here are the changes I'd like you to roll backhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yao_Ming&diff=241273381&oldid=241268379
here are the changes I'd like you to roll backhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yao_Ming&diff=241273381&oldid=241268379
Thanks[[User:Zzmang|Zzmang]] ([[User talk:Zzmang|talk]]) 05:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks[[User:Zzmang|Zzmang]] ([[User talk:Zzmang|talk]]) 05:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
:You used a sockpuppet to [[WP:EW|revert war]]. I suggest you don't do so again. Incidentally, I can't see why you're getting so worked up about what seems to me to be basically a very minor semantic change which doesn't affect what the reader sees. Might be a good idea to forget about it, click [[Special:Random|here]] and move on :-) [[User:David.Mestel|David Mestel]]<sup>([[User Talk:David.Mestel|Talk]])</sup> 14:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to User_talk:David.Mestel/Archive_08. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Hi, would you mind explaining your summary on the project page, or point me to where the procedure is explained? It has to do with Proposed Remedies #3 and #3.1, of which you transfered only 3.1, even though both passed. Does the numbering convention require that only one of any such grouping is to be included in the final decision, and if so how is the choice made among multiple passed versions? Thanks! (Please reply here, I'll check back.) rudra (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. There is currently no well-defined system for determining which of alternative proposals pass (all proposals with subsidiary numbering, like for example 3, 3.1 and 3.2, are alternative to each other), although I have set out some thoughts about what such a system should be here. Generally, clerks set out their thoughts on closure in the "Implementation notes" section, to be commented upon by arbitrators. In my close, I relied upon the fact that Daniel commented "finding of fact 4.1 ... appears from first reading to have a stronger "first choice" preference ... with remedy 3.1 being in a similar situation to finding of fact 4.1", to which no arbitrators. Additionally, both proposals appeared to have the same number of first choice votes (five), and 3.1 is more recent and has fewer opposes. David Mestel(Talk)15:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few things, in no particular order:
Excellent start with the essay. The lack of a formal procedure is definitely a hole in the arb process, inviting snafus such as inadvertent exercise of judgment by the clerk based on implicit assumptions (that is, the clerk isn't aware that he should really ask the arbitrators about something, because the answer seems "obvious", when in fact it isn't) and the potentially severe problems with any resolution mechanism that arise in the (albeit rare) situations where more than two alternatives exist (see, e.g., Arrow's impossibility theorem.) Explicit rules are certainly preferable. I'd like to see your essay aired for feedback and eventual inclusion in the process pages.
I think Daniel was referring to 4.1 and 3.1 being similar in neither of them having yet passed at that point, rather than in apparent strength of preference. In any case, it may be a good idea to add a note on your reasoning to the Implementation Notes section, just for completeness.
I'm not so sure about your late addition to the rule-set with respect to times, especially when the times aren't far enough apart: if they're both part of the same login/edit session, the one further down the page could have a later time-stamp simply by virtue of one's working habits. OTOH, if the arbitrators were aware of your rule in advance, and consciously took it into account, then it could work, as they could obviate a default "wrong" choice by adding an explicit indication. I realize that you used the rule to break the tie in this particular case (James F.'s votes), but there's room to argue that this could have been an "obvious answer that really wasn't".
One final detail, on a completely different matter, having to do with archiving. The FoF:4/4.1 cite evidence in the /Evidence page that exists only virtually, by template. It may be good idea if you, as the clerk for the case, subst-ed it to get the actual contents into the page history, lest the evidence morph in the future.
David is also an arbitration clerk and would know that the case closed. I've made comments like this to him sometimes too and the answer is that there has to be a cut-off point sometime or the report will never be finished. I'm sure he'll be reporting on the final decision in this case next week. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring BloomTheres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~
If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hope you had a good holiday :) Just wanted to confirm whether you'll be able to take care of Monday's arbitration report (if not, don't sweat it, and I'll cover it). A note as to whether you'll be able to or not, at WP:POST/N/O or on my talk page, would be great in helping me plan for Monday. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dbachman
Dear Sir, Thanks for answering my question about Vandalism (on NYBrand's site). I think that even Mr. Wales knows about the vandalism issue...but I don't want to talk about this issue. I notice in one your talk posts above, it is mentioned that Dbachman was reprimanded somehow. Personally, IMO, the second worst problem plaguing Wikipedia besides vandalism is the presence of POV'ers who push unorthodox or unprovable ideas--that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans for example or that the ancient kingdom of Mitanni was a direct ancestor to either the Kurds or Armenians...when everyone knows Mitanni disappeared from history long ago in the 12th century BC (that is more than 3,200 yrs ago) with the arrival of the Sea Peoples into the Near East. Personally, I find Dbachman to be a good editor who keeps crank contributors from destroying the integrity of Wikipedia's articles. If he reportedly abused his authority as an admin, I am sorry. Personally, I am quite interested in Ancient Egypt and I notice that there have been people who place wild ideas that the Great Pyramids of Giza were created by aliens, rather than the Ancient Egyptians themselves. Egyptologists generally call this people 'pyramidiots'--not a kind term but accurate. Without an editor like Dbachman, many of your articles would be filled with nonsensical claims or fringe POV theories which would be ridiculed by Wikipedia's main competitor--Brittanica. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David.Mestel!
We thank you for uploading Image:705 image 10.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.
Thanks for commenting in Talk:Chiropractic #"Like many other medical procedures". I see in rereading my reply that it was fairly abrupt, and just wanted to drop you a line saying this abruptness was not intended. I very much appreciate getting comments from outside editors, as Chiropractic tends to see the same editors over and over again. I was responding to several comments simultaneously and fear that I spent too little time typing (or thinking) when composing the part of my response that addressed your comment. Anyway, sorry about that, and I hope that you can help clarify the article text in question. Eubulides (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't seem abrupt at all - certainly not by the standards of the internet. Sorry for rehashing what appear to be already fairly thoroughly-discussed points, but it's fairly difficult to avoid doing so without wading through the entire page and all of its twenty archives :-). David Mestel(Talk)11:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David,
Nice to get in touch with a long term wikipedian. Just want to ask when searching Google in relation to find notability for articles etc. in AFds debates etc., i saw one of your comments in this one where you pointed to this Google search, just want to ask what is the point of adding the -wikipedia to the end? Sorry for my ignorant question, hopefully you can help. Best Monster Under Your Bed(talk)10:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to request refactoring of the description of "my" case. As many editors have pointed out on talk, and as seen from editors comments, the case is about alleged misconduct of many editors, not only of my person. I suggest refactoring to "...by Piotrus and other editors... the parties deny the allegations." Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I inadvertantly behaved in a sock puppet like manner, by reverting a change in an article that I was recently in an edit war on, which resulted in a 24 hour block for violating the 3R rule. I inadvertantly used another account to rv Crishomingtong, Archaic d00d is the name of my other account.
I like to find editors who are POV pushing and argue with them and make articles verifiable, but use different accounts so I don't have enemies following me. Unfortunately I forgot which account I was using when I reverted the other editor, so it looks like I'm trying to use sock puppets.
here are the changes I'd like you to roll backhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yao_Ming&diff=241273381&oldid=241268379
ThanksZzmang (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You used a sockpuppet to revert war. I suggest you don't do so again. Incidentally, I can't see why you're getting so worked up about what seems to me to be basically a very minor semantic change which doesn't affect what the reader sees. Might be a good idea to forget about it, click here and move on :-) David Mestel(Talk)14:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
