User talk:David.Mestel/Archive 01

Roman Litigation

Thanks a lot for the article on Roman Litigation, it's pretty good. I'll try to integrate it into the general Roman law article, at least in part. Eulen 08:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You owe me a half-hour

I'm not super happy that I had to spend time tracking down the contribution "history" of the commenters on the original deltion discussion for Innatheism, due to your decision to take it to deletion review. My advice is to let it go and work on something that doesn't make you feel upset for a while. Herostratus 12:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see [1] for my response. --David.Mestel 19:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I think happened. For some reason, a bunch of people came to the AfD for this article from out of nowhere (i.e. no previous edits). This was actually very unfortunate for your case. In many other cases -- not this one, I'm sure -- people have used sockpuppets and meatpuppets to influence votes (and I'm afraid it it is very easy for a user to contribute from many differend IPs - using open proxies or other methods).

There's nothing wrong with a person beginning his Wikipedia editing career at AfD, but when when a number of brand-new users show up at the same AfD, all on the same side, and being quite assertive (for a brand-new user) about Wikipedia rules and stuff, people go "Tilt". You can see how that would be, given past history of abuses, can you not?

As I say, I don't know where these people came from, but it was most unforntunate for your case that they did, because they probably caused the closing administrator to get pretty peeved and to suspect foul play. Understandably, given past abuses, if unfairly to you. You are sort of in the position of the guy who (say) gets stopped with a kilo of cocaine in his trunk -- for which you have a legitimate reason (found it, rushing to police station to turn it in). You may be innocent of wrongdoing (I'm sure you are) but you can understand why the officer isn't going to just say OK and wave you on. Life isn't always fair.

Anyway, too bad about the whole mess. Good articles DO sometimes get deleted. There are over a million articles after all, and we do get hundreds of bad articles a day, and no system is perfect. No hard feelings I hope and good luck on your future contributions! Herostratus 21:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Innatheism deletion

Could you please explain your reasoning behind the premature closing of the AfD on Innatheism (please note that I was not the author of that article and am not acting on his behalf, but in the interests of fairness) - you gave the reason that it was "descending into a cesspool". This is in clear violation of WP:DEL, which states that the only reason for an early closing for an early closing is "clear consensus", which clearly did not exist (only 12-5), and that "Any substantial debate, regardless of how lopsided the keep/delete count may be, implies that an early closing would be a bad idea." Since I was engaged in a debate with another user (his reply to me was just one minute before you guillotined the debate), substantive debate was clearly occuring. I'm sure that you have a perfectly valid explanation for this, and I am curious to hear it. --David.Mestel 21:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a Deletion Review - there's a principle at stake here. --David.Mestel 06:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David: Thank you for your message. Firstly, my apologies for not responding sooner; I've had rather a lot on lately. I am always open to feedback on my administrative actions on behalf of the community, and I'm grateful that you let me know that you felt this was the wrong choice to take (this sort of thing is worth remembering for the future). Allow me, if I may, to explain a little more of my rationale to you, and perhaps also a little about the ethos in which we conduct decisions of consensus and judgement on Wikipedia.

Firstly, there is something of a distinction between policy and process which I think I would do well to explain to you, and indeed I feel personally you may have slightly misjudged the way that policy is treated on Wikipedia. Policy is a set of guidelines which are considered by the community to be a common code of practice; likewise processes are meant to be an expression of procedure that has been decided on by the community as generally a good idea. However, individual judgement always takes precedent over both policy and process, which is where Wikipedia gets some of its other policies from, such as WP:IAR, WP:SNOW, etc. Operating outside the scope of policy does not equate to violating it; in this example, closing an AfD for a reason not listed in Wikipedia:Deletion policy does not ipso facto equate to a violation of it. Indeed AfD is an example of process, not policy, and although its operation may be specified in Wikipedia:Deletion policy that does not mean that one is expected to follow the letter of it at all times. The spirit of the policy, and indeed the overarching goal of building an encyclopaedia, always dominates over laid-down processes and procedures. Furthermore, administrators are given administrative privileges because they have shown themselves to be reasonably capable of making good judgements - else there would be precious little purpose to having them at all.

In reference to the mention in Wikipedia:Deletion policy regarding substantative debate - I would not say that there was substantative debate on the deletion issue going on, and indeed the AfD was awash with individuals who were very new users - in essence, not those familiar with Wikipedia standards - and these new users routinely voted to keep the article. However the few experienced Wikipedians who voted all unanimously voted for its deletion. AfDs are not conducted on a strictly numerical basis; that is, there is no basis of simple majority nor is there one of one vote by any user being equally valid to another. Generally the consensus is to disregard votes made by new or anonymous users, and from that perspective the consensus was clearly to delete the article. As for your debate with another user, it did not appear that the debate taking place was germane to the AfD discussion; AfDs are not intended to be chatrooms, and are meant to be vehicles for gathering consensus versus an opportunity for editors to propound their views to others there. The debate between yourself and the other user that you mentioned was one of opinion, not one of worthiness for deletion; and one is not meant to conduct endless argument on AfD. AfDs are meant to be debates, yes, but not places for arguments.

Since the AfD was clearly awash with sockpuppets, accusations of bad faith and mere argument of opinion rather on merits of deletion I felt the best option was to carry out the prevailing consensus of those who were clearly qualified to comment on its deletion via being experienced Wikipedians. There is no point in entertaining a mud-slinging contest on Wikipedia anywhere, because it merely breeds unpleasantness and bad faith, especially where it is clear that either non-Wikipedians or multiple occurrences of a single Wikipedian are attempting to sway the voting. We are, after all, trying to create an environment to permit people to be able to write an encyclopaedia, not one where people may battle out their views without regard to editorial discretion.

If I might be permitted to do so, may I offer you a suggestion? I hope above I have elaborated to a slight degree the principles on which we do things here on Wikipedia; I would perhaps suggest that you start focusing more on the simplest viewpoint of writing an encyclopaedia versus concentrating on the letter of policy. We don't do things by the exact letter of policy here, as I've explained, and by and large continual accusations of violating policy where good faith actions were taken by another are not generally approved of on Wikipedia.

I do hope that the above (almost essay-like!) text may be perhaps of some value to you in your future work here on Wikipedia. You are, as ever, free to take my actions - and indeed, those of any other administrator - to review via Deletion review or the Administrators' noticeboard - although I would not say there really were principles at stake in this scenario other than your own opinion on how Wikipedia should be run. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your thoughtful response. I think I might have been wikilawyering a bit too much - perhaps I'll become an advocate. I see what you mean about established practice. However, I think that established practice should be codified as policy and then adhered to, and this was the principle at stake. By the way, my discussion was substantive, as it concerned the question of whether the article could be deleted as non-notable. --David.Mestel 07:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User_talk:NicholasTurnbull --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I second that? Thanks Nicholas - although I didn't quite agree with some of the allegations of fact in your little guide, it was useful to learn that policies are really only more like guidelines. By the way, doesn't a barnstar count as a userbox? --David.Mestel 06:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David: You are, as ever, most welcome; I'm glad you don't agree with some of what I wrote, as that is always a good sign of someone who is capable of thinking for themselves, and indeed had you agreed with me in toto I would have likely been rather concerned. :-) Regarding barnstars - no, barnstars don't count as userboxes; in fact they are quite a different entity. Userboxes refer to a specific construct, not just any box-like structure placed within userspace.

I'll give you a brief précis of each. Userboxes refer to category-linked groups of HTML boxes used by people to indicate personal attributes, such as politics, gender, sexuality, interests &c. whereby templates are transcluded onto the page with categories - see Wikipedia:Userboxes - which usually take the form of templates with the "Template:User_" prefix. The argument regarding userboxes is over concerns of POV-based voting being driven as a consequence of the misuse of userbox categories and "What links here" to find editors of a particular POV on demand, amongst other things; some of the other arguments have related to the addition of "fair use" images in these userboxes, or where userboxes have been deemed to be inappropriate by some editors. Barnstars, on the other hand, simply consist of a substituted (not transcluded) box or image frame containing a picture and accompanying legend, given as a reward for good work by other users; see Wikipedia:Barnstars for further information. They aren't thus placed on a user's page by POV, and don't represent the user's views; in addition they can consist of almost any content, although there are a few barnstars that have received widespread community support. They don't contain user categories, and they aren't a categorisation of the user but merely an objet d'arte in recompense for good work; there isn't thus any controversy, to my knowledge, surrounding their application.

I hope I may have been of some assistance; please do let me know if there is any other regard in which I may be of service to you. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the second volume of "A beginner's guide to Wikipedia" - thanks for the summary, but I really meant it as a light-hearted comment, as, while I was looking at the barnstar and comment, I suddenly saw that you were in the Wikipedians category who think userboxes must die. However, your summary will be most useful. By the way, your literary style is wonderful - you manage to write long, in-depth comments without being verbose or boring; I congratulate you. --David.Mestel 07:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David: Oh, I am sorry for deluging you once more with explanation when you were in fact trying to be jocular. I'm not excellent at detecting humour on wiki talk pages; it's often difficult to gauge. As for the category "Users who think userboxes should die", there's a story behind that one; during the User:Kelly Martin RfC, I made a userbox that said "This user thinks that all userboxes should die" and placed it on the talk page of the RfC as an ironic gesture, although I didn't put it in a template. User:God of War, clearly with an even greater sense of humour, made it into a proper userbox template, listed it on Wikipedia:Userboxes, and transcluded it on my talk page. :-) I thank you most wholeheartedly for your kind remarks about my writing style; personally I think in fact the opposite is rather true, and I tend to write in an unnecessarily pompous and pedantic style (albeit without conscious effort to do so), although I am honoured that you consider the contrary. I am, as always, at your service. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 07:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "humour" is a rather too generous way to describe my comment - "trying to be jocular" is probably better. I found your comment on the RfC talk, and it is amusing. But what is wrong with pomposity? I think it can liven up otherwise flat and boring prose (listen to some BPS debating and you'll see what I mean), although it must be said that for me to call somebody pompous would be akin to the pot calling the kettle black, if you see whar I mean. The fact that you deserved that barnstar is reinforced by you having just apologised to me for me having wasted your time by not marking my pseudo-humorous comment as such. As regards the deletion, I still don't agree with your decision to close, but, on reflection, think that it might not be such a matter of principle. I unreservedly apologise if I was "provocative" - many people tell me that I sound patronising even when I don't mean to. I beg to remain, sir, your obdt. svnt., David.Mestel 07:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello, David. Funny we should meet here, really. Charles Matthews 23:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I've known that you were on here for a while - I nearly laughed myself silly when I found out you were an arbitor. --David.Mestel 07:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well keep out of trouble and I'll try to forget that remark. Charles Matthews 15:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't meant to be rude or personal - I just didn't think of arbitors as people, if you see what I mean - more as Great Gods who existed only in the realm of cyberspace. --David.Mestel 15:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh but we are. You've only met a rather disposable avatar. Charles Matthews 15:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disposable? I see. Next time I need an innocent victim for my ritual sacfrifices, I'll know where to look. --David.Mestel 16:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Asher

Um, you did notice that of those 62,000 google hits, only a few hundred of them were unique? Someone else pointed that out further up in the afd. I just wanted to be sure you were aware of this. See WP:BIO where the proposed "google test" discusses distinguishable hits, which I take to not include substantially identical hits. Phr 11:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thankyou

No, I don't think you waffled at all. At worse, you recognized that there are two sides to the debate, something those in favor of deletion have so far refused to do. Powers 14:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

excuse my french

its been about 3 years since i spoke any french, but before that i studied it for about 5 years. dude, i wasnt trying to communicate in french, i was just communicating a common phoneme. now that you've pointed it out, i of course see i was ridiculously wrong but then again i gave it about 0 seconds thought. if i did try i could probably speak okay. i think fr-1 or fr-2. -- Alfakim -- talk 13:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal wager

Thanks for writing that article. Just because I recognize that there's a problem doesn't necessarily mean I have the time to fix it. You handled that admirably. Brian Sayrs 22:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:67.15.28.21

Thanks for leaving me a comment David, this IP address has vandalized the same article 3 times and was subsequently blocked. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up, it appears that this might be an open proxy, per this diff. If this is the case, the IP address will be permanently blocked. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But at the time it vandalised, it hadn't been warned at all. --David.Mestel 06:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your VandalProof Application

Dear David.Mestel,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact with the new 1.2 version release it has even more power. As such we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that not enough mainspace edits. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again in the not too distant future. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. Computerjoe 's talk 08:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally we say 250, but in this case I'll make an exception. Computerjoe 's talk 08:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, David.Mestel! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Computerjoe 's talk 08:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Planet and the Planeteers

Does the automated tool you use have an option to create a new section when it leaves a comment on talk pages? If so, please turn it on. Keeping talk pages organized is hard enough.
Though I'm getting tired of anonymous users being required to write long essays before being allowed to do anything, I suppose it's my own fault for being an anonymous user in the first place. I trust it's not vandalism now. 82.92.119.11 10:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Just want to say thanks for reverting the vandalism done to my user pages. ~~ Pete 10:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes

I'm afraid, you've made a mistake. I reverted vandalism found on the page Giuseppe Rossi, for some reason you replaced it and accused me of having vandalized the page. Just making sure that there's no confusion.

Thanks, Vaniac 16:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Vaniac 16:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at this now reverted edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bureau_of_Refugees%2C_Freedmen_and_Abandoned_Lands&diff=56833084&oldid=56218634

Skywriter 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excel

You have just reverted my change to the MS Excel Page. Why? Are you telling me that a pen and paper isn't an alternative to MS Excel. I like Microsoft too. I am actually running Windows Vista right now. But I don't like them so much that I have to protect their Wiki articles from such things as common sense. --General Eskimo

I do not agree with part of your revert.

Indeed, I agree with you reverting god to God, because it is like a name, but the Himself should be decapitalized in my opinion, because imagine when you say "Tom, he was eating lunch", he is not capitalized when referring to "Tom". I dont see a reason to capitalize "himself" when referring to it, as that is mainly a christian practice, and violates NPOV to do as such, and god should be consideres as a regular person name, as he is not in any way superior to us to have pronouns capitalized. Just my opinion. Contact me on my talk page.

--217.129.205.214 20:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After some consideration, I have to agree that it is so widespread that it is legitimate to use in the article. (I checked some non-christian [actually critics to christianism] books I have and the ydo refer to god as "He"] Sorry for the trouble ;)

--217.129.205.214 20:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]