User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] User talk:195.188.51.4 11:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your helpful information on the ÉFF article that you put at wikipedia:Help Desk. I have tried looking through the edit history but it has been somehow cleared so there is no information on who deleted my page.

[edit] Zoroastrianism

I don't have a problem with you going ahead with your proposed changes. It sounds reasonable to me! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User Conduct RfC

Thank you Robert for taking on the task of creating the RfC. I have added my name to the certifying users.

In addition, you earlier removed the wikify tag and then put it back in due to my earlier comment. Reviewing the article now, I think you're right that it has been wikified extensively, so the tag can go. I think the focus now should be on cleaning up. --K. 12:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It's a bit of both. Cleanup definitely: the whole Edwardian "tender age of 5" tone. Wikifying also covers stuff like format of the intro paragraph, and the general length of paragraphs and article (currently longer than generally advised). But as I said in the Discussion, I think it needs a more radical approach. I think it would be better for the editing dynamics to scrap the lot and build it afresh, rigorously sourced: a clean break from the previous subtext that this is a mostly canonical form with a bit of leeway for arguing about wording.
It is, incidentally, quite within guidelines - see here - to rip out factually disputed unsourced material and put it on the Talk page until sources are forthcoming. Tearlach 23:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Not an admin. But very familiar with pages run by groups, companies or others that are intended to be an endorsement of the organization. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 02:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Robert. --Nicholas 11:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Copy [[Image:WMBarnstar.png|100px|frame|left|Caption]] onto their page. You might want to put it on their talk page, as they might have a sub-page for barnstars or wish to choose where on their page. Howabout1 Talk to me! 16:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago

Hi. I know you're kind of new and you're trying to be bold and I commend you for this. However, I wanted to let you know that I moved the WikiProject and Peer Review templates from the Chicago article. These templates are intended to be placed on the discussion page. From Wikipedia:Templates, "Templates in the article namespace provide information to help readers. These can include navigation aids, or warnings that content is sub-standard. Templates that provide information only of service to editors belong on an article's talk page." I know there was no harm intended, just wanted to let you know why I made the change. Thanks! -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 18:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shehzad Tanweer

Robert, thanks for letting me know about the RfM. User:Sherurcij has now withdrawn it and we're going to look for another opinions instead. If you'd like to give your opinion on Talk:Shehzad Tanweer, that would be very helfpul. The issue is whether the intro should include that Tanweer was one of four bombers carrying out a joint mission, and the number who died overall. User:Sherurcij feels this is POV, and that we should refer only to the number of people Tanweer killed directly. He also feels the intro shouldn't include the CCTV image of the bombers because it's POV. I feel the intro should include reference to the number killed overall, and that including the CCTV image is not POV. Here is my version of the intro with one pic [1] or here with two pics [2] (I have no preference between the one- and two-pic version). Here is Sherurcij's version. [3] But if you don't have time, don't worry. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 04:20, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PR RFC

My reading of the talk page and other material was that Pastor Russell, at the very least, thrives on conflict and attempted to lower the level of discussion and provoke others. Users who see the world in manichean terms often do this because it confirms their world view that everyone who is not with them is a member of the other side.

I hope the PR problem can be worked out, and it affirms my conviction that steps need to be taken to reduce the amount of wikistress put on good contributors. There has always been a co-dependent relationship with POV warriors, I've heard it called "pov-dependency". POV pushers fill out articles and add subjects, but they also demand that they control those subjects. As wikipedia moves out of early adopter and into early majority, the utility of POV warriors will grow less, since coverage will expand with the number of users.

I alos appreciate your efforts to talk to Mr. Cimini - he is another user who needs to understand that the world isn't divided into true believers and the forces of darkness. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 04:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dualism

Within the context of wikipedia I think we need to have a greater explanation of assuming good faith and writign for NPOV, these are not easy concepts to get across, and a great deal of trouble could be avoided if people simply took responsibility of the NPOV of their edits - avoiding what I call "the urge to scribble a mustache" on an article - and that other edtiors may well be writing to document POVs which they don't agree with, or at least are not particular advocates for. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 15:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree - but I'm not especially hopeful of anything helping with people who are steeped in a specific worldview. For instance, there are those who sincerely believe their positive view of a topic is neutral, and therefore perceive edits toward neutrality as having a negative bias. Or, as you say, there are those stuck in a Manichean view, who don't seem able to understand that there are editors who might be coming at the topic from an effectively alien POV that doesn't align with either side. In this case, I think both apply. Tearlach 15:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] LVMI RfC: Revised

Hello, Mister McClenon. I want to thank you for the courage, conviction and clarity of your revised view on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw (Note: this comment is not directly related or in response to the immediately above, but nonetheless). Yours, El_C 06:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your remarks about the LVMI dispute. (My thanks also apply to Ted Kennedy, but I was too lazy to make a new heading.) Wikipedia does have a problem with people whose very strong convictions lead them to believe they could save civilization, and who proceed from there to the conclusion that uncivil behavior is perfectly justified in support of such a noble goal. I, too, hold strong opinions, but I try not to be a jerk about it. JamesMLane 13:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual characteristics

You asked for a summary of concerns. I've listed the items that are of concern to me on the original talk page, in response to your request, and I've put up what I think would be an ideal version of the page at User:Harmil/Sexual characteristics, with an explanation of that page and its purpose near the end of the original talk page. I very much hope that this helps to resolve the situation, but AlexR has already made it clear that he intends to boycott any attempt at such a compromise :-( -Harmil 19:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please, then, if you make a request and then successfully deal with the matter yourself, either remove your original request or mark it as dealt with, rather than eating other people's time following up on matters already dealt with. And you ask me to look again, but aim me at a 100K+-page without indicating the section.-- Jmabel | Talk 21:19, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Didn't mean to sound harsh there. I'm perfectly glad to look into this, but you'll have to help by aiming me at something I can actually follow up. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:29, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ComCat

The thing about the VfDs that ComCat has put up is this: they come in HUGE waves, and every single one of them has a pefunctory "NN. D." attached (indicating "non-notable, delete"). This alone is borderline abusive, as you are supposed to have a reason that you detail on the VfD page, but at first those of us voting assumed that this meant that he was doing a ton of research and dumping the resulting totaly unreasonable articles into batches of VfDs... then some of us (like myself) started finding that he was putting up a fair number of pages that were simply short or poorly formatted, but which even the most casual Google searches would show notability for (the clasic example was an Order of Canada recipient).

We're not saying "don't list things we disagree with", we're saying, "do some research after the third or fourth time someone points out that you're flooding WP with VfDs without doing so.

I hope this helps. -Harmil 23:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maoririder

It would be a bit of a waste to respond with one sentence in the Maoririder RfC so I'll just do it here. You mentioned wondering whether or not he intended to expand the stubs or whether he hoped others would do so. To answer that, he tags every one of his contributions with {{expand}} and {{cleanup}} Soltak 00:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I do have hope that he can be a good contributor. Hopefully this RfC will serve as the wake-up call he needs Soltak 00:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Kennedy POV warrior

The same anon who's been tirelessly assaulting the Ted Kennedy article has a little venom left over for Rosemary Kennedy. The anon removes properly sourced information that tends to put Joe Kennedy, Sr. in a favorable light, and inserts irrelevancies and unsourced charges to throw mud at the family whenever possible. It would be great if you'd watchlist Rosemary Kennedy and help keep it to a good encyclopedic standard. JamesMLane 16:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JamesMLane

Keep in mind that JamesMLane states in his/her profile "hostile to the right wing". This should help you understand where the above remark comes from 24.147.97.230 04:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nikolaos_Karastathis

I have responded to your question at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Nikolaos_Karastathis#Discussion - Tεxτurε 17:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ground Zero

Ground Zero has accepted his nomination to be an admin and replied to questions at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ground_Zero. Homey 21:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Agiantman's conduct

Beginning the RfC process at this point would be understandable, but I suggest you hold off. I've left another warning on his talk page, with links to the policies, to give him one more chance to stop his inappropriate conduct. JamesMLane 15:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps agiantman is not a sockpuppet, but him and team Anon need to be reported for their POV pushing 3rr violations. They all claim consensus for a paragraph when there is NOT such a concensus. Then they ALL accuse you and James of vandalizing. Sometimes one IP will reverted 3 times, then conveniently Agiantman will make the next revert or another IP. I would consider this to be trolling, and indicators of of possible sockpuppetry.Voice of All(MTG) 16:14, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

You have my sympathy, of course. You might find Agiantman's conduct on Stalin 26-29 July interesting; POV pushing (in the intro), and reversion of edit tags. This 3RR report may be a place to start: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive37#User:Agiantman

Good luck.

Septentrionalis 21:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ultramarine

You answered a RfC some time ago, about Ultramarine. Unfortunately, his behavior is now worse than it was, and I have seen no alternative but to file a request for Arbitration. I thought I should let you know. Septentrionalis 17:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Featured picture - comments requested

My photo of the bust of Antinous, currently under comment for featured picture
My photo of the bust of Antinous, currently under comment for featured picture

[4] I'm nominating one of my photos for 'featured picture'. Voting isn't for two days, but I'd appreciate your comments if you feel to add them. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

For your kind note. Be well. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rosemary Kennedy

The multiple-personality IP is back. Wife, child, family dog; don't know what it's supposed to be today. --Calton | Talk 00:29, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi there! I just wanted to thank you (somewhat belatedly) for your input in this RfC; an external viewpoint which pretty much confirms what JeremyA and I have been thinking is good to see. Too often RfCs are simply an alternative battleground, but this one has at least drawn some outside comment. I remain hopeful that stinging both the editors with an RfC might make clear the distastfulness of their behaviour and avoid Arbitration. <crosses fingers>. -Splash 15:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ben's RfC

Robert, I see you've added your name as a certifier. That has to be done within 48 hours of the RfC being filed, so I don't think you can add your name now, though you can certainly add comments if it stays up. Or rather, you can add your name anywhere you want, but in terms of two certifiers and the dispute resolution evidence, that has to be done within 48 hours. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 21:14, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, when I asked you to remove yourself from the Bensaccount RFC, I didn't mean just stop posting on that page, I mean stop trying to wiki-lawyer the legitimacy of that RFC anywhere on wikipedia. FuelWagon 15:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please read your email

Please read your email. I have sent you a message. Newcrusade 18:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC / Monicasdude comments

I appreciate the thoughtful comments you posted on this matter. I view the RfC as an overblown personal dispute, which its proponents are inflaming by posting hyperbole and statements which are demonstrably false -- in short, a bad faith action. I don't want to be placed in the position of making a series of time-consuming responses to an ever-mutating set of complaints, as happened in the initial dispute on the Dylan talk page. I don't believe the actual nature of the dispute is accurately presented in the RfC to date, and don't believe it can be understood without going through the unpleasant debate on the talk page. I can't recall seeing a sustained barrage of personal abuse/attacks like the one user: Lulu has placed about me on the talk page. I frankly believe my restraint in this dispute has simply encouraged the proponents of the RfC to behave more outrageously. I freely acknowledge being more stubborn and contentious than many sensible users here would prefer, and being easier to provoke than I ought to be; but I also believe that the instances of my stubbornness which provoke the greatest response are those where I am insisting on the application of important Wikipedia policies. Monicasdude 22:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Robert, I would be interested in your assessment of Mdude's insistence he is being "personally abused" in these disputes. He has charged this from the beginning even though his antagonists' language, relative to the aggressions being committed by him, was really quite light. Specifically, how do you judge the early June situation which I described in my "Endorsement Caveats" to Theo's Outside View? An unknown user barrels in, completely overhauls a longstanding Featured Article, meets with silence my entreaties (made over days) to discuss, and thereby kicks off a revert war which includes some heated exchanges. Personal abuse? I ask your opinion here because I'm beginning to question my own eyes, almost like maybe I'm seeing mirages. If I really am looking at all this in such a mistaken way perhaps I should retract. JDG 19:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pope Pius XII

I've started an RfC on the introduction. patsw 22:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Cornwell in the Introduction of Pope Pius XII. Is it time for mediation? Please discuss on my talk page. patsw 14:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bensaccount RfC

Hi Robert, I've left another comment for you here. [5] I've decided not to delete it and have explained why there. Many thanks for your input over this. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:07, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki brah

I'd been doing a bit of soul-searching about this whole "Wiki brah" matter. Your note on his RfC page tipped the scales the other way for me, so I've unblocked and restored the account. Thanks for straightening out my head.  :) - Lucky 6.9 20:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfC

Hi Robert, I took a look at the RfC against you and you're right, it's a farce. It also wasn't properly certified. The anon IP can't certify. Ernestocgonzalez and Antibully are clearly sockpuppets. Famekeeper and Sleepnomore certified outside the 48 hours, which ended at 15:05 August 23. The only non-sockpuppet account to have certified by that time was User:Agiantman. So I'm willing to delete this if you want me to, though judging by what you said on my page, you'd prefer not.

In future, if you have problems with sockpuppets pursuing you, contact me. Sockpuppets created to violate policy are blocked indefinitely. Anon IPs causing disruption are also blocked (unless they've made lots of useful edits). Regarding content disputes in future, try to get some good editors involved who can support you. I'd be very willing to recommend some people if you have problems again. Perhaps we can discuss a bit more next week in general about how to tighten up the RfC procedure. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 05:42, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jtdirl

Yes, he was being stalked by sockpuppets of User:Skyring, who is banned for one year. All the known sockpuppets have been blocked indefinitely. Are you also being stalked, because if you are, there's no need to tolerate it. Let me know who's doing it, and which ones you believe are sockpuppets (either user accounts or anon IPs). I've already left a note on the talk page of the user who left the personal attack on your talk page today. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:35, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFM reform

I was going by:

You must follow the preliminary steps laid out in Dispute resolution if you have not already done so. You may want to use the less formal (and more open) Request for comments instead.

But I am very open to good suggestions from anybody, and I particularly like yours. Please advise me re: Radiant and Xiong. Uncle Ed 00:42, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Concordat annex

I have tried to put some order into the confused exchange between FK and me. have a look. Str1977 14:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Robert, have you seen what he who needs not be named has posted today on poor Jimbo wales' page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Today_05_September__2005 Str1977 22:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

No, Robert, I didn't worry about FK's letter to Jimbo. Firstly, Fk's post are hard to understand in general, as you found out when you were drawn into this muddle and, in fact, this was my first experience when "The Question of the Law" first appeared, without any prior context, on B16. This is were this whole thing began. Secondly, I think Jumbo is a busy man and cannot take care of everything that's being laid on his table.

What is an "RfAr"?

Str1977 08:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nice one.

Well done for seeing through the bullshit on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Erwin_Walsh. Your comments are appreciated. Erwin

RMC - Please review the following: [6]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Radiant and Xiong

I have posted a Request for Mediation between Radiant and Xiong on the RfM page. Any posts by either of them to this talk page may be archived. Robert McClenon 21:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor is willing to mediate if both principals agree to mediation. Any further comments on this talk page may be archived or ridiculed. Robert McClenon 21:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FK sit

Please take a look at this:

User:PureSoupS

and this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#I.27ll_Accept_your_dis-invitation_to_edit_the_WP.2C_Jimbo_.2C_but_answer_me_this_Please.2C_Famekeeper

and this:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Holocaust Complicity Views

Str1977 22:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AfD vote

Please check out this 9/11 related AfD, [7].Voice of All (talk) 17:02, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

You would be a good candidate for admin. Erwin

[edit] Brutal refactoring ahem, "archiving" of Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

Robert McClenon,
I've done a bit of a slash and burn here, including some good comments of yours. This is in an attempt to both end the nonsense and get something useful out of it. Thanks for your contributions so far, and I hope you'll keep it up!
brenneman(t)(c) 01:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] That RfC

I know, it was a bit weird, as though I should delete the bad bits and leave the rest. ;-D I was talking to User:Aaron Brenneman about RfCs, and had the idea of what I've called (for the want of a better term right now) an "issues RfC," as opposed to an article or user-conduct RfC. See here. Not to replace user-conduct RfCs but as a third option. Does this sound like something worth developing? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diff

Hi, you have criticised the entry I amde on RfC for not including 'diffs'? What are these? I will be more than willing to improve the page if it does not come up to standard? Robdurbar 20:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: 24.147.97.230

well, meatpuppets anyway (though each of them seems to have exactly the same syntax and misunderstandings about Wikipedia as he does). But a couple people like Agiantman and TDC seem to share his opinion, or at least his desire to trash-talk. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Hi. I have made a new suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#A new suggestion in order to try to overcome the present impasse. I would appreciate discussion of this on the talk page before we all get into reverting again. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 21:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] H's P

Dear Robert, it's been a while. I had a look on the Hitler's Pope article recently and it is still in the over-expanded state someone left it in, i.e. it is still basically a parallel bio page to Pius XII and not an article about the book. Since you have read the book, could you please, when you find the time, trim down the article to what the book says? Thanks. Str1977 18:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Robert, no immediate reply to your message, but some information. Someone has listed H's P under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitler's Pope. Could you please comment on this. Str1977 20:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MedCom

Regarding your note at Ed Poor's talk page, The MedCom is not joined by appointment, see WP:MC and follow instructions. Thanks, Redwolf24 (talk) 02:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TheBigFellow

No, he's a special friend of mine from before that. I was away when the Kennedy mess went down, and just happened to be looking through the RFC's. I already thought he desperately needed an RFC, so I just took a look at the evidence and signed. From there, I went to yours which was just bogus on its face. I signed, though they are old, just in case an arbcom case is ever brought. No, I haven't seen that other RFC, I'll take a peek. Derex 00:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)