Heya. Addshore told me to talk to you about being adopted on wiki!! I know you're sick so no rush and i hope you get well soon!! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nisior (talk • contribs) 23:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your help at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal4 would be appreciated. We've narrowed the differences, but we can't seem to get there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This may be outside of your area, but it's a related side dispute in case you're interested. Talk:Prem Rawat/Lifestyle. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I hope your feeling better. This dispute seems to need more active mediation, if you're up to it. If you're still feeling poorly and need to resign as an informal mediator I'm sure we'd all regret that.
- Can you please have a word with Francis? I have tried to resolve the issue with transclusion, but he seems to be set in his mind that his personal version of that page is the only way to go. I had enough of these shenanigans and stupidity. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jossi has been edit warring over this page for the last day, first trying to delete it ourtright, then shuffling the sources around in various ways, now creating subpages that delete sources. It's very disruptive and serves no purpose. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a message here, at the top. Quite frankly, I'm appalled. Edit warring in my userspace? Common courtesy, please. If there's an issue in my userspace, my talk page is the place for it. Will, you previously posted something earlier today, it was a little unclear, sorry I didn't respond. But, really. Edit warring in my userspace is just not on. Steve Crossin (contact) 20:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What has no purpose is the insistence of Francis and Will to keep a talk page as theirs and stubbornly fight any attempts to make that page a communal page that can be improved. They gave tag-teamed against me in their pursuit to WP:POINT for their "proposal". Shame, shame, shame. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)I'm sorry Jossi, but there's not a lot that I can do. I am keeping a closer eye on the pages now, but as you know, a mediator has no power to actually enforce any rules, at least not directly enforce them. I have the pages watchlisted, and I'll keep an eye on the situation, but I don't think there's much more that I can do there. If it's in my userspace, I have a little more control over it, but out of my userspace, there's nothing I really can do. Steve Crossin (contact) 21:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Improvements are welcome, but should they shouldn't be unilateral in the face of opposition. Jossi's first three "improvements" were to blank the page.[1][2][3] He's continued to make major changes despite explicit requests to stop and discuss. He's never given any policy-based justification for his editing. I'd like to add more sources but the situation is now totally screwed-up. And now Jossi is saying that he's abandoning the requirement to assume good faith.[4] This is very disruptive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did you allow Francis to deleted my additions to the sources page? Why? How can I assume good faith when you turn a blind eye to Francis removal and insistence? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do the right thing and re-add the material that I added to that page, and move the "summary" to a discussion page, and I amy be able to re-assess if AGF is worth to be extended: Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Blind eye? Heck, I can't follow what you two are doing. I'd appreciate it if you'd both stop moving the pages and rearranging the sources without consensus. And you deleted sources too, so you're in no position to complain about the other guy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of you, cool it. I understand this is a contentious topic, but both of you are administrators, and you have both been on Wikipedia for a long time, far longer than I have. I don't believe I'm saying this, but both of you, step away from the computer for half an hour, drink some tea, and come back later when you have both calmed down. Steve Crossin (contact) 21:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I mean it, seriously, step away from the computer. I find that's the best thing to do sometimes, to just step away from the PC, have some tea, or have a chat with Mel. Do whatever relaxes you. Steve Crossin (contact) 22:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I hear you. I may come online later in the night and fix the complete mess by simply re-adding the material that was deleted, keeping that page exclusively for sources and moving all other stuff to the discussion page. Hope that Will lends a hand as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopefully that will work. Will, I hope you can just take a break. Personally, I'm exhausted. Steve Crossin (contact) 22:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I took a break as asuggested by Steve. I oppose Jossi being the editor to "fix the complete mess" unless that means going back to the material we had yesterday and simply adding to it. His shuffling, sorting, segregating, and deleting of sources and the splitting and moving source pages has been the cause of the complete mess. I object to his unilateral decision that sources need to be split into two separate lists rather than one simple, easy to maintain list. If he wants to re-organize the page he should get a consensus before doing so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will not split anything. I will leave the material as originally added, add the material that was deleted in the shuffle, re-add the discussion that was segregated to a separate page, and add a table of contents for easier access. I will also delete the pages I created for transclusion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for cleaning up most of the mess you created. I'm going to simply put the sources back into chronological order so we can stop this mischief. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Steve, Jossi's constant attempts at manipulating NPOV into something else are getting ridiculous, I mean honestly. Can you please explain to him how manufacturing the word "pejoratively" is an obvious distortion of what the sources say, he obviously doesn't listen to me or can't understand me. -- Maelefique (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello there. I've seen the recent dispute about the Cagan source. I'm pretty sure that everyone in the dispute has my userpage, so I will say this, at least for now. There's no doubt that things in this case are disputed, and sources are among them. The question with the use of sources on Wikipedia almost always is a question of whether the source is reliable, and whether or not the use of the source gives undue weight. Since the start of this case, I haven't seen many of the sources myself, so I haven't really been able to judge the sources. However, I've actually obtained a library copy of Peace is Possible, by Cagan, and I'll be going through it, for now I'd suggest it would be best, for the time being, to work on a different proposal. It seems clear that an agreement on the use of Cagan isn't going to be determine, at least for now. At this point, I'd normally suggest a Request for Comment, however since I took on this case, I've seen just how contentious the Prem Rawat related articles are, and the fact that users are unwilling to become involved in it. As such, I doubt a Request for Comment would be unlikely to get much, if any, outside input. I will think about this and see what I can decide, but I do think that only a compromise will work. In my experience as a mediator, I find that all or nothing, as in, no use of the source or use of it in any way at all, rarely if ever has any success. The first case I mediated, in early March of this year, was a dispute over the use of a source. Compromises were suggested and were refused, and as a result, the mediation was unsuccessful, and as a result, the article is now indefinitely semi-protected, to prevent anonymous edit warring. I really wouldn't like to see this case go the same way, because of a possible unwillingness to compromise. Steve Crossin (contact) 06:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck, you've got a link to a contact page but not your talk page (in your signature)? :p Anyways, I'm honored by the invite, but I try not to associate myself with any one WikiProject because as you might have guessed, I like to edit on any type of article no matter what the subject. So I try not to focus on a single topic for too long :) But I will certainly help out where I can! As you can see from my user page, I do a lot of Good Article reviewing, so I hope to see one of yours up at WP:GAN soon ;) Gary King (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you rally people together to build an article to FA. That will get the heart pumping in the WikiProject. And I suggest that the article be Jack Bauer ;) Gary King (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you indent your messages instead of bulleting them? They read like a to-do list or something :p Anyways, I'll help out when I can, but most likely like everyone else it will be when the next season begins :) Gary King (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I would love to and no worries about the wait. Nisior (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't come on IRC again... did you somehow lock your channel or something? :/ -- RyRy (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 23:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steve! Thanks for speedily deleting TM Tecnomatic on 8 July. (I nominated it for deletion. It was my first use of the AfD facility, and a useful learning experience.)
TM Tecnomatic spa is one title that re-directs to TM Tecnomatic. (There may be others). Whose responsibility is it to delete these re-directs? In this case, it may have been mine. If you are able to delete TM Tecnomatic spa please do so. Alternatively, if you let me know I will work out how to delete it. Best regards. Dolphin51 (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The redirect has actually already been deleted ;). It's generally the task of the deleting administrator to delete any redirects to an article that they delete. Not something I can do :). But you can in future tag the redirects with
{{db-r1}}. Hope that helps :). Steve Crossin (contact) 06:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
