User talk:Ideogram/Archive 3
Sorry I edited the portal page after you left your message in the discussion section. All I did was revert the page back to an earlier version (last version prior to three edits by User:Chiang Kai-shek and added the POV template at the top of the portal page with information that mediation and page-move protection has been requested with more info in the talk page. Hope that's OK. — Nrtm81 14:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's ok. Just avoid editing it from now on. Ideogram 14:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Also, if you are interested in the case you may want to see The Halo and speak with him about it, as it appears he's gone off in search of evidence. You may want to communicate with him through e-mail to make things open and simple. (See his comments at User_talk:Chiang_Kai-shek). Cowman109Talk 15:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Done. Ideogram 15:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Ideogram, I think you should also contact User:Captain0, he is the person that tried to make it known that the Portal is about the island of Taiwan and not the political issue about ROC. This is a nightmare! — Nrtm81 07:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think we should wait until Cowman has a chance to speak. Cowman is the most experienced mediator among us. I'd recommend you not argue with Chiang Kai-shek for now, and certainly not about politics. Ideogram 07:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Archive faster Ideogram!! :-P I'm getting such a headache over this dispute... I think we seriously need a vote by the community. I'd rather resign to their votes than to have this Chiang keep pushing a political agenda. — Nrtm81 15:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ugh... I hope it doesn't have to lead to that. At this rate, the mediation is going nowhere. But I have to go through all other avenues before arbitration. If I'm not mistaken the RfC should be next before requesting the Arbitration Committee to intervene, correct? — Nrtm81 15:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- At this point I believe we can go straight to a Request for Arbitration. I will be happy to help you with that if it is required. Ideogram 15:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Could you move Portal talk:Taiwan/Archive 2#Portal naming dispute to the main Portal talk:Taiwan page as it has information concerning the portal name dispute as well as the relevant links. Thanks. — Nrtm81 16:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's better to direct people to click on the archive link. Ideogram 16:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just thought it would be more convenient to have the direct link. OK, I've filed the request at the Arbitration Committee. If you would like to add a statement, please do so. Thanks for all your help. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Current requests — Nrtm81 16:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ideogram, are people allowed to add their comment under someone else's Comment section in the ArbCom request file? I just noticed Chiang Kai-shek added his remarks in your Comment section. — Nrtm81 04:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- No, not allowed. But it looks like the clerk is leaving it for now. Ideogram 05:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ah it doesn't matter, ArbCom say they can't determine the naming of the portal. — Nrtm81 04:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Don't give up yet. There are seven arbitrators, so it takes four votes to make a majority. Ideogram 05:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I see you've suggested Portal:China at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China :-) China can be the master portal for Hong Kong, Taiwan, and then the political portals of PRC and ROC. Then I'd suggest for Portal:Browse we move Taiwan into "China (Hong Kong, Taiwan)" since there's no dispute that Taiwan is part of China. — Nrtm81 13:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ideogram, what do you mean file an RFC? I already filed one for the Portal. If you mean against Chiang Kai-shek, I don't see any reason to. He hasn't done anything malicious. Only a difference of opinion. — Nrtm81 14:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- If you want to end the argument, you have to make him go away. He is still accusing you of being pro-independence, which violates assume good faith. Ideogram 14:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just saw that comment now. I'm surprised he's still accusing me after I apologized to him for accusing him of being a nationalist. Anyways, unless Chiang Kai-shek does something insane like vandalize my user page, I'm not going to file an RFC against him. Personally I'm not bothered by him calling me whatever he wants. I find it amusing. :-) Thanks for your time and patience with the mediation and sorry I didn't know better about Wikipedia's policy of not being able to determine page names. I've already put a link at Wikipedia:Taiwan-related topics notice board if anyone editing Taiwan-related pages is interested in sharing their input on the dispute. At least now you have more time for other things :-) — Nrtm81 15:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow! What's with Portal:People's Republic of China (new)? lol, so many China portals :-) I suggest we use Wikipedia:WikiProject China as the focal point to coordinate the China-related portals. It's a bit confusing with all the portals around. What do you think? — Nrtm81 19:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I've sent you an email, but I also wanted to post a quick note here as well to ask look at my reply here and see what your thoughts are, and to tell me if I'm doing everything ok, and everything is in order. This whole thing's pretty worring in case I should be putting stuff in other places or if i'm doing things totally wrong without knowing any better (that's why I'm so happy to have someone so experienced to help me with this)! Thank's for your help. The Halo (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- You're doing great. Ideogram 19:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not that experienced. I've handled less than a dozen cases. But cowman, who really is experienced is keeping an eye on us both. Ideogram 19:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for doing such a great job on the Portal:Taiwan situation while I was asleep. I don't know what those two would have done to eachother if you hadn't been there ;) I see that you asked Cowman to take a look at the situation, which I think is a good idea. Maybe he can look at this from a different angle. I know I've said this before, but I'm really thankful to have you with me on this one. The Halo (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hahaha ;-) I can read your thoughts! It's only the Internet, not like we can throw knives through the monitor and have it exit through the other person's screen :-P — Nrtm81 15:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually I feel bad because I was getting frustrated with Chiang Kai-shek and didn't know what to say. Sometimes I lose patience and need someone else to help; I think I mediate better in a team. I think you are taking the right approach with a light touch. I'm going to hang back and let you drive for a while. Ideogram 10:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Now that I've got my coffee down my, and had some rest, I feel fine to drive (LOL). Serriously though, don't feel bad. It can be hard when what seems like a perfectly good suggestion gets rejected, but I guess we'll have to keep at it. What a case to take on as your first though, I'm getting a little lost in chinese politics in some parts of the discussion. Phew! The Halo (talk) 10:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm pretty familiar with the politics of the situation. Chiang Kai-shek is a zealous Kuomintang member, who believes the Republic of China is the rightful ruler of all of China and that China should not be divided. He appears to think Nrtm81 is some kind of pro-independence nutcase, thus the constant warring over the symbolic color green, the color of the pro-independence party. What is ironic is that Nrtm81 keeps protesting that he originally wanted it to be Portal:ROC also, and that he picked the color for non-political reasons, implying that he is not at all pro-independence as Chiang Kai-shek keeps accusing him.
- I would suggest that you (a) get Nrtm81 to agree to change the color of the page, since this should not be a big deal for him and it will remove one bone of contention (b) try to convince Chiang Kai-shek that Nrtm81 is not pro-independence and they actually have a lot in common. You might be able to get some help from User:BlueShirts who is also pro-Kuomintang and friendly with Chiang Kai-shek but seems to understand Nrtm81's point. Ideogram 10:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the mini-politics lesson ;) It's helped my understand somewhat. As for getting Nrtm81 to change the colour, I'm asking him about it on the portal talk, so we'll see what he says. As for getting BlueShirts involved, I would prefer it if we could sort this out just between Chiang Kai-shek and Nrtm81. However, if we get nowhere, it might be the best course of action to call in BlueShirts and Captain0 for comments. The Halo (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Generally Wikipedia policy is to encourage as many people to participate as possible because reaching a broader consensus is always better. It is no use to reach a consensus between two people first because you will have to start all over again for each new person that weighs in. Ideogram 10:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for jumping in but I think input from Captain0 would greatly help because he was the person to convince me about the name being "Portal:Taiwan" (I was skeptical about his points for a while though. So I was in Chiang Kai-shek's position before. Though I don't think Chiang Kai-shek wants to accept the simple fact that leaving out a political tag avoids the problems that is now arising. "Portal:Taiwan avoids political dispute. And for the political dispute, it is in the Category box section of the portal. Since it covers issues over Taiwan (ROC, PRC, Independence, Aborigine self-rule). Chiang Kai-shek's insistance on tagging "ROC" to the portal name will only fuel more fighting because there are people who are for/against ROC/PRC/Independence of Taiwan. Leaving it as "Portal:Taiwan" avoids all this mess and people can find these differences in beliefs/opinions via the portal. — Nrtm81 15:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please don't bring the debate here. (1) This page is really for us mediators to discuss among ourselves. (2) We are supposed to be neutral so it doesn't help to try to convince us. (3) All debate should really be on the Portal talk page. Ideogram 15:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
My disagreement with this user is not of a personal nature. Please understand that. But what I really want to have happen is to revise the article on the Crimean War. Since he/she is unwilling to come to an agreement than I have no choice but to bring a Request for Arbritation. If you can assist me in doing this, your support woule be most welcome. Thank you.
PS... you can respond on my talk page. Sorry for posting here. I am a bit overcautios. Piercetp 01:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Computer scienceEdit
- Busy as a beaver, that's me :-). Ideogram 01:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
3 Revert NoticeEdit
Thanks for the notice; I have not reverted anything 3+ times. --Aish Warya 02:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. I just wanted to warn you before you made a mistake. Ideogram 02:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks also for the warning on the big wooly admin... --Aish Warya 02:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I will be happy to help you adjust to Wikipedia. Ideogram 03:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Accusation of vandalismEdit
You recently reverted one of my edits accusing me of vandalism. I have responded on the Dim sum talk page. Please respond there why you believe this was vandalism especially since I gave my full reasoning for the change. —Umofomia 06:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Yes, I did attend MIT. From your user page, I surmise that you were Course 6? I was as well (I tried to be Course 8 as well, but didn't end up having time). BTW, sorry if I sounded rather brusque about the vandalism incident; I generally don't like it when the term is used cavalierly, but I see now that it was an accident. —Umofomia 09:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh hey, no problem. I'd be pissed too if someone accused me of vandalism.
- Yes I was course 6-3. Made In Taiwan, indeed. What year did you graduate? Ideogram 09:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I was also 6-3 (originally declared 6-2, but never ended up taking any EE such that when I finally switched over to 6-3 my junior year, all my requirements magically were satisfied). I'm class of '02, but stayed an extra year to get my M.Eng. How about you? —Umofomia 09:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I entered with class of '89, but I stayed an extra year because, uhhh, I messed up. So I'm an old fogey. I went on the Love Boat the summer after I graduated.
- I'll see what I can do for that article once I get more time. I've mostly been concentrating on Chinese language related articles. In the meantime, I've put it on my watchlist. —Umofomia 09:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Etruscan-Albanian Mediation RequestEdit
Sorry, I didn't know enough about Wikipedia to look in My Talk...! The discussion, such as it is, is in Item 7 of Talk:Etruscan_language. I don't expect a reasoned rebuttal from Alexander 007 - I am really looking for some comments from acknowledged experts in the field (preferably giving real names, not pseudonyms).
BTW Our interests seem to match to a large extent - seems to me we may have interacted on the c2 wiki...? Jpaulm 14:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I am familiar with your work. I will not comment further at this time since I am supposed to maintain neutrality. Ideogram 15:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think we've had enough of the carrot, time to try the stick. This is why I work best in a team; you can be the Good Cop, I can be the Bad Cop. Ideogram 15:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
As you've noticed, there's a big mess at Hubbert's peak theory, and it's not getting better. Do you have any ideas on how to get that article turned around? Thanks. --John Nagle 17:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I can't help you with anonymous users if they don't look at the talk page. If you want to appeal to the broader Wikipedia community for consensus, you can post at the WP:Village pump, file a Wikiquette alert, or file an WP:RFC. Again, if you have any questions I will be glad to assist you. Ideogram 17:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Greg Bravo (Gary Scott)Edit
In tandem with the infamous Greg Bravo (Gary Scott) article, I have revised the article on the Steam (band) so as to leave no question that Greg Bravo had nothing to do with the original song. I have added the discography, a list of the musicians in the original 45 recording and the LP, and the verifiable sources that I used. I also corrected the information about where the musicians (both the original trio and the subsequent touring band) were from. They were all from Bridgeport, CT and not NYC although they did record in NYC. As can be expected my edited version has been revised back to a version that Greg Bravo/Musicknight/Countdewiki/Rock_and_Soul_Patrol, etc. would find compatible with his hoax. He has also removed the sources (newspaper article, Billboard books). I have reverted it back twice but after the last anonymous revision back to the Greg Bravo-compatible edit, I gave up. I have left a note on the talk page asking for an explanation but have not received a response. Could you advise me on how to proceed? Should this page be protected as well?
I think it is clear that Greg Bravo (or friends) has written his own article and at least some of the linked articles. A version of the Vince Martell article (he was the guitarist for Vanilla Fudge) notes in the first sentence that Martell had also participated in humanitarian efforts with Greg Bravo, with links to the Bravo article. Even if true, it is sort of an odd non-sequitur. Another musician that Musicknight etc has alluded to in his rants on the Bravo talk pages is Freddie Scott. That article also has a link to the Bravo article, claiming that Bravo was a back-up singer. (The Scott article doesn't mention any of the other musicians, however.) I looked up Freddie Scott and he is a pretty well known solo artist. I've surmised that Bravo may be friends with some bona fide musicians but he himself doesn't have his own work to support his claim to fame. Or maybe he's not friends with them at all and is just depending on them not to have the time or inclination to look themselves up on the internet. I think that's exactly what Bravo/Musicknight is depending on when he is claiming "Na Na Hey Hey" as his own. When two out of three of the original musicians are alive and living not to far from his base of "Operations", I'd have to say he's got some chutzpah!!--Fortheloveofhampsters 12:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Feel free to continue editing these articles. If the reverts continue, we can get them semi-protected. Ideogram 17:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ahhh! Wrong page! Sorry about that. :) Steve p 20:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ooh, thank you very much. I was thinking about it myself but felt it hadn't reached that point yet. Ideogram 21:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Or that Ghirlandajo chooses to discuss it at least. Ideogram 02:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- The talk page. As it happens I was already looking at your gallery when you left this message.
- On another note, thank you for at least being willing to discuss Russo-Turkish War, 1877-1878. I hope we can reach an agreeable compromise. Ideogram 04:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you a stalker?Edit
Your edits on Giano's and KNewman's talk show that you are engaged in following my edits. Such activities may be classified as WP:STALKing. You should be aware that stalking may lead to RfC and blocks. Please find some more useful activity in Wikipedia. Write an article or two, for example. That's what this project is intended for. Take care, Ghirla -трёп- 11:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Zeq, and all thatEdit
I noticed your comment regarding Zeq's arbitration request.
I realized what a mess I was stepping into when I started to try to clean up the mess at Israeli apartheid . There are about a dozen people making reasonable edits, although they don't agree, and about two who are disruptive. This could work out. I'm curious to see if it's possible to reach rough convergence, if not agreement. (We'll probably never reach stability; it's the nature of Wikipedia as currently set up that articles get close to being good, then churn as various editors drive by and edit them).
As to Zeq: Obviously he's close to the issue; he says he's written an official report about it, and writes of driving by the Jenin refugee camp. He was banned from editing the Israeli apartheid article directly, and there seems to be a considerable history there that I haven't read in detail. He's obviously very unhappy about that, and he's trying to get his ban overturned. He posts to the talk page for the article frequently, lobbying for changes he's not allowed to make himself. What really annoys him about me is that I ignore him. That seemed appropriate, since he was banned from editing as disruptive.
But I can see where he is coming from. For Israel, good PR is a survival issue. If the US ever stops supporting Israel, the country will go broke and might go under. This justifies extreme measures on the PR front. Zeq seems to see himself as in the forefront of that battle.
Regarding ELROB 2006, I know a little about that issue, know some of the people, and was myself a team leader in last years's DARPA Grand Challenge. (I ran Team Overbot. We lost). I'm a Stanford alum myself. Do you need technical expertise, or what? --John Nagle 18:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- I was hoping you could help mediate by speaking to the people involved. Ideogram 18:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair. I have removed my comment. sorry. Zeq 19:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I've activated my email. If there's any problem with it, lemme know. Take care! KNewman 20:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
User:Aish Warya's editsEdit
Greetings, I have been having the beginnings of a revert battle with a new user Aish Warya (talk · contribs) who has been POV-pushing and vandalizing at many articles. This checkuser shows Aish Warya is likely a sockpuppet of Nacho Librarian, who was blocked for vandalism. I was wondering if you'd be kind enough to look in and give an opinion? Thanks. --RevolverOcelotX 22:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have already posted a notice to the administrator's noticeboard; they recommend we pursue normal dispute resolution options unless there is a clear case of vandalism. Ideogram 22:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think that many of User:Aish Warya's edits could be considered as vandalism and Aish Warya seems to be editing in bad faith. This seems like a bad case of WP:POINT. If you could revert some of Aish Warya POV-pushing/vandalism, that would be great. If I do it again, I'll might violate the 3RR. --RevolverOcelotX 22:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think we scared him away. He hasn't edited in 45 minutes. Ideogram 22:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 01:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Steam (band) was completely rewritten, this time by a previously registered editor. The new version removes the wording that indicates that Gary DeCarlo was the lead singer. I was hoping that the page could be reverted and semi-protected. "Ron Stabile", an unregistered editor who voted to keep Greg Bravo (Gary Scott) and who is probably a sockpuppet for the banned editors commented on the userpage of the person who rewrote the article that it was a great article. I think the new author was set up to rewrite the article. I have not reverted the article yet.--Fortheloveofhampsters 04:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- The editor who rewrote the article appears to be a valid account. I would try discussing it on the talk page. Ideogram 06:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I've just had a message from Nrtm81, telling me about some comments that he you have made on your own talk page, when discussing Portal:Taiwan with him. I believe that he is refering to saying:
"If you want to end the argument, you have to make him go away."
This has concerned him. I think that you perhaps did not make clear enough to him or Chiang that you are no longer a mediator on the case, which is where the confusion of you being nutral has come from. I have left Nrtm81 a message explaining this however.
While I'm here, I might as well also tell you that I have advised Nrtm81 not to seek an RfC against Chiang, as I believe that this situation no where nears the level where an RfC would be apropriate. I have given Chiang an offical warning about the way he conducts himself regarding WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, and this is all that should be done at the moment I feel. If the problems continued, he would, I have no doubt, be blocked by an admin, but an RfC about his behaviour is not needed. I have also asked him, and advised him how, to change his name.
- Thanks for the message. Ideogram 16:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)