User talk:JamesAVD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "Apparently blocked for clearing my own talk page, which is inconsistent with Harassment policy as far as I can see. Please see also, for instance, 'User removes my comments from his talk page' at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks in advance."

Decline reason: "I think you should understand that the removal of comments and the archive from this talk page was done after a number of users had attempted to point out to you that this was bad practice. Though it is not explicitly barred in any policy, it is commonly conisdered disruptive and you have been warned of this. These actions must also be seen alongside the fact that your activities have been generally disruptive and harmful to Wikipedia. When the block expires, please return in a more collaborative and positive manner -- Robdurbar 14:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

Request reason: "Please see above. I do not find Robdurbar's reasoning valid. He is himself party to the amendments made by me in good faith (and in an attempt to restore a standard and NPOV solution): his assertion that my changes were disruptive is false, as any review of my actions will (I believe) show. In deleting my own talk page (to remove the bullying use of illegitimate stop signs - themselves used to defend that user's POV) I was acting within guidelines, in Reverting those deletions my blocker was acting against guidelines. Robdurbar is now asserting a consensus on own talk pages deleting which does not exist, and using this to justify the maintenance of a block which, as a party to the dispute, he should know better than to comment on. He further asserts a 'fact' of disruptive behaviour which is (again, in my view) false) and (in my view) might be intended to influence other potential arbiters of this dispute against my position. Will a neutral party please, please intervene? I'd like to add that I believe myself more positive and collaborative in this than either my banner or the user above. The block further prevents my contribution to the very debate which I sought to raise and which is rapidly gaining a consensus more in line with my own view than those of either my blocker or Robdurbar. Thanks again."

Decline reason: "Block expired before I had a chance to review it. Declining to leave request visible and preserve debate. Sorry to take so long. Luna Santin 20:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

Archives
1

1 Help Topics
2 Cross-posting
3 Clearing your talk page
4 Centralize your discussion of the EU map stuff please.
5 Blocked
6 Welcome back
7 Kosovo
8 Europe maps
9 Welcome!

[edit] Help Topics

Welcome!

Hello, JamesAVD, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Hi James. I've given you the standard welcome template, which includes a number of helpful links to show you how things are done on Wikipedia. --Robdurbar 16:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Robdurbar. JamesAVD 16:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-posting

Don't copy and paste comments to all the articles. In this matter, it looks like it should be discussed on the talk page of the infobox and the relevant Wikiproject. —Centrx→talk • 16:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, but unless someone <tells> contributors on each page that there is a discussion being held, how on earth can they know about it?!? Please explain how else I might have achieved this. The net result of doing otherwise would be that discussions happen (likely amongst very few contributors) which most are unaware of, and decisions are reached (and a false consensus formed) which have an impact on pages which a far broader spectrum of users contribute to. I defend my actions and would repeat them in the same circumstances. JamesAVD 17:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Easy.

Set up a centralised discussion, as Centrx says
Drop a short note linking to this at the article talk pages

Glad to be of help. --Guinnog 17:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clearing your talk page

Please don't remove the archive box at the top of the page; I've done you a courtesy by moving the warnings to the subpage but it's usual to leave a link to archive pages.

Likewise, if you want to be a model Wikipedian, the best practice is to leave old messages on your talk page until it looks cluttered, and then add them to a talk page too - not delete them the moment they're answered. That's not mandatory however. --kingboyk 18:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Centralize your discussion of the EU map stuff please.

James,
Can you please centralize your discussion of the EU map stuff in one place like the countries project page. It's too hard to follow 20 different discussions. Just provide a link to the centralize discussion.

Something like : PLEASE DISCUSS THIS AT Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location_Maps_for_European_countries--_discussion_continues as it involves more than just this country.

Thanks, —MJCdetroit 18:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well since you managed to piss everyone off and get yourself blocked, I went through and placed centralized link on all talk pages. MJCdetroit 20:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You're not showing any signs of wanting to work with the community here, and blatantly removing the link to the archive and then reverting me is simply too much. You seem determined to be disruptive so you have been blocked for 24 hours to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia protocol. Do not say you weren't warned. --kingboyk 18:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to note James; I wouldn't consider myself 'party to the dispute'. At no time have I commented on the removal or addition of talk notices, nor given an opinion on whether there should be an inclusion of EU dates in articles. I never stated any support for the views or actions of the blocking admin, until reviewing this block. In fact, I agreed with you over the map issue (it was I who removed the EU map from the United Kingdom article) --Robdurbar 17:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, James, I do now have some sympathy with your course. I think that there are conflicting policies on this issue, as a result of conflicting opinions and no centralised discussion on whether this is correct or incorrect behaviour. I wouldn't have blocked you for it; but I also stand by my statement that some of your behaviour has been, or could have been viewed as, disruptive - if nothing else, it has been bad etiquette; and it is something that users have tried to warn you about. Furthermore, your attempts to start user RfC's after relatively little contact with people could be viewed as disruptive

At the same time, I do believe that you have been editing in good faith. I advise you to do the following:

Apologise to those who think you have done wrong. Even if you think you were in the right, it would be a good way of clearing the air and would prove that you are here for good reasons.
In future, just think a little more about what your actions indicate to others. Some of the things you have done innocently look like the actions of someone who is trying to disrupt

In return, I apologise for some of the stuff I said in the block review. I was hasty and did not consider that some people have been telling you or others that it is acceptable to remove talk page comments. If nothing else, the situation is not as clear cut as I previously believed. For what its worth, too, I think my next 'project' on Wikipedia may be to try and bring everyone together and create a standarised policy on this. I think that you may have been wronged by the system - but I don't think its the fault of the blocking admin, or any of the other users. As I say, I blame the self-contradictory policy.

Its only an hour or so before your block expires, so I'm not going to do anything about it now (if nothing else, I'm in work in half and hour!) I meant what I said about returning - Wikipedia always wants new contributors and welcomes input. --Robdurbar 18:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

With you on that Robdurbar. Thanks for the voice of calm. I fully apologise to any who think I've wronged them and assure them I meant no offence. But as to apologising for those who think I've 'done wrong', in all conscience I can't, as I do not (I think with some justification) believe I have acted wrongly. More than happy to forget any wrongs, though, that I perceive might have been done against me. Fully agree with you that the policy is contradictory.

Putting all that aside, I do hope you can work on the processes which have been raised in this. As a non-admin I have very few means of recourse if one or more admins decide I'm a vandal and act without further thought: immediately the assumption of good faith goes out the window and the warning signs and blockings begin. And if I believe that my actions were correct (and with good basis in policy) at what point should I simply walk away? What if I beleive that some of those individuals did engage in bullying and abuse of admin rights? What other recourse do I have than on the admin pages: I have no trust in those who I perceive have wronged me (and, btw, I did try a direct email)? How can I know that an RfD would be considered disruptive without knowing more about Wikipedia standards than a casual editor can be expected to know?

I suppose, bottom line, from my experiences at the end of last week, I feel that the use of 'warning signs' is open to abuse and capable of causing significant offence: they serve little real purpose and should be removed. I also feel that the power to block is too great a power to be available without either due process to put in place or swift due process to remove (at least for all but the most obvious vandals, perhaps), otherwise you have a single admin acting as judge, jury and executioner. The policy on talk pages obviously needs clarification.

Personally, I'm not going to be visiting Wikipedia again in any hurry. Thanks, though, for your time. JamesAVD 11:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I'll be removing all of this in a couple of days. JamesAVD 11:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What's RfD? That links to Redirects for discussion.

Oh and by the way there is Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Conclusions. According to this page, you are now not classed as a vandal for removing warnings. This might still count as disruption though. You are all talking about removing warnings from user talk pages right? --WikiSlasher 11:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting WikiSlasher. Guess my problem is here that I felt the warnings were used either a) unfairly and without assuming good faith b) almost certainly as intimidation and c) possibly to maintain a POV in particular edits. So, is it still disruption if I remove warnings which I believe are misplaced?! Why would I as an occassionally contributor know all of this stuff (except for having felt wronged by all this and gone looking, where many might just have walked away in disgust)? JamesAVD 11:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ask someone else to review the situation - you are less likely to be accused of stuff if someone else removes the warnings. Don't forget to remind people to assume good faith. Content disputes can be discussed on the talk page or go to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for more info. Administrator abuse is reported at WP:AN/I I think, although the more extreme thing is Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship (but I'd be careful with that one). --WikiSlasher 11:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

Hi again James. I am sorry you still seem upset at your experience of being blocked. I agree with you that Yandman was a little too quick to warn you using templates, and I can see how that would have been upsetting to you. I have reminded him about WP:BITE recently in relation to his interaction with another new user. We all make mistakes sometimes, even experienced editors, and it is important for you to realise that this is a community of users, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. I also note that you left Yandman a templated warning message asking him not to leave you templated warning messages. The Golden Rule, here as in real life, dictates that it is wise to "treat others as you would like to be treated."

If your experience of editing our encyclopedia is to be better for you and less stressful, I strongly recommend that you:

Remember that this is a collaborative project. Achieving agreement for changes is more important than being "right". Everybody thinks they are "right", I reckon
This is especially important on controversial topics, and for changes that affect many articles. This is why we use centralised discussion
Assume good faith in others. We are all volunteers here, and nobody likes their well-meaning efforts to be continually characterised as abuse or harassment. I am thinking of myself here, among several others; I have tried right from the start (and am still trying) to help you to fit in and to be happy here. It is better to assume good faith in cases of doubt. The contrary will only lead you to more unfortunate interactions of the kind that have characterised your experience here so far

I could give you more advice, but that is plenty to go on with for now. If there is ever anything I can do to help you, please don't hesitate to ask. Best wishes, --Guinnog 13:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

Hi. I don't know what your background is on this, but you seem to be reasonably well informed. So here it is. It is almost certain now that there will be a declaration of independence in Kosovo, signed by all major political leaders, which will most likely be supported by America, allowing the rest to fall in line. However, this declaration will be based on the reccomendations suggested in Martti Ahtisaari, which will come from the negotiation process. There will be a monitoring presence by the EU.

Now all this is of course open to change, and it's still not entirely impossible that the negotioans will succeed, but the above scenario is now the most likely. However, it is still a scenario where the negotiations will lead (albeit indirectly) to some fom of independence.

I refrained from posting this on the Kosovo talk page because it would no doubt enrage certain editors, and I don't want to get into a big discussion on how any such solution would "violate international law" and so on, but if you want to discuss it further please feel free to reply at my talk page.

And as a final note, I don't know how long you've been tracking the Kosovo page, but if you look at the archives, you'll see it took a long time to get to the current, relatively stable version. As mentioned by Evv, the way it stands isn't perfect, but you're going to have to come up with some really strong arguments to convince some users here to change anything. Thanks for reading, Davu.leon 14:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahh... I wondered what you meant by "pay" it well... Thought you'd gone paranoid Serb Nationalist on me for a minute there. ;) Davu.leon 14:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Researching on private funding, but currently in talks with a British tv channel that seem to be interested in the idea. Can't say more than that yet :) Davu.leon 10:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Europe maps

We should not delete the all-world maps from the Wikipedia servers, but I think until this issue is solve, I believe each country article should choose the map that the editors like the best. As I said on the Countries Wikiproject page, I am using a cropped version of the new maps being made for Belarus, an article I keep an active watch on. Since it is not an EU nation, a lot of the issues yall are facing are non-factors for the Belarus map. I personally like the cropped version, since the map and borders are defined better, and looks more professional, but it is just too damn big. Belarus is tucked in the mid-eastern part of Europe and there is no use for me to have parts of Africa show from the bottom. If it was Spain, I would keep part of Africa, but Belarus is no where near Spain. However, I do hope a decision is made, so people won't edit war at the Belarus article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

No one welcomed you so far - so here ;)

Welcome!

Hello, JamesAVD, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: