User talk:SandyDancer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archived talk - up to 06/12/06

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Chidom

I asked a question there that you seem to have missed: what is the specific abuse you are alleging?

Note that the policy Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate_uses_of_multiple_accounts says "Some editors use different accounts in talk pages to avoid conflicts about a particular area of interest turning into conflicts based upon user identity and personal attacks elsewhere", so your lead complaint "the account is a sock ... registered to avoid the scrutiny of the community for his or her actions", even if true, would not be a problem. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be the misleading statement on the User page of Nicer1 I'd object to principally. --SandyDancer 14:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mitsos RfC

Hi Sandy. I noticed you endorse the summary. Can you also certify the basis for the dispute (since you have tried on numerous occasions to confront Mitsos)? Once you and SpyLab both have signed on, we can open it to the public. Also, when you get a chance, please feel free to leave a statement (in the top section) to express your views on Mitsos' behavior and attitudes. Have a good one. Bobby 15:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: your comment "And for someone who was complaining about wikilawyering, calling me an "accomplice" because I pointed out that there are incidences of this person racially abusing people and heading up talk pages with "fuck you" is ridiculous"; I was not in any way complaining about YOU wikilawyering, that comment was directed squarely at Hectorian and Nikos. I have no problem with your conduct in the RfC in the least. -- weirdoactor t|c 17:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, and my comment wasn't aimed at you, I thought Nikos had made the Wikilawyer comments. Apologies. --SandyDancer 18:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought as much; no worries! -- weirdoactor t|c 19:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mitsos RFC - signed in wrong spot

Hi, in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mitsos, you signed in the Other users who endorse this summary instead of the Users certifying the basis for this dispute (which is for "Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute"). The Users certifying the basis for this dispute section needs two signatures within 48 hours of the RFC being posted, or the page will be deleted. I did not want to move your signature for you, but I strongly recommend that you do so as soon as possible, or we will be back to where we started. Spylab 16:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Empress of Iran

I have read the discussion page, you obviously have not. It seems the consensus was to include the title. In fact, all other users seem to have concluded this except yourself. --Couter-revolutionary 19:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Mowens35 says she shouldn't be either, and myself and that user base our view on sensible debate as opposed to a forlock-tugging belief in the divine right of Kings so frankly - I think our view wins. Soz. --SandyDancer 19:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong. Is this not Mowens35's last comment on the matter:
Was just thinking. Presumably, this article should, by Wiki standards, be titled "Farah, Empress of Iran". Why? Because it seems that Wiki allows the last-ranking title to be used, even when the person has been exiled, the throne abolished, et cetera (see Leka, Crown Prince of Albania, etc). Can we start a vote on this? Just to keep it consistent within Wiki as per other articles of former rulers?Mowens35 15:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
PS, the emphasis is my own.--Couter-revolutionary 19:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I need to back down on this one... soz--SandyDancer 20:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Righto, I have edited the article accordingly.--Couter-revolutionary 21:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hrisi Avgi

Can you just confirm that the requests Mitsos is making here and here (and again further down that page) are uncontroversial. -- Steel 13:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a locked article should be edited at Mitsos's request, particularly when an RFC regarding him is underway. --SandyDancer 15:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Cameron

Hi, thanks for the kind words. You're right that I'm a member of the Tory party, but not an active one; I'm working on this article purely out of personal interest, not for political reasons. I've never really had much difficulty in ignoring personal POV in preference to sticking to Wikipedia policy; my view is that, if there are rules set down, then there's no real excuse for either not abiding by them or alternatively trying to change them by consensus if they are flawed. Perhaps that's why the recent minor UKIP-related revert war irritated me, as that was clearly nothing but an obvious attempt at pov-pushing. :-) DWaterson 14:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hrisi Avgi

I 'm thinking of requesting unprotection for the article. But I first need to make sure you agree with it. I 'm going to make a compromise about the Imia march, say that it is organised by Epitropi Ethnikis Mnimis which was created by Hrisi Avgi and is now led by Patriotic Alliance. I 'm also going to provide sources and maybe some minor edits (change Patriotiki Symmachia to Patriotic Alliance). Are you OK with that? Thanks Mitsos 13:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to what you proposed, depends what you actually end up doing! --SandyDancer 14:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

OK then. I 'm tired of getting blocked, so I 'm going to do the same things again. Mitsos 14:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean you are NOT going to do the same thing again? --SandyDancer 20:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHA! Yes I forgot to put "not". looooool Mitsos 21:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)