User talk:Arthur Ellis: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:49, 2 July 2006

Arthur Ellis talk page

Rachel Marsden

Something you're doing in your edits is causing the reference formatting to screw up; instead of listing properly, every reference after #6 is running together as an undifferentiated and unformatted block of text. I can't locate where the problem is, however — could you please stop editing the footnotes until we can solve the matter? Thanks. Bearcat 00:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I don't know what the problem is. Mostly, I just wanted to tighten and copy-edit.Arthur Ellis 00:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can get an administrator with more experience in the technical coding aspects to review what was happening, but in the meantime I'll have to revert the changes so that the reference list goes back to its proper code formatting. I'm not expressing an opinion on the quality of your edits, I hasten to add; this is strictly a technical matter. Bearcat 00:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was an easy fix. I took out FN 6, which was of a non-controversial point (no one claims she doesn't write for the Toornto Sun, I hope). Now the footnotes work and I've copy-edited the piece.Arthur Ellis 01:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party of Canada

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Ardenn 16:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Harris didn't resign as leader, he only announced that he wouldn't run again. Thus he is still leader until after the convention is over, and they "change over." Ardenn 16:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Arthur Ellis, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ardenn 16:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation question

You left a message on the Medcab case page concerning Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-25 Battle of the Lower Dnieper stating, I would mediate this one if parties are agreeable. Arthur Ellis 01:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC). Does this mean that you will attempt to mediate the case? I put it in the cases in mediation section, but I just wanted to be sure someone was looking into the matter. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 03:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Thank you for your responce at Talk:Battle_of_the_Lower_Dnieper#Mediation. Please show up also at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-25_Battle_of_the_Lower_Dnieper#Mediator_response.--AndriyK 09:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Battle of the Lower Dnieper

I certainly have no objections if you mediate this case. :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User: HistoryBA

Your unsubstantiated personal attacks against me are inappropriate and a clear violation of the spirit of Wikipedia. I would ask you please to think twice in the future before making comments that are harmful to the community spirit of this venture. HistoryBA 23:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken you to task for errors you have made. Others have, too. Check your own talk page, and please be more careful.Arthur Ellis

We all make errors, even you. When I make an error, I am happy if someone points out exactly what I did wrong. If I believe I am not in error, I will justify my edit. If I am wrong, I will admit my mistake. You, however, have alleged errors without having the courtesy to specifically say which edits were wrong. It seems to me that this violates the spirit of goodwill that characterizes this enterprise. HistoryBA 13:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made personal attacks against you. I've said you have edited errors into a number of Wikipedia pages. You place unsourced material, draw conclusions, extrapolate and make other mistakes that, I've found, are fairly frequent and require correcting.

Saying so is not an attack on you as a person. You may well be a kind, loving, wonderful, bright person. I don't know. I'll certainly give you the benefit of the doubt. However, you need to be more careful with what you put into Wikipedia entries. Arthur Ellis 13:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't respond to anything I said in my previous set of comments here (the comments that began with with "We all make errors, even you"). Again, I don't think your allegations are appropriate given the cooperative spirit of this venture, especially when you make it clear that you are unwilling to substantiate them. HistoryBA 15:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have substantiated them, over and over and over. Look at the Mark Bourrie and the military history discussion page. Look at the comments on your own talk page. I'm just tired of repeating myself. Yes, this is a co-operative venture, but that doen't mean other editors must continually clean up after your mistakes. Arthur Ellis 21:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not once have you cited a specific edit to an article; you just keep repeating that I should look at Bourrie's accusations, which are also unsubstantiated (and, as I have pointed out many times now, misquote me). As I have said before, there is no need to repeat yourself; simply say something new. For example, you give me the date and time of some of the many edits where you believe I have made mistakes. Its hard for me to believe that this isn't personal, when you won't cite any specific edits. HistoryBA 12:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I have reviewed the Military history of Canada edit history and cannot find a single case of you correcting one of my edits. In the course of reviewing that page and others that I have edited, I came across a few errors that you made, but they are certainly nothing worth lecturing you about. We all make mistakes, and it is always better to correct others in a polite and helpful way, rather than making snide comments. HistoryBA 13:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Peters

I don't think it's reached the level of vandalism yet, take it to Dispute Resolution. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. (for 24 hours) - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you return, please edit responsibly. Work out your differences with Pete on the talk page, call in reinforcements from WP:3O - just stop the war. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation removal

Due to your recent block for violating WP:3rr, I have put the case you volunteered to mediate back into the section requesting it is looked at by other mediators. You are more than welcome to come back to mediate in the cabal in the future, but at the moment I feel that perhaps your unfamiliarity with policy and your newness to Wikipedia could possibly lead to problems at this time. I ask that you get a bit more experience before jumping into mediation with the Mediation Cabal just yet. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 02:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit rough. The issue turned on the meaning of a single word. I was blocked for reverting vandalism and blanking. Quite the brain trust, people.Arthur Ellis Pete Peters 23:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for conducting an edit war and hurting our encyclopedic goals. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you do still have enthusiasm to mediate, you are more than welcome to, but you may want to consider asking another mediator to look over your progress to make sure things go smoothly. It's just that lately the Medcab has undergone quite a bit of trouble with newer mediators, but I don't wish to discourage you. I can't stop you from mediating, as it's an informal process, but what I mean to say is that you may want to get a bit more familiar with policy first (your addition of the protected tag to a page that was not protected, for example). Sorry for sounding harsh. Cowman109^Talk 02:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could not think any other worst person than Arthur Ellis aka Mark Bourie to settle disputes. I am afraid if he get's any power in Wiki, he well abuse it. He has been put on indefinite ban with his old account. He has been caught in the past of sock pupeteering, I beg everyone to be aware of this guy.

Pete Peters 03:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declaring a user a sockpuppet without checkuser evidence could be interpreted as an attack, Pete, so please do not attempt to defame other users for unproven claims. Doing so will not help anyone. As the old saying goes, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 05:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay my beef with im is over.

Pete Peters 14:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Pierre Bourque (journalist)

I have reverted your changes to this talk page. Please do not remove others comments from it again. As for the large additions you made, please keep your comments brief and to the point. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 22:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article needed to be posted because the reference kept being deleted from the article by vandal IP. Arthur Ellis 22:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where did that information come from, is there a link? -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 22:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's now on the article page, but [Pete Peters] kept taking it off and it is always reverted by vandals, probably Pierre Bourque. Check the contributions of the latest IP vandalizing the page. It is all Pierre Bourque. I wanted users in the future to be able to find the Ryerson review article.Arthur Ellis 22:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took it off once, Arthur. Then I said, fine keep it, as long as you don't erase my comments. But you erased my comments anyway.Pete Peters 00:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Galarneau

Please stop making personal attacks against me or any other editors. a site called kinsellasux is clearly biased. any info from that site should be questioned. how do I know that the article is printed verbatim? what is left in the article now is not misleading, all it says now is "Kinsella gained national exposure during the 2000 federal election when he appeared on television brandishing a toy Barney dinosaur to highlight Stockwell Day's creationist beliefs." which is true. I have done nothing dishonest. I have done nothing wrong. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, because you never ever do and constantly make personal attacks against editors you do not agree with. just find a direct link to the Paul Wells article. Geedubber 00:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have done something very dishonest. Kinsella is often credited for the Barney stunt. Wikipedia can set the record straight. You know very well the Paul Wells column is reprinted verbatim. As I said, you should be ashamed for putting deliberately misleading information into the entry and taking out something that can set the record straight. Arthur Ellis 00:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dude, i do not know it is printed verbatim. the article as it is now does not credit him with thinking up the stunt. just find a better link, and stay away from my talk page. Geedubber 00:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Ellis, once two editors have warned you about your inappropriate behaviour on your talk page (as has now occurred), I can seek some sort of sanction against you. I would rather not do so. It would be much better if you would simply stop attacking others, assume good faith, and act in a cooperative manner. HistoryBA 00:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really. That's rich for someone who follows around my edits, screws them up, and cries "personal attack" when I use facts to critise her work (as have so many others; see her talk page)Arthur Ellis 00:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Ellis, you could save us all a lot of time and effort if you would just respect the spirit of this place. HistoryBA 00:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want you to get things right. It is not the "spirit" of Wikipedia to take good material out, and add bad material into entries, as you so often do. This work should be done with care. It's an encyclopedia, after all. Read your talk page.Arthur Ellis 00:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be nasty to get things right. The spirit of Wikipedia is to work cooperatively toward a better product, not to insult anyone who one believes has made an error. I can cite the Wikipedia policy if you don't believe me. HistoryBA 00:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The words "better product" are important to that statement. I am not insulting you as a person. I am telling you that you make a lot of errors, as your talk page shows. I'm sure you are a delightful person, but you make these errors. Arthur Ellis 00:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sentences that start with "you have done something very dishonest" clearly violate the Wikipedia standard of conduct, as do many of your other contributions to the talk pages. Saying that you have had to correct many of my errors on the miltitary history of Canada page (to cite just one example of your slurs), and then not retracting that remark when I told you that it was untrue, is simply uncivil. I am asking you to please, please, assume good faith and work together with the rest of us, rather than insulting us and making unsubstantiated accusations. HistoryBA 02:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more productive to try explaining historical scholarship to my cat than it is to try to explain it to you. Please wuit baiting me and take your friends with you. Again, read your own talk page.Arthur Ellis 02:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asking you to behave in a civil manner is not baiting you. Calling me "think as a plank" is inappropriate.

HistoryBA

Maybe "brick" would be more accurate. Now please go away.Arthur Ellis 02:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Marbleless

You know, calling Pierre Bourque a "discredited Internet hack," is a pretty bold claim. Please explain what you ment in your own words please. 01:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous friend, read the Ryerson Review of Journalism piece on Bourque linked at the Pierre Bourque -- journalist entry. Unlike you, I'll sign mt nameArthur Ellis 01:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit my user page, leave all you comical activities on my talk page. Pete Peters 01:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

( Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. ) Pete Peters 01:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 118: / Line 118: @@
 I think it would be more productive to try explaining historical scholarship to my cat than it is to try to explain it to you.
 Please wuit baiting me and take your friends with you. Again, read your own talk page.[[User:Arthur Ellis|Arthur Ellis]] 02:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
-:Asking you to behave in a civil manner is not baiting you.  Calling me "think as a plank" is inappropriate.  [[User:HistoryBA|HistoryBA]]
+:Asking you to behave in a civil manner is not baiting you.  Calling me "think as a plank" is inappropriate.
+[[User:HistoryBA|HistoryBA]]
+Maybe "brick" would be more accurate.
+Now please go away.[[User:Arthur Ellis|Arthur Ellis]] 02:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 ==Hey Marbleless==