User talk:Antelan/Archives/2008/January

Canvassing

 * "science-minded editors notifying each other about problematic articles like What the Bleep is not canvassing"

Sure seems to meet the definition of canvassing to me, good or bad. And, if you read what SA wrote in his messages, it sure seems to be "written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion." Dreadstar  †  09:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I thought it was perfectly clear that we were both operating under the "bad" connotation, based on your comment to perfectblue. (It was canvassed out to all the scientific, skeptic and fringe projects and boards...even tho it's a film and not a scientific article.) The rest of my point, which you can read in my previous posts, concerns that post of yours. Ante  lan  talk  06:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but either way, I certainly don't see where I was "hammering" on SA about it. My question to perfectblue was meant to see if she thought it was a suitable discussion for WP:Proj:Paranormal to be notified about, since she had specifically asked a question about notification on one of the boards SA later posted his RfC notice to.  The same logic applied to both groups; it is an article about a film where we were disputing the addition of WP:NOR, it was not a dispute about a science issue nor a paranormal issue.  Like I stated on SA's talk page, if you want to continue to pursue this, then please provide some diffs to back up that "hammering" statement and feel free to take it up the chain.  Dreadstar  †  08:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have responded on your talk page. Ante  lan  talk  18:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Of the 4 replies you've made to me, 2 have referred me to dispute resolution. I need no reminder that there is a dispute resolution process. As you know, I've been involved in arbitrations before, meaning I've seen the gamut of dispute resolution. Your repeated reminders only serve to leave a bitter taste from our discussion. Dispute resolution is a last resort - what we turn to if things fail. Ante  lan  talk  18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * These reminders are due to what I perceive as a series of accusations that you have made against me. I'll ask you again to provide diffs for your latest accusation that I "hammered" SA for canvassing.  Dreadstar  †  18:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Replying on your talk page. Ante  lan  talk  18:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First, my "latest" accusation is the same as my very first. Second, "hammering" was my description of your edits on his page. This is not an accusation, unless 'hammering' is a behavior that has actionable consequences on Wikipedia. Ante  lan  talk  18:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, diffs please - what edits on his page? "Hammering" is not a neutral statement, and can be construed as harassment.  And you'll have to pardon me if I find statements like this to appear accusatory - hammering is just the latest example.  Dreadstar  †  18:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I named you directly on that talk page for invoking a WP policy that had an explicit disclaimer making it clear that it was not applicable to our specific situation. You incorrectly understood the policy. That either meant that you weren't aware of the relevant pieces of the policy, or you were aware and deliberately chose to ignore them. In my good faith, I assumed that you simply weren't aware. Ante  lan  talk  20:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as I said, you have made previous accusations against me. You may be correct in your assessment of the applicability of WP:SELFPUB in that circumstance, but your view hasn't been shown to be right. That I believed you were incorrect with your accusation was made clear in my response.


 * Unless you can provide diffs of my purported "hammering" of SA, I believe we've exhausted this particular issue. Dreadstar  †  20:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that I think you consistently misinterpret many things, including WP policy and my own statements, and given my poor response to your interpretations, I think it would be better for us to stop talking about this. Ante  lan  talk  20:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Please provide the diff that backs up your assertion that I felt "harassed". I did say that I found your comment about what admins "should or shouldn't know" and questioning whether or not I had even "read over" the policy before quoting it, to be rude and insulting - but harassment? No. My comment about civility had nothing to do with the dispute itself, but instead your unwarranted insinuations. Dreadstar †  04:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually pre-replied to this very question on your talk page. Strange synchronicity. Ante  lan  talk  05:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 *  I read your post on SA's talk page, and I was going to reply with this diff. I thought that in this diff you were telling me I was harassing you. From reading your post on SA's talk page, it appears you meant that you thought I was accusing you of harassing SA. Had I understood that, I would have clarified that I didn't intend to accuse you of anything of the sort. It's unfortunate that we didn't interpret your sentence in the same way; I don't think the discussion would have turned so sour had we better understood each other. Antelan talk 05:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see now - yes a complete misunderstanding, you're right, I felt that "hammering" would make it appear that I was harassing SA when in reality, I don't believe I posted a single comment to his talk page and my only reference to "canvassing" was in my question to perfectblue. Man, we just don't get each other do we?  Ok, truce.  Dreadstar  †  05:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And...yeah, fer sure...Strange synchronicity...I was posting the above when you were posting your last statement here. Scary...sorta... :D Dreadstar  †  05:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's back up to the point where I said "have a safe flight!" and take it from there...;) Dreadstar  †  05:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rereading my original statement about 'hammering', I can see how you might have construed it as me saying that you were harassing me, so my apologies for not making myself clearer... Dreadstar †  05:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted, and please accept my apology for not assuming the assumption of good faith in the way I interpreted your statements. I wish I had been more thoughtful at the time. Regards, Ante  lan  talk  05:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I accept your apology and thank you for accepting my apology! Neither of us are such bad eggs after all..;)  Dreadstar  †  05:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fibromyalgia deletion
No, he has provided no citation. He simply states that he finds it "dubious." Djma12 (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WTB
I know people think I speak angrily on the talk page about that article, but I think you can see why today.Kww (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 3
Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good new year, --Elonka 01:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

RfM filed
A Request for Mediation has been filed on the continuing dispute over the lead section of this article. You have been listed as an involved party, please respond on the mediation page at your earliest convenience. Dreadstar †  19:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)