User talk:Yankees76: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:36, 11 February 2007

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Mediation Cabal regarding St. Catharines, Ontario

A request for informal mediation has been lodged with the Mediation Cabal, and I have taken the case and will be serving as the mediator. The request page for this case is viewable here. I'm going to have a read through of all the material and post all discussion on the article talk, although if you have any specific queries feel free to add them on my talk page. I just want to remind you that participation in mediation is voluntary, but should be a good starting point for discussion and help to prevent sanctions or administrative solutions. I look forward to discussing the article with you. Jem 15:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. It should be noted that I filed an AMA request [1] for this dispute already that has not been assigned. Also it should be noted that I have filed a formal complaint against Snickerdo on the Administrators Noticeboard. I'm not sure how this will affect this case, however in the meantime, if there is any background information I can supply you with for this, please feel free to let me know. Thanks. Yankees76 15:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. The AMA request should not affect this case, however, when an advocate is assigned to you, it would make life a lot easier if one of you is nominated to discuss, not both, to prevent confusion. It may also be worth noting to them that the case is involved in Cabal Mediation, for their own preparation. As for the Administrator intervention, it is entirely your perogrative to file such a complaint. If you feel that you would rather wait and see how this mediation pans out before following up your complaint it may be beneficial to all concerned, especially in the interests of preventing any further personal attacks and avoiding official sanctions. Administrators may also wait until such mediation has finished. Thanks for being receptive to the process, and I shall be shortly posting on the article talk page. Your views on the post and any other information would be very welcome. Jem 15:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the follow up. I've tagged my AMA case appropriately. Yankees76 16:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still want an Advocate? G e o. 18:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~:I don't think so Geo, but thank you for inquiring. I think the situaton worked itself out. How do you close an AMA request before it starts? Should I simply remove it? Yankees76~~ ::Actually, I might. It appears that despite resolution on the dispute, the other party involved now wants to make more out of what he perceives as me "unfairly" placing vandalism warnings on his talk page (they were not vandalism warnings - the user apparantly cannot tell the difference between types of warnings). His case is here.[2]. Thanks. Yankees76 21:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I'm not even going to bother with this issue or this user any longer, or waste your time on it. Thanks for the offer, I'll withdraw my request. Yankees76 22:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read the request, you would have saw that it had more to do with my inappropriate actions and wanting to get advice and assistance on how to clear up the situation rather than you. Respectfully, I must submit, that the world, indeed, does not revolve around you. I highly recommend that you refrain from communicating with me, just as I have done you - post titled "Are you kidding?" included - until mediation and the sort is cleared up. I can quite clearly see by your response and your attitute that third-party mediation rightfully needs to be involved. If you no longer want to be involved in mediation, I will submit that your request be withdrawn. Snickerdo 23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, if you want to get advice on the situation, it's probably a good idea to ensure you have your facts straight about two other Wikipedia users, one of whom is myself and the other an admin in good standing in the Wikipedia community - so you're damn right I'm going to call you out on it.

Your "version" of what happened - the one you're telling a potential AMA advocate is not even correct. Pull the edit history of the St. Catherines article and your talk page for that. I made the edit[3], you pulled it quoting unverifiable claims [4], I reinserted it stating as such [5].That's when I tagged your talk page with a template regarding removal of material (which I even stated i the edit summary - I did not even state vandalism there) [6] But you blanked it again [7] again quoting unverfied POV and proceeded to post an uncivil comment on my talk page. [8] That's when I warned you again [9]- for removing material - not vandalism. Then you personally attacked me [10] on the article talk page and post another uncivil post on another users talk page (one who was engaged in civil debate up to that point)[11]. That's a far cry from the "story" you're telling your future advocate.

Not only that, but you lie about the treatment you received with regards to "vandalism" warnings and threats of being "banned".

So I'm challenging you - provide the differences that show:

1) I posted vandalism templates on your talk page. ("Yankees76 then posted a vandal template on my :talk page and restored the line to the exact same place in the article. I removed the item again, recommending that the user see the article :talk page if he wanted to discuss its merrit in the article. Again, he continued to post templates on my own :talk page")

and

2) You were threatened with being banned from Wikipedia by an administrator. ("I was threatened with a final warning saying that I would be banned from Wikipedia.")

So, yes "I can quite clearly see by your response and your attitute that third-party mediation rightfully needs to be involved" it does, however I'm leaning more toward the administrators noticeboard, than a mere informal mediator. Yankees76 00:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get pulled into another argument with you, and frankly, I don't answer to you. I will, however, offer an olive branch validating my claims and recommend that you take a look at [12] and further read that I do admit to uncivil tone to loosing my temper as submitted in my AMA request. It is because of these identical false claims like the one you posted just now, mentions of the noticeboard, and your constant placing words into my mouth, that I am asking for member advocacy in dealing with you and anything you may cause. I don't disagree with many of the points in your AMA request, but I do disagree with how you are saying things did not happen that quite clearly did, and how you are still, even now, posting stuff like 'are you joking' on my talk page with regards to how seriously I am taking all this. I don't know how much more clear I can make it that we should not be talking to each other until this is resolved. I have not contacted you directly since the mediation was initiated and I requested that you do the same. I don't know in what other way or what other language I can post that says we should not contact each other until this is all sorted out. Simply put - stop it. Snickerdo 02:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snickerdo, I'm not interesting in fighting either. But put yourself in my position, I did not even look at the article, your talk or anything related to this for 2 days - I'm cooled off, calm and ready to close this up and let both of us put it behind us. But, when revisit the dispute, I find out that during mediation, you iniated another AMA case. Okay fine, I guess - but when I read what's inside that AMA case, I find numerous half-truths and outright falsehoods regaring myself and Glen. That's why I'm back on the warpath here. When I posted "Are you kidding?" on your talk, it was quite literally a question.

But let's be reasonable here, I've posted above the order that everything took place - see links 3-10 above, that's how it happened, from my first post to your attack. Have I put words in your mouth? No. You losing your temper once I can live with - all Wikipedians have done it, but to blatantly disregard my request for calm, cool and civility [13], and then dig up material from my user page to use as a personal attack/argument? That's not called "losing your temper". Be honest with yourself - there was more to this than that. Maybe you didn't want any negative information on the article you work so hard on, even though you know that it's not your own article or maybe you're overweight/obese and felt embarrassed - I don't know. There are definitely NPOV issues here.

And then this AMA case, where as I noted above, you accuse me of labeling you a vandal. That's not true. I used the following tags on your page: {{uw-delete2}}, {{uw-delete3}}, {{uw-agf1}}, {{uw-agf2}}, {{uw-agf3}} and finally {{uw-npa4im}} - none of which are vandalism tags. Secondly, Glen never threatened to ban you. He may have posted a delayed civility warning (for this [14] - which was posted bofore your mediation cabal request was even an hour old), but so did Mel Etitis. Glen's exact text "You removed my comment so you obviously read it, yet as noted by Mel above your incivility continues. Consider this a final warning. Either tone it down a notch or action will be taken." does not threaten a ban from Wikipedia Where do you get "outright banning from Wikipedia" from that? Do you see why I'm bit ticked off here? I don't pretend to speak for Glen, but I doubt he's even seen your AMA request. And I certainly am not impressed by constantly having to read that I'm calling you a vandal at every turn (and now even stating that I was "requesting that the admins ban me for this one single issue in an otherwise spotless Wikipedia record." - again not true - I asked for a 24 hour block [15] after your initial wave of personal attacks to let you cool your head - something you obviously needed).

Even if it's a request designed to help you, the very least you can do is be honest with the advocate.

So if you wonder why I posted on your talk page - that's why. Once this edit (which has now dragged on for about 5 more days than it should have) is taken care of, I'm done with you. Get over the warnings, get over the "Fattest" city tag, and just move on. I will to. I'm not going to mention your AMA case or anything esle about you except that little sentence until this whole dispute is over. This has gone way to far. Yankees76 05:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we obviously have a disagreement as to the way the events unfolded and I am both too tired and too flustered to post each and every one of my disagreements and grievances in detail yet again. This is why we both need outside help to resolve this. The cabal on St. Catharines appears to have been successful, now let's let the AMA deal with the other issues between us as needed. Needless to say - and I'm sure the feeling is mutual - I look forward to moving on and not having to deal with you ever again. Snickerdo 07:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia records a history of every edit. Perhaps your interpretation of words can be different than mine (one reason why I used templated warnings, instead of risking misinterpretation), but the history of events themselves really isn't up for debate. Yankees76 04:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to AMA Request

Hello Yankees76, I'm Dfrg.msc (talk · contribs) and I'll be your Advocate for your case: Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/January 2007/Yankees76. It is apparent that the user that you have been involved in conflict Snickerdo (talk · contribs) has launched a counter-AMA Case Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/January 2007/Snickerdo. I will find a resolution to this, however, you must be patient and civil. You have done the right thing in requesting an Advocate.

If you have any questions, just ask me at my talk page. Regards, Dfrg.msc 06:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what an AMA request will acheive at this point. We have reached a consensus on the material in question through mediation, and the user and I have had extenseive discussion regarding civility etc. I am concerned regarding some of the "facts" presented in Snickerdo's AMA case - as I feel two main points are simply not true. However I am willing to work with you on this if you feel you can smooth over hard feelings and improve overall civility in this dispute. Thanks. Yankees76 06:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. There are still some disputes to be resolved, and it may take me a few days to get started, I have to understand what is happening from the records. Regards, Dfrg.msc 06:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your patience.

Official Response

I have spoken to Snickerdo, it seems that now he acknowledges the wrongdoing on his part and wants to make positive out of it. I'm working on getting an apology from him. He's making steps to become a better user. I think a "forgive, forget and co-operate" mentality should be adopted here to prevent further conflict.

I don't think any real wrong doing has been committed on your part, however, Snickerdo would have, I'm sure appreciated if you had a little more patience. I future, try to give full warnings and propose a resolution in the face of personal attacks, in the stead of getting involved.

The only point of conflict that remains is is:

Do you still want the information in the Article? If so, then we will find a solution and compromise as to where to put it and how to put it in there?

Regards, Dfrg.msc 07:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I did give the full warnings, however I should have also simply left the talk page to allow a cooling off period. With regards to the information, a compromise has been reached and the article was updated with the last 12 hours. Thanks. Yankees76 14:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. With that would you agree to a "case closed"? Dfrg.msc 04:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We're good. Yankees76 05:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Case closed. Dfrg.msc 01:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey

Oh, I've just noticed taht you reverted abruptly what I tried to add to reduce bias in the Ice hockey article. Compliment for understanding!! I think you could be the typical Canadian die-hard for whom hockey is everything, and one trying to write about normal infos other countries can be easily tagged as "nonsense". Compliments!! Just a question: what are you doing here in Wikipedia? have you ever read a serious encyclopedia before? Why don't you create a site for yourself so you won't have to face other calm people adding their "nonsenses"? Do you know that an entire world exists after Terranova? Bye, and be happy with your Canada... although you have all strongest players, you'll have to wait until you'll win Olympics. Be sure. --Attilios 21:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 74: / Line 74: @@
 :::Yes. We're good. [[User:Yankees76|Yankees76]] 05:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 ::::Cool. '''Case closed.''' [[User:Dfrg.msc|Dfrg.]][[User talk:Dfrg.msc|msc]] 01:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
+==Hockey==
+Oh, I've just noticed taht you reverted abruptly what I tried to add to reduce bias in the [[Ice hockey]] article. Compliment for understanding!! I think you could be the typical Canadian die-hard for whom hockey is everything, and one trying to write about normal infos other countries can be easily tagged as "nonsense". Compliments!! Just a question: what are you doing here in Wikipedia? have you ever read a '''serious''' encyclopedia before? Why don't you create a site for yourself so you won't have to face other calm people adding their "nonsenses"? Do you know that an entire world exists after Terranova? Bye, and be happy with your Canada... although you have '''all''' strongest players, you'll have to wait until you'll win Olympics. Be sure. --[[User:Attilios|Attilios]] 21:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)