User talk:DeirdreAnne/Archives/2008/02

A Fundamentally Unfair Course of Action Regarding Talk: Phil Hall (US Writer)
I am sorry, but I strongly disagree with your course of action regarding the user DoubleCross and myself.

According to Wikipedia: "Assuming good faith is about intention, not action. Well-meaning persons make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do."

The user DoubleCross gets a "caution" note for posting a completely irrelevant link to a hostile flamer thread on the IMDB and then threatening to keep reposting it, but I am getting a "warning" for removing it -- and complaining about his perceived trolling behavior? That doesn't strike me as very fair. I believe the proper course of action is having both of us get "caution" notices.

As it stands, this is fundamentally unjust and condones improper behavior on the part of DoubleCross while penalizing me for trying to prevent what I saw as disruptive behavior. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have clarified that "caution note" is equivalent to a level one warning at the Wikiquette_alerts and have noted that you dispute the warning on your talk page. Other users can read the discussion and of course you can elaborate (within the bounds of policy regarding userpages) as you feel necessary on your talk page.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Doug, I am politely requesting that the "warning" be removed and replaced with a "caution" note, which you applied to the individual who is the CAUSE of the complaint. Your judgment is harsh and blatantly unfair -- particularly your coddling of the individual whose disruptive behavior is the center of this complaint.

I have to ask if you know this individual and if you are applying a double standard, since your communications with the subject of the complaint is excessively soft and your language in communicating with me comes across as rude and condescending -- particularly in an editing fix of the Phil Hall (US writer) page that is clearly an act of juvenile stick-out-your-tongue sarcasm aimed directly at me (and you know what I am talking about!). Ecoleetage (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Doug, in regard to your comments: "I understand entirely, just let me know if you would like me to suggest some others to assist. You may also want to review the Guide to Requesting Adminship or seek assistance from Admin Coaching. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)"

If you wish to be of assistance, then please show genuine fairness in your actions by acknowledging "good faith" (which you are demanding of others but not showing yourself) and retracting your "Warning" that you improperly issued against me. Your decision was biased, unfair and unjust, and your refusal to acknowledge the obvious imbalance of your actions is, on its own terms, a smack against Wikipedia's good faith doctrines. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to address your comments regarded your handling of my WQA case, which I just discovered on this page:



The exact quote:

“WP:WQA: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Talk:Phil_Hall_.28US_writer.29_and_user_DoubleCross - only the initiator, who appeared to be a WP:SPA was active in the discussion while I was involved and when I suggested the initiator needed to review several policies and that comments on a talk page should be restored, at least in part, the initiator promptly declared the matter closed. I gave a level one warning to the initiator for several issues, primarily removing talk page material and placed a customized warning note on the other parties page for introducing irrelevant material to the talk page. I felt however, that the initiator had come asking for help but only if supported his or her position and needed to be told his or her conduct was inappropriate. Initiator complained both at the WQA and on my talk page that this was unfair treatment and that the other party was to blame, etc. In hind sight, I would not have done this but let sleeping dogs lie. I reminded the initiator that WQA is not arbitration, I'm just an independent editor and my "warnings" are not penalties and are certainly not "judgments". When I attempted to cool things down and offered to explain my reasoning in point-by-point detail, the initiator again declared the matter "closed".”

Clearly, you are not exercising good will, as per Wikipedia requirements. You are also bending the facts.

1. I requested assistance in a single paragraph, out of concern that someone who appeared to be a troll was vandalizing an article. This is not mentioned.

2. I disagreed with the restoration of the Talk Page contents because the point of contention raised by the other party, an error regarding the Pulitzer Prize, had already been corrected and I felt a restoration would be pointless since it would be calling attention to an extinct mistake. This is not mentioned.

3. You ridiculed a point I made suggesting that editors should have knowledge of the subject they are reviewing -- this came in a sarcastic comment accompanying your edit of a very minor typo in the Phil Hall (US writer) page. Your actions are not mentioned in your summary.

4. Your comment that I “had come asking for help but only if supported his or her position” flies in the face of the Wikipedia doctrine regarding good will. The reason for my request for help was clearly in regard to perceived trolling and not the need to be reminded I am correct. Again, that is not mentioned.

5. Regarding “Initiator complained both at the WQA and on my talk page that this was unfair treatment and that the other party was to blame, etc.” – my complaints clearly stated the other party was receiving excessively lenient treatment whereas I was being held to a very different standard.

6. Regarding: “In hind sight, I would not have done this but let sleeping dogs lie.” - On the WQA, you defended your actions – but here, you are stating this was incorrect. If this is an admission of error, then be professional and retract your warning and openly admit your decision was inappropriate.

I can say, with no degree of exaggeration, that this incident has thoroughly spoiled my enjoyment of Wikipedia. I sincerely wanted to stop someone I perceived to be a troll, and I received no help. Instead, I was treated rudely. This is very last time I am making a request for assistance. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think at this point it would be best if you were to ask another editor for assistance or take another dispute resolution course.


 * As for the comments you reference above, these comments were intended as note to self, not as a legal brief in my defense nor as a summary of your case for others to reference when they want to see how the case turned out. Your item 6 is not an admission of error, the warnings were appropriate - they just didn't improve the situation, they escalated it.  I would prefer not to escalate things in general.  You can rest assured that I will soon add links out to all of the dispute discussions and that I will not add any links on any of the dispute discussions to that page - that is not the purpose of the page. If you would like, I will even remove the link above that you have added.  Other links to those comments are intended for my convenience and the convenience of other WP:DR volunteers who may wish to see what cases I've been involved in; not for anyone who might be interested in researching your conduct or that of any of the other parties to any of those cases.  I will eventually add disclaimers to that effect.  If you feel that I treated you rudely, I am truly sorry that you feel that way; please feel free to list my conduct on WP:WQA and get other opinions, thanks. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Doug, at this point, any further examination of this case is pointless as the individual who was the source of the problem (DoubleCross) walked away from the dispute days ago.


 * I was actually referring to your dispute with me over the warnings. You might try WP:3O as another option.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I can understand your discomfort in having your comments publicized. To use the worst cliche imaginable, no further comment is necessary!  Ecoleetage (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not at all, feel free to put links to that page anywhere that it improves the project.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Doug, I just saw your edits on the User Doug/DR page, with this line added: "I also could have been clearer about the warning on the other user's talk page that it was intended as a warning against bringing in irrelevant and inflammatory material."

You "could have been clearer"? Then why not do something about it? Do you want a fair solution? Then why not issue the same Level 1 Warning to DoubleCross that you issued to me? This way, we both get the same smack in the face and we're even. As it stands, your resolution is unbalanced, biased and blatantly slanted in favor of someone who, by your admission, is not following Wikipedia policy. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand entirely the purpose of those comments. I have removed them and will try keep my thoughts on ongoing matters off project (yes, you can still get there from the diff). I guess the matter is not closed after all.  I stand by my warnings as written.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but the link to this case is still present, along with new commentary on why you are suddenly not talking about this case (which, if anything, would drive up curiosity on this matter). In view of this:

Warning

 * 1) [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, you should always assume good faith with regard to other editors. Making comments about the motives and actions of other editors [] represents a lapse in good faith, and the argument that such comments are solely reserved for your private edification and/or the viewing of a limited number of editors  is specious, especially when such remarks can be easily access by any Wikipedia editor and can create ill will with the individual(s) at the crux of your commentary. Thank you. --Ecoleetage(talk • contribs) Ecoleetage (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Re Josepha Marschke's edits
Just to let you know that I have responded to your request, here. -- Roleplayer (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, did you see that I had responded? -- Roleplayer (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan
The only connection I have to this article is that I participated in the FAC discussions as a previously uninvolved editor and did a small amount editing of it at that time - 16 edits - to try to help satisfy some problems that I and others observed. Happyme22 was cooperative, the FAC process went a few rounds, and most of my concerns were satisfied by the time it received FA status. Since then I kept it on my watchlist but made no edits on or about it until  I noticed this personal attack on Happyme22 and then, looking further, noticed this much  more egregious earlier personal attack by the same IP - his first edit under this IP address. The second relevant edit by this IP (his 4th edit, still before saying anything on Nancy Reagan or its talk page)  was to file a Wikiquette complaint against Happyme which was at best ironic, given the personal attacks the IP had made on Happyme. The complaint was rejected. It would appear, then, that this IP picked up where another IP or some other username left off, regarding Nancy Reagan and Happyme. (Perhaps - see similarity of edit summary after which that IP was blocked.) Only then, after his Wikiquette post,  did the IP make numerous posts on the article Talk page: a few of them were accepted, some were rejected, and most were discussed to the best of our ability given the volumes that were posted. There was no collusion or "teaming together" - we discussed and reached consensus on a few changes. One editor from the FAC (Karanacs) who was inappropriately canvassed by the IP (along with  six other editors) came to the IP user's talk page to say that s/he thought the complaints were not justified. Discussions are going on among three editors other than the IP about one very small matter, but in no way should it jeopardize the FA status of the piece. When this started the article had not substantially changed since its elevation to FAC other than a few additions and tweaks - I believe it is still NPOV and worthy of its FA status, and see no reason for any mediation, nor do I intend to participate in it. Tvoz | talk 08:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

PS- I would prefer not to move this discussion to my talk page - I will monitor yours. Thanks. Tvoz | talk 08:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The first to diffs you gave me were the same, could you provide them again?  I don't see this as so much a mediation of the article content dispute as a mediation between the parties as editors.  It may not be worthwhile, but I want to give it a try.  Thanks for being frank about not participating.  You will probably want to watch the mediation case page as well.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 09:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry - I fixed the diffs. It's late here!  I also clarified the above and added a few other diffs.  I appreciate your willingness to help out, and I will watch it - I think that Happyme's summary on the mediation page is an accurate portrayal of what has gone on.  Feel free to contact me on my talk or by email for any clarifications I can provide - I'm not trying to stonewall your good offices, I just think this is invalid and a potential time sink that has no merit. Tvoz | talk 10:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Doug; my story is very similar to Tvoz's and I won't be participating. I have two edits to the article since October, I have a grand total of 5 talk page edits, and I too noticed the personal attacks on Happyme22 when IP posted to Raul654's talk page and then posted false claims about me to seven user talk pages.  I can't be involved in mediation for every article I've supported or opposed at FAC, as that would be in the thousands.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that's ok not to participate. As far as I can tell there is a dispute resolution process and I have followed it appropriately, and there are further steps to be taken. I recommend that you follow Doug's advice and at very least monitor the mediation page as your edits and comments will be cited. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Doug, please see this post and my reply. Am I being threatened into not being able to use Wikipedia or complete my questioning of this article? Please advise. Thank you. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note this post is headed with the title referring to me as a 'stupid clown' 207.237.228.83 (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was a little over the top. I certainly do not think you are stupid, anon user. If you've reformed and are a far better person than you were when you were asking folk to 'suck your cock', well, then I will tender an apology for not being gentle and handling you with velvet slippers and whatnot. Go six months w/out accusing people of violations, and I'll gladly apologize. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Doug, please see this new thread. Thanks. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Doug: Happyme, Wasted and I do not agree on everything, despite the impression you've been given - but we have had absolutely no trouble working together, researching, making suggestions for edits, tweaking them, accepting and rejecting parts and improving the article. Everything has been discussed. Some recent edits came out of the suggestions the IP made, but some were rejected because no one else thought they were needed there. This process has continued right along, and the reason it is successful is that we are respectful to one another and we understand that the essence of collaboration is discussion. You can see it for yourself on the article talk page - and our interactions with the IP were perfectly civil. I see no reason to hold this article hostage waiting for what I consider to be an unnecessary mediation request - if the IP wishes to pursue it, that's his business, but meanwhile the article is being edited, and as I said, the edits accommodate some of his complaints. He wants 100% of his suggestions to be taken, but that's not how it works on any article. As for the Wikiquette filing - please look a little further into it: this IP had no history whatsoever on Nancy Reagan when he filed the Wikiquette action, other than the  "suck my cock" attack post which was the IP's first edit, so there is no way to know what he is reacting to, nor can anyone judge what his actions were previously when he must have been editing under a username or different IP. No new user comes to an article, attacks an editor as his first edit, and files a complaint like that, while pretending to be new (see his canvassing posts) - so if you're going to give a fair reading, I think you need to know what name or IP this person edited under before. Without that information, this is a one-sided attack, and that dishonesty is another reason I am not going to participate in it. Tvoz | talk 05:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Previous was posted before seeing your note about closing the MedCab. Tvoz | talk 05:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[out] I didn't mean that to sound as harsh toward you as it did - I don't think you wanted to hold the article hostage, I think that just was the effect waiting to make edits seemed to suggest, but indeed I may have misunderstood you. In any case - thanks for your even handling and your willingness to help out. I hope the IP takes your good advice. Tvoz | talk 06:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[out] Hi Doug. Just a brief note that I'm still compiling my notes. I have quite a bit together and have not forgotten, but with audition season, I'm pretty busy. I've got a good chunk organized. Obviously, I filed the MedCab request WAY too early and hopefully once the other editors see my notes they will understand what I'm talking about. I will post a link to my talk page here once it's all together, maybe this week? I know there's no rush. Thanks again for your advices. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks from Happy-melon
I just wanted to say thanks for your support for my RfA, which closed (74/2/0) this morning. Your comment and support was very much appreciated. Happy‑melon 09:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

MFDs
Whoops, I did forget. Thanks for catching that for me. --Core desat 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

re: medcab
Sorry I haven't gotten to you quicker. My mind's been in a bit of a vice ;) It's not a problem at all. Not sure if I'm really doing all that great, myself :) Feel free to come back in whenever you want. I'm refactoring the page a bit, and moving things over to the case's talk page. The set up as it is now doesn't quite work for me, although Steve did help get things moving immensely. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

RfD etc
Hi Doug, Thanks for "sorting things out" re: the Semiotic Traiangle. I sort of knew I was doing it incorrectly but couldn't figure out for the life of me how to place a RfD on a page that as far as I could see was nvisible. The whole point was that I couldn't access the Semiotic Triangle because there was a redirect that sent me to the Triangle of Meaning (or whatever the "nonsense" page was called that it redirected to). So how could I place an RfD at the top of that page?? Therefore the following instructions regarding the RfD failed to correlate to what was in front of me. Thanks to what I did though I've now been able to read the reasons the admin deleted the original page and frankly they seem nonsensical, even if they are "the rules". The merit of the content of an encyclopedia should surely rest solely on the content itself and not on the perceived qualities or otherwise of its author. Surely we're chasing after the "truth" not being sycophants to heroes? LookingGlass (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Thanks for moving this Doug, and apologies. I get confused. I rushed here hoping to hear your views :( I was going to add that you really could have deleted it and saved space.  Then  I realised I could delete it myself!  mmm  LookingGlass (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What you need to do is go to a page that is a redirect (not Semiotic Triangle because the redirect won't work while there is an RfD template on the page), try User:DDHME (my old username). It will bring you to User:Doug.  Then look in the upper left hand corner of the page, there should be a link that says (Redirected from User:DDHME), click on the link and it will take you back to the redirect page.  See if that works for you and let me know if you have any trouble.  Also, please see my last comment at the RfD you started and let me know if you want me to help you with the other issues.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

*Heh, not Semiotic Triangle because it has been deleted.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, now I'm confusing myself. Semiotic Triangle was the article which was deleted.  Semiotic triangle with a small "t" is a redirect.  Still you can't use that as an example above for the reasons originally stated.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doug, this whole thing is scrambling my brains and I'm not sure this effort is justified or going anywhere. It's like a river flowing into a desert. If you want to delete my request for their request for deletion of the original page by a redirect which was posted incorrectly on their redirected page rather than on the page that had been deleted by their redirection then great! And apologies if this reply to your reply to my incorrect posting on your page referring to their page etc etc I can't even really be sure that any of is what is being asked for. I am replying but as far as I can see it's like putting my hand into the whirring gears of a vaste noisy machine. I can't manufacture any sense of where the conversation regarding all this is even taking place, if there even if there is a conversation that bears on any actions. At the top of this, your page there is also a spiral logic seeming to suggest that everyhting is duplicated because the software can't keep track of things in a non-machine manner that would mimics in some way a normal human discussion process. Anyway, all I wanted was to be able to quickly access the diagram I found here (on the Semiotic Triangle page) once again. I am not coming here as a supplicant looking for teachers. I am looking for information. But instead of achieving this minor task I have become embroiled in an arcane discussion resembling for me some 18th century argument about angels on pinheads. If it ain't broke don't fix it but from here it looks shattered. Doug, you seem like a nice guy, you know what I'm on about, so I give you my vote! There. But what on earth is so complicated or "human right" infringing that it is threatened by simply reinstating a deleted page?? For that matter, why is ANY deletion required EVER?? THAT is the real question IMHO. A simply reference to another page would be all that would be required, that and the energy spent on convincing posters of new pages that their input might be added, appended, or referred to in a coherent manner on the relevant parent page - IF that is appropriate. All OF COURSE assuming that the entry met the basic quality etc policies. But deletion just seems plain wrong. My personal answer for this, as my perspective appears to be different from this Wiki community (which seems to me arcane) that I should save anything I find on Wiki that is of any merit to me either locally or using WebCite. I have found today that another page appears to have been unnecessarily truncated. I had gone, again quickly, to check the reference I was about to give someone to an entry on Wittgenstein, only to find that the direct quote of his that I wanted to point to had been DELETED!! So, I'm off an another repeated search. I'm not going to become embroiled in another thread on deletion. :( The burning books is a profound image. (Is that another dick-head comment?)  So why is deletion of the virtual books/pages here any less of a "crime"?  I am sorry if my frustration makes me a dick-head in your eyes and the eyes of your community, and thank you for providing a resource where people have posted some really great stuff.  It is saddening for me to find their work disappearing.  Even the truly greatest of authors had their original manuscripts preserved, sometimes despite their wishes, and scholars are grateful for the immense opportunities those actions have left open.  Now THAT is a difficult issue ;) LookingGlass (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC) p.s. How on earth do YOU keep track of all this stuff Doug?? Have a great day. May the sun shine in your heart amnd the hearts of those you love.

So do I reply to your stuff on MY talk page here????

First thanks for your replies (did you send them all today? I found them by accident, beautifully presented in Green.  Can't seem to find a way to get back to them though :~( at least not in highlighted green. Artificial Intelligence, THE oxymoron of our time (besides Microsoft Works of course!). I had checked the discussion page, and also followed the admin reasons for deletion. I take your point about editing, but the Semiotic Triangle was a good page (IMHO!). It was helpful clear and provided references and a diagram. It was the diagram, an original I think from maybe Ogden, that I am hunting. As for the closure of the RfD mess having no effect. . . ??? . . . well it means I still can't get at the original page (which is lurking somewhere I beleiev if only in a backup file) LookingGlass (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Eurohist Collaboration of the month
I drummed up a quick idea for a nominating system for collaboration of the month, to avoid this lag time we're having. Check it out.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear  13:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In (the) future
Hi Doug,

Thanks for correcting me on that one. I was completely unaware that US English uses "in the future" where UK English uses "in future". Live and learn. --Slashme (talk) 06:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

coordinator election
The Wikiproject History is going to elect 3 coordinators. As a member you are invited to participate. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:EH collaboration
I've changed it to Monastic state of the Teutonic Knights and added John's nominations to the nominate page. - Revolving Bugbear  23:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Cease and desist
You are hereby ordered to cease and desist posting messages on my user page. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Iraq
   WikiProject Iraq needs you!

Oceanography project
Thought you might be interest in the discussion started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oceanography. John Carter (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cabal
Of course MedCab is a cabal. Write to me if you want to know more. User 02-20 (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

confusion
I'm the one that corrected the page from the vandal, are you blind or something? Adrianzax (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And erase that warning from my page ... ok?Adrianzax (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem mate, It could happen to anyone, cheers ! Adrianzax (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I tell you what happen, some guy added "pie" in the text Here and immediately some other guys from other ip's edited other things, I tried to revert that but instead I revert to the version of that guy...LOL Adrianzax (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahah! Yes, I see. I could tell there was a problem and I fixed it, but then I got to trigger happy with "warn user" part. I should've stopped while I was ahead!--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your revision
Thanks for the reivision. I wasn't really paying attention to the content. Glad someone was :) phoenixMourning (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, I took the time to read it close - only because you'd tagged it as nonsense (it may well be nonsense, but I recognized it as the kind of nonsense that ABA-ALI would spit out) so I copied half a line into Google, and there it was! --Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Decker Brothers
Well, I can't see any real notability, aside from them being piano makers; if you can find some and add it, that would be great. I've recreated the article. Cheers, Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  22:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Doug, thanks for the help. I'm totally new to this (even though I've been reading Wiki articles and have been a giant fan for years now). I'll try to beef up the stub and put in some more reliable references. Oh, and not sure how to bring the whole discussion over to your page yet, so you'll have to forgive me until I can. I think I'll stick to editing articles instead of creating them for a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliwhale (talk • contribs) 22:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry, that was me, on the comment above. Forgot to add my name.--Eliwhale (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

copyvios
Hi again.

Yes I had restored some. I changed my mind on these because I believe Misterbee had done enough to offset the copying using his own considerable sources (books I mean). I definately agree that all of these people should have wiki pages, but of course not copied pages! Dapi89 (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks for your help. Cheers. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary for User:Cloudsdriftby
Not editing is not grounds for deletion of an otherwise OK userpage

Not correct, not even close; not even in the same county as close.

From WP:USER:
 * Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. It is a mistake to think of it as a homepage as Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. [emphasis mine]  Instead, think of it as a way of organizing the work that you are doing on the articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they are working.


 * Note the word "editor", not "user".

From NOT:


 * Your user page is not a personal homepage, nor is it a blog. More importantly, your user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion.

From NOT:


 * Wikipedia is not a social network such as MySpace or Facebook. You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages are not:


 * Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own  user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your resume, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. Humourous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace, however.

Any questions? --Calton | Talk 15:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:MFD tag
Yes, that was a mistake. Thanks for adding it.  jj137  (talk)  20:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

mfd closing
Thanks for the info. I'll use that the next time I close an mfd.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 23:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.
I appreciate your efforts to mediate. In parallel, I sought comment at the WP:RS and MILHIST pages -- the latter is because my research method is something quite common in intelligence evaluation and analysis, one of my fields of effort.

There was some good advice at both, and I just made drastic changes to Code Pink text I had written, against my personal opinion but recognizing I may be too close to the situation. If there's still objection to what I think answers Daniel's complaints, I'm not sure what I will do.

I'm deeply bothered by the interpretation he takes of WP:OR, and, if that truly represents Wikipedia policy, I probably will withdraw from contributing to Wikipedia. To me, what I did was legitimate research in many areas. Some Wikipedia commentary reads to me as if the only role of contributors is to paraphrase secondary sources, and, if that is true, I have no interest in doing so.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD closing
Gah, my otters I keep forgetting oldafdfull templates. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Other user wanting help from a lawyer
User:JLogan has indicated that he could use some help from someone who knows the law regarading the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Auditors pages. If you knew anything that might be useful, I'm sure it would be appreciated. John Carter (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AWB
I've approved you. Good luck! Scarian Call me Pat 16:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Undoing changes
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Rabobank. Your changes were reverted as the rationale was unclear, you may change them back if you wish but please tell us why. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

07:49, 6 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Rabobank‎ (Undid revision 189427295 by 210.215.116.10 (talk) please don't make changes to substance without a WP:Edit summary)

Dear Doug,

The changes were made because there was some information on there that was outright incorrect (and therefore not verifiable, so it's a mystery to me how that got allowed and you did undo my changes!). I did not provide an edit summary because Wikipedia has a good system and I am certain it can track the changes itself.

Regards, 210.215.116.10