User talk:Macks
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
hello there..i'm a new user fellow. da vinci code, is it real. i had read one but i did not finished it. my classmates did. me? i have no plan at all! will anyone would like to present me some website perhaps or any url pertaining to dan brown i just want to reasearch if he is an atheist. thank you
Hello fellow goon. This might interest you: Category:Something_Awful_Wikipedians --Liface 17:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] YTMND :)
Thanks for your contribution to the YTMND article. If it's really you then kick ass and thanks!
Cheers
Celerityfm 22:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] mediator
Hi. I noticed you comment about leaving this to the mediator. The mediator(me) has closed out the case so there is no active mediator anymore. Essentially if I was an arbitrator I would have decided against the plaintiff, Closing out. The content under discussion has no 3rd party information at all. The entire article may fall under not notable in terms of a website. Moreover the entire discussion is about a one time incident. My strong recommendation is to delete the section in question along with a reworking of most of the article. I can reopen it if you want to comment but I'm already on record siding with you.
Now I can facilitate taking an administrative action. I certainly can act to bring in administrative attention to the section and could move for a ban/block on those users since I do believe they are trolling. I can't promise you though that the entire article doesn't end up deleted as "not notable" if I do that. I think its pretty much harmless but once it becomes a distraction to administration it is no longer harmless, I would stil vote to keep but I just want you forewarned before we go down that road.
If you want to just build you case and not utilize administrative actions then the first thing you need to do is to create a page somewhere which could only be created by you (i.e. identity is no longer an issue) like an admin page on YTMND with a history of this incident including evidence. You then have the only reputable 3rd party quotable source. Whatever text is there has to be in line with quotable 3rd party sources. I mentioned this all over the place in talk page but didn't get much response. Once you do that Dr Ke is a up a creek. He was able to argue his original research was not so bad because the whole article was original research. With your 3rd party source that changes things.
Hope this helps, feel free to ask for any kind of clarification of the above. jbolden1517Talk 12:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
