User talk:LordsReform

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Lords Reform - reply

I'm sorry I took so long to get back to you viz-a-viz the comment you left on my talk page. I edited the article on Lords Reform mainly to add a link to my article on the Wakeham Report, also clearly relevant to the topic. I will be happy to help with any edits on the topic. Walton monarchist89 11:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GW an Haseler

I find it curious that you have showed up on GW to support Haseler. You have no previous interest in GW, or indeed peak oil. Are you by any chance related? William M. Connolley 20:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

William, I think I know why you are here and I don't like it! Mike worked on House of Lords reform with me and we do have a relationship - we both hate to see bullies using underhand tactics to try and manipulate the system to their advantage.LordsReform 21:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to report an Administrator

{{Helpme}}

I seem to be in a direct dispute with a particular person (Mr Connolly above) and I'm looking for help before I do something stupid. I have just found at that they are an administrator and may have goaded my friend into getting blocked - and I've just realised they may be attempting to do the same with me (and I've been stupid enough to take the bait). As an administrator, they are clearly very familiar with all the rules (when it suits them). I tried to find the policy on behaviour by adminstrator, and perhaps a place to ask for someone to have a quiet word with their behaviour in the hope we can disescalate the dispute before I also get blocked by breaking some policy I am not aware of.

I'm not sure where one resolves NPOV disputes but I posted something on Neutrality Project but as its got a deletion notice, I'm not sure if this is the right place. Any assistance would he gratefully received.

For your information the dispute is about adding something on global warming even as short as: "that some experts think that global warming will be ultimately constrained as fossil fuels run out" LordsReform 20:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, LordsReform. Lots of questions to answer here. One good policy we have at Wikipedia is always to assume good faith. This goes for both Mr. Connolly and yourself. Everyone is (or ought to be) here to make this encyclopedia better. That is what we should assume they are doing.

If you're unfamiliar with the policies of Wikipedia, a good place to start would be Wikipedia:Five pillars. It will explain a lot of the most important policies and procedures.

You should never be blocked for doing something unintentionally. The correct procedure if someone breaks the rules is to warn them, and make them aware of the policies. If they continue to do the same thing, then they risk being blocked.

If you are having disagreements with another editor/admin that can't be resolved through civil discussion, you can see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for the next step to take in resolving the issue.

I hope that helps. If you have more questions, please post them here or on my talk page and I'll see what I can do to help.

—P^urpleRA^IN 21:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi purplerain, I'm surprised you say that someone should not be blocked for doing something unintentionally. Mike Haseler was very surprised to be blocked. As he told it to me, he thought the procedure for a dispute was to place a { {POV} }template on the page - this was removed several times without any comment on the talk page. He placed his own comments explaining why he was replacing it, (not knowing the 3RR rule) and then he was blocked. He appealed twice and amazingly, the administrators did not remove the block. You say assume good faith, with behaviour like that from administrators, it is very difficult not to think the worst.

My own fealing is that the global warming pages have been a hot-bed of contention. Probably, they have been subject to many attacks by those not willing to accept global warming. I fear that those involved see our wish to include a contrary view as an attack, rather than a requirement under the NPOV policy. It doesn't help that those involved seem unwilling to discuss any form of compromise and just delete .... unfortunately, because I've not got the experience I suspect my only option is to keep trying to get an appropriate mention of the contrary view and risk getting blocked! 88.111.187.31 23:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you or Mike Haseler really feels that an administrator was not adhering to Wikipedia policy, you can note it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Other admins will look into it. Most administrators at Wikipedia are very helpful and will look into the matter impartially.

I don't think your best option with the Global Warming discussion is just to keep making the same changes if others oppose them. You should discuss controversial changes on the talk page and attempt to come to consensus first. Explain your point of view clearly and provide reliable sources for all your statements. If you're unable to come to consensus through civil discussion, then begin the procedures outlined in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

I'm not familiar with this situation or with the viewpoints being discussed, but one thing to note about different viewpoints is that the amount of mention in an article should be roughly proportionate to the number of people who hold that viewpoint, as established in published sources. So a viewpoint that is held by very few should be mentioned only briefly, or not at all.

I hope that you're able to resolve these issues. Let me know if you need any more help. —P^urpleRA^IN 19:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

PurpleRain - that seems sound advice. However at long last people have begun talking about what could go in rather than simply deleting. So, I'm hoping things will now sort themselves but I'll certainly keep your advice to hand in case I have problems. - Thanks for the help and advice, it really does help to put things in perspective! LordsReform 19:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)