User talk:Neutrality/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Arminius 2 Victorian era 3 Neutrality 4 Arbitration Committee Election Get Out the Vote Effort 5 My adminship request 6 MacGyverMagic for adminship 7 A quick note to say thanks 8 Article Licensing 9 Election article titles 10 Did you get my e-mail? 11 My talk page 12 WikiUser 13 La Fayette 14 The Photographer's Barnstar 15 Logical Quotation 16 Barnstar 17 C Colden 18 Arbitration candidate questions 19 Partition of India 20 Air force one 21 Human rights in the United States 22 History of Surrey 23 History of the Netherlands 24 National Health Service 25 Respect? 26 Dispute about RfC protocol. 27 Adminship 28 Pornography redirect 29 Australian Aboriginal art 30 your username/sig 31 HistoryBuffEr on Ariel Sharon 32 Blocking of HistoryBuffEr 33 Re: BBC 34 Right to vote 35 Wikiuser 36 WP:RfD 37 VfD archiving?

[edit] Arminius

I see you've brought a case against Arminius. As you probably noticed he blocked me once on a 3-revert infraction in September. I'm not so terribly concerned about that (I was out of line). My concern is that he refused to admit any error and persisted in his actions after others pointed out the error. Guanaco unblocked me [1] and notified Arminius of his error [2]. He re-instated the block anyway [3].

Perusing his history reveals a pattern:

In October User:Michael Snow unblocked [4] another user blocked against policy by Arminius. In reply, Arminius thanked him for his "interference" [5].

Here [6] and here [7], Arminius refuses to provide information providing a reblock. Whether the block was justified or not, the refusal to answer a legitimate query about it is not justified.

Here User:Mark Richards notes that Arminius is again not properly justifying blocks [8].

In the Chameleon incident, Arminius removed complaints with the comments "remove troll message" and remove "already read/ignorant message". He replied to mirv complaint with the heading "response to foolishness" and called those who had unblocked Chameleon "ignorant". In response to mirv warning he stated "Please feel free to make any case against me you like. I honestly don't care that much." [9]

In short, Arminius has displayed extremely poor temperment as a sysadmin, little respect for others who disagree with actions, and little respect for policy. While I think he is well-intentioned, I expect better than good intentions out of our sysadmins. Wolfman 21:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The arbitrators asked for a chronological listing of the incidents. I siezed upon that as an excuse to procrastinate about real work, even though I'm not a complainant in the case. You should have a look to make sure you agree with my attempt. Wolfman 05:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Neutrality - Without having read all the guidelines, my guess is that arbitration process is largely for members of the arbitration commitee to consider. I'm rather disappointed, but not surprised, that Arminius' actions in yesterday's pie fight have lead to Chameleon leaving Wikipedia again. As far as I could tell Chameleon was a good contributor with useful translation skills. If there is anything I can do to help, just let me know. -- Solipsist 21:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Victorian era

You voted for Victorian era, this week's UK Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 02:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

Greetings. You have my endorsement for Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004, and you have therefore earned the Quadell seal of approval. Feel free to use this image, or not, as you like. (You won't hurt my feelings if you don't.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 05:11, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Committee Election Get Out the Vote Effort

Hi Candidate Neutrality,

I have chosen to endorse your candidacy for the Arbitration Committee.

I think the best way to insure that your candidacy is successful, is to help to increase voter turnout.

One of the technical people on this site, who goes by the name Danny, helped me to make a very convenient tag that makes it super easy to place this "get out the vote" banner on your user page:

Election Info — Candidates — Voting

Please consider adding this tag to your user page, as a great many pages link to your user page.

Thanks in advance if you choose to help out. If there are any issues which prevent you from doing so, please let me know - I would be happy to make a custom version of this tag just for your page if that's what it takes for you to proudly display it.

If you choose to display this banner, please put the tag as near to the top as your aesthetic sense will permit. :)

Regards,

--DV 17:25, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] My adminship request

Thanks for your support! --jpgordon{gab} 06:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] MacGyverMagic for adminship

I've decided to take the plunge and self-nominate for adminship to make the work I do a lot easier. Please head over to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#MacGyverMagic and let your voice be heard. There's no hard feelings if you oppose, just make sure you let me know how I can improve. -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 10:37, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A quick note to say thanks

I just wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for your support in my request for adminship. It was certainly a wild ride, and I really appreciate you taking some time out to contribute. ClockworkSoul 16:05, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

I've "started" the Free the Rambot Articles Project which aims to get users to release all of their contributions to the U.S. state, county, and city articles under the CC-by-sa 1.0 and 2.0 license (at minimum) or into the public domain if they prefer. A secondary goal is to get those users to release ALL of their edits for ALL articles. I've personally chosen to multi-license all of the rambot and Ram-Man contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License so that other projects, such as WikiTravel, can use our articles. I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all your contributions (or at minimum those on the geographic articles) so that we can keep most of the articles available under the multi-license. Many users use the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or even {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) on their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I understand, but I thought I'd at least ask, just in case, since the number of your edits is in the top 100. If you do want to do it, simply just copy and paste one of the above two templates into your user page and it will allow us to track those users who have done it. For example:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain (which many people do or don't like to do, see Wikipedia:Multi-licensing), you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}} -- Ram-Man 21:56, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Election article titles

How to title the articles on this subject, and how to present the subject matter (which topics go in which article), was the subject of a lot of discussion on different talk pages. There was a consensus to have one article about the controversy generally, without reference in its title to "irregularities". To the people doing a lot of work on the points about exit polls and EVM's, that word suggested a focus on the statistical analysis. As a result, it was a problem to present a more general article.

I don't care too much about the title of the really long article. Different parts of it have already been copied to new articles, and I think that, before long, that huge article (the one now at 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities) will be turned into a redirect, because other articles will have absorbed all its material. But I think it's very important that the overview article, which you moved to 2004 U.S. election voting controversy and irregularities, be moved back to 2004 U.S. election voting controversies. The other articles can handle the "irregularity" analysis. JamesMLane 06:32, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Did you get my e-mail?

Hi Neutrality, did you get my e-mail? I sent you one the other day about a curious e-mail I received. Jayjg 19:36, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] My talk page

Thank you for reverting ed g2s's entirely out-of-line edit to my talk page. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] WikiUser

He may be a pest, but legal threats are still not a valid reason for blocking someone—not that this is obviously a legal threat; it's whinging, yes, but I don't see any promises of legal action. I've unblocked him. —No-One Jones ^(m) 20:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh! It was you. Well despite the insults, thanks. Incidently I wasn't whinging, just because I have different views from you. I posted on the list not for my benefit but to help other Wiki users know what was going on on the wikipedia.WikiUser 21:45, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] La Fayette

Shall I move Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury to Lord Salisbury (a disambiguation page), since he is known universally as Lord Salisbury? When I get around to putting in the other marquis de La Fayette, where ought they to go? The British nobility are all put under their full names and titles; why should the French nobility be different? —Tkinias 02:41, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Photographer's Barnstar

I just thought you might want to know, Grunt created the Photographer's Barnstar that you proposed. [[User:ClockworkSoul|User:ClockworkSoul/sig]] 03:18, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Logical Quotation

Hi, Neutrality.

Please take another look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks before reverting (without explanation) my correction of the illogical quotation on the Jimbo Wales page:

1. Arthur said the situation was "deplorable". (The full stop (period) is not part of the quotation.)
2. Arthur said, "The situation is deplorable." (The full sentence is quoted; the full stop (period) is part of the quotation.)
3. Arthur said that the situation "was the most deplorable he had seen in years." (Although the full sentence is not quoted, the sense of finality conveyed by the full stop (period) is part of the quotation.)

I occasionally have issues with the third rule, but I can't see how or why anyone (British, American or Hacker :-) would have a problem with the first.

chocolateboy 18:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Neutrality, please have a look at my message of thanks for the Barnstar at User talk:Arpingstone - Adrian Pingstone 19:54, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] C Colden

Ben, I understood you had banned user:Herschelkrustofsky, user: Weed Harper and user:C Colden for one week from November 25 in connection with their Lyndon LaRouche activites. I've just noticed that C. Colden is posting again. See Talk:Schiller Institute, bottom of the page. Slim SlimVirgin 03:23, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration candidate questions

Just incase you missed this User_talk:Neutrality/Arbitration_question. Thanks Arminius 07:13, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Partition of India

You voted for Partition of India, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

[edit] Air force one

I was reading the Air Force One article and was struck by the irrelevance of the passage that I removed. Additionally according to most reports the incident in question did not happen.

This is from the Washington Post article "The Bird Was Perfect But Not For Dinner; In Iraq Picture, Bush Is Holding the Centerpiece" by Mike Allen on December 4, 2003:

The White House has updated its account of an airborne conversation in which a British Airways pilot wondered into his radio if he had just seen Air Force One and was told that it was a Gulfstream 5, a much smaller plane. White House officials first said that the British Airways pilot had talked with the Air Force One pilot. Bush aides now say the conversation occurred between the British Airways pilot and an air traffic control worker.

"I don't think everybody was clear on exactly how that conversation happened," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

British Airways said it has been unable to confirm the new version. "We've looked into it," a spokeswoman said from London. "It didn't happen."

In view of it not being true and it not really seeming relevant to a general overview of Air Force One. I deleted the sentence in question. I am just a casual reader of Wikipedia and hoped to make a small improvement, which I thought was the purpose of the site. As many people read it, they may make small changes that improve the articles. I apologize if I misinterperted the rules.

I agree with you that the British are more reliable than the Bush administration, it was the Bush administration that originally created this story to sensationalize the Thanksgivin g trip. It was given a prominent place in all the stories filed immediately after the trip. However, as it was further investigated it seemed rather unplausible as it wouldn't make sense for the plane to fly by the UK on its way to Iraq.

Scott McClellan's quote in this article is him trying to explain why it was before they insisted that the conversation happened. It was British Airways that denied it, they were unable to locate either a pilot or controller who recaclled the converstion.

Thanks for repsonding and for your work on Wikipedia. Its a valuable resource that I make use of frequently.

[edit] Human rights in the United States

Hi Neutrality, sorry for what looks like a revert war on that page, but I'd incorporated changes into the story and they all got blown away by VeryVerily. I have been trying to see why he's doing this, and got stung by his criticism of my revert. You'll notice that I didn't revert him most times, I mostly got reverted on and then had to readd my material into the article! The last time he reverted he lost the material of Maurreen, Gazpacho and myself. Please, your advise on whether I've done the right/wrong thing, how I can improve the article and how to come to consensus with a user who will not come to any sort of consensus on anything! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] History of Surrey

I have no reverted you twice on this page. Both times your amendments were unnecessarily removing perfectly acceptable terms with terms that are virtually unknown in the UK, and are only understood by a small percentage of English speakers worldwide. I am at a loss to understand why and ask you to desist. It is becoming difficult for me to assume good faith in your edits when you make edits such as those. jguk 09:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Netherlands

Hi Neutrality, why did you remove the featured article status from History of the Netherlands? At Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates, I count three votes to keep, and only one (yours) to remove it. Eugene van der Pijll 09:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was just going to message you on the same issue, it's probably an honest mistake so I will revert it, the relevant discussion is archived here: Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates/archive#History_of_the_Netherlands -> Article is still a featured article. Also, in general, when removing text in an edit, marking it as minor is inappropriate, or at least make sure you put something like removed History of Netherlands in the summary box. This makes it much easier for people to track what happened. Cheers, [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 15:58, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] National Health Service

You voted for National Health Service, this week's UK Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:34, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Respect?

Neutrality, any reason you're ignoring me? I'd like to discuss your opposition to my editing, rather than having you just revert my changes, call them "ridiculous", and ignore me. Can we talk about how Wikipedia policy applies rather than get in a revert war? —Tkinias 15:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was referring to your reversion of my move of Marquis de Lafayette to his full name so that it would conform to the guidelines for articles about nobles. I posted a comment above which you ignored. I apologize for the tone; being called "ridiculous" got under my skin. —Tkinias 06:40, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute about RfC protocol.

Greetings. User:HistoryBuffEr and I are having a disagreement about the protocol of an RfC page here, and I wonder if you could lend your expertise.

HistoryBuffEr started an RfC against me, and I responded in the Response section. Several other users endorsed the Response. HistoryBuffer commented on the various users' endorsements in the same section. It seemed to me that the Response section wasn't the place for the complainant to make further accusations or other statements, so I moved these comments to talk. Was this an appropriate thing for me to do? HistoryBuffEr objected, and moved the comments back. So where should these comments go? Any help you could offer would be appreciated. Thanks. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 20:29, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

cc: User talk:Ambi, User talk:Ta bu shi da yu, User talk:Theresa knott

[edit] Adminship

Hi from Adrian. I appreciate your idea that I could become an Admin but the short answer is No Thanks. The longer answer is this:
I'm totally fixated on adding pics so have no knowledge of any other proedures on WP. I do a little bit of article editing but that's only because after I add a pic I always read the article thoroughly and do any style edits needed (it's rare I don't find some!). So I don't know anything about Redirects, Requests for Deletion etc.
Secondly, Admins often get embroiled in arguments, flame wars and other such nastiness and, at 65 years old and retired from British Aerospace, I just want a peaceful life. Adding pics has rarely mixed me up in any unpleasantness so it's an ideal pursuit.
Thanks anyway for your idea - Adrian Pingstone 10:47, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pornography redirect

Hi! Why did you move pornography around the globe? Now it's called pornography by country, but it's structured by region, not by country, so it's obviously a bad title now. May be "around the world" would be better, if you didn't like the original title. Pornography by country also doesn't make any sense, because we are not discussing countable objects as in "lakes by country", "famous porn films by country", etc. Something like "international pornography market" may make more sense and be more descriptive, but I think the original sounded better. Paranoid 10:55, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Aboriginal art

You voted for Australian Aboriginal art, this week's Australian Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. Thanks.

[edit] your username/sig

In response to a number of comments about your username in the RfA vote, you allayed some of those and won adminship narrowly by changing this signature to "Neutrality (hopefully!)". Can I ask why you've reverted to not using this signature, or something similar? It really seems insulting to those that changed their votes based on this factor. -- Netoholic @ 14:53, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Personally I think it was a tempest in a teapot. Jayjg 15:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Surely you can't expect him to be bound to that signature forever? People tire of such things (I know I do). BLANKFAZE | (что??) 16:07, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In light of the previous RfC and the change you agreed to during your RfA, and particularly as a result of your ArbCom candidacy, I think it is time for you to change your username. I have taken this dispute to the next level and requested Mediation on behalf of those that have expressed concerns. Please respond at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Neutrality (choice of username). -- Netoholic @ 04:24, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

[edit] HistoryBuffEr on Ariel Sharon

1. (cur) (last) 06:46, 3 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (The NPOV version with no objections to it replaces the POV hagiography)
2. (cur) (last) 06:35, 3 Dec 2004 Viriditas m (Revert edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Ferkelparade. We arenot required to fallaciously "prove" a negative. You are, however, required to discuss your proposed changes on talk.)
3. (cur) (last) 06:15, 3 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Updated neutral bio (still no objections in Talk))
4. (cur) (last) 12:34, 2 Dec 2004 Ferkelparade m (rv)
5. (cur) (last) 12:30, 2 Dec 2004 130.37.20.20 (Six-Day War and Yom Kippur War)
6. (cur) (last) 09:06, 2 Dec 2004 MPerel (HistoryBuffEr, stop replacing article with your personal version)
7. (cur) (last) 08:59, 2 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Restore the neutral version, to which NO objections have been made)
8. (cur) (last) 08:43, 2 Dec 2004 Viriditas m (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Wk muriithi. Please propose major changes in talk.)
9. (cur) (last) 08:35, 2 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (The more neutral bio is back, post objections in Talk (haven't seen any yet))

While his previous blocking appears to have been a mistake, this looks to me like 4 reverts in 24 hours, and is quite provocative given the recent RfC against Quadell. What do you think? Jayjg 16:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking of HistoryBuffEr

Greetings. HistoryBuffEr has violated the 3RR (again), and I have just blocked him. I left a detailed note on his talk page here explaining my action.

The last time I blocked him, he was very upset. I was mistaken in my time frame in that instance, thinking he had reverted four times in 24 hours when he had only reverted four times in 26 hours, and I had to back down and apologize. Still, he launched an invalid RfC against me, which was, in my opinion, an attempt to punish me. He then disendorsed many of the Arbitor candidates who endorsed my summary on the RfC, which seemed to me as a way of punishing them as well.

I am quite sure the blocking this time was appropriate – I dotted all my i's and crossed all my t's. But I suspect he will be no less upset. I'm asking you to keep an eye on the situation. If he acts in a vindictive way, I ask that you support me, if you feel this is deserved. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 16:57, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: BBC

Why did you alter the page BBC so that it violated the Manual of Style where it hadn't done before, specifically [10]? I can understand your desire that quoting style should be up to the user, but changing it in this manner seems illogical to say the least. If you feel the need to delete this comment, as you did to a similar one I made, please at least answer me in private. —Wereon 18:55, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Right to vote

Hi, some time ago, you gave me a suggestion to register on my IP talk page, in order to get some additional benefits on en.wiki. I did it, and also asked for my previous contributions to be attributed to my new user name. Well, it didn't prove successful for the ArbCom voting software that keeps saying I'm not entitled to vote. I've dropped a note on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004#Disputing vote exclusion. Ciao, M7it 14:12, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You said unless you've been contributing for 90 days. I've made my first edit on en.wiki on 23:45, 11 Jul 2004 (hist) Amalasuntha. Please see my older contributions here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=213.255.107.33 Ciao, M7it 23:33, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You said Only edits under a username count. So, this is crap :( ? Ciao, M7it 23:39, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. M/

[edit] Wikiuser

Hello, CheeseDreams. Basically, 'WikiUser' is a troll. He spams people's talk pages with unformatted personal attacks, interjects himself into controversy, awards barnstars to people like Irismeister, and makes crackpot claims and psuedo-legal threats on the mailing list. I've blocked him; other people disagree, so I just try to ignore him. Check his contribs. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 23:10, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Note the following

• Accusing someone of being a troll is a personal attack and violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
• He has a right to choose who he wants to award barnstars to - its not up to you
• He is allowed to make claims even if you think they are Crackpot - remember NPOV, claiming he is crackpot is POV.
• Unformatted personal attacks should result in RfC or RfAr not blocking, ESPECIALLY as others disagree.
• Entering controversy is NOT a violation of wikipedia principles

If the reasons you have given above are the only justification then you have committed an abuse of adminship, and I will consider making an RfC against you for such action.

If this is the case, then I insist on you unblocking him.CheeseDreams 23:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RfD

Hi, I noticed you deleted some of the listed items on WP:RfD. Policy (which I had nothing to do with setting, merely follow) is that entries need to stay there for at least a week before being deleted, unless they are one of the four classes of candidates for speedy deletion (ditto previous comment). Thanks! Noel (talk) 00:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] VfD archiving?

You deleted some pages on November 29th but didn't close their VfD debates, or move the debates to the Old page. I assume you know this, so I'm just asking if this is a regular habit. If so, it would be good if it was noted in Wikipedia:Deletion process. Maybe something like: "As deletion can only be done by sysops, sometimes a sysop will delete a page but not complete any of the other steps involved with closing a VfD debate. If you find one of these, please close it, or move it to Old if you don't have the time to close it right then." Sounds good? Thanks for working on VfD, BTW. JesseW 00:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)