Talk:Javier Solana/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Vandalism

I've looked at the "666" edits on this article and it appears to me that, for some editors, there is a clear intent to vandalize the Solana entry and the user pages of those who get in their way [1], [2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10]. I will indefinitely block those involved in all such vandalism. In view of this extended campaign of coordinated vandalism I will issue no further warnings and heed no appeals. The users blocked are:

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

68.159.142.227 (talk · contribs) is a Michigan IP according to my locator, as are 68.159.157.232 (talk · contribs) and 68.159.146.54 (talk · contribs) --SqueakBox 01:56, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Time out

Ok guys here is the deal. You have been battling over edits for forever now. You want your version to be the article, well its not going to happen as one of you will revert the others. I believe you both want to contribute. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I am proposing myself as a mediator. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A few words of advice:

Methodology

While you are not obligated to follow below items I highly recomend you do. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Establish what you agree on

Although this may sound stupid or useless, common ground is first step in diplomacy. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discuss parts SLOWLY one by one

I say tomata you say tomato. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia:NPOV dictates neither sides views to be present in the article. This is the very heart of wikipedia --Cool Cat My Talk 10:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Information must be verifiable meaning I need to be able to access this information from a reputable source if necesary. I am not saying you are lieing but I need to be convinced of facts. You do want to convince people reading this article right? If they cant check your facts they will not believe it. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Final clean up

This is where we do spell checks grammer checks, rephrasing sentences and all other good stuff. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Working to a Solution

We are working on a solution to the current edit war surrounding all three of the articles. This is entirely a misunderstanding between all parties involved, and instead of looking at ALL the diffs, some folks are only looking at one or two. Let me reassure everyone that this is a total misunderstanding, and for that reason, I request that the edit warriors within this article and Javier Solana Antichrist allegations take a time out and wait for a resolution. Thanks. KC9CQJ 09:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE

  • Do not discuss the conduct of other wikipedia users, while that may be true/false, it does not help us improve the article.
  • Present your cases in a clear form, not cryptic. Use bullets. Cite reputable sources. Actual webpages rather than personal pages so we all know what is in your head.
  • I am not here to prove this case one way or another. I am indiferent regarding topic. I can help only if you allow me to. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request

Kc9cqj has asked me to stop editing this article. This is a ridiculous request that I want him to withdraw. As long as I can edit this article i will, and I will not allow Cumbey shennanigans to stop me. If Cumbey wants to debate edits she is free to do so. I am not responsible for her behavoiur, and will not take the blamne for it either. I don't want the help of anyone if it ios going to make this situation worse. Can people please leave me alone to get on editing, --SqueakBox 15:17, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Can Kc9cqj please back up his edit warrior allegations with some facts, or withdraw tthe comments, as I deeply resent my edits to this article being labelled edit warring when clearly nothing of the sort is happening. I advise everyone to get on with this article as normal. All edits that are not vandalism are welcome, --SqueakBox 21:56, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

May I remind - as a complete outsider - everybody that remaining civil is not only good for ones health, but is also much more likely to convince people yet outside the debate of ones own position? The article's history certainly is a triffle restless, and the tone on the talk page at least in parts somewhat improvable. KC9 is only trying to help, as far as I can see it, and it won't be very helpful to hit him. -- AlexR 00:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying. I just feel aggrieved that I am being asked to stop editing this article when I am putting a huge amount of effort into making it a good article, and Cumbey is not editing it at all. KC9 may have been trying to help, but it appears to me that he is helping Cumbey and not me in asking us both to stop editing here, as she is not doing so anyway. I feel very angry that I have been asked to stop editing this article, but agree that civility is important. I was also referring to whatever is going on around the Coolcat situation, which I do not even begin to understand, --SqueakBox 00:11, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
I've already talked to SqueakBox tonight, and will talk to him more later. My intended effect was to give folks some breathing space, and not to shut anyone up. I apologize if this seemed to be the case, publicly to SqueakBox and to the users of this resource. I can appreciate the efforts that he has placed within this article, and my intention is only to make this article better by using the best available material. KC9CQJ 02:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hear you, --SqueakBox 02:15, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Unacceptable refactoring of talk

I have reverted a massive refactoring of this talk page by User:Coolcat. Such aggressive editing of other user's posts is unacceptable. — Davenbelle 18:42, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Right You havent bothered reading what I did. There is nothing unacceptable. I was requested to join this talk in an atempt to hel parties discuss matters, removing my comments prevents my ability to achive things. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You have asserted a number of times that I have not bothered reading things you did before reacting to it; this is false, I do read first.
Restructuring talk pages using first-level headings is against policy and is unacceptable. See: Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Sections, paragraphs, lists, and lines: "Start with a second-level heading (==); do not use first-level headings (=)." (which I have quoted to User:Coolcat before; he has taken this approach on other talk pages)
User:Coolcat has repeatedly adjusted the section levels (also) of this talk page (and others) so that sections posted by him are first-level headings which makes the posts of other users (who use the default second-level) subordinate to his 'mediation' impertinence. This refactoring of talk pages should be especially unwelcome here as I see no indication from other participants on this talk page that he has been accepted as any sort of mediator. (If anyone 'requested' his mediation, I'd be interested in seeing where.) I, for one, do not accept that he has any right to dictate the format of the discussion here. In his edit he asserts that he's using first-level section levels because 'thats how I want them'; this is not a valid reason. If he has a reason other than manipulation of the hierarchy of posts in the table of contents of this page in order to imply a structure of his choosing and an authority he merely presumes, he is welcome to post it. — Davenbelle 18:10, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Tampering of talk page

Someone has been tampering with my comments, changing 10 to 10 members. I haven't the time to cjheck who. However small and well intentioned these may have been, please leave what I have written intact, typos et al, --SqueakBox 23:02, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I say dont worry too much about the article, we can discuss it and once we reach a concensius we can keep the article on the version we agree upon, of course the aarticle will be developed but any "tampering" or pov after the discussion will not be in the article, please just for now ignore outside interference. It is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE to edit each others comments, even if your intentions are good. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New beginning

I am reintroducing the mediation procedure. Its 100% optional, someone removed it as if it was a disease --Cool Cat My Talk 12:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting characterization!
(origin is "dis-ease" — Lack of ease; trouble.) — Davenbelle 18:19, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)


This is a suggested mediation procedure.

Method

  1. Initial assessment. Complete...
  2. Assessment
  3. Neutralisation
  4. Edit
  5. Feedback -- if good go to step 6, otherwise, to step 2
  6. Final clean up

During all discussion a civil tone should be maintained. The Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy should be respected, with no insults or accusations. I will not be making any edits to the article on my own aside from spelling and grammar. We will start this from scratch, meaning all past hostilities will be forgotten. Please provide your arguments in bullet format and sign each. In order not to get involved in a "revert war", allow me to make the changes based on what we agree here. I will stay neutral in the article itself.

  • <-- Bullet.

Please, refrain from "you are wrong, we are right"-type arguments: use a more productive "I see your point, but this is what I think, how about rephrasing it as...". Insisting on a single, unaltered version does not help.

Please say what, in your opinion, is POV or what isn't factual in the article in the format below:

Categories

Argument (italic non indented)

  • View Pro Argument (bullet with no indenting)
  • View Against Argument (bullet with one indenting)
  • View neither for nor against (bullet with two indenting)
  • Consensus (Bold, italic non indented text)

Colours

This is how it appears in the article:

This is a randomly generated string.

This is how I recommend suggesting a change in article:

  • This is a randomly generated string. (material to be removed red in color <font color=red>string</font>)
  • This is a randomly generated text. (material to be removed green in color <font color=green>string</font>)

While you are not obligated to use this format, for the sake of clarity I highly recommend it.

This talk format has been pushed at pages such as Talk:Nanjing Massacre, Talk:Armenian Genocide, Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh and Talk:Greco-Turkish relations, and has been rejected by all participants on those pages. — Davenbelle 18:10, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Archive generated by KC9CQJ 05:43, 6 May 2005 (UTC) .