for 'capturing' these references. This gives direct link to pubmed for the article, which then gives related articles and also, now, digital article identifyer that can take a colleage directly to the actual paper.
(Yes we do read wikipedia)Pdeitiker13:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC).
Ridiculous
Are you guys kidding me? How many times do i have to report this guy? I had to go to WP:ANI again. I cannot believe you closed this - when you asked for no involvement. Nothing has been resolved and nothing happened. No sanctions were handed out and we are back where we started. I'm not going to let this guy bully any more people. He has made no effort to compromise on ANYTHING. This is down right pathetic. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 01:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I closed the RFC, and reversed the close. Effectively undoing the action that I did when I closed and summarized. Navoubanter02:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I notice that you've been doing several non-admin AfD closings lately. Please take care to do this within the bounds of WP:DPR#NAC, and specifically, not to close any "delete" discussions. You will find that there have been discussions on the talk page whether the rules should be loosened to allow non-admins to close "delete" discussions, and consensus was against it, since it creates unnecessary work for the admin who has to do the actual deletion. If you want to close AfDs, why not run for adminship? Sandstein05:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, many thanks for non-admin closing the above, would have been dreadful indeed to have some admin re-list it and drag this on, as I've seen some times with other AfDs. But according to WP:DELPRO#AFD (step 8), a note about the result should be placed to the discussion page - which I did now. Just letting you know, in case you forgot, or in case I misinterpreted that page, so I will know :) --Allefant10:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I should be more careful. I'm in a unique line of work, and sometimes we have our own lingo. The context sometimes does not carry over. It means, if you were to put me in the hurt locker, you would be making life hard, or making me feel bad. If I can find some RS, I'll write an article, I can't resist a red link easy, especially if its on my talk page. Navoubanter22:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
I'm done! :-) Now it's time for the other nominators to drop by, and for you to answer once more those standard questions. Do it calmly and wisely! :-) Good luck! Best regards, Húsönd01:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey there, overall i think you've done an excellent job of maintaining "impartiality" in that whole situation. My question regarding the workshop is something i think would be something good for you to answer on the RFA page. That's why i was asking him. I hope you can tell i was not trying to go behind your back, contrary, i think you would make a good admin (something i cannot say for many others who are already admins).... does that make sense? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 04:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Nah, I lose all paranoia on wiki, I think basically, people are good. And its my assumption that we are all here to do just this... write the encyclopedia. As far as the question you pose, you may ask whatever you please om the RFA, and I'll do my best to answer it if I choose. Additionally, I think that question would be best asked at the arbitration, you might not be the only one wondering about it, the other parties might have the same question, you might just be the first to ask. Regards, Navoubanter04:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I've offered comments on all your workshop proposals - and in fact struck a few of my comments within the last few hours (i struck rather than refractored because there is some underlying truth to them - i just don't think they should be focused on. Let me know if you need some clarification. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 04:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
In reference to arbitration only: I have commented about this on the workshop talk. Please feel free to ask questions or comment there if you like. And best regards, Navoubanter04:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I put a response there for you. In the meantime, I am not sure this should be brought up with your RFA -for a number of reasons. In the meantime, good luck and you have my "unofficial" support. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 17:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) I'm not sure how to relate my participation at the arbitration with this RFA. But I will look at the comments on the workshop page when I get back home, and thank you for support. Cheers! Navoubanter17:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I ask you to look at the edit summary in this link. That's about as offensive as it gets! This guy needs to go and go for a long time! I'm not going to put up with his shit anymore - this is so ridiculously offensive. I will tell him off if he comes near me again. Racism/religious persecution/whatever you want to call it (especially unprovoked) has absolutely no place here. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 02:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I gotta tell you - this is not making me any more likely to accept things that might be handed down by the Arbcom. That kid is an offensive troll who belittles and barbs everyone - taking it to the recent level where he mentions nazis is absolutely the last straw with me. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 03:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
RfA
I'd just like to say well done on the so far successful RfA, I've left an optional question on the page for you to answer. Regards, Onnaghartl ! co12:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The bot used to link to open discussions on /old like : 1 2 3 4 5 and so forth. This feature was great, can you bing it back? Navoubanter17:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Great effort. I hope it works out. I can give you some suggestions if you're interested. I may also want to become involved, e.g. as an apprentice mediator. --Coppertwig16:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
On requesting unprotection for Radhabinod Pal, I notice you requested protection for it. I'd like you to note the comments I left on the protecting admin's page. I doubt you even read the talkpage, or attempted to check the records of the editors involved, including what they were doing at the time you requested protection[2]. There are good reasons why protection should not be the first attempt at resolution, especially a fixed-period protection. You acted in this case without acquainting yourself more closely with the concerns, which is not acceptable. "Cooling down" edit wars is important, but not if they are cooling down on one side themselves. Hornplease00:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I actually followed the dispute from the 3RR board, as you can probably see form the history, I've been working on the archiving. I'll note that
I stopped counting at the point, however, one should note that when I request page protection, I do not consider the dispute. Protection is usually achieved during an edit war in m:The Wrong Version of the page, which is whatever version the page happens to be in. I'll admit, I did not know an editor was blocked in the case. Regardless, the editors should resolve the dispute before reverting. I hope this helped. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Cheers! Navoubanter02:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I am well aware of where you followed it from. That indicates precisely my point; that you were aware that one of the users had been warned after breaking 3RR, and that the other had indicated his unwillingness to take it further. That hardly qualifies as an ongoing edit war. If I had thought an edit war was in progress, I would have requested protection myself; I have indicated as much on two unrelated talkpages in two unrelated disputes (in which I am not a participant) in the past 48 hours. What you chose to do, even knowing - or at least in possession of sufficient information, if you had been on the 3RR board, that one could deduce - that the edit war was over, was apply for protection of the page.
There is no need to quote m:The Wrong Version to me, and in particular, snidely. I am well aware of that essay, and it is used too easily as an explanation for carelessness, which is not its intent. You will note that my primary concern is not the version that it is currently in, but that your conduct in this matter was lacking in thought, and that as a consequence this page is locked for five days unless I fight a pointless little battle elsewhere. (Five days during which, as I point out, the Japanese Prime Minister is busy making a big deal out of this individual and he is on every front page in Asia and a few in the rest of the world.) "The editors should resolve the dispute before reverting"? Yes, I know. Again, you should know when stepping in is needed and when it is not. And making obvious statements like that to someone who has ten thousand or so edits and no blocks for 3RR (or reports, either, actually) takes the cake. Hornplease05:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
It was not my intention to appear snide or disrespectful, and if it appeared so, please accept my sincere apology. I notice that you did take it up with the protecting sysop, I have no ability to protect or unprotect this page, perhaps that sysop will be better assistance in that regard. Again, please accept my apologies for the "obvious" statement, I did not intend to insult you. Navoubanter05:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, though I do hope you see why it would come across as, at any rate, unnecessary. Hint: never quote - or, heavens, paraphrase - policy to established users unless you do not care if they are going to get irritated. Personally, I think making the point as if policy did not exist and then wikilinking the appropriate section of policy to an appropriate bit of text gets the message across without hitting the other person on the head with it.
Of course, my concerns about the original complaint still stand, but, as you say, there is not much you can do about it, and I think you have explained yourself as best you can under the circs. Hornplease05:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, certainly, but my thread was first simply blanked rather than archived by one of the CSN watchers, so I assumed that was the proper way. At any rate, I didn't really remove it, but moved it to the WQA board. >Radiant<09:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Rdsmith4 has closed your RfA as successful so you should now have a shiny new mop and bucket. Use them wisely! Add your name to WP:LA if its not there already and feel free to get in touch if there's anything I can help you with... WjBscribe05:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I was on my way to say the same thing, but a certain Mr Busybody has preempted me, shamelessly encouraging bureaucratic sloppiness. Navou, many congratulations; act prudently and professionally, and make your supporters proud. — Dan | talk06:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on your successful RfA, Navou. Here are your shiny new mop and bucket. Use them wisely! :-) Best regards, Húsönd16:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Congrats! Now go block Jimbodelete the main page go do something good with the shiny new buttons! And do remember...
If you choose to block someone, you are abusive. If you choose not to do so, you are enabling disruptive users and trolls.
When you protect a page, you will be notified shortly that you protected the wrong version. At this point, it is important to immediately revert to a different wrong version. Repeat this procedure as often as needed.
If you close a contentious AfD based on numbers, you are treating AfD as a vote. If you close it based on strength of argument, you are ignoring consensus.
The more angry messages you get left on your talk page, the better a job you're doing. Bonus points for swearing, bolding, ALL CAPS, or any combination thereof. However, this does not apply if you posted the messages in question.
While I appreciate your protection on Mousepad, the protection is exactly not what I asked for. I asked for long-term protection because this issue has been going on for a year and the page has been repeatedly protected from this one known variable IP address (you gave just 3 days). I asked for semi-protect because the only issue is IP address - edits from logged in users have been perfectly fine, and the page is stable (you gave full-protect). I'd like to know what the reasoning was for short-term full instead of long-term semi; though I am seeing that this seems to have been your first use of your admin powers (congrats, btw!), and I'm wondering if things got turned around? --Thespian22:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for bringing this up. The request was not an easy one, and it appears it had been skipped over so I took it. I've taken a loot at the contribution history of the recent IP edits, and I'm not really seeing how those edits fit into one of the categories of vandalism at Wikipedia:Vandalism. Could you take a look at the WP:VANDAL page, and the MOUSE history, let me know where I'm mistaken and I'll alter the protection. But from here, it appears like a content dispute. Thank you for being patient. Best regards, Navoubanter23:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Baptism of fire for the n00b admin :) FWIW, I just want to say that, as a regular RPP admin, I endorse the call you made here - Alison☺23:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a case of 'give it two days and they'll go away'; this user has been adding personal attacks, and this NPOV, COI edit (along with rants) for the last year. Previous times when they have gotten to the 'daily and more frequent' changes, the page has been semi-protected for a month at a time. The *day* that expired (both times), the IP editor has started the edits again. It's a long term problem that has nothing to do with content, and has to do with the fact that this IP editor (who has identified himself as Armando Fernandez in the past to Dicklyon, apparently) wants to have created the mousepad. It counts, in its way, as 'Sneaky vandalism' ("This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles..."), as a repeated NPOV (and thus vandalism: "Though inappropriate, this is not vandalism in itself unless persisted in after being warned."), etc. It's not a content dispute in the normal fashion because he's never, ever going to listen to what we say; indeed, because you locked the page, he's already abusing you on the talk page for 'assisting the plagiarism'. Because I was asking for an extended semi-protect, and other admins had left it because I was asking for something serious, it was likely not a good choice for a very first admin action - I think it would have been better not to do anything in this case, because this didn't actually do anything - no identified editor was doing anything other than reverting the IP edits. This was a non-solution. --Thespian00:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If it's any consolation, I'm now monitoring the article, too. Any sign of shennanigans from IP editors or SPAs and I'll revert/block so fast, their head will spin. I don't want to lock out genuine editors (IPs included) just because of the misbehaviour of one. If it persists and is much heavier, we should consider medium-term semi-prot (not indef), the idea being that we want the guy to go away. - Alison☺01:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
we should consider medium-term semi-prot...Which was what I asked for (I said long-term in my request, but I meant in wikipedia terms :-) - 3mos, maybe 6, as I mentioned on the Mousepad talk page), after over a year of this. (edit: since the previous one month semis didn't work, my brain seemed to think of three as the next step up from that) --Thespian01:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I see that you have protected this article [3]. However, it must be stated that the original picture that was in there is not the one that is currently on the page. The reason user: Ejfetters wanted the article protected was so that I would stop reverting the page. Mind you, I never reverted the page more than 3 times (as he did yesterday in reverting the Simon Cowell page over 3 times). And, I reverted the Star Trek image because he had already replaced the original image with a new one before a consensus was made about it getting replaced as you will see here [[4]]. There was never an official vote, other than him saying agreed after ONE user states how he thinks the image should be replaced. The article that is currently shown is a new one, he has added before everyone reached a consensus a decision about it. The only thing I was doing was trying to keep the proper image in there. There’s really no reason for that article to be protected other than to keep him from continually trying to add the new image. This was the original image that has been there for a very long time now [[5]] Tratare03:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I am glad someone gets where I am coming from in all of this. I am having so much trouble trying to explain this to Ejfetters. He most certainly didn't tell you that he had already added in the new image, before you protected the page. As I told him, the voting, on the discussion page, should be about the removal of the pic, that has already been there for a long time. This is according to the editing history of that article. However, he has already put in his new image on September 5th, before a vote to remove the old image. Nothing I can do now, as he got you to protect the article. He's also started up a voting discussion about the removal of the older picture, but it's already been removed and protected. I tell him over and over, that the image needs to go back to its original way before a voting process about removing the older pic is started. However, it was pretty impossible and it ended up with him telling me how he was going to get an admin to protect the article, to keep me from putting back the old image. Note; I never reverted more than 3 times Tratare12:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, protection is not an endorsement of any version. The protection is applied in whatever version the page is found in, so as to stop edit wars, and reversions from constantly occurring, and to get folks to start using the talk page. I locked the article how I found it, without regards to the current version. Once consensus is reached, the protection can be lifted early. Best regards, Navoubanter17:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear! Perhaps I am just bad at explaining this, if you could explain it to him, Seramphimblade. I mean even your friend knows you've protected the wrong version. No one is allowed to change the image until a consensus on changing it is reached, Navuo. There was a dispute between the images so it stays the same until a vote happens to get rid of it for a different one. That vote will also decide what kind of new image. However, Ejfetters has already changed the image and added in a new one. The consensus discussion is about requesting removal of the image that has been there. However, the old image has already been removed by Ejfetters. This is why I tried to add back the old image. Ejfetters was supposed to wait until a consensus was made. Please ask seramphimblade what I mean if I haven't explained my self so that you understand. Thank you! :) Tratare20:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You really do need to read the link that Seraphimblade provided above. Seriously - we don't endorse any particular revision. All we want to do is stop the disruption which Navou now has. Sorta :) - Alison☺21:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to click on the link! Sorry deary! :) Ask someone else to. I have a feeling it's immature, judging from what you said and I don't deal with immaturity. Anyway, if you're not going to put the correct image on it, then get used by Ejfetters. Not my problem. Done. Bye! :) Tratare00:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Navou, thanks for your comment at the Fred Thompson article. I think that we will need page protection. The first three words of the article ("Fred Dalton Thompson") have been unchanged since 2004, and there is no consensus yet to change them. I am concerned that if I seek page protection, then the version protected might change those three words. How would you suggest I proceed?Ferrylodge18:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for writing. If you will notice, I have already protected the page. The page is protected in whatever the version it is in when we go to protect the page. Sometimes, this is not a stable version, or "consensus version" as it is sometimes phrased. There is a running joke, the wrong version is always protected, and this is true to some extent. Nonetheless, I've protected in in whatever version it was in when I got there, and its up to the disputants to figure out and discuss what changes need to be applied. When a consensus forms, request unprotection. Additionally, if consensus does not form, some of these steps might help. Please write me again if you have any questions. Best regards, Navoubanter18:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This is unacceptable. Not blocking someone who has made seven reverts in twenty-four hours is already questionable, but the editor in question is now asking the ruling sysop for advice on how to get his preferred version protected during edit wars? Italiavivi18:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
"Protecting the wrong version" is indeed a WP in-joke, but the fact is that the practise of protecting the "current" version invariably leads to gamesmanship, where someone reverts to their preferred version and immediately calls an admin to protect it. This practise also encourages edit-warring, since everybody wants to increase the chance that their preferred version will be the "current" one when it gets frozen. Any exercise of restraint in edit-warring is thus "punished", and editors get the message that next time they should be quicker to revert.
Be that as it may, in this particular case there is a strong argument for why you should freeze Ferrylodge's last version rather than Tvoz's. There is no substantive dispute here; eventually we will find out the true fact, and then we'll all agree which language to use. The dispute is over what language to use in the meantime, while we don't know the facts. And the general rule on WP is that until there is consensus for a change, the status quo ante should be preserved. -- Zsero18:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Navou, I'm not sure this was the correct action to take here. Ferrylodge has been blocked before for 3RR violation, and for harassment of KillerChihuahua. Ferrylodge was also quite disruptive on an RFC a while back WP:POINTedly made against Bishonen regarding his block for said harassment. link. Ferrylodge has long been a disruptive editor and has become a relatively frequent sight on WP:AN/I. Having been blocked for 3RR before, and having a disruptive past, common sense says that it would be preventative to block him from any future disruption to the project, for at least 48 hours. This would not be punitive, it would be preventative in light of his history of blatant disruption. Will crosspost this to AN/I. ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane.23:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting ESADE. The other editor and I have been discussing the situation on his talk page:[6] This discussion has been continued from my earlier communications with the same editor who had been editing under an IP address: [7]. The other editor continued trying to add in unsourced critical content about a corporation over and over under a newly created user name: [8].
There’s more to the situation than is superficially apparent, and I think you can clearly see that I was trying to work it out with the new editor. I found the article while on anti-vandal patrol and reverted the creation of an unsourced attack section, and fixed the misleading "mission statement" section also added by the same editor: [10][11].
This is not a simple dispute with associated edit warring, Discussion has been ongoing, but I think you can clearly see that one side of this so-called “duel” isn’t abiding by Wikipedia policy. I have zero interest in the subject of this article and was merely defending Wikipedia while at the same time attempting to educate an editor that I first saw as a vandal. Dreadstar†06:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
One other thing I should probably mention: the other editor (who has apparently been using two different usernames in addition to an IP address to make his edits), has an obvious conflict of interest as indicated in one of his edit summaries, which states:
Thanks to you for protecting the Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz article. This makes user Mezzo-Mezzo relax and workout a solution instead of accusing people of sockpupetry and Vandalism and call their contributions rubish like here [12].
Please go through the main points of arguments and how that article was, became and is on the way to become unless Mezzo-Mezzo keeps interupting a- the concensus b- by accusations and c- by switching focus from the issue to the persons. He put me as sockpupet user and I strongly encourage you to see the Ibn Baz talk page for chronicle review..thanks swapant17:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I wish I had more time to visit SSP, I'd really like to start working with WP:SSP and WP:COI but for the time being it seems I can only log in long enough to just do a couple of things. I miss making articles. As soon as it calms down a little with with home and work, I'll be able to look into these types of requests. Thanks, Navoubanter03:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
God knows my early record as an admin was far from inspiring but please consider this friendly advice from a recently sysopped admin.
A lot of editors look at 3RR as a touchstone for expected editing norms and there is undoubtedly a clear problem with the blocks appearing punitive rather then preventative. The system has evolved that way because it works. If you ever get round to blocking someone for 3RR you will be amazed by the amount of wikilawyering that this kind of violation provokes and relying on a clear boundary is the only way to have a clear inviolable standard for editors to work towards. This does not happen if we regularly have one admin applying a separate standard. I suggest that you look at the approach taken by regular patrollers of the board and seek to follow their lead. Anything else will led to a degree of anarchy. Thank you. SpartazHumbug!06:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Howdy, thank you for writing. You are actually the second editor to bring this up, so I'll need to be examining my actions. I reackin I have a hard time issuing blocks in situations where an alternative is able to stop the disruption. I'll probably post something to WT:3RR or WT:AN3RR once I can better articulate what I'm thinking. Thanks for letting me know. Navoubanter12:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind resolution of my report to the 3RR noticeboard, but I don't believe protecting the page will do anything. The user is unwilling to discuss the change, as can be seen by this attack after you protected the page. I am also somewhat unwilling to discuss this any further. I removed the phrase, I explained my edit, and that's it. I'm right, and he is wrong. There is nothing to discuss. There's nothing else to be done. I suggest you block the user for violating 3RR and attacking me, or at least give him a warning, and then unprotect the page. Of course, it's just a suggestion, and you may ignore it if you like, but I humbly request you at least read it carefully. Regards, Boricuaeddie is nowAgüeybaná21:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I view 3RR like this: 3RR violation is disruption. For a first time offender, they can say they didn't know. For a second time offender, or for someone who violated significantly over 4 reverts, they had a clear intent to disrupt. Especially with repeat offenders, they should reasonably know their behavior is disruptive. Protection of an article unduly prevents good-intentioned editors from editing. We choose to block the 3RR offender instead for their willful disruption, to prevent them from doing it on other articles. Other reasons why, is that if we protect instead of blocking, any vandal can make a sock, give it a few good edits, and then start revert warring, to lock down an article. Instead, if we block the user, we allow others to continue to edit. This is in line with the GFDL, which must allow users to create derivative works, and the general concept of wikipedia. We only protect when it's absolutely necessary, i.e. revert war on multiple sides that won't be resolved without a protect and discuss, onslought of vandalism, etc. Blocking also gives a clear message to the user that they need to stop, and what they are doing is not welcome. Protecting the page, does not. It's not just about stopping the instant disruption, its about stopping further disruption in the future.⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane.23:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so according to you it is supposed to be punitive -- that's my interpretation of what you said. I thought Wikipedia policy was that it wasn't supposed to be done punitively. Also, I've seen various actions taken: often page protection. Once when someone protected a page after I had reported a 3RR, it had a calming effect on me too. I think the admin handling the case needs to have some freedom to choose how to act -- otherwise we might as well have bots doing it, and then people could easily game the system. Admins should not receive a whole lot of criticism just because they made a decision one way or another. --Coppertwig00:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that protection is sometimes necessary and effective, but, in this case, it is neither. As I said, he continued to disrupt Wikipedia after the protection and is unwilling to come to an agreement, which is the point of the protection in his case. Therefore, the page should be unprotected. I'll take it to WP:RFPP, if you want another admin's opinion. --Boricuaeddie is nowAgüeybaná01:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thats fine, to relist at RFPP for another opinion. I've taken a little break on page protections per the input here and other places. I'll probably post something at WT:AN3RR or WT:3RR later. Navoubanter01:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Boricuaeddie has made it nice and clear that there is no point trying to come to any agreement with him and he's not willing to discuss it (see above). Luckily for him he has admin friends to back up his POV. Kappa02:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You know how that request was denied...
I'd like to point out that I meant it was vandalized over it's life, so maybe you should click that '500' button.
Hi! Thank you for writing. I'm not comfortable protecting that article with good edits coming from anons as well., perhaps my definition of high level IP vandalism is a little loose. If you like, you can relist and let someone else review it. Cheers - Navoubanter00:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
In blocking him, you've forgot to add the 'blocked sign' (that sign with the 'X'). Makes it more 'official' looking. GoodDay23:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the suggestion, but I'm probably going to stop using templates with the exception of proxy, voa, and username blocks. Navoubanter23:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Jean-Luc Picard
I know the tag expires tomorrow, but wondered if you felt it was okay to unblock Jean-Luc Picard now. The user that started the trouble has been blocked indefinitely for trolling and harrassment, which is what started all this. Ejfetters12:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I saw you were the blocking editor a few days ago on this article due to apparent edit warring. Deedstar (talk·contribs), who Dreadstar (talk·contribs) told you about, has been blocked for the similarity of his username to Dreadstar's (which was apparently, as Dreadstar had told you, to mock him); it appears the same user is continuing to create new accounts to continue a sort of single-purpose sockpuppetry assault on the article. Might a short term block be in order? I'm in the process of filing a suspected sockpuppetry case. --Yksin00:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for helping. However, would you mind closing the discussion when you block? Otherwise, the discussion will continue without point. Congratulations on your successful RfA, btw. isaid01:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You've deleted a user subpage of mine without adequate notice and the reason stated doesn't fit. Creating a page to accurately summarize commentary in prep (as was repeatedly stated) for an attempt at mediation/arbitration is explicitly permitted by the guidelines. Please restore it. TMLutas04:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for writing. I've deleted this subpage without notice because it met criteria. I did let you know when I deleted however. Also, there is a thread on AN/I located here. Regards, Navoubanter04:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've pointed to the thread located at AN/I in the comment above yours. I'm not sure why you want me to review WP:DICK. I don't think its applicable here. Thanks again, Navoubanter04:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:TMLutas/WMC. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Thanks for admitting so forthrightly that you didn't provide any notice whatsoever. I look forward to hearing from you any reasonable construction on how one is to apply WP:USER and its exception to the rule on attack pages so future efforts will not get deleted. Since what I'm alleging was a pattern of conduct and I thought it unfair at the time to dredge up all the old issues with WMC it's likely to be an interesting discussion. Would it have been more appropriate to go through all his old troubles and assemble the pattern charge from that in order to avoid creating a page that lists the evidence as a sort of prosecutor's brief? I await your answer with interest. TMLutas13:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the notice. I restored his statement/request for transparency, and moved his general discussions down in the hope that he can/will leave the past behind.
That said, please keep an eye on the talk page. While I may hope for the best, the worst is still "possible", of course...
I like Jc37 was unaware of CAT:socksofpastorwayne. And I should have checked deeper. I thought User:OfficePuter was the only incarnation, and could be construed as "the office computer". However, BrownHairedGirl, if you re block, I will not consider it wheel waring, as I assume you have more information than I do having done the research yourself. You are welcome to reblock if you are so inclined. Navoubanter20:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your consideration at Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal but I'm a bit confused regarding this. Criteria 7 specifically entitles me as the sole author to request its deletion in good faith. "7. Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." The page is too long and I currently don't feel inclined to prune it. Quite what my move to citizendium has to do with it I have no idea, I'm likely to be in both places for a while and may well return to wikipedia if things pan out there. I am significantly less likely to return if, for some reason, admins chose to make an exception to policy with regards to my contributions here. Would you mind explaining a bit more fully? --Joopercoopers08:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Your deletion, is it because you are leaving, are frustrated, or are attempting to revoke GFDL license that you released it under? Navoubanter10:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
None of the above - the article still needs a lot of work and isn't of a quality I want to leave unattended in mainspace - happy to have it moved to userspace if you prefer. --Joopercoopers10:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
^Gleissner U, Helmstaedter C, Schramm J, Elger CE (2002). "Memory outcome after selective amygdalohippocampectomy: a study in 140 patients with temporal lobe epilepsy". Epilepsia. 43 (1): 87–95. PMID11879392.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Surrounding history?
Am I missing something here? No need to go into detail, but is this recent or long-past history? Am I missing a mailing list thread or something? Carcharoth11:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. After seeing what happened everywhere in regards to that article, I don't really feel comfortable poking fun in regards to the editor or that article. I would just rather not be involved with it, even if my involvement is making jest at the template message on Jimmy's talk page. Honestly, I rather feel a little bad for Jimmy, I have to believe the article was an honest attempt to add encyclopedic content to the encyclopedia, and I don't agree with some of the things that went on in regards to the article. Regards, Navoubanter12:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. I feel bad as well. I was hoping he might respond on the talk page or AfD, but I guess he is either too busy or licking his wounds. See the talk page comment at the AfD. My concern is that this is a textbook example of how Wikipedia can bite new editors, or in this case those who haven't seen how new articles can get treated now. I wonder if "don't WP:BITE Jimbo" is worth a shot? Carcharoth12:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm only an occasional editor on that article, but I noticed that this IP editor appeared today and has been inserting the same off-topic paragraph in many band articles. The edits have been fast and aggressive, with immediate reverting of multiple editors who do not agree with his campaign to insert the information.
The info is appropriate for the page of the record label Free-Will, but the many bands on that label are not directly involved and there are no references stating that they are. That's just a content dispute, of course.
My concern and the reason I'm posting this here, is the edit-warring by the IP. It's not between that IP and one other editor, as the article history shows, several editors are reverting the IP and the IP immediately reverts again.
Hi again - it appears someone else filed the report and it has already received attention (Result: 36 hours to Jun kakeko, 24 hours to IP). So no further action needed, thanks for reading my note. --ParsifalHello02:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Howdy, apologies for not getting here sooner, it looks like everything is resolved. Thanks for letting me know. Best regards, Navoubanter02:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
username blocking
I just saw your comments on irc. For username blocking (especially soft-blocks) I've been using {{subst:unb}} with a piped reason. For example, here, I put in {{subst:unb|your username is promotional. Please choose another}}. I think it improves the message. -- Flyguy649talkcontribs20:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that you only semi protected the twin article. I will cross my fingers that that works. I think that semi protection has failed in the past. We shall see what happens but once again thanks : Albion moonlight —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You recently let this user off of a 2 week block for copyvios after only one day. Unfortunately, in doing so, you only put "OK" as a reason, so it really isn't clear to other admins why you did so. I'm not contesting your actions, but it would have been nice if you put a more detailed reason for extending grace. Unfortunately, after getting off, this user has continued uploading copyrighted material, so I've now blocked him for a week. If there are other factors that need to be considered here, please let me know. AKRadeckiSpeaketh02:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I disabled the template so it reads {{tl|unblock|wont do it again}} in the edit window. If the editor has gone against the promise, I'll support a much longer if not indefinite block. No time for intentional disruption. What are your thoughts? Navoubanter02:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I gave him a week, probably should have gone longer. I have no problem going longer, though. Take a look a his two additions and see if you agree that they were as blatant as I thought they were, especially the second image...clearly a copyrighted one (by Boeing, I'd be willing to wager), and he went as far as "releasing" it per GDFL, which I strongly doubt he has the authority to do. I once tried to get the media folks at Boeing to GDFL a press-release image and they said "no way". So, to deliberately label an image like that is downright dishonest, either that or this person really doesn't understand the concept of copyrights and licenses. AKRadeckiSpeaketh04:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems blatant, and I have reinstated the original two week block. I'll post a message at the talk page of the blocked editor regarding copy right. Navoubanter12:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Considerable discussion has taken place about additions I would like to see in the homophobia article. One item of agreement is that mention should be made that DSM IV doesn't not include homophobia as a fear or disorder, and that the word homophobia isn't even included in DSM IV. The article is a discussion of homophobia and its uses. So, I made an addition to the article regarding the absence of homophobia in DSM IV. when Dethme0w comes along and deletes and runs. He has not been part of the discussion. Nor did he follow Wikipedia's guidelines regarding not simply deleting something you don't like but rather editing to bring compromise and/or going to the discussion page and discussion the issue. I would like to ask that Dethme0w be blocked from further edits of homophobia until he agrees to discuss changes on the discussion page. Thank you breadmanpaul04:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought you were referring to an official editor for the article. Seems there's quite a pack of people who go around deleting and running. Make no contribution to discussion, just delete stuff that counters their POV. Very annoying. breadmanpaul22:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
Oops. You're right. That was a mistake by me. It was supposed to be a typo fix, but I was mistakenly editing a previous version of the page instead of the final version. Is it ok if I go in and fix the typo correctly this time? I had accidentally put the end of my comment in italics, and it makes it look like I was making some pointed comment that I wasn't making. I'd like to fix it. 6SJ701:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Navou. Let me begin by saying I don't criticize you for closing KM2 early. But if you're going to close SNOW RFAs, I figured it would be good to direct you to past practice in this area, which is the closest thing we have to a policy for us non-crats. If you haven't already seen that page, I hope it proves useful to you.--Chaser - T17:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I will not have time to look into it untill I get home. I am very disappointed that I caused the extra work and distracted from the project, this was not my intent. Just the opposite. So I'm not sure what to think about the entire debackle... just that I don't think the best interest of the project was served. I might write something up later on and post it to the mailing list, or on wiki, just not sure. I just don't know what to think. You ever felt dazed? Best regards, Navoubanter18:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
It happens. This closure was a similar situation. It's sometimes difficult to tell whether shutting discussion early will refocus community attention on the encyclopedia or prompt the community to create more crazy wikidrama. You're human. You make mistakes. You learn from them. Don't worry about it. You're doing a great job.--Chaser - T19:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Heyo. Will you please unprotect this article? The naming dispute was settled before you arrived on the scene. :-) Please keep the move protection and the semi-protection. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 17:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Is it resolved? I have yet to see reliable sources confirming this album's title. Have Jive Records or Britney's website confirmed the title of this album? WjBscribe17:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, the "naming dispute" that resulted in the post to ANI and the subsequent protection was "Britney Spears's fifth studio album" vs. "Britney Spears' fifth studio album". Discussion on the talk page determined that the former is best. The actual title of the album is unknown, so move protection is still necessary, just not edit protection, which Mercury imposed earlier today. ➪HiDrNick! 18:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see - I thought this was a request for the move protection to be taken off. I hadn't realised there was a separate dispute about how properly to punctuate the present title. Ignore me... WjBscribe18:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Update
I have added an update to the statement of dispute to make it clearer where the dispute originated from. I realised the evidence did seem a bit disjointed, because I hadn't sucessfully connected it to the argument about how Kelly Martin's RfA should have been handled. It was from that that calls for him to be more civil arose - and that kicked off the evidence presented. ViridaeTalk03:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
You are not acting fairly and are not careful
I see you blocked AS001. You are either not careful and not realizing what you are doing or you are acting unethically.
You note blocking AS 001 as being a sock of Bill Ayer. Bill Ayer was blocked because supporters of an RFA did not like his oppose. This blocking is improper. New York Brad said it is ok to reregister.
It is easy to mindless block saying "sock of ...". In doing so, you are perpetuating an improper action. AS 00222:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this comment: I am fully aware that I can use the {{editprotected}} page on the talk page, however, I just see no reason why this template should have to be protected. It is only seldomly used and not a high-risk template, so it would be safe to unprotect it. We are the free encyclopedia, and pages should only be protected when it is absolutely needed, and that is not the case here, IMO. Thoughts? Melsaran (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
So, you're a new admin, I gather above...? I actually thought you were a vandal. Not much for explanations, I see. Quite a start. Please respond on this page. El_C02:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I also prefer transparency, too. Incidentally, why did you choose to move your user name to Mercury on wheels, as a test? Thx. El_C02:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Mercury on wheels was a test of a bad move recent changes monitor. It worked and was detected as a bad page move. I've answered your admin question via the email for good reason, I think you will see. Additionally, I've unblocked, the block reason seemed to not warrant an indef block, so I've reduced the time. If the editor becomes disruptive once, I'll replace the indef block. Is this acceptable to you? Best, Mercury03:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not. And now that I know your prior account (was the renaming really necessary?), I have even more reservations. El_C03:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
You already knew that I have doubts about your judgment (especially in studying issues closely); there was already a confrontation in the past, involving questionable action on your part (which you admitted). In future, why not find something to do that does not involve myself. El_C03:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I can do that. I'm sorry, I don't usually scan for the blocking admin when I process a unblock template. But yeah, I can do that. Mercury03:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
As an aside, I probably should have discussed this with you prior to the unblock. And I've not been doing that. But from now on, unless its an obvious mistake, or the admin prefers otherwise, I'll discuss first. I'm sorry I have not done this before. I'm going on holiday soon, when I get back, perhaps I'll be more refreshed and clueful. Mercury03:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I may have been hasty in assuming that this user is a sockpuppet, but if you look at the history of the Astro Empires page you'll see that it has been re-created a few times after deletion. I can't actually see any constructive edits from this user either, but maybe 24 hours is too long. Deb21:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've done something on the talk page of that editor. Have a good one. Mercury
This is just a short RFC regarding the discussion here.
I am a bit confused... After repeatedly changing the heading of this section ("criticizing" vs. "calling out") and at the end of the thread, promising to correct his ways, User:GHcool changed his userpage only to reflect the last criticism mentioned (i.e. removing the quote "...limited ability to argue logically and convincingly, and... does not seem capable of making basic moral distinctions..."). The outing of User:Pco and the strongly worded criticisms of Finkelstein and other editors is still there.
As I said, this is an RFC, so here are my questions:
I am very upset at User:GHcool's attempt at stifling the discussion by constantly changing the section heading. Does this warrant any action? Should I post this to WP:AN/I or is there somewhere more appropriate?
What would be the next steps to take (i.e. the next administrative level) to make User:GHcool change his userpage?
Since User:GHcool has a slight tendency to troll, I would rather you answer here than on my own talkpage (this would also make a rather interesting test if he's also monitoring my contributions).
I don't intend to take up a large amount of your time. I've seen your comments to multiple requests for adminship, and I would like to understand your meaning. If you have a spare moment, could you tell in what context you mean by "leader" and I'll try to connect the rest. Regards, Mercury23:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey Mercury, I thought I'd reply to your question. As opposed to a lot of "voters" for admins, I take a different take on what makes a good admin. Although I think it is critical for admins to be good vandal-fighters, and get involved with stuff like RfD's and other housekeeping stuff, I don't think an admin should be exclusively interested in those items. Part of the reason we are here is to develop the project through new articles. I like seeing FA's and GA's from an applicant, because they get to really understand the whole process. They know what makes good content, they understand many more of the rules, and it shows the ability to build the project. Moreover, I look for leadership in other areas too. For example, there are a few very good admins that involve themselves in very contentious articles. They build consensus and occasionally smackdown POV warriors. These admins would probably not get "elected" today because they get down and dirty. We are just getting milquetoast editors who are becoming admins. They are essentially useless to the project, nothing more than low-paid janitors--keeps the place clean, but kind of sterile. I would love to be an admin, but I fight the dirty battles on this project, keeping the NPOV straight and narrow, sometimes getting tough to make certain individuals don't throw their POV into articles. I would never get to be an admin, because I do fight. It's sad, but the better editors don't want or can't be admins. So, out of the 5-10 applicants I see every couple of weeks, maybe one of them is going to actually make the project better. Even more troubling is that there are a cast of characters in the RfA voting process who don't do much else but vote. So, it's amusing that people who really don't help the project are pushing their POV to get others who aren't really helpful to the project either. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions16:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I have raised the issue of your apparent content dispute on Vergina Sun on WP:ANI [15], including my concerns about your use of the protection facility. Thanks TigerShark22:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the resolved tag from ANI, as I feel that further community input would be useful. I genuinely have no strong feelings on this, except that we need to give the opportunity for further input. Thanks TigerShark23:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment on ANI. This is genuinely not a witch-hunt, although I am now starting to feel like the Witchfinder General :) I just feel that it should be discussed. Thanks again TigerShark00:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Sir, I have the rack ready. No seriously, I don't think your are "witch hunting". I just wanted to be sure my opinion was known. Mercury00:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Richard Dawkins
Why is the Richard Dawkins page locked for three days because of an edit war between two people? Is three days normal for such incidents on Wikipedia? StaticElectric02:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I protected the article due to edit warring. I have the option of doing that, or blocking the editing of those two people. I chose the former option, using my discretion, I did not desire to put those two editors in the sin bin because they were contributing to other areas. Please note the stern warning I left on the talk page. Three days is on the shorter end of the spectrum. I could have protected for week. Best regards, Mercury03:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
That page you just declined to delete? The author has requested that it be deleted now, using {{db-author}}. It makes sense, in a perverse-performance-art kind of way, doesn't it?--VAcharon10:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
this author also requests deletion of his account. non-profit organizations are, in my opinion, communist, and i wish to have nothing to do with communists.
This was remarkably poor judgement on your part, and I suggest in all seriousness that you undo it immediately and apologise to Orangemarlin. – ornis⚙10:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I was leaving a note on your talk page when I got the new messages bar. Did you notice that youwere contributing to the revet duel? Mercury10:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
You've have failed to notice that several editors in good standing, respected admins among them have reverted the POV tag many times. I'm also curious as to how you expect OM to take part in a discussion when you've blocked him, and I wonder that you also fail to note that sm's specious essays and forum shopping have lead to him being blocked for disrutive editing in the recent past. This is simply a continuation of that. Once again, I'm politely suggesting that your reverse the block, and apologise to OM. – ornis⚙10:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
With respect, you are welcome to file a report at WP:AN/I and om can request review from an uninvolved admin via the unblock template or the mailing list. The revert warring was disruptive, and I had already warned on the talk page. I have used blocking to prevent that disruption. Mercury10:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned with you treating a single-purpose account and an established editor on the same par; and especially, with the block of the latter without warning. The risks of blocking a user as productive as OM need to be carefully weighted. El_C10:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
And I've opened the matter for wider discussion at AN/I. Folks, the warring on a maintenance tag is disruptive, especially after I have left warning about it. Mercury10:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean, I review of the last 1000 by Whig reveals a wide array of topics. I did not click the other two.Mercury10:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Man, talk about missing the bloody point. Anyone with even the meanest analytical skills could have noticed that the problem was Whig. Or wait, since several folkes reverted his vandalism, maybe they should be hung as enablers. Right. •Jim62sch•19:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) If you good folks think I made a bad call, and have lost faith, note: I am in category administrators open to recall. Find 5 editors in good standing to request on my talk page over the next couple of days, and we will go from there. Regards, Mercury23:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The main reason I voted against your RFA wasn't your handling of the Hornbeck kidnapping "mediation", but it was because I thought you wanted the mop to become more immersed in the drama and bureaucracy of Wikipedia. Your recent actions don't give me much hope that this wasn't the case. Sometimes admins make bad calls. Those bad calls are reversed and everyone moves on. You don't need to retire or bring up threads on noticeboards. I realize that you're an admin open to recall, but one mistake doesn't mean we have to go through the hassle and drama of a recall. Just let it go, and learn to not make the same mistake again. Sheesh. AniMate02:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mercury. Per the message above, and that on WP:AN/I, where you ask for an uninvolved admin to review this block, I have unblocked Orangemarlin. I think a block for his actions (remove POV tag, one revert to re-remove it) was very harsh, considering she/he is an editor in good standing and has had no previous troubles. I can't make you apologise to Orangemarlin, but it would be constructive if you could at least consider doing so when tempers have cooled down. Neilム10:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This disappeared into the archive, maybe it slipped by?pedro gonnet - talk - 11.10.2007 10:33
Hi Mercury,
This is just a short RFC regarding the discussion here.
I am a bit confused... After repeatedly changing the heading of this section ("criticizing" vs. "calling out") and at the end of the thread, promising to correct his ways, User:GHcool changed his userpage only to reflect the last criticism mentioned (i.e. removing the quote "...limited ability to argue logically and convincingly, and... does not seem capable of making basic moral distinctions..."). The outing of User:Pco and the strongly worded criticisms of Finkelstein and other editors is still there.
As I said, this is an RFC, so here are my questions:
I am very upset at User:GHcool's attempt at stifling the discussion by constantly changing the section heading. Does this warrant any action? Should I post this to WP:AN/I or is there somewhere more appropriate?
What would be the next steps to take (i.e. the next administrative level) to make User:GHcool change his userpage?
Since User:GHcool has a slight tendency to troll, I would rather you answer here than on my own talkpage (this would also make a rather interesting test if he's also monitoring my contributions).
Hi, I do apoligize for the delay. It seems I can not really sit at the computer for more than a few minutes at a time. I have not contributed to the article proper in a while, and I'm sad about that. But I digress. :) As far as the section heading, the dispute resolution page should be of some help as far as giving you some more tools to assist you. And as far as the userpage... does it violate policy? If so, a posting at Administrators noticeboard/incidents may help. Regards, Mercury15:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, for catching you somewhat off-guard ;) The discussion was on WP:AN/I and several amdins and other editors said the userpage was definitely a no-go. Unfortunately though, nobody followed-up on enforcing it. Should I just re-post to WP:AN/I, this time requesting some action? Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 15.10.2007 10:35
Sure thing, the link is here. Note that at the end of the discussion, User:GHcool says he has "ammended" his page. However, he only removed the quote singled-out by User:Peruvianllama. Cheers and many thanks for your time, pedro gonnet - talk - 15.10.2007 12:42
I've never had good results with these sort of problem when it came to mediations, formal or informal. Mediations are generally used for separate parties to have someone mediate the dispute, however based on all of the evidence I've seen, the user is unwilling to negotiate or compromise at all. Have you read the RFC talk page? Wikidudeman(talk)19:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that reading the RFC and it's talk page in it's entirety would help a lot in understanding this user, but these DIFF's are a good summary of his attitude towards the RFC. Wikidudeman(talk)19:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad your getting back to actually editing the encyclopedia. You haven't really done that for quite some time. AniMate08:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Homeopathy, again
So, let me get this straight. You block me (which was nearly immediately reversed) for a 2RR edit war, for which I wasn't actually edit warring but removing the idiotic edits of the single-purpose account User:Sm565. OK, we're over that, since you did block Sm565. Now, Whig, who should be banned forever, and Mr. Tendentious himself, Sm565, decide to get cute and put a POV tag on the article. But before anyone can remove it, you, in your infinite wisdom, decide to protect the article. What should be done is Whig and Sm565 be banned from the project. Do you not see what's going on here? You and others spend so much time protecting these, let me be clear about this, useless editors, you're going to lose those who actually have given to this project. It's funny, I had problems with User:Wikidudeman, but now, I see what he was trying to do. He has incredible patience, but the more I read his edits lately with regards to Whig and Sm565, the more I see that he's going to go ballistic. I've gone ballistic on this. Time for you to do the right thing, and block these two. NOW. Do something right, not be Mr. Wikilawyer. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions05:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Let me help you get it straight. Yes, I'd hope we were over it. Bad block, I fucked up. I apologize. Now, in my infinite wisdom, I've protected the article so these folks can discuss on the talk page what issues are. I told the editors that I would block over the weasel words. And the "editors" seem to have solved the second issue. So, I've taken some "leadership" as you say. I edit medical articles, you have not seen me edit Homeopathy. I hope WDM and yourself stay on the project. But... I hope you know what will happen if I decide to unilaterally block these two without consensus. It will be undone, and I'll be the subject of other folks "real concern" as you have probably seen posted elsewhere. So don't think me wiki lawyer, I loath that, but I'm only trying to get progress going again. Mercury10:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
That is to say, there does not appear to be any clear violation, and absent that, some people do not want to see the "editor" blocked and will template unblock, if I block without some discussion. Mercury12:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I am no longer interested in reading Talk:Homeopathy, because it consists of Sm565 rambling about bullshit. Then some real editors like Tim Vickers, Adam Cuerden and a few others showing Sm565 where he misused a reference (or worse). Then Whig chiming in with a comment along the lines of, "that was an NPOV violation...blah...blah..blah." Nothing in the Discussion section has been at all useful. I don't threaten to quit the project, not my style. I don't think WDM would either, doesn't appear to be his style either. Yes, I think you should unilaterally block both editors for a period of time that gives them chill out to think about their usefulness to the project. I'd volunteer a year would work, but a few days probably wouldn't get you into trouble. Be bold. They have to go. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions12:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, now it's time to get the bullshit out of here. Sm565 is engaged in edit warring, albeit slow, by adding and readding the POV tag. You have warned him. Now it's time to block him for an extensive period of time to chill out. Thanks. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions16:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It took a while to figure out how to unblock him. Did I do that or did you? Tag team admins - the opposite of a wheel war. LOL :P Carlossuarez4601:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I do not mind the move (hell it makes things easier) but the discussion will no longer be advertised on ani after archive. Do you have something in mind about this? -- Catchi? 23:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like that, yes. -- Catchi? 15:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I found a way. Solution is the removal of the time stamp. That way, the bot will not know when the comment was made and hence ignore it. -- Catchi? 15:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that discussion has rather run its course. I believe that it should go to the archives and not linger as some obscure page that only the participants read. I, for one, am done with it. On the AN/I page it served the purpose of bringing this to the attention of a wider audience; this purpose is lost as a subpage. Obviously this issue is not sorted, and further discussion — or dispute resolution — will occur… somewhere. --Jack Merridew10:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Apology
It takes backbone to admit when you made a mistake. It is not always an easy thing to do. Have an ASCII barnstar! ★Neil☎09:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain that Whig knows precisely what was done. Note that he has not made a single edit to Homeopathy. He just wanted to create a huge kerfuffle. Seems to have worked. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions21:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I did note that there was no edit to the actual article, just a bunch of... hairsplitting I think. But I think its taken care of for now. I'll check in again tomorrow. Mercury02:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
What to do?
Umm, do you know what I can do to contribute to Wikipedia? Other than video games, there is no article I'm interested in editing. Kaktibhar02:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I posted a request for CEM several days ago and haven't heard anything. Do you know roughly how long we can expect to wait? WaverlyR17:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Wikipedia-banner.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I've got a quick question. I noticed that you made an edit to the RfA, and removed some stuff. You then reverted yourself shortly thereafter. I make the assumption that you accidentally made the revert, am I right? If so, what did you do that accidentally create the revert? I'm a naturally curious person, and every now and then, if something unusual happens to a page on my watchlist, I like to ask the person about it. Again, I assume this wasn't intentional, but I'm just curious. Ksy92003(talk)01:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I desired to copy the DIFF url, and I hit one of my tabs to restore a version. I used the rollback feature to undo myself. I apologize for the disruption. Mercury01:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I was going to comment about it here, but seeing you are admin & an experienced editor I figured it was just a blip. It's only because I'm watching him on TV at the moment (and reverted some vandalism on here earlier), I thought surely he has a more developed article than this! --BelovedFreak18:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, it appears Mrtobacco is trying to have the talk page archive deleted, for the article which we are engaged in mediation currently. [26] What should I do? Onyx8614:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Mandy, need to delete the archive b/c full of profanity, personal attacks and sock puppetry. The talk page is not part of mediation as you know. It was deleted by admin already but you put it back up by accident I think. --Mrtobacco16:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey again. Mrtobacco is again trying to remove the talk page archive. His edit summary states that he is removing profanity, though this doesn't match what he actually removed [27][28]. I reverted the removal, but he has again taken it down. I don't see any problem with him removing our argument since its doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but he has removed the other discussions relating to the article. Notably, the discussions in which people other than myself called attention to the articles lack of NPOV. Onyx8619:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I've giiven him a one month ban, rather reluctantly - he refused to accept compromise, and he kept insisting that he was right, and a lone warrior in an NPOV dispute. If you can get him to agree to the proposed compromise or something like it (and more civil behaviour) go ahead and unblock him, but I don't think there's much hope for him as an editor. Adam Cuerdentalk21:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The agreement sounds reasonable, but you might want to make it very clear to him that this is his last chance: I think if he keeps causing trouble, it's going to have to be indef after this, with, of course, the understanding that he's probably not going to be perfect straight out.
I'd also suggest watching his contributions - he was acting in a rather disruptive, quibbly way on Christine Maggiore before the block as well (hence MastCell's appearance in the debate). It's no good to get him off Talk:Homeopathy if he just starts fresh problems elsewhere.
Only one request: Can you explain to him exactly what was wrong with his editing before now and try to make sure he understands before the unblock? Without that, I don't see much hope for change. Adam Cuerdentalk19:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
If you don't reach me today, I'm afraid this'll either have to wait until Monday or you'll have to use your own judgement - I'll be in Devon this weekend. Adam Cuerdentalk09:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I will request arbitration with regards to Kmweber. There is no issue with the admin unblocking. I would be unable to reblock, and that is why I would request arbitration. Mercury00:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Friday, I know it may seem, but in light of all the talking and discussions I've seen... I don't know if I can bear another one. I have requested arbitration this time. Very respectfully, Mercury19:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Really? Man, I don't mean to badger you, but I'm really struggling to understand the problem here. What exactly has he done that's so bad? I mean, I disagree with his view on self-noms too, but I just don't see the disruption. If he was running around closing RFAs of self-noms, that's disruption. But just giving his opinion? I haven't even seen him being a dick about it- I've just seen him giving his opinion. Am I missing something? Friday(talk)23:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry
I was asking for that block. No need to block any "block evasion" IPs, since I'm not intending to post any more bullshit. Logging out for the time being. Have a nice one - and sorry. 84.44.174.12720:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I accept your apoliogy. I understand you will not be IP editing for 31 hours so I'll leave the blocking alone. Perhaps you would consider retracting the "truthful one" bit from your talk page comment. You are permitted to edit your talkpage logged in, the software will permit that. Mercury20:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Smile
Maxim has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
192.146.7.130 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
On WP:RPP, you said you had semi-protected RuneScape, as I requested; however, the page's log says you unprotected the already unprotected page instead, and it still isn't semi-protected. (I checked this by logging out and trying to edit it.) Could you please semi-protect the page? Pyrospirit (talk·contribs) 17:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Your request was civil and logical. There are guidelines and such the help us determine where to apply protection. There was no harm in the request. No apology is needed. Keep up the good work. :) Mercury18:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that I was actually able to see where you were coming from when Acalamari put it in terms of WP:Assume good faith. By the way, I just saw his RFA was closed, should that have been done? It was closed by a non-admin, which is unusual. Drop me a line and let me know what you think. Happy editing! Icestorm81521:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure. SNOW is not a policy, but something that we sometimes use. The RFA was highly unlikely to pass. Before I became an admin I've closed a couple that were highly unlikely to pass. It serves to prevent hard feelings and cuts a discussion short that has a particular end in sight. Only those experienced editors, admins or not, should be closing discussions as SNOW. Anymore questions be glad to answer. Mercury05:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You're usually good at these things. Can you protect the article. We've got me and bunch of others (some of whom are now participating admins), and some others on the other side edit warring. I'm at 3RR (no warning or blocking necessary). Can you protect the article and help build a consensus? The other side is wrong BTW :) OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions19:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, and you as well. I think I'm clueful enough to be an asset, so we shall see if the community will permit me to do this. I hope so, I have the desire. Mercury17:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome back. I'm not all up with the subject, I think it would be dependent on the source. What does the sourcing say? Regards, Mercury02:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick google link. :) When I change or add an assertion, I try to add a reliable source. It helps me to have some ground to stand on if ever my edits get challenged. In the beginning, I used external links but as I learned Wikipedia, I started using what I believe are reliable sources. I'm not saying that this is you saying headache, but its always better to point at a source and say "This source asserts "headache". Regards, Mercury03:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
This would be an area where niceties are going to be important. Propose the Source on the talk page, and leave Adam a message on his talk page pointing him to the talk page. Ask him if he has any objections, if not, re add the edit. This prevents hard feelings in a content dispute, Downside, it may take time for Adam to respond. But hey, the article won't rot in a day. :) Regards, Mercury03:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I see the confusion here, the edit history is concealed because there are several consolidated there. As far as it being a headache remedy, that is stated on the HeadOn article itself. Whig03:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not one of the defining facts about Potassium dichromate that it's used in homeopathy, funnily enough. Almost every basic substance and botanical is. Adam Cuerdentalk08:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, this comment:
There are a number of physical models proposed, including Bénard cells, vibrations, etc. We don't have instruments that I'm aware can prove which physical model is correct at this time, but we do know by the first law of thermodynamics that all energy is conserved, and we do know from quantum mechanics that particles and waves are physically interchangable. The atomic limit is not a real limit in physics. Whig 00:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
In context, he's basically listing a lot of physics terms and claiming one of them is the proof of homeopathy, though he doesn't know which one. Adam Cuerdentalk15:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
sigh* he hasn't changed. I've reblocked him. He was starting to advocate for removing all criticism of Homeopathy from the lead again. The fellow does not understand NPOV, and is incapable of doing so. Adam Cuerdentalk20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Mercury, as you've been working with User:Whig and probably have a better perspective on this matter than I, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this block at AN/I. MastCellTalk18:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Why consider blocking me? You can see that I didn't take the 3RR policy as a permission to 3RR anywhere (see the St Johnsbury article), in contrast to Polaron actually committing a 4RR; and that I noted that I'd not go any farther, despite the 4RR. Nyttend01:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Any xRR beyond one , is disruptive. What you two were doing warranted a block, but since you are both contributing editors and I did not see any aggravating factors, I protected the pages involved. I normally issue out userblocks for this sort of thing. See WP:Edit warring. Regards, Mercury01:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
OK. Sorry for not assuming good faith – just that the last time someone fiddled with the Main Page, it was because they'd found the passwords to three administrator accounts. Important to know that sort of thing isn't going to happen again. Thanks – Gurch16:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
No, no apology needed for this. When account security is concerned, any suspicious behavior is worth investigating. Had I known that was what you were getting at, I would have sent you the challenge to my committed identity hash, and the offer still stands if you would like to verify me. Regards, Mercury20:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm awarding you this Barnstar for all your work protecting wikipedia from the vandals, in particular the revert and protection of my talk page, Thanks! Tiddly-Tom16:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've looked over WP:Block and WP:Ban, and I'm still a little confused with the difference between a block and a ban? Is a ban a long, or indefinite form of a block? Could you please help me and clarify it for me? Thanks! Icestorm815 (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure...the most fundamental difference, is that a BLOCK is a technical feature in the software. If I BLOCK you, then the only thing the software will permit you to edit is your own talk page. If you become BANned, this is a social construct. If by discussion involving several uninvolved editors results on a consensus to ban you from editing pizza articles, then you don't edit Pizza articles. Once you edit a pizza article, it may result in a BLOCK of your editing. There are many types of BANs. The implications of both a BLOCK in a BAN are detailed in those policy documents. Let me know you have specific questions about those. Regards, Mercury22:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The vandalism is minor and no trouble to revert, so I'd prefer to keep my talk page open for any genuine IP questions. Thanks for looking out for me though. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they #handled poorly?
I won't question the arbiters. They do hard work, and since I'm on the outside looking in, I don't have all the information.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
I know the system, I have the aptitude, and I'm available.
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315»04:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You do realise that you will get admins reverting your reversions to the protected version, and that you will have to block and edit war to try and keep that page locked down? I'm not going to be around for the next few hours, but I'd recommend you lift the page protection and let this business sort itself out by discussion. It can't be contained by force by the time it's reached this stage. Protection doesnt' work because admins can edit the page. By reverting their addition to the page, you are effectively wheel-warring their use of admins tools to add their comments. Carcharoth (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Still waiting on an actual reason. In the past, closing active discussions has been frowned upon because it only adds more fuel to the fire (e.g., we now have another ill-considered administrative action to discuss). See e.g. the Daniel Brandt wheel war arbitration case. In any event I am stepping out so you have some hours. Christopher Parham(talk)18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted to the protected version, and admins should not be editing. Additionally, it is pretty obvious I've not protected the page to support myself in the discussion. Heck, I can't even find my edit. Mercury18:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I have stricken the "Please do not wheel war" part of my above request. Any administrator acting in good faith may reverse my action here. If you want it, its available. That is to say, if you would like to prolong that discussion that appears to be not generating consensus, and not going anywhere. My recommendation is to leave the protection. Mercury18:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Warning
Mercury, to comment on this thread about Durova is okay. But to use your admin tools with relation to it, since there is an obvious relationship between you and Durova because she co-nominated you for admin, is unethical. If you use your admins tools to interefere with that discussion again, I'm going to request your immediate desysopping, and I request that anyone else do the same. Cla68 (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't accept your threat, and you should assume good faith. I'm open to recall as well, find 6 editors in good standing to request in the next 48 hours, and we will go from there. Mercury22:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Deeply confused lol
Hi I was going to edit my post anyway with another question as I don't know if either G or D didn't sign one of their comments so I wasn't sure to whose comment I was responding. However your last edit seems too have deleted a large swathe of the page, including the entire conversation upon which I was commenting. Was this inadvertent as your edit summary says you were only removing my comment? I'm not not assuming good faith it just seems like something went wrong.:)Merkinsmum (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
That makes two of us, I'm looking at yours and mine, and I'm not sure what happened. I thought you inadvertently deleted a large amount of text. You removed 4454 bytes, and I added them back net. The same bytes. Add to your watchlist and check the comps. Mercury17:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Fraid it wasn't me (excuse basic diff as I'm not good at formating them [31] It is marked as your edit, but don't worry it could easily be fixed.:)Merkinsmum (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Back lol I can only think a lot was oversighted or archived somewhere while I was editing, as the bit I responded to has gone! I have no idea what happened there lol anyway it's sorted now in a random chunk vanishing sort of way:)Merkinsmum (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Mercury a chara, you have protected the above article based on one editor who has refused to provide any source material to this article. They have changed the content contained in referenced material to suite their POV. I have engaged on the discussion page, all to no avail. Could you consider reading the discussion page, and consider reviewing your discussion. Thanks --Domer48 (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The information is again being removed, rather than edit war, or have the page locked because of disruption I will leave it for now, and give you time to look at it. Thanks again, Regards --Domer48 (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mercury, just wondering if you got a chance to have a look at the article? I'm working on a different article at the minute, and Kevin Barry has cast a shadow. Thanks --Domer48 (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm the editor who redirected the individual episodes of Zoey 101 to List of Zoey 101 episodes - and I just noticed that you deleted it... I'm not complaining; I want to know what process led to this. "rm pii"??? nb: this has left a lot of redirects leading to a red page. Thanks, Jack Merridew11:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
rm pii Remove Personally identifiable information. It would appear my restore did not take. I've clicked the button again this morning. Regards, Mercury13:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Great idea, but it helps to add a little text too. If you don't have experience doing so, let me know what you want to say and I'll add it. John Carter (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
He was blocked, and he deserves to stay blocked, with significant input from a lot of editors. Why do you waste time with this? Shouldn't you spend more of your time working with individuals who build the project? OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions02:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.
My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian05:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops, realised that myself as I hit "save", rv'd myself immediately, then hit the "back" button to get back to ANI and the script added it back... sorry! BencherliteTalk23:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Basically, Cla asked you whether you had been involved the blocking of !!-- you said neither yes, nor no, but basically reiterated that the question not one you wanted to answer, as your inbox was private.
What Cla was getting at, or at least what I would be getting at, is not so much not just what you might have read about it in private, but also what you have written about it in private.
Durova claimed, of course, that a number of individuals recommended the block, but so far, no such individuals have presented themselves, so, Cla apparently asked all the candidates directly if they participated, so the community could fact that into the decision making process. --Alecmconroy08:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there some evidence that I had written something? If not, I think you may owe me an apology, in regards to what you "are getting at".Nathan14:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a question you'd have to ask Cla-- I believe he chose to ask that question of all arbcom candidates. I was just here to help encourage you to provide a direct answer to clarify the question-- it's not so much what anyone heard that's at issue, as much as what anyone SAID.
The community was very upset by the Durova incident, to the point that she is no long an admin---obviously, unknowingly electing someone who had engaged in similar behavior to the highest office Wikipedia would be a real travesty (at least, in the eyes of the bulk of the community who had opposed Durova's behavior when it came to light). --Alecmconroy22:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Now that you have 50+ oppose votes, you see what I was sorta trying to warn you about when you didn't disavow involvement in the Durova witchhunt. The Durova thing is poison, and if you were gonna have any chance in the election, you couldn't afford to sit on the fence. The community-- the usually silent majority, has had it with the witchhunt, and dodging the question on principle, as you did, was a recipe for mass opposition. --Alecmconroy03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Privatemusings is now limited to using one, single account to edit Wikipedia, and must obtain the Arbitration Committee's approval if he wishes to begin using a different account. Furthermore, Privatemusings is subject to an editing restriction indefinitely: he is prohibited from editing any article that is substantially a biography of a living person. Details of the enforcement regarding these Remedies is detailed here.
I noticed that you've taken to signing your messages as "Nathan" instead of "Mercury" today. The first time I saw it, I found it confusing, because I knew who "Mercury" was but had never heard of "Nathan," and the two names don't have any obvious link to each other. There is an administrator Nat, as well. I notice that User:Nathan is currently not claimed, and perhaps you may wish to find out if you can usurp the name. But at a minimum, it would be very much appreciated if you could make it clear that your signature line "Nathan" is linked to your username "Mercury." You may wish to check out WP:SIG, or perhaps talk to another admin who has changed signatures (or user names) after getting the bit to get some practical advice; JzG did so some time ago, so he might be a good person to ask. I have no intention of creating any drama here, and will leave it to you to consider what the impact of changing your signature will be. Risker20:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the note. The guideline does not appear to contradict me here. When you click on my signature, you are taken here, so there is a link. The new name, is of the same color conventions of my old signature. I'll consider your words, but I may not be changing it. Regards, Nathan21:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I have sent you an email with a little further explanation that is probably best not to have on-wiki. Please consider that information carefully. Risker21:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, you did ask. I'm not Risker and I don't have any suggestions, but I can't help noticing that it's only six weeks or so since you changed your username. Surely you can't be bored with it already? Angus McLellan(Talk)23:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I've sent a suggestion to you via email, but I am the first to admit that the entire signature thing is way outside my wiki-knowledge. I think it's good you're working to show that you're serious. Perhaps looking around at signatures others use might give you some ideas on how to incorporate your own name into your signature. Risker23:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Your actually correct. I did miss that chance, and I'll try not to let it happen again. That is to say, I will be more observent in what happens to an incident after I comment. Pretty much after the reblocking, I washed my hands. Regards, Mercury00:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Mercury/Nathan, I agree with Raul654. Please reconsider; you have much to learn, but also much to contribute. This has quite possibly been the worst 24 hours of your wiki-life, I know. But in our private discussions today, it's clear to me that you've got the ability to learn and grow. It's okay to withdraw from the election, and perversely the fact that you had as many people voting as you did meant that you are known in the community; but perhaps it was just too soon. Whatever your decision, I wish you the best. Risker05:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree - please don't let this single election get you down. It was just a badly-timed bid, and not a sign that you're unwelcome or anything - you're still a valuable editor and admin here, and it would harm the project to have you leave. :/ --krimpet⟲05:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Here here. Like any healthy species, Wikipedians should be diverse, and you're a vital part of the diversity. The election results were just a comment on a very specific subset of your behavior-- please please please don't take the election results as an indication that you aren't valued, welcomed, and needed here, for you assuredly are all of the above. --Alecmconroy06:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Mercury - I took the generally non-standard action of restoring your user page after you deleted it. I have no desire to cause offence in any way. But I restored the page as a gesture to remind you that you are still very much a welcomed and valued member of this community. Take a few days to chill - watch a movie, go hang out with friends and de-WP for a while. If after that you still feel you are "done" then drop me a line and I'll gladly revert my action. But if you have a change of heart, it will be nice to know you are still welcome and wanted, despite the bruising you've received in the last 24 hours. All the best Manning05:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh gosh. Please don't go. There will be no good ones left. It's like politics, the good ones never run or lose, so we get the so-so's in office. Sigh. - Jeeny(talk)06:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above comments, Nathan. Take a breather and try to stick around. You are a great contributor to all areas of the project, a great admin, and your absence would be noticed. - Rjd006006:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with all the above - we need more admins like you! Take a break, and then come back and continue your great work. Mr.Z-man06:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Take as long as you need. I do join all the others above in saying that we would all welcome seeing your red signature returning to blue, but can easily understand you'd want to take some time off. If I can ever be of any use, please feel free to drop me a message, hopefully initially at my user page. I haven't yet quite gotten a grip on this weird e-mail stuff you moderns all babble on about. John Carter18:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you've decided to come back, leaving in a huff is rarely a good decision. Recent controversial events will soon fade and lose their importance. Carry on Mercury and be of good cheer. RMHED16:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe that I have never agreed with a thing you have done since our paths crossed, except when you decided to come back and continue working for the future of the encyclopedia. We may never agree again, but thats okay - thems the conditions thats prevails. LessHeard vanU20:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I went to vote for you (I know, how pathetic that I can say "I'd have voted for you"), and saw what had happened. I don't like drama, as you can imagine, so please don't cause this much drama. Get back to doing your work, even though I think you're way too nice to the POV warriors that inhabit this place. In other words, stay (and this is from someone who was blocked for about 10 seconds by Mercury). OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions21:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Glad to see your mini-essay above - nicely put. And don't feel like you have to apologise for "quitting" - you're wikistress level has been high and there is a HUGE group of people who have done exactly the same thing in the past. We've all lost it in one way or another over time, and these things pass into obscurity very quickly. Manning (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is all about sharing and borrowing ideas from each other. There are a number of people who have borrowed my policy box, and I borrow stuff from others all the time. In fact my whole admin project started as a way to keep track of links to useful things to read and borrow. NoSeptember 18:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man has given you a kitten! Kittens promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and keep up the excellent editing! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I assume you are talking about the first edit outside of unblocking. I'm not sure what is wrong with the edit. Prove synthesis in the discussion. That would be my move if I were discussing there. With regards, Mercury21:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Whig again
So do you think this edit indicates he is following the rules? This editor finds it amusing to tiptoe around the rules discovering new ways to do whatever the hell he wants. I don't get your attitude towards POV warriors and disruptive editors. You blocked me for NOTHING (lucky for me, someone stepped up in about 2 minutes and unblocked), yet you'll unblock this individual because he whines loudly. I don't get it. I'm going to find an admin to block him permanently for failing to follow the probation that YOU outlined. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions17:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I apologized and annotated your block log. Is there something else I can do? Whigs recent edits appear fair. As far as the content dispute, please sort it out. You are welcome to do that (find an admin) but I don't think anyone will like, forgive the phrase, admin shopping. I do not see any violations of the very strict probation/mentorship. Regards, Mercury19:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I am not concerned about his edits. You told him to stay out of medical articles, and unless I'm mistaken, Quackwatch is definitely a medical article (attacking the Alternative medicine nutjobs, which is good). You established the terms of this "probation", and at the very least, you should make Whig abide by those rules. But I have no clue why you would allow him to continue as a member of this project, since people I respect did not support the unbanning. B, who is my least favorite admin by a long shot, supports Whig, which is telling in of itself. But I figure Whig will do whatever it takes to get himself banned, so B and the Christian fanatics around here can masturbate each other in glory as martyrs to the cause. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions23:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess I can take credit for this one. I thought Orion4 seemed very similar to Sm565 and asked Mercury in e-mail to run a check. Whig (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
And I looked at the edits of all accounts and came up with a conclusion. I have asked a checkuser to confirm. Mercury03:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I had some dialogue with Orion4 on his talk page. I hope it was appropriate. I don't have any more to add there. -- Whig (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
And he's contesting the block. Your comment on Orion4's talk page indicates the block was due to checkuser. Was this done off-site? - auburnpilottalk02:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about what's going on here. Do you intend for the page to stay unprotected? I don't want to violate the spirit of page protection, even if the page is unprotected for the moment. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Auburn: Dmcdevit confirmed with checkuser. He can answer anymore questions on that.
Raymond: You can restore your edits, I have unprotected the page. I usually revert edits made after protection as a consistent thing. But nonetheless, the page is not protected anymore as I have blocked the socks.
I hadn't read every single comment, no. As I understand it, Angela hadn't specifically requested the seventh AFD (despite Durova claiming otherwise) but nevertheless wants the article deleted by her other comments. >Radiant<11:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Huh? First you complain that I make that comment next to my other comment, and then you also complain when I move it to the talk page because of your complaint? Are you now going to complain that I responded to something that you wanted a response to? >Radiant<11:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I notice you removed an entry from the blacklist with an OTRS link. Would it be possible to provide some insight into this. Thanks --Herbytalk thyme14:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure. The office had a discussion with the individuals responsible (or the other way around). This should not happen again, was the outcome. Mercury14:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - the request to list looked valid. I was not aware any blacklistings were dealt with in such a way. Could you please then remove it from the log so that it is properly recorded. Thanks --Herbytalk thyme14:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Your user-page currently indicates that you are "open to recall". In light of your inappropriate and disruptive closure of the (perennially unsuccessful) Angela Beesley AFD debate, and for the reasons enumerated here (including but not limited to your involvement in the Durova scandal), I solemnly request that you reinstate your request on meta for removal of sysop access immediately upon receipt of this message. Thanks. — CharlotteWebb15:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
On the Deletion review, you said to ask on your talk page for details. I'm asking for details, and am tempted to endorse the recall. You seem to have singlehandedly overruled a community decision with participation of many people. Please explain how you see a recall going. --AnonEMouse(squeak)16:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe not. You were the closer, you could have just said the deletion arguments were convincing, that wasn't out of the question. Then you'd still have faced the deletion review, but not de-mop-itation.... Anyway, do give details on how you see a recall going. --AnonEMouse(squeak)16:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
::*You require six uninvolved editors. Then I will hold a discussion in my userspace. If after the discussion I feel I no longer have the trust of the community, I will make the meta permissions request. Mercury17:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)<s?
::*Editors requesting need to be in good standing. 1000 edits prior to DEC 1, no blocks in the last year for disrupting the project, and not currently opposed by me in AC elections. I may add more later, using common sense. Regards, Mercury17:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that simply using arbitrary criteria to make it unlikely that six editors can be found? Might I ask what's the point of that, considering you already note that if you disagree with these hypothetical six, you'll simply not recall yourself? I'm not saying that I want you recalled (I don't), I'm just saying that if you and others use it this way, the entire recall process is completely pointless. >Radiant<18:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate you for recall at this time, as I do not have confidence in your ability to judge consensus properly. Ral315 (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
:Actually, bearing in mind the comments on the DRV on both sides, you can not use recall to gain an upper hand in a discussion. That would be abusing the recall process. I'm removing myself from the cat. Use the normal methods to include arbitration if you must. Regards, Mercury18:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Whoah!. Just curious, did you think recall would come at a time when you weren't embrolied in a controversy? Or did you think people who wanted to recall you would be on your side? Admins open to recall is a voluntary membership category, but removing yourself from the category as soon as people actually want to recall you seems to be gaming the system. --AnonEMouse(squeak)18:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, considering that the way you had described the process just a few paragraphs ago was a discussion then you, yourself, deciding whether you had lost the confidence of the community, it seems hard to imagine how it could be unfair (or at least unfair to you at any rate). Or don't you trust the proposed judge? :-) --AnonEMouse(squeak)18:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It dawned on me, why would you request recall when the DRV is not even closed. Then cite my involvement in a quote "scandal" as CW put it, as if I had issued the block myself. This is not looking to be a fair use of recall. I'm not doing it in this context. So as to say... "I don't agree with Mercury's close so I'm going to recall him." Use dispute resolution. Open a requests for comments. How am I supposed to improve if I don't have comments. Recall was not intended to shortcircuit dispute resolution. Emotions are high, you know its not going to be fair use of recall. Regards, Mercury18:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If Mercury is suggesting that it might be a good idea to postpone the process until after the Deletion Review is over, and with any luck emotions have waned a little, I could see that being reasonable. Otherwise, I would share the same reservations as the reputable, respected, rodent above. John Carter (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
(ECx3) How exactly is a recall procedure supposed to affect a DRV? Your definition of content dispute is curious to say the last. I'm not pressing for your recall but please seriously consider whether you really want to remove yourself from the catagory as this action will significantly impact on your future credibility as an admin and brings the recall system into disrepute. SpartazHumbug!18:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I am opposed to a recall of Mercury, at least until someone can come up with good reasons that aren't just tied to the recent Durova-dramafest. Mr.Z-man18:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If a recall was to happen though, I would suggest a reconfirmation RFA rather than simply giving up the tools. Mr.Z-man18:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It's getting pretty silly watching editors demand recall just because something didn't go the way they thought it should. No...I wouldn't do anything more than ignore these frivilous recall requests...don't let them push you out or force you to do something that you shouldn't have to do.--MONGO (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with MONGO on this one and it's your decision to accept or refuse the recall. One questionable deletion, which was clearly done out of good faith, is not a reason for recall. Ignore it. - auburnpilottalk19:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
While I don't think the recall-related posts are frivolous, MONGO has a bit of a point here. Participation in the recall process is voluntary, and can be withdrawn at any time. On the other hand, Mercury, you do seem to have a tendency to insert yourself on a regular basis into controversial situations, unlike about 95% of admins. Perhaps you should reflect on the fact that you selected, without doubt, the most highly contentious AfD around to close, and then did it in such a way that your judgment was called into question and generated ever more drama. You had no special qualifications to close that AfD, and when looking at your contributions, that is not an area in which you have been particularly active, and there were dozens and dozens more straightforward AfDs to close. Perhaps you should spend a few weeks focusing on developing some skill in that area (or any other area you'd like to specialize in), communicating with admins who regularly carry out those tasks to learn the ins and outs of the task. Mercury, the fact you seem to spend more time embroiled in controversial situations than at editing or doing routine admin tasks is reflective of your judgment and skill, and does not in any way suggest you "do the tough jobs." The jobs are tough because you make them tough. Keep that in mind.Risker (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This is silly. I've seen a number of occasions where dumb decisions are made at xFD with no foundation in policy where the deleting (or not deleting) admin simply comes along and imposes their preference regardless of what the consensus was. Mercury's decision was consistent with our BLP policy and with our goal of being an encyclopedia, not a nicer looking version of myspace. If you want to desysop Mercury, you need to go find every time someone has deleted something without 70% in favor and desysop them too. --B (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you all for your kind words. I'll be listening to all advice here. Risker, you make some sense as far as my preference to do these tough things. I'll be reflecting on those things. I'll do some routine things verses picking just the most difficult ones. As far as recall here, for those asking, it is canceled. Mercury22:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with many of the sentiments above. In the light of frivolous and plainly abusive recall requests such as this, admins should not make themselves open to recall. It's conducive to needless drama (though of course many folks here like needless drama). Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:RFCRFA#View by Friday gained 67 supports, the most of any comment on the RFC. If recall is a broken system, something better should take its place. In this case, though, I do not know enough about the circumstances to comment on the merits of either view. GracenotesT§05:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
After some consideration and after reading some emails sent to me, I'll allow this. I think I'll use Friday's model. Give me some time to set it up. Mercury05:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I feel bad about the crap some people are giving you about the Angela Beesley DRV. Even though I disagree with you on the matter, some people seem to be attacking your over-all credibility, rather than just treating this as a single decision. It's expected that people will disagree about some things, and sometimes even feel strongly about them, but a lot of the users on that page seem to.. give it more weight than it should have (for a lack of better words). It's likely that I made such a mistake in my own wording myself, so if I did, I apologies. Cheers. -- Ned Scott04:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, good job on the recent AfD below. Your ability to view that kind of hard-to-see consensus is excellent. Maser(Talk!)04:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. A request for comment has been opened regarding User:Kmweber's oppose !votes on WP:RfA has been opened here. You tried to get Kmweber to stop his behaviour on his talk page, so your endorsement of the dispute is required within 48 hours. Thanks, Auroranorth (!) 09:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Mercury. I just wanted to say that I went through the AfD you closed, and I came up with the same result. There was no consensus to delete, even though Ms. Beesley asked for the article to be deleted in the end any way. I was actually looking for a place to oppose recall on that page. Looks like recall is more broken than RfA! Cheers, and hope you keep up the good work. J-ſtanTalkContribs21:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm seeking admin help concerning edits on the St. Thomas, Ontario page. I removed a link from the 'external links' sub-section that is unnecessary and would be considered spam. The page is plastered with more ads than news stories and there is a sub-section that already mentions the newspaper. A link in the external links sub-section is not needed. User:Deconstructhis continues to disrupt the page by reverting to old versions. Discussion can be found here Talk:St. Thomas, Ontario. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayormcgeez (talk • contribs) 00:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks like some back and forth on the article itself so I've protected it for 5 days to give some time for discussion on the talk page. It looks like a request for comments has started, which is one of the steps in dispute resolution. Hope this helps. Regards, Mercury00:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words. I just wanted the community to know somehow that I am able to learn. Category open to learning/trout sounds good to me. Mercury03:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Question
Hi Mercury, would it be too much to ask that you refrain from using admin tools with respect to any situation Durova is involved in? Thx, R. Baley (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. Hope the last few weeks haven't been too rough, oh, and stay away from the controversial stuff for a bit. Best of luck, R. Baley (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
—Dihydrogen Monoxide has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hey Mercury, I'm sorry you felt it necessary to withdraw your RFA. You may remember me from ANI a few months ago (?), I don't know, but good luck with the future and I hope this recent setback doesn't discourage your editing to the wiki. Best regards, Rt.16:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I actually am sorry that you felt the need to withdraw your RfA, and I have, and have never had, any problems with your actions as an admin. My oppose is, quite literally, not personal at all. I hope you continue the good works here. Corvus cornixtalk20:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. I think we share similar views on recall. I do want to discuss recall in a broad sense in the future, but thank you for the words. Best, Mercury20:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I opposed you on your RfA because, well, you got yourself into a hole and kept digging till you hit lava. However I recognise how hurtful this all must be and wish you well. I hope you stay with the project and, yes, in time, become an admin again if that's what you want. Everyone has setbacks, it's how we respond to them that counts. Good luck. Nick mallory (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Mercury, you will note that I chose not to comment at your RfA; it was a deliberate decision on my part, as I didn't think you needed another person to give you a dressing-down. However, I really encourage you to take some of my previous words to heart, as well as those of Nick mallory above. We've spoken previously about your penchant for inserting yourself into controversial situations, and how that has adversely affected the way your actions are perceived. So...only hours after you've heard from the community that you need to calm down and focus on the major tasks at hand like content writing and avoiding controversial situations, where are you? Why, commenting on an extremely controversial RFAR. I am beginning to wonder if just following you around will tell me what the Wikipedia Controversy of the Day is. Please bear in mind that, should you wish to submit yourself to an RFA again in the future, your actions between this one just past and the next one will be particularly closely scrutinized by a lot of people. I do wish you well, but if this is how you have chosen to interpret the community's message, I am afraid you may be disappointed at their response. Risker (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Risker, that's really uncalled for, both in tone and content. Mercury has every bit as much right as you or me to comment on the IRC arbcom case. Given that he was (and may still be, for all I know) a participant in the channel, his input could be valuable there. A comment like "I am beginning to wonder if just following you around will tell me what the Wikipedia Controversy of the Day is" begins to test the limits of WP:NPA. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Not to intrude, but I have to second Raymond here. I'm not involved in this in any way, but Mercury deserves respect as an editor in good standing. —Whig (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
He may well have valuable comments. And he is an editor in good standing who has just been told by the community that he would benefit from avoiding drama and controversial situations. He needs to be supported by the community of his fellow editors in taking steps in that direction, or he will never succeed at RFA. I am not dumping on him, I am encouraging him to take advantage of that rather unpleasant lesson that the community just gave him, so that he does not find himself hearing the same message a month or two from now. One would hope that an editor's compatriots would be the first to support him in growth and improvement. It is not disrespectful to remind him that he is showing signs of continuing on exactly the path that led to an unsuccessful RFA only yesterday. Risker (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Risker, I suggest you keep your comments on the main RfArb pages as this is the second time you've come to a talk page (mine being the first) critising someone because you disagree with what they say. Please take a long hard look in the mirror - the person creating unrequired drama here is you. It's not our commenting on the arbitration pages that is off balance, it is in fact your own, and I'm still not sure why you came to my talk critising what I said and suggesting I take a step back when it's clear most people, uncluding arbitrators agree with what I had to say. You obviously don't get how Giano has been disruptive in all this, and you seem to have the wrong idea about our generally accepted tollerance levels for trolling and other behaviour (regardless of how good an article writer someone it). You've come here to rub it in, I suggest you step back from here, and probably the case as well. Ryan Postlethwaite02:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Ryan, where exactly have I criticized what Mercury said at the RFAR? Actually I more or less agree with him. I am resuming a conversation that he and I had started long before this particular arbitration, which none of you had participated in, and indeed I think you folks are the intruders here, rather than me. Mercury is, I believe, a basically good guy who's not getting the support he deserves from the people he respects the most to take the steps he needs to achieve his goals. While I am probably not his nearest and dearest friend, I at least respect his goals and am willing to encourage him to work toward achieving them. My approach to Mercury here is to encourage him to embrace non-controversial activities, just as he has been encouraged by the RFA. Since you feel he is worthy of your support, perhaps that same message would be better coming from all of you who are taking me to task for encouraging him. Really now - this is really and truly sad that you'd rather take a strip off me than help your friend reach his goals. Risker (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with Mercury almost all the time, but I'm pretty sure his main goal is improving Wikipedia and that is why he has commented at Wikipedia's Controversy of the Day (which you always seem to find with or without following him around). AniMate02:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
That is fair comment, I suppose, AniMate. However, I see several well respected admins posting here in support of Mercury - which tells me that he has your respect as well. He's clearly had a really rough time of things in the last several weeks, even his friends will have to agree with that. Perhaps one or more of you could take him under your wing(s) to help him reach the next step, keeping in mind the feedback that he's received at the recent RFA. He has the potential to be a good admin if he can factor in the messages he's received when he's put himself forward. I really do hope that one of you will reach out and give him the hand he deserves. Risker (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thoughts
I'm working on a couple of BLP articles today for the most part. I've also commented at BN once, and made a couple of comments to a workshop page. (among RC patrol and other things today) I don't think I am a party to that RFAR, so I'm not really concerned that my comments, or participation would be seen as controversial, or dramatic, or distractive. I may even produce evidence to back up my comments on the RFAR. I'm not sure yet. Is there something incorrect about my contribution spread today? Would you prefer I stay to mainspace? I have heard and understood all the comments to my RFA today, but I don't think they were intended to dissuade my commenting to meta space, or what may seem controversial. Please whack me with the trout if I am incorrect. To correct another point... my goals... My goals no longer include arbitration as an arbitrator. I would like to use the tools again, but there are manywaystogetthings done here, without my pressing of buttons. So regardless of whether I RFA in a few months or not, the result will be the same. I'll work on articles, and I may occasionally comment in areas related to dispute resolution. Again, if I've misinterpreted, please set me straight. Best regards, Mercury03:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I think no quotes is fine
just as a style guideline, unless we decide we just want to listify what the sources say; but this seems OK. Though that's what I thought two days ago, and everything got rolled back again. I'm not trying to kick up any more dust here at this point, anyway. I'd have even let that stand except the source from later in 2005 explicitly contradicts his statement to the BBC. -- Kendrick7talk19:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The new footnote works just fine, as the last sentence of footnote one says the same thing. I did intend to make the (re-)addition, but considered it trivial, as I thought it would only have been removed by mistake. I will now remove the last sentence of footnote one, and change footnote one to footnote five in all cases where it is appropriate. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 00:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Done Cheers, Navou banter 17:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Done I don't think banned users or indef blocked users can participate in content issues, so unprotected. Good luck, Navou banter 12:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Since you asked to get it now, here it is. GRBerry 22:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)