This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Hi, despite the consensus on the BLP notice board, and your edit here in accordance [1]. One IP keeps reverting your edit and restoring the questionable material [2]. Could you please keep an eye on this? -- NewLionDragon ( talk) 15:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Every now and then I'll hear about something or other in Somalia on the news and Wikipedia it hoping to learn more about something or other. I have on a few occasions run into articles on various third world towns and rebel groups that seem to be written by extremely partial editors. I usually clean things up as I see them, and there have been a couple of occasions where I have had to hack out large portions of articles because of their blatantly unacceptable content ( Bu'aale, Sudan_Liberation_Movement/Army, Merca; if you look at the versions before my earliest edit in the article histories).
I stumbled back on the Merca article and I noticed that it seems to have been made into an advertisement of its subject again. I don't like getting into forum arguments, I'm not a Wikipedia cop, and I don't really know if there is a decorous way of telling an editor or editors to knock something off; but whoever is reediting that article back to advertise its subject needs to cut it out. You're an admin (or so it seems). Can you do something about it? -- Nogburt ( talk) 11:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I know you have an interest in copy-editing policies and guidelines, so do you think you could find time to take a pass at Wikipedia:Content forking and see if you can root out any potential inconsistencies and also any scope drift? Hiding T 12:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at that. Perhaps one day I will have the authority that when I take something out no one puts it back. I took the liar bit out twice and it was replaced twice and to be honest I wanted to keep taking it out until I was blocked for reverting. Those political biographies, unless they are looked over by an experianced editor, are a sorry reflection of the wikipedia 'rules'. Anything that has been written by a pov pushing daily paper being inserted as 'well cited'. Sorry if I seemed a bit short of patience. It is hard sometimes to take a step back when you remove something and it is reinserted and you take it out and it is reinserted, at that point taking it out again is a blockable offence and at that point it is hard to know what to do. Best regards. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 17:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC))
As part of the GA Sweeps project I have reviewed this article and reluctantly concluded that it should be delisted until concerns over referencing and the lack of broad scope are addressed. Comments have been left at Talk:Ian McKellen/GA1 suggesting ways in which the article can be improved. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 22:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello there. Noticed you were a frequent and recent contributor to the talk page for List of wars and disasters by death toll. Your feedback on the discussion here (and on my talk page here and here) regarding certain sources and abortion's relation to the subject of the article are requested and would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! - SoSaysChappy ( talk) 06:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The RfC on Fascism#Fascism in the political spectrum has now run one month and there are now two versions of the intro para:
Could you please comment at Talk:Fascism#RfC.
The Four Deuces ( talk) 21:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Rd232. A recent Arbitration request in which you were named as a party, "telaviv1: "trial" resulting from sockpuppetryaccusation", has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. You can review the reasons why the Arbitrators felt this case was not appropriate for arbitration at the archived version here; most probably, the declination would have been because the dispute appeared to be primarily a content issue only or because there was not enough effort to address this problem through other forms of dispute resolution prior to the filing of the request. If this issue is still in need of resolution, please consider pursuing other forms of dispute resolution (such as a request for comment or informal or formal mediation). Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me or another clerk.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Hersfold (
t/
a/
c) 18:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.
In appreciation for the clean-up and referencing you provided on the Alfred Taban article, I hearby present you with a tasty cookie. Cheers, ponyo ( talk) 14:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping in with the "Moving Forward" and summary. I think the discussion was getting off track/bogged down (and I realize I contributed to that to some extent). Gosh, if I had known, I would have just submitted a bug report, and the NOINDEX default for User space would be in by now! LOL. Also, to be fair, this part: "*Some collateral damage - some useful userspace content may not be found via external search engines anymore (unless it's mirrored)" - the mirror will not reflect the current status/changes in wikipedia. Plus, mirrors don't necessarily copy all of wikipedia. So, it is iffy about mirrors supplementing what is lost to being able to search wikipedia by SE. -- stmrlbs| talk 19:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
@ History Section: So, what would make those headings appropriate? -- Klingon83 ( talk) 16:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The thread on Kasaalan is far from over. Nothing has been done about the core issue: Kasaalan's behavior. Enigma msg 14:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Why do you keep reverting to Kaasalan's extremely POV and OR lead? Sentences like these: "WRMEA is criticized by many pro-Israel groups, however it has been known for having a large number of Jewish supporters and writers." are totally bogus and was obviously written by an editor.
So is "Criticism of WRMEA has been particularly strong and consistent from three US organizations dedicated to advocating for Israel and criticising what they see as "anti-Israel" positions in the media."
And "The Jewish Virtual Library (a member of the Israel on Campus Coalition)." I'm messaging you because your revert is a direct restoration to K's edit which means you either endorse it or approve of it. Clearly Kasaalan's obsession with Israel and Jews isn't going to stop. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 01:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Did your recent comment relate to the rewritten version (posted a few minutes previously) or to the original version? -- Ravpapa ( talk) 09:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Rd232, problems persist on the Roland Perry page. Please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roland_Perry
Some guidance to resolve would be greatly appreciated.
Haruspex101 ( talk) 00:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)
Will you please reconsider your removal of the reference to Bob Ainsworth and the IMG? In doing so, you appear to me to have ignored and pre-empted the discussion now taking place. Mr Ainsworth has confirmed (to me, via his spokesperson) that he attended IMG meetings at this period. He will not answer questions about how many he attended, or about what IMG activities he participated in. He has denied being a member of the IMG, but at no stage has this allegation been made. Attempts to get him to clarify his actual status have met with unhelpful silence. You are incorrect, thefefore, in sayingt that there is 'zip, nada' etc about this. We have an allegation, a partial confirmation (that he attended meetings, that eh had a friedn in the IMG he introduced him to the organisation)and a mystery. Mr Ainsworth is not a private citizen minding his own business, but Secretary of State for Defence, and his political past (especially if he is secretive about it) is surely relevant. On the discussion page of the entry I suggested a modified entry. That is why I ask you to reconsider your action. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback ( talk) 11:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
What is it, exactly, that you say is not verified? As I have already said, more than once, Mr Ainsworth's own spokesperson confirms, in direct quotation, that he attended IMG meetings in Coventry at this period. The same spokesperson has declined to answer supplementary questions on his involvement. I am happy to show you her e-mail provided you agree to respect the convention under which it was sent, which means she is not named. What more reliable source would you require? To erase the previous reference and replace it with nothing at all is absurd, and would suggest to an innocent reader that the original allegation was wholly without foundation, which is not the case. You are also a third party in this discussion, I was debating it with another contributor when you swooped down from your lofty perch and deleted without substitution. Please pay some attention. Peter Hitchens signed in as Clockback ( talk) 20:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I shall try to persist. I do not think you are paying attention to what I am saying. There is a published source. The following has been published in The Mail on Sunday, (19th July 2009, p.27):
"I can recall members of the International Marxist Group yelling ‘Victory to the IRA!’ on student demonstrations. So I was interested to see stories that the latest Defence Secretary, Bob Ainsworth, was a ‘candidate member’ (they didn’t let just anyone in) of the IMG in 1982 and 1983, when he was 30 years old, not a student. I think the links between ‘New Labour’ and the revolutionary Marxist Left are extensive, interesting and important. So I asked a ‘spokesperson’ about it. She said: ‘He was never a member.’ Well, that looks like a denial, but isn’t. The story says he was a candidate for membership, not that he was a member. The source said: ‘A friend who was in the organisation tried to persuade him to join.’ Apparently he went to ‘a couple’ of meetings? Only two, or more? No answer. The source wouldn’t say. The source said he just went because he was open-minded. So would he have gone to a BNP meeting, being so open-minded? The source: 'Certainly not.’Then why go to a meeting of a group that supported the IRA? The spokesperson floundered. Eventually I was sent a written statement asserting that Mr Ainsworth’s brush with the IMG ‘reinforced his firm view that he did not agree with anything they had to say’. If he had such a firm view already, why go once, let alone twice? When I asked several supplementary questions, the answer was silence. I shall publish the unanswered questions on my blog and continue to press for answers."
The article can be found on the web at:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1200583/PETER-HITCHENS-How-long-abort-old-too.html
So can my supplementary questions at
Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback ( talk) 08:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I have edited Houston politics-related articles in the past; but at present I happen to be actively involved in the subjects that those articles cover. I'm having a bit of trouble trying to decide where I should draw my own line. Specifically, I'm trying to decide how I should or shouldn't allow myself to work on present Houston Mayoral Election-related articles.
It would be nice if there was some group of editors who had no interest in this particular election who would bother to work on its relevant articles so that I could recuse myself from them. But the reality seems to be that most of the interest in working on the articles comes from those who have an interest in the subject of those articles and particular electoral outcomes. The supporters of a candidate are generally in the best position to know about that candidate, but they are also rather disposed to promoting their candidate. And there is a sometimes blurry line between giving information about someone and advertising them.
For instance, everyone agrees that basic biographical information like the date and place of birth, and the offices held by a person are relevant. But what if a person has done something? Is that thing that was done some achievement worth noting in Wikipedia? If so, how does one note it without promoting the subject? How does one determine what is "balanced" and "relevant"?
In addition to any advice you may have on these problems I would greatly appreciate it if you or someone else who had no interest in Houston Politics would look at:
-The
Houston mayoral election, 2009 article to see if everything on it is appropriate.
-The pages for the major candidates in the election:
Peter Hoyt Brown,
Gene Locke,
Roy Morales, and
Annise Parker to see if these articles are encyclopedic and in generally proper form.
-Decide whether or not
Roy Morales is a notable-enough person to have a Wikipedia article.
--
Nogburt (
talk) 17:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis#SqueakBox unilaterally changed the name again, even as we were discussing the name change. Thank you. Rico 04:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
I was hoping there would be more discussion about what you said on the User Page Indexing RFC talk page. However, I guess the RFC isn't the place for it. I was wondering what your thoughts were on what would be a better way to approach something like this RFC? I have not been participating on Wikipedia as long as many of the people involved, but I agree with your assessment based on what I've seen. I sometimes think voting would be better in that I think it would keep people involved if they thought a majority vote might change something. The way it is now, the status quo is set in stone because in order to change it, consensus must be reached, and the larger the group is, the harder this is. I also think people realize that all that is needed to not reach consensus is a very vocal minority. Once there is a "solid" minority, I think a lot of people assume, "why bother", or "oh good, that won't change", because the minority is strong enough to stop consensus. For that matter, the minority might not even be the minority, but might just be the participating percentage of the majority - but it is hard to tell. I think voting would bring more people to the table. Even voting where it took a majority - say 75%, instead of 51%, to invoke any change. My opinion, based on my relatively short time at Wikipedia. So, I am interested in what you think would improve it, and has this been discussed before at any higher level? -- stmrlbs| talk 17:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran political crisis#SqueakBox unilaterally changed the name again, even as we were discussing the name change. Thank you. Rico 17:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis#POV article name. Thank you. Rico 23:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
Please move
Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran political crisis back to
Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran coup d'état.
SqueakBox executed an invalid, controversial, upsetting, undiscussed move-sans-consensus one minute after posting on the talk page:
"You cannot call the sub article by a different name from the main article [...] I suggest we [m]ove both to political crisis" -- a "different name" from the other article.
Discussion of another move had been underway, but no consensus had been reached.
SqueakBox didn't propose his move first, by leaving a note on the talk page to give his reasons, far enough in advance to give other editors a chance to discuss his proposal.
The new name actually changes the article into something other than what it was, and the name is
ambiguous.
I wasn't able to move the article back myself. --
Rico 02:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you didn't mean to attack me personally, but I think we'd both be happier if you focused on content, rather than the contributors. If you could refactor your remarks on the noticeboard, I'd appreciate it. IronDuke 01:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Not at all :). Ironholds ( talk) 10:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
hi Rd232 - thanks for sorting out the Hondura/Honduras error. i had noticed the missing 's' but i had thought that i had correctly copied/pasted from the Spanish source somewhere, and i guessed that maybe the local usage is sometimes without 's' - e.g. the English version could be plural and the Spanish singular. i should have double-checked a bit more carefully. i can't see an obvious source that has the 's' missing. Anyway, wiki, wiki, wiki - no great harm done, you cleaned up after me. :) Thanks. Boud ( talk) 15:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
We are going to need mediation -- I object to your characterization of references as 'terrible' there is no wiki page on 'terrible' one, and two, the references you so casually delete are publications the subject makes... in a half a dozen place, representative of his work -- so it cant be irrelevant or terrible it is his own words. Your wholesale deletion is in error, your justification is terrible -- surpring for someone claiming to be an admin. You must be aware of the ongoing dispute and you have inserted yourself in a rude manner... so now we are going to the mediation mats bud. -- Altoids Man ( talk) 16:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey you have no justification for deleting the information that is posted. We are going to get mediation. There is no "Concensus" on material on wikipedia. If you go to many poeople's pages there is true but unkind information posted. They may not like it, but it is true.
You reference to TERRIBLE is unsupported. All I did was to post REFERENCES THE AUTHORS WORK ON SOCIALIST PUBLICATIONS WHICH ARE NOT BLOGS. SO THERE IS NOT PROBLEM WITH THAT how can you call yourself an admin? And don't lecture me about the temperature -- it is quite cool around here for me don't you worry about that.-- Altoids Man ( talk) 20:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Was it appropriate for you to boldly move a longstanding article without any prior discussion or move request or consensus? Was it appropriate for you to then use your admin tools to block regular users from undoing your bold move without discussion or consensus? I would kindly request that you undo yourself, and go through the appropriate channels of requesting a move, and starting a discussion. At the very least, please consider un-move-protecting the article, as I consider that a clear abuse of the tools. - Andrew c [talk] 20:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Please note you are required to notify other users if you post about them on WP:ANI, I have done this for you on this occasion. Please user {{subst:ani}} to notify them on their talk page(s). Exxolon ( talk) 16:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any advice regarding dealing with him? Malay Agin ( talk) 03:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
-- Cybercobra ( talk) 10:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you've been doing some work at Paul Krugman. However, I also see that it's getting very heated there. Just want to warn you that some editors on there are experienced Wiki-lawyers, and they will count your edits and report you if you break WP:3RR. So, keep in mind all wiki rules, and make sure you don't break any. Best, and g'luck LK ( talk) 17:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Please don't remove fully formatted and valuable citations as you did here [4]. Calling it an "irrelevant" source as you did in your edit summary is also very misleading and borders on vandalism. The article is about Krugman and goes into some detail on his career and notability. If you want to use it in a different way that would be fine, but removing good sources like that is very damaging. There seem to be a lot of radical ideological partisans at work on Wikipedia trying to skew our article content to their liking, but we are supposed to base our articles on what reliable sources say, not on personal opinions. Take care. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I crated 'Partisanship' section to address lack of mention of Krugman's partisanship in the article. -- Vision Thing -- 12:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Roberto Micheletti. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Vercetticarl ( talk) 07:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
How wonderful. Thanks so much. I am pleased that you are helping to draw wider attention to this dispute. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback ( talk) 18:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I was thinking about dropping you a very similar one myself. We should certainly start over with this in a more relaxed tone. I apologize if I have irritated you. I was joining this case via WP:FTN where Doug noted that he was about to give up. Now Doug is indeed a "wikiangel" with a very sane and relaxed approach, and my experience tells me that when Doug's approach isn't working, it is time to insist on strict policy adherence more aggresively. But I may in this case have been too rash. I am talking about my tone and pace, I do stand by my assessment of the issues the article has.
Now, after I have apologized to you explicitly, I must return the compliment that "your edits have been unacceptable". You have edit-warred over the inclusion of cleanup tags even though an excellent case had been made for their presence. This action of yours was what triggered my anti-troll mode in the first place.
Now I would appreciate if you could show some awareness of the points raised.
-- dab (𒁳) 10:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
On your blanking of the
[5] specifically I have to say this,
"Not aware that it's plagiarism"? You're kidding, right? He's a babe in the woods about how sources should be used?
Maybe you missed this: [6]. See it? Look at the edit summary especially. He snottily rips out a whole paragraph because a citation doesn't have a page number, even though it's clear that the work cited doesn't even need a page number to be a supporting source.
You think it's possible that he doesn't know that people shouldn't rip off whole sentences and more from books?
If you don't think my documentation of his plagiarism belongs on the Paul Krugman talk page, tell me which admin you'd recommend for consultation. I've alerted User:SlimVirgin and copied the section you deleted to Susan Leschman's Talk page. But please: Don't tell me to take it up with a serial plagiarist. AND serial WP:PRESERVE violator.
I have put a note on his Talk page. I've told him where to look for the evidence I turned up. But I'm not going to talk to him. This is copyright violation we're talking about here, not just hairsplitting distinctions about admissible RS in BLP. That's illegal, remember? He has no business editing Wikipedia. Yakushima ( talk) 10:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with renaming the title page. The issue was not simply some question about edits by quantumechanic, it was specifically about his competence in the subject. If it is now judged that one cannot have a title like that at all (and presumably also not question the competence of an editor in the section itself), then clearly the whole section will have to go. The section is no longer relevant now anyway, so it can be deleted without problems. Count Iblis ( talk) 16:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This was a good move. I was EC-ed out of making a final response to Ncmv's accusations, so I've posted my response to my own talkpage. Thanks for your contributions at WQA. Unit Anode 16:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I rather not split hairs with you about my edits, I am here to talk? Off2riorob ( talk) 19:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello.
Since this is the last day I'll have this address (someone else gets the computer next week), I want to take this last chance to thank you. It's nice when clear heads prevail.
It's actually people like you that are the reason I haven't stopped editing entirely. (Well, that's not true. I'd still correct "it's" and "its" and similar mistakes no matter what. Obsessive compulsive over stuff like that) erm. anyways, thanks, and goodbye. :)
139.57.101.134 (
talk) 21:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Have I said something to offend you? I'm not sure why you think you're in a Turing Test?
Background to the last statement you responded to: I occasionally work for a bank as a sort of web-developer, and as part of my duties I monitor an internal wiki they're running. ^^;; So your analogy accidentally got compared to the real world. Sorry if that wasn't the intent? -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 00:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, last month you (re)added the following sentence to the World League for Freedom and Democracy article:
This sentence, as you noted in your edit summary, is from an October 2008 version of the article. However, this information cannot be verified as the only citation provided ( this NY Times article) appears to be unrelated. I discuss this on the talk page. Thanks. -- darolew ( talk) 13:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Good work. -- John ( talk) 17:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Very glad that you stepped in Lot 49a talk 20:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll third that. I'm amazed by the progress since you came along. Thanks. - Throwaway85 ( talk) 05:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey Rd232, saw your message on my talk page. As for my experience using Wikipedia, I have an internet connection. Occasionally, I will use a search engine. Wikipedia is always the first result. I've been here plenty, I just never created an account before. I'm aware of Wikipedia's general guidelines, and usual inability to follow them. As for any bias I may have, I stated on the PIRA page that I'm of Irish Catholic stock, and support a unified and free Ireland. I also support a neutral article. Speaking of which, good job on the PIRA article. It's nice to have an active admin there. The last guy was useless. - Throwaway85 ( talk) 23:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder if you would have time to look over these articles please, with a particular eye to neutrality, and possibly make some improvements: Anti-nuclear movement in the United Kingdom, Ernest J. Sternglass... many thanks... Johnfos ( talk) 07:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Toby Wilkinson. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! -- LaraBot ( talk) 00:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Was that an account ban or IP ban? I'm assuming he was proxy'd, but still. Throwaway85 ( talk) 12:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The word "Redacted" is used to mean that someone who MADE a comment has taken it back, so when I see "[redacted personal attack]" on my talkpage, I get the impression that the [redacted searing insult] who placed it thought better of it, when in fact, they were probably miffed that I didn't get to read it. Just to let you know. But, thanks for watching my page. -- King Öomie 12:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see User:O Fenian/Abuse for a partial overview, in particular the Irish general election, 1918 section. It has not been updated with recent edits, but as you can see from the talk page I have disputed their claim that their edit is sourced by Laffan and said so in edit summaries, yet they have continued to edit war breaking 3RR. This is the problematic edit, and this is the problematic addition.
That the Catholic electorate was not simply voting for separation is revealed by comparing some results especially where both stood. In East Donegal the IPP got 7,596 votes (the Unionist 4,797) while Sinn Fein received 46, yet in South Donegal with no Unionist, it was 5,787 votes for Sinn Fein to 4,752 for the IPP. In Tyrone North East it was 56 for Sinn Fein against 7,596 for the IPP but in adjacent Tyrone North West where no Redmondite ran, Sinn Fein polled 10,442.
Here is the relevant passage (certainly regarding Donegal, I can find no results for either "North West Tyrone" or "Tyrone North West"). As you can see, the source does not make the analytical claims that the editor says it does? O Fenian ( talk) 10:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I also asked the user to fix his sig, months ago. Would it be possible to block him until he changes it? That would provide him the incentive to pay attention to these messages, and it wouldn't have to be a long block (since it only takes 5 seconds to fix the signature). And, given his problematic editing style, I don't think the encyclopedia would be losing much in the interim anyway... rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 12:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Please feel to carry out the request here if you think it's appropriate. I have rejected the request and given my reasons there, but if you think it should be done, I have no objections :) ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
If I appear a bit gruff, this small outline of the issue my help to illustrate why. This is the IP on just one article the Hart Article.
Notice the type of Articles the IP focus on? This has to be addressed. -- Domer48 'fenian' 16:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Sound! Something has to be done. -- Domer48 'fenian' 17:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Different editor! Same attitude though. -- Domer48 'fenian' 17:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
A start was made on this issue before, lets hope it is seen through. -- Domer48 'fenian' 17:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Latest IP's
You never rendered an opinion on the proposal.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 12:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Since you're a major contributor to one or the other of these documents, I'm writing to let you know about a proposed merger which I wrote about at:
Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means#Understanding IAR and
Wikipedia_talk:Understanding_IAR#Merge. Any input on this would be appreciated.
—
V = I * R (
talk to Ω) 11:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed you've been 'deleted' from an editor's talkpage. Don't worry about it, I've been barred by 2 editors, from their respective talkpages. The best thing to do? just leave him/her alone. GoodDay ( talk) 19:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Now, how did I know, he was gonna 'delete' your advising him of his Rfc/U, without comment? Anyways, I hope ya'll can work things out. GoodDay ( talk) 19:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help on the James Caan (entrepreneur) page, following my appeal on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. However, the dispute's continuing, and I'm not sure what to do next :P The alternative spelling of the former name ("Khant") has now appeared in the Independent, a couple of days ago. However, the overwhelming majority of sources still say "Khan", the Independent's "Khant" didn't come from a direct quote, and given how frequently "Khant" has appeared on the Wikipedia page, my worry is that the Independent journalist could simply have drawn their information from that. I've put all this on the Talk Page, but I've not yet received a response. I'm also a bit suspicious of the user currently inserting "Khant", ( Macgrissom), whose other contributions to Wikipedia include what appear to be several instances of vandalism (eg [29])
Please can you help again???
Stephen 02:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.2.220 ( talk)
New User, similar posting style to Cromwellian Conquest, similar user page. I'm sure you've already seen him, and we must abide by WP:AGF, but I'd just like to bring his presence to your attention. Hopefully nothing will come of it. Throwaway85 ( talk) 10:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I would appreciate it if you would stop contributing to my talk page. I'm assuming good faith but you appear to lack all the background you need to issue warnings in this case. I have not yet been blocked for anything on Wikipedia, whereas members of the other party have, and the line I tried to add was properly sourced, taken from passages in a modern and widely read biography. Finally, we have different opinions on what counts as incivility and I cannot accept your characterizations. I suggest you let other admins handle what remains of the situation. Please do not reply on my talk page. DinDraithou ( talk) 02:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Rice-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 04:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
What happened to the RFC? Lot 49a talk 06:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Your behavior is becoming increasingly disruptive. Please cease your hounding of Domer. It's time for you to step back and to let uninvoled parties handle the situation. There is no need for you to make any additional postings on that editors talk page or to abuse the noticeboards and RfC process with any more frivolous attempts to pursue your personal vendetta. Please limit yourself to comments regarding article and content issues on the relevant article discussion pages. Thanks. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 16:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, your comments started out (and generally remained) quite civil, but there's not a clear explanation of the dispute or what intervention you're seeking from other administrators. Your one conspicuous slip into incivility was the sarcastic shot at CoM: [30]. While I gather and can appreciate that you may have found this process frustrating, it doesn't help anyone if you respond to goading.
Your initial post referred to half a dozen discussions and talk page posts, along with a deleted RfC, but never actually came out and said – clearly and succinctly – what the problem was with Domer48's conduct. You left the other editors on AN/I to play detective to find out the cause of the dispute. No, I didn't know that you were trying to mediate in a topic area that Domer edits — you didn't say so in your post to AN/I. The net result was that the only comments your request had so far attracted were from editors who had some experience with the particular dispute or the editors involved. That led (unsurprisingly) to bickering among those parties, and made it unlikely that any independent administrator would want to wade in to the mess.
And no, I made no attempt to dig through the background of the dispute. My comments were based solely on the fact that I saw a number of editors behaving badly at AN/I, and it didn't take a genius to see that if they didn't stop and take a breather, there would be pages of bickering and insults followed by a complete lack of resolution of whatever the underlying dispute is.
Lest there be any confusion, it should not be misunderstood that I believe that all of the parties to that discussion are/were behaving equally badly — the amounts by which the different editors fell short of expected standards varied considerably. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 18:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)