User talk:Simon Dodd

This is my talk page. Leave a message if I can help you with something.

Archive 2005-2008

Clarence Thomas

I have blocked you for 12 hours for edit warring on this article. I don't condone the actions of User:RafaelRGarcia in the least, but I do think the appropriate recourse would have been to request protection of the article or make a report at the BLP noticeboard as opposed to edits that were the equivalent to reversion -- Samir 06:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I can understand if you wish to question or appeal this block. You are welcome to use {{unblock}} for appeal. Thanks for understanding -- Samir 06:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Just to clarify, I agree that the appropriate response would have been to request page protection - and I did precisely that, see [1]. The request sat there, with no action taken, for more than eight hours. I also respectfully disagree that the edits were functional reverts, but that isn't an issue that an appeal will help resolve - I'm not interested in the penalty, I just want to clarify what the rules are to avoid future problems. :) Simon Dodd (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The Edit War

I just wanted to take a second and drop you a line, sorry about the end result of the WP:ANI report. Both sides were edit-warring, though. Twelve hours is not a big block, trust me.

If I can offer some advice, when you get into a situation with someone who is edit warring, just file the reports and let it go. I know it's tough to just turn your back on it, but if you stay involved they'll take you down with them. I'm very sympathetic to what you were doing, but when you do battle like that, admins are going to block both sides.

If it happens again, revert once and discuss. If it becomes an edit war, let the admins handle it. It'd very frustrating, but it's the best way to handle it (and keep yourself safe).

When you come off of your block, if you need any help on anything, please let me know. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas

Hi Simon, thanks for your note. I have extended protection for one week. Rationale is here [2]. While the mediation cabal attempt was a good college try, my feeling is that this should go for formal mediation barring a breakthrough in the next week. Outlining the specific points of contention and what was achieved (and not achieved) by MedCab in summary on a talk subpage would be a good idea in anticipation of mediation. I'm not even sure what proper wikiquette is in general, but feel free to take things to WP:RFPP for page protections, especially for anything I do, as I tend to be away often. Thanks -- Samir 09:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Simon. To answer your question, I think RfC is the most appropriate route if you are concerned specifically about another user's conduct -- Samir 06:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

An unusual response? Indicating there is no dispute at the time of mediation usually means acceptance of all the other parties say on the mediation page. I would suggest indicating the same on the mediation page, with a link to a diff (or make a diff) that illustrates a satisfactory resolution to all issues for you. I have unprotected the article given the absence of activity on the talk page. -- Samir 03:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit the article to a version you consider appropriate. Put a diff to this on the mediation page. If there is no dispute, then it should be acceptable -- Samir 03:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, if it is reverted, do not revert back, but put it down as evidence that there is indeed a dispute requiring mediation -- Samir 04:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Leftosphere

I have nominated Leftosphere, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leftosphere. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. --Dynaflow babble 22:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Roberts

Hi. Were you aware I was joking when I said you were a filthy partisan? I was joking with basically everything I said on that issue other than the general premise (that i think it should be included in the lead). It was obvious it wasn't going to get changed so I had a little fun with that page, I guess a little too much as I got blocked for my comment to you lol. Anyways good debate there, I carried on with you mostly just because it was fun matching wits. Cheers DegenFarang (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix

I am not so sure why we need to quote the clause a second time in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

O.K. I have added it back. Are you aware the article is currently under consideration at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saxbe fix?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I just told you that the article is up for consideration at WP:FAC and the commentary there says to get away from citing blogs. Yet you just added bloggingheads.tv.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Also, I think you mean conservative when you said liberal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
3. You also added a reference with very lazy formatting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
4. I am going to remove the bloggingheads and change liberal--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
   1. P.S. Is "fails to cut the mustard" the professors term or your own slang addition to the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in the article. The article has failed its FAC. I would appreciate it if you would continue to help clean it up. I want to shoot for a renom in about 10-14 days to give it one last shot at a March 4 WP:TFA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is again up at FAC. The renom is controversial, but your assistance would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Clarence Thomas. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 13:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

AFD For Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houston Tower

I have found more sources for the Houston Tower at http://www.google.com/search?q=Krahl+Houston+Tower&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS278US278 and have included a few to the external links. I havn't incorperated them into the article yet as the AFD is preventing me to spend time on writing and expanding it (as the Deletion Votes hold majority right now so there wouldn't be any point of expanding an article that has a majority vote of deletion even thought i found a way to fix the problem and even recreating (due to the AFD red tape) it will cause problems if I used the sources.) I am contacting you to determine that I believe that you should change your vote based on the new source results I found. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 19:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District

Hi, I hate to bother you, but do you have any more references about this case? Bearian (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to add both "additional support beyond the text of the case describing it," and "general background". Bearian (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix

I spent a few hours digging at the University of Chicago Law School today. Please have a look at the new content that I have added. I would like to renominate the article at WP:FAC by the end of the week, but it would be best if it is clean before it gets there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

After another research adventure earlier today, I think this will be up at FAC with the latest changes in the next day or two. Your continued participation in its improvement would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Commentary welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saxbe fix.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: AfD challenge

Thanks for the notification! –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Bristol Indymedia DRV

You may wish to read WP:BLUDGEON. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• WP:BLUDGEON refers, inter alia, to responding to every single comment in a discussion trying to explain why it is wrong or argue with it. With due respect, that seems to be what you have done in the DRV in question. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Simon Dodd. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AfD nomination of Blue Sun

I have nominated Blue Sun, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Sun. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Robofish (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix FA and TFA

This user helped promote Saxbe fix to featured article status.

This user helped promote Saxbe fix to the main page as Today's Featured Article on 6 March 2009.

I am recognizing you for being one of the many people who came together to improve Saxbe fix as part of its development which has resulted in its WP:FA and WP:TFA status.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Relisting at AFD

Nope, almost anybody can do it. A few things, though; be sure to add {{subst:relist}} to the discussion page. Good luck! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You also need to make sure you remove it from the discussion page for the day it opened and move it to the current one. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And you probably should:

• Not relist AFDs that you started or commented in
• Only relist for a second time when there's been pretty much no contribution to the discussion. See WP:RELIST.

I've closed the Bristol Indymedia AFD as there is no real way that another week will make a difference. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Simon Dodd. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your merger proposal

I notified people who had been involved in writing the articles which is perfectly proper. Also, if you make a merger proposal, its best to do it properly as you have now discovered. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Safford Unified School District v. Redding

Great job so far. This should go onto the DYK page. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Since this is a new article, it is eligible for the Main Page section called, "Did You Know?" It is a nice way to showcase your good work. You can nominate it yourself at Template talk:Did you know, or ask another editor to do so. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your question

(replying here because I'm really not interested in continuing to argue over the AN3 report, as far as I'm concerned that whole point is moot)

Regarding this question: my understanding of the talk page now is that there is consensus for including the information, but not necessarily for how it should be included (full quote, or brief mention along the lines of "Goldstein said he likes Thomas' style", or what), so it's best to refrain from re-adding it until it's been decided how best to include it. WP:3O would be one good way to get further suggestions. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This is just rude and dirty. I specifically said that I posted on your talk page because I didn't want to continue arguing but wanted to offer an answer to your question. Now you try to present it as me attempting to "sweep things under the carpet"? You can go fuck yourself. If this is the treatment I get for trying to answer a question and help out, I'm not interested in listening to you anymore. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)