|
Welcome to my Talk Page
I am retired, so if you're looking to contact me, please use the box over there --->
|
Contact info
|
|
So long and thanks for all the fish
Thank you for all of the warm wishes and generally nice thoughts sent in my direction. I have retired from all Wikimedia projects and turned in all my extra tools as a security measure (we all appreciate those now, don't we?). For those few of you who were disappointed at not getting a whole ton of gossip out of my explanation for leaving (and didn't think to ask me privately, duh) I can only offer this cartoon as penance. Best of luck to all of you and feel free to keep in touch (see above). Shell babelfish 11:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
|
Rodryg Dunin
Thanks for the help with the photo. Now I'll have to figure out how to do "categories" and other links to Wikipedia stuff (stubs, etc.). It's kind of fun working this out. --Georgette.mccallum (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your kind attention in alerting me to the problem with the image: Dignitaries.jpg. I have now added a fair use template to the image. I hope that the status is now satisfactory and that you will remove it from the list for speedy deletion.
This was my first time inserting an image and I've had to struggle some. In addition to the template problem, I'm was unable to present the image in its natural size within the article. (The version in the article is much smaller than the version viewed by double clicking). If you could possibly assist me in correcting this problem, it would contribute to enhancing the article on History of the Jews in Lebanon. Regards,
--Philopedia (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I'm a new user on wikipedia and as I searched for my school's article -- It wasn't there. According to the "deleting log?" You were one of the users who deleted that article. I just want to know, why?
Hope to see your reply soon,
Brittanity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brittanity (talk • contribs) 05:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I deleted one edit that was a copyright violation quite some time ago (March 2006). Per the deletion log, the most recent deletion was back in August:
- 16:55, August 26, 2007 Xoloz (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Tung Wah Group of Hospitals Kap Yan Directors' College" (expired prod (nn)) (Restore)
- Articles on Wikipedia are deleted according to our deletion policy. It appears the article was deletion because an editor believed the page didn't belong in an encyclopedia and proposed its deletion. Possible reasons include being not verifiable from outside sources, or because it was a page on a person, group, or idea that is not sufficiently well-known for an encyclopedia article. Pages proposed for deletion can be deleted by any administrator if, after five days, nobody objects to the proposed deletion.
- If you believe after reading the deletion policy that your article was unfairly deleted, you can bring up the article at Deletion Review where the community can take another look to see if the article was deleted in error. Shell babelfish 07:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Shell, hope you're well. Just a note to say I sent you an email :) Cheers, Daniel 08:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of 41/0/1.
Please accept a slice of panettone as an expression of my gratitude. Feel free to help yourself to some chocolate zabaglione as well.
I am humbled by the trust placed in me to use the tools wisely.
Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
Hi Shell Kinney,
I see you banned me from Ghost light. I object to this because The only thing I was trying to do there, was to defend proper process- I was attempting to be anti-disruptive, not disruptive. I wish you'd read the talk page- I agree basically with the merge, but objections of at least three other editors, one who said proper process was not being followed, one who objects (look at the 3RR report for other editors). I only wanted the page to be left alone a couple of days so that consensus could be reached, or at least to give the other editor time to get sources. As far as the warning, ScienceApologist is an extremely disruptive editor, who has been noted as such in at least two ArbComs which I know of. He is also under restriction in the same ArbCom as I am, for being uncivil, failure of AGF, personal attacks and abusive sock puppetry [1]. This explains why I reported him for 3RR, in that he is continuing his pattern of behavior even if he counted well relative to 3RR. In short, I was only at the page to try and defend other editors from ScienceApologist's pushing and disruptive edits, and I think it very unfair that for this kindness (and I have no interest in the page so it was only kindness) I am banned from the page. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry, but after another review, I am not convinced that there is any reason to reverse my decision. Please review WP:POINT; you were disruptive in several manners:
- Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable or improper
- Attempting to impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community
- Willfully stalling discussion or preventing it moving forward by repeating the same argument continually
- and finally a specific example given on that guideline:
- If you're upset someone didn't follow process in making a change...
- do find out why they did it and attempt to convince them otherwise
- don't reverse an arguably good change for no reason other than "out of process"
- In the absence of the ArbCom findings and your statements regarding paranormal subjects[2], I could have passed it off as a misunderstanding, however, you have had ample warning that your behavior is unacceptable.
- In regards to your assertion that ScienceApologist's behavior somehow excuses yours, I am afraid you are mistaken. You must behave appropriately on Wikipedia regardless of what anyone else does; I do not see any evidence that ScienceApologist was directly antagonizing you, while the reverse is obvious.
- You may wish to state your case on the noticeboard if after this explanation, you still believe that the ban was unwarranted. Shell babelfish 23:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, I'd really like to understand several things, and hopefully can correct next time: first, how I mis-characterized his actions: aren't page merges supposed to be done by consensus?
- Also, my statement on Perfectblue's talk page applied to parapsychology- not the paranormal, and most especially not to this kind of page.
- If I applied the consensus standard inappropriately, I would like you to correct me on that- other users agreed that the process was not being appropriately applied.
- I felt that the request for more time for discussion was not disruption of discussion- but promotion of it. I still feel that since, if ScienceApologist had merely waited till tomorrow he would have had consensus (super-majority), that his reverting to a redirect was in fact disruptive. Thus, it was not an arguably good change.
- I'd like to understand any real mistakes I made before taking this to the noticeboard, so your reply here would be most appreciated.
- I have a further question, which does not relate to this case: in arbitrations which contain findings which are prescriptive in that they apply to certain edits, but no enforcement is prescribed in the ArbCom, is it still appropriate to take violations of the ArbCom to the enforcement page? I mean, is such an ArbCom enforceable? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mischaracterization occurred in both your revert summary, by calling the merge disruptive, and the 3RR report where you accused ScienceApologist of everything from disruptive sockpuppeting to edit warring, even going so far as to return and bold the sockpuppet accusation [3] for sheer effect. For the record, my block is one in his log - it was my error and you can see it was overturned, leaving only one block for 3RR, so your "considering the user's block log" attempted to imply something that is not true.
I'm sorry, I said that incorrectly -- I didn't mean that the subject of your statement was the same, simply that you have before indicated that you were pushing specific goals on Wikipedia that are likely incompatible with encyclopedia building. This isn't a constructive stance to take.
I believe you misunderstand consensus; it is not about counting votes. It doesn't matter how many people disagree with an action if they cannot come up with a reasonable argument against it. Its generally unhelpful to dispute an action purely because you believe someone violated a procedure; done multiple times, those types of objections are usually considered disruptive. An example for consensus building -- I suggest we color the Wikipedia logo blue because its a calming color and will reduce the vandalism on Wikipedia; I support my statement with sources. 60 people come along and say "But you haven't filled out the proper forms" or "No, we should make it red and that will stop vandalism, but you have to just take my word for it"; neither group would be assisting in the consensus building process. The first is ignoring whether or not the suggestion is a good one for the sake of process, the second cannot make a reliable argument against my suggestion or for their suggestion -- if either of these groups (especially the first) continue to argue the same point repeatedly, it will likely be perceived as disruptive. Now, if only one person said "No, because there is history in the current logo and it is widely used and recognized in its current form", they would be adding to the discussion and discussion could continue from there.
The discussion was open for a month with no substantive objections being made. I cannot imagine this was insufficient; if you felt the issue was not getting enough attention, a request for comment or a similar community exercise would have been prudent. You needed a good reason to request more time; you did not provide one.
As far as your ArbCom question, I would need to review the particular case you are questioning. Generally one can infer the Arbitrators' decision even if no specific enforcement is noted.
Your first edit was in 2003 and you became active in 2006; you've been through everything up to having been sanctioned in an Arbitration -- it may be time to take a step back and do a thorough review of Wikipedia policy and the goals of the project. Shell babelfish 00:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks (: Explanations:
- I bolded that to avoid the error you make- you would have to go see his socks to see his very very long block log. The sock puppetry is not an "accusation," but the results of the ArbCom. My goal to have Wikipedia recognize Parapsychology was formalized by the ArbCom, which said "In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way..." [4].
- Thank you for your explanation of consensus. I've never heard it put like that by an admin, though I've tried to argue that myself. After all, many of the main charges against me in the past related directly to that- I had sources and reasons, but was nevertheless accused because several editors opposed. So I see your point is correct. I probably did let my history with SA color my reactions (although such history is also a legit factor, I'd guess).
- Well, anyway, I'm not as concerned about being blocked from the article, since I have no real interest in it. I just don't like this on my record, because I was trying to do the right thing. I wish there was something I could say -such as a promise not to do that again- which would let it be lifted. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahha -- next time if you need to point out something like sock puppets, its better to link to the proof than bold a statement. Bold or capital letters are usually perceived as negative emphasis (and sometimes shouting) -- its a quirk of all textual discussion. A quick search didn't lead much info on ScienceApologist relating to sockpuppets and I missed it at the end of the ArbCom's findings. Now that I've seen that part of the finding, the mention of sockpuppets makes much more sense.
- I understand what you mean about Parapsychology, but I think that perhaps because of your genuine interest you made some comments that were perceived badly -- it also could be that you're just more accustomed to oral conversations (most people are) -- things that are easily understood when spoken can come off very poorly in print. For instance, I tend to use humor and sarcasm when speaking, but because there is no tone of voice or body language on the internet, my normal way of speaking would appear horribly rude if I typed it. (And yes, I made that mistake many eons ago when I started using the internet)
- A lot of people misunderstand consensus. Using supermajority or voting often seems easier; it requires less decision making and thought. On Wikipedia, its hit or miss depending on the particular editors you're involved with, however, its good practice to tend toward making a concise and logical presentation of your views in every case.
- After lengthy disagreement with another editor, its always helped me to consciously avoid anything they're working on. Stress from a conflict often colors further collaboration without our knowledge and its unlikely that the world (or wiki) will end without my input on a particular subject.
- You seem to be making a sincere effort to understand the issues and learn from them, so I'm going to go ahead and reverse the ban. Please do not re-engage in the discussion unless you have a new and compelling argument. I would also suggest that you and ScienceApologist would both benefit from a complete break with each other; I would hate to see you back in this situation again. Shell babelfish 02:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
