User talk:Geo.plrd/Archives2006-3

Thank you for contacting me.

(a) I am being unjustly accused of "sockpuppetry". I use a computer that is shared by many people, a computer lab that has hundreds of users, a computer network with many people using it, and wifi shared by scores, maybe hundreds of others. So we all have the same IP address! So we are all the same person? I tracked down one of the people, a student, and she and I pleaded our case to one of the Wikipedians who are giving me a hard time, acting like a bully, or an Inquisitor, (b) My colleagues and I have noticed that female mathematicians' bios are shorter, or deleted, or scheduled for deletion, while men who have similar achievements and whose bios are not better, are judged by a different standard. (c) Many editors on Wikipedia have been harassing me, and posting nonsense on the deletion sites for female mathematicians/statisticians. Elaine Louise Zanutto's bio was deleted rapidly, then re-instated b/c of protests, Marion Cohen's bio had the same fate, I think, a fight is raging over a bio of Roberta Wenocur; Fan Chung is accomplished, but her entry primarily links her to her husband; anyone who votes "keep" or "strong keep" is ignored on the Roberta Wenocur bio, and others, too, about female mathematicians. (d) What is the problem with the article on Daniel H. Wagner, Associates? It seems unreasonable. (e) So many Wiki-editors are unkind to me, bully me, and act as if it is the Inquisition. (f) Compare for example the bios of Dennis DeTurck or Richard M. Dudley or Herbert Wilf to those of Elaine Louise Zanutto, Fan Chung, Roberta Wenocur, Elaine Louise Zanutto, Marion Cohen. Why delete the women's bios and keep the men's? I claim: keep and improve them all.

I thought it would be fun to contribute, and I thought it was a good deed. But is is very unpleasant. MathStatWoman 20:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to your contacting me

Thank you for contacting me again. While reading an article on the Riemann zeta function on Wikipedia, I saw your comment. I had planned not to add anything, not even a comment on a discussion page, to Wikipedia again, since I found it to have become a frustrating and unpleasant experience. I do not like the way I am listed as a "known sockpuppet". The term "sockpuppet" is insulting since it implies that I am being underhanded and sneaky by using aliases. I have not done so, and I do not appreciate the nomenclature applied to me with no proof; the reason they have no proof is because it is not true. Moreover, I have never used inappropriate language (e.g. cursing) or had any ill intention; it is possible that I expessed a POV, but only on discussion pages, never in articles; my editing of articles was to add or correct the entry; more often than not, my edits were deleted although I provided citations. Also, I find it concerning that certain articles are deleted, while others with equal value are maintained; this will not produce a good encyclopedia; this will produce an enclyclopedia far from complete and yet inconsistent. Ironically, deleting some articles and keeping others, deciding who is a notable person and who is not (although they have comparable achievements) is subjective, and violates NPOV -- I repeat, this is ironic. You claim to "know what I mean". Might you please explain this statement? Are you an administrator? I too wish Wikipedia could be a peaceful, noncontentious, fair, just community, and I appreciate your attempts at establishing this. When I was very new to Wikipedia, I accidentally commented to someone on a User Page. Instead of telling me, kindly, how to use a discussion page, I received a sarcastic comment of "Thanks a lot for posting your message on my User Page!"; when I commented politely to someone to sign with tildas, this editor also replied, unkindly, "I have edited on Wikipedia for a long time! Don't tell me to use tildas! I know how!" and this was followed by a wordy, insulting paragraph. I wish it were a more pleasant experience to edit Wikipedia. I do not even remember the articles that I wanted to see: some were about Elaine Louise Zanutto, a statistician whose achievements are considerable, R. S. Wenocur (Roberta Wenocur, but I since discovered that she prefers to use initials to hide her gender so that it is not an issue), a mathematician who did some important work in various fields, Daniel H. Wagner, Associates, one of the very few consulting companies with a long history of using mathematics for practical purposes (for example, they located an H-bomb before it exploded, searched for oil and found it, found the pieces of Challenger, all using mathematics), Marion Cohen, whose article survived two attempts at deletion. I wanted to improve the articles on Fan Chung (but I am afraid to edit anymore), on empirical processes, on Julia Robinson; I wanted to write some more biographies of mathematicians, but I do not find the process of voting for deletion, or "speedy deletion" pleasant. Sorry for the long message. Again, thanks for your efforts. If I have posted this in the wrong place, I am sorry.MathStatWoman 19:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Article - sure it's not Medcab?

Ok so what the user wanted was beyond the scope of Medcab but I think this guy was a littl confused and missapppropriated. I mena he claimed to have been verbally abused by Icekarma (not that thats possible ahem, I think we know he's one that doesn't mince his words LOL). Personally I would have kept the case opened and tried to get IK to try and explain why the page was deleted and how that process works. Or of course done the explaining yourself. Just a suggestion :D I left a note on his talk page offering to help further. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 19:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

ISG

That's for you to decide. If you can remove the beaurocracy, and make the mission achievable, and not get the whole thing deleted, power to you. I really don't know what can be done, honestly.--digital_me^{(TalkˑContribs)} 00:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you've got the steering council, which, by its nature is exclusive to users, and it appears that this SC sets the whole direction of ISG. If you could possibly even complete your mission, not many wikipedians would become involved, because Wikipedia is based on consensus.--digital_me^{(TalkˑContribs)} 01:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

More than just the bureaucracy, I just don't understand what this is. As I mentioned above, please list statistics of what you are compiling, how you intend to compile them, and the reasons why you are compiling them. As is, I don't really see the point of this WikiProject. Sorry -- Samir धर्म 03:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 05:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Your methods of dispute resolution

You have a very unique method of dealing with mediation. Out of curiosity, how does making each party write their own version of the article eliminate POV? I don't see how trying to merge multiple articles written by one person will make the article better... isn't Wikipedia all about everyone editing and creating the final article? I just don't understand, so an explaination would be helpful. Thanks. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 18:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Justforasecond

Please don't suggest to litigants that they contact a steward. Stewards have no power to "punish" admins. Any action against admins will have to be done by the Arbcom. User:Zoe|^(talk) 15:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Overseer

Hi, I am very glad you are interested! But you should really check with Childzy who sort of took the advantage of "first come first served." Besides, I am a bit worried about your edit count... A lot of those mottos refer to really nerdy WP stuff you might not be familiar with... But there is nothing some more experience could not fix ;) So anyway, talk with Childzy and see if you can work out something. Renata 20:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for asking, would love to have you helping out. I go on holiday for 2 weeks on around the 4th august so it would be good to have two of us working on it to cover for such holdays. The first things we need to do is get this project some more publicity around wikipedia, i think the mottos are great!! Then we need to go through the list of suggestions and add them to the approved list. We can both add to the schedule when it is needed, i think it would be best to keep a maybe 2 weeks ahead. If you have any questions about anything just talk on my talk page. Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 12:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Rob's remark is removed

And I won't stand for your trick campaign to return an ionsult direct at me for his cover up of doing nothing! KittenKlub 23:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeanpaul Ferro

Um, yes, that's why I referred him to WP:AUTO. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Motto

I have gone ahead and changed some things, i liked your idea of the "under review" so i changed things about with that to make voting similar to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, now users just list the mottos on that page and we all vote. As for the old New proposals page, I think we should just go through and Approve and Reject them ourselves. Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 11:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Just one more thing, when adding to the schedule you dont need to bold the motto, some how the template does it itself. Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 11:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Motto of the Day

Greetings. I would like to help you administrate the Motto of the Day, if possible. Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Talk to me!} 12:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Tell him yeah, i wont be back online for about a 2 - 3 weeks now so keep everything running well and speak to you later. Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Guardian Society

I have deleted WP:Guardian. WP: is a pseudo namespace which is reserved for redirects into the Wikipedia: namespace. -- RHaworth 16:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Motto of the Day (reprise)

"Thanks for the request. I am fine with it. Check with Childzy though. Also there are quite a few mottos on nominations that need transcribing. If you could help with that please do. Geo. 19:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As Childzy will be out of town, I will deputize you as a Temp. Overseer until he gets back. At that time I will write a review and we will determine permanent status. Geo. 21:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)"

Pardon my stupidity, good sir, but what exactly do you mean by transcribing? Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Talk to me!} 09:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Do you mean for me to sort out the noms into reject or accepted pages after 7 days since the motto was proposed, as instructed at the top of the noms page? Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Talk to me!} 09:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Your user page

Hi. Your user page contains userboxes stating that you are an administrator on Wikiquote and Commons. From the lists there, this doesnt appear to be true (perhaps it is under a different name?). Please remove/change the userboxes, as appropriate.

Also, your user page at meta had an incorrect link to here, which I've fixed: meta:User:Geo.plrd

Thanks. --Quiddity 19:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful with the mottos issue. --Quiddity 20:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Motto. Again. Again

I'm at school at the moment; I shall attempt to do so during classes or during free time. Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Talk to me!} 22:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Motto, once more...

See my changes to the noms, archive1, rejected and approved pages. Is that what you wanted done (I have approved/rejected based on consensus and moved them into relevant pages. Those I have moved I put in the "Recently closed" section of the noms page as well as in the archive and the appropriate post-judgement page)? Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Talk to me!} 13:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Well? Is that what you wanted? Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Talk to me!} _{I forbade it! Join Stargate Wars!} ^Chaos Hail OneCone International! 06:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Sorry, I just couldn't tell whether or not you had replied to my first questioning. I shall continue my work. Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Talk to me!} _{I forbade it! Join Stargate Wars!} ^Chaos Hail OneCone International! 04:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

We've awarded you this PARC research star in recognition for your contribution to research about conflict in Wikipedia. Thank you for your help!!! --Parc wiki researcher 21:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)