User talk:Richardmalter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have replied to your question on my talk page, to keep the discussion centralized. Thanks, Xoloz 17:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There is more discourse for you at my talk; the short version is, I think, that you have no need to worry. Best wishes, Xoloz 05:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Yoshiaki Omura

Hi! I apologize for reverting your changes to this article without comment. I initially did this because there was a large amount of removal of information. However, looking at it, while I'm still not sure what you were trying to do, I feel you were trying to make the article better. Please accept my apologies, and revert my changes if necessary. In the future, using descriptive edit summaries will help avoid confusion like this in the future. Thanks. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yoshiaki Omura

Your recent edits to this article are verging on trollish behaviour. Firstly this edit violates WP:POINT. Then this edit and this one and this one were marked as minor when clearly they are not.

If you wish to keep editing Wikipedia articles then please stick to accepted wikipedia editing policies and guidelines. These policies have been established for a reason and provide a tried and tested framework in which neutral, factually correct and informative articles can be created. --Spondoolicks 09:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have stuck to WP guidelines. I could take your comments and apply them to the other editors. Why have you not done so. Please see my arguments on the Talk page.--Richardmalter 10:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yoshiaki Omura RfC

Hi Richard, I saw your request for comment and skimmed through the article's talk page. Unfortunately, though I'd love to be able to help, I don't have time to read through the article and talk page to provide informed comment regarding the dispute. I did, however, notice your comment near the end of the talk page regarding taking the issue through mediation, and wondered if you'd considered trying the mediation cabal? They're a group of users who try to informally assist in finding mutually agreeable compromises in situations like this, and might be more effective than formal mediation. --jwanders^Talk 13:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, read your comments at the mediation cabal, although I'm not a mediator, I would be interested regarding the possibility of editing this article towards a compromise version. In the first instance, could we break out of this edit war? That is, for your next edit could you make your changes manually, instead of using the revert function. This would allow another user such to edit without being swamped. Thanks. Addhoc 12:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Addhoc, I couldn't find your talk page. I am very grateful for your offer and fully intend to help you help us in practice. The problem with not reverting is that the version up at the moment which has had tons of 'unilateral' stuff done to it, is so far of the mark that it is not an even approaching 'middle ground' place to start. I conceded to this about 2 months ago! when crum375 decided he/she would mediate with the version that 'the other side' had got up at that point - which in hindsight turned out to be a huge waste of time and got us absolutely nowhere; I am very reluctant to repeat that again. Please see points 1-5 on the Talk page for a general summary of the problem. But I'll spend a few minutes now and see what I come up with. Thank you.--Richardmalter 20:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Hi there! My name is Andy and I am taking the case you filed at WP:MEDCAB for the article Yoshiaki Omura. I am going to review everything and post to the article talk page within 24 hours. If you feel mediation is no longer needed since you posted the case, please let me know as soon as possible. Thanks --Aguerriero (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard, as a reminder during mediation, please make sure to post comments and rebuttal under the correct headings for the sake of organization. When I start a heading named "Discussion" it will be only for discussion on that particular passage. I have moved some of your replies to the correct headings. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:SCAN0885 000.pdf

Thanks for uploading Image:SCAN0885 000.pdf. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yoshiaki Omura

I had CowMan reprotect the page.

Let's stop the edit warring. Seriously. It's not worth it. We can settle this like reasonable people. But until we've reached a state where we can clearly handle this rationally, I'm going to recommend against unprotection.

- Che Nuevara 06:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm cross-posting this to Crum as well.

Che, I understand your position and request. But Crum is careful to agree to this on the terms that he has managed to effectively impose as I have described. Therefore I will edit as I see fit within WP guidelines. But PLEASE continue your mediation. It is not acceptable to the reasonable mind that one guy like Crum375 (or more than one) with no known knowledge or credentials can effectively 'denounce' as a whole packet of nonsense the work of many eminent people worldwide. WP actually has not a bad set of policies - the problem is they are guidelines open to abuse; so I have no choice to continue to engage. I am also researching other better citations in the meanwhile. But Crum has effectively declared his extreme bias and this needs balancing to say the least.Richardmalter 06:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

Richard, please be advised that you are about to violate the WP:3RR rule yet again. This is a blockable offense, as you know. Please try to adhere to this rule. Thanks, Crum375 03:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Crum, you ignore what has been said to you by many people about the version protected not being endorsed in any way - and that your idea of a stable article is purely your notion. Richardmalter 03:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for violation of the three revert rule on Yoshiaki Omura for a period of 24 hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Cowman109^Talk 05:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Cowman, what do I do if Crum375, et al, revert mediated consensus agreed decisions that they were fully part of, the minute protection is off, then pretend all kinds of things that many people tell them repeatedly is not the case - eg the arbitrary protection of a version that they then claim is the 'best' one etc. They are manipulating WP policy ad hoc re their bias. Please see last few comments on the Talk page with links to the mediated decisions. It really is making a joke out of WP. Thanks.Richardmalter 05:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content removal on Yoshiaki Omura

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Antonrojo 17:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not expereimenting, I think you may not have the whole picture. Is removing POV/OR vandalism?? See the bits I discuss on the Talk page for what I refer to. Thanks.Richardmalter 21:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR violation

Richard, I believe you have violated the WP:3RR rule yet again, which is a blockable offense. As you know, repeated violations of 3RR result in longer and longer blocks. Please refrain from violating this rule. Thank you, Crum375 05:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on December 10, 2006 to Yoshiaki Omura

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 11:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Re your mail: I appreciate your frustration. However... one way to tell the Good from the Bad guys is playing by the rules. Just being Right doesn't give you more reverts. Its better to contact the others who have been recently interested rather than break 3RR yourself William M. Connolley 13:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

If you read the Talk page, you will read that Crum375 and the other guy that changes his handle continuously, who have in the previous Mediator's own report of about 24 hours ago scuttled the mediation process [for the 3rd time] and also in the Mediator's own report continuously act in bad faith, and revert full consensus mediated agreements that they were fully part of, but try to weedle out of, slandar and lie whenever they need to, etc etc, have once again teamed up to revert a version that is unacceptable to the last Mediator, plus at least two other Admins who have recently contributed, so that I am left to revert them continuously and then one of them then reports me for a 3RR.

You then step in to the story, and effectively, regardless of any other judgement on your part, help them do what I have said they do and which you dont have to take my word for it you just have to read through the Talk and mediation page of the last 48 hours even.

I have been the one that originally requested mediation, that they have sabotaged continuously. You are not helping WP. You are just aiding this nonsense.

You will probably reply to follow the dispute process; the reply to that is it is not working - because there is bad faith and lies, and I have been trying to for months. What do you have to say to that?

Please consider the actual effect of your Admin actions - can you appreciate that if manipulated you might just be an unconscious party to extremely ant-WP behaviour?

Thanks.

Very nice reasoning in theory. But in this case if two editors in point of fact who are intent on sabotaging everything and resist all mediation team up to out-revert me, then the result is as is; and if the others who have been involved just give up - like the last valiant mediator, Che, for these stated reasons that I give, then what you propose does not work in practice. So your 'one way to tell' idea has found an exception that breaks the rule. And regardless of your very best intentions that I have not a shadow of a doubt about - you are just in practice effectievely a lackey to their actions. That is the reality regardless of what you think otherwise. WP is breaking down here because of this and you aren't doing anything about it, but the opposite.Richardmalter 20:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite why you think calling me a lackey is going to help you I don't know. Anyway: if you have 2 editors against you, then obviously out-reverting them will not work. So... follow WP:DR: find someone to agree with you; mediation, RFC, and if that fails RFA William M. Connolley 09:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And quite why you're stuck at mediation I dont know. Its not the end of DR William M. Connolley 11:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)