Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
Hi Cowman, I have been trying to mediate at the John Bowlby article. Although it initally seemed like a compromise could be achieved, both sides now remain stubborn, with one side getting an ever-increasing number of users, all of which are single-purpose user accounts that support one side against the other (very suspicious). Anyhow, I no longer have any more time to assist in mediating this case, in part due to real-life concerns and also due to the feeling that in this case I am simply banging my head against a brick wall - I would rather focus on improving Wikipedia's articles for now. It would be great if you could help find a new mediator to take this case, although at this stage it seems that succcessful mediation will be difficult.
For the record, the dispute revolves around the biography of British psychologist John Bowlby, whose pioneering work in attachment theory has proven highly influential in later psychological work. One party (several "users", including User:AWeidman, User:DPeterson, User:MarkWood, User:JonesRD and with more accounts being created every week) wishes to pepper the article with links to other treatment methodologies inspired by Bowlby's work which have no direct relevance to him (wishing to not only mention dyadic development psychology and theraplay in the Legacy section but also the See Also section). The other party (User:Sarner) wants the article to have little to no mention of these methods, preferring them to be relegated to an article on Bowlby's attachment theory instead.
Since this debate has started, an increasing number of new users has come to support one side against another, in what seems to be like classic sock/meat-puppet activity. I have no more time or desire to deal with the petty squabbling of both sides over an issue which concerns no-one other than themselves, and I prefer to devote my time to more construtive endeavours. I may take other mediation cases in the future, but for now I need a break. I appreciate your assistance and hope you understand.
I will see if I can help out, thanks. Cowman109Talk 02:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have stated on the page my objection to the allegation that I am a "sock-puppet." I resent this! This continued allegation despite Brisvegas's apology on the talk page makes we question his objectivity. I contriubute to a number of pages of interest to me. My feeling is that just like other pages (Aaron Beck, Freud, etc.) mention and link treatments based on their work, so should this page at least ink in order to be comprehensive and complete. A compromise has been offered and accepted by me and several other contributors and rejected by sarner(keep Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and eliminate Therapy. I don't know about the others, but I am not a "sock-puppet" or "meat-puppet." DPeterson 02:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have never said that DPeterson is a sock-puppet, since I have always given him the benefit of the doubt, per WP:AGF. I am referring to later user accounts, such as JonesRD, whose initial edit and subequent contributions have been almost exclusively related to this dispute. While I may be wrong, the balance of probabilities is rather strong as to make me suspicious. I do not wish to take any more mediation cases which involve a sudden influx of new users whose purpose is to push the agenda of one of the main parties in the dispute, as this is unhelpful and is a waste of my time and effort. I am delisting Bowlby from my watchlist and shall avoid it for now. Thanks for your help. Brisvegas 03:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I misunderstood the comment and apologize. DPeterson 03:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
However, it can be said that DPeterson's [[Special:Contributions/DPeterson|contribution record] is very nearly identical to that of JonesRD -- no contributions beyond the narrow interests of this dispute. He has the added known characteristic, shown by several login failures, that he has the same IP address as User AWeidman. The benefit of the doubt may have been given to the one user who has the most damning evidence! Larry Sarner 07:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
It are these continued false allegations, purposeful disrespectful tone, and irrelevant, diverting arguments, that cause us to require some directive administrative intervention; the continued false allegations, off-point arguments, and rigid stance against compromise, collaboration, or consensus. The fact that Mr. Sarner is a leader of the fringe group ACT, and is representing their view and agenda, may be part of the problem. DPeterson 14:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Cowman, thanks also for your recent help with my MedCab request (unrelated to tge above). I'm new to the process and appreciate the assistance. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 02:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Many contributors feel that the Theraplay and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy references remain in the also see section. One, or maybe two others (both members of the same group, ACT, do not want those references to remain. A compromise was proposed by a Wikipedia administrator --David.Mestel-- in which Theraplay would be deleted and Dyadic Developmental Psychotheray would remain. Seven contributors supported this. I appreciate your intervention.
The dispute has been going on for a long time and it appears that sarner (and mercer) are unwilling to compromise or waiver from their agenda. Both are representatives and leaders of a fringe group, ACT (you can find it on the web) dedicated to elminating any reference to attachment-based therapy. Sarner has been unwilling to accept any compromise or to collaborate and work with the clear consensus. Your help here will be much appreciated. DPeterson 02:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
What you've just read is indicative of the problem on the Bowlby page. The argument constantly is being taken to other venues instead of keeping it on the Bowlby talk page. (Just look at the discussion section of the mediation request, and the "Bowlby Page" section of Brisvegas's talk page!)
Then there are the personal attacks, such as those above. How many can you count in just one paragraph? I scrupulously avoid such attacks -- and it's very, very hard to keep from responding in kind -- and they just keep it up.
You will find vandalism on the Bowlby page; bizarre, illogical arguments; violations of fundamental Wiki policies (such as Reliable Sources); claims about consensus, collaboration, and compromise that bear no relation to reality (not even Wiki virtual reality); lies (such as above, saying Mestel proposed a "compromise" as an administrator was done as an "advocate" for their side); ballot box stuffing, stalking horses, sock puppets -- you name it, it's all there.
Anyway, I hope you will tell all of us (myself included), to keep the argument about the Bowlby page on the Bowlby talk page where it belongs and not here or the mediation request page.
Sarner continues with his personal attacks by making false allegations and being disrespectful to various contributors if they don't agree with him. For example, claims of "ballot box stuffing," sock puppets," and "stalking horses" are false and he has been told that, yet he continues, perhaps because he will only accept view and opinions that he forms and is not open to new information, collaborative consensus building, or cooperation. DPeterson 14:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
See what I mean? I have to go all around where these little horseapples to keep things balanced. On a more important matter, you might visit the Bowlby page, where you made a couple of errors in the statement of the controversy, and DPeterson reverted my corrections. Larry Sarner 19:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Your requested that questions be directed directly to you and not put on the Bowlby page, so here goes. Since mercer and sarner have a finacial connection with each ohter (wrote at least one book together and are leaders of ACT, which is a fringe group (meaning not recognized or accepted by any mainstream organizations in the reserch community or professional community, such as APA, NASW, etc)) should they and their really be considered as two separate individuals for the purposes of this discussion? regards DPeterson 23:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
More relevantly, if two users use the same IP address, have exactly the same opinions on every subject, make the same word choices, even misspell the same words, and have never been seen in the same Wikispace at the same time, shouldn't they really be considered as the same individual for the purpose of every discussion? Best regards, Larry Sarner 00:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Mr. Sarner, please do not make these personal attacks unless you have evidence. Either request checkuser, or drop these allegations. --David.Mestel 15:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Of course I have the evidence for the case I'm thinking of. Checkuser is for when you don't have the evidence. And it how can it be a personal attack when I haven't named anyone? Larry Sarner 15:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I am rather concerned by your comments on the Bowlby page threatening to delete comments referring to the backgrounds of users. Where is this mandated by policy? --David.Mestel 15:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps this suggests that someone wants to keep the arguments on a personal level? Larry Sarner 15:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
No, just that "someone" doesn't want to have debate stifled. --David.Mestel 17:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
There is no policy that specifically supports that. I simply have a strict stance of following WP:IAR, and thus WP:RPA. Personal attacks, or otherwise comments that can be interpreted as personal attacks (such as people questioning the backround of someone out in the open to their face, thus questioning their merits as an editor) only stall dispute resolution, turning the aim away from the article's content to the contributer. WP:NPA specifically says that one should comment on content, not on the contributer. It appears that there have not been anything serious enough to mandate refactoring or removal, but I admit the current conversation going on in the talk page does seem to have an underlying tone of focusing on the content, rather than the administrator. If there are beliefs that someone is clearly biased and is reverting a common consensus, there are other methods to handle that such as WP:3rr. At the moment, however, the John Bowlby issues appear to be contained within a group of people directly related to his studies, thus making the disputes more complex. It seems like the only thing that will move things forward at the moment is a neutral third party commenting on the manner. Cowman109Talk 16:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I certainly do not support personal attacks, but I think that one should be extremely wary of removing other users' commments. I'm not sure that a third opinion would be appropriate in this case, as they are more orientated towards disputes between just two users. Perhaps an article RfC would be better. By the way, I think that a "srict stance" on WP:IAR is something of a contradiction in terms. --David.Mestel 17:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. To answer your query I was adding welcome messages to some new users (something I very rarely do but decided to this afternoon as I had some free time). As you would notice if you looked furhter back in time I have done many larger edits as well. I am also a frequent RC patroller. --Newton2 17:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ah, alright. Well it's probably best to not make so many edits in a minute in the future, as people may mistake you for a bot. Waiting 30 seconds to a minute between edits at least is usually best. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 17:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ok thanks for the tip and I will do so in the future. --Newton2 20:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
[[1]] is not going anywhere, as the mediator has appeared to have disappeared, and has not replied to posts left on his talk page. Not casting any blame on the mediator, but we need a new one, and I'm not sure how to ask for a new one yet. - MSTCrow 03:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Signpost delivered by: RoyBoy800 04:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
He is back but now using the IMac4ME account name. He has started deleting the same content as before from the Sprint Nextel profile, with the same MO. Can you please watch IMac4ME to make sure he doesn't go back to his old tricks?
Hi, I really do not know what is going on here but CDMACORE has been harrassing random people with random IP's and has now been blocked because of it. I have done nothing wrong whatsoever and he keeps threatening me on my talk pageIMac4ME 23:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
IMac4ME is now changing misspellings just like he did before. He changed "configured" to "conficgured". Just like he did with "used cell" to "used-cells". This is proof that it is the same person. Who else would change a correctly spelled word to an incorrectly spelled one?
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
This user CDMACORE does not agree with proven like Cingular has the largest digital Voice and data network as it says on their site they are and keeps adding Bias information like on Sprint, CDMACORE keeps adding the prices that even other members dont agree with. I really dont think I am "Harassing", thats what CDMACORE is doin in the editing nots of these articles. If your an Admin and you really think I am vandalising something please discuss it on my talk page rationaly with me. Thanks IMac4ME 22:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
What members are deleting the pricing data? The entire time you were gone, no one deleted any of that. They only added their own knowledge.
Cingular does not have the largest digital voice and data network in the nation.
Look at it like this:
Both Verizon and Sprint claim to have the largest EV-DO, right?
Verizon's reaches 148 million people in 181 markets. Sprint is 152 million in 220 markets. Sprint is larger, but Verizon keeps claiming to have the largest. They base it on some odd measurement.
Verizon, Sprint, and Alltel all have larger digital voice footprints then Cingular. And they all include roaming into that coverage area, just like Cingular. But Cingular makes their claim based on their own odd measurements.
Same with Alltel now claiming to have the largest network.
They all claim their own things, but you keep wanting to add something to Cingular profile that is incorrect.
I don't have a problem with Cingular, but I don't think we should go around quoting their own claims, when the info from other carriers puts those stats in doubt.
Can't you just add content to these profiles that is proven vaild, not based on that company's own research? Can we just move past this whole profile war?
This discussion should probably continue on the talk page of the article in question, so other people can put in their own responses. Agreed? Cowman109Talk 01:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
We worked it out now. Both of us came to a compromise on the whole profile altering. There will not be anymore problems between us. So you don't have to take anymore action.
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Greetings. I need some advice concerning the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, and I've decided that asking you would be the best way, since you have experience with working towards the same goals. However I'll as well appreciate links to specific pages or to users who might be better able to help, or comments from other users.
The Wikipedia Neutrality Project started just a couple months ago, with Wizardry Dragon being the initiator, and me the first supporter. Unfortunately, he has real world problems, and I as well was short on time (and later actually just forgot), so the project became inactive. I'm going to revive it, however with major changes in the methods, and would prefer to do it with some advice rather than completely alone, and you seem an experienced person. (I've posted a quite lenthy suggestion on WNP talk page, just in case).
First, I'm going to make WNP the primary method for addressing POV-relating templates and deciding whether they are needed on a specific article. Of course, we won't have any special power, but de facto will have a degree of control, and I'd prefer to be sure it is appropriate. In my opinion, an independent team is better than constant doubt in editors or conflicts, but we're not the ones to ivent the templates, so if there's anything inappropriate, please tell about it.
Second, there's a simple problem that the WNP needs people. I'm pretty sure there are users who would like to join, since there were people originally, but, having only the list of proposed wikiprojects to inform editors about WNP, it is unlikely more than a few users would ever know about it. I could add Wikipedia Neutrality Project (or would another name, like Team, be better?) to some template, but I'm not sure it's correct to clutter Wikipedia with link to a team not yet having a good number of users. What can you suggest to attract interested editors?
And, in general, please help with any ideas concerning the WNP, or even some participation, as it can become either very useful or forgoten, depending solely on how the things are done. CP/M 19:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well, it seems you don't have time, so sorry for bothering. Could you just suggest some page where I could ask this question, or someone who could help? CP/M 22:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Oh, dear! I completely missed this message; sorry about that. Are you looking for help on how to raise the awareness of the project? If so, the village pump may be the best bet. If you're asking about how to go about organizing the project and jumping into POV disputes, you could transclude Category:NPOV_disputes onto the Wikiproject page in some way to see where the {{pov}} template has been left behind. You could edit that template to refer to the Neutrality project, perhaps, suggesting users who place the pov template see members. Could you clarify what the exact question is, please? And sorry for taking so long to respond - I managed to overlook this post, somehow. :) Cowman109Talk 00:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well, thanks for answering. The exact question I'm in most doubt about: Is it OK to make WNP the primary group for deciding whether POV-related templates are in place on specific articles?
Second (though you've partially answered it), is about attracting members, if there are any other ideas. Also, if you have any ideas about how such a thing should work, please give some suggestions on the project itself. CP/M | Wikipedia Neutrality Project 01:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
You may want to make note of your intentions at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals) to see what others think about the concept. Personally I think it sounds wonderful. I don't think there's any formal process to getting such a process working, and I could imagine only good things coming out of it. Perhaps you could start off with chosen collaboration articles that members could focus on to fix pov problems. There's also possibilities such as having a sort of reporting process for people dealing with npov issues that want an outside source to fix it up, and volunteers can jump into reports similar to RFC and see what they can do. So, I think the best place to start would be the proposals section of the village pump and see what others have to say. :) Does that help? Cowman109Talk 02:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the comments! I'll post to the Village Pump now, to see public opinion. About the reporting process, it's really the thing I was thinking in first place; actually, I currently intend to make the following primary activities:
* Review. Any editor can post a request, creating an appropriate section, and the article will be reviewed by one or more of our members, making suggestions on what should be changed, or just changing that in simple cases.
* Watch. Articles with frequently appearing significant bias can be added on a collective watchlist, which is checked by our members time to time.
* Assessment. We will discuss and suggest whether a POV template should be placed or removed on a specific article. This is what's really needed, since there's no procedure for this, and many editors hesitate to make such changes alone.
* Dispute resolution. We will provide quick suggestions for resolution of NPOV disputes in cases where there is no personal conflict, but just contradicting views on a subject. In case different kind of help is required, we'll recommend the appropriate group and help to make the request.
* Correction. When we find an article with significant POV issues, we'll repair it, neutralizing biased statements, replacing speculations with reliable information, checking for adequate representation of different views, and ensuring article no longer has a general bias.
Well, all of this is for now a proposal: something might be added, removed or changed. If you have suggestions, please comment. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 03:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Hello,
I want to protest most strongly the placing of opposition comments on my reasons (for deleting the links on the Bowlby) as part of my reasons. Boy, not even their advocate, who should know better, can play square. I would move it, but I was accused of vandalism the last time I did that.
They are doing the same thing on the user comments about AfD page on Attachment Therapy. A pattern of sabotage (if not strictly vandalism) on the part of these people is becoming apparent.
Since the "Reasons" section -- and its format -- is at your request for a specific purpose, can you do something about this sabotage? If the advocate is allowed to get away with this, you can bet the others will follow suit. If they do, your entire purpose for creating this section (a clear statement of the various sides for consultation by the others) will be subverted by this conduct.
I added a one-line comment to clarify an ambiguity in your wording, which I signed. --David Mestel(Talk) 21:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
It was obviously more than that. There was no ambiguity to clear up. I was referring to my original proposal, which was I considered a compromise between 1 and 5 sources. It certainly had nothing to do with "consensus". Who cares that you signed it? If you didn't understand, or chose to dispute it, the proper place would have been in a new discussion, not interfering with me making my case. I hope the mediator agrees. Larry Sarner 22:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
As I predicted (or perhaps because he or his advocate read it here), Mr Becker-Weidman inserted a comment into my reasons for keeping Theraplay and deleting DDP (not only muddling the presentation with his commentary, but also by breaking the numbering). Was my previous request/protest unworthy of even a refusal from the mediator? Would you consider it vandalism if I moved these and future comments on my own? Larry Sarner 16:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well it seems this has grown into quite the confusing mess. I think everyone should just take a deep breath and assume good faith of eachother. Everyone is much too tense and we are all a bit too quick to jump to conclusions about these edits. It is good practice to not edit the comments of others though, especially if you are currently involved in a dispute with them. I don't think this issue should be so complicated - at the moment we're just arguing over see also links, which I'm sure you can all admit is silly. I will leave some notes on teh talk page of the article.. Cowman109Talk 16:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree with you, Cowman. Since Sarner has been banned from editing the Bowlby page I suppose the dispute is now over and the Also See section can remain as is; unless others wish to add related links. True? Does the ban on Sarner allow him to continue to add comments and continue his "fight" on the talk page of this and other articles? thanks DPeterson 18:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
As I read that talk page, Dr. Becker-Weidman placed a comment after Sarner's listing. DPeterson 18:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for clearing that up about Ideogram. I'll strike my comments from the ArbCom case. -^demon[yell at me][ubx_war_sux] /12:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for your time and attention to this dispute. I appreciate this alot. Since Larry Sarner has been banned from making changes to the Bowlby page, can we now assume that the Also See section will remain as is and other editors/contributors who wish to make additions to enhance that section may do so freely? JohnsonRon 16:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Oh, and just after I made a comment trying to calm things down. I guess that's settled, then. I will close the medcab case (I'll keep both the talk page and the case page in my watchlist though, so if anything else pops up I'll look into it as well). Thanks. Cowman109Talk 16:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Treebark(talk) 23:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I put a new edition of the introduction for Manchukuo. What do you think? I hope this will make everyone happy. P.S. From the history of Manzhouri who did the previous edit, I don't trust this man's intention or judgement on Wiki.--Manchurian Tiger 04:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hey, I was wondering where or who i could ask to help out with mediating (as edit wars are taking over all of the talk pages). Please let me know on my talk page.Dan 12:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I am concerned that sarner seems to be suggesting the ban on his editing the Bowlby page does not exist. I am also concerned about his taking his view and approach to other related pages. Can you please comment on this or help? thanks. RalphLender 16:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'll ask Nicholas Turnbull. Cowman109Talk 16:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Oh, scratch that. It seems someone else has asked him - Sarner is not banned from the article it seems, though he is indeed still under agreement to not edit the page. See User_talk:JonesRD. Cowman109Talk 17:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 02:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your support! Now I can get back to doing real work in MedCab. Once I get all these thankyous out the door anyway. :D ~Kylu (u|t) 02:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Cowman, leave the Ben Hendrickson page alone until the matter is mediated. NickBurns states he has referred it. You are not the ultimate say. Keep changing it, and I will change it back. 71.142.208.166 19:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry to see you're upset with that. However, Nick has stated he is not going through with a form of mediation, as mediation is not required in the case. You have been blocked for disruption, and you are continuing your edits through this changed IP. Now that you know this, please stop reverting Benjamin Hendrickson as there is a growing consensus to keep the mention of how he died, specifically through policy such as WP:NOT which states that Wikipedia is not censored. The statement is verifiable and as such it is encyclopedic. Wikipedia, unfortunately, cannot tailor to the needs of each editor, as well. Also, please refrain from personal attacks. Thank you. Cowman109Talk 22:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Cowman, thanks for your notes on my talk page, and for your assistance in general. I was completely confused as to what to do, and your comments were helpful and instructive. Thanks! NickBurns 00:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I have been accused of libel by Cooperstown77 since I was instrumental in getting the Greg Bravo (Gary Scott) article deleted. I called the article's assertion that Bravo was the lead singer of "Na Na Hey Hey" a hoax (which it most certainly is). Legally, is an accusation "libel" if it is true?
By the way, Cooperstown77 has threatened me on my talkpage (saying he would "find" me)--Fortheloveofhampsters 02:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well, it seems Essjay has helped you out. Your page appears to have been semi-protected so anonymous editors can no longer leave messages on your talk page. Cooper's comments were completely innapropriate and were clearly trolling/cyberstalking, so it's best to do as Essjay said and just ignore him. I think I'm going to request that the steam page is semi-protected, as well if he continues, as his comments don't appear to be improving the article anyway but are signs of trolling once more. So, just don't worry about it. Have a cookie :) Cowman109Talk 16:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I want a cookie. --Ideogram 18:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the advice and the cookie, Cowman109. I won't read anymore of his (their)comments. His (their) comments used to be amusing if not interesting, but now they are downright idiotic and sad.--Fortheloveofhampsters 22:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Spin back by IRC when you get a chance, i've got an idea for you. CQJ 23:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I've contacted our good friend at the committee in regards to what were discussing about our other friend at the other place, nudge nudge, wink wink. Find me on IRC when you have a chance tomorrow. CQJ 04:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. --Michael Snow 04:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for your support in my RfA! Unfortunately, the request did not pass, with a vote of (43/16/7). But your support was appreciated and I'll just keep right on doing what I do. Maybe I'll see ya around -- I'll be here! Cheers! - CheNuevara 17:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have decided to join the cabal (if there is one... hehehe). I was wondering if there is anything special I need to do before doing anything Cabalish. Viva LaVieBoheme 03:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well, assuming you've gone through the painstaking initiation involving being alone in the wilderness for a week and being fed alive to the mosquitos, no, there is nothing special :). Just feel free to volunteer to help someone out in a new case if you feel you can help. Oh yes, and you can always bring cookies. Cowman109Talk 18:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
How do I close the Schizophrenia case? As per the discussion in the article's talk page, I don't think that the case can be mediated. It is my belief that Mihai is not seriously participating in the mediation, and that my attempts to understand and meet her objections to the data being included into the article have failed. I believe the case should be close, and probably moved up to a higher level of resolution. - MSTCrow 23:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have closed the case for you (all it took was changing the open cases to a closed cases category at the bottom). It does seem that policy is the answer to this problem and that the other disputant wants the information removed as they perhaps question its validity or find it misleading, despite its citations. I will leave a comment on the talk page. Cowman109Talk 23:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I had copied it directly from Goldom's RfA. I forgot to fix the transclusion to my userspace. I'm really sorry about that, it was pretty stupid on my part. Regards, alphaChimplaudare 21:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ahah, that explains it :D. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 21:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey Cowman, well u said it would be fun to write an article, so I thought I would. Take a look at DECv :) --Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 06:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Cowman 109, I'm afraid that I did not create My Choosiest Choice of All. I did edit it, but I cannot remember what I added since I have not put details (I will remember to do so in future). But the summary for that page does not seem to be plagarised from ScrubsTV or TV.com.
I did, however, create the His Story II Scrubs episode article, if that is what you meant. I did not plagarise the summary for that.
~~EJB341
Alright, thanks. I will remove the My Choosiest Choice of All summary just in case it is copy-vio just to be safe. Also, in the future, you can leave your signature on talk page messages by typing ~~~~ at the end of your messages. Thanks again. Cowman109Talk 20:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Oh, it appears I read through that too hastily :). Sorry for mixing you up. I must have confused the histories of the pages (I went through a lot, heh). I'll speak with User:The JPS, since he's the one who created it after all. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 20:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hi. Well, I belive that in GF that it's original. There's only so many ways things can be said about something that isn't complex, and there will obviously be similarities between summaries, but it certainly isn't a cut and paste. This summary is shorter at tv.com, and I didn't actually know about the episode guide on scrubs-tv.com -- but I've just checked and that's much longer. So, to answer you're question, the article was as original, and is sufficiently different from the two sources you mention. I didn't realise the rest (which I had no hand in crating, but I probably made some frmt tweaks) were copyvios. Shame :( The JPStalk to me 10:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If you go to _anyone_ of the pages, you'll see the Wikiproject Biography Template, down the bottom right, click Show, theres a link to "requested biographies for over 1 year", and a link to Joseph A. Bank, and now your talk page is in the What Links Here :P Take care! --Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 06:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ahah! That explains it. I can sleep peacefully now :P Cowman109Talk 06:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Cowman, thanks for volunteering to mediate at Template:The Batman. I don't want to say too much for fear of looking like I'm trying to prejudice the mediator, but I wanted to thank you for making an effort to straighten this mess out. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Regarding that dispute, you've (understandably) inticated on the Template talk:The Batman that you are unclear on the points in contention so I'll give a rather more pointed comment than I tend to if it will help. The central point of this dispute is based on comments made by User:ThuranX that led me to believe he intended to continuously revert any changes to the template (examples: [1], [2] and more particularly [3] where he states he will revert edits he describes as "attacks" on any comics-related navbox, not just the Batman template). All of that being said, I'm aware all of those statements were made during a period of anger based on his statements that edits to the template he created were vandalism, and it is of course entirely possible that he has since cooled down. But one of the reasons I requested mediation was for an impartial person to speak with this user to ensure that work on this template (and others) will be allowed to go forward.
Basically the case was created more as a user behavior issue than any other reason, but as I am one of the individuals involved in such arguments obviously my slant and opinion on culpability is biased. If you are interested, my personal dispute with User:ThuranX is described on my talk page but you may understandably not wish to bias yourself by reading only one person's side, particularly before you have had a chance to engage ThuranX
I hope this comment was beneficial and not too weighted or pointed, and again thank you for picking up this case. -Markeer 15:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I made a redirect from my old account to my new one that I didn't mean to. Please delete the redirect, thanks. Demonblade 06:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
with the last revert just in time to avoid a 3RR break, and just before the protection he asked for a page he was edit warring.--Kwame Nkrumah 18:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I was scolded by an Admin for removing the same tag from my talkpage, and he is allowed to remove the tag?
In the end he get the page protected on his version and the tag removed: Tell me the truth, is Palffy the son of someone important here on Wikipedia, that the rules do not apply to him?--Kwame Nkrumah 18:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I honestly have no idea who the two of you are - it is simply unnecessary to repeatedly add the warning when he has already received it. On a side note, you may want to consider requesting that your account is renamed as it is the name of the first president of Ghana. If you don't want to retain your contributions you could also simply create a new account to fit account name guidelines. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 18:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
_I do not get the part about the renaming. I know who Kwame Nkrumah was, but I do not think anyone would be tricked in thinking I am the real Kwame Nkrumah (he died long time before I was born)--Kwame Nkrumah 19:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Oh, and I am not scolding one of you in particular - I am simply asking that you both just leave eachother alone as it is not productive to fight over something as simple as a three revert rule tag. Cowman109Talk 18:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hm, true. I was looking over Wikipedia:Username and it only says such usernames would be innapropriate if the person died recently, but 1972 isn't that recent. The name simply stood out to me as I recall doing a school report about him a few years back. So, you were right about that. I still must insist that you simply leave Palffy alone for now as the disputed page is now protected anyway, preventing further such 3rr violations. Cowman109Talk 19:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
That I leave him alone??? He reverts my edits without dicussion, he denounces me for 3rr, he says I am spitful, he says I am lousy, he says I am using two accounts, he accuses me of stalking, and I should leave him alone?
I understand you do not want to get involved in a fight between two users, but if you want to push your solution on the matter, at least try to understand who-is-doing-what-to-whom. Thanks.--Kwame Nkrumah 19:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes, his edits were very innapropriate and I will make sure he realizes that, but provoking people (your talk page comes to mind) is not the way to settle matters. Note that I also asked him to leave you alone. Cowman109Talk 19:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Are you sure I still can't get semi-protection for my Talk page? =))) --Palffy 18:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Only after you'll restore the 3RR warning I put.--Kwame Nkrumah 18:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Do I have to beg for protection for my Talk page =///..? You can't stop this guy, he's gotta have the last word... --Palffy 20:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I will ask him to stop harassing you once more. Protection is not generally used when there is only an issue with one or two users, instead blocks are more appropriate should this continue. Cowman109Talk 20:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I am out of this. Thank you for all you have done.--Kwame Nkrumah 20:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
That does not appear to be harassment - it is a simple procedural request to determine whether users are using a sockpuppet. Cowman109Talk 20:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry to be bothering you about something nonsensical all day, but don't you think this requires a resolution of more than a warning? The user is intent on stalking my posts, changing articles in which he has no expertise in, talking back to admins and fellow users..I know that this is your first day as an admin and don't want to do something out of the ordinary, but I think this subject matter requires consultation with someone else. I really hope you or someone else can find some fairness in this.. --Palffy 21:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that is what the WP:ANI report is for. :) I am currently speaking with other administrators about it off Wiki as well. Cowman109Talk 21:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
And what about his new personal attack? [6]--Kwame Nkrumah 22:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Requests left on that page can often take a ridiculous amount of time to be reviewed (as I'm sure you're aware). It's nice to see an extra pair of hands there. -- Steel 20:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well someone needs to do it. :D Cowman109Talk 20:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Well done, I am sure you will make a fabtastic editor. ViridaeTalk 02:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
W000000000T! well done Cowman! i knew you'd do it ;) *turns over "better luck next time" paper to reveal "CONGRAT'S"* :P --Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 08:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Wasn't the page protected? Why did you move it? Once more, you stepped out of your adminship and actually "choose" to backup one version. And the fact that you did this when I was blocked is another thing against you.--Kwame Nkrumah 11:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I unprotected it from moves as there was a discussion going on and temporarily moved it to the official name that was at the top of the page - but yes, I should not have moved it, and for that I apologise. You were only blocked for three hours, however, and I thought your block was over by that time. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, though, it won't happen again :) Cowman109Talk 15:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
2006 UN Resoultion between Israel and Hezbollahedit
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Please stop deleting that page. Fact is the beginning is not a violation of any copyrights. The Second part is the actual text of the Resoultion. This shouldn't really be a problem, 1. It gives more information to the reader, and 2. I have cited the source from where i got it from. So I would appreciate it if you would stop it. --Zonerocks 14:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hmm I only deleted it once - another administrator deleted it the other time. If someone tags it for speedy deletion again you can put the {{hangon}} tag on the page and then leave your reasoning for keeping it on the talk page - but another source of confusion is that you're mispelling resolution. If you name it resolution instead of resoultion, then that might clear things up a bit, too :) Cowman109Talk 15:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
If I may, I'm not so convinced this article needed protecting: it was hit 5 times by someone (who was then blocked) in Anchorage, AK, USA; once by someone in London, England; and twice by someone in Edinburgh, Scotland. The style of vandalism (over nine hours, btw) was completely different as well. Perhaps this can be lifted in a few hours? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ah, I figured that the IPs were related in some way (it seemed strange for there to be a burst of vandalism in one day). But yes, pages shouldn't be protected long, anyway. Feel free to unblock early if you'd like - I'm trying to help Voice of All with some over-blocked pages at WP:PP as well :) Cowman109Talk 19:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
May I volunteer to mediate cases, or is there an approval process? -- Cri du canard 23:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
There is currently no approval process as the Mediation Cabal is an informal initiative intended to be autonomously run by its members. All I would ask is that you look at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators before volunteering to help out in a case. :) Cowman109Talk 23:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for taking time to comment neutrally on my RfA. To answer your concerns over my involement in janitorial processes, I actually have 280 edits in deletion discussions (I just went and counted them), which is actually larger than the number of edits I have done in FAC. Yesterday, in fact, I started several AfDs. My edit history is open for you to verify this information (link showing only Wikipedia namespace edits) I hope you take this information into account. Andrew Levine 00:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ah, alright. Thanks for clarifying. Unfortunately I still feel that you have not had much community involvement in terms of communicating directly with users. I will support your next RFA, though, given more direct communication with users (perhaps getting involved in dispute resolution processes could be a good step). Thanks for responding to my neutral comments, though - usually candidates are too timid to reply when they should :) Cowman109Talk 00:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I understand that ou don't have the time to review every past discussion I have been involved with. If you would like, I can show you (with links) several examples of discussions I have been in which were deeply involved and/or came close to becoming heated, to show you how I handle myself in user interactions. If you want me to stop bugging you, that is also alright. :) Andrew Levine 00:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hm, could you indeed please bring up an example of a heated discussion? I feel that users need some sort of experience with editing disputes before they could be potentially stopping them with administrative tools, of course :) Cowman109Talk 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Mnemonic
Hi, there. Concerning the external link you are trying to add to Mnemonic, there are concerns that your placement of that constitutes external link spamming. As you are the owner of the site, it may be best to let neutral parties who aren't affiliated with your site to determine whether the link should be put on Mneumonic, also in part due to concerns at WP:AUTO. Does that sound alright? Thanks. Cowman109Talk 18:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it sounds ridicules? I am not the owner of the site and what is the different anyway? Take a look at pages that are left in External Links. Most of them are pretty much useless for your visitors. You can find full explanation of all modern mnemonic techniques on the http://www.pmemory.com. If it's all about commercial site - we don't try to sell anything on Wiki, our link was directed to the free eBook and free information.
http://www.worldmemorychampionships.com/ is a pure commercial site created to sell O’Brien’s stuff; visitors of WIKI won't be able to learn anything about memorization techniques there. What's up with that?
Please advice
Ah, I thought you were the owner by this diff link. Anyway, yes, that other link you brought up does seem innapropriate so I will remove it. I will see if I can get another opinion concerning pmemory.com, however, to see if there can be some sort of consensus on removing it or not as another editor feels it is innapropriate. Cowman109Talk 01:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Oh, also you can sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end of your messages :). Cowman109Talk 01:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, Cowman! Pmemory 02:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)PmemoryReply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Upon my announcing my resignation, you responded "have fun in the outside world". I'm not sure if you meant it this way, but it sounded to me like an insult.--The Count of Monte CristoParley 04:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I acutally didn't mean it that way at all. I'm wishing you luck in your endeavors outside of Wikipedia, and have fun with school and such. Sorry for the confusion. :) Cowman109Talk 04:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
I saw your help with this guy and need some help of my own. I am 69.145.123.171 (on AOL) and he's claiming I'm trolling, while I'm not. He hates anons, and thus, he hates me. The comments he is making are very hurtful, and he is constanly removing my comments from his page. I'm not in any way, shape, or form trolling, and I have a good reputation. If you check the history of my page, you will see he edited it without my permission, claiming I now 'have to register'. I'm stuck with very limited internet right now-can you please help me sort this out? --172.191.52.232 06:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Could you please provide a diff link that shows you are being harassed? Also, leaving edit summaries calling him a 'jerk' generally do not go to well. Cowman109Talk 06:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I've just had a lot of problems with him. Normally I'd leave diffs, but it's hard with dial-up. Hang on, I'll get them... --172.191.52.232 06:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
That's all I can find at this point, as I'm so mad I want to scream. I'm not trolling. He hates anons. So he hates me.--172.191.52.232 06:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well, I must tell you that honestly from my point of view, repeatedly leaving messages on his talk page with edit summaries such as "Jerk" and "burned", I believed myself that you were trolling and harassing him on his talk page. He clearly has not had a good experience with you, so it would be best to simply avoid him from now on. I will ask him to avoid you from now on as well, so we can get back to building an encyclopedia. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 06:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, but I'm not ready to leave it at that. I've had much experiance with the Wiki, and this feud goes farther than it would seem. This page is where the problem stems from. He took it much too far. In fact, I believe he used several sockpuppets on it to inflate the 'prohibit' tally.
I know how this must look from your point of view, but it's a complex matter and will take a moment to explain. Can you give me the time to sort the story out? --172.191.52.232 06:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm off to bed as it's 3am here, but I asked him to leave you alone as well. I will be able to continue discussing this tomorrow. Cowman109Talk 06:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I just saw the comment you left on his talk page... Thank you. I didn't mean to sound as mad as I did, but he really rubs me the wrong way... It's a long story. In fact, I think I'm going to start typing it up right away. Given, I did say some things to him I shouldn't have, but I've taken his abuse far too long. Thanks for listening to my speil. --172.191.52.232 06:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Alright, here's the whole thing. It's on the AN, but I figured you'd like to hear the whole story. Be warned, it's long and confusing.
Okay, this is going to be very long and complicated; not only that, but I am typing this without the internet and will have to copy and paste add links and such later. So please forgive and fragmentation you might see and bear with me: The problem is with this page. The page is, simply put, a vote that will show the general thoughts on letting anons edit. I, as an anons advocate, hover around the page and try and keep it fair. I do not own the page, but the person who made it has not been editing often, and I haven’t been able to ask permission of them to keep the peace. My opinion is that Wikipedia would not exist were it not for the anons. User:Hildanknight’s opinion is that you should be required to register. He follows the page even more than I, which is saying something. He has gone to the point of commenting on almost every single vote to allow anon editing, sometimes adding ‘no comment’ when he can’t think of anything to say. Needless to say, I was upset. So I tried to handle it nicely. I left a comment [11] on his talk page that simply said anons are Wikipedians to. It was at this point he decided to retire, then un-retire. For months I kept going back to that page, checking to see if he’d reply, but he did not. It was only after my internet connection had been cut and restored that I discoverd he had replied, needlessly harsh, I might add[12]. I added my reply [13], then waited. I was surprised to find that instead of reply on his talk page, as he normally does, he edited myuserpage, stating that it was time to register, and I would soon know why he hated anons[14]. I then added a new message on his talk page [15], saying that I would stand for anons no matter what the cause. I then came up with an idea, inspired by his comment-I would keep track of the IP’s I had to use on AOL. Growing excited with the thought, I [16] told him of it. Yes, it was mean. I was angry. He reverted it. [17], calling me an 'annonomous vandal'.Now, the reason he doesn’t like IPs is that Singapore, as a whole, has one single IP address. I can see the problem, but that’s no reason to abuse me. After my idea popped up on his talk page, my userpage suddenly was vandalized [18] by the Singapore IP. Coincidence? I don’t think so.The edit was reverted [19] by Mr. Lefty. I thanked him, and moments later discovered that my talk page had been vandalized-again, by the Singapore IP. [20]I knew it was him. There is no question about it. Angry, I left him a message. [21].
Yes, I used a bad edit summary, but I was (and am) really peeved. He, of course, reverted me. [22], calling me a troll. As if that wasn't enough, he contacted an admin, and had him block me! [23] And then decided he wanted his talk page protected to I couldn't protest! [24] He told the admin that blocked me he deserved a barnstar, and requested my good IP be blocked! I have 2,500 constructive edits on that IP! Oh, was I mad. Before his page got protected, I blew up. [25]. The admin who was considering semi-protected promptly reverted and protected the page. [26]. So he thanked the admin and again requested my good IP be blocked. [27]. And to top it all off, one of his pals came along and told him I'm a moron and he should ignore me. [28]
That was confusing, was it not? Now, am I in the right in assuming that his page should not be protected and he should recieve a warning for his behavior? I'm not saying what I did was great, heck, I insulted him. But he got off free. I got blocked. Can somebody help here?
One more thing: I think you were in the right with the way you reacted to the situation, I just think Hildanknight mislead you, and my timing was really really bad. --172.191.63.212 07:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hello. I don't have anything personal against you, just against anonymous editing in general. So I think I should clear things up a little by offering my side of the story.
Firstly, I think I should explain why I hate anons.
Firstly, as you mentioned, my IP is shared by almost all Singaporeans. This means there are many users of this IP who vandalize anonymously, and the IP is constantly blocked. I remember once spending a full hour on an article, hitting submit, and losing everything because I was blocked. I posted on several pages trying to get help on this issue. The Village Pump, the SGpedians' notice board...but it seemed everyone was ignoring me, and no one helped me. I decided to bear with it, but I eventually couldn't take it anymore. I blew up just like you did.[29][30] NSLE (a fellow SGpedian who was later desysopped over sockpuppet abuse) blocked me indefinitely for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. The block was later lifted. [31]
I joined Wikipedia to contribute information to articles on computers/websites and Singapore TV shows/movies. I wrote two articles - Google Groups and Homerun (film). I occasionally reverted vandalism to pages on my watchlist. As the number of pages in my watchlist grew, I was reverting more and more vandalism daily, mostly anonymous vandalism. That, together with the constant blocks, started to drain me, and the amount of information I was contributing to articles declined.
One of my favourite pages was RuneScape. The article is a frequent target of anonymous vandals and I've reverted several vandal edits to that article. Still, plenty of subtle vandalism goes unspotted, thus degrading the quality of the article. When the article is semi-protected, peace reigns, and there is no vandalism. However, eventually an admin will lift the semi-protection and the anonymous vandals will have a field day.
My campaign against anons was a general attempt to try and solve these issues that were causing me considerable stress. However, I failed. Gradually, I became more disillusioned with Wikipedia, and Terence Ong, the only Wikipedian I could consider a Wikifriend then, was leaving. I decided that enough was enough, and posted that I was leaving Wikipedia as well. Finally, with much encouragement, particularly from Richardshusr, I decided to stay.
You posted the message on my talk page several days before I posted my decision to leave. And a couple of days before I decided not to leave, someone else replied to your message, and I decided to reply as well. I'm sorry if I sounded harsh, but you won't know how much stress anons have caused me - and I was asking you to imagine it.
Now for my side of the story. Today, you posted a reply on my talk page. I then clicked on the link to your user page and read your announcement about your Internet connection. So I clicked "edit this page" and typed a reply. (I sometimes forget the distinction between user and user talk pages - not forgetting some users have a single page for both.) What I meant with my post was that since you were on AOL, you would soon suffer constant blocks for no reason, so you would "see what I put up with every day". So I suggested you register.
In retaliation, you posted on my talk page. You reverted your user page, I reverted your talk page. In my edit summary, by "anonymous vandals", I was referring to those on RuneScape and other pages; I'd wasted enough time on them, and I don't want to waste time on you.
After my third revert, I was concerned about violating 3RR. Therefore I posted on the Village Pump asking whether either of us was in danger of violating 3RR. [32] I did not ask Cowman109 to block you - after reading the question I posted, he blocked you of his own accord [33] and then left a message on my talk page. [34] He mentioned "Should he continue from other IP addresses, I will gladly semi-protect your talk page temporarily if you request it." As I remembered you were on AOL and had multiple IPs, I requested my talk page be semi-protected and your good IP be blocked, because I guessed you would come back with another IP and harrass me further. You proved my guess right. [35] So Cowman109 reverted your edit and semi-protected my user page.
As mentioned, I don't have anything personal against you. In fact, if you register, we could even become Wikifriends! For starters, what's your ASL? I'm 14, male and from Singapore. You may think that I'll rejoice after reading your user page and seeing that you left, but I'm not exactly happy over this.
This has caused both of us a great deal of stress, and I hope we can clear this up and contribute to Wikipedia.
Alright, then, so we seem to have gotten all that through. Yes, 69.145 made some hurtful edit summaries as he felt threatened himself by Hildan's aggressive approach towards anonymous IPs. However, you should realize that now there are new blocking mechanisms in place that allow administrators to block only IP addresses without blocking accounts attached to them in order to prevent collateral damage. Also, it is just about 99.9% unlikely that all anons will ever be forced to register, as they are indeed an integral part of Wikipedia. Besides, Jimbo himself would likely override any such 'vote' that occured that would say otherwise (but don't quote me on that). Anyway, another extremely important part of Wikipedia is to assume good faith of editors. Someone using an IP does not automatically make them a bad person - there are plenty of registered user account vandals as well (Willy on wheels anyone?). So, in conclusion, this matter does seem to be resolved. I trust that you two will no longer get into fights with each other over such things. Cowman109Talk 15:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please refrain from posting truly disturbing, not to mention ill-written, messages to my talk page.
You stated in your message, "If you feel that the other user is being incivil to you in some way, simply ignore him and remember to focus on content, not on the contributor." Should I therefore similarly say to my critics who "feel that I have been uncivil to them," "hey, ignore my uncivil conduct, do not, under any circumstances respond in kind, focus on content...."?
Your outrageous double-standard is indicative of explosive bigotry. And I will be asking for your removal from any/all Mediation/Arbitration. Your dictate to me that, in effect, I have no recourse but to abide uncivil behavior as I see it, or else be subject to reprimands clearly not in order against my uncivil critics is as brazen a violation of the very urstuff of Wikipedia neutrality as is possible.AOluwatoyin 21:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)AOluwatoyinReply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
the cover of My Generation is gone. Album covers are fairgame and I spent several hours getting that image together. I am not sure if you removed it, but . . . . what's up? Carptrash 05:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ah, it seems I deleted it as it was listed for more than 7 days under Category:Images with unknown source as of 4 August 2006, which left it under Speedy deletion criteria I7. It appears to have flew over my head that it was an album cover and I was looking for a source, but unless I'm mistaken the copyright tag should be enough. It is at Image:My-Generation--2.jpg, and I will re-add it to the article for you. Cowman109Talk 05:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
[37] Needless to say, this saddens me. And check his contribs from the last few days. There's more. --172.190.70.90 05:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
...i.e., the edit summary here, and the first paragraph on his talk page. I thought the issue was resolved, but he is constantly referring to me as a 'troll' and 'vandal' and won't quit asking for page protection of his talk page. I'm sorry to keep popping up here, but it really depresses me. He was not in the right in the way he went about doing this, but he's acting like Mr. Superior. --172.190.70.90 05:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have told him that it would be improper use of semi-protection to protect his page at this time. I denied two of his earlier requests as well, if I recall correctly. Cowman109Talk 05:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sorry again to constantly bug you with this... I'm just fed up with him. :( --172.190.70.90 05:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Don't worry about it - all anonymous IPs will never be blocked from editing Wikipedia as it's an integral part of its infrastructure. Besides, the press wouldn't be happy if the free encyclopedia became not so free anymore :). Have a cookie. Cowman109Talk 05:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
My usage of the word "troll" was due to the lack of a better term. I was generally referring to the anonymous vandals and trolls I put up with every day - those that get me blocked and those whom I have to revert - rather than you in particular. As you are an anon, I don't know how to address you (you can call me J.L.W.S., Hildanknight or Hildan) - but I request you read my statement, which I have posted two sections above. I guess I should start preparing/typing out my departure speech. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
What details that have been brought to the table now have any effect whatsoever in the inclusion of the case? If the plaintiff later dropped the suit for a reason of her own, that does not negate the point or the importance of the claim. IT is no different now than it was then,.jawesq 07:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Biographies of living people are very sensitive areas, and I'm simply saying that if the notability of the court case is still in question, perhaps that should be looked at. Though at this time I'd like to get no further involved in that dispute. Thank you. Cowman109Talk 15:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am deeply saddened about the highly embarrassing photos in the Brisbane wiki page. I hope you will consider updating the extremely outdated and slightly depressing photos. It seems as though all the other Australian cities have updated and clear photos to look at. Most of the pictures I posted were from a public forum. Please delete or change Image:MoggillRd.jpg. It does more harm just being there than if it were not. If i had a camera, I would easily take my own.
The issue, unfortunately, is that those images were likely not fully released under the GFDL. The old looking image, for example, was very likely copyrighted (and there is a possibility others are, too.) Besides, the Brisbane page doesn't need fair use or copyrighted images as they would be solely decorative at this point. Copyright matters could have legal implications for the foundation, and as such it is important for the proper tags to be used as well. If you can find evidence that the images were indeed released into the public domain, then they could be added to the article. Cowman109Talk 15:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. You reverted Image:Nanjing massacre rapes.jpg to an earlier version because you said it had a source. But if you check the URL it doesn't work. Indeed the whole site is now unavailable and has been like that ever since I tagged it.
I hope you will thus either delete the picture or allow another sys-op user to do the same later on. Thanks, John Smith's 10:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I spoke with some other administrators and found that the broken link template would be appropriate. From there it seems like we will have to rely on the public domain tag as I would assume 50 years have passed since the publishing of the photo as well. Cowman109Talk 16:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
The Esperanza To-Do List is a place where you may list any request, big or small, for assistance. If you need help with archiving your usertalk, for example, all you need to do is list it here and somebody will help you out. Likewise, if you need help with some area of editing on Wikipedia, list it here! Again, any matter, trivial or not, can be placed on this page. However, all matters listed on this page must not be of an argumentative nature. You do not need to be a member of Esperanza (or this program) to place or fulfill requests on this page. If you don't have any requests, consider coming by and fulfilling a few! This program has not been very active, but has lots of potential!
What's New?
In order to help proposed programs become specific enough to make into full-fledged programs, the In development section of the proposals page has been created. Proposals that are promising, but need to be organized in more detail are listed here. Please take a look at what is there, and help the proposals turn into programs.
To improve both the layout and text of the front page, in an attempt to clarify the image of Esperanza, the front page is going to have some redesigning take place. Please take your creative minds to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Front page redesign to brainstorm good ideas.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
In order to make sure all users who join Esperanza are welcomed, a list of volunteers who are willing to welcome new Esperanzians is at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Members#Esperanza_welcomers. Please add yourself if you are interested; we want to make sure all new Esperanza members are welcomed!
The In development section of the proposals page has been created.
Proposals page: Some proposals have been moved to the aforementioned "In development" section, some have been left as a proposal, and others have been archived. For those proposals that were a good idea but didn't necessarily constitute a program, General Esperanzial Actions has been created.
Two small pieces of charter reform will be decided on in a straw poll at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Governance. One involves filling the position of any councillors who may leave, the other involves reforming the charter.
Until cooperation with the Kindness Campaign is better defined, it remains as a proposed program.
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I hope you don't mind, but I answered someone's question at the coordination desk about why his case hasn't been taken. He asked two days ago, and I didn't want him to go away with the idea that no one was around. :) --Aguerriero (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Eep, thanks. My watchlist is overfilled these days. I need to trim it down :) Cowman109Talk 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
"you will be blocked again"
I do not understand the italics on "will". What was your message?--Kwame Nkrumah 20:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
To put emphasis on the severity of the matter. Your wikilawyering is not acceptable and I strongly suggest you go back to improving the encyclopedia instead of continuing this further, as the warning has been given. Thank you. Cowman109Talk 20:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I suggest a little calm in your behaviour. English is not my first language, so I am not used to the way it is stressed. I simply asked a question.--Kwame Nkrumah 21:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Just a quick note to say congratulations on getting the mop. As someone said to me, have fun spending hours deleting loads of crap. ;) The JPStalk to me 23:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your suggestion for additional explaination has been noted. I feel that I have explained sufficiently, and feel that I must remind you I can never be forced to explain my vote. As the candidate in question can clearly read my criteria, notes as to why I oppose their RFA. --Masssiveego 04:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have deleted the material relating to this. Do not reinstate it. This is not an editing decision. It is removed to protect the Foundation. I am currently having dialogue with OFFICE over this matter. Contact me if you wish to discuss it. Thank you. Tyrenius 19:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A while ago (July 2006) you posted on the talk page of Wikipedia:Intentionally permanent red link. In it, you have expressed support for some of the project. However, some of us would like to know what your opinion on the proposal as a whole is. Thanks. -- kenb215 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I think we're okay on this for now. I wasn't sure if the people I was fighting were vandals or just mis-informed, but I think it's the latter. At this point it would be a pre-emptive protection, and it's probably best to wait for it to actually be vandalized to go to the trouble to protect it. I'll just concede the edit war, so don't worry about that. Thanks for looking into it. Paul Slocum 04:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
re: CATMAN COHEN Mediation Case (see attached item)edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Cowman 109:
Please note that the removal of CATMAN COHEN listing was effected recently upon the assumption that Wikipedia unilaterally bypassed mediation, instead summarily placing labels of censure upon the CATMAN COHEN listing, including NPOV, AUTOBIOGRAPHY, ADVERTISEMENT, etc. As a result, it was determined that immediate removal of the listing was necessary to avoid having Establishment friends of The Catman Project (including police, soldiers, nurses, firemen, paramedics, teachers, etc) stumble upon the various pejorative labels of censure.
However, if WIkipedia is still willing to mediate the issue privately (i.e. NOT in full view of the public), then please apprise as such because, naturally, in the best circumstances, CATMAN COHEN would remain listed at WIKIPEDIA, subject to the edits that would satisfy mutually both the encyclopedia's criteria for listing and the Artist's criteria for maintaining creative integrity.
Again, please note that the CATMAN COHEN recording artist is somewhat unique insofar as NOT providing an artist photo (except of the artist in silhouette) and NOT providing birthdate or birthplace. The CATMAN COHEN biography has been designed to be somewhat metaphorical; yet it seems that these diversions from standard encyclopedia standards are likely to increase interest in the Wikipedia listing rather than diminish it.
Once again, please apprise as to your final decision on the matter.
Hm, I don't quite understand what that is about. I was completely uninvolved in that issue and simply closed the Mediation Cabal case as the article had been deleted. You could contact those who deleted the page, though, here. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 16:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Regarding this diff: Are you telling me that John Goodsall's real name, or nickname, actually is "Ian Hart-Stein", despite the citations I've given from allmusic.com? There's been a long history of vandalism to John Goodsall and Brand X -- please read the history of these articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elkman (talk • contribs) .
Oh, I didn't realize they changed the contents of the opening paragraph - I thought it was simply adding a disclaimer that asserted your points that the page was being vandalized. Sorry about that :). Still WP:AGF goes a long way (reading the edits at least helps). :D Cowman109Talk 19:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Uh? Actually I was agreeing with your point, and there is no reliable citation that says his name is Ian Hart-Stein, so I'm about to remove it for you (a google search brings up 5 hits, which don't say much as one contradicts itself). Cowman109Talk 19:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Copy of note sent to JPS re: Catman Cohen listing deletionedit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
JPS:
I was unaware of WP MUSIC criteria until now, however, it seems that Catman Cohen meets the WP MUSIC criterion, as stated:
"Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network"
Catman Cohen has been played regularly upon CBC RADIO in Canada (per Mary-Anne Korosi, Vancouver CBC radio producer, head of New Music Canada), and CBC RADIO is the national broadcast station for the country. Furthermore, as far as I know (although I am an American citizen), WEBRADIO CANADA happens to be owned by CBC RADIO and its subscriber growth far exceeds most traditional commercial FM stations outlets in Canada..
Incidentally, you note the imperative for polite manners at the front of your User page, so maybe you should learn a few yourself. The only reason I approached you about this matter is, first, upon request of Catman Cohen, and second, upon the suggestion of COWMAN 109, who apparently was the final arbiter of the Catman Cohen mediation request. As pointed out to COWMAN 109, that mediation request was abrogated summarily by myself when Wiki editors began slapping pejorative censure labels upon the Catman Cohen listing in plain view of the public, and that could not be allowed because of the types of groups (military, police, firemen, nurses, etc) associated with the Project. So, at COWMAN 109's polite suggestion, he stated that the three editors directly involved in the final category deletion should be contacted. Since one editor is on wiki-break, that meant an approach to you and the other member of the editorial trio. So for you to dismiss condescendingly this most recent approach as "spam" is simply RUDE.
Practise what you preach----- and I am providing a copy of this correspondence to COWMAN 109..
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Please apply the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion properly. We have no speedy deletion criteria for "dictionary definitions". Nor is an article that contains 5 paragraphs an article that contains "no content". Uncle G 00:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
It was previously speedy deleted content. I was simply deleting as Kelly Martin had already done so, and the editor did not seem to understand the reasoning for it even after we tried to explain it to them (they have since been indefinite blocked for being a vandalism only account and trolling). You might want to read the content of the article - it was nothing but original research. It is deletable by criterion G4 and A1 at least, and as Kelly Martin put it, it is non notable cruft and slang definitions. Though I will specify that in the future, thank you. Cowman109Talk 01:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Also, if you'd still like to contest the deletion of the page, please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review and file a request there. Thank you. Cowman109Talk 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'll going home for the next seven days, please don't reach any conclusions about the Indian martial arts till then. Freedom skies 11:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks you are right re: Adam Carr mediation case.edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for your help. Yes I think very highly of his work so I will follow your suggestion. Case closed. Caltrop 22:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for effectively stopping the "mediation" (really an underhanded way to get me blocked). The user is trying to malign me. He has already accused me of being a fascist.BakamanBakatalk 22:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Also, TerryJho has professed his hatred of Hindus in our debates and violated WP:BLP against scholar Daniel Pipes. BakamanBakatalk 22:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm still not quite sure of what the specifics of the situation are, but either way, the situation really calls for administrator involvement if it sounds so heated. Cowman109Talk 16:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I like the consolidated tag reference on your page! It really helps new editors who are frustrated with the massive Wikipedia help documents.
--Vince 08:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. Do you remember me? I had some issues with User:Palffy, you told us to stay away.
I did, he is not doing. So, are you going to do anything?--Kwame Nkrumah 17:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I blocked Kwame for 40 hours in response to two violations of 3RR. I realize that's a little more than the typical 24 hour block, but he was already aware of 3RR at the time of the block and had 6 reverts on one of the articles and 5 on the other. Regards, alphaChimplaudare 17:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
If he returns, he needs to be able to edit it; and he seems to still be active. Please unprotect his talkpage. ForestH2t/c 02:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
He can e-mail me if he would like his page unprotected (and he was able to use an IP to evade the week-long block to edit his userpage anyway, so if he wants it unprotected he'll be able to request through the IP as well). Cowman109Talk 02:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
His IP's blocked for 24 hours though but O.K. ForestH2t/c 02:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I made note of the protection on WP:ANI, so other administrators can look at it should they feel his page should be unprotected as well. Cowman109Talk 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have a few questions to ask about the deletion of 4 images on the John Vogel page.
3 of the 4 images have been on that page for about a month. Are they violations now but not a few weeks ago?
Here's what you said: Removing innappropriate usage of fair use images - please keep those to the articles that specifically discusses them) How does an article on John Vogel not specifically discuss John Vogel? Jonhhy Cage and Reiko both have an entire sections discussing them in the article. I mention Mortal Kombat Armageddon, but if that's not enough I'll add more on it.
Copyright violation? If that's the case, then why are the same pictures allowed on other pages on Wikipedia (Again there are entire sections discussing Cage/Reiko-Please read the John Vogel article). The only image that does not appear anywhere else is the john vogel image. I thought I sourced it correctly but apparently I didn't. What do I need to do differently to make that picture legitimate?
Due to the fact that you have not responded to the above comments, I can only assume that you no longer take issue with the pictures. I will add the pictures back until further notice. If you feel that they should be removed, please respond to the above statements as well.
This conversation has continued on User:Sean Black's talk page. Please refer to that before you do anything hasty.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I'm confused and would appreciate your attention to this matter. The article, "Bonza Bottler Day," was deleted from Wikipedia on the basis that it was insufficiently notable. That action and its rationale would make sense and I'd have no problem at all with either, except that Wikipedia includes certain Hallmark holidays and Humorous observances that are no more notable, which have not been Afd'd. This issue was raised on Bonza Bottler Days' Afd Talk Page and I was under the impression that all similar "holidays" would be marked for deletion. But they haven't been. So why then, didn't the Mediation Cabal apply the same standard to all similar holiday articles? I would appreciate it your looking into the matter, and Wikipedia would benefit from the establishment and enforcement of consistent standards. Thank you!69.117.159.235 15:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hm, I'm not familiar with the article. I believe I simple closed the case involving that one as the article was already deleted. If you'd like to contest the deletion, you can go to deletion review to get the article looked at once more. Cowman109Talk 15:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Okay I read WP: FUC and I still don't see why the three other pictures have to be deleted. It looks as though I follow all guidelines. I did not intend the pictures as decoration; someone may not know who Reiko/Cage are, thus the pictures illustrates their appearances. Yes the pictures appear elsewhere on Wikipedia, so the issue seems to be that the pictures must solely describe the subject matter in the article title, not section titles. I would like to draw your attention to this page: George H. W. Bush. The map in this article does not describe the article subject matter, but does illustrate the section entitled "1988 presidential election," just as the Johnny Cage picture does not describe the title subject matter (John Vogel) but does describe a section within the article. TigerManXL 15:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Please respond :) TigerManXL 19:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Oh, sorry. I completely missed this header. The important thing about the map you mentioned is that it is in the public domain, which means it can be used for any purpose without limitation.The images you want to use in John Vogel are copyrighted, however, and as such they have more restrictions to them. Basically, their existence in the article is not necessary to its understanding. If they were, however, then they would be more than decorative and would be explanatory. A picture of Reiko, for example, is not really necessary unless you want to talk about what clothes he wears that can be best shown by an images or types of combat moves, for example, unless it was the subject of the article. Basically, you have to be much more areful with copyrighted images and only use them when they are necessary. Even the John Vogel picture isn't really necessary as he's still a living person, and as such it shouldn't be too difficult to obtain a GFDL licensed picture of him. Cowman109Talk 14:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The issue is being dealt with on unblock-en-l, to which I have sent a lengthy e-mail. The issue is not what Jethro would make it out to be. Please do not unblock until such time as a consensus is achieved on this. Jayjg (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Alright, thanks for telling me :) Cowman109Talk 18:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for blocking Wiarthurhu, you have lifted a HUGE weight from my shoulders. He would continually treat me like crap because I am 14, and claim I am a "Profilic teen vandal" because I would remove his half cocked images of slot cars from the NASCAR page. Thank you, Wiarthurhu certainly deserved that. Karrmann 19:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Would you be interested in participating with regards to this issue since you've already given input into this earlier? [39] Thanks, --Palffy 01:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Does wikipedia consider Encarta a reliable source? I mean, can I use Encarta to cite references and soures, like I've done here: LinkEl Greco 18:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I don't see anything inherently wrong with it myself. If it is questioned, other sources could probably be provided anyway. Cowman109Talk 22:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Cowman, thought I'd alert you to a new development in the case of this banned user who is now asking for a lifting of the ban under certain conditions. As you took place in the original discussion leading to the ban I thought I should contact you directly about this new discussion. Thanks, Gwernol 21:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have a feeling that until the film comes out it will be still be a target. If the vandalism persists could you please reprotect it?--CyberGhostface 02:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
This is exactly what I meant. The vandals are coming back.--CyberGhostface 02:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Vandalism is a common occurence, but this seems to be mainly a content dispute, where the solution would be providing sources stating whether certain characters are appearing in the film or not, as there are clearly some who think otherwise. If the task of reverting such verifiable errors becomes too difficult, then the page can be reprotected, otherwise it seems unnecessary at this time. Cowman109Talk 03:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion
Hi, I notice that you have protected the Persecution of Falun Gong page. Currently there are heated revert wars on these two pages: Li Hongzhi and Teachings of Falun Gong. Protecting these two pages will prevent edit warring going further, thanks.
Hi, Cowman. What you protected leaves a messy status [40]. Fortunately, protection does not endorse its validity. I strongly request you to protect it to a status before we request mediation (13:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC))[41]. That would be more fair. If you did not notice its being requested for mediation, I can understand you. But please help improve wiki page quality in a more constructive way. Thanks, Fnhddzs 21:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Similarly, please protect them to the status upon requesting mediation[42] for all the pages you protected. Thanks.
Currently you have also removed all mediation requests on all pages including the critism page[43]. Please tell us why?!! Fnhddzs 22:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
The requests for mediation were moved to the talk pages of the articles (where they are supposed to be anyway). Please take the discussion of the pages to the talk page as well, as edit warring on the articles themselves serves no purpose. Cowman109Talk 22:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I see, thanks. Fnhddzs 22:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
The problem with the protected articles, especially the biographical article on Li Hongzhi, is that they contain highly libelous text. Unless we get a mediator very soon - which might not happen - this is clearly an issue that must be resolved now. I don't know how much you've been following the edit wars in question, but currently all the protected pages are locked into an anti-FLG point of view, and even though the content is not "officially endorsed", a state of stagnation only consolidates the bias. We can do nothing to remove derogatory material that can be used to legitimize genocidal policies in China. ---Olaf Stephanos 00:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
This is the exact argument that a Falun Gong lawyer in Madrid used to shut down all Falun Gong panel discussions at last year's ICSA (International Cultic Studies Association) conference. He threatened the panelists and organizers of the conference with jail time for aiding and abetting the evil, wicked Chines government's alleged "genocide" if they said anyting critical of the Falun Gong. Olaf, there's a different standard for Wikipedia content. --Tomananda 04:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I am a critic of the Falun Gong which is characterized by American cult experts as a cult. Some of my edits which Falun Gong practitioners call “libelous text” have provoked revert wars although they are nothing but direct quotes from Master Li the founder and leader of the group. Falun Gong practitioners are preventing anyone from quoting the group’s core teachings and the claims Li has made about his divine status on wikipedia. There is nothing critics have contributed on these two pages that are not referenced properly. Your protection is preventing me and others from contributing to these pages but I can understand your concern. I hope a mediator can arrive shortly, thanks anyway. --Samuel Luo 04:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
You are combining the quotes, glueing them together with your own snide, distorting comments (check out the text outside of quotation marks) and blatantly removing them from their context. First you provide a distorting and libelous interpretation, then you quote a few expedient words to support it. You're acting as if you were writing a cheap gossip magazine. Any neutral observer who is familiar with Falun Gong will immediately see what you're doing. ---Olaf Stephanos 09:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Olaf Stephanos how would you interpret this statement of your master: "No being knows who I am. Yet without me, the cosmos wouldn't exist.”[44]? I call it a grandiose statement, is this a “snide and distorting comments”? --Samuel Luo 16:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
In Finnish language there is an idiom "twist from iron wire", which roughly translates as "explain something so scrupulously and unambiguously that even the most simple-minded person can understand it". I'd rather not do that, because you're only playing dumb, Samuel, you are not so simple-minded that you couldn't understand what I mean. The current article is nothing but just another propagandistic exposé. It is a compilation of quotes that do not represent the meaning of these words in relation to the whole. From an entire corpus of teachings consisting thousands of pages, how come you have selected these and named them as "the core teachings"? Could there be a reason? Of course. All throughout the article there is a clear intention, a scornful tone: Just look how stupid they are. I'm not going to talk this through here, but you can be sure that any mediator we get will instantly see what you're after. ---Olaf Stephanos 17:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Olaf Stephanos This is a recurring argument we have had since we started talking on Wikipedia. Every time I ask you to respond to a specific point you avoid it by lecturing/insulting me. I see no point continue in this discussion and let’s wait for the mediator.--Samuel Luo 19:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
The "cult" term was coined by the CCP to justify their killing thousands of innocent people. Falun Gong, by 1998 was the most popular system of Qi Gong in Chinese History. You could look at United States Congress Resolution 188 , Unanimously passed (420-0) by the U.S Congress, The pages of Amnesty International, or the UN reports on the Persectution of Falun Gong.
202.83.34.15 06:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Olaf: Li has repeatedly made grandiose statements, including the one Samuel has quoted. Not only has Li said that the universe would not exist without him, he has also said he is preventing the universe from exploding by "keeping up with it." Some commentators have called Li's claims "cartoonish." It is not "libelous" to use adjectives such as "grandiose" or "cartoonish" to describe Li's self-promoting statements. Words like "grandiose" are not even "snide" in my opinion...they are fair characterizations of Li's repeated claims. If Li is not "grandiose" then who is?
Having made these points, I agree that ultimately some of these adjectives will need to be changed in the article to render the overall expositon more neutral. But I also feel strongly that these quotes from Li are extremely relevant to an understanding of his perceived power by practitioners. Really, this is all just a question of how we can best present Li's claims in the article. Let me be clear on this one point: is there any practitioner who would be willing to say that they doubt Li's claims that:
Without him the universe wouldn't exist
He is preventing the explosion of the universe by keeping up with it
If all practitioners believe these claims, then these statements are most certainly relevant to an understanding of Li's impact on the future of mankind.
One of Wikipedia's standards for relevance is called "notability" and what could be more "notable" than the fact that someone living on the north shore of Long Island is preventing the explosition of the universe? Isn't the explosion of the universe something that effects all of us human beings, and all other beings in the cosmos as well? In fact, doesn't Li claim to teach a "great law" which is rectifying all beings in the cosmos, thereby enabling them to return to their original "higher" selves (which of course necessitates the elimination of all homosexuals)? Clearly, these are key concepts in Falun Gong teachings and no amount of apologetics can justify their suppression in this article.--Tomananda 19:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
PS: The "evil and wicked" CCP did not coin the word "cult"...it's a term that's been around for a long time. It describes a group leader who manipulates his followers into doing what he wants by claiming special knowledge and extraordinary powers. Eventually the followers internalize the Master's logic and are impervious to outside arguments based on empirical evidence and logical thinking. Doesn't this sound like what Li has done? --Tomananda 19:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I applaud you for protecting the page. The old version was a total Falun Gong PR. The CCP is not the only one calling the FG a cult, virtually all American cult experts interviewed have attested that this group is a cult. America’s leading cult expert Dr. Margaret Singer talked about the Falun Gong in her famous Cults in Our Midst (revised edition). She said: “I have no doubt that Falun Gong has many of the characteristics of a true cult, including utter obedience to a charismatic leader, coercive thought control, financial exploitation of its followers, a doomsday prediction that promises salvation only through total obedience and subservience to the cult leader, zero tolerance for dissent, and a very strict organization from which it is difficult to escape.” Wikipedia pages must present the true teachings of the Falun Gong cult to the public. --Mr.He 20:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please protect the Now-TV page again. Various anonymous users are starting to vandalize it with "anticipated channels" without any references to sources of such information. I have made the deletions, but I am sure that the page will be vandalized again. I don't have administrator rights, so, I cannot protect the page. Thanks in advance for your help. --theorb 02:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
Dear Sir,
I would like to point out that the currently protected version of the page is a severly vandalized one. I would like to request you to restore it to the earlier stable version ( the version before the revert war started) [Stable from 8th June to 3rg August] ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teachings_of_Falun_Gong&oldid=60136779 )
Kindly look into the matter. Thanking You.
Dilip, the solution to this problem is for us to work together. I suggest we take advantage of this time when the page is frozen and seriously work to resolve our differences in the disussion page. --Tomananda 04:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Dilip, Wikipedia is not a place for you guys to promote the Falun Gong. These pages must present core teachings of the group.--Samuel Luo 04:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sir,
I request you to please compare what the editors say on the page directly with what the teachings say - which can be seen here on http://www.falundafa.org . These two people who call themselves "critics" are pouring in their own ideas into the page with the sole intent of slander.
Moderation had been requested for all the related pages and within a few days the above two editors started pouring in their personal POVs into the article. The articles, including the article Li Hongzhi now seems like a personal attack.
I request that the pages may please be restored to the version when the moderation was requested.
I cannot easily find a pre-mediation request version of the article. If anything, if everyone could agree to a complete rewrite of the articles in question, more progress might be made in my opinion. At this point I'd rather not get much further involved as I'm solely trying to promote talk page discussion, though if there is some sort of consensus to a version to revert to so things can be discussed, that could be brought up on WP:RFP for requests for significant edits to a protected page. This disagreement over whether the page should be reverted or not is just the reason the page was protected in the first place, however. The page will be unprotected in the near future, but then blocks would start going out to people who violate the three revert rule instead. Cowman109Talk 16:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Cowman109Talk I feel that I need to make this point clear, there is no consensus on any of the Falun Gong pages. I am sure you can see why. There wasn’t any edit conflicts on these two pages you just protected before the “request for mediation” tags were added. These tags were added when we requested mediation for the main Falun Gong page which has been locked for a long time. Somehow Falun gong practitioners see the tags as a justification to thwart anyone from editing these two pages which is simply absurd. These practitioners owned these two pages and tuned them into promotional pieces. All the critics want is to expose the concealed core teachings of the group to the public. I am sure this is in accord with Wikipedia policy. --Samuel Luo 16:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
As to there being some kind of consensus over which page to have up, I think that if you look at the edit history and discussion you will see that there are already two factions that really can't agree on anything without mediation. I urge you to compare the two pages in question, the locked page and this one [45], and reconsider which to leave up for the time being. I'd also be interested to hear what you say regarding the comments accompanying the edits and the discussion on the talk page. I don't believe that it should be edited until the mediator arrives.
Also, regarding the Li Hongzhi page, I again urge you to compare the two versions involved in the edit war; the locked one and this one [46]. The one that is up there is much worse in my opinion. Please look at some of my comments on the talk page. This whole thing is rather frustrating for me. It seems that everytime a Falun Gong page is locked it gets locked on this kind of pov version. So if you can, please compare these pages a bit more and lock the page you consider most appropriate (I agree that neither is perfect). Thanks. --Mcconn 16:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Please see m:The wrong version and the protection policy. I can't and won't change to a preferred version, as it is not for me to decide which is best. If there is indeed so much conflict that there will eternally be an edit war, then perhaps the page should just be rewritten. The second I unprotect the page, however, this edit warring will continue. If the page is unprotected, it should be made clear that future edit warring will result in blocking. For this page I might also suggest arbitration, since it seems that the conflict goes much further than simple content disputes, as mediation would handle. Thank you. Cowman109Talk 16:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I guess it always gets stuck on versions like this because somehow these people (the people on the other side of the dispute) have more time to watch the page and change my reverts or edits (or those of the others on my side of the dispute) very quickly, and thus have their version up for longer periods of time. It seems a flaw in the system that this is how it works. As for arbarition, we haven't even had a mediator yet, so I think we'd be skipping a step by going there right away. We had a user on the Falun Gong page which acted as something in between a mediator and arbarition, and this worked well for a little while. There are certain decisions that we simply can't reach consensus on ourselves (we're like toothpaste and orange juice...), but I will hit the discussion forum on this and try anyway. This is the first time this kind of focus has been given to the Li Hongzhi page and is the first instance of a major revert war, so there really hasn't been much discussed at all on this yet. Also, please insert pov tags on both pages. Mcconn 17:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sorry to bug you again Cowman, but how about those pov tags? Could you add them? Thanks. Mcconn 08:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Are you still involved with the dispute at Indian martial arts? Freedom skies has returned and I'm sure we would appreciate any comments you might have.
JFD 13:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Is the article indefinitely unblocked for editing now or are there other issues we need to work out on the Talk Page before that happens?
Well obviously we shouldn't be edit warring, but I figured that things had cooled down on the article to unprotect the article and for talk to also continue when necessary - talk is always preferred, of course. If edits are controversial, they should always be discussed, otherwise the article unprotected. Cowman109Talk 04:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'll try and craft a reasonable compromise. Thank you for your help.
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
So, you've seen what he's posting now. I think its pretty clear that he's not interested in mediation on this issue. What do I do now? -Psychohistorian 00:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
1.) That's not quite true. I did not say I'm "not interested in mediation on this issue." I said I am not interested in mediation involving any group calling itself "cabal."
2.) This particular group, "MedCab," recently attacked me with a volley of threats, warnings, insults and accusations. Yet I did nothing wrong, according to either Wikipedia policy or common sense. While individuals have since made reconciliatory statements, for which I am glad to see, my concerns about this "cabal" remain. I explained on my talk page why I believe this group lacks civility and good faith. IOW, WP:CIV and WP:AGF, IMHO. This actually has nothing to do with the debate over the Paleoconservatism page. Nor is this a personal grievance with you.
3.) I also believe my role in the Paleoconservatism conflict is a bit muddy, since I debated him and reversed his vandalism. Most of the content that upsets Psychohistorian is not my contribution. So I'm really not the person to defend those statements. I do stand by my general concern that he is on a rampage, essentially demanding cites for every proper noun. Yakuman 10:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Cowman, I understand you wanting to drop out of this issue. But if you are going to drop out of it, then can you tell me how to elevate it? -Psychohistorian 00:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
It may be best to first take the issue to the village pump to get other opinions on the matter. If you are having issues with user conduct, a user conduct RFC might also be another avenue, though it is too premature to look at arbitration yet. The Mediation Committee isn't very active at the moment, so there isn't much else that could be done other than to get other opinions on the matter to see neutral parties giving their opinions on what should be done with the article. Cowman109Talk 00:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
First of all, Thanks for taking intrest in the dispute. I have crafted a solution article[47], which is in accordance with the one we talked about in the page, it mentions the dispute in the academic communities and for now I have backtracked from mentioning the official shaolin website as well, for it may start a fresh round of endless debate.
Anyways, please take a look into the article, and if you can give your comments and suggestions on the talk page Talk:Indian_martial_arts, it would be well appreciated.Freedom skies 10:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
These guys have been placing "Factual Accuracy" tags without reason again and mentioning the disputes in details when links to the alternate point of view are provided and the alter POV is described at the bottom of the page itself. Please take a look into the article and the talk page once more. Thank you for your past interventions and sorry for the repeated requests for intervention and the trouble that goes with it. This[48] is my version after editing this[49] one, just for reference. Freedom skies 16:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I unfortunately disagree with the above... many of the articles that freedom skies has written has been disputed by other wikipedians. regardless, thanks for the help on the page. Kennethtennyson 02:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You don't have to worry about me being sarcastic to anyone. I'm quitting the project. But for the record, where was the civility shown to User:Publicgirluk? Huh? Answer that. exolon 00:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
She chose to leave - the issue revolving her apparently involved legal matters with the foundation, and such issues need to be taken seriously. It is her choice to leave Wikipedia, but if people who can't verify that they're above 18 are posting such images, then there could be legal implications for the foundation. Cowman109Talk 00:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
please lock up the indian martial arts page again... sorry... if you can, could you lock it up with my last revision of it as it contains both freedom skies interpretation of history and JFD and my interpretation of history? Freedom skies currently is not allowing us to edit the page nor is he allowing us to leave "disputed" tags on the page as we currently disagree on his version of history. Thanks. Kennethtennyson 12:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sound to me like Kennethtennyson and JFD are a cabal. Protection should not endorse a certain edition.BakamanBakatalk 01:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Cowman109Talk 16:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
