User talk:Armedblowfish/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is Archive 3 of my talk page, containing material from 19 July 2006 through 21 November 2006. It may contain some refactoring (mostly, copying pieces of conversations spread out over multiple places, including here, to my talk page, and adjusting indentation accordingly) or contextual notes (e.g. links to related conversation) from after that date. Refactoring should be noted in bold. Contextual notes should be in italics.

Also see links to edit history:

• just after last edit included in this archive was made
• just before archival

Other archives

• User talk:Armedblowfish/Archive1, 12 April 2006 — 9 June 2006, 10 sections, 21.9 kB (3355 words)
• User talk:Armedblowfish/Archive2, 12 June 2006 — 13 July 2006, 16 sections, 29.8 kB (4520 words)

[edit] MedCom

Hi, I see that you offered to mediate the case of the Ross Jeferies Talk page, has that lead to anything? It may be worth your while leaving messages on the talk pages of the involved parties to let them know that you are willing to mediate the case. If you need a hand just let me know. --Wisden17 14:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for you interest in my attempts to mediate! : ) No, it hasn't lead to anything yet, but I just took your advice and posted reminders on the talk pages of the participants. I don't want them to feel rushed in deciding whether or not they would like me to mediate, however. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that point, but often people don't have the RfM page on their watchlist, or it gets buried on their watchlist, meaning that a quick message on their talk page is usually the best policy. Like I said if you need a hand at any stage let me know. --Wisden17 13:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I am fine with you mediating. This is just my first time in mediation and the process is new to me. Thanks for offering. --SecondSight 00:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The result of my RfA

Thank you for taking the time to vote in my successful RfA. Despite your oppose vote, I was made an admin by a margin of 54/6/1.

You may be wondering why I am thanking you now, almost a month and a half after my becoming an administrator. There are many reasons, and I will attempt to explain these now. First of all, I am hand-typing all of my responses to all of my votes (which, admittedly, I underestimated the time such an undertaking would consume). I thought this would be rather simple, but needless to say, it is hard to think of unique and appropriate wording for each user. Secondly, the FIFA World Cup coincided with my promotion to administrator status, and so I was preoccupied with watching the World Cup. Third, I had some issues outside of Wikipedia that I had to deal with, and such issues decreased the amount of time I could spend responding to RfA votes. But those three reasons are merely excuses, and they should not be excused.

However, delaying my responses to votes has a postive effect for those who opposed my quest for adminship. It gives those users (such as yourself) the opportunity to review my actions as an administrator. If you so choose, you can review my administrator decisions here: IanManka (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves). This is, of course, entirely optional.

Re-reading your oppose reasoning, I feel that my response to some of the questions were inappropriate and perhaps not representative of my views on Wikipedia. I agree with your view that, in a conflict, "be polite and respect to opinions of your opponents when in conflict, not to walk away, depriving Wikipedia of your opinion and reducing consensus. In my response, I was stating what I should have done when I was in a lame edit war with a possible troll. The edit war in question was about piping of a single link, and perhaps I mishandled the situation. Now knowing what it is like on the "admin side" of Wikipedia, I understand now that walking away "is impractical for a Admin."

You also said not to take offense to your comments. Please do not feel that I am criticizing you in this response, but am instead only trying to learn from my critics. I am making an attempt to accurately interpret what your oppose reasoning was, and then, using this information, attempt to improve as an administrator.

In conclusion, I apologize for the tardiness of this response, and if you ever find me inappropriately using my administrator tools, please let me know. Sorry for this lengthy chunk of text on your talk page. If you have any questions about this response, please let me know. Thanks, and have a nice day! Ian Manka Talk to me! 19:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Checking in

Just checking in to make sure you're still with us; I noticed it's been over a week since your last contribution and just wanted to make sure you were still around. Drop me a note on my talk page when you're in next, if you don't mind. Essjay (Talk) 09:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Committee

It is my pleasure to announce that after great consideration, you have been accepted as a member of the Mediation Committee. I encourage you to place the Mediation Committee page and Requests for Mediation on your watchlist, as well as the open tasks page, which will be updated as new cases are accepted. You may also (and are encouraged to) join the Committee's internal mailing list. (Please email me directly so I can confirm your email before subscribing it.) If you have any questions about how the committee functions, please feel free to ask me. Congratulations on becoming a member! For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 21:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just need to confirm your email; if you don't mind posting it publicly, could you leave me a note on my talk with "Yes, I am [address]." If not, email me directly and I'll give you a confirmation code to put somewhere. Essjay (Talk) 01:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Puffy OpenBSD mascot.png listed for deletion

[edit] improved convenience link at WP:RS

I've replied to you User_talk:Terryeo#Convenience_links here. Terryeo 02:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, That's a good one you did at R2-45 I think. Terryeo 01:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Smallville episodes

I ask you to reconsider your vote. I have found an interesting twist to this whole thing. There is a Centralized Discussion about TV episode formats, which is how policies are adjusted and created. If you look again at the debate I have linked to the appropriate articles. This is not about preference, as we both know preference is an opinion and opinions are something else on Wikipedia. The articles detail that there are multiple formats for TV pages, and that season pages is one of them. It is no longer a question of who is right and wrong, but of who was there first. Selecting a format over another based on what you prefer is hardly NPOV. The season have been there for months longer than the list page, and they are complete (granted they need work to the tone of the article, but they are more complete than the list page) and technically have seniority over the list. Voted for the list, toward the deletion of the season pages, is promoting preference in Wikipedia. I ask you to read the Centralized Discussion page and think about what this debate is really about, now that other guidelines have been found. Bignole

I wish you would see that Talk page for "list of episodes". Pere requested a vote to determine if the indy ep pages should be created (which I thought was clear on the other page), in the mean time he has gone ahead and created Season 2 pages and plans to go ahead with others, completely ignoring everyone. Bignole

I guess you're saying we need to finish all five season pages before moving to individual episode pages. To me, it's kind of a "if not now, when?" deal. I've already made the pages so it seems like the right time. I guess I'm prepared to make them as thorough (big) and as well referenced (thanks for the tips) as you would like. - Peregrinefisher 17:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gunston Hall

Well, I just don't see anything at all wrong with Gunston_Hall#References and the additions you made. An element of the situation which appears particularly impressive is that sites which you link, link themselves to national museums and the like. Terryeo 07:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Help

Hi sorry about taking a relatively long (in Wikipedia standards!) time to reply. I had a case where one party was taking a very long time to actually get down to mediation etc. and so I closed the case stating that the pary was not willing to partcipate, and eventually it went to arbitration. With your case I think that is clear that enough time has passed for it to be clear that the party will not be invovled. Technically the request should be re-filled and WoodenBuddha not listed as an involved party. However, I know that this case has been on file for a long time, and so I would presume the other parties would not be keen on extending the time before starting mediation further. I personally would say start the mediation, but let Essjay know what you are up to. He'll probably reply anyway to the message you left on the mailing list. Hope that helps. --Wisden17 17:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice guy article

Howcome it is on your userpage? What happened to the orginal, what can be done to put what you have back on wikipedia? Mathmo 16:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation committee

As a current mediator who has also been active in the last few days, can I point you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requests for mediation has ground to a halt, where concerns have been registered as to the current seemingly static state of the committee. Steve block Talk 19:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lost mediation

Thanks for the kind words, and for not throwing the book at me. :) If you have any concerns or suggestions about the way I'm handling it, please let me know, either privately or publicly. Thatcher131 11:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit conflict at User talk:Terryeo

My apologies for that. I know that the software does sometimes fail to detect an edit conflict, but I'm not sure if it was that or if I went back to a revision before Terryeo jumbled my words around and forgot to go back to the most recent version to edit.

Terryeo is incredibly frustrating to deal with, and I have no doubt that it must seem like those of use who are pressing for him to be dealt with strongly are overreacting. But as I said before, our systems are pretty much predicated on the assumption that we will not have to deal with any truly bad actors -- only with situations where people of good faith mistake each other for bad actors. I tried for a very, very long time to assume good faith of Terryeo -- when he violated a policy, I said "well, maybe he doesn't know about that policy." When he radically misinterpreted a policy and started haranguing editors for not abiding by his imagined interpretation of the policy, I said "well, maybe he hasn't worked out that the examples given on that very page contradict the interpretation he's offering of that policy." When he made further reference to editors supposedly violating policy by not editing according to his own misunderstanding of that policy, I gritted my teeth and said "well, maybe he just forgot that we already established that the policy had never said what he claimed it said verbatim or meant what he claimed to think it meant."

But there's a reason that the legal system works on a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond any possible doubt." It might be possible to believe that individual acts by Terryeo have some innocent explanation -- that he really did think he read somewhere that ChrisO was a declared suppressive person; that he really did think he read somewhere that I had been "barred for a month". It might even be possible to forgive acts which could not be accidents, such as the edits he made over a series of three and a half weeks in violation of his ArbCom ban, if such bad behavior could be seen as the exception to a general pattern of good behavior. But frankly, I think the answer is much simpler and that the total evidence of Terryeo's behavior points to it beyond a reasonable doubt: he is here to disrupt. That's it. Even getting the Scientology articles to reflect a Scientology POV is not his long-term goal -- though it's a nice side bonus to him if that happens, inevitably that POV imbalance is going to get corrected. But demoralizing Wikipedia editors, making them put up with so much personally aimed bullshit that they'll inevitably start to blame Wikipedia for letting the bullshit go on and leave -- that is something he can take as a lasting and long-term goal. And I think it's exactly the goal he came to Wikipedia to pursue. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation on F-14

I don't know if you've noticed, but quite a few things have occurred since the RfM. The case was accepted by CQJ, on the MedcabalWikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05_F-14_Tomcat, which ended in deadlock, shortly followed by an RfC Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wiarthurhu. Wiarthurhu was banned for actions unrelated in content but related in conduct (you can see on his talk page). The ban was subsequently lifted under some stringent conditionsWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive57#Banned_User:Wiarthurhu_asking_for_lifting_of_his_community_ban, including the avoidance of all users involved in previous disputes, as well as the aviation and automotive content involved. CQJ volunteered to be a mentor, I think it would be best to run this mediation case by him. I will participate in mediation if requested, but I think given the state of things, it's best to let things lie for a while. --Mmx1

I have recieved your comment, however, I just got in from work. You may rely on me to respond completely in the morning. Thanks for your work. CQJ 07:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Mmx's view. I don't think that re-opening these sores this early in the mentorship period would lend well to what we're trying to accomplish here. That being said, the only real issue at the article page that was not resolved was if maneuverability was a design concern, and that probably needs to be sorted out by consensus and source material from WikiProject Aircraft due to the nature of what's being discussed there. Thanks. CQJ 17:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you are taking the mentorship of User:Wiarthurhu from User:CQJ (who is on Wikibreak) - well, I didn't notice that until after I filed a MedCab case: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-31 User:Wiarthurhu mediation violation - I would greatly appreciate someone taking note of this situation. Just take a look at Chevrolet Pickup - note who uploaded the two obviously inappropriate photos. Note clause (3) of Wiarthurhu's terms and conditions. Thanks! SteveBaker 22:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If I took over Wiarthurhu's mentorship, that is news to me. I did volunteer to mediate an outdated dispute between Wiarthurhu and some others (MedCom is behind on cases), but the case was... outdated. This is not to say I wouldn't be willing to mentor Wiarthurhu while CQJ is on wikibreak, or comentor with CQJ, assuming that would be okay with Wiarthurhu and CQJ, but at present time I am not Wiarthurhu's mentor. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 07:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC), 08:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK - sorry - I misunderstood. SteveBaker 16:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for Help

Thanks for your help on the 9/11 Association of All Sides Editors. If you see any other changes that should be made, please go ahead and make them. I honestly do want to get this thing into something that everyone can live with. Shortfuse 09:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darfur conflict talk

I've started a thread at Talk:Darfur conflict#Reports of slavery relevant to your latest additions to that article. Cheers, BanyanTree 13:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion Notice on Article Page

Since that seems to mirror the notice on the talk page, works for me. Thanks. *Sparkhead 00:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signature Length

Your signature is over 160 characters in HTML, and over 30 when displayed. People can find your talk and email with a simple link to your page. Please review WP:SIGNATURE#Length and shorten them. Thanks. *Sparkhead 02:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(Moved comment back here, removed from my talk page)

Is it the HTML length or the display length that is bothering you? I just added spaces to the code so it would break up better in the edit box, but that might not fully address your concern. The links to my talk page and email are mainly there because of my involvement in mediation, but I could shorten it to Armedblowfish (t|m|c). That might be slighlty confusing for new users (for whom the links are more useful), and to the rare English-as-a-second-language person or someone using an online translator such as Altavista, but then again "contribs" doesn't translate already. So was it mostly the horizontal length in the edit box you were concerned about, or would abbreviating the talk|mail|contribs part make you happier? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Both. There's no reason for even (t|m|c), if someone wants to find you they can through your page. Also, please respect the notice at the top of my talk page. Thanks. *Sparkhead 04:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't read the notice on top of your page until just now - I am very sorry for the confusion that resulted. Anyways, like I said the talk and mail parts are most useful for new users, who might not know about the features. But come to think about it, the "contribs" part is less likely to be useful. Do you find my new signature more satisfactory? Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 19:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Convenience links

[1] I was and am involved in an extensive dispute regarding this subject on Sathya Sai Baba which even reached the arbcom. Andries 08:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Request Pat Lee

I don't know if I'm doing this right, but there is an editing back and forth going on in the article about comic artist Pat Lee.

Now, it's not my edit, I'm restoring a previous edit that briefly, and I feel, nuetrally, point out the well documented issues surrounding this artist, inclduing non payment of freelancers in his company (for which he has been sued, a matter of record) and not drawing his own pages (which again has been reported on reputable comic websites).

Part of the problem here is I think is that Pat Lee (rightfully so) has fans that don't liek to see "ugly" facts about him. I can understand that.

However, these contreversies are well documented (in periodicals such as the Comics Journal, the only real legitimate comics news publication) and are part of what makes this person "notable".

I hate to waste my time going through a editing war.

I'm doing this anonymously because I thik this is a sensitive issue and I do not want to be dogged by overenthusiastic Lee fans.

Thanks!

lol, i know youre referring to me, but its not like im gonna raid/assault your house with apache helicopters =D anyways. i just want to clarify that im not one of those overenthusiastic Lee fans ;) †Bloodpack† 16:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

We've got some vandalism now going on which I suspect has something to do with the critical additions to the article. Can we protect the page? --Ughmonster 17:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple bad edits don't generally warrant page protection. I'd reccomend leaving a message on Clash328's talk page, explaining why edits like this are a bad idea. It is probably more polite to avoid the word "vandalism"... instead, try "nonsense" or "unverified negative material in a biography of a living person". Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 17:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP/AN

Thank you, Armed, for your offer. I am afraid it will not accomplish much. He has been quiescent for a few days; perhaps when he returns I may take you up on it. Thanks again! -- Avi 23:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shining Path mediation

Regarding Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Shining Path, believe me, it's not a moot issue. Just two days ago a party to the mediation changed the article, and another party to it reverted[2]. --Descendall 15:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'll remember that. Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 15:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry it's been awhile, but I recently agreed to mediate that case. Please either accept or reject me as a mediator there, and if you accept, please let me know if you would prefer public or private mediation. Also, assuming you are still interested in mediation, please watchlist the page if you haven't already. Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 01:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I just accepted. I especially like the fact that you are a programmer, and hopefully will use LOGIC and not feelings (which seems to drive my "opponents" in this mediation). I am prepared to accept your decision.--AAAAA 02:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN:Re.: Martial Law

I've been having some problems with my ISP and/or my terminal from time to time. This may explain the "malformed" links. I'm on the Hughes Satellite system. I once had a link I personally checked on WP go bad on WP. Am I having a software problem or a hardware problem ? These malfunctions have kept me off of the 'net and WP. Sometimes when I edit WP, I have had these tags appear: "Dataloss has happened", "This document contains no data.", "Operation has Timed out." Martial Law 08:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What is a Talk Page probation, and how do I, anyone else comply with this ? Martial Law 08:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying you think your ISP is causing error in your edits... i.e. the edit you make is different than the edit that WP shows? Could you provide an example? The malfunctions you described are definitely network problems... basically, the Wikipedia servers send you information in small packets, but sometimes they get lost and don't make it to you.

I'm pretty sure that what the admins were concerned about was the quality of links you add to Wikipedia, though. Basically, Wikipedia generally wants to provide a short list of high-quality (non-copyvio, more or less reliable, useful, etc.) (Also see WP:EL.) I will, of course, try to be more specific as I get to know you better.

As for Talk Page probation, on that I am going to have to get to know you better. The goal will be to figure out what you were doing that was bothering people, and then try to avoid it. For now, consider asking questions on my talk page, or on the talk page of some other person willing to help you, rather than on article talk pages.

I know my reply was rather non-specific, but I have not had time to study your situation in detail yet, sorry.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 11:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re.WP:EL

From what I have seen about WP:EL, these are to assist the reader in the search for more info. referenced in a article. Can you please enlighten me if I'm incorrect ? I have noticed on the WP:RS page that there is a debate of some kind going on. Will that affect me, others ? Martial Law 22:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shining Path

Even though mediation just started, I wanted to thank you for sticking with us on this case. The Peruvian Marxist left is a very arcane subject to most, and discussing the difference between El Partido Comunista del Peru and El Partido Comunista Peruano must be boring for you. All of us really owe you a debt of gratitude. --Descendall 04:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't boring, because of the people, but thank you. : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 13:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

(to AAAA): Assuming you are still interested in mediation, would you mind giving us your input at the mediation the whenever you are around? This will help us reach a consensus that you will be content with. Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 20:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am super sorry. I am so busy in my "real" life that I haven't had time to go to Wikipedia. Please give me a few more days.--AAAAA 02:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)