User talk:WGFinley

My Email Rules
Due to emails I get related to Admin or Medcom duties you need to know if you choose to email me using this link or by using the email user function my rules are as follows: I may not agree email is the appropriate place for the exchange, I will advise you on your talk page that I received the email and I think the conversation belongs on wiki. If I do elect to have an email exchange with you then it is privileged and confidential, you do not have my permission to post it publicly without asking to do so. Whether you follow my email rules is up to you but be aware I may refuse to engage in the use of email with you if you refuse to follow them.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by .

The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do.
— Thomas Jefferson

FYI

AE appeal of sorts Mo ainm~Talk 15:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curious is it even an appeal or another attempt at getting AE sanctions on editors? Mo ainm~Talk 17:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"You need to keep your statements on AE. --WGFinley (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)" SonofSetanta (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mo ainm saved your appeal being dismissed outright, you can't appeal without notifying the admin that issued the ban. --WGFinley (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you replied to this topic in depth and not to mine says it all. You think I'm a troublemaker? That means none of my requests or complaints will be treated in good faith by you - considering you've already made your mind up. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It means when you have a pending AE case and that's what you are contacting me about the conversation should be there and not on my talk page so all the information is in one place for admins to review. --WGFinley (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My statement was already on the AE page. It was copied and pasted here for your attention. I felt, in the circumstances, that was the correct thing for me to do because I feel I am getting an unjustified reputation when I am just a new user. Mostly because it has alleged that I am a sock so many times that admins are believing it now without hesitation. I've been well gamed and I don't have the experience or knowledge to know how to fight it. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your account is a year and a half old, how are you a "new user"? --WGFinley (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been using it very often until recently. When I first joined I went to the UDR article and got my fingers burned and really felt violated and very angry. I stopped editing for some time after that and only worked up the courage to come back in a couple of months ago. I edited other articles instead of that one until I had the confidence to go and try again. That includes raising a couple of articles to B Class and producing a B Class article from scratch. This time I was determined not to be caught out on the UDR article but I'm not smart enough (it would seem) to be able to fight the gamers. I've got a name now and I'll never be able to lose it unless I actually do what they've been accusing me all along of doing: that is creating a sock account. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having read your report here I noticed that you used the incorrect link to illustrated the offending action. I believe this is the link you need. Regards, --Domer48_'fenian' 18:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are, thanks for catching my mistake. --WGFinley (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lima

Is Esoglou the same as Lima? 03:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after some socking it appears the user was allowed a WP:CLEANSTART.[1] --WGFinley (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

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

Tuscumbia (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

slide-rule article external-link

I recently requested mediation in regard to Dr.K having deleted the link to my webpage in the external-links section of the slide-rule article. You rejected the request for mediation on the grounds that nobody except myself wanted to participate in mediation. Does this mean that I can go ahead and include the link? Is this like a court case where I win automatically if the other person doesn't show up?

You said that I should be aware of the Wikipedia policy against self-promotion. That doesn't really make any sense to me. As I stated in my argument: every link in every external-links section promotes somebody's webpage. What is different about my webpage, as compared to anybody else's? The self-promotion warning page that you directed me to mostly frowns on frivolous self-promotion, such as links to personal pages. That is not the case here. My program took over a month to write --- it is not so trivial that anybody could do the same with a day's effort --- there are no other programs available that generate both CNC gcode and PostScript for slide-rule images. Having this software available is a huge step forward for anybody trying to build a slide-rule. I really don't understand why there is any question at all about providing the link --- it obviously belongs in the slide-rule external-links section --- you've got other links in there to webpages that do seem to be the work of one day by somebody who barely knew the rudiments of the subject but yet wanted to present himself as a great expert.

All in all, I'm really unimpressed by Wikipedia. I think that your editors are mostly people who don't know anything about any subject, but who get a thrill out of pretending to be great experts and bullying people like me. Wikipedia is hardly alone though. On the comp.lang forums, there are abundant trolls who have told me that my novice package "sucks." It is not just myself who gets attacked either. I have seen HLA get denounced similarly by self-proclaimed assembly-language experts, and HLA is a really big development system that must have taken many years to write. The whole situation with the internet reminds me of the "last man" that we were warned about in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" --- who makes small of everything and believes in nothing, except the wisdom of the crowd. Hugh Aguilar (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review limits changed

This is a notice to all users who currently have at least one open peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review. Because of the large number of peer review requests and relatively low number of reviewers, the backlog of PRs has been at 20 or more almost continually for several months. The backlog is for PR requests which have gone at least four days without comments, and some of these have gone two weeks or longer waiting for a review.

While we have been able to eventually review all PRs that remain on the backlog, something had to change. As a result of the discussion here, the consensus was that all users are now limited to one (1) open peer review request.

If you already have more than one open PR, that is OK in this transition period, but you cannot open any more until all your active PR requests have been closed. If you would like someone to close a PR for you, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Peer review. If you want to help with the backlog, please review an article whoe PR request is listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Two strange incidents and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Granateple (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On tendentious editing as continuing to make edits like that one ...

The above message title is text you posted on my talk page. I'd like to advise you to educate yourself abot Italian Renaissance and medieval history before deciding to throw accusations as the one in this message title.--71.178.106.120 (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]