This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

April 2008

April GA Newsletter

Resolved

– Just projectspam.

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks on dab pages

Resolved

– Responded at other page as requested.

Hi there! A while ago, you submitted a proposal to deal with red links on dab pages. The proposal was declined, and currently the MOSDAB still states that red links can only be included when they have backlinks. Good as it may sound it theory, the rule has a side effect of impeding productivity of several WikiProjects and allows removal of valid and useful information from the dab pages. I though you might be interested in helping revive the discussion (which currently receives little attention) at WT:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Red links in disambigs - forgotten interwiki. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Count me in. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OKily dokily

Resolved

– Just a chat.

Yes your edit is OK. Fnag aton 12:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

diff for MOS

Resolved

– Just a chat.

Thanks, Stanton, for your report of the change. I doubt whether others will be so civic-minded! TONY (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Now we're cookin

Resolved

– Just a chat.

I told you we needed you back. No one (that I recall) has insisted on keeping MOSNUM discussions in one place, or put a "resolved" check on a section, for months. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Good luck in school. I got a kind of wierd Back to School vibe when I was studying robotics in 2002-3; my adviser somehow decided "one of these things is not like the others" and started beating me up just to prove he could, so I'm waiting for him to leave before I do anything else. I passed the PhD exams and took the classes, so hopefully won't take too much time.

After robotics and related fields, I like learning about the "evolutionary trend", as Steven Pinker puts it, in anthropology and psychology, so feel free to educate me about anthropology at any time. If you can wield those arguments correctly, it's sometimes magic at dispute-resolution. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia image placeholders

Resolved

– Just a chat.

I found your name as the lister of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fromowner. I've spend some time tagging Wikipedia image placeholders with Category:Wikipedia image placeholders. There seems to be too many of these placeholder images. I thought that you might want to review Category:Wikipedia image placeholders and reduce that number. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

More like MfD it again. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (binary prefixes)

Resolved

– I quit. Resolution was not working, real-life major problem kept me busy, and debate is now out of control again.

Disruptive edits

Resolved

– Mediation failed; any further discussion should be at the binary prefixes MOS talk page.

Over at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(binary_prefixes) one user is getting disruptive [1]. Note that he even created the captioned image himself. --217.87.103.237 (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

While he removed the image from the discussion, he's using it here now: [2]. Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that this author is acting in good faith by trying to ridicule things he can't stand? --217.87.83.213 (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Binary prefixes

Resolved

– Mediation failed; any further discussion should be at the binary prefixes MOS talk page.

Sigh. Given the sockpuppetry, personal attacks, and deeply polarized opinions and entrenched positions, I doubt "informal mediation" is going to work on MOSNUM. Even if it does, it will not have any "authority" behind it and will be dismantled in a few months when another Greg L shows up and tries to undo the whole mess all over again.

Also, it only takes into account the opinions of maybe 10 editors who are currently participating on the page? But there have been many more involved in the discussion historically (I tried to make a list a year ago). I think we need to go to formal mediation for a decision to "stick" (and I think they have better checks and balances against sockpuppetry nonsense). There have been several tentatively stable solutions over the last few years, but none has stayed for very long. — Omegatron (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. You are making accusations of sock puppetry when you admit you do not have specific types of evidence to support your claims. Since you have not given any valid reason then I support to continuation of informal mediation, SMcCandlish is doing a good job. I would like to remind you Omegatron that throwing around unsubstantiated claims of sock puppetry is uncivil and obstructive to the process of the debate. Fnag aton 17:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am now going to quote Omegatron's edit "Is this seriously how you think? You really think that anyone who opposes something you do on Wikipedia is part of a vast conspiracy of sockpuppets? What if they are merely individual people who disagree with you on a particular issue for good reasons?". I think given the current situation Omegatron you need to take your own words to heart and stop making these kinds of accusations. Fnag aton 17:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Omegatron didn't accuse anyone in particular of using socketpuppets unlike a certain someone: [3]. I'd also like to remind you that you have been convicted of using a socket puppet [4]. --217.87.83.213 (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I didn't know about that. Direct link to ANI archive — Omegatron (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. Check my block log because it says nothing about being blocked for any sock puppetry. What did happen back then is that there was some confusion as User:NotSarenne was blocked along with User:QuinellaAlethea and User:HyperColony and User talk:NotFnagaton. The block comment for NotSarenne does say it is a sock of Sarenne. The block comment for User:HyperColony also says it is a sock of NotSarenne. The same goes for NotFnagaton's block comment. Note the block comment for QuinellaAlethea does not explicitly state who it is a sock puppet of. This shows there is a lack of evidence to "convict" me, as such I am innocent. I would like point out at this stage that 217.87.83.213 is using the same ISP as NotSarenne (Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/NotSarenne) and since nothing appears in my block log then it is unusual that 217.87.83.213 would "like to remind" me of something that appears in an old ANI thread involving NotSarenne and also the list of IPs of sock puppet accounts used by NotSarenne. Fnag aton 15:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I said you have been convicted not blocked for socket puppetry. Why those administrators applied double standards, I don't know. You have been blocked afterwards for "celebrating your victory" with Marty Goldberg in form of offensive comments. Anyway, you even admitted that you used a sock puppet in the very last comment that Omegatron linked to. Let me cite your very own words: I can easily commit to not "using socks" in the future since I have not before now, but ho hum water under the bridge and all that. --217.87.100.251 (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A conviction without any proof is not a conviction, it is an accusation without proof and the admin was mistaken. Also the blocking for "offensive comments" was also a mistake by the same admin. The mistake can easily be seen from this revision of my talk page where I was replying to an admin about the anonymous emails from NotSarenne. The block was a mistake and unnecessary. This is also shown by the talk log on the admin's page where Butseriouslyfolks mentions it. You are also wrong because the quote you cited is not an admission of using socks either, it is a clear denial "I have not before now". Do not try to misrepresent what I write. So on both counts you are wrong. Fnag aton 16:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. That shows how your attempt to take advantage of User:Kwsn backfired on you and how you guys just can't refrain from trying to ridicule others. You have that in common with Marty Goldberg, Swtpc6800 and even Greg L. --217.87.100.251 (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Take advantage of User:Kwsn"? What on Earth are you talking about? I'm sorry SMcCandlish that your talk page has this rubbish on it, this user seems intent on hopping IP addresses from the same ISP as a blocked user while making accusations that have no substance on a topic related to the same blocked user. Fnag aton 17:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What I'm talking about starts about here and ends about 1000 edits later with a permanent ban of NotSarenne. Regarding your buddy Marty Goldberg, it started about here. That's a lot of substance. --217.87.100.251 (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

User:NotSarenne, the other accounts listed above and the other dynamic IPs from your ISP are blocked for being puppets of User:Sarenne. What you have linked has nothing to do with any so called "taking advantage of Kwsn". What you have linked shows multiple IP users from your ISP editing on the subject of binary prefixes while being disruptive. Fnag aton 18:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, as mediator, please look at Template talk:Quantities of bytes. — Omegatron (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes please do, Omegatron is trying to use original research to push his point of view instead of providing reliable sources. Fnag aton 15:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Resolved

– Query answered.

You've been active on Wikipedia but haven't touched your talk page or the MOSNUM dispute in 10 days. Have you dropped it? Where should we go from here? — Omegatron (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't help. Responded at the topical talk page about where to go from here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Reimers

Resolved

– Query answered

Hey I just recently did an article on Bruce Reimers and was wanting feeback on it. You have commented on some of the articles he is a category of. Please look at the article and give some feedback and feel free to add to it as well. Thanks!

Aaron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atacker (talk • contribs) 01:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Good start, but the tone of the article is not encyclopedic. See WP:WBA and WP:MOS. It also needs inline citations that link specific facts to specific sources. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)