User:Peter M Dodge/Archives/archive dec102006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Comment

What is this supposed to mean?. There is a definite pattern to my edits in which those before september perhaps come under WP:DE (which wasn't policy back then) and those after september show that I get less and less involved in the useless bickering . Why do my contributions to the encylopedia not count? Your attacks on me after a long period of working hard to change myself really hurt. I find your allegations against our fellow wikipedians (who have decided to be objective) very unsavory as well. I'm assuming good faith you never actually looked at my contributions to actual pages I was the writer for (ex. Pamheiba, Ching-Thang Khomba, Satveer Chaudhary, and Jagrup Brar are some gems from the mine).Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Bakaman, I wasn't commenting on your edits, I was simply saying that IF and only IF the arbitration committee decides that your editing has been disruptive in the ways that have been claimed, that is an appropriate remedy. The same remedy has been proposed for all the parties to the Arbitration - and it is the duty of the Arbitration Committee to decide who it is appropriate for. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 23:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You may want to see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar/Evidence#Bakasuprman_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_is_a_constructive_editor and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar/Workshop#Bakasuprman_has_edited_constructively as well. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not trying to support one side or another, I was just expressing the belief that such is an appropriate remedy for the behaviours you have been accused of. Personally, after looking through your contributions, I think that you may have had a few rocky edits, but nothing so controversial as to warrant ArbCom attention. However, my opinion doesn't matter in the matter, does it? :-) Cheers, ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 01:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually your opinion probably does matter. There are some users whose only edits are from the controversial India-related articles. Using "Interiot wannabe tool", you can see that BhaiSaab, Hkelkar, and TerryJ-Ho's contribs all intersect quite frequently on mainspace and that all their edits come from "hot topics" (those that excite feelings of amazingly rabid passion). I have one or two in common with them see tool here, but those counts have stayed stagnant for Indian caste system and 2002 Gujarat violence and are growing for other articles. Also the proposal on banning me would probably be WP:SNOW if it wasnt for your support, which means (I'm going to be frank here) in the pursuit of "fairness" you are unknowingly facilitating a loss of good editors from wiki.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Bakaman, you seem to lack an uinderstanding of the ArbCom descision process. The Arbitrators are the only ones that decide whether a motion is passed or not, not I, nor you, nor Hkelkar or any other party or other in the matter. As such, it doesn't matter if I, or if a thousand people, !voted support, only the body of the remedy and whether or not they feel it applies. Please, you seem to be taking this a little personally - don't. Unlike some of the other commentors on the case, I don't know any of you other than by your contribs, and I don't have an axe to grind. I'm simply commenting on the motions themselves, as they must stand on their own merits. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 17:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

...For your comments at the RfArb. Most people seem to have come to the workshop page with only a cursory reading of the actual evidence presented. Very disappointing, overall. Hornplease 12:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please understand I'm not supporting any party to the matter, however. I'm merely evaluating the proposals on their own merits. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 01:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Reading the evidence and evaluating the proposals is sufficient. I dont think there are any parties worth supporting in the mess, frankly. Hornplease 02:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. While the conduct of several users has been questionable at best, they do not show the patterns commonly seen in long-term abuse cases, so I think some reformation can happen on the parts of these editors. Several of the tertiary parties such as Bakaman reacted poorly when they came across the situation but have improved greatly since then, so the remedies may be made keeping that in mind - for good reason, too (if you ask me). ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 21:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hkelkar Arbitration

You advocate the use of checkuser in the Hkelkar Arbitration case. Please read my comment here and you will see that:

Two relevant checkusers (which I linked to) have already been performed.
The Checkuser privilege itself is entirely unnecessary in this because the IP addresses of the contributors are readily available to any user for comparison.
Another checkuser would be ineffective because Shiva's Trident has not edited for a significant amount of time and hence he will have no IP's recorded if a person were to do a checkuser.

BhaiSaab ^talk 15:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 02:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I will see if I can't do some more editing mining for the evidence page when I have a free hour or two. Cheers! -- Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 15:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonjour cher ami

J'ai juste découvert que vous pouvez m'aider avec changer mon nom d'utilisateur. Je veux changer mon nom d'utilisateur de "Marwatt" en "Marwat" mais de façon ou d'autre je ne peux pas faire que pendant que Wikipedia fournit ce message que le nom d'utilisateur est déjà en service. Je ne suis pas sûr si c'est le cas mais quelle aide peut toi fournir en changeant mon nom. Je serai vraiment obligé. --Marwatt 05:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Your French is a little broken (or perhaps just different form the Quebecois french), but if I understand you, you are asking to change your username. There is a link at the top of my talk page which links you to the Username change requests place. Please use that and post a request. Thank you. Please communicate in English next time.

Bonjour. Je ne comprends pas français très bien, mais je crois que vous demandez que votre username soit changé. Si c'est le cas, il y a un weblink à la page appropriée de demande sur le dessus de ma page d'entretien. Veuillez employer cela pour faire ainsi. Communiquer dans le temps prochain a l'anglais sil'vous plait. Salut ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 01:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey dude, not bad either. Well, I learned it for one year and thats all. Thanks for the help. --Marwatt 13:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blind Guardian

Hey, I'm your friendly cabal mediator, Piet Delport has for a mediator in the dispute you are having. I'm looking into the case, and if you accept me as the mediator I hope to see you on the talk page. - Francis Tyers · 15:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I fear that Piet is just using mediation as an attempt at wikilawyering to be honest, Francis, and while I don't know about MedCab procedures, I know at the very least MedCom isn't one to take up bad faith attempts at mediation - they serve only to be one user's or group's soapbox in such cases. I appreciate the concern however, Francis. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 18:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Behind the scenes"

Hello,

I am a freelance writer working on an article about Wikipedia users and all the "behind the scenes" goings on at Wikipedia that the average reader of the site never knows about. I intend on focusing a little on several of the unofficial Wikipedia organizations, or "projects", that members are a part of such as Esperenza et al. As such, I would like to speak to you about your experience with the Counter Vandalism Unit. If you are interested in participating, please email me at brianwrites@gmail.com.

Thanks FFFearlesss 20:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Im leery about giving people my email off wiki, having dealt with an internet stalker in the past.. Is there no on wiki way you could conduct this? ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to do this however you want to. I'm just a reporter. I don't know a whole lot about how the whole "wiki" thing works, part of what this article is about. If you want to contact me at my talk page, fine. I can give you a link to my website or whatever will make you more comfortable. FFFearlesss 22:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Here or on your talk page works for me. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 01:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impersonator

User:Mister Rudebaker has copied your user page to the user's own user page. I think you should know since this user may have had contact with you before. Any help in finding out who this is or why they copied your user page would be appreciated. Gdo01 20:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

He was blocked for impersonating me almost as soon as you posted this message by KnowledgeOfSelf as a Bobby Boulders vandal. See here. Thanks for the heads up though, I greatly appreciate it! ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Questions

Hi Wizardry Dragon, You don't know me, but I'm a peripheral contributor (an "other") to the Hkelkar case. I haven't been on Wikipedia very long, and I want to act appropriately in all my dealings with the project.

This is my first experience with any arbitration process here. There are several things I've come to not understand about this process. A lot more things just plain upset me.

Having said that, I'm not coming to you or anyone else with the baggage that I have accumulated in the past week or so. I have a therapist for that;). I just want to know where I can most appropriately present the evidence that I (think) have, and whether or not my evidence is even evidence before I irrevocably put it where it might not be needed or preferred.

I've already presented a lengthy bit about my observations of Hkelkar's actions and behavior on the evidence page, and I don't wish to add to it (it's too long already). I just have three honest and sincere questions about what to do next and if I should do it.

I'm coming to you because you added some templates, but you appear to not be directly involved with this arbitration. I wanted to go to Fred Bauder or Thatcher because they seem neutral and knowledgable, but I was afraid that they (or someone else) would think I was sucking up to them or trying to bias the situation. I thought about going to a random admin, but I rejected that until I found out that Hkelkar was blocked today.

I promise I'm not usually this wordy - or maybe I am sometimes. But I'll try not to be wordy in the future. Please understand that this is all pretty difficult to me. On the other hand, it's beome very important because it's in relation to the very first thing I put real time and energy into on Wikipedia (an analysis of an article in response to an article RFC that Hkelkar posted).

I'm really sorry this is so long. I'm finding it hard to be succinct and neutral about even my most basic feelings and reactions to this arbitration.

I completely understand if you direct me to someone else, and I would be happy to approach anyone you suggest.

Thanks for your time, NinaEliza 03:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Methinks I do know you :-) "SleepingDragon" ring a bell? In any event, the best page to present evidence, is, well, the evidence page. It is available at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar/Evidence. You should summarize this evidence and present it as a proposed finding of fact at the Workshop as others have. Cheers ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 19:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

If anything, I know that I am a good person. I also know who I am and who I am not. Nothing else matters now, so I won't be involving myself any further. I sincerely (please believe me when I say that) appreciate you clearing up this larger issue for me.

I wish you the best on Wikipedia, NinaEliza 21:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello again,

I've figured some things out and in light of that, I would like to apologize for my somewhat bizarre reply to your answer. Put simply, I thought you were implying I was a sockpuppet of a banned user. After some thought and much pain (pain is growth!), I figured out that I could just check the banned user list and find out for myself. I didn't find such a user, and realized that you're probably referring to something else that I'm not aware of (and need not be).

Please understand that my experience with Wikipedia so far has been unusual. Or maybe not - I honestly don't think that Wikipedia should put "respond to RFCs" as the second thing on it's list of "Things to Do":p. In other words, by the time I got to you I was extremely sensitive to even the hint of personal attack. When I approached you initially it was for the reasons above, but it also because I had respected and admired the dignity, integrity, and rationality of your posts. I'm very glad to correct myself and once again to feel this way.

But the real point I want to make is this: despite my best efforts to misunderstand you, your comment was the catalyst for a lot of positive change in the way I do things here. I've backed off, chilled out, gotten some perspective, and remembered why I came to Wikipedia in the first place.

I want to be a part of something great, and I want to do useful things with my leisure hours - particularly if I intend to use them staring at a computer. I want to learn, sharpen my skills as writer, reader, editor, and communicator. Finally, I want the pleasure of knowing that the skills I share could eventually be greatly appreciated by thousands - if not millions - of people I will not get to meet in my lifetime.

I'm a small person, of largely unspectacular achievements thus far. Furthermore, I have little hope of a real legacy in this world. To know that my words, my choices, even my addition of a comma or a fixing of a typo, might live on beyond me and actually be useful to people, is a great comfort.

Like anyone, I've made some good choices and some bad choices. However the decision to come here, to Wikipedia, counts among the best decisions I have ever made. No matter what happens on these pages, I pledge to always keep this written in my mind and in my heart.

Your reply ultimately revealed this to me, so be bold!, and remember that even your poorest words can do good when you assume good faith. At the very least, they beat the holy hell out of silence. Happy Editing!

Sincerely,

NinaEliza 06:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: This post strayed off-topic and is really too long, but I think I'll save it anyway:).

To clarify, the name "SleepingDragon" I mentioned is my IRC nick, which I was on when you approached people for help regarding harrasment on your talk page, and I said I would watch it for further disruption. That is where I remembered you from. It is always a great shame to see new editors driven away by the actions of disruptive users. As you may have noticed Ive taken an interest in the resolution of that arbcom case for that reason, as whoever is at fault, the dispute is undermining Wikipedia and needs sorted. Anyways, it would be a shame to lose someone as thoughtful and kind-spoken as you have been, so I hope you reconsider your decision to leave. Best of luck either way, ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 21:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear - I'm staying. I thought I saw that name somewhere, but I couldn't for the life of me figure it out - duh! Thanks for clearing that up:).

I've contacted someone who I think might be able to help out. If I'm not mistaken, folks like us won't be alone in this for long. Take care, NinaEliza 22:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heligoland's RfA

Hi, I was patrolling my watchlist, and I came across your support vote for Heligoland. What exaclty are you implying by saying "as kind of evidenced by the volume of oppose votes by users with few contribs". Judging from the oppose votes, most of the opposition is from experienced users/admins. Anyway, I was just wondering. Nishkid 64 22:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, some of the people who did not provide reasons for their opposition have been reverted by Heligo in the past. I would think if they had a problem with a reversion that was legitimate, they would offer it up as a case against his adminship. Cheers ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 22:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe my reasons for opposition were stated with clarity. Please ask for clarification if you feel you need it here, and point out what you need clarification on. For posterity:

“

Oppose I'm sorry Kelly, but I can not support someone who has been so critical of ArbCom into a position on it's panel, I cannot have faith that you would keep in mind the goals and mission of ArbCom. As well, your controversy in the past makes me more than a little hesitant.

”

If there is going to be further explanation, I don't mind, but I prefer to do it away from a possibly "groupthink" environment. If you prefer, you can also PRIVMSG me on IRC. Cheers, ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality)} 21:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wizardry Dragon, I understand your concerns that Kelly is trying to influence the election, but I don't think they are grounded. One would have to be stupid to think that Kelly has any hope of becoming an Arbitrator (she currently stands at less than 20% in the election), and Kelly is not stupid. So please, assume good faith, and understand that Kelly is honestly trying to get feedback on how to improve, not somehow score the unlikeliest victory since David v Goliath. --Cyde Weys 23:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think wizardrydragon's concerns are valid, she is spamming across many user talk pages. Is there a reason we should be granting an exception? I don't think so. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Arguably she may be spamming (no different than RFA thanks), but I definitely take exception to your link, which goes to the canvassing section of WP:SPAM. Kelly is not canvassing for anything. She is obviously not trying to somehow influence her ArbCom candidacy, as she's in about the same position as David. --Cyde Weys 23:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, she was. Was she doing it in bad faith? Hell no, she is smarter than that. We all make mistakes, if you see her talk page she admitted she was a little overzealous. As I've settled differences with her, I think further discussion is irrelevant, though if you want any clairification or explanation do ask. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 23:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Give My Regards to Broadway

Hi. Please note you did not properly complete the form for adding a copyvio tag to Give My Regards to Broadway so I have removed it from the article. I am assuming that you were referring to the use of song lyrics, and they have been removed per WP:LYRICS. However it's possible this song may be in the public domain, in which case copyvio does not apply (I have left a query on the article talk page requesting clarification from anyone in the know). If by chance your copyvio concern had to do with something else in the article, please re-add the copyvio tag but be sure to include the applicable URL information and make sure it's listed on the copyright violations page as directed. Cheers! 23skidoo 20:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It was indeed about the lyrics. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 20:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The song was written in 1904, therefore copyright on the lyrics does not apply. The lyrics have been restored. 23skidoo 06:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CSD

Can you please review how you are making these tag edits? Two (so far) of the articles you have tagged look ok to me. Thanks, --Guinnog 21:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You're going to have to be a little more specific than that. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 21:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, I have just rolled back your last five edits. Can you please be more careful? --Guinnog 21:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The TV show CSDs? They fit the appropriate CSD criteria: pages which contain no meaningful content. If you think they should be AfD'd instead of CSD'd please do so. If they survive there I will abide by it, but I do think they need deleted. Individual TV show episodes are non-notable and rarely verifiable. (By the way, roll back is intended for use with vandalism and spam edits, not for legitimate good faith edits. Please don't be so quick to use it.) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 21:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether these articles deserve to be here. They don't fit my idea of a speedy deletion candidate though. When I saw your mass-nomination, I was concerned that there was some sort of WP:POINT being made, which was why I rolled back those edits and left you the message above. I suggest you try to reach consensus to merge the series articles into one article for the series if you are concerned about their individual notability. Best wishes, --Guinnog 19:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My experience is that such articles are usually unattended and therefore there tends not to be users to make a consensus with so I was bold and just dealt with it in the way I felt most appropriate. ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 19:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The world of the shining prince

Hi, you removed my comment on this discussion page, describing it as "nonsense". I was wondering if this was done in error or if I had done something wrong. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A-ha, sorry that was a misstep, I was only trying to remove all those fake sock messages, which were nonsense. Feel free to readd it. ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 18:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Thanks. -- IslaySolomon | talk 20:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 20:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a note

You might want to get an e-mail address linked to your username. I noticed that back a few days ago. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have one linked to this account Eagle, however for privacy reasons I choose not to have WP disclose it. if you want I can give it to you later over IRC. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 20:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you have confirmed it, I get this message: This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.. You might want to double check your settings. Cheers! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's the latter Eagle - this user has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.' Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 22:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)