This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page. |
Hello. Thank you for the suggestion. I doubt it will work, but why not to try. I just discovered, Dc76 organizes discussions and tries to persuade other users on their talk pages and not openly on the Balti talk page. (see User:Illythr's talk page [1]) Thanks for your time, G.Night —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moldopodo ( talk • contribs) 02:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply
Nope, first it was "all" have withdrawn, and now it's "one party". In fact, it's two parties who have withdrawn.
I see no reason that the mediator's attempts to move on from these two walkouts, when resolution appeared to be in sight, should stop. It appears to me to be a case of successful sabotage by parties who realise they'll need to compromise. Is this really the way mediation functions?
I don't understand why there's talk now of removing all of the evidence during the mediation. Seems very nasty, when all I'm asking for is resolution to an issue that has seen deliberate stalling by both parties who walked out. So WP is anything but fair and open, then? Tony (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply
But I'm sure the net result was positive :p Have a good one. ~ Riana ⁂ 10:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC) reply
Hey Daniel, I hope you don't mind but I may of well, kinda...stole the header format which you used to use on your talk page, *Don't kill me*. Just thought it would be best to tell you, stealing is wrong :). Best wishes, Qst 18:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC) reply
On October 29, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1999 Sydney hailstorm, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 ( talk) 01:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you for participating in my RfA. As you may be aware, it was closed as "no consensus". Since your vote was one of the reasons why it did not succeed, I would like to personally address your concerns so that I can reapply successfully. Your concern was "Oppose per my neutral comment, and the plethora of other reasons raised above (mainly involving images) which cast significant doubts."
It seems that I was not clear enough in my RfA that as an administrator, I would have to obey the community's wishes, no matter now much I disagree with them. It would be wrong of me to force my personal opinion on others.
Also, I am confused as to the areas of policy that you think I would get involved in without proper experience. I thought that the list of my contributions at the beginning of my RfA demonstrated sufficient experience in the policy areas that I want to help with. Could you please elaborate on your concerns? — Remember the dot ( talk) 03:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply
When I click on the "prickle me" button for user:Porcupine on my talk page (which should take me to his talk page) it now takes me to a page you deleted. Sorry if this isn't your fault but I have no idea how to fix this and thought you might?
Thanks. Kelpin 08:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 43 | 22 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. -- Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel( Talk) 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel( Talk) 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply
I have tried and tried and nothing I do works. Nothing I do even comes close to working. I do not understand the instructions. -- Mattisse 18:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC) reply
That comment about someone saying that I have not listened to others advice was not directed towards you. I did not even know you commented. I did not keep watch on my Rfa since last night because I did not want to get any more annoyed.
Where do you think I need to improve? I am going to try to become a all around good editor and not just a vandal fighter. That is what would be most helpful. Have a nice day.-- SJP 02:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Hello again Daniel, I am afraid there is violation of the three recert rule on Moldova page from my side and from Anittas side. The last edited version of the page is done so regardless of present Moldavian legislation in force (I have cited the necessary laws and Constitution of the Republic of Moldova), whereas no justification for edits by Anittas was given, only a threat to be reported (for what)?
Also could you plese check these users: Dc76, Anittas, and 196.46.109.216 (the last user vandalised ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/196.46.109.216) Lyle and Erik Menedez page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyle_and_Erik_Menendez) using at times the same words as on Balti page (mountanious slopes). On Balti page the 196.46.109.216 user changed twice all words "Moldavian" into "Romanian", after all the litigation started. Thank you. Have a nice day. Moldopodo 10:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Look at this user how he wants to cover up things.. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=168551129&oldid=168550642 -- Moldorubo 18:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 44 | 29 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Hi, Daniel. As you're often involved in mediation cases I was wondering if you could help with the application of WP:CON. The recent arbitration case I was involved with hasn't resolved the dispute and now some users are trying to claim consensus was reached on disputed material even when that was clearly not the case - otherwise why would there have been dispute resolution at all?
I'm not asking you to make a decision on the content dispute, just whether consensus can be reached through a majority of users expressing an opinion one way or another. For reference this was done through a RfC - a number of users left a comment each and then that was it. The dispute is on Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story. I've also asked Picaroon for his views, but I thought it might be good to open the point to someone who wasn't in arbitration. John Smith's 19:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks for voting in my Rfa, which I withdrew from yesterday. Though I did not get promoted, I see this Rfa as being a success nonetheless. What I got out of this Rfa will help me to be a better, all around editor. Because of this Rfa I have decided to become better in other areas of editing. I'm not going to just be a vandalfighter. Though vandalfighting is good, being active in all areas of editing is even better. Have a nice day.-- SJP 22:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Hi, I wanted to let you know that a mistake probably has been made with my mediation request. Having just checked Larryfooter's contributions, and the mediation request page, Larryfooter did not (as of right now) agree to mediation. Since the dispute is between Larryfooter and myself (together with User:Marvin_Diode on probably my side), proceeding without Larryfooter would be futile IMHO. Ngchen 00:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your recent comments and vote at my Request for Adminship. It was not successful. I don't believe this is unfortunate as it leaves me with much to ponder and a fresh slate from which I can better myself as an editor in order to be more compliant with the policies that are expected by Wikipedia.
If you feel that there is anything that was not covered by the RfA that I need improvement in, I would implore your input and feedback as I hope and intend to improve as best I'm guided.
All the best in your own endeavours in the real world, and also when you're not on Wikipedia. linca linca 14:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC) reply
File:Chemistry-stub.png | As a regular contributor to
Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is
Rainbow. You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name! |
NCurse work 15:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC) reply
You used the term "Circular-shaped trolling" before. However, there are exactly no Google hits for that phrase. May you please define "Circular-shaped trolling?" Thanks. -- 129.130.233.26 18:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Thankyou Kenservative 10:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Hi Daniel,
Could you please explain in a little more detail your reason for unblocking? From the checkuser, it's clear it is the same person behind User:Barnecaration, who was impersonating me, intentionally. At least three people, at least temporarily, thought it actually was me. It goes way beyond simply responding inappropriately to unblock requests. Also, he's obviously lying to you about "not remembering" whether he is GoodsWiped or not; the account was made a couple of days ago. I just don't get how this isn't worth more than a few hours of being blocked. Thanks for any light you can shed on what I'm missing. -- barneca ( talk) 14:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Hi Daniel,
You warned me for using an unsourced summary. Unfortunately many of the sources were deleted for violating the terms of the board, and not directly linkable to. I do have the sources including the following link ( http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/comments?type=story&id=3580676) and can get MANY more , and can get 3rd party witnesses -- is that acceptable? I'm looking for the policies, but I will build a footnoted table of various instances supporting it. (She started multiple smear campaigns. So my comments were VERY moderate in reflection of the actions. But if you let me know what is needed for verifiability, I will do what I can to meet it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sue.denim ( talk • contribs) 02:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
see here Kwsn (Ni!) 17:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
Hi Daniel,
The mediator of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/John_Buscema hasn't given any feedback in close to a month and states that he is busy - could you advise on what the next step would be to resolve this matter?
Cheers,
-- Skyelarke 02:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
(sorry for the new thread, but you archive fast!)
Thank you for voicing your opinions in my recent RFA which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to take the advice the community has given me and wait till someone nominates me next time as well as improve my editing skills. Have a great day(or night)! -- Hdt83 Chat 05:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
I am sure you are very familiar with the SEGA saga. SEGA was permanently banned (See Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive6#Community_ban_on_User:SEGA ). But I've noticed 2 of his usual IPs (that were only blocked for 6 months) are now active again. (See 67.33.61.18 ( talk · contribs) and 68.112.18.13 ( talk · contribs) ). Take note of this . Immediately after being tagged... the user blanked their page and then vandalised the talk page of the user who tagged them. My question is... since SEGA is perma-banned.... shouldn't all his usual IP haunts be banned as well? Just wondering. Thanks for your help. Have a nice day! 156.34.142.110 18:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
-- nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply
On November 7, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fightmaster Cup, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Hi Daniel
I thought that a way to further improve the golf articles on Wikipedia is for the whole project to work together towards a goal. An example of this could be a certain number of good articles in so many months, or to create the project's first ever featured article. If you are interested, come to the
talk page and discuss it. And hopefully through this the project can continue to work towards several goals in the near future.
Grover 10:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply