User talk:Ral315/Archive 14
|
User: Social personality abused edit
Hey there.... thanks for your help on User:monkey power.... I think the same user is at it again, using the name User: Social personality abused. This user has repeatedly posted the same bizarre statement about the Scientology article Suppressive Person being "unfair" as long as there is no article called Social Person, and generally just trolling. This user's edit to Ethics (Scientology) takes up exactly where User:Olberon left off, right down to his same accusations of everyone else but him being "vandals". That he has chosen to call himself User: Social personality abused to post about that very topic on Suppressive Person seems to indicate that someone is just trying to make a WP:POINT. Any chance you can run a CheckUser of him versus User:Olberon and User:monkey power? Thanks in advance for your help....... wikipediatrix 03:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
MedCom edit
Hi Ral, thanks for that, my spelling clearly isn't up to much! --Wisden17 15:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Signpost RSS revisited edit
Thanks for getting this going again, but when I tried to subscribe just now neither my RSS reader nor my web browser could find the domain wikipediasignpost.com. Hopefully just a temporary glich... - dcljr (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, apparently it was just temporary. I was able to subscribe just now, but the first article tried to be Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-06-19/Welcome RSS readers, which doesn't exist as I type this. I would create a redirect to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-06-12/Welcome RSS readers, but then that wouldn't be the same issue (i.e., if you were to follow a link at the bottom of the page, you would end up reading the previous week's issue). Minor glich there. Not very important, unless it's gonna try to welcome new subscribers every week with a nonexistent article! Anyway, thanks again... - dcljr (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Whoops! The last 2 items in this week's RSS feed point to the same article (see links and comments):
<item>
<title>Vol. 2, Issue 25 - Bugs, Repairs and Internal Operational News</title>
<link>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-06-19/Arbitration_report</link>
<description>Server-related events, problems, and changes.</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2006 23:15:09 GMT</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Ral315</dc:creator>
<comments>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-06-19/Arbitration_report</comments>
</item>
<item>
<title>Vol. 2, Issue 25 - The Report On Lengthy Litigation</title>
<link>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-06-19/Arbitration_report</link>
<description>New arbitration cases, and recently closed cases.</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2006 23:15:10 GMT</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Ral315</dc:creator>
<comments>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-06-19/Arbitration_report</comments>
</item>
Signpost edit
I see. Never mind, was quite looking forward to the French version though! Perhaps a little cleanup of the intro etc would be warranted? I'll get round to it later if I remember. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 23:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Mediation edit
Yes, I am. But the nomination seemed to have hit a standstill, and I didn't want to bug anyone in fear of possibly ruining my chances of enough support votes. -^demon[yell at me][ubx_war_sux] /00:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Signpost this week edit
Posted a 'mania article.. sorry about being late. Next week is fine to run it; hopefully I'll even improve it some :) Brassratgirl 06:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Next issue edit
That's fine, it's the perfect week for me to do the publishing because I'm taking Monday off in any case. --Michael Snow 16:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- The 17th I can do even if it's not as fortuitous. Not sure I can promise the same for most other weeks, though. --Michael Snow 02:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Signpost RSS yet again edit
My RSS reader (Thunderbird) has been refusing to give me this week's Signpost (Vol. 2, Iss. 27), complaining that it's "not a valid RSS feed". I think the problem might be the first line of the feed, which is:
h<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
I guess Thunderbird doesn't like that "h". I can't believe I'm the first one to notice this, seeing as how it's been out for so long, but... there it is. - dcljr (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Spamlist edit
I can run it if needed. Treebark (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to contact me edit
Oh and I know I'm new here, but if there's anytime you are on wikibreak and you need someone to publish feel free to contact me. Treebark (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Question about probation edit
Ral,
How does banning me from editing on the article have anything to do with what you believe to be disrupting behavior on the talkpage? Why does notifying individuals who have edited the article previously of a discussion taking place a disruptive behavior?
Guy Montag 16:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Signpost edit
I'd like to write for the signpost. What do I have to do? What do I have to know? Reply to me on my talk page as soon as you can. Carmelapple 14:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Article ban edit
Ral, I'd like to ask what the basis was of your ban of Guy Montag from Battle of Deir Yassin. I don't know any of the details of this, so I'm not questioning your judgment, but I'm concerned by the fact that Guy was reported by KimvdLinde, who appears to be developing a vendetta against pro-Israel editors, which Guy is. My understanding of Guy's probation is that he may be banned from any Israeli-Palestinian article that he disrupts with inappropriate editing. Can you say in what way he was disrupting the actual article? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note, Ral. I can see that you exercised good judgment. The problem with these pages is that they're edited by people who take every opportunity to make anti-Israel edits and to attack editors they perceive as being pro-Israel, and they do this regardless of the issues, what the sources are saying, or what the facts might be. It makes it harder than usual for everyone to judge what's going on. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, as someone who has been involved with User:Guy Montag before, I'd like your input on a recent ban, see here and here. I'm wondering if I've done the right thing and perhaps I've been a little hasty. I'd appreciate your input. Regards, - FrancisTyers · 01:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Message edit
Did you write User talk:Treebark#I don't appreciate the bad support? Because some user is pretending to be you, I think. Treebark (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Deir Yassin arbcom case edit
I have filed a ArbCom case against Guy Montag for the violation of his probation, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Dier_Yassin. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
No language report to WP:SIGN? edit
Hi, was this edit intentional? -- Deutshe Blinkentexten 07:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- O.K. But you still haven't answered my other question above at User talk:Ral315#Message. Reply on my talkpage. Treebark (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Signpost edit
I heard that you would be dealing with the matter of delivering the signpost to members of the spamlist in the futer. Can I help you deliver the signpost? —Minun Spiderman 18:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Archive list edit
I noticed the latest archive of your talk page isn't linked to in the archive list at the top of the page. You might want to update that. Also, the non-talk version of the archive list should probably be redirected somewhere (as you've done with the archive pages themselves) instead of being left blank. Just figured I'd give you a heads-up about these things in case you just forgot to do them... - dcljr (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Language report edit
Please see User:Treebark/Table. Please reply on my talkpage with any comments or questions. Treebark (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
RE: Johnny Lee Clary - Please help edit
Hey there, my name is Nick, my username is Potters house and I have encountered a problem with trying to provide any information about Johnny Lee Clary. I have posted this post off to other staff members also. I am not sure if this is the best route to resolve this, but can think of no other way.
The article Johnny Lee Clary has been deleted. I have known Johnny through telephone conversations and email for a short time now (about 3-4 months). He recently came and shared his life story in for our church group for the first time just two weeks ago. Before I met Johnny I became interested in his story i.e. his conversion from the head of the KKK in the US, to being a Christian Minister who now teaches against race hate groups. I found the article Johnny Lee Clary as it still is today, deleted, except for some small talk. If you read the talk you see what I have said at the time (notice I have gotten no reply, probable my fault as I don’t know heaps about WIKI policy). From my understanding Johnny Lee Clary was posting as The KingOfDixie and looks like he tried to change a few things on Wiki concerning the KKK. While this is a controversial subject, Johnny being the former leader of the KKK would probably know a thing or two and be able to contibute, but that’s another story. He eventually made an article about himself i.e. Johnny Lee Clary. Johnny being quite new to Wiki and ignorant of rules of conduct found himself at odds with some admins and had his site deleted.
Whilst observing Johnny over the last 3-4 months I have noticed that he is very outspoken against race hate groups such as the Neo Nazis, Skinheads, KKK etc. This, more often than not, lands Johnny in the hot seat. He has experienced persecution from racist groups for his departure from the KKK and voiced opinions against these racist organizations on his webpage, www.xkkk.org. Johnny has also received multiple death threats.
Because of his bold stance against these racist groups Johnny has become accustomed to hatred directed at him by those same groups. Johnny concluded that perhaps the guy who deleted the page Johnny Lee Clary was a white supremist. I am hoping to clear this up. Before he told me this, I started to create J L Clary, after hearing nothing from posting in user talk on Johnny Lee Clary's article. I wasn't 10 minutes into the J L Clary article when it was issued a deletion notice, and then before I had time to reply (about 5 minutes) it was deleted! I was amazed. I told this to Johnny and he said the main reason he was told that he couldn't have an article was because he was not prominent enough.
Johnny has a very famous testimony and has been on multiple TV shows like Oprah, Donahue, Jerry Springer, etc, and even recently when he preached in our town he made front page news, a double spread on his life, and the local ABC interviewed him live, which is not bad for our town (LISMORE NSW Australia) See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kerry&dir=prev&offset=20050327125109&limit=500&action=history .
When David Wilkerson came to our town hardly anyone knew or cared, yet David Wilkerson is allowed an article (and rightfully so), but more people know of Johnny. As to whether he is famous or not, just Google search him and see all the TV interviews and radio interviews he does. He hangs with some of the most prominent Christian leaders in Australia. Besides this, just being the former KKK leader should be enough for an article (he doesn't even get a mention in the KKK one, and would be deleted). He was also a Pro Wrestler. So he is prominent in Christian circles, he is prominent amongst race hate groups, and he is also prominent in the WWE wrestling.
Johnny asked me to test the waters for him to see if he was being persecuted by someone from a race hate group. So I created some sites, John Clary Wade Watts and Operation Colorblind - the name of Johnny's Ministry. These have been fine until yesterday. I cannot understand why these sites are just issued a deletion notice? Just because they mention JLC? I was hoping to discuss these things but they are just deleted. The one on Wade Watts is about a black gospel preacher who was one of the leaders in the civil rights movement in the US and was good friends with Martin Luther King. He took Johnny Clary under his wing and even ordained Johnny as a minister (to this day Johnny is the only white man ordained in the All Black Baptist Church). But his article is up for deletion because I mentioned Clary and had a link.
That is why I am writing to you to see if you can help. It seems to me that the person(s) deleting all articles which even mention Johnny Lee Clary has an agenda. I thought that wikipedia admins had to keep a neutral stance on every article. It seems like this guy has a vendetta against JLC. Why delete the Wade Watts article. That is guilt by association and could be proof that all deletions are because of racial discrimination! I hope this is not the case and would think that it is politically motivated, as Johnny is a strong supporter of George Bush and Antaeus Feldspar of Kerry.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kerry&dir=prev&offset=20050327125109&limit=500&action=history This shows how Antaeus Feldspar supports Kerry, which is fine, but Johnny is a strong supporter of Bush.
My hope is that Johnny will be able to have an article like any other famous person, minister, former KKK leader, or pro wrestler, and that Johnny and anyone connected with him and his ministry will in future have certain rules set in place that do not allow the wholesale deletion of the articles associated with him, but that they will be at least discussed.
I thank you for reading this long winded post. I have only been using WIKI for about a year myself so I need your help, I don't really know what else to do. I hope you can help. I personally think that Johnny's story is one that is beneficial to the cause of reconciliation between races and to the3 unity of society as a whole. It would be a shame if WIKI became known for having covert racists. Of course I hope that this is a misunderstanding and that all will be cleared up soon.
Here are some links that might help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_Watts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheKingOfDixie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Colorblind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Threeafterthree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Potters_house
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Antaeus_Feldspar
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kerry&dir=prev&offset=20050327125109&limit=500&action=history This shows how Antaeus Feldspar supports Kerry, which is fine, but Johnny is a strong supporter of Bush. Perhaps the bias is political and not racial?
The link for page: John Clary has already been deleted!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alabamaboy
Please notice that his link was taken from the KKK site the same day:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=prev&oldid=65690238
then
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=next&oldid=65690238
Also note his contributions: Featured articles: · African American literature -- My first featured article. Thanks to everyone who gave feedback. While I didn't start the article, I obsessed on it for an entire month and wrote most of the copy. · Ku Klux Klan -- I began work on this article after it became a featured article. Since then I've mediated several editorial disputes on the article (including one of which kept the article from being delisted as a FA) and made a large number of edit. Potters house 00:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Nick.
Fine with me. I need that to do planning so I know who will be writing each week because we can't have the same writers each week as we can't expect one user to speak a lot of different languages but you can always look there; if there running late and I haven't been able to step in and say anything. That's the order User:Kpjas and me are planning to do in as we will be overseeing the whole interwiki report. T®eebark t | c 17:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
RoLL edit
I have one tentative suggestion for the Report on Lengthy Litigation. Might it be a good idea if we used a headline as well as the title of the series - for example, "Report on Lengthy Litigation - Jimbo Wales blocked indefinitely". I can see arguments both for and against this. On the one hand, it may be likely to induce more people to read the Report, but on the other may make it impossible to maintain an unbiased standpoint. What do you think? --David Mestel(Talk) 11:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be easier if we rotated between 9 languages not covering the littler languages? The ones we have on User:Treebark/Table are the biggest ones and it seems like we should rotate and countintue. Carmelapple 15:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Ralbot didn't deliver me a signpost. edit
As you can see on my talkpage, I didn't get a signpost from Ralbot; the user above me, Alphachimp and below me, Kiwipete, on the Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe did. I'm confused. Or maybe I'm just being stupid? (Like when I click on the practical joke templates.) If I am, I certainly can't figure it out, and Ralbot's talkpage sent me here.Picaroon9288|ta co 17:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, I didn't receive a copy either, so you're not alone Picaroon. What's the reason Ral? --Wisden17 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Slightly older signpost article altered? edit
Hi there. I was searching through the site, reading the old Signposts and I came across this article. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-06-19/Brad_Patrick. The reason it stood out was the section at the bottom about Brad Patrick using vulgar terms in an email exchange. I was going to remove this item but then discovered it was added by a user that I have had a recent run in with, User:617USA. I'm fairly certain Brad Patrick didn't give this user permission to post his private email, email address and correspondance on the web for all to see. Under copyright laws Brad Patrick owns the copyright to his sections of that email correspondance, whether or not William H Kennedy choose to publish his side of the exchange, and I'm sure it wasn't given. I haven't done anything about this as I said I've had a run in with this user of late who thinks I am involved in some kind of bullying against him (I reverted some POV edits that he/she had made) so am loathe to remove it myself. Ben W Bell talk 18:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
What does your edit to WP:SIGN/N/O mean? Carmelapple 03:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Report on Lengthy Litigation edit
Greetings exulted journalist. If I might beg the honour of an audiance, I was wondering whether you would accept the services of a humble lackey to assist you in your task. I enjoy studying Wikipedia process (and assisting editors with it), and especially am interested in reading Arbitration cases. It would therefore be an honour for me to assist you in writing the Report on Lengthy Litigation for the Wikipedia Signpost, if that is amenable to you. --David Mestel(Talk) 14:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, of course. And I'll obviously submit them to you for approval too. --David Mestel(Talk) 14:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Finished! It's on User:David.Mestel/Arbitration_report. Is it OK? --David Mestel(Talk) 21:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- I saw your change; is it otherwise OK? And is it generally better not to include proposed FoFs, but only proposed remedies? --David Mestel(Talk) 05:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK. I'll generally adhere to that in future. --David Mestel(Talk) 12:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I saw your change; is it otherwise OK? And is it generally better not to include proposed FoFs, but only proposed remedies? --David Mestel(Talk) 05:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Finished! It's on User:David.Mestel/Arbitration_report. Is it OK? --David Mestel(Talk) 21:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Destabilized edit
I have reversed your stabilisation 'experiment' because you failed to seek either consensus for your test or consensus for the stabilisation as the process you were purportedly testing asks that you do. The talk pages of articles currently linked to the relevant template show it usually faces opposition when suggested. There might even be good reasons for that. -Splash - tk 12:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Would it have made any difference? -Splash - tk 12:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, well, I might have respected the test a lot more if you'd done the same. The process/proposal is far from supported or 'needing' testing, and there are alternative ideas all over the talk page. I don't understand the eagerness to restrict editing on abitrary articles that have no editorial problems. -Splash - tk 12:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
News and notes edit
Can we add the list of motto's to News and notes? Carmelapple 21:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
RoLL edit
Do you want to write the RoLL this week, or shall I? --David Mestel(Talk) 10:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Withdraw from Crazycomputers' RfA edit
I'm a little confused about whether or not you withdrew your position. If you did, could you possibly strike it out? If not, no worries. I'm just trying to clarify. =D Regards, alphaChimp laudare 16:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Question edit
I have an interesting question for you. I've seen you around on Wikipedia quite a bit, and respect your opinion. As such, I'd like to know what you think about the following diffs: [1], [2], [3] and [4] from the same FAC, and [5]. I'm asking because you opposed User:Ambuj.Saxena's RfA for issues that to me appear very similar to what I have been doing constantly to scores of FACs for over a year. Thus, my question is: if I were to stand for adminship today, after seeing this evidence and knowing that I fully stand behind these edits, would you support? I have no desire to continue as an admin if you or others who I respect feel that I should not hold the position. Thanks for your help. --Spangineeres (háblame) 07:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. Keep up the good work on the Signpost! --Spangineeres (háblame) 17:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Abu Badali edit
Hi, I wonder why you moved my question off Abu Badali's RFA page. I intended it to be completely relevant to his possible adminship. I have severe reservations about his running another editor off the project, over a 1930-era vintage catalog picture which is almost certainly in the public domain as the other editor asserted. If the candidate is going to work in image cleanup, he has to be able to discuss issues like that intelligently with contributors, and he made no attempt to do so. That's why I want to know if he understands the pre-1977 copyright regime and also whether he's read Prof. Lessig's book. I don't think admins should work in that area without having read the book. Can you put the question back?
Thanks
Abu Badali edit
Hi, I wonder why you moved my question off Abu Badali's RFA page. I intended it to be completely relevant to his possible adminship. I have severe reservations about his running another editor off the project, over a 1930-era vintage catalog picture which is almost certainly in the public domain as the other editor asserted. If the candidate is going to work in image cleanup, he has to be able to discuss issues like that intelligently with contributors, and he made no attempt to do so. That's why I want to know if he understands the pre-1977 copyright regime and also whether he's read Prof. Lessig's book. I don't think admins should work in that area without having read the book. Can you put the question back?
Thanks
Colbert edit
It also prompted a debate and edit war and debate regarding the notability of Wikiality (as it was being added to the article), and consequently the notability of "Gaysrael" which was on there and prompted a redesign of the Influence on the English language section which existed at the time. - RoyBoy 800 03:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Tchadienne's block edit
I must object quite strongly to your lengthening so much User:Tchadienne's block, that you brought from 31h to 72h. I find this punishment far too harsh, and as an admin I'm oriented to reduce it consistently. While I agree that Tchadienne acted rashly, please consider what editors like Tchadienne, with almost 9000 edits, have done covering intensely a country almost forgotten by wikipedia, Chad, and adding info to Current Events. And remember what WP:BLOCK says: among controversial blocks are those blocks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reasoning for the block. Even in the socks (wrongly) created, he has used them mostly to work on Chad and Current Events. Tchadienne may tend to overreact when confronted, as in this case, but the high quality of his edits is beyon doubt, and I believe he has earned some leniency for his errors.--Aldux 22:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Ral, I've spoken with Tchadienne and he's definitely cooled down now, and guarantees he will not edit except on his talk page. You said to me that you would have considered unblocking when he had stopped evading; and since blocks aren't punishments, wouldn't it be right to unblock him? Or at the very least, reduce drastically the block?--Aldux 16:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Ral, when JzG removed the range block, I unblocked Tchadienne as I understood that you were favourable to unblocking him. I hope you don't judge my action rash, as I simply thought I was doing what you proposed to do once JzG approved. If you feel I have acted uncorrectly, please tell me; I'm quite a newbie admin, and the only way I can learn from my errors is if fellow admins aren't afraid to point them out to me. Cheers,--Aldux 15:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)