User talk:Ncmvocalist

Archives

1 2 3 4

Oops

Thanks for correcting me - here - on the community ban. Time to RTFM again! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Assessment

Hello, I've made some suggestions for the assessment department for WP Law and listed them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Assessment. I can help with a lot of whatever is needed to update the assessment department for WP Law. I do some assessment in WP Tax but I want to include assessment in WP Law as well particularly since there are so many unassessed articles. EECavazos (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thnaks

thanks for order

Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 06:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the close

That might have been my most surreal experience yet on this Wiki. Absolutely strange. One thing I don't deal in--never have, never will--is personal attacks. To be accused--and so vociferously--was a new experience for me, especially given that all I did to "instigate" it was defend Blechnic from false accusations. As it stands, I hope that user will quit finding incivility where there is none and move on, as it's not fun defending one's self against baseless accusations. S. Dean Jameson 02:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Which comments here fit that? User:Fritzpoll commented that we needed tea, which I agreed with. User:TravisTX was talking about Blechnic and not on the situation with Jameson, as he states. That only leaves User:Eusebeus, which accuses me of impropriety and doesn't offer suggestions. User:Xenocidic doesn't comment on the situation. And User:Jaysweet recuse himself because I asked him to remove his calling someone else a liar as inflammatory to a discussion related to the matter.

And, if you are to suggest that there isn't problems communicating with User:S. Dean Jameson, then please explain these(in reverse chronological order): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, et al.

Note - number 2 proves that there is a relationship between Eusebus. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're willing to accept the third party input given by myself at least, however reluctantly, then this is resolved. Otherwise, I stand by the recommendation I closed it with. The evidence is meritless, and you really should consider moving on, or taking it to the next step of dispute resolution as we can't help you here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I just want Jameson to leave me alone. I just asked for a small redaction of a comment that said that someone else couldn't read. I didn't want it to escalate, and I definitely don't need an editor to follow me across multiple pages. I tried to move on, but as the diffs I pointed out above, the other user has refused to. If you think that the evidence that I gave on the Wikiquette page doesn't show difficulty between two users, then you are definitely are in contradiction with User:Fritzpoll on the issue. Also, you did not provide any actual advice. You also claimed that I ignored others advice without anyone actually providing it besides one user. I think this is enough to warrant you to reverse your decision and to strike your comments accordingly. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

And one last thing about Fritzpoll. You conveniently left out his first comment, when he expressed dismay and confusion that you had even brought the "issue" to WQA. Several different users commented there. None agreed with you that I had any issues with civility. This is my last post to you, unless you should choose to post to or about me in this or any other place. S. Dean Jameson 03:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Commenting where you comment is not "following you." And you escalated it, not me. I haven't been badgering you with false accusations. If anyone needs to leave anyone else alone, it's you letting this drop, and leaving me alone, which would be fine with me. S. Dean Jameson 03:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• No one in that discussion (or the Blechnic one that began it) had any problem communicating with me but you. Again, Vocalist, thanks for the close. It will be interesting to see if OR lets this go now. S. Dean Jameson 03:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you an admin? Because I can't find a documented RfA, and I can't find any information that suggests that you are. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Let me cut to the chase. The answer is no. I have already demonstrated above why your closure of the page was improper. I can further document your relationship with one of the people that S. Dean Jameson improperly canvassed. If needed be, I will apply for an admin to remove your close, but I would prefer that you remove it. It was improper, as I have demonstrated above, and it was further verified by Jameson's posts on this page. If you are unwilling to do so, this will be noted, as I have pointed out that you already misstated my actions and the actions of others, and that you are unwilling to actually attempt any kind of mediation, but instead closed the issue before it was resolved. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither S. Dean Jameson nor Ncmvocalist are administrators, but I am. Ottava Rima, it is time to stop this. You have refused to accept that other editors have interpreted the sentence involved in a different way than you have, and that you have interpreted it in a way that was not at all what was intended. This is not the first time you have demanded that your position is the only acceptable one. This behaviour is becoming increasingly disruptive and has absolutely nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia. I repeat - it is time to stop. The close was appropriate. Risker (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

To all who are concern, the topic of discussion is Jameson's actions in regards to my person and constantly following me. They are not, as Risker has improperly claimed, about any of my feelings about a "sentence". Risker is also a close associate of Jameson, and clearly biased. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(cross-posted from my talk page)

Appropriate?

Risker, there are many problems with what you have previously stated. 1) "You have refused to accept that other editors have interpreted the sentence involved in a different way" This shows that you do not understand the case. Clearly, it is about the user not leaving me alone, not about the original comment that prompted him to follow me constantly, and to continue to treatment in an incivil way. 2) "The close was appropriate." My diffs prove otherwise, especially with Ncmvocalist clearly claiming a consensus that did not exist, and advice that did not exist. These two issues right here are serious, and I believe that your reaction, in light of these two, is problematic to say the least. And say what you want about my behaviour being disruptive. However, most people in the community know and value my mediation work, and I know when there is a problem between two users that needs outside help. If you are unwilling to see that Jameson refuses to leave me alone, then you are unwilling to actually look at the problem objectively. If you continue to threaten me in the manner that you have, while doing the proceeding, then I will have to file a complaint about you at AN, because you blatantly stated that you were an admin, which was a threat to use that power. I believe that you will do the right thing and strike your unbecoming comments.

Also, the fact that you were canvassed by Jameson previously (as seen here) shows that you are not unbiased, and you are abusing your authority. Such things have resulted in admin losing their priviledges. I expect an apology for you breaching a conflict of interest or I will file a report. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

See now, there you go again, Ottava Rima, trying to bully me this time. Now you are here on my talk page bragging of your mediation skills and stating that the Wikiquette Alert you posted was closed one way when it was actually closed quite differently than it was, and implying that I should be desysopped for agreeing with the closure. Ncmvocalist did not close the thread as having consensus, he closed as "Stuck - Filing party (Ottava Rima) does not agree with third party input".[1] In what Ncmvocalist will recognise as an unusual turn of events, I agree with his closing of that thread; your posts there imply that you will not be satisfied unless everyone agrees with you, while in fact nobody posting in that thread agrees with you. You and Jameson have been given advice—to disengage and leave each other alone. That means both of you. Your complaint on Ncmvocalist's page was that he made the closure despite the fact that he is not an administrator[2] and I have responded to let you know that I, as an administrator, agreed with that action; you can now no longer complain that his decision has gone unreviewed by an administrator.

Many editors ask me for my opinions and comments on articles; Jameson has done so a couple of times, and so have many others. I was going to suggest that you take this to one of the administrative noticeboards, fully expecting that you would be dissatisfied with the outcome, but it seems Ncmvocalist has already raised your behaviour in respect of this matter. I will cross post your comment and my response to Ncmvocalist's talk page, because it is better to keep things in one place. Risker (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between bullying and trying not to be bullied. By stating that you were an admin in the manner that you did, you initiated any kind of bullying tactic. Your use of terms like "bragging" and the rest are unnecessary and unwarranted. Furthermore, your understanding of what I said leaves much to be desired. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

To paraphrase what you wrote to me: "Strike your comments or I will take you to ANI." Or, even more simply, "Do what I want or I will make your life miserable." Sorry, OR, that is bullying pure and simple. You complained that admins didn't close the Wikiquette thread, so I gave you my opinion as an admin. I had to make a point of saying that I was an admin, because you were complaining about the lack of attention from admins. Now please drop this and find an article to edit, OR; I'm aware you do have some talent there and some of your article work has been seen favourably by some editors whose opinions I respect. I am quite concerned, however, with your insistence that everyone behave to your standards and agree with you on all matters. That is not a very effective way to operate in this environment. Risker (talk) 06:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Risker, can you see how "Neither S. Dean Jameson nor Ncmvocalist are administrators, but I am." may come off? I have struck the above claim based on AGF. However, the emotional response was real. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Risker's up-front identification that he is an admin was probably in repsonse to your earlier question about "Are you an admin?" which from an outside perspective seemed to indicate that you wanted the opinion of an admin. I didn't see it as any kind of a threat. Dayewalker (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That is why I struck according to AGF. I was lacking at the time. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You might like to keep an eye on this

I wonder if you would mind looking at this edit and keeping a watchful eye on the page and its talk page. Thanks. Abtract (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input

I would like to thank you for taking the time to review and comment on my RfC. I understand that doing so can entail a large commitment of time. While I do not claim to be perfect on this account, for the most part I have voluntarily decided to adhere to WP:1RR per the recommendations of others on the RfC. Hopefully this will address the bulk of your concerns.

On the proper interpretation of some aspects of WP:BLP and related portions of WP:RS I fear we may still disagree to some extent, but I would hope that honest editors who adhere to WP:AGF can agree to disagree on such things. In the end the details must be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the spirit and the letter of those policies and guidelines are being adequately adhered to. --GoRight (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It's praiseworthy you're voluntarily trying something - and as you say, hopefully this will address those concerns.

Re: BLP edits, my main concern is with the Fred Singer diff I put up at the ANI, and your response to it - I think I wasn't the only one that was concerned by them either (particularly, at the time). In any event, best of luck! Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Psychic

...yep: here. (LotLE×talk 18:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC))

Whoever opened it seriously needs to read WP:TLDR. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

On Civility

Dear Ncmvocalist, thank you for your kind message. I have been deeply aware of my own incivility so that the arrival of your message was not unexpected. For reasons that may be evident, I do not feel that I can offer my apologies to User:MiS-Saath, however I am in truth deeply saddened that I have behaved towards User:MiS-Saath the way I have done (paradoxically perhaps, I do not regret my uncivil behaviour - for this, I am inspired by the King in Shakespeare's Hamlet who somewhere says: I must be cruel only to be kind). It may be useful to point out that User:MiS-Saath has been shown to be involved in very dubious activities on Wikipedia in the course of the past days, such as forum shopping (evidently, User:MiS-Saath cannot have been acting as a scholar, rather as an agent provocateur, or a hooligan --- as I have mentioned it elsewhere, it is highly dubious that a citizen of Israel should introduce herself as an "Arab editor"; in the latter link she writes: "Hello fellow arab editors" - I do not hesitate to bring up the Israeli citizenship of MiS-Saath, because as I have indicated elsewhere, I have personally a deep bond with the Jewish community). This amounts to cyber-warfare against Iran, especially given the fact that User:MiS-Saath has not proved able to justify any of her edits (she has proved unable to provide a single reliable reference in support of her persistent and destructive edits; in response to my repeated questions with regard to references, her only response had been that it was up to me to prove that she was wrong! Yours sincerely, --BF 03:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC).
ps) The body of the above message is identical to that of the message that few moments ago I placed on the talk page of User:Nishkid64. --BF 03:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

8-) Toddst1 (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned

This line is a part of your imposed restrictions on my editing. Not that I accept them, or will modify my behaviour towards others who choose to denigrate Article standards in Wikipedia, but I became curious in reading the definitions, and was wondering if you would be able to clear up some questions for me?

This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.

1. What constitutes a "gross violations of fundamental policies"?

A disruptive editor is an editor who:

• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.

2. Is it tendentious to point out that if the information they want to add is self-evidently valid and important to the subject, it should be trivial to provide multiple citations from reliable sources which agree that it is both true and significant.

• Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.

3. Is editing "despite opposition from one or more other editors" when I cite sources and the opposition does not considered disruptive? Is it disruptive to insist that only once they have justified their edits beyond a reasonable doubt does the burden of proof shift to myself?

• Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.

4. Is accepting moderations compulsory? What is the role of consensus in the view of its subject-area relationship below?

Article standards

• Neutral point of view
• Verifiability
• No original research
• Biographies of living persons

Working with others

• Civility
• No personal attacks
• No legal threats
• *Consensus*
• Dispute resolution

In addition, such editors may:

• Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

5. While I am not new to the word "campaign", I wonder if you might be good enough as to explain how a Campaign to drive away productive contributors is conducted in Wikipedia?

Much appreciated--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Dear Ncm, I really don't have much to say in words today. For your kind actions and efforts over the past few days, I'd like to present this to you as my token of appreciation. Mspraveen (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Mangalore

Hi Ncm. With reference to the article's request for assessment, I realize from the failed FA nomination (as per User:Ealdgyth) that the article has a few reliability issues. Though Ealdgyth left it to other reviewers, I didn't quite see others giving much thought to this. I am not personally convinced by those sources. Can the A-class requirement discount this particular aspect before granting it the grade? I'm not quite sure about this as I haven't run through such an A-class assessment before. I could use your thoughts here before making a call. Mspraveen (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

On a totally different note, has the Tag & Assess 2008 tally been finalized and the Q&A circulated in the noticeboard as yet? I didn't find this at least. Is there a reason you are waiting before you do this? I've fed in my comments in the questionnaire to add to one set of entries. Mspraveen (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are you talking to me?

You know my opinion of you. Don't come to my talk page about stuff that does not involve you. I can't prevent it, but I will revert it from now on. ThuranX (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Ncmvocalist, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA. Thanks in particular for commenting on my positive approach! If ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have one small objection to the closing on my RfC

I have already added a comment to this effect on the discussion page but I don't want to modify your summary myself. I would appreciate it if you would modify the closing to clearly indicate that my topic ban was not a direct result of this RfC. Please state this explicitly, rather than implicitly as you may have already tried to do. --GoRight (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I ask you again, please explicitly indicate in your summary that the action taken against me through WP:ANI did not originate as an outgrowth of the RfC. Your current summary clearly leaves the erroneous impression that it did. --GoRight (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The community sanction link indicates that it was a result of ANI discussion - again, RFCs cannot directly result in sanctions as you suggest. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

By which rationale stated in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Closing_and_archiving have you taken it upon yourself to unilaterally declare my RfC closed without any consultation on the part of other participants? There was still on-going activity and edits on the main page right up until the day before you closed it. --GoRight (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_continually_editing_against_consensus

I've replied to you. Thanks for your input; interested to see your response. --Dweller (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

On the basis that what I really want is a good user editing well, not banned, I've gone ahead and started an RfC. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've already spent a good amount of time today on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarumio. I might add to it later, but perhaps others will help me out. --Dweller (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks

I appreciate the support here. Please allow me one major and two minor screw-ups per month. LOL. Anyways, thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol, sure - and you're very welcome. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

Ncmvocalist, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse for nominating me and Wizardman for co-nominating me.
                                                  — JGHowes ^talk - 19 August 2008

Mangalore A-class review

Well you mentioned there were some sourcing issues. I couldn't find any sourcing issues. If you mean the last 4 at the FAC, then they have been resolved at the FAc talk page Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Mangalore/archive1. Kensplanet (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

For further details on this assessment, it's best to contact Mspraveen - he was left to do this review to gain some experience on it. But briefly; he'd raised a concern that he wasn't convinced over the reliability of some sourcing - but he wasn't sure if it was a significant enough issue to fail the article. Beyond that, the dept haven't communicated on the issue and the article failed by default. If those concerns were resolved, then another member of the dept. would have looked at it and possibly one more after that before it passes. But I do think it's worth spending the time bringing it up to FA standard if it's just a referencing-template issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfB

Thanks for the comment. Really thanks, because I did wonder if people would miss the statement I wrote. I certainly took no offence at your placeholder neutral! If anything is still unclear, please feel free to ask. --Dweller (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's okay. ;) Just a note; I might not be around for a couple of days - will continue when I'm back. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

RfCs

May I ask why you're reverting my conclusions and inserting your own? Wizardman 16:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, just thought I'd check. For a minute I thought you rv'd me but I see what you did, it's fine. Wizardman 16:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Fasash Nua

How I got there: I remembered that he was at RfC/U, saw some more helpful comments from him at FAC, and clicked on his talk page, where I found the link. Sorry for the extra trouble I put you through; I'll know in the future to go through the main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Workgroup Indian music

FYI: There is a small discussion on whether there could be a workgroup created for Indian music within WP:India. Mspraveen (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

RfCs not showing up on RfC lists

Hi, noticed you as an in-the-know person ... I've been able to successfully place an RfC flag on Talk:eNom -- twice -- but both times it fails to appear on Template:RFCecon_list. Can you enlighten me if I'm doing something wrong, or help get it fixed if there's a bug in Wikipedia's code? Thanks. Thirdbeach (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing Sceptre's RfC from the approved list

Hi. Why did you remove the Sceptre RfC from the main RfC page?[3] Your edit summary says it's per an (incomplete) link to (somewhere on?) the page you removed it from, and per an AN discussion. Where is this AN discussion, please? As far as I can see, there's nothing about any RfC in the section named "Sceptre" on AN. I noticed MBisanz asking for someone uninvolved to make a judgment call whether to restore it here, and this is it: me. I'm uninvolved, and trying to form an opinion by, firstly, asking your reason for the removal. Please respond asap. Bishonen | talk 17:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC).