This is an archive of past discussions with User:OlEnglish, for the period April 2010 - May 2010. 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.
I am trying to bring the article William Windsor (goat) up to good article status; as you previously helped, I wondered if you might have time to look at it again, and perhaps help improve it. All contributions welcome. Thank you for your time. Chzz ► 15:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
No I think you misinterpreted my edit. I know that the two links go to different pages, I wasn't referring to the other hatnote link, what I meant was that the link to "Parenthetical referencing" is already linked IN THE TEXT, so having a second link to it in the hatnote is unnecessary. -- Ϫ10:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
About two years ago - for two years previous I had an UK lawyer who has wandered in and out of wp involvement trying to convince me - and I have just achieved the status at another project - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:SatuSuro - and I have said on and off wiki that WP RFA is as broke as the status of peace in some warring regions of the world - the fly bys and the crazy and the totally pointless questions at rfa leave me in hives at the best of times. I am very honoured to have a west coaster canadian ask - my recent travels took me to toronto only. If you can show me evidence of where rfa process has improved here in any way in the last 2 year - and why i should inflict such absurd levels of pain on my psyche (I now know of more people who have left wiki as editors than I do who are currently active) - well give me time to think. Also I am sure that someone will want to dig dirt, or whatever - I am not sure or convinced that such an exercise is really worth it in the end, when those who are more mentally agile than self are admins who i actually know in real life person who have had the courtesy to jump in where needed. So back to you, I think it is a great idea but... SatuSuro04:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey! well, congrats on your commons promotion. You may be right about RfA being a zoo.. but do you really think it'll go that way for you? I'm willing to bet you'd get unanimous support. I really don't know what I can show regarding evidence of improvement. But ya think it over, take your time, and like I said, you may as well make life easier for yourself here by getting the few extra buttons. :) Regards, Ϫ04:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Here for over 4 years, and I hear you say that? I also know of people who have quit admin and crat positions - nah - life here is knowing over 5 admins very well is enough for me thanks for the moment - I am not saying I'll pass - but... I dont need the buttons really... SatuSuro04:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
RfA is a zoo for a couple reasons, which can be avoided.
The two most common issues are contribution space spread (mainspace vs. others), and the illustration of how the tools would aid you in maintaining the encyclopedia.
The first point is moot, in my opinion, if the second point is honored.
Politics can, and have been, put aside for Requests for Adminship based on adequate explanations of how you feel the capabilities will help the project. No one editor needs the bit. As a whole, we must have editors that have the bit. The key is deciding if your editing will be beneficial to maintaining the project as a net positive. If you cannot think of a way to make this eloquent, try out some draft answers to questions you'll likely face. If you're unsure of what those will be and your answers, take time and care into thinking about it and approach the offer later. It's your call as far as that goes.
I've nominated or co-nominated many successful candidates for adminship, and had a couple fail that I still think could have succeeded. In all of those cases, politics wasn't an issue. You need to clearly outline how this would help us all, and you don't need to acronym everything or even make up stuff that you aren't interested in. Just be honest with your answers and if you are in conjunction with this community's philosophy in practice (not theory, I disagree with a lot of stuff but we have to be congenial and work together) the community will decide if you're trusted to be a janitor. It shouldn't be a measure of success, but trust.
But that is not really dealing with the issues that have clouded rfa over the last four years or so - the memory of watching some of that stuff (horrible to watch) and also noting the general short wikipedia life of some of the people involved on both sides of the game - I have seen too much pass to actually be polite and actually compliment you on your lofty idealism - (and am much older in real life as well) - I think there are some issues that will arise in the next year or so with the whole process of what wikipedia is as it gets into the size it has as to whether some processes - some areas specially such as rfa and cfd - will need to be completely rethought if the whole thing is to survive without a progressive decline vis a vis fall of roman empire state of things - may your enthusiasm and positivity help you through the difficult bits - and offering advice such as you have says nothing for the general trends of rfa in the times that I have bothered to watch it - but hey I havent watched it recently I must admit SatuSuro05:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay well.. buttons or no buttons.. the important thing is that you continue your excellent editing here, and not get discouraged by all the drama. Keep up the good work. :) (you too Keegan ;) -- Ϫ05:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I havent said no and I havent said yes - just getting through into a clear run at commons is going to take a bit of a while to get used to the butons there -I'll watch the en rfa for a while - but hey who wants to suggest 50k + eds for rfa - we must be short in the talent department or something? SatuSuro05:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
We need more level-headed admins these days, and you definitely fit into that category :) If you ever want to give it a try, I will happily support the request or co-nominate. The reason admins 'burn out' most of the time, is that they approach admin tasks as a job or something they are obliged to do. But it is always important to remember that this is just a website, and that you should only doing things that you enjoy. Adminship is meant to facilitate, not to burden. —Dark06:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
User Box Question
Hello OlEnglish! I do not unserstand how you substitute the name of a userbox. I have read the page and still don't understand. please explain it to me. Thanx --Capybara123 (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to shorten the name of the box so i dont have to display all of the information. If that makes sense?
--Capybara123 (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I have attempted to make the new article page, to complement the article page: List of names for the Biblical nameless. I eventually got the References right. I placed in the suggested article page in the suggestion talk page for over a week without challenge!
Haha, ya guess you are right. Sorry. However, you made Naroin a fictitious religion, and it is not. Please don't say that. It is not fictitious. It is real and is what Nintendo based the series off of. The religion is ancient, lol. Thanks! Good day to you! User:The Fair Eclectic—Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC).
Hello, I think the Naroin article would read much more clearly in terms of not being fictional if the first sentence didn't mention Nintendo. Also, the related articles Trigoddess and Solissey, provide very little information. All three articles are based on a single source, the web page Ann Coulter's little princess (www.irondune.com/zaiva/naroinrevisedphilosophypage.html). I looked at that page, but I didn't feel the need to investigate further after reading:
“A theory once proposed as a fictitious video game faith, by Nintendo’s Shigeru Miyamoto. Now, after learning my own, personal truth from the Goddesses, Themselves, this religion is real…”
I don't mean to disagree with anyone. It could be, as you say "ancient," and I'm sure there's a good story behind all this. =)
However, I am concerned because there appears to be no connection to neopaganism whatsoever. Please, before adding them again to [[Category:Neopaganism]], [[Category:Neopagan festivals]] and [[Category:Neopagan holidays]], I think it would be appropriate to establish the notability of the subject matter as well as its connection to neopaganism in the text of the articles with verifiable inline references to multiple reliable sources. (I removed Trigoddess from [[Category:Triune gods]] as well).
I rolled back quite a few changes to the Religious symbolism article, all the way to 25 March, just before the first of the two symbols was added.
In addition, a number of changes were made that homogenized the representation of Neopaganism in that article, including the removal of certain names. I can see where it was done in good faith, but caution is advisable without making an effort to solicit consensus from any editors who might be concerned. They might not, for example, be monitoring neopaganism in general, or interfaith religious articles such as the symbolism one.
I'm very unfamiliar with the whole subject of Naroin and Neopaganism in general and was going on just the word of the above user. In fact my first edit was to add the category Category:Fictional religions, but was reverted. I have no issue with your rollbacks, however User:The Fair Eclectic might, as well as the article creator User:Wondering Wiccan. I myself probably will not edit these articles any further. -- Ϫ10:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment in the talk page of: List of names for the Biblical nameless. I think, at this stage, the best thing to do is to build-up the data in different pages, even as I have begun, and then see if one comprehensive page can result. Also, we would see more clearly what we are talking about. The more we open this up, as it is now, is allowing us all to be swamped with "the lowest common denominator", to borrow a topic, term, from another study!
The article page I started has been requested for deletion by the very one who refused any entry in the original article page and refused to envisage any way forward. Their last comment to me was to request closure so that they could continue with their lives! Some, unfortunataly, will militate against every way forward.
Do be aware that in Australia, in the last few years, quite a few situations (Inter faith fighting), ended up in Court!
All I want is for an Encyclopaedia to be comprehensive in its coverage.
I share in your desire to have a comprehensive encyclopedia. Sometimes it takes a bit of work. I commented on the deletion discussion, give it a week, perhaps consensus will favor keeping the article. -- Ϫ10:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you,
There are many more to be added. Those I have included are just the most obvious. I look forward to a clear way forward.
Thank you, for your vote in the proposed deletion page. I do not think I have a vote, myself? I have outlined my comments at the end of the page and said that no alternative was given to me/us.
Yes your comments are taken into account and are just as important and admissible as everyone elses. -- Ϫ23:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you again,
From the comments on the proposed deletion page to my comments, I honestly feel that the people replying are not familiar with dissertation in Scripture. I have pointed them to The most revered Commentary and to the top Exegesis in the field, but I appear to be getting blanks. This is frustrating! They still seem to be relating to apocrypha as rubbish!
Hermeneutics in Wikipedia seems to be taken in its article page from a very narrow field. Whereas the science is very much a "tool" in Scripture. This article page in Wikipedia definately needs reviewing. Sorry, I've discovered it in Biblical Hermeneutics, it could well do with a clean-up and modernisation.
I have had to point out very bluntly that no way forward was open, as some objected to:
1. Apocryphyl literature was objected to, on the groungs that no Church has ever accepted them as part of their Bible, so they should not be included.
2. Others that deutroconical literature be grouped together with apocryphyl.
In the original article page all the nameless names come from extra-biblical literature, i.e. apocryphyl. In fact the subject in question is their names.
I objected to deutroconical being grouped together with apocryphyl, on the groungs that all the deutroconical are part and parcel of a Catholic Bible, while apocryphyl are not.
3. Others objected on the grounds that the nameless names are not to be had from any source, they feel.
Hence, there was no way forward open. That is why the article page I began is named: List of Biblical nameless (Catolic Bible), not offering their names to be included.
Ok I replied to you at the deletion page. Let's try to keep the discussion in one place ok? There's no need to repeat things to me here. Thanks. -- Ϫ22:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. mauler90 (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for my rudeness over at the Theremin discussion. I have left a more considered reply with a suggestion as to how to proceed. Regards. Weakopedia (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for helping towards getting a better article page for the Biblical nameless. The minimum only has been done, and difficulty made further attempts at adding to the page impossible. At one stage I questioned their good faith, for they pre-empted the decision before it was made, and they removed my entries in The New Testament that were properly cited and apt. There were inconsistancies in their argument throughout.
I am new to this and I have no idea what I am doing. I am attending college at The Evergreen State College, I am 34 years old and as our Spring Assignment we must make 3 changes to articles a week. The changes may range from a grammatical edit, updating an article, or bringing new informative information to the table. Anything will help me. Thank you for your response. When I sign my post do I sign it like this (Mandos12 (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC))?
Yes it looks like you signed your post correctly.
For the first thing to do, I strongly recommend that you visit the links in the welcome message I posted on your talk page. The Wikipedia:Tutorial is particularly helpful. If you need help or have specific questions along the way, you can either ask me here or post a question at the Wikipedia:Help desk. I hope you enjoy your time here. :) -- Ϫ14:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll try not to dewell too much! I think I'll turn my attention to the serious articles. I hope I explained (in ordinary language) OK? I had less trouble dealing with C.G. Jung, and much more support from his followers! I am still undecided if he was a believer. Most say not. I disagree! Any thoughts.
I'm sorry I really haven't any idea about Jung. I'm just a technical maintenance guy, not a scholar or philosopher. :) Btw, I'm just curious, what part of the world are you in, If I may ask? Ϫ12:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought I dropped a few "clangers" a while back when I asked to swap? The page on Greenwich (Zero Long) and saying I was looking at the panoramic view was actual, but I'm like the green parrot everywhere in the park, flocks of them, all from India. I am au fait with the Celtic language! So I just don't know where I'm from! I thought, for a minute, you were covering the Winter games!
Thank you for sorting out the difference between Victor White, O.P. and Victor White, RAF. I thought they were the same person, at different stages of his life. I know that ACEOREVIVED was involved here.
Thanks for the note. I contested the prod and added a reference. There's nothing contentious or controversial in the article that's likely to be challenged (as per WP:V) so a simple verification web reference will do, but I'll see if I can find more. -- Ϫ06:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
You might not actually be aware of the new policy for new unsourced BLPs - I can't remember if you took part in the RfC and workshop. 1 hour was generally agreed as the time lapse before PROD. As an immediatist, I thought you would have understood. N--Kudpung (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)ever mind :) --Kudpung (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm immediatist in the sense that if I see something that needs fixing I believe it should be fixed immediately so that Wikipedia's quality does not suffer, but not to the point of deletion, especially of a totally valid article. That's a deletionist view and it doesn't improve Wikipedia, it harms it. And yes I was aware of the new policy and I disagree with it. In fact I think the whole BLP issue is overblown and alarmist, but that's just me. With that said, I don't disagree with your actions, I understand you were following policy and acting in good faith. :) -- Ϫ04:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I understand now. I am in fact an inclusionist and prefer to rescue items if possible. I was a major contributor to the BLP RfC and workshop, but only as a housekeeper to nudge it along, keep it on track, and get between any WP:CIVIL issues - I did not generally participate in, or influence any of the policy making, but I suppose it's a step forward to reducing the work of the new page patrollers, many of whom are too quick on the trigger with Twinkle or Huggle, and are just after a record edit count. --Kudpung (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Rollback Permission
I saw that you are willing to grant Rollback permission. I've been using Twinkle for a while now to revert vandals, and I think that I could do a better job using Rollback. And yes, I did have my request denied earlier (here, if you must know), but I've been using Twinkle quite a bit now, and I think I have enough experience for Rollback. Thank you in advance for considering me. A talkback on my page when you reply would be fantastic. :) Hi878 (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
OK I'll grant it, but you really do need to focus more on anti-vandalism work because I've only seen a minimal amount of reversions since your request at rfperm. I'll be watching your progress to see how you do, remember, make sure you only revert clear-cut cases of vandalism. For example this was not vandalism.. be careful! -- Ϫ00:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! You won't regret this (hopefully). :) And with that edit, I'm not quite sure what I was thinking, but I see why that wasn't very smart now. Hi878 (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought that one was pretty funny too. :) Did you see the warning I gave? It's here. There's a lot of weird stuff that happens on here... :) Hi878 (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow... I just discovered Igloo a few days ago, and I'm really glad I have Rollback now... Igloo is unbelievable... It is amazing how easy it is to revert vandals, and it even warns/reports them on its own... I think having to go back to the undo button would kill me. :) Hi878 (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Is number of incoming links a valid reason to remove a non-notability PROD? I'm fairly sure notability's judged on whether the topic meets the relevant guidelines (WP:GNG and WP:ORG in this case), and the trouble is that the Google search I linked to showed no coverage in reliable independent sources. As such, it doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion, so why exactly did you contest its deletion? Alzarian16 (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I look at how Wikipedia can improve for the readers' sake, and deleting in this case does NOT help improve the encyclopedia. You see, I'm not all about guidelines and policies and WP:GNG and WP:ORG etc. etc., I know them all well, but rather I prefer WP:IAR, WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:PRESERVE, and what ultimately improves the encyclopedia. And oh btw, the unreferenced tag you added is unnecessary because it's redundant to the stub tag, and besides there's nothing in that article that's likely to be challenged (See WP:V). So sorry for the diatribe, you can go ahead and AfD it, if you want. I happen to think it's a valid encyclopedic topic, others might not, either way we'll see how it goes. -- Ϫ16:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I actually think that bus companies are valid topics if significant coverage exists (I've created 10 such articles and worked on almost a hundred more). But looking through the Google hits, almost nothing reliable and independent comes up - two lines here and half a local paper article about a driver for the company who got clamped. As such, they just don't meet the guidelines. Perhaps the content could be transferred to something like UK Transport Wiki which doesn't require references? Alzarian16 (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, besides my rather old-school belief that Wikipedia articles only require references if there's something contentious or controversial that needs to be verified, notability, in this case, is inherent, as evidenced by the categories I cited above. So I still think it could stay on Wikipedia, however the UK Transport Wiki does sound like a good idea too.
In fact, I'm not all that concerned with the subject as I am with making a point (I know, guilty as charged). Notability is a very fickle thing, it cannot be determined by the amount of google hits, yet that's what all Wikipedia editors are conditioned to do now.. a quick scan with Google.. "oh look! no hits! it must not be notable!". This is a pet peeve of mine... amongst many other current behaviors I observe... I had a lot more on my mind as I was writing this, but I'm not going to go into it now... I think maybe I'll spare you my manifesto. :) Anyways, you seem very knowledgable on this subject of bus companies in the UK, a lot more so than I, so I trust your judgment in this case, do what you wish with the article. I won't interfere. -- Ϫ17:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I looked for offline sources too, but couldn't find anything substantial in three years of back issues of Buses Magazine (probably not doing my credibility as a well-balanced person any favours by looking)... I'd happily copy the text across to UK Transport Wiki if that would be helpful, but I'd rather avoid going to the trouble of an AfD if possible - could you consider restoring the PROD by reverting your edit, or is that asking too much? Alzarian16 (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I am here to inform you that your userpage or talk page has been conquered by the Earth Cabal. Please don’t panic; there is nothing you can do about it. You are hereby invited to join the Cabal, and help conquer other pages for our cause. See User:Hi878/Earth Cabal for more information. Thank you, have a nice, irregular weather day, and welcome to Earth.
Hi878 (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, OlEnglish! I have completed your editor review challenge. Inadvertently, actually. I was becoming involved at ER before I saw your challenge. Several reviews I have done: [1], [2], [3]. Those are most recent. I completed these earlier: [4], [5]. I hope these qualify as good reviews. They are not terribly detailed, but I don't want to nitpick, and some review is better than none in my opinion. PrincessofLlyrroyal court
Hi. I noticed that you participated in a recent discussion on whether or not the tagline at the top of all Wikipedia articles should be changed from "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" to "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I don't know if you're still interested in this issue or not, but this exact change has been proposed once again, this time at the Village pump, and there is currently an RFC (Request for Comment) on the subject where it is being discussed. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Userspace edit
Sorry there. I've seen such headers before in old monastary texts, but that really looked like a bunch of swirls. Sorry again. Buggie111 (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh no problem, I appreciate the good faith attempt at fixing my user page :) And I agree that it doesn't really look much like a W -- Ϫ01:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to correct myself here.. I think it was in my edit summary that I referred to that W as a historiated initial, that is not really accurate. It's actually part of a series of calligraphic letters known as "Cadels". -- Ϫ12:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, OlEnglish. I hope you don't mind my bothering you, but I have an interesting situation that I would like an admin opinion about. I have several talk page stalkers and we generally have ongoing discussions on my talk page about various things, mostly WP related. While our discussions are chatty on occasion, we all work too. User:Lawlar (with whom I have had no interaction) came by and deleted an entire discussion that he deemed myspacing. He did this to User:Mono also. Mono is a new addition to my tps's and has engaged in behavior I deem immature, but I do not believe that Lawlar's mass deletion was warranted. Lawlar also left a warning for Mono which I think sounds very knowledgeable for a new user. All of his edits are from today. Please tell me what you think. Thank you, PrincessofLlyrroyal court14:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I think this kind of action coming from a new user seems suspicious. Also it wasn't necessary to delete text from user's talk page, and is not advisable per the talk page guidelines. A simple polite comment to tone down the myspacing would've been enough but this user's warning message was indeed rude. As long as editors are actively improving Wikipedia, as you do, I don't think there's a problem with any idle chit-chat or silliness on user talk pages. -- Ϫ08:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I saw this reply, but answering it somehow got buried under everything else. Your opinion is much appreciated and I'm glad to say that the situation has calmed greatly and the user in question has continued to contribute productively and with civility. Thanks again, PrincessofLlyrroyal court18:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, saw you listed at Wikipedia:Editor assistance#Editors willing to provide assistance and wondered if you might be willing to provide assistence in this on-going back and forth between myself and User:Jack Sebastian. Our interactions started when he posted a question at WP:AN re the Dreamweaver redirect, which was later moved to Talk:Dreamweaver where there is a lengthy on-going discussion on whether the redirect should continue going to Adobe Dreamweaver or go to the Dreamweaver (disambiguation) instead. As the discussion seemed to dissolve to myself, User:Xeno, and Jack just repeating the same arguments over and over, Jack suggested dispute resolution. He posted at WP:3O, but that was removed as there were seven editors involved in the discussion at that point. I posted a note at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation[6]. Jack came behind me and edited my post with a summary of "altering to balance out inquiry"[7], which was reverted by User:ShelfSkewed. Calling it a "lame ass thing to do", Jack posted his "corrected" version of my message to the talk instead[8]. I apologized if I misstated his view, and chastised him for refactoring my remarks.[9] This apparently has set of a **it storm, with Jack claiming his edits were valid, that Shelf was just being lazy by reverting, and that he was "fixing" my mistake[10]. During all this, Jack redid Dreamweaver (disambiguation) to emphasize the music article he is working on in his sand box, and move Adobe Dreamweaver to the end of the list.[11]. I reverted him as the consensus at Talk:Dreamweaver seems pretty clear that Adobe Dreamweaver is the primary topic (only Jack and IP have said otherwise so far)[12]. Another editor tweaked my subsequent clean ups.[13] Jack reverted us both[14], which I reverted again asking him to respect WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS[15]. He posted a note at Talk:Dreamweaver (disambiguation), asking for views (good thing), but claiming I had done "three reverts". He made the same false claim at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation and gave me a "3 RR warning", and is continuing to be, in my opinion, ridiculously uncivil, making a lot of bad faith accusations (being "stealthy", trying to sway discussion, acting in collusion with the other editor at the disambig, etc) and trying to order me to "shut up" or he will file a complaint.[16][17] I'm getting annoyed at his overbearing responses to the point of wanting to tell him what I think of him in much blunter language, but that of course would violate all the policies I keep pointing to him regarding WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, etc. So am now seeing some outside view per WP:DR as I have no desire to continue having this hostile back and forth going on across these three pages as well as his rude note on my talk page[18]
Sorry this is so long, but I felt it important to note all the places this is going on at the moment, and try to summarize some of the main issues at least. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 00:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh my! I'm not sure why you're asking me as I don't think I'm really good at this dispute resolution mediation stuff, I'm more of the tech-support, help-desk type. The only advice I can give you for your current situation is to just let it go. Ignore him and Dreamweaver, and just continue editing. It's really not worth it getting all stressed out over these issues, just try to have fun and remember that Wikipedia is not about winning arguments (something Jack could do well to learn also, as it seems). If you don't like what he wrote on your talk page just remove it; be the better person and don't respond in kind. If it escalates any further a post at WP:ANI may be warranted and you have that option but then you'll just be stuck in a sad shitstorm that'll just get you more frustrated.
As for the target of the Dreamweaver redirect, I don't know what the most common use of the word is, but as long as there's a hatnote at the top of Adobe Dreamweaver that points readers to the disambig page then all is well and I have no issues with that page being the target.
Oh btw, while you're here, in case you're wondering what those redacted comments were in your userpage history and logs, I was revdel'ing some old hagger pagemoves that were particularly nasty. Suffice to say it wasn't a nice thing to say about you, just be glad they're gone ;) -- Ϫ02:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
That's basically what I was thinking at this point. :-) And I was wondering, but someone cleared it up for me (at first I thought someone was hitting then since one of my stalker boys is being active) :-P Glad that Hagger stuff is gone, though, much thanks. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 03:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, he is not ready to drop it, and is continuing to falsely claim that I made three reverts, and make snarky, condescending remarks and referring to me as "dumb" and "stupid" and continuing to say "you fucked up".[19] He is also now just randomly reverting my removing a new addition to the list[20][21] and is apparently wanting to completely ignore the consensus at Talk:Dreamweaver that firmly establishes Adobe Dreamweaver is the primary topic. I started to respond and then just stopped, as he seems determined to continue his claims and remarks and as you noted, responding will just fuel the fire even more since he just repeats the same nastiness again. However, he is being very uncivil, IMHO, at this point, but also will not bother leaving him a warning. It seems not responding is just making him think he can just keep up the nastiness. Can you take a look at the history and tell me if making a revert,[22] some standard edits,[23] then another revert is actually three reverts?[24] Not sure what to do at this point. If I post at AN/I, most likely it will get closed for not having done enough dispute resolution, but if you think that would be best, I'll post there. Meanwhile, I've asked another admin to take a look at this as well (one who has helped advise me before in DR issues :-)) -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 21:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
If I could have a minute.....
A Wikipedia member's birthday, OldWestHistorian, is today and I want to make sure they have a good birthday. So could you stop by their talk page and wish them a happy birthday? I know you don't know them well, but like I said I want to make sure they have a good birthday. The UtahraptorTalk13:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if you know . . . . re Wikipedia:Centijimbos, is there a way to use the userbox code to compute millijimbos.
Lol! and I'm wondering if the only reason you're asking that is because your page has fewer than 30 watchers and you're trying to get it to somehow show up regardless! ;P ... It's possible of course, but I wouldn't know how to do it.
I decided to ask you that, and then saw on your userpage, "Just add the following code if you want to add a right-aligned TOC to a page, but don't want it to be displayed on "derivative" pages: </noinclude> {{TOCright}} </noinclude>." Is that right -- </noinclude> on both sides? kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 15:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I saw that you placed a block on editing by non-autoconfirmed users on the celebrity article of Shinee, which is very good but this made a registered user angry and he/she messed up the Templae:Shinee instead. I changed it back to normal but can you please put a block on the template as well because I dont know how to do so. The user who did this is lamonew and he/she did not use nice words. Thanks in advance! Farjad0322 (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for reporting this. Only administrators are able to protect pages. I'm able to, however there has not been enough recent vandalism at that template page to justify protecting it at this time. But do keep an eye on it, and if this user continues to vandalize, be sure to leave a warning on their talk page. If they still continue to vandalize, you can report them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard. -- 08:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you indicated support for this project or commented on its proposal.
If you are interested in being part of the Talk Page Cleanup Crew, then go stick your name on the list! Any help, thought, comment, advice, or suggestion you can give is welcome.
Note: Some things are still under construction. -Garrett W. {☎✍}03:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:OlEnglish. 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.
Done Ok I've updated Wikipedia:Orphan to include this information. ;) Ϫ 03:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
. Thanks for telling me. <blush> :) -- Ϫ 10:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
