User talk:David.Mestel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, and Archive 5.
[edit] Laurentdion
As I showed on the Administrators's Noticeboard, Laurent has been around for some time, and has shown himself to be a single purpose account here to do nothing but disrupt and push his own agenda. His abusive email comments to me since his block has done nothing but confirm this. --InShaneee 19:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- If you're willing to put up with that, I'd agree to it on two conditions: 1., he doens't start pursuing any irrational goals again (ie, getting his username removed from old talk page archives, removing evidence that an afd ever happened about his page, ect). 2., He's instantly reblocked should he decide to jump over your head and begin his old garbage again. This includes the anti-wiki rants and protest poems he kept trying to post on his talk page. Sound good? --InShaneee 14:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- As one of the initial participants in the edit war that precipitated Laurentdion's blocking, I have to say that you are saints for trying to work it out. Check back on the old AFDs for Earth Man and Dion Laurent, and the discussion pages before you commit to this work though. There were a number of people with good intentions involved who interpreted Wiki's guidelines appropriately, but it didn't do any good. I would also ask why he is deserving of the kind of favored treatment you are offering, which amounts to both a personal editor/nanny, and a second chance when it is hard to see why one is appropriate. Richardjames444 17:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Alright, though as I said before, when you say 'his work', please do include any of his prior work on this site, as long as making sure he brings any concerns he has with other editors to you first. --InShaneee 19:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate confirmation from him on-wiki somewhere as a matter of record, but I trust you've gotten it properly. He's unblocked, and his page is unprotected. --InShaneee 18:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, have you heard anything further from this user? For someone who campaigned so fiercely to get unblocked, he doesn't seem to eager to actually edit. --InShaneee 22:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for October 16th.
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 42 | 16 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pilate
It was not a mistake. I deleted wrong info. Sait Pilate is not Potius Pilatus.--87.64.8.195 21:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Major erros merit no discussion.--87.64.8.195 21:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I have now edited the edit summary. Hope you are now happy Master.!!!--87.64.8.195 21:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding Association of Members' Advocates
Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! Martinp23 20:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] LaurentDion
Hey David!
Dion contacted me two weeks back about the possibility of getting his account unblocked. I see that he has also contacted you. We've had some communication back and forth, and I was struck that he's been calm and rational throughout my communication with him. There was no "An evil admin blocked me"-type attitude that I see so prevalent with other blocked users (and I see a lot of them). He also stated he still wants to edit art-related articles on Wikipedia.
Maybe we can coordinate our user advocate efforts here?
Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 10:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for October 23rd.
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 43 | 23 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
| Report from the Finnish Wikipedia | News and notes: Donation currencies added, milestones |
| Wikipedia in the news | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for October 30th.
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 44 | 30 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] year edits
so Rebecca continues to mass revert my edits, not caring a twit what you or other administrators say. What can you do about it? Hmains 03:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thanks for a beginning Hmains 03:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] November Esperanza Newsletter
|
|
|
[edit] "Hoax article"
The article was actually a hoax, and it reached good article status. Ral315 (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for November 6th.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 45 | 6 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mediation Cabal case: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-25 Bae Yong Joon
This case seems to have no updates since the 26th of August. Does it need to be closed, or are you still working on it? Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 22:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vote request
Please Vote, as per wiktionary the correct spelling is Wiktionary:anti-Semitic NOT Antisemitic. 67.70.68.51 12:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for November 13th.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 46 | 13 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for November 20th.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 47 | 20 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Request for advice
Hi David,
I found you on the advocacy listing. I am new to Wikipedia and just been through a very trying experience (as follows -- I'll try to keep it short!)
- There has been an article describing my company (XPLANE) up at Wikipedia since 2004. I did NOT write the article.
- About a week ago I saw the article and added a link to my personal blog (I am the founder and CEO of the company and the blog is well respected in my field, which is an emerging discipline which combines communications, information design, and visualization.
- A Wikipedian deleted the link to my blog, and then listed the entire article for deletion
- I tried to improve the article to demonstrate "noteworthiness" in an attempt to address the complaint.
- The same Wikipedian then listed the article for deletion again, this time on the grounds that the article read like an advertisement. I did not get the feeling this person was working in good faith to improve the article.
- I made further attempts to improve the article, after which the same Wikipedian flagged the article for "non-neutrality."
- Meanwhile, a discussion was progressing on the deletion page between Wikipedians who seemed to have no knowledge of my company's discipline/field.
- Concerned, I then made an appeal on my blog for anyone who felt the company "notable" to make a comment, as well as supply any relevant credentials (I later found this is frowned upon at Wikipedia, but I could think of no other way to inject knowledgable experts into the discussion.
- Voting to "keep" were several respected authorities including:
-
- The author of a book on e-Learning
- The artist in residence at the Charles M. Schultz
- A designer with ten years experience
- A graphic facilitator with 20 years experience
- Even after requested to do so, NONE of the Wikipedians voting to delete offered any relevant expertise or experience.
- I also offered to submit to any reasonable peer review that anyone would suggest, as the field of information design is small and my company is well known.
- Evidence presented for notability included:
-
- Exper opinions (above)
- An article in CNN.com
- Numerous interviews with the founder (myself)
- References to conferences where I have been an invited speaker
- The article was marked for deletion by an admin.
- I went to the admin's talk page and asked him to explain his rationale.
- His answer: The commenters voting to keep were not Wikipedia contributors, which he deemed "suspicious.
My personal notes: It feels to me as if Wikipedia experience trumped industry experience and expertise. I also felt that my initial attempts to redress the issue were met with curt citations rather than in any spirit of inclusion. It seems that there is a war against "vandals" going on and somehow I was placed on the side of the vandals. This is merely a feeling, but I feel as if I was treated as an invader from the very initiation of this exchange.
Net: The article has now been deleted.
I hope you will have some advice to offer about how to proceed.
Thanks in advance, DaveDgray xplane 16:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Chaguanas
hi david, the user has attempted to edit the page again without discussing with you. just letting you know as you are my advocate. thank you. Ryorye 02:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Just noticed your unilateral actions back in August. I asked you to explain how you determined that some people were "significantly more notable" than others. When you made no attempt to answer the question or take the argument anywhere forward, I took it that you had dropped the matter. To wait until I was not around much and then change the article, without explaining your methodology seems like a rather underhand action which shows a shocking lack of good faith. Guettarda 05:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I just saw this edit as well. I find your statement "since Guettarda is no longer engaged in discussion" incredibly offensive - you were the one who failed to engage in a discussion. I checked regularly for over a week for your response. You failed to respond, I missed your edit somewhere in the 3000 or so pages on my watchlist at the time - and you have the nerve to describe my actions as "no longer engaging in discussion"? It isn't ok to refuse to answer a fundamental issue, and then act as if I am somehow the one not engaging in the discussion. Guettarda 05:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I replied 15 minutes later - Yes, you replied, but you made no attempt to answer my question. I provided you with a (highly incomplete) list of 59 names, and I asked to you present a rationale to separate those who were significantly more notable from those who were significantly less notable. You replied with some nonsense about google hits. Now obviously that was not an attempt to answer my question, and it was obviously not a suitable tool for non-US topics. So I was waiting for a real answer. You made no attempt to provide a real answer - in fact I am still waiting for a real answer.
- If you don't answer someone's question for two weeks and then change the page, without bothering to address the issue, it is sneaky. It is especially underhand to make such a change while you believe the person isn't around. But the underlying point is that I complied with your request and you failed to follow up on my reply to your request. And then you changed to page to your favoured version. Please answer the question. Guettarda 16:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I didn't expect psychic powers, just reading comprehension. Is that too much too expect? Guettarda 19:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Reading the question you have yet to respond to at Talk:Chaguanas. Which is, after all, the whole point of rhis interaction between us. Guettarda 21:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Hi
Ignatzmicetalk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
[edit] Signpost updated for November 27th.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 48 | 27 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hope you don't mind...
I fixed your link here [1], I hope you don't mind :) — Deon555talkdesk 06:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for December 4th.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 49 | 4 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] request for something
I now have another editor following my work here and there, even putting year links in articles I never took them out of. Please see my talk page. I am losing interest in doing much editing at all, given the abuse I seem to have to take, but which no one should see on WP. Thanks Hmains 05:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Request
David, I really need your advice. The arbcom are on the verge of inappropriately banning me and Asmodeus from editing certain articles. The evidence is entirely fabricated. I have been wrongly blocked twice [2] (the second block, a little further down the page was a little more egregious and even had a total stranger calling it bogus). Amazingly, this has been for innocuous edits like putting material in chronological order, putting back long-standing content that dropped out without explanation, or changing qualifiers like "all" to "some" when "all" was unsourced.
These actions were instigated by Felonious Monk and those bogus blocks used to propose a ban to my account. I would like to impress upon you that all of my edits have been good faith edits and all strove to maintain balance and NPOV. I have been very careful so this is extremely transparant and totally unjustified. Can you please give me some advice? TIA --DrL 15:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hello, David. I wanted to mention that they are banning Asmodeus from editing the Christopher Langan article, but he hasn't edited that article more than a couple of times and not in the last five months. Can you help me look into this. That just sounds ludicrous yet everyone is acting like that is a perfectly fine thing to do. I have to say that the things that go on here just defy logic. I am hoping that you might be able to help me do something about this. Thanks for any support that you might be able to give us. --DrL 02:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost draft - T.R.O.L.L.
David: I happened to see the draft of this week's Signpost in your userspace. I hope it's okay if I give you a couple of comments. First, in the Konstable case, I wouldn't say that Konstable left the project but then returned with an alternate account. What actually happened was that he set up the alternative account to experiment with something (though that's probably more detail than you need).
Also in the Siobhan case, you probably don't want to be predicting what outcome is "likely" in the case, as the situation is a bit fluid, particularly as concerns MONGO. I think it should be enough to say that remedies concerning Siobhan and MONGO have been proposed.
I hope these comments are helpful, and please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for December 11th.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 50 | 11 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
