User talk:Peter M Dodge

[edit] Goodbye

...and the best of luck in your life. Will ^{(Speak to Me/Breathe)}_{(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash)} 22:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I fixed your archive move. Just a heads up :). I know that we've only interacted once, and there was a little bit of hostility between us, but I am sorry if I've caused you any distress in the past. Will ^{(Speak to Me/Breathe)}_{(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash)} 23:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Whatever the page name is now, if you could change it to User:Peter_M_Dodge/Archives/archivemar032006 I'd appreciate it. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A bit more firmly now.......

Peter - I find it offensive that you would accuse me of harassment. I felt that this issue was not going to be successfully ignored, and tried to raise it repeatedly, and calmly. I have not yelled at you, just tried to explain nicely where i'm coming from. I see you're leaving wikipedia for a while, and wish you all the best for your break, but please stop being rude to me. best, Purples 23:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• I was not rude, I was simply stating the facts. There are better ways to do what you did - several options were given to you. That you continued to go about it in a disruptive way was concerning and I wasn't the only one who commented on it. In fact, I only stepped in because the others weren't being terribly helpful and I wanted to make it clear that what you were doing wasn't the best way to do it and gave some options to do it better (email being one I remember off the top of my head.) I may not have worded it the best way, but as you may undoubtedly guess, I've been just a little stressed as of late. I apologise wholeheartedly if I came off as rude. I can be short sometimes when I am stressed, but I never intended to be rude to you. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Peter - well take good care of yourself - you seem a very sincere person, and your heart is clearly in the right place, and that counts for alot. I did of course email essjay as well, and all i wanted was for essjay to respond before all this nastiness exploded. Anyways - best wishes for your break, and maybe we'll cross paths when you return! - that would be cool.... cheers, Purples 23:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm Sorry

I'm sorry to see you go. I wish you well in all your endeavors. Real96 23:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed (with Real96). — S.D. 01:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Farewell

Peter, I don't believe we've had any direct interaction but I've seen your contributions and your absence will be yet another great loss to Wikipedia. This circus that has been created around Essjay has caused more damage than his actions ever will, and I couldn't agree more with the statement on your userpage. I'm disgusted reading Essjay's talk page and embarressed for the project. I hope you reconsider but your feelings of dismay seem to effect more and more prominent users everyday. Good luck in life, auburnpilot talk 23:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• The general attitudes around Wikipedia these days are not something I want to be a part of. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring/deletion of comments

You are not entitled to refactor or delete my comments, or those of other users, as you did with this edit. Please only edit your own comments. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 01:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• It was accidental when I restored the CSD notice. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 01:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning

Please stop edit warring on the Essjay RFC. You should technically be issued a 24 hour block for it as you have already broken 3RR. Please use AfD to delete it, not CSD. It's been very clear that it's not going to fly as a handful of admins have reversed you. —Pilotguy go around 01:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• I could wikilawyer and point out that only one was a reversion, but I really don't care. A lynch mob is a lynch mob and if Wikipedia's going to be mob rule than so be it. It just makes me feel all the better about leaving. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 01:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durin

What exactly provoked this? Voice-of-All 21:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but what did he do exactly? Voice-of-All 21:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

He was supplanting the bureaucrat's judgement, saying which requests should and shouldn't be fulfilled. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Provably false. I tagged two requests that were DUPLICATES of a later request as "not done". I supplanted nothing. --Durin 21:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• The bureaucrats disagreed with you. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 22:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Prove it. Show me where the bureaucrats said I supplanted their decision making. --Durin 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• You read Essjay's post, right? ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 22:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Of course. There's zero evidence i supplanted anyone's decision making ability. This is laughably absurd. A user posted three different requests. His latest one is obviously, blatantly the one he wants. The earlier ones could be archived. Not doing so is hopelessly process bound. A dog could have tagged those and been right. Get over it. You're just attempting to hold it up as proof that I over ruled the bureaucrats because it's the only thing you have going for you that I did anything wrong on the page, and it's laughably absurd on its own that I did based on this. Come up with some proof that I actually denied any non-duplicate requests. Go on. I dare you. Do it. PROVE me wrong and I'll publicly apologize anywhere you want me to. --Durin 22:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Essjay specifically stated that bureaucrats and ONLY bureacrats should use the done and not done templates. You ignored that and did so anyways, usurping the role of the bureaucrats. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 22:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• In other words, you blindly follow policy. Well wait a minute, it's not even policy. It was a decree from Essjay. Oh wait a minute, he didn't even make it a decree on the page since there were no instructions to that effect on the page. Look, it was blatantly obvious what needed to be done and it didn't take a bureaucrat to figure it out. Three requests, all from the same user. It was blatantly obvious only the last was the request the user actually wanted to make. Since you don't have any evidence, other than this...I wouldn't even call it weak, that would be raising it too high...evidence, there is nothing. If you think otherwise, then start an RfC against me. I'm sure you can find other clerks that think as you do, no? --Durin 03:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• If I start a RFC about anything, it will be your combatitive behaviour that continues to harass me. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was unreasonable for me do this at the time, or now. Just like malformed RfAs with 20 oppose and 0 support can be closed by non bureaucrats. This saves them the time of having to do this cruft themselves, which, IMO, is helpful. I'd agree than non-bureaucrats should not reject serious request that just don't follow the template or an instruction must be followed, and they can't accept them as they don't have the rename permission. Voice-of-All 05:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course not, but on the same token if a bureaucrat disagrees with you and tells you not to continue, it's a matter of respect that you stop. It would be disrputive to continue after being told to stop. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fine. Show any evidence at all that I continued tagging as you suggest I did following a request that I not do so. If you can't provide that evidence, there is no evidence of disruption. None. To date, you've failed to provide any evidence of this. --Durin 18:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Step two in dispute resolution is disengaging. How about trying that now? ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fine by me. The concept of clerk at WP:CHU has been deprecated anyway. We're tilting at windmills. Cheers, --Durin 18:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's why your manner comes off to me as aggressive, as I said above. It's a dead issue, why bring it up to be anything but disruptive? Let the ghost lie and everyone will be happier for it, I say. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This reminds me

		The Minor Barnstar
		For your minor, but most helpful, clerking activities. It's you folks that keep the checkuser machine running ^_^ Milto LOL pia 21:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If you leave, I wish you well, and if it's just a break, I hope it's nice and relaxing. And I hope your last days here can be harassment free. Milto LOL pia 21:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Many thanks for your openness about what's happened to you. It helps me to know what can happen to dedicated and gracious wikipedians who work so hard to make it what it is. Hope you heal well. No need to respond. Julia Rossi 23:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Antivandalhammer.jpg

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

The above-entitled arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published at the above link. Ilena (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year and is banned from editing articles and talk pages related to alternative medicine, except talk pages related to breat implants. Fyslee (talk · contribs) is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a neutral point of view. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 12:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User List Log Problems

The user list is currently corrupted making it impossible to use Vandal Proof I was instructed to contact a moderator. -Vcelloho 19:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On my RfB back in December of 2006...

You stated "In light of this, and he fact that he is still growing on Wikipedia, suggest to me that some time is perhaps the best remedy for the problems that face this user when it comes to their behaviour, ettiquite, and most importantly it would seem, image." In what way am I still growing? You talked about my behavior needing time, but I should point out that diffs used against me in that regard are often from 2004 or early 2005. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, just wondering in what way I need to 'give it time' to keep 'growing'. I've been on the site for 3 years. 1ne 03:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

He's been around since January 2004, longer than many of us (including me). I'm sure he understands what Wikipedia is all about at this point. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, both of you have failed to notice that Peter left Wikipedia awhile back and hasn't edited in six weeks. Newyorkbrad 03:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catchup

Hey :/ my sincerest regards to you, during this difficult time; there's just too many long-standing Wikipedians leaving us :-( don't hesitate to drop me a message, and my email is always open if you need to let off some steam. By the way, my thanks for your advice a while back: without it, I would never be the Wikipedian and Administrator I am today.

Take care, Peter.

Regards,
Anthony 16:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:43px wikipedia.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:43px wikipedia.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Heheheh, pretty sure copyrights that the Foundation owns are fine to use in the encyclopedia. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 08:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:User wikipedia-editor

Template:User wikipedia-editor has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:User developer

A tag has been placed on Template:User developer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:User udic-member

A tag has been placed on Template:User udic-member requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)