User talk:WHS

Amerique

Hello WHS,

Thanks. I concur with your assessment of the UCR article. I've stopped work on it temporarily to investigate the feasibility of successfully submitting a request for an arbitration committee hearing on UCRG's behavior. Apparently, User:Tifigo has compiled a list of earlier incidents formatted for an RfC, a general Request for Comments on UCRG's activities, located here:[1] I have copied this list and have extensively edited it here: [2] but it seems the format for an RfA[3] is a bit looser, so I may not have needed to do that. Anyway, I've sent emails to Tifego and others on his list of users in dispute of UCRG's conduct (Szyslak, Calwatch, an entry on ElKevbo's talk page) but have not recieved any responses from them. Jahamal I've contacted independently and he emailed me a statement in support of arbitration. If you would like to become involved as a party to this action I would greatly appreciate it if you would prepare a statement to that effect and post it here: [4]Best,--Amerique 23:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFARB filed against UCRGrad

Please consider adding a statement here [5] if you are still at all concerned with this. Best,--Amerique 16:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Thanks WHS. Now, to the trenches!--Amerique 15:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you help me gather more evidence showing how prior steps in dispute resolution could not work in this case? Morven seems to be a reasonable man, maybe if we presented more evidence in a better outlined fashion we could convince him that resolution steps requiring good faith have been impossible in this case. thanks for your time--Amerique 00:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WHS. You may have saved this project. I've appealed to a non-involved third party (an admin whose work I am familiar with) to request Morven take a second look at this case.--Amerique 17:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, WHS

Glad to see you back. I've been on the sidelines advising Technosoul02 on how to best approach this article, but have since got pulled back into it. Anyway, it seems if the three of us work together at editing the article like those two do, we can overpower them. I say we turn this drama into an episode of WWF tag team wrestling.--Amerique 15:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Amerique. I'll be glad to do whatever I can, but I'm really starting to doubt any methods will work against UCRGrad and I-B. I have absolutely no idea how they've done it, but the mere two of them have been able to overpower numerous editors all who contend their edits. The failed RFArb was also rather disappointing to me. Still, I'll try my best.--WHS 21:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, someone has responded to a request for advocacy I put up. I'm currently communicating with this person. Anyway, I fully expect 3rd party interventions to fail but I think that pursuing them will put UCRG into sustained contact with administrators. The article has attracted some outside attention, whether due to the recent revert wars or for other reasons. Last week some admins deleted IB's photo uploads, but so far they have not been willing to engage with those two rhetorically. But anyway, a link to the text of the final version of the RFARB is here [6] if you ever need to consult it. I should have informed you of its location prior to this, sorry about that.

Anyway, this week I think I am going to experiment with further edits to the article. I'm also going to post the survey request to all the UC talk pages, as I'd like more outside input into these issues. I'm ready for a sustained campaign against those 2.--Amerique 21:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your request for an Advocate and sincerely hope something comes from it. Please keep me posted about how it's developing. As far as the article is concerned, there are some relatively minor changes I'm hoping to make, such as removing redundant information, things like that. Although I doubt it will, I'm hoping things get worked out soon. Also, thanks for the link to the RFArb case. It's my own fault that I couldn't find it on myself. --WHS 22:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey WHS,

I just wanted to, belatedly, say thanks for that beautiful piece of work that seems to have gotten UCRG to provide the most concrete evidence yet of a plausable psychological rationale/motivation on his part for his ongoing WP:OWN violations. At significant risk of severe personal incivility, you handled that situation like a professional matador playing off an insane, raging bull. Great work, dude.

Unfortunately for UCRG/IB, it seems the advocacy process is moving forward... towards a conduct RfC! The saga continues...--Amerique 23:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Amerique. I appreciate the comment. Careful what you say here though, I'm sure that there is a conspiracy theorist or two out there who will look at this and cite it as concrete evidence that we're colluding with each other to push a POV on the UCR article. --WHS 06:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, however i think to any impartal 3rd party, a thorough evaluation of all the evidence for such an accusation would establish that, independently and jointly, we've actually been pushing for an NPOV on the article, which on wikipedia is to be expected and encouraged. community is not conspiracy, however the two must seem equal for those who have enough reason, on their own part, to be paranoid. i'm sure every editor other than those two appreciates your positive contributions to the community surrounding that article, is all i'm saying. Best regards,--Amerique 13:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha I know, I was just having some fun. Regards. --WHS 20:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warning. I'll try to make a note of not bringing myself to this point in the future. --WHS 10:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference your message on my talk page, I will leave you with a warning due to your own honesty. The 3RR is not for punishment. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to post at my AMA desk

Don't wory you are more than welcome to post at my AMA page. I'm currently investigating the matter of the sockpuppets and should have that information soon. Thanks for making your comments, this issue is a compilcated one and needs to be carefully talked out. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 04:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aeon. Thank you both for considering my comments as well as taking the time to assist in resolving the disputes. Regarding the matter of sockpuppetry, as stated on your Desk, I don't believe I-B or UCRGrad engage in the behavior any longer, but on UCRGrad's user page there is a notice of confirmation of past sockpuppetry left by the sysop/admin, Mackensen. I-B previously had a sockpuppetry notice as well, which was also left by Mackensen. It is no longer there as I-B removed the information from his talk page as well as the related tag on his user page himself. If there's any way that I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to let me know. --WHS 04:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I will investigate that and notify Mackensen if it has been removed, such notices should not be removed. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 04:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope for the sake of a civil and quick outcome that they do prove you wrong. If we can get them to admit wrong doing (Which I have adised at least IB to do) than this issue will have to be moved up (something I think IB wants to advoid due his past record which will work against him in all further conflict reasolution) to request for comment. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 20:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aeon. I genuinely hope they prove me wrong as well, as I am rather keen on moving on from this ongoing conflict. It's just that as a result of past interactions with the two of them, I'm not exactly what you'd call optimistic about the chances of that happening. I'm sure you yourself have noticed the confrontational attitude displayed by UCRGrad on your desk, as well as I-B's agreement with him on nearly every, if not every, subject. It's my belief that this sort of attitude, which has gone on unchecked throughout the talk pages of the UCR article, is what led to this dispute in the first place. In any case, I want to thank you again for your participation and attempt to reconcile the editors of this project. --WHS 21:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm giving IB and UCGrad on last chance to roger up. If they don't I will confer with Steve recomend that this be moved to a higher level. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 21:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHS and Amerique just to give you a heads up, I'm no longer IB Advocate and now UCRGrad feels that my involvment is going to iritate him, I have post on steves talk page about either RfC or Formal Mediation to handle this. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 23:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		The Resilient Barnstar
		WHS, you handled yourself well in the Dispute, owned up to your mistakes and went an extra mile to be civil. Thanks Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 01:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC to be filed soon

I will be filing an RfC on Steves behalf as soon has I figure out if it goes under Article or User Conduct. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 01:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need a brief statement of your issues with UCGrad and Insert-Belltower for the RfC. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 01:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the Barnstar, Aeon. I'll prepare a statement for a RfC when I have some time on my hands. Thanks again for your work in the case. --WHS 06:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks

Seriously. Those comments about the soda and Myrtle Beach were not intended to be patonizing. I'm sorry if you took it that way.Insert-Belltower 03:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already addressed this on Aeon's desk. And again, I'll appreciate if you don't apologize on my behalf, since it is your behavior that is disputed here. --WHS 06:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have it your way then.Insert-Belltower 15:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comment on my RFC. Insert-Belltower 02:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

You can find Barnstars here Barnstars there several there and other awards to. lol I have that page saved to I can award users who do great things for people. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 16:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the RfC looks like now

This has not been filed yet. If you wish to make any eidts to your statement please do so. Draft of RfC Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 20:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aeon, thanks for compiling a list of grievances on our behalf. If it's applicable, there is another list of WP violations by UCRGrad that we've compiled previously located on Amerique's user page. --WHS 20:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of now we are filing this steperatly. Amerique is awaiting Steve's response. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 20:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Did you mean separately as in both you and Steve are filing one, or all four of us are each going to file one? --WHS 20:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, nevermind, I just went to your talk page and saw your dialogue with Amerique. I get it now, spearate one for I-B and UCRGrad. --WHS 21:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[7]] UCRG conduct RFC]

[[8]] IB conduct RFC]

I'd be happy if you could help with the gathering of evidence/information or the organizing of either of these conduct RFCs, following these examples here [9] User Conduct RFCs.--Amerique 16:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Amerique. Give me a day or so and I'll see what I can do. Thanks for taking the initiative once again to file a conduct RfC for UCRGrad. Is Aeon still doing the I-B one?--WHS 20:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey whs, i've significantly updated the ucrg rfc. i think aeon is still working on i-b's, but i will be continuing to edit both projects. we should set a deadline date for filing these.--Amerique 21:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WHS, I've proposed restructuring IB's RFC entirely around the "meatpuppet" allegation. Aeon thinks it is a good idea. The RFC will be on whether the Wikipedia community agrees IB's generally tamer actions in support of UCRG constitute "meatpuppetry." The RFCs will probably have to be delayed a day or so to gather and structure the evidence.--Amerique 23:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Amerique. Sorry I haven't been answering, I just haven't been at a computer much in general the past few days. I added some very minor bits to the UCRGrad RfC the other day and will add some more, time permitting. As far as the I-B RfC, it shouldn't be too hard to gather evidence. Just show what UCRGrad says, then show I-B saying "I agree" afterwards, like he has about 10,000 times so far. Either way, I'm not too worried about I-B, since all of his arguments in the article seem to be contingent on UCRgrad making one for him and I-B agreeing with it. To me, it seems as if this is one of those problems that may be solved by cutting off the head. --WHS 20:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WHS,

Please look over the current RFCs and tell me or Aeon what you think. I was thinking IB's could benefit from adding whatever civility violations he's also committed, as all the evidence currently on his page goes to substantiate the sock/meatpuppet allegations. We are thinking of filing these tonight or tommorrow.--Amerique 20:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And hi again, Amerique. There was an edit conflict as I was attempting to make my last post. Anyway, I think we should file them tomorrow. Give me some time to look them over and I'll throw in what I can. --WHS 20:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCRG Conduct RFC Filed[10]

Thanks for all your hard work in helping this process along.--Amerique 16:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. --WHS 22:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IB RfC

RfC

IB's RfC has been filed. If you could go there and endorse or certify that would be cool Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 19:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done.--WHS 22:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets us hope this takes care of the issue once and for all. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 22:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your sides Case just got Stronger

Take a look at this. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 23:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:JakGd1 User talk:Triddle My Talk Page

Steve has added WikiStalking to the RfC now. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 23:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok WHS he has manged to cause several people a lot of grief. He was blocked for the stalking for 24 hours so hopefully that will serve as his wake up call. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 02:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Dwight Howard; Gold Country; Sierra Madre, California; Santa Clarita Valley; Prince George Spruce Kings; Sorrento Valley, San Diego, California; Sacramento Valley; Irwindale, California; University Towne Center, San Diego, California; East Coast of the United States; Shawn Marion; BMW E90; Walnut Valley Unified School District; Gardena, California; Area code 619; Area code 415; San Ramon Valley; Hermosa Beach, California; Incorporated place

Cleanup: Visalia, California; Santana High School; Northgate High School
Merge: Interstate 680 (California); Temecula Valley Freeway; California State Route 71
Add Sources: University of San Diego; Audi A4; Loss leader
Wikify: Hydropneumatic device; Mark Rudd; Structure of the Comecon
Expand: Surfboard; Ukiah Valley, California; Washington Wizards

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aeon is back

Hey WHS, I'm back the break did me good. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 16:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WHS Æon ^{Insane Ward} 03:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highlander

WHS,

I am an editor with the UCR Highlander, the student newspaper at UCR. I have assigned coverage of this wiki article to one of my staff. She, like most people, has limited knowledge of the wiki interface, so she asked me to contact potential interview candidates. Essentially, we are trying to write a non-biased account of the UCR wikipedia article, complete with the motivations of both sides, student reaction and then faculty verification of some of the facts.

You appear to be more on the pro-UCR side, which I why I am contacting you. I also have messages into UCR Grad and Belltower. We want both viewpoints expressed equally, so I'd like to hear what you have to say. If you wouldn't mind answering a few questions, anonymously or otherwise, please drop me an email at features@highlander.ucr.edu

Ryan

Hi, Ryan. I've e-mailed you a response. --WHS 10:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey WHS, thanks. Undoubtedly I picked up some bad karma for that "little quip" but it was entirely worth it. Incidentially, I think you and El Kevbo could possibly represent UCR article affairs to the Highlander much more objectively than I could. If they do publish a story on this I would definitely want to write their account into the article itself in some way. That would be hilarious, i think.--Amerique 00:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. Ask them when they will be updating their online archive again.[reply]

Hello WHS,

re: doing another RFARB, while I would like to do so, I don't have time to take the lead in organizing one at this time nor do I anticipate having the time in the near future. If you decide to do this, the old evidence on the current RFC will have to be updated to reflect its current location in the article talk page archive, and new evidence added accordingly. If the new evidence shows that UCRGrad's old pattern of behavior has continued despite the admonitions of various third parties encountered in the WP:DR process, (i know it has personally but this should look obvious to people unfamiliar with the case) then i think we have a much better shot than we did the first time we tried this. Also, make sure this RFARB is focused on user conduct and not article content, which is something we did not make clear enough last time. Also, I recommend giving UCRGrad the option of undergoing a formal mediation before filing the RFARB, to show that we tried everything we could under WP:DR to resolve issues with this guy.

If UCRG rejects mediation and you want to do this soon, send me an email and I will prepare a statement. i may be able to help with final editing but probably not so much with new evidence gathering. let me know what you want to do. best, --Amerique 22:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

further comments re: the Highlander. I hope they see it as a battle over objectivity as opposed to a pro-ucr, anti-ucr kind of thing, though it usually goes there. I guess they want "equal representation" of "both sides, pro and con," which would be an appropriate approach if this were a reasonable dispute, but it's obviously not that kind of situation when only two users have been pushing a singular pov aganist a plethora of others who can reasonably disagree on details while generally agreeing on where and what the biased elements are.--Amerique 23:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

further comments re: RFARB, i just reaquainted myself with the UCR article talk page. sorry, I wrote the previous before reading the recent activities on that page. I think it shows more than enough evidence justifying an RFARB now if you want to run one. i would help support one this week but am currently moving. next week i should have more time. i would request more third opinions and still give UCRG the mediation option, though.--Amerique 00:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were also pretty sure you had enough evidence when you filed the original RFARB AND the RFC, neither of which really panned out. UCRGrad 20:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC doesn't "pan out." It's a request for comments and an invitation for discussion. In this case, I imagine the RFCs filed in connection with the UCR article will likely be used in a future RfArb. I don't know but that seems like a good guess based on previous history and the current (continued) direction of the article. --ElKevbo 15:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WHS & ElKevbo,

I think, with the Highlander writing a story on this, we should move within the next week with the next RFARB. I'm anticiating the story will set off a small colbert effect in the form of a deluge of inexperenced and hostile editors swarming the article, which would significantly further muddy the POV waters we've been treading in and cause an exponential # of petty conflicts to occur. --Amerique 19:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WHS,

Thanks for offering to send me a copy of the Highlander article. If you can scan a copy into a pdf format and send it to me via email, that would be cool. I can't believe the Highlander does not publish online anymore. I was hoping the article would have more "net" impact, but oh well. I hope everything is going well with you. I am super busy with academics these days, but maybe we can still get the UCR article to featured status at some point in the long term. Best,--Amerique 21:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCR talk page

Hi WHS, I want you to get my side of the story before you make any judgments.

UCRGrad wrote this on the talk page: "Furthermore, I think it's nice that you compare UC Riverside to Rutgers. Rutgers is a virtually unknown school to people living in California, and probably has a similar reputation to UCR - this is consistent with the similar peer assessment score."

It was obviously intended as (an admittedly subtle) swipe at Rutgers University. Using that statement, he intended to bait me and provoke me into saying rather uncivil comments. Now I truly regret what I said and I admit I turned several of the wiki talk pages into a war zone between UCRGrad and me, but I would like you to know that it was his comment above that provoke me into a barrage of insults and admittedly uncivil attacks on UCRGrad.

I am not asking for your sympathy or to take sides, but I want to know that I did not just say those things completely out of the blue. While my behavior was unbecoming of an editor, I still stand by my position that UCRGrad should not have said those remarks about UCRGrad. He knows very well that he was insulting my school and he knows that I take pride in Rutgers. For him to disparage Rutgers (even if he asserts is true) is uncalled for. He did fire the first shot and when I tried to apologize to him for being admittedly uncivil, he just continued to disparage Rutgers. Thank you for your understanding. Teknosoul02 03:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Teknosoul. I completely understand how you feel because UCRGrad has been taking subtle shots at all of us for the longest time now, and I also know it's not the first time he's done it to you (off the top of my head, I can at the very least recall the whole remedial mathematics thing). It was also very clear to me that he was taking shots at your alma mater. However, retaliating was in all likeliness not the best course of action. There are other alternatives you can turn to, such as the admin noticeboard that I'm sure you're now all too familiar with. Anyway, you've at least had the decency to remove your comments from the talk page and apologize for them, which like many other ones, have gone unaccepted. Just try to be a little more calm in the future. Oh, and next time you remove comments that you made, leave a little place holder where they were that says "deleted comment" or something like that. It helps people follow what's going on more easily. --WHS Talk 04:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding, WHS. Teknosoul02 04:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Subtle shots"...as opposed to the obscene and overt "shots" that Teknosoul02 took? Gimme a break, man. He was way out of line and you know it. UCRGrad 04:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show me where I said he wasn't out of line. "feel free to copy it here. When you realize that I didn't, then I will await your apology." --WHS Talk 04:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that Teknosoul02 was out of line...good. But you also seem to argue that I was baiting him. So, is it your position that it's okay to use such profanity and obscenity, just as long as you can claim that you were baited? UCRGrad 13:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement completely contradicts itself. I agreed that Teknosoul was out of line, so I have absolutely no idea where or how you came to the conclusion that I thought it was okay. Then again, I guess I really shouldn't be surprised by the fact that you're using non sequiturs as an argument. Not like that's anything new. --WHS Talk 19:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple, WHS. I just want to make sure that you agree that Teknosoul02 was out of line and that his profanity and obscenities was not okay. It sounds like you do. I also want to make sure that you realize that it's STILL not okay and it's STILL out of line to use profanity and obscenities irrespective of the claim that one was "baited." UCRGrad 20:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it does sound as if I still believe he was out of line. But make no mistake, after reading this response, it should also sound to you like I think you're avoiding any accusations against yourself. It also should sound like you don't have the decency to apologize for your personal attacks as others have done. It also sounds like you're a sock puppeteer (And I'm warning you in advance, don't get caught using a poorly disguised one.) who really is only interested in pushing a POV on the article. But then, that's just what it sounds like.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for my apology by the way, both for saying I have no knowledge whatsoever of UCR and for believing that I thought Tekno's actions were okay. Oh, wait, who am I kidding, you don't apologize to people. --WHS Talk 21:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 Revert Rule

Hi, WHS. My understanding is that "reverting" means going to the history page, clicking on an earlier version of the article, and saving it so that it replaces the present article. I haven't been doing that, I've just been editing the article. If you think I'm wrong about this, let me know and I'll look into it further. starkt 08:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your further remarks, I think I'll take a wait and see attitude. I notice an awful lot of editing going on from UCRGrad and others -- surely more than 3 edits a day -- so I don't think he's in a position to criticize me for doing the same thing. But rules are rules, so we'll see. And thanks for saying that you generally agree with my edits. Also, note what I've written about them on the Talk page. :) starkt 08:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source material. I'll try to put it in the article (quickly glances through wiki tutorial on external links...) starkt 08:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at UCRGrad's entries for August 13, and see that he removed all kinds of things I'd written -- certainly more than three times. I think he has about 20 edits just for that day -- lots of them removing my material. So we obviously lack an even playing field here. We're supposed to follow the rules, while UCRGrad violates them with impunity. I was tempted, by the way, simply to do a whole page revert back to my last version once I saw the nonsense he was up to. Then I would have undone all of his reverts of my work while doing only one revert myself. I think I might take this tack in the future. starkt 11:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that it's by section. I take that to mean any part of the article that you can edit separately. And that as long as I don't remove material put in by other editors more than three times in a 24 hour period in any one section, I'm okay. I hope that's correct. I have read the 3RR rule, and it's not clear on this point, at least not to me. Have a good sleep. starkt 11:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit the pages I've edited

I don't know whether you can do this, but I seem to be the anti-UCRGrad editor making the most changes. It would be easier for me to stick to my guns if other people (also opposed to UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower) edited my most recent page (in the history section) so that I could revert to it later without eliminating their good edits. I'm passing this message on to ElKevbo and Teknosoul02. starkt 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The next RFARB

They've both indicated they don't want to undertake WP:Mediation. I am for initiating further data collection this week for the next RFARB, RFARB2.0, for which I've pulled the evidence from the current RFC and saved it on yet another user subpage located here: [11]. I truly think the last one failed mainly for a lack of due process, but we will see. I am not in a rush to do this, but will be working on compiling further evidence and developing a comprehensive statement through this week.--Amerique 23:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about collecting new evidence. We don't need to do this now, all the evidence we should need to provide is to show how prior steps at WP:DR since the last RFARB have not worked and provide our personal statements as to what the nature of the problem (still) is and what we want the ARBCOM to do about it. I am working on my statement now offline, I should have something online by Thursday or Friday. best,--Amerique 23:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put up my preliminary draft statement on my afformentioned userpage. You can put yours up there now or wait until after I file the request, which I intend to do next Monday. Best,--Amerique 00:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've gotten the format of the next RFARB mostly ready to go with minimal further editing necessary. I would like to open the question of whether we should file this week to further discussion on my talk page, as UCRGrad himself seems to have suddenly become absent. Best,--Amerique 02:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For all you have done for Wikipedia, I award you, WHS, the Editor's Barnstar. Michael 04:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You earned it. Michael 01:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Los Angeles Community College District; Dwight Howard; Avery Johnson; Area code 949; Linda Vista, California; Richard Jefferson; Jason Terry; David Wesley; Anderson Varejão; Jeff Van Gundy; Keith Van Horn; California State University, Channel Islands; Jump shot (basketball); Weston Christian College; Embarcadero, San Diego; DeSagana Diop; Stanford Research Park; Marcus Camby; Sorrento Valley, San Diego, California

Cleanup: Sierramont Middle School; Austin Croshere; Darrell Waltrip
Merge: Korea Campus Crusade for Christ, Los Angeles; Oxford Academy (California); Slam Dunk Contest
Add Sources: Gilbert Arenas; Andre Miller; Eastside (gang/rap), Long Beach, California
Wikify: Monty Roberts; Deputy Director of Central Intelligence; Modesto Junior College
Expand: Conley-Caraballo High School; Washington Wizards; East Coast hip hop

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]