Revision as of 23:39, 7 April 2009 editDeacon of Pndapetzim (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators39,755 edits →Please assume more good faith: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:07, 8 April 2009 edit undoPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers286,414 edits →Concerning Dr. Dan and the AE boardNext edit → | ||
Line 330: | Line 330: | ||
::'''1 incident'''. How are diffs from November 2008 that Deacon cites there against Radeksz relevant to my complain about recent (last week) incivility by Dr. Dan? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 06:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC) | ::'''1 incident'''. How are diffs from November 2008 that Deacon cites there against Radeksz relevant to my complain about recent (last week) incivility by Dr. Dan? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 06:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
::: This is explained on the thread. ] (<small>]</small>) 06:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC) | ::: This is explained on the thread. ] (<small>]</small>) 06:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
If you don't have time for a mediation, here's a simple solution: please stop commenting about me and discussing me. In return, I can promise you that just like I've always done, I will never comment or discuss you. How does that sound? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 22:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Hi Deacon, it's me again == | == Hi Deacon, it's me again == |
Revision as of 22:07, 8 April 2009
16:22 Sunday 19 January 202515 January 2025 |
|
|
Misplaced Pages Signpost: 23 March 2009
- From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
- Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
- News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
- Misplaced Pages in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Osbeorn Bulax
On March 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Osbeorn Bulax, 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. |
User:Syjytg
Please see User talk:Syjytg, especially my message yesterday. I have tried to be as "uninvolved" as possible but there was definitely disruption going on today so I have re-blocked for 24 hours. Also, I left a message with another admin seeking advice; your input would be appreciated - here, there, or anywhere :-) Thanks! Frank | talk 13:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
GAN for Domhnall mac Raghnaill
Just a few small things, mainly a missing citation for a quotation. On hold. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Siward Barn
On March 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Siward Barn, 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. |
Shubinator (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Siward Barn, New England
Thanks for the interesting new articles on Siward Barn and New England (medieval) - I'd never heard of these before.--94.197.185.57 (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- No worries. Glad you enjoyed! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Northman
On March 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Northman, 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. |
Shubinator (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Cnut the Great and Harthacnut
Hi, I see we're back to square one again in the naming issue, though it should be easy to resolve. I suspect a quick reference to the RHS Bibliography should do the trick. Cavila (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello - Carina Axelsson
Thank you for your assistance. When I mentioned "edit warring," I wasn't referring to 3RR, but more along the lines of the fact that it keeps going back and forth, usually with a separation of about a week in between; I've tried to be thorough and let the other party know via Talk pages the reasons why I keep reverting it, but she has taken it very personally and I felt that rather than feed the flames, it's better to "speak" to someone more experienced. I apologize if I brought it to the wrong spot, but I appreciate your assistance.
Best to you PR (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, there'd normally be something on the talk page, Talk:Carina Axelsson, before further steps in dispute resolution were taken. Neither your nor your many opponents have posted there yet. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Query
Is there a reason you're avoiding my report? :-) Nja 19:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wasn't ignoring, it just took longer to read up on. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I know, I was just being impatient. Cheers. Nja 19:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Ælfhelm of York ... and Weston-on-Trent
Hi DoP, I saw your article about Ælfhelm of York and amongst the many facts I see that he is involved with Alvaston in 1004. The village where I live (which is within 5 miles of Alvaston) is signed into existance when Ethelred the Unraed gives the place to his henchman Morkar in 1009 (again about the same time as well). As this makes the village 1000 years old this year then interest is high. Any ideas about finding out more about Morkar? What I know is in the Weston article... Victuallers (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, it wouldn't be him. Keynes' Atlas of Attestations has a thegn called Morcar witnessing a bunch of his charters, and who is the beneficiary of several, like Sawyer 922 (dated 1009!), Sawyer 924, Sawyer 928. A guy of that name, with one Sigeferth, the "chief thegn of the 7 boroughs" is killed, on the betrayal of the betrayal-fond Eadric Streona c. 1015. That makes sense given his closely to Mr The Unready. So they may be the same person, i.e. as Morcar 2. Baxter's Earls of Mercia probably has stuff about him (too tired to check). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Heh. I was actually hoping that Morcar led to a disambiguation page, which apparantly it doesn't. I don't got Baxter, so it's up to you to look (grins). Williams' Aethelred the Unready says (p. 74-75) that he was mentioned in the will of Wulfric, brother of Aelfhelm and son of Wulfrun, where he was a major beneficiary along with Burton Abbey and Aelfhelm. It looks like Morcar was married to Ealdgyth (snickers) the daughter of Aelfthryth, the sister of Wulfric and Aelfhelm. Morcar in 1009 got lands in Derbyshire from Aethelred. Morcar had a brother Sigeferth. Page 112 has Morcar receiving land in Derbyshire in 1011 and 1012 from Aethelred again. Page 120 Williams speculates that Morcar may have been involved in swinging support in Northumbria behind Swein. In 1015, Morcar and Sigeferth were betrayed and murdered by Eadric, and Aethelred took both brothers lands, and imprisoned Sigeferth's widow. Edmund Ironside then freed the widow and married her. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, we prolly got enough info on this page alone for a stub. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Heh. I was actually hoping that Morcar led to a disambiguation page, which apparantly it doesn't. I don't got Baxter, so it's up to you to look (grins). Williams' Aethelred the Unready says (p. 74-75) that he was mentioned in the will of Wulfric, brother of Aelfhelm and son of Wulfrun, where he was a major beneficiary along with Burton Abbey and Aelfhelm. It looks like Morcar was married to Ealdgyth (snickers) the daughter of Aelfthryth, the sister of Wulfric and Aelfhelm. Morcar in 1009 got lands in Derbyshire from Aethelred. Morcar had a brother Sigeferth. Page 112 has Morcar receiving land in Derbyshire in 1011 and 1012 from Aethelred again. Page 120 Williams speculates that Morcar may have been involved in swinging support in Northumbria behind Swein. In 1015, Morcar and Sigeferth were betrayed and murdered by Eadric, and Aethelred took both brothers lands, and imprisoned Sigeferth's widow. Edmund Ironside then freed the widow and married her. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, it wouldn't be him. Keynes' Atlas of Attestations has a thegn called Morcar witnessing a bunch of his charters, and who is the beneficiary of several, like Sawyer 922 (dated 1009!), Sawyer 924, Sawyer 928. A guy of that name, with one Sigeferth, the "chief thegn of the 7 boroughs" is killed, on the betrayal of the betrayal-fond Eadric Streona c. 1015. That makes sense given his closely to Mr The Unready. So they may be the same person, i.e. as Morcar 2. Baxter's Earls of Mercia probably has stuff about him (too tired to check). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Blimey guys! I am impressed. I came back today to look for the "sorry too busy .... try the British museum.... and as you say there is enough for a stub! Who gonna write it? Thanks.... looks brill. Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
List of nationalities ie, Greek
Hello, I noticed your comment on the list of editors nationalities that Husond has produced. You seem to think it is not a bad idea. I have to ask you, if I were to compile a similar list of those voting in the British Isles naming dispute where there have been accusations of British bias, would it be acceptable? Jack forbes (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- The information is useful in both cases, but doesn't need to be compiled in such a manner. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- How would this information be better compiled? Incidentally, as you may have noticed I don't agree with the list. A (bad) precedent would be set throughout wikipedia. Jack forbes (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it prolly shouldn't be done the way Husond did it. The information is usually quite obvious in any case. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Ælfhelm of York
On March 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ælfhelm of York, 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. |
Hemming and Hemming's cartulary...
I haven't been able to turn up pages on either of these, but figured I'd check in with you in case you know of one. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- G Books. Pertinent info on ODNB article about Hemming of Worcester. This help? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, unfortunately, wikipedia's coverage of everything to do with historical writing in this period is very limited. I think of the scores of works listed in Gransden's Historical Writing, wikipedia has articles on just a handful. I'm am gonna try to remedy this though. I'll keep you updated. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Quick work. There was me planning a ten-line article on Hemming! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages Signpost: 30 March 2009
- From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
- Special report: Community weighs license update
- News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
- Misplaced Pages in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Awaiting explanations
You as an administrator have some explaining to do. You imposed the restriction to Vacio with what base? Did you just check that there was some report with diff (all of which out of context) and placed that restriction? And this diff of yours is, to say the least, very weird. You are comparing Vacio's behavior with Azturkk, who got away with this on the basis that it was only possible in spite of the fact that they have done the same thing as him (the him being Azturkk), with the same broken grammar, which is nearly nothing other than edit warring. Check his contribution, besides two insignificant edits in a talkpage, this editor has reverted, removed without most of the time even an edit summary and zilch in the talkpage and totally ignored (and now removed) other's comments. And I hope you have better arguments than Ibrahim Khalil Khan. As the main point is that Vacio discussed all his changes (I will not waste my time exposing yet again the way Grandmaster is distorting this). Of course, unlike Vacio who discussed his changes and edits in a civil manner in the talkpages, Elsanturk who made all those reverts in the last days , , , , , , , , , did not even bother witting one line in the talkpages... only writing comments in the summaries which shows that he was clueless of what was being discussed. And your claim that Elsanaturk's violation was three days ago is funny. Now please explain this, was it not you who added this? Was it not you who answered twice to Meowy's request, declining it for something which happened a week prior to when it was filled?
So let me get it straight, Meowy was blocked for an incident which happened a week ago. And the main responsible party of the edit war, which has contributed zilch in the talkpage and acted as a meatpuppet (Baku87 got a block for less for having done the same thing) got away with it. Vacio was placed under restriction for having made few reverts and he was civil and discussed all of his edits in the talkpage and again he was reverted by the same user, who again has not added anything in the talkpage nor discussed anything. This user now is excused because the edits were done 3 days ago. It's not that I am surprised of the inconsistency and the nonsense coming from administrators but that you guys come back with more inconsistency and nonsense is what I have a problem with. Either enforce the rules fairly or don't enforce them at all. - Fedayee (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- @Fedayee: How about assuming a bit of good faith here? I don't have any knowledge of the edits and only a little knowledge of the admin being excoriated here, but...I think you'll find such questioning will go a little better if you are not so confrontational. Frank | talk 21:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- You have the power to block users and place them under restriction. The only power I have against the questionable way you administrators impose your power is to higher my "voice" because then I will receive some form of reply... if not for the content of the message, at least for the tone I have used to show my dissatisfaction. Wiki history has unfortunately shown that otherwise, users are ignored. - Fedayee (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry you feel that way; even admins I don't particularly respect are usually here primarily to help the project, not wield their "power". As for "Wiki history", I suggest you take action if you feel a specific admin is being capricious. Admins are certainly not infallible, and if there are problems, something should be done. Frank | talk 17:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- You have the power to block users and place them under restriction. The only power I have against the questionable way you administrators impose your power is to higher my "voice" because then I will receive some form of reply... if not for the content of the message, at least for the tone I have used to show my dissatisfaction. Wiki history has unfortunately shown that otherwise, users are ignored. - Fedayee (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
April Fool's DYK for New England (medieval)
On April Fool's, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article New England (medieval), 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. |
Thank you for your contribution to the April Fool's Day fun! Royalbroil 00:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Just curious...
...about this indentation... Don't we usually just tag these with a {{spa}} note and leave it to the crats to figure it out? –xeno (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- cheers - I've swapped it around. Just because there's no indication that the !vote was made in bad faith, or what-have-you. –xeno (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
re User:Sickofdoublestandards
Actually, his last revert was after I had posted two warning messages to his talk page, but if admins like you and Alansohn are going to monitor the situation, that's fine. I only got involved because I was monitoring "recent changes" and his addition was pretty clearly the work of someone with an axe to grind. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, if he continues drop me a note (in case aI don't see it myself). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Block of User:Matthew
Hi there, I was investigating an unblock request on the other user (Magnius (talk · contribs)), but I noticed that you blocked Matthew (talk · contribs) as well. I was under the impression that NFCC violation removals were an exception to the 3RR, and that his removal did appear to be valid in that the image, at least in my opinion, failed NFCC#8. Of course, I'm not as well-versed in the dispute, so I dunno what all the details were, but I figured I'd just drop a heads up in case I missed something. :P Anyway, cheers =) --slakr 14:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- A valid exception is for reverting content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy; in this case, "unquestionably" doesn't really fit. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Except that it is inherent upon those wishing to insert such material to prove that NFCC is fulfilled. Until that point, the material should not be in the article, not the other way round. Black Kite 18:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- in my novice opinion, if established editors are disagreeing over an interpretation of NFCC#8, then it stands to reason that it's not an "unquestionable violation". –xeno (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Suspicion
Hello Deacon! I, and XPTO, suspect Sifilis122 of being a sockpuppet of Cosialscastells (see this). This suspicion is based in his general attitude (disruptive editing, personal harassment, same POV agenda - see his edits in Spanish Empire) and specifically in this edits: Portuguese Restoration War (Cosialscastells); Portuguese Restoration War (by sock Datiusnerva; notice the addition of the same sources and external link); War of the Portuguese Succession (Datiusnerva); Portuguese Empire (Datiusnerva; notice the edit sumary "Portugal was ruled by the branch of spanish habsburgs, not the austrian one's", which clearly brings to mind Sifilis122's sumaries); Philip II of Spain (Datiusnerva; same sources added). In fact don't you also find it suspicious that a new editor, with only 1 day in wikipedia and a total of 47 edits, perfectly knows his way around and shows the same behaviour (even going to the point of having the same sources and using the same arguments and even words!) as a known and disruptive master-sockpuppet? This needs looking into. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've invited Black Kite to review your comments, as he has previously dealt with this banned user. I'll probably review it thoroughly myself later. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was thinking of opening a new case in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Cosialscastells/Archive. Should I not do that? The Ogre (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, create a new SPI. I can't help much as I was only the blocking admin for a fairly standard block (edit-warring, incivility, refusal to Get The Point). The new editor does quack quite a bit, though. Black Kite 17:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it seemed there could be enough for a Duck block, but bothering the CUs for a SPI might be worth it, for the sake of certainty and in case he's got other sleepers lying about. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'll do it then. Cheers and thanks! The Ogre (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Cosialscastells/Archive. There won't be any problem because it's an archive, will there? Thanks. The Ogre (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- You'll prolly need to move it out of the archive to an active case. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's now at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Cosialscastells. Is that ok? The Ogre (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not fully up-to-date on the bureaucratic idiosyncrasies of SPI, but it looks ok and the location is now correct. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's now at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Cosialscastells. Is that ok? The Ogre (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- You'll prolly need to move it out of the archive to an active case. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Cosialscastells/Archive. There won't be any problem because it's an archive, will there? Thanks. The Ogre (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'll do it then. Cheers and thanks! The Ogre (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was thinking of opening a new case in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Cosialscastells/Archive. Should I not do that? The Ogre (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks once again. The Ogre (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Edit war resuming on Bible prophecy
Now that your ban on user:Back2back2back has expired, he has recommenced edit-warring. My attempts to build on a correct version of the article are being replaced with some garbage involving Tyre being rebuilt by time-travelling Romans several centuries before imperial Rome existed, and similar silliness. --Robert Stevens (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- ...Hmmm. Maybe he's now backed off, no revert for a while. --Robert Stevens (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Prolly because he was listing you on WP:AN/3 (Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Robert_Stevens_reported_by_User:Back2back2back_.28Result:_.29). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Mixed acronyms
I believe you mixed up your acronyms here (BK->MZM). –xeno (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Lol, cheers! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Thored
On April 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thored, 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. |
DreamGuy
I was initially satisfied to see that User:DreamGuy received a significant block for his most recent of many wikipedia violation, however after reading his request to be unblocked I am concerned that he will be unblocked all too soon, and that I will then begin to feel his obsessive wrath of harassment and wikistalking. What jpgordon wrote is true: "If we just unblock "every time", it's hardly preventative". Please tell me what it means if DreamGuy "voluntarily accepts a 3 month 1rr restriction"? What is an 1rr restriction? Thank you. Unionsoap (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- It was me that said that. A 1rr restriction is a restriction which limits the editor in question to 1 revert per article per day. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Please assume more good faith
I have asked others to review some of your recent edits here. I'd appreciate it if you could review your behavior, particularly in light of WP:CIV/WP:AGF/WP:NPA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I believe there is a question of mine you have missed. I wonder what made you stumble upon my edits to battle of Wilno (1655)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- What's your reason for asking, Piotrus? I don't normally chronicle how and when I watchlist various articles. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I am asking before I don't understand why you appeared there and why do our interactions lead to so much uncivil accusations and assumptions. Perhaps we should try a mediation? Would you be willing to do so? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Edits like the one you made to AE don't help things. Ask me again after April 17. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Why? We have currently more then one ongoing unproductive (to say the least) discussion. Unless we are going to withdraw from them, I think we should prioritize trying to patch the things. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have RL things impending for around that date, and beginning any such thing before then would thus be pointless, as I wouldn't have the time to post anything. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Still, you seem to have plenty of time to continue your arguments on talk and elsewhere: , , . I again ask you to consider a mediation instead.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I shouldn't really though. Won't have time to commit to any such exercise until after the 17th. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Ireland naming discussions
Hiya Deacon. I've absolutely no problem, with allowing outsiders to decide those article names. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- GoodDay, as you're Canadian you must surely know you'd be an insider too ... as a Canadian, you are essentially English. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- We could ask these guys. Choose a group of village elders to decide. They'd be outsiders, right? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages Signpost: 6 April 2009
- Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
- News and notes: Statistics, Misplaced Pages research and more
- Misplaced Pages in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
- Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
- WikiProject report: WikiProject China
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Your opinions are requested
I would appreciate your opinions and contributions at an essay I am working on: User:Chillum/Discrediting your opponent. It is only a stub, but I think a significant essay can be written on the subject.
The more brains I have helping me the better I can get this concept across to people. More brains can also be a potent sanity check. I have a lot of respect for your ability to understand logical fallacies so I think your input would be invaluable. Chillum 01:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Concerning Dr. Dan and the AE board
Hey there, I see that there is a bit of a tift going on at the AE board between yourself and Piotrus. I'm here randomly to see if we can work this out.
I think that Piotrus is correct in making a new subsection for your complaints against Dr Dan not just by policy, but it's really in your best interest to have that as a subsection if you want to bring that particular user to the attention of the powers that be. Your point, in my evaluation, is correct about said user's editing but I think it gets lost in your post and rightly deserves its own section. Maybe you can reword it and make it its own right?
Either way, it clearly by policy deserves its own section. Let's not revert and work this out. :)
Happy editing to you. Keegan 05:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keegan, it's not good practice and is contrary to widely accepted etiquette to move other people's comments (esp. when you are representing opposing arguments) around and slap POV-headings over their comments. Headings are there to assist navigation, and there is no such argument here. There are enough headings in that thread already. "Edit-wars" on the matter are avoided when such practice and etiquette is adhered to. Quite simple really, I think, and not too much to ask. Happy editing to you too. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I see how muddling your post and train of thought can be offensive. On a personal level, I wouldn't care, but it's your perogative to of course since it's your name under license. What I'm saying is, there is truth the what the point of the edit was as opposed to the action that occurred. You do need a new thread to bring in third parties in Arb enforcement. Turn a nice phrase in your own words and move on from the fact that it was Piotrus who done it. It looks like you two have issues of your own to work out. That's none of my business so my point is that a new section is required. That my 2¢, and probably all that it's worth. Nothing more from my end, happy editing to you. Keegan 05:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it could be offensive, but more relevantly here it's confusing and misleading. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
That section is about Dr. Dan, not anybody else. If you want to discuss Radeksz or me, please do it in a separate section. There is no reason an admin or arbitrator reviewing my complain about Dr. Dan should care about Radeksz. Please, refactor the comments and section headings (or start a new AE request against me and Radeksz) so that topics not about Dr. Dan are not in the section about him. That's what confusing: that in a section about Dr. Dan, about 80% of content is about Radeksz. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Piotrus, as you know already the discussion about Radeksz only came up because of your evidence concerning Dr Dan's interaction with the latter. I did not introduce a discussion of Radeksz, rather, Radeksz did by asking me to elaborate, which is a normal part of discussion. That's why we call it discussion. The evidence posted thereafter remains relevant to the Dr Dan request because it allows the reviewing admin to have a better overview of the context. I'm experienced in dealing with AE requests in other areas. There's just no need to refactor any comments, and doing so would be confusing. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- You have brought Radeksz into this, by posting in your opening comment "he is not by any means half as problematic a user as, for instance, User:Radeksz whom Piotrus has gone to a lot of trouble to protect", to which Radeksz responded. Discussion of Radeksz, however, is irrelevant there; this thread is about Dr. Dan, not about edits Radeksz made 2 months ago and in a situation where he didn't interact with Dr. Dan. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'm afraid I disagree with your assessment of the relevancy. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Commenting on style here, generally each user/incident under discussion should have its own heading. If breaking it out under a case heading with 2 subheadings (one for each user complained about) works, that would be ok. But yes, generally it should be 1 thread for 1 incident. MBisanz 06:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- 1 incident. How are diffs from November 2008 that Deacon cites there against Radeksz relevant to my complain about recent (last week) incivility by Dr. Dan? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is explained on the thread. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- 1 incident. How are diffs from November 2008 that Deacon cites there against Radeksz relevant to my complain about recent (last week) incivility by Dr. Dan? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
If you don't have time for a mediation, here's a simple solution: please stop commenting about me and discussing me. In return, I can promise you that just like I've always done, I will never comment or discuss you. How does that sound? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Deacon, it's me again
Hi Deacon, I saw what's been happening on the Carina Axelsson page, and I was afraid of this, which is why I reported it before. Unionsoap, who "warned" DreamGuy, has been accusing me of having a COI for this page, which is completely, completely unfounded and absurd; I do a bit of editing around royalty issues and know a bit about this person. As I mentioned before, each time I tried to speak to him/her on his/her talk page about his/her fandom of Axelsson, he/she got completely bent out of shape and started hurling accusations. It seems like we have a crazed fan there - not like that's ever happened on Wiki before, to be sure!
I edited the page further, since the consensus was that Axelsson is notable and that the entry stays. However, I added some items as to why Axelsson is considered controversial, which is one of the defenses that Unionsoap used to state a "Strongly Keep." I'm about as certain as it's possible to be that once Unionsoap comes out of his/her penalty box, he/she will start editing again to polish up the reputation of the subject of the article.
I don't know if there's anything to be done here at this time, but I thought I would give you a heads-up. It might even need to be locked. Who knew that the girlfriend of one of thousands of minor German princelings, whose boyfriend paid for her books to be published, would generate this? Silly life.