User talk:Lquilter/Archive 006
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
 Archives |
|
LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
LGBT WikiProject newsletter
| The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||
SatyrBot 05:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
3RR Warning: Nadine Gordimer
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. You are in danger of being blocked for violating WP:3RR. Please stop and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Yakuman (数え役満) 14:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- As Yakuman well knows, she is removing a NPOV tag without resolving the dispute, and I have replaced it because the dispute is not resolved. That is not a WP:3RR matter. In fact the tag is there to avoid revert warring as Talk:Nadine Gordimer demonstrates. (Scanning Yakuman's talk page and history (because she deletes her talk page warnings and messages) shows that she has done this sort of inappropriate warning before.) --lquilter 14:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
3RR is 3RR. BTW, I have no complaint against your/her archiving the warning. Yakuman (数え役満) 14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It is fair to say that the discussion on what to include (if anything) about the robbery of [Nadine Gordimer] has gone on for several months and has gotten us nowhere. Each side is still arguing its original points, and there seems to be no spirit of cooperation here, or willingness to compromise on key issues. Lquilter has repeatedly mentioned that mediation might be a good idea, and I must agree with her. Mediation is a voluntary process, and its results are non-binding. If both sides do not agree to the mediation, then it will not occur, for its results would then be meaningless. It is, however, the next step toward Arbitration, which is binding. The goal of mediation is to arrive at a solution that is acceptable to all parties. It is not to force one viewpoint on others. It is very important that all sides agree to this mediation. I am in the process of drafting the Request for Mediation. If you have a problem with mediation, or do not wish to participate, please speak up now at Talk:Nadine Gordimer#Mediation. Andyparkerson 23:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Nadine Gordimer, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
"delete and salt"?
You placed a query about this on User_talk:Dr._Submillimeter. I suspect it's a reference to the alleged ancient practice of ploughing salt into the soil of a place to prevent re-colonisation. For example Rome allegedly did this to the site of Carthage after the Third Punic War. Philcha 12:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Philcha -- Actually, I didn't know the specific history, but did know the general military context of "salting" ... didn't it show up in the bible too? anyway I was really trying to understand what it meant in terms of wikipedia -- was there a technical type of protection or something that was described to as "salting" that prevented recreation? --lquilter 12:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Request for Mediation
 |
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Nadine Gordimer.
|
Attacks in the article User talk:Lquilter/NG7023history
Please do not make personal attacks as you did at User talk:Lquilter/NG7023history. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Yakuman (数え役満) 09:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that was created as an attack page. Since mediation was refused the logical next step is either a user-RfC or a RfArb. That page appears to be evidence for such a case and not intended as an attack. However if Lquilter isn't planning any such action it'd be best to retire the page. -Will Beback · † · 09:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- A record of events is not an attack page. Whether or not an RfC or an RfArb eventuates, it seems to me entirely legitimate to keep such a record, and also seems to me to be in the spirit of Wikipedia's transparency. FNMF 09:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm still working on it. I admit I took a few hours off to work on non-wikipedia stuff, eat, and sleep. <g> It's a lengthy history, so it will take a while. --lquilter 12:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
-
Gordimer and policy
Hi. I've taken a strong line over the last few hours in relation to the BLP, NOR, and NPOV violations at the Gordimer entry. As a consequence the entry has been blocked for a week by user Durova (who did not take a position on the dispute). If you read through the section "BLP and notability" on the Gordimer talk page, you will see how I understand the policy issues. It is my belief that, having established the violations, it is up to editors to insist on enforcing policy correctly. I thus do not favour mediation, in particular given the lengthy history of the dispute. I have also referred the entry to the BLP noticeboard. I hope you will examine my arguments, find them convincing, and support enforcement of policy at this entry. FNMF 09:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I really liked your approach, and am glad you referred it to BLP; John Broughton had referred me to BLP earlier but I didn't understand, and you've made it very clear. Thanks. --lquilter 12:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- To clarify: the cheetah is the fastest land animal. This is a fact, but you wouldn't mention it the Gordimer article. Why not? Because it is not notable in relation to the subject of the entry. Whether something is a fact or not is not what determines whether it should be included in an entry or not. Notability in relation to the subject is what determines that. And for BLP entries, where controversy is involved, it is very important not to include facts unless there is sufficient supporting sources establishing the notability of the fact for the subject of the entry. Even facts that seem non-controversial, such as discussion of the crime situation in Johannesberg. It is because editors do not pay sufficient attention to this aspect of BLP policy that they wind up arguing about the wrong things with disruptive editors for months on end. I strongly urge adhering to this principle in order to resolve this problem. This will prove more effective than any mediation process, so long as editors enforce the policy. FNMF 14:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
-
Your RfC comments
Hi. Would you mind please revisiting Talk:Catherine Bell#Request for Comments - Use of the "truthaboutscientology" website. You make the point that "If this publication / website is being used primarily to identify individuals' relationships with Scientology, then it needs to be very well-sourced and reliable, indeed." Since you made your remark, I researched the site a bit more and find that even the site owner does not consider her site reliable for the use that Scientology critics put it too here. I added that info to the RfC here. Would please take another look and see if that additional information helps you make a definitive statement for or against? The other non-involved editor, User:Russeasby, reversed his position, here, after reviewing that infomation and, since I am not sure how much more input we will get, I would like to wrap this up in a couple of days with a definitive answer. Please let me now if you have further questions or if I can be of assistance. Thanks. --Justanother 21:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I elaborated my comments in response to the information you added. Hope it's helpful. --lquilter 14:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! Yes, that is helpful. I appreciate your input. --Justanother 15:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Request For Mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/David Irving, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
- By the time I went to the mediation page to deal with this, my name was already removed from this along with other commenters at the RFC, since it was incorrect to describe us as "involved parties". --lquilter 13:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 19:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Presidential names
Hi, could you add some input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Presidential names It looks like they are at it again. Jjmillerhistorian 11:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
