User talk:Ambi~enwiki/Archive7

User talk:Ambivalenthysteria/Archive1 User talk:Ambivalenthysteria/Archive2 User talk:Ambi/Archive3 User talk:Ambi/Archive4 User talk:Ambi/Archive5 User talk:Ambi/Archive6 Last archived December 20, 2004.

Victorian MPs
It's all here Adam 15:15, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Arbcom Elections
Yay! Congratulations! --MPerel 05:02, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

I'll add my congrats on your election as well. Cheers. --Roisterer 14:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

++congratulations; BACbKA 22:20, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ambi -- I wish you my wholehearted congratulations on your election to the AC. Your wit, perception, and willingness to challenge the status quo are the qualities that earned you my vote (and the votes of many others) -- don't let the stress and pressure of arbitration drive them from you. :-) I have great confidence in the new group of arbitrators, and look forward to what you will achieve.  If I can ever be of help, do let me know.  Merry Christmas and best wishes, Jwrosenzweig 22:37, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Congratualtions Ambi. I look forwards rto working with you. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 00:12, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let me add to the well-earned congratulations. Unfortunately, this makes it a little harder to continue your efforts as a perceptive outside critic. Also, I offer my apologies, if any are necessary, for not having acted on your suggestion that I also run. After some consideration, I decided that my attention was needed for other matters, and because I saw many fine candidates (yourself certainly included) I didn't think it was critical that I run. Since I remain outside the Committee, perhaps I can help fill your previous role from time to time. --Michael Snow 01:15, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

congrats. Xtra 13:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your note about the Mediation Committee, and congrats on your ArbCom position. Andre ( talk )A| 17:20, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Yes indeed, congratulations! I know you'll do well. I have filed a Friend-of-the-ArbCom briefing for you to read at your leisure. – Quadell (talk) (help)  17:58, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Help!
I seem to be having a bit of a problem with an abusive user, namely User:Fvw. This individual has taken it upon himself to be the ombudsman of what is and is not a speedy delete candidate. He's reverted my edits and left some snide remarks on my user page and the edit summaries. I've listed him on RfC as well. - Lucky 6.9 23:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Did you get my e-mail? Will you please respond to it? Everyking 06:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You haven't told me what I can fix. You are essentially telling me this article can never be featured because you will always object, apparently because you dislike me. Well, that doesn't seem very fair. How did you get elected to the ArbCom? Why did I support you? It boggles the mind. If you're going to object, I think you have an obligation to make your objection clear enough that I can act on it. Everyking 06:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You have not told me. If you had told me, I would've fixed it by now, and presumably you wouldn't be objecting. And if you're such a stickler, why was Cathedral of Magdeburg on the main page a few days ago? Not a bad article by any means, but certainly not featured quality by my standards, and I'm pretty liberal about it. Everyking 06:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You tell me I disagree; what is it I disagree with? Hell if I know, I guess you'd know better than I would. "The quotes"? What do you mean? Do you not want any quotes in the article? Is there a particular quote you object to? Explain. "The chart section"? Again, what do you mean? Do you want information removed? Reworded? Transformed into chart format? Explain. This is like pointing vaguely in the general direction of a big city and telling me to go fix that broken window. Everyking 07:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know if you have anything personal against me or not. I have no idea. But you did get me to support you for the ArbCom, and then you got me to think you weren't going to object to my nomination by discontinuing our discussion. Even more infuriating is that I see articles on the main page every day that aren't of the same quality as Autobiography, which just adds insult to injury&mdash;how on earth are those getting through the process while my nomination is held up perpetually, and I even get personally insulted by a few people? A person shouldn't have to contend with all that, I don't tolerate that sort of thing well at all. Everyking 11:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I have absolutely never ignored anybody's objections. I take offense. Quite the contrary, I've spent far too much of my life arguing about those objections, trying to figure out exactly what they are, and trying to resolve them. Now I think I've more or less figured out the crux of the objections: you and a few others are deliberately vague and unclear because what you really want is for half of the article to be deleted, but you're recluctant to come right out and say that because that would mean the nomination has become a broader question of inclusionism or deletionism&mdash;should an article be comprehensive, or should it be merely a brief summary? And to me, the implications of that go way beyond this one article. Everyking 12:49, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is supposed to be inclusive of information. You know that. If I removed everything you want me to remove, the article would be a sad, miserable stub that even I wouldn't want featured. Featured articles are supposed to be thorough and comprehensive&mdash;you are supposed to read one and think, "Damn, that's great, and just look at all these other links I can follow...", not "Well, I guess they hit most of the main points and kept it concise, which is good because I don't have more than five minutes to sit down and read anything anyway." Now, I'm willing to talk about reducing the size of the article, but it absolutely must be done on the basis of preserving the info&mdash;there is no question of totally removing anything. That means that it can be moved to other articles, for example; but you know the problem with that, last time I created a subarticle it got deleted. Everyking 03:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Didn't you want me to remove the chart data? I think articles you linked to are a bit short and disappointing, by the way, particularly Louis Armstrong. Everyking 04:15, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Forgive me, Rebecca, but when you talk about summarizing I read "removing information". Because that's what it means, even if you only remove a detail here and there. And I think when you talk about poor writing, what you really mean is that there's too much detail. If that's not what you mean, why don't you do me a favor and take some paragraph or a few sentences that you think are poorly written and rewrite them in a better way on the talk page, so I can see what you mean? Because as it is I'm not understanding. The tables were created specifically to avoid the problem of endlessly droning on with numbers. Everyking 04:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Data doesn't become unimportant just because you think it's boring, you know. Everyking 05:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

MedCom
Heya, I noticed you withdrew your support for my MedCom nomination. If this is to do with the RFC User:Lucky 6.9 started on me, I'd appreciate it if you could have a look at the edit histories in question (if you haven't already). The allegations of personal abuse are untrue (also note the RFC has been withdrawn again without specifying a reason). Thanks. --fvw *  22:13, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

IP 172
Given that my IP was blocked before any evasion took place, I would assume 172's IP should be blocked as well for breaking the 3RR. El Trey 10:34, 21 Dec 2004 (PST)
 * Mmmk, time to unblock Stone's IP 64.7.89.54. It's been much more than 24 hrs, even with 172's repeated bans.
 * 10:56, 22 Dec 2004, 172 blocked 64.7.89.54 (expires 10:56, 23 Dec 2004) (contribs) (Blocking Trey Stone\'s IP for violation of 3RR on Efraín Ríos Montt) Mr. Stone 22:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR?
This looks like a violation of the 3RR to me, what do you think?

Irishpunktom reverted 4x in 23 minutes as follows:

Reverted Jayjg 23:44 Dec 22 to his previous version

Reverted Mperel 23:35 Dec 22 to his previous version

Reverted Jayjg 23:27 Dec 22 to his previous version

Reverted Jayjg 23:21, Dec 22  to his previous version

Actually reverted a fifth time under his ip 195.7.55.146 12:23 Dec 22 to his previous version --Jayjg 03:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who wrote the Ashlee-related articles you speak of, Rebecca? I've never seen such an outrage in all my time here. Why must you resort to provocations? Everyking 14:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll tell you the truth, if you succeed in this outrage, I'm gone. Absolutely. Everyking 14:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are threatening me. Do you expect me to respond well to threats? I'll quit in a heartbeat. This has caused me enough stress and sleep loss already. This absurdity you're pushing could actually carry some weight because of who you are. I have been at the table for as long as there's been a table to sit at. I want you to withdraw the case against me and apologize. Everyking 14:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Am I in an alternate dimension? I'm the only one who has been trying to compromise. I don't think you've ever even written anything on the talk page! Once again I want this withdrawn and I think I deserve an apology for being threatened. Everyking 14:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedian and I have the right to revert edits I disagree with. This is unbelievably outrageous. Am I some second-class editor who isn't entitled to the same rights as others? And I've never said I won't accept the removal of information from the article under any circumstances. I've always said I'm willing to discuss it if and only if it is preserved somewhere on Wikipedia. I have myself suggested a scheme of creating more subarticles and reorganizing on that basis. I can't deal with this. I don't know how to react or what to do. I don't want to be treated like this. Everyking 15:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It seems that you think you have a veto over the article, and you are trying to get me banned for having a disagreement. Why isn't it you who's banned? Why should one side in a dispute be treated this way? Why are you resorting to this? Why can't we just discuss? You talk about discussing, but you haven't done hardly any, and now you're trying to get me banned. I don't know how I can continue to contribute to a project when I'm being threatened this way. I don't want to leave, God knows Wikipedia's just about the most important thing in my life, as pathetic as that might be, but I have a certain degree of dignity that I'm not willing to give up, and that means I will not under any circumstances accept having my editing rights restricted, not even for an hour. Everyking 15:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes, I do stand absolutely for the principle that the information must remain somewhere, in some form. But does that make me a bad editor, just because I value information? You seem to stand absolutely for the principle that the information must be deleted, so if I'm in the wrong, you're just as wrong as I am. Where is the difference? Should people be banned from editing just because they have different opinions regarding inclusion and deletion, Rebecca? Aren't we supposed to discuss these things? And even if we can't reach an agreement, does that mean one party should be banned from editing just because he or she has an opinion? And even if, in some alternate dimension, that was right, wouldn't that mean both parties should be subject to the same penalty? Everyking 15:34, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I want to discuss things and I have always tried to discuss. You have not&mdash;do you not recall ignoring me before? In any case, I have the right to revert within the limits of the 3RR forever if I so please, as do we all. I want to reach an agreement, but if we can't reach an agreement, I reserve the right to continue to revert three times a day. I demand that my basic rights as a Wikipedian be acknowledged and respected. Everyking 15:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually no, you have no such right. If you kept an article from being edited by performing, say, one revert per day to get rid of all the edits you didn't like, you'd probably hit problems with other editors before long.  If you kept it up and refused to stop doing that you'd probably end up before the AC with a view to getting you to stop squatting over the pot. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fine, Rebecca. I only want to discuss, but it seems you're just out to get rid of me for a reason I cannot even fathom. Disagreements notwithstanding, I have no desire to get rid of you. There is hardly anyone I've ever disagreed with that I'd want banned. Frankly, I can't even imagine having that mentality&mdash;I disagree with you, so you should be deprived of your right to edit. Disagreements are just disagreements, people have opinions, that's how life is. What do you want to achieve? What good will it do to force me to quit the project? Do you seriously think the articles would benefit from having me&mdash;the person who has written virtually all the content&mdash;banned from editing them? Everyking 15:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is precisely that you did write nearly all the content--because you refused to let anybody else's edits stand. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I've only reverted edits that removed content, Tony. What kind of logic is that? You think I don't want people to add content? Everyking 23:47, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rebecca, why do you ignore me when I say that I want consensus and compromise? You say you want me to discuss and come to consensus, but I've been doing that all along. So how can I do what you want? Will you please remove your request for arbitration and acknowledge my right to disagree with you regarding the issue of inclusion? I'm asking you as a person. I can't go on having the sword of Damocles hanging over me. I want to edit in peace. I can't stomach this kind of situation. I always assume that whatever disagreements people have, the basic right to edit remains&mdash;a certain level of basic respect for others is maintained. But you are trying to deprive me of that, and it is more than I can accept or comprehend. Everyking 16:06, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I only want the information preserved, Rebecca. Let's go to the talk page and start discussing a system of subarticles so we can shorten the article and address everyone's concerns without removing any factual content. I don't want to feel threatened; I don't want to think someone is out to get me. I want to think we have the right to disagree, and that neither one of us would take the route of trying to get the other banned just to win the argument. It is hell, absolute torture, for me to think my time as an editor might be coming to an end. Everyking 16:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We can of course remove quotes, provided it can be shown that the information contained in the quotes can be given adequately in another way, or is already given adequately in the text. That is not a major issue for me. What must be preserved in some form is facts such as chart data. Everyking 16:26, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request for help on Autobiography (album)
Ambi, could I ask you to take a look at the album page over the next few days and see if it can be improved? I've just had a conversation on the talk page and the upshot is that Everyking still thinks my edits are "radical" and says suggestively "I will have another three reverts come tomorrow", and asks me to revert my edits myself and "discuss" them. He refuses to correct whatever is wrong with them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:23, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This has all bothered me deeply. I'm not quite sure how to go on from here. You're going to be on the ArbCom, so please read this: WikiLove. I keep that link on my user page, because everyone needs to be reminded to maintain that positive spirit, including myself, but trying to get me banned just seems to be beyond the pale. I would really appreciate an apology for doing that. I'm really thinking maybe I should quit, arbitration case or not. I just can't deal with this kind of thing, with an atmosphere in which I'm going to have to feel threatened from here on out. I only want to edit in peace in a spirit of compromise. I don't understand what you have against me, I really don't. Can't you acknowledge my right to edit, even if my edits aren't to your liking, and my right to vote on FAC as well? Everyking 16:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "Can't you acknowledge my right to edit, even if my edits aren't to your liking?"
 * How about all the other editors? If you keep reverting their work, it's as if they had no right to edit. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:07, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Of course they have the right to edit, but anyone can make a bad edit. People ought to revert me if I make a bad edit, too. Everyking 17:09, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that you seem to think that every edit that some other person does is a bad one. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Apparently you aren't very good at determining what I think, then. I want people to edit the article. I was very happy when you helped me with the chart formats. Quit acting like this is me rejecting all other people's edits. This is about me rejecting particular edits that I disagree with. Why do you seek to deprive me of that right? Everyking 23:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are you not going to apologize for threatening me and trying to use arbitration to win a dispute? Everyking 23:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My position now is exactly the same as it always has been. And once again, I want an apology and a confirmation of my right to edit, to hold views different from yours, and to act on those views in my edits and in my votes on FAC. I cannot continue to edit here over the long-term if I know that a member of the ArbCom has got it in for me. Everyking 00:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going back on anything. I've always been open to negotiation about the quotes, because the quotes generally serve to support information and enhance it, rather than actually being the info itself. But with plain facts such as chart data, I am very strongly opposed to removing it unless it is just utterly trivial and nonnotable, and I just don't believe the chart data is. I mean, if I was to continue collecting chart data forever, yes, it might be, but as long as it's in the top 50 or so, I think that's worth noting. Everyking 06:04, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ambi, if you will not retract your belief that I should be banned and recognize my right to edit and vote as I wish, I cannot continue working here as a normal editor. Moreover, I believe that the degree of animosity against me and the bad faith that is always assumed by others means that continuing any kind of proper discussion will be next to impossible. When I try, things just seem to degenerate into personal attacks by the other side. Will you consider mediation, possibly involving the two other primary participants in this dispute? Everyking 10:36, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I want the threats and the personal attacks to stop. I want normal, civilized discussion. This is, however, presently not happening, and I feel that the other people involved in this dispute, including yourself, dislike me so strongly that they are not willing to sit down for a normal and civilized discussion. If I am wrong, prove me wrong by doing that on the article talk page, by ending all these petty threats and this talk of me being a bad editor, by promising to respect my views even if you disagree with them. If you won't do that, then I don't see an alternative to mediation. Everyking 10:52, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * But you started an ArbCom case against me. Don't you see what a serious, serious offense that is? How deeply that hurts me and concerns me for my future here? And you have not apologized for that, or for saying my FAC votes can be ignored. So it seems to me you do not respect my right to disagree. Starting an ArbCom case because you disagree with someone is just about the strongest statement you can make that you don't respect that right. Everyking 11:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You temporarily withdrew it? You stand by your decision to do it in the first place? Then I will not discuss this matter with you any further without a mediator. Everyking 11:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please go and reply on the page regarding whether or not you'll accept mediation. Everyking 11:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Donnie Darko
In reply to your question about material i just wrote, the mother and sister were on the plane that crashed in the alternate reality--Wonderfool 01:16, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * What plane crash?! Err, the one at the end of the film where the mother is hugging her daughter. If u say you've seen the film many times, maybe you turned it off before the end. --Wonderfool 01:36, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You make a good point. From what I gather from the film, the mother and child die in the plane, although this isnt clear. And would I be right in saying that the engine that falls is from the plane with those two on? So maybe I got it wrong, I only saw the film twice--Wonderfool 01:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * About the FAA's inabilities:from what I gather, nobody claims the engine because no-one has lost one. If the engine comes from the future then all the airlines would have their planes equipped with the required amount of engines. Think of this:even if the FAA found the serial number on the engine, and they pinned it down to the correct plane, they would investigate that plane and would find out that the engine is in the plane after all, as it hasnt crashed yet, and so they wouldnt think "aah, time travel" and would think instead "hmmm, strange". I hope this sentence makes sense :)--Wonderfool 02:05, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wishing you the best
I just wanted to congratulate you on your nomination (I'm gald I voted for you) and to wish you and your loved ones a happy new year. May this year bring you happiness and joy. Tony the Marine

Autobiography (album)
Hi, Compliments of the Season!

Would you be able to spare some time to have a look at Everyking's recent edit, reverting everything on Autobiography (album) since 12:31 yesterday with the exception of a redlink he had inserted and a single column update to one of the tables? I don't agree with this revert but would prefer not to restore it myself. I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look and, if you agree that Everyking has made too big a change in wiping out one day's contributions from me and johnleemk, revert it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:35, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * What do you think about carrying on discussion with me with the same hospitable attitude you have here? Don't you think that might result in some progress being made? Everyking 11:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mediation with Everyking
Everyking has insisted that I take this matter to mediation. I'm disinclined to do so - particularly considering the above dialog between you two, but it's probably worth giving it a shot as one last attempt to avoid arbitration. If we do do so, would you be prepared to participate? It might be worth keeping some of those diffs (like that massive revert one) around in case this does go back to arbitration, as well, as they would be handy when presenting evidence. Ambi 11:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think mediation in this case is more appropriate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you have said blatantly untrue things about me and have deeply offended me by attempting arbitration and then refusing to turn away from that path and back towards discussion. That is the basis for my remarks. Everyking 11:53, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You say I refuse negotiation, and that is about as false as saying it's night when the sun is shining. In fact, it seems like I'm the only one who has been trying to negotiate. You know all that. You only temporarily removed the request, right? So it will eventually be restored no matter what I do. Everyking 12:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My God, I can't take the things you say about me anymore. I have always said the quotes can be removed if they are superfluous. That has never changed, Rebecca! I have removed many quotes myself! Do you not know this? Have you not been following the article?! I cannot bear the threat of arbitration against me, Rebecca. It violates all norms of civility and I can't deal with that kind of pressure, with that kind of danger to me. Everyking 12:15, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you aren't going to retract the threat of arbitration, then remove the mediation request and go ahead with arbitration. I can't take the stress anymore. Everyking 12:17, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration. I would rather have it done with than have the threat of it hanging over my head forever. If I am banned, then I will just have to find something else to do with my time. It is all very sad, and more than anything it's sad that you can successfully use the threat of arbitration to get your way in a content dispute. Everyking 12:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Remove the "slander" if you want. I have no interest in mediation anymore. I cannot talk with someone when they have the sword of Damocles hanging over my head. Everyking 12:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I cannot talk with you when I have the threat of arbitration hanging over me. All threats and dangers to individuals must be removed in order to have a civil discussion. I want everyone to be happy with the article&mdash;why else would I nominate it for FAC?&mdash;I want to edit the article to satisfy their concerns, I want them to edit the article themselves to do so. I always have, and I have always said so. But I cannot deal with threats to my editing rights. I just can't. I would rather be banned than have to go through every day thinking about that. It's Christmas, and all I can think about is how a Wikipedia user wants to get me banned. That can't continue, for the sake of my own mental health it can't. Everyking 12:33, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because you've gotten me into panic mode and I'm tending to exaggerate out of fear. Everyking 12:39, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then why don't you disclaim the use of the tactic of a threat of arbitration in order to win the dispute? As I said before, please either do that or please go ahead and list me on RfAr. I cannot stand the feeling of limbo. One or the other. Everyking 12:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is all the hope in the world if the threat of arbitration is removed, and none at all if it isn't. Well, I suppose there would still be hope for resolution in a sense, but only because I would no longer be a participant on Wikipedia and therefore my opinion would not be an issue. Everyking 12:50, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I stand by my position. You have already listed me once for what seems to have been nothing more than mild stubborness and occasional reverting. If I am going to be banned for that, I want to go ahead and be done with it. I don't want you to say absolutely that there will be no arbitration, because one never knows; I only want you to say you will not use it for the reasons that you used it before. Everyking 12:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then it is obvious you do not want to discuss matters with me in a calm, nonthreatening, civil manner. Go ahead and write up your accusations, please. Everyking 13:04, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You already tried to use it as a first resort. I will not talk and I will not mediate when I am being threatened with arbitration. I will negotiate anything under the sun if that threat is removed, but otherwise there is no way. I'm just reiterating what I've already said. Just go ahead and write up your accusations. We're wasting our lives on this. Everyking 13:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rebecca, if you want me gone, I want to be gone. I don't want to stay and be considered a pain in the ass. If I'm a problem, I want to be gone. I said you should disclaim the threat of arbitration as you used it before, not absolutely. Everyking 13:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead and write up the accusations, please. I'm tired of this. Everyking 13:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have created the article Autobiography sales and chart positions. I do not believe it will be possible to resolve this dispute unless this article is kept. The compromise is plain: the info does not have to be in the main article, if people feel it crowds the article with detail, but it needs to be somewhere. If that compromise is not acceptable, then I don't know what on earth I can do, except just leave. Will you go and vote to keep the article on VfD? Everyking 18:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It seems that Everyking is now refusing to deal with me unless I take the matter directly to arbitration. What would you think about taking over the mediation, Tony, in which case I'll pull out of the article entirely? It may be better, as I think Everyking has it in for me now - I can come back into the equation if it ever gets as far as arbitration. Ambi 13:14, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have had a thoroughly fruitless time trying to reason with Everyking. He squats over that article and reverts nearly edit not his own. Since I never let myself get involved in revert wars and I cannot stomach his persistent dishonesty, I have decided that the best thing for Wikipedia is for me to cut my losses and have nothing more to do with editing that article and nothing more to do with Everyking in any context. Wikipedia does not need yet another editing dispute over a relatively trivial subject. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:38, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is still nothing on RfAr about me. I can't imagine why. You clearly told me that if I refused mediation, and I refused to talk with you, that you would take it to arbitration. You said it was my choice, didn't you, in your threatening tones? Well, I do refuse mediation and I do refuse discussion with you until you drop the threat of arbitration. I have made my choice! So why am I not going through arbitration now? Everyking 11:02, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, so you are just waiting. Well, like I said, I'm not going to mediate, so if that's what's stopping you, go ahead with it. And if talking with Johnleemk is what's stopping you, I'll stop talking with him, too. Everyking 11:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration
I have filed a case against Everyking on RFAr. Johnleemk | Talk 15:02, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rebecca, you stay silent on all this, but I think you can be considered fundamentally to blame for it ever beginning. Taking a case to arbitration against a user who has violated no policy just because you disagree with him over article content is entirely unacceptable and shows a complete lack of understanding of the purpose of arbitration, as well as lack of respect for community norms of tolerance and civility. I believe that you should decline to take your seat on the ArbCom in light of this controversy. I at least want to talk with you regarding the reasons for your action, and I'd like to be able to show you where you were wrong and why. Can we continue to discuss it? Everyking 14:36, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I cannot see how it is a user dispute. What policies have I violated? Tell me and I'll stop violating them. I am just an active participant in a content dispute, but it unfortunately happens that I'm on the wrong side. If it was a user dispute and not a content dispute, all you needed to do&mdash;all you need do, if you believe it continues&mdash;was, or is, tell me how to make it just a content dispute and not a user dispute anymore. John holds the position than I should be punished for some belief he believes I have, even if I only have that belief on a "subconscious" level. If that ain't grasping at straws, I don't know what is. I haven't violated policy, I'm just stubborn and convinced that I'm right, and I suppose that is just unforgivable. Everyking 00:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't want a start, Rebecca. Tell me how to make this so-called "user dispute" go away without me having to go away, and without me having to sacrifice my right to an opinion. You're gonna be an arbitrator, I suppose, so you ought to be able to tell me how to do that. And I still want an apology for listing me on RfAr in the first place. How many times do I have to ask? Everyking 00:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No mediation. I'm tired of the threat of arbitration hanging over me, and mediation is just one step away. Back to square one, with a promise from all participants that no arbitration shall be used to settle a content dispute. Everyking 01:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * If you're about to be an arbitrator, I think as a gesture of fairness and goodwill you should plainly state that I am entitled to my opinion regarding the article and that I am entitled to argue for my position and edit the article accordingly, with the same rights as any other Wikipedian. John has essentially stated that I must accept the views of others unconditionally because they are "consensus", and to me this is abhorrent and makes me a second-class Wikipedian, expected to continue working on articles but not permitted to hold an opinion of my own. I will not continue to edit under such conditions. Everyking 01:22, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Huh? You mean you're not willing to state that..? And you're going to be on the ArbCom? Everyking 01:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * If you, about to be on the ArbCom, won't confirm that I have a basic right to edit and have opinions, then I obviously have no future here. Tell me explicitly whether or not you will recognize my rights, so that I will know and can go ahead and make myself scarce in the answer is no. Show me that much civility at least. Everyking 01:38, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * All right, I'm quitting Wikipedia as of now unless my basic rights are confirmed. If you won't confirm them, please delete my user page and talk page and consider me gone. Everyking 01:46, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I did not say that, Rebecca. This has nothing to do with reverting. Everyking 01:49, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * This is about whether I have the right to edit the article in the same way as others. This is about whether I have a right to hold a position and argue for it. This is not about a right to revert infinitely, and that is not something I would endorse or want to do. Everyking 01:54, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I only want to confirmation that I have as much right to edit the article as others do, and that I need to be included in any "consensus" regarding the article. I want a confirmation that my opinions will be considered and not entirely disregarded. I do not believe that I should be able to revert infinitely, or in violation of consensus, and I have absolutely never believed that. Everyking 02:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. I can be included in a consensus. That is a huge step forward. I wish John would agree to that as well, but that you have said it makes me feel a million times better. Maybe I will be able to sleep better tonight. If we can just work on those grounds&mdash;that everyone's opinions matter, and everyone has a right to edit&mdash;then I think this can easily be resolved. I admit I am skeptical. I feel the arbitration listings put forward by you and John represent a fundamental unwillingness to accept my rights as a fellow Wikipedian. Perhaps I am wrong about that, as you would say, but that is how I have perceived things. But in any case, I cannot expect you to believe something (as John expects of me), I can only ask you to agree to practice it. Everyking 02:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute...I've already told you, everyone has a right to edit and an opinion. But Wikipedia operates under consensus rule; your opinion is just one of many that contributes to the consensus. Now, if this was a dispute with 60-40 in disagreement, you might have a point, but it's more like 95-5. How many people believe the album article deserves this level of minute "nerd gold" as David Gerard put it? Every time you put it on FAC or PR, people complain it's too bloated. Your opinion counts, but so does everyone else's. Johnleemk | Talk 12:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you intend to have any further role in the dispute/discussion, please sign the agreement. Furthermore, I think it would be a nice gesture if you would go and vote to keep Autobiography sales and chart positions. While it looks very unlikely to be deleted at this point, there are still more merge/delete votes than keep votes, and I think it would help the process of dispute resolution to have a clear majority in favor of keeping. Everyking 18:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to continue our discussion, but I am inexplicably now unable to access my Yahoo! mail account, so we'll have to talk on the wiki. What do you think about what all I said in my last e-mail? Everyking 06:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The right to play revert warrior
Ambi, I note that you have expressed the opinion on Everyking's talk page that "...no one, regardless of their views, has the right to play revert warrior." I agree wholeheartedly, and I strongly request that you convey this opinion to Adam, or better still, weigh in on these talk pages: As you know, I wrote the initial articles, and Adam has systematically reverted them without explanation. There is supposedly mediation pending, although Adam has announced that his condition for participating in mediation is that I agree not to edit the articles I wrote, which doesn't give me much to work with. --HK 15:11, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Talk:William Spence
 * Talk:Frank Anstey
 * Talk:John Dunmore Lang
 * Talk:King O'Malley
 * Talk:Daniel Deniehy

Commentary on dispute
Is there a page on Wkipedia like Historical disputes between users? I think you're latest one is a candidate--Newnoise 17:39, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You are a very busy lady! You don't get any financial benfit from this right? It must be tough to be an arb--Wonderfool 18:50, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC). Dont bother replying, cos ur too busy

RFA double vote
it looks like you accidentally voted twice on Anárion's RFA. you are listed as supporter #8 & #11. Michael Ward 07:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are a busy beetle, aren't you? Adam 09:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You really are insane :). I have a complete set of the biographical directories of the state and colonial parliaments, but I am travelling in Asia at the moment so you can't borrow them till I get back in February. You could find them in a public or university library. They are good up to about the 1960s but of course they haven't been updated. Some of the state parliament websites now have historical lists of all MPs, or you could contact the respective parliamentary libraries and ask them to send you one. Cheers Adam 02:10, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Further to this, I know the Queensland Parliamentary Handbook has a very good list of all colonial and state MPs back to 1859, with birth and death dates etc. You could order one from the Qld Parlt and scan the list into a form you could then edit (if you really have several weeks to spare to do it!). Adam 10:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Michael Danby
just wondering if you are able to protect the danby page from the reversions of Herschelkrustofsky and his co-horts. or is there some other action that i should take? Xtra 15:40, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Useful resource for biographies
See http://www.nla.gov.au/pathways/jnls/newsite/browse/refca.html#Biography Thought you might be interested. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Newcastle Earthquake article
Thanks for your comments about the 1989 Newcastle earthquake article I did. I was in Newcastle at the time (I was only 4 years old), and it was a scary time to be there, let me tell you. If you can add anything to the article, then please do. Cheers! BigDan 05:07, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please start mediating? - Andre Engels 16:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You
Are you okay? You left #Wikipedia in a bit of a rush. - Mark 11:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. PM me on IRC if you want to talk. - Mark 12:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rienzo evidence
Unfortunately, I don't have the time or energy to collect evidence of Rienzo's bad behaviour, although I've seen plenty of it. One of the problems of dispute resolution here is that the cases are heard on pages and not as discussions, so that dragging up evidence can be an enormous task. Still, Rienzo's day will come. He's only here for one thing, it seems, and it'll catch up with him sooner or later.Dr Zen 22:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ive added some. there is a link to an RfC against him in June which has more from that time. CheeseDreams 02:10, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ambi, I Need Your Help
Hi Ambi, I need your help in this one. Their are some unregistered users who insist on vandalizing my John Melendez article. I went into a lot of trouble in research and such to write this mini bio and "these" people continue to revert my work "just because they believe he's not worthly an article. I need help in avoiding a dumb reverting war.  Tony the Marine

Ralph Willis
I am currently in Bangkok and cannot edit Australian articles while away from my references. I will attend to it on my return. Adam 06:01, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Evidence
This has gotten to the point of outright harrassment. Your evidence page makes it plain that you still plan arbitration despite every concession I offered. I see now there is no way out. Everyking 09:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Please, let's just talk and edit. Don't make it a process, don't make it political. We can resolve this between us. I'm open to anything. Let's put whatever wrongs we've done behind us and forget the past. I'm willing to forget the arbitration case&mdash;it's forgiven, I won't breathe another word about it if you'll just try to resolve this with me. Tell me how to use IRC and I'll go on IRC. Everyking 11:25, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * My God, I don't understand any of that. I just emerged from the bronze age. Look, will you edit and talk, or are you going to try to make this a process? I've told you I'll accept almost anything, even an unfavorable deal. What more can I do? I even said I'd quit editing the article entirely. How can you try to punish someone who's already willing to impose such restrictions on himself? Everyking 11:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I can check my e-mail on another computer, but my ability to do so is limited to a few hours of the day. Send the instructions if you want, but I'm not making any guarantees I'll be able to figure it out, or willing to employ the brainpower necessary to figure it out. I wish you'd just respond forthrightly to what I've been asking you. Everyking 11:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What? Rebecca, I never outright reverted Vague even once. Initially I reverted about 80% of what he did; after he complained on talk, I saw some of his points better and restored a bunch of his changes, so now about 70% of them are in the article. I certainly am not engaging in a revert war with him...are you getting your information from someone else? Look at the article history yourself. And look, those subarticles got kept on VfD, so I now consider them to be confirmed by community consensus. I pledge not to create any more of them without first getting consensus, although of course I can't speak for others and I'd love it if someone else did create more, so I can continue expanding the content, but you have my pledge that I won't create any more myself without getting the consent of some other participants in the dispute.

I thought subarticles would fix the problems, at least as far as I understand them. It seems the problem was some people thought there was trivial content. So now that content is gone and it's in other articles, so nobody can attack the main article for having trivia anymore. It seems to me that ought to make both parties happy. I guess it doesn't, so therefore you have the above pledge, but I don't really understand why. Everyking 12:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Huh? Well, if you don't like the prose, work on the prose. I've always been told I write well, but that doesn't mean the prose can't still suck. It seems good to me, but I'm just one person. Why are we having an argument over this at all? I certainly have no objections to improving the prose. Everyking 12:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I reverted content removal, yeah, but what's that got to do with improving the prose? Everyking 12:33, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * And I didn't revert Vague Rant. Please don't say that about me again. Everyking 12:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Surely you agree that anything can be written well, no matter what the subject matter is? So apparently prose has nothing to do with it at all, it's the information you don't like. Well, most of the information you don't like is now in the subarticles, so we don't have to worry about it anymore. So what's the dispute? Everyking 12:43, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I never can understand what you're arguing. It always seems like the things you want were done a long time ago. The chart data was placed into chart format so there wouldn't be that clumsy prose. So what's the problem with it now? Isn't it fixed? And sure, I'm open to removing quotes; I've added many quotes myself in the past that I later removed. But I think it's reasonable to expect a person to make a proper case for the removal if it turns out to be controversial. (Please don't read into that that I'm saying I'll automatically revert unless it gets my approval, as you tend to do, because that is not what I mean.) Isn't this a tempest in a teacup? My position on this issue is very moderate, not at all hardline as you tend to represent it. Everyking 12:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am perfectly moderate. Never before seen lengths? An incredible claim, inexplicable...OK, Beck, I promised to limit myself to one revert per day, did I not? And I've stuck to that pledge, even though you falsely accused me of breaking it. I will concede that sometimes my reverts are a bit hasty, because I tend to get pissed off by the utterly massive scale of the changes. So I'll promise to be much more careful about reverting if you (and hopefully others) will avoid making such incredibly massive revisions all at once. Don't you think that in a dispute, it's best to work gradually? Everyking 13:09, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You never listen to me. I plainly said I was willing to consider the removal of plenty of quotes. There are a few that I'd be pretty hardline about, but there's many that could certainly be summarized or replaced by original writing. I can only work out differences if people are willing to talk with me. We've made a minor breakthrough just now in terms of willingness to discuss content, although that's just scratching the surface, really. Generally "discussion" just involves lectures about my horrible reverting while I desperately try to steer the conversation towards content discussion, rarely with any success. I nominate an article for FAC, don't you think I expect the concerns of others to be addressed? You have this strange idea that I reject all others' views, and yet I nominate it for FAC where I'm entirely dependent on the approval of others. Everyking 13:25, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Contrary to your assertions, I did a great deal of work to satisfy people's objections and thought the nomination had a reasonable chance each time I put it forward. Now I fear that the atmosphere is so poisoned that it may not be possible to ever get it featured, which is depressing and makes me want to quit, because getting it to be a FA has been my main objective for some time, and I don't believe a nomination should be shot down just due to petty politics. Anyway, I look forward to your changes; work gradually. Everyking 13:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Goatse on Wikipedia default?
Sorry to see that you're having a hiatus & hope you'll return soon enough. When you're ready, would you be able to expand on what you mean by a developer telling you that Goatse is part of the default wikipedia? I'm not doubting you, just wondering what on earth this is all about. --Roisterer 01:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everyking RFC
I have filed an RfC against Everyking. Johnleemk | Talk 19:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Charles Darwin arbitration request
I'm sorry you rejected the request for arbitration, but please note that content is only one of the four requests. Requests two and especially three involve wikipedian behavior. Request four has been resolved. Vincent 05:41, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary
Please don't address me directly, by name or comment, in edit summaries. "The proper place to discuss changes" is the talk page. That being said, I am trying to make the template more useful for all users, you could at the very least let people see it over the course of one day, to see if people think it's an improvement. Please do not revert it simply because of an ill-conceived notion that it is "property" of ArbCom. -- Netoholic @ 05:51, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

Ruling
I understand the arb ruling and what I can/can't do. I have removed the comments from my DrBat user page. Is this alright with you? --DrBat 20:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Back?
Are you back? I see you have restored your userpage. Somebody in the WWW 00:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you still going to be active on WikiProject Melbourne and other Australia cities? Are you still going to upload photos of stations occasionally (like you did with the Alamein line)? Somebody in the WWW 01:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * For a line, the Williamstown line is nice and short and has no pictures on Wikipedia :) (Plus you get to look at withdrawn Hitachis from the train). Or for something longer, try the section between Camberwell and Lilydale/Ringwood (I already have photos of Mont Albert and LAB). Your not the only one who is moving out of Melbourne. Somebody in the WWW 01:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)