User talk:DrL/Archive/Archive 01

Compromise
I agreed with Hillman that he'd remove the personal info from the page pro tem, until we see the outcome of the MfD and the ArbCom case against Iloveminum, when we can discuss with him the permanent fate of the page. Until then, it's probalbly best to leave the dispute alone, to avoid any unpleasentness. --David Mestel(Talk) 17:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, David. I did put in a complaint this morning (to the incident board) regarding Hillman's edits on people's talk pages and asking him to redact those. I let him know that I would remove my complaint if he did. Will let go for now. DrL 17:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Blanking etc
Hi. I am really not bothered to sit and sift through all that text on my talk page, so I just archived it. I also did a find/replace, changing surnames so that they don't have vowels: in this way search engines won't pick up on anything. If you are still concerned, feel free to replace names with or something, but I'm sure "lngn" is pretty much meaningless unless someone knows about all this already. Byrgenwulf 16:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's fine - just concerned about search engines. DrL 16:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

stalking and privacy infringements
Hi, see the last part of my user page, in which I criticized CH. He now removed that page (but temporarily?), and it appears from your remarks that you already reported about it on th noticeboard. Where? I may add my comments to it. Harald88 18:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments, Harald. The incident report was moved here. If you wish to make a comment, I will be glad to move it back to the main page and add my own. I am not sure why my complaints were for the most part ignored (except for two of Hillman's friends weighing in). IMO, Hillman's behavior violates a number of clear policies. I see that this stalking behavior is a modus operandi for this user. I wonder why it's tolerated... DrL 18:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * At the moment it seems to be mute. If it happens again, just let me know so that I can comment on time. IMO such things are both against policy *and* against international law. Harald88 19:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I found the whole incident very bizarre. This user seems to be in an area of Asia with only limited Internet access for the moment. We will see what happens when he gets back. I hope he stays off my case and stops posting personal information about me (or anyone else). I am ready to file a number of complaints and go on record about this bad behavior (as you can see!).


 * It's sad that Wikipedia is degenerating. I found another tracking page on me. All this for the faux pas of posting a link to a bookseller in a citation. To his credit, this user redacted most of the personal information and did not revert my edits when I removed the rest. Still this is clearly an abuse of the system. DrL 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * DrL, I would like to suggest that you to stop speculating about Hillman's identity, if you wish to maintain a moral high ground (I know the reference is oblique, but if you are doing the same thing as him you have no right to complain). As I have explained to you, the page I created is for other purposes: your fundraising linking has little to do with the reason.
 * You're dead right I don't object to you removing personal information you saw there, because that is not a "dig page". I quickly removed the names I saw immediately, and you caught the rest.  So that's fine.
 * It is also in no way clear that this is an abuse of the system. I have explained my reasoning to you, and I thought we had settled the matter.
 * And although I am not particularly concerned, let's remember that your mate Asmodeus' hands on not entirely clean in this matter, either, with him having posted my details. Byrgenwulf 20:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you caught another. Feel free to do that. Only, I don't think that one is a problem, because it is talking about the subject of articles, not the editors.  But anyway, I shan't quibble.  Byrgenwulf 20:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you! I do have a question about this comment: Has created 2 articles which, if she is proven to be -, will be a violation of the arbitration committee finding. What is the arbcom finding that you are referring to? DrL 20:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * At the time that was written, it seemed that the four votes which had already come in from the ArbCom case currently under decision (or whatever the accursed jargon for that is) were the total number of votes (to me, at least). So, if you want you can change it to "pending" for the next week or so, or just ignore it 'cos it scarcely matters, does it?  But do what you see fit: if I ardently disagree, I shall revert.  But let's both try to be reasonable, shall we? Byrgenwulf 20:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't help. Is there a link or don't I get to vote :) DrL 20:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, in order to vote, you would have to get onto the Arbitration Committee. So, make about another 25 000 edits, suck up to the admins, play the crowds, etc., and maybe in five years' time if there's a similar case you can vote on it. And I'm damned if I know where this mysterious discussion is conducted.  Alternatively, you could just remove the statement or alter it. Byrgenwulf 20:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL, definitely not my style! Thx, again :) DrL 20:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!
 Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 23:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice to meet you! DrL 01:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 7th


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 05:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just-world phenomenon and Global justice
Hi - I notice you added a see also cross-ref from GJ to J-W ph. It's an interesting idea, certainly (and I was pleased to learn about it) but to be honest, I think GJ's see also section is already much too long - I was planning to start folding much of it into the body text. And if this gets added, consistency suggests adding several other issues from psychology (Milgram experiments, Gilligan's In a Different Voice, etc.). So, I wonder if it should be cut (or if there's some broader category of political psychology that the reader could be directed to instead). Thoughts? Cheers, Sam Clark 09:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You've done a great job on the article, Sam! I do think the two concepts are related in a somewhat important way. We do not live in a just world, but because of cognitive dissonance factors, we are compelled to believe that we do. In fact, the JW effect may contribute (more than a little) to the perpetuation of global injustices. That doesn't have to be related right away, of course, so feel free to edit it out. DrL 12:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hillman's talk page
It is good manners not to edit other people's comments on talk pages, especially their own. I would prefer if you would refrain from doing so from now on, since it may compromise our position in the negotiations. --David Mestel(Talk) 11:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a distinction to be drawn between something not being allowed, and it being permissable to remove it on sight. I don't think that the contents are too serious, since it does not appear in the first few pages of hits from "wikipedia "DrL"", more results from wikipedia.org. --David Mestel(Talk) 13:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would still like the information removed as it represents very bizarre and unprovoked stalking behavior. I would appreciate any advice that you can give me regarding how to accomplish that. DrL 14:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As always, the best way is to make a courteous and reasonable request to the user concerned. I will be happy to do this on your behalf, if you so wish. --David Mestel(Talk) 06:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you, David. I would appreciate that. Specifically, I would ask Hillman to redact his edits, particularly the nastier comments (he called me "wicked") and his conjectures regarding RL names, affiliations and location. Please let me know how that goes.

I really don't understand Hillman's preoccupation with me. It seems like he is making a mountain out of a mole hill (to me, anyhow). He (and Byrgenwulf) seems to focus on an early faux pas of mine (linking to a bookseller as a citation for a book) and harp on it. I already admitted it was a mistake and apologized for it (I don't think it broke an actual rule, though). He also harps on the fact that two articles that I created were inappropriate as I may have been a member of the organizations or somehow related to them. Even if this were true, I am still not sure this is against a rule as long as the material is verifiable and neutral and the organizations notable. Is it? I'd like to put my "crimes" in perspective so that people would leave me alone about them once and for all. TIA for any information or opinion you may have on this. DrL 14:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I will engage in negotiations with Hillman - they look promising. He has indicated that he would prefer if you could refrain from using the word "wikistalking" at this stage; I understand why you do so (since his dig pages are in violation of WP:STALK), but I don't think it's a good idea to unnecessarily aggravate him. --David Mestel(Talk) 21:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, David. Do you think it might be possible to move this into a more controlled environment, like the mediation cabal page we were using? There's so much noise on Hillman's talk page. Since he asked me not to post there, several individuals have posted nasty remarks. At this point I really feel like giving up on Wikipedia, which I suppose is the intent of Hillman et al. However, I do so hate to let mean, sucky people rule the day. They are really showing themselves for who they are, so I will try to have faith that that fact is obvious. DrL 23:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you, David. I would appreciate that. Specifically, I would ask Hillman to redact his edits, particularly the nastier comments (he called me "wicked") and his conjectures regarding RL names, affiliations and location. Please let me know how that goes.

I really don't understand Hillman's preoccupation with me. It seems like he is making a mountain out of a mole hill (to me, anyhow). He (and Byrgenwulf) seems to focus on an early faux pas of mine (linking to a bookseller as a citation for a book) and harp on it. I already admitted it was a mistake and apologized for it (I don't think it broke an actual rule, though). He also harps on the fact that two articles that I created were inappropriate as I may have been a member of the organizations or somehow related to them. Even if this were true, I am still not sure this is against a rule as long as the material is verifiable and neutral and the organizations notable. Is it? I'd like to put my "crimes" in perspective so that people would leave me alone about them once and for all. TIA for any information or opinion you may have on this. DrL 14:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I will engage in negotiations with Hillman - they look promising. He has indicated that he would prefer if you could refrain from using the word "wikistalking" at this stage; I understand why you do so (since his dig pages are in violation of WP:STALK), but I don't think it's a good idea to unnecessarily aggravate him. --David Mestel(Talk) 21:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, David. Do you think it might be possible to move this into a more controlled environment, like the mediation cabal page we were using? There's so much noise on Hillman's talk page. Since he asked me not to post there, several individuals have posted nasty remarks. At this point I really feel like giving up on Wikipedia, which I suppose is the intent of Hillman et al. However, I do so hate to let mean, sucky people rule the day. They are really showing themselves for who they are, so I will try to have faith that that fact is obvious. DrL 23:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 14th


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 06:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Blackcat-Lilith.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Blackcat-Lilith.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 18:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

DrL's Message Center
Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post. Be sure to sign your name and include a time stamp!

Auto-Archive
Yay! My auto archive is working. Harassment will be time-limited so you are encouraged not to waste your effort :))

re The Hillman Situation
Hillman seems to me to be showing a fair amount of good faith - I think that he can be convinced to remove the info. I don't think that nominating the Langan page for speedy would help any, since it's highly unlikely that it would be deleted, and would most likely be seen as precipitous. --David Mestel(Talk) 15:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, David. I will try to view the situation from your perspective and wait a while. --DrL 15:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Holiday
I will be on holiday from today until Saturday 26th August. I have asked for negotiations to be suspended, but if you have any problems please talk to Steve Caruso in my absence. --David Mestel(Talk) 06:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, David. I have really for the most part disengaged, except to work with you about the matter. Since I have agreed not to post at Hillman's talk page, I don't read it. I will wait for your return to discuss the matter further on this page or at the mediation cabal. Have a nice break! :) --DrL 13:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 21st


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 04:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy
Hillman has asked me to confirm that if an agreement is reached between us, and confirmed by you and Asmodeus, you and e will abide by it, and not begin further proceedings on the issue (assuming he keeps to the agreement). I have replied in the affirmative on your behalf, since it seems fairly reasonable, but do please tell me if either of you do not. --David Mestel(Talk) 08:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that goes without saying! Thanks again for your efforts :) --DrL 16:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought it would. --David Mestel(Talk) 18:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 28th


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 06:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Hillman
I think that the ball is rather in his court at the moment. The version of the page as it stands at the moment seems acceptable, as it is effectively blancked. On 28th August, he said that he would "get back to me to-morrow", and I'm waiting for him to do so. --David Mestel(Talk) 21:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, David. I would like to see the history removed and the page name changed. As you said, he can track edits in a more neutral way that is in line with Wikipedia policy. Thanks for your help. --DrL 13:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 5th.


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 06:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hillman's talk archive
Hi,

I have no doubt that you are a good-faith editor, but I am unfamiliar with the particulars of your negotiation since we last interacted. I protected Hillman's talk archive because, at the time, his request to preserve the record seemed reasonable to me. I don't wish myself to intrude on the negotiations by making a move that might be controversial now; however, you do have one thing in your favor. There is no Wikipedia whose innate fairness I respect more than David Mestel's. Simply have him ask me to do anything he feels is appropriate, and I'll do it. If his view is as you say, this should be no problem. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. I will continue to work with David on this and ask him to talk to you if Hillman remains unreasonable. David has been very supportive and I do appreciate his clear-headedness. --DrL 23:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 11th.


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 05:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Biography Newsletter September 2006
The September 2006 issue of the Biography 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. plange 00:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 18th.


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 05:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hillman
Hillman has indicated that he is not prepared to continue with negotiations until you have explicitly agreed to the following four conditions: If those are acceptable to you, please indicate by posting "I agree" below. Thanks, David Mestel(Talk) 17:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) you will not approach admins demanding that he be blocked
 * 2) you will not approach admins seeking to unprotect the protected talk page archive, or his protected user page,
 * 3) you will not seek to alter his user pages,
 * 4) you will abide by any agreement reached and agreed to by you, Asmodeus and Hillman.

Signpost updated for September 18th.


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 05:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hillman
Hillman has indicated that he is not prepared to continue with negotiations until you have explicitly agreed to the following four conditions: If those are acceptable to you, please indicate by posting "I agree" below. Thanks, David Mestel(Talk) 17:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) you will not approach admins demanding that he be blocked
 * 2) you will not approach admins seeking to unprotect the protected talk page archive, or his protected user page,
 * 3) you will not seek to alter his user pages,
 * 4) you will abide by any agreement reached and agreed to by you, Asmodeus and Hillman.


 * David, I can agree to the following: "you will abide by any agreement reached and agreed to by you, DrL and Hillman". Please find out if Hillman can. I am not asking for anything more than that from him and he really should do the same. Does that make sense to you? Please let me know if you think I am off-base here. Thanks! DrL 15:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems not unreasonable that you should agree not to go outside the negotiations while they are in progress, and I'm sure that he won't, either. David Mestel(Talk) 06:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes, I can agree to that during the negotiations. Please also ask Hillman to mind his manners.--DrL 19:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Btw, it's probably not a good idea to have Werdnabot archive your talk page messages after just three days - seven is more customary. David Mestel(Talk) 06:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * True - I have to check the history. Too many people have left me nasty messages that I prefer it this way. I am too busy to keep up, except on weekends. I'll change it when my work slows down. Thanks. --DrL 19:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 2nd.


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 06:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you help "babysit" the Arabian horse article?
Hi, as an active fellow Wikipedia user, would you mind helping me keep an eye on the Arabian horse page for a couple of weeks? The last several days, we have been invaded by an anonymous IP address who thinks Arabians came from Andalusians, keeps pushing the purity of Andalusian horses and running down Arabians (most recently calling them "African" horses!!!). Then, because of these edits, several pro-Arabian newcomers race in with "Arabians are wonderful and if you don't agree, you're an idiot" defenses, but don't revert the article back to anything useful.

So, I removed the junk, tried a couple different edits on Andalusians to try and placate the new person (to no avail) and finally just reverted the history section to my last edit, removed most references to Andalusians, created yet another controversies section with a cite to the only peer-reviewed article I could find, and put a warning on the IP address' talk page--where I was NOT the first (apparently the user also messed up the Morgan horse page).

I did a bunch of research on the influence of Arabians on Andalusians and put a summary and my conclusions on the Talk:Arabian horse discussion page for those who actually care. If we can tweak the article to be more accurate in some manner, that is worth discussing, particularly the question of the relationship of the Arabian to the Barb. Apparently the Barb people aren't fond of claims that Arabian blood influenced their horses, either, except they admit the Barb "originated" in the 8th century, hey, right when Islam arrived!

Thanks for your help. Montanabw 04:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 9th.


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 16:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Werdnabot error
I noticed your Werdnabot settings and what was displayed on your page were wrong. I have fixed the bots settings for you. Nwwaew( My talk page ) 01:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Examples of "Gaming the System"
''What follows is a textbook example of gaming the system. A user puts up an attack page and then sends warnings to his victims when they try to edit it (btw, you won't find the edits as the attack has since been deleted by an administrator):''

Regarding these edits  : Please stop. If you continue to blank pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Blanking pages is a form of vandalism, and the next time you blank the page, you will be reported. If you have something to say, please add your comment to the RfC. Thank you. Byrgenwulf 19:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This spurious warning was "archived" and this generated more harassment:

Since I have warned you about this before, as has another editor: This is your last warning. Removing legitimate warnings from your talk page is considered disruption. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia and your talk page will be protected from editing if you do it again. I think it is especially devious that you said that you are "archiving" the warning, when in fact you just deleted it. Byrgenwulf 20:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Update

 * Update: The page that I was harassed for editing has been deleted by an administrator. The above warnings serve as an example of how the Wikipedia system can be used to harass good-faith users. In this instance, one user posted clear personal attacks against two other users. When those users tried to edit the attacks, he used the warning tools of Wikipedia to further harass them. Now, finally that individual was warned and when the attacks were not removed, the page in question was deleted. Hopefully this will bring an end to the stalking and harassment and we can all go back to editing the encyclopedia :) --DrL


 * Needless to say, that's your interpretation. In my interpretation, the "clear personal attacks" were good attempts to make you behave more conform the standard here. The pages were not removed because they ran counter to any Wikipedia policies, but because the author requested their removal. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please give me a specific example of the "clear personal attacks" that I referred to that you think are "good attempts" at behavior modification. I'm really curious and will honestly consider your example(s). TIA --DrL 03:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 16th.


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 17:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 23rd.


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 06:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 30th.


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 05:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 6th.
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 05:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation case still active?
This case is still listed as "open". Is further mediation required here or can I close the case? --Ideogram 07:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That is fine for me. Hillman has been leaving me alone, thank you. --DrL 23:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Closed case, Hillman seems to have left the project. ~Kylu ( u | t )  22:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Cats project newsletter
Hello. Please find here a copy of the first Cats WikiProject newsletter. Please feel free to make any comments, suggestions, etc., here or at the project page itself. Thank you. Badbilltucker 16:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 13th.
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 05:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 20th.
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 06:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 18:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on the allegations [here and [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DrL|here]], I have added you as a party to this case. You may wish to present evidence, or at least keep an eye on the case pages. Thatcher131 18:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I guess :o\ Can you please review my edits to the Langan article and my comments to admins and other editors on the talk page before granting a Checkuser? I feel that is a violation of privacy since I have not broken any rules and my edits have been very NPOV. I think I really cleaned up the Langan article and gave it a nice flow, although it still needs a little work as Arthur Rubin points out. --DrL 18:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just a clerk at checkuser, I can't grant or decline requests. I suspect the request against you will be declined for the same reason it was declined last time; that is, just being from the same geographic area or even place of business is not sufficient to take action against a person, while action may be taken against disruptive editing no matter who the editors are in real life.  I would rather not look at your edits on the Langan article as I am also an arbitration clerk and I would like to maintain some impartiality.  If FeloniusMonk tries to make a case on the evidence page that you are a disruptive editor, you may wish to present diffs showing that you are better at working in the wiki collaboration method and have not been rude towards other editors.  Generally speaking, editors only get sanctioned for violations of the autobiography and conflict of interest policies if their closeness to the topic leads them to unacceptable behavior. Thatcher131 19:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this information and clarification. --DrL 20:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of WP:HAR
I'm sorry, but I find this a form of bad faith harassment. You knowingly asking an admin to "warn" or block someone on your behalf of without disclosing that you are accused in a current arbitration case of conducting a campaign of violating WP:NPOV at Christopher Michael Langan and of wilfully concealing your identity to skirt having to comply with WP:AUTO and WP:COI is a lie of omission. Lies of omission are an act of bad faith. You have resisted all calls to clarify your relationship to the topic or refrain from editing those articles directly if you'd rather not. Contributors are well within their rights to call out when other editors are apparently editing articles in which they have a personal stake, and seeking sympathetic admins to do your bullying demonstrates contempt for the community that belies any notion here that you are a victim. Indeed, it reinforces the appearance that you are hiding behind WP:HAR to side-step complying with WP:COI and WP:AUTO. FeloniousMonk 02:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely nothing wrong with my comments and I find the above statement to be out of line. Hal Fisher is an obvious SPA with numerous violations in its short editing history and deserves to be banned. If you honestly don't see that, then you should reconsider your role in this project. --DrL 13:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, what are you using SPA as an abbreviation for? I'm guessing it isn't Saudi Press Agency or Switched Parasitic Array, two of the numerous uses of that acronym. Secondly, when people ask me to block (NOT ban) someone, they generally give a reason. I see no reason given in your request. Please explain - thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you miss my question? Please reply, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I didn't see this at all. SPA stands for single purpose account, usually in instances where an account will pop up and you will see the contribs focus on a single article or topic. --DrL 23:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

...along with about 50 or 60 other things, thanks, my brain wouldn't give me context. What was the reason for your request for a block, please? thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 21:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Typos
Please show me the "typos" or withdraw your false allegations. Thanks. Guettarda 18:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There are quite a few typos in what you laid out. I guess I have a better copy editor's eye. I fixed the spelling of the word "proponents" and also fixed a lot of punctuation, which included extra or missing spaces, correcting duplicated references, formatting the references so that the numbers appear before the periods at the end of the sentence, took out a couple of extra periods ... so your changes rather than reverts will be more welcomed in the future. --DrL 18:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, look at that - you added a number of punctuation errors. My mistake.  I didn't look for your addition of typographical errors.  But why would you want to add such a thing?  Guettarda 21:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Temporary block
You have been temporarily blocked for violating WP:3RR on Christopher Michael Langan; see WP:AN/3RR. When you return, please work out edit conflicts on the article Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you give me the details, please? I was working in conjuction with other editors in a collaborative way. I am unaware of any violation and certainly didn't intend to violate any rules. --DrL 19:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR. Jayjg (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, Jayjg, but I do have a citation for my edit (changing "intelligent design" to "CTMU"). The plain fact is that FM himself provided the source and then misrepresented the content. If you look at the source material, it clearly lists the name of the lecture as CTMU, not ID (conflating them violates WP:OR). Please review your decision, perhaps consult another admin. I acknowledge my mistake and will elect to request a third opinion instead of re-editing the material if FM reverts. --DrL 19:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi there. As an uninvolved user who has the article on my watchlist I couldn't help but notice this exchangethat the paper in question explicitly mentions ID in the abstract - http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2002/1/2-3/langan_ctmu.php. Am I missing something here? JoshuaZ 02:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. I am referring to a different source. --DrL 04:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * DrL, which source are you referring to? JoshuaZ 15:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Noted
Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist/Workshop

Signpost updated for November 27th.
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 01:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR at Christopher Michael Langan
Hi, you've been reported for violating the 3RR rule at Christopher Michael Langan and have been blocked for 24 hours. Please note that any future blocks are likely to be for longer. Try to reach a compromise on the talk page instead of continually restoring the material you favor, and please review the 3RR rule carefully, because any revert in whole or in part, whether involving the same material or different material each time, is a violation of the rule. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The article in question was locked and I had not made any edits for some time anyhow. Blocking for 3RR is supposed to be preemptive rather than punitive (per the policy). I was unaware of having performed a fourth revert and suspect that this is a somewhat bogus complaint. Please note that I am an involved party in an arbitration and this complaint was purposefully made in order to prevent me from participating. --DrL 16:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, now I see that it is Felonious Monk, who is also an involved party in the arbitration that placed this complaint. Please note that I replaced the link to the Popular Science article, a legitimate source, that has been in the Langan article for some time. It had been removed without comment. I did not commit 3 reverts at all on that article in the 24 hour period in question. Because of the ongoing arbitration, in which I would very much like to be able to defend myself, I would appreciate it if this error could be corrected immediately. --DrL 17:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, SlimVirgin and Xoloz, for unblocking me. I am trying to post to the arbitration but am still blocked. Does this take a while? --DrL 18:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's probably the autoblocker (which kicks in if you try to edit when blocked, and blocks your IP). I'm trying to find the block and remove it (though for some reason it's being v..e..r..y s..l..o..w).  Guettarda 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm - either someone else got to it first or it isn't an autoblock. Guettarda 18:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I still can't edit and it is a little frustrating. Especially since my block was actually given for simple editing, not reverting. I moved a sentence for flow and then replaced 3 long-standing sources that had been removed from the article with no reason given (the popsci article, the Errol Morris documentary and the PCID paper). By the way, if you care to examine the edit history you will discover that I was not the first person to introduce any of the material in the article. You may find that hard to believe since everyone seems to have the erroneous idea that I am editing solely for the purpose of promoting Langan and his work, but that is the truth. I leave it to other editors to introduce new content and just try to preserve a balance and neutal POV. I really wish that someone would take an unbiased look at my edit history in that article. --DrL 18:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I found it now (I was searching for User:DrL, and apparently the tool wants just DrL. You should be able to edit now.  Guettarda 18:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you edit now? Guettarda 18:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't think of you as a pov-pushing edit warrior. I realise that the alternative constitutes a failure to assume good faith, and for that I must apologise. Guettarda 19:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies are meaningless without behavioral change. I hope you have edited your inappropriate comments to Rubin's talk page and will be mre careful in the future. Let's all try harder to AGF ... --DrL 18:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Apologies
Looks like you and I both are going to get whacked by the arbcom!

So, in the hope of a reprieve, I'm sorry for revealing your true identity&trade;.

Like Superman, you have a right to keep it secret.

I shall refer to you as Lois Lanegan, from now on to avoid confusion. Haldane Fisher 11:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Privacy Violations and Other Harassment
is unacceptable. If you have an issue with such comments get an uninvolved admin to remove the comments. JoshuaZ 19:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy such violations are subject to immediate removal by anyone. --DrL 19:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * WP isn't a poilcy, it is a prefix. What do you mean by WP? (I don't think you mean WP:WP because that's just the general shortcut list). JoshuaZ 19:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for looking after my user page! Tim Smith 03:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, Tim - thanks for weighing in on the arbitration. --DrL 17:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed decision
I'm sorry, but only arbitrators may vote or comment on the proposed decision page. You may may comments on the talk page if you wish. Thatcher131 17:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, thx. --DrL 17:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering why you proposed that I edit in a disruptive way. I stick to verifiable facts and encourage others not to post opinion and conjecture or misrepresent sources. I would appreciate it if you would examine my actual edits and tell me which ones you feel are disruptive and why. I just don't think you will find any truly improper edits. If there is something specific in my editing behavior that you can point out to me then I can consider your feedback. Otherwise it is too vague to be helpful. --DrL 17:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is based on your aggressive pattern of editing which mimics that expected of the subject if he were aggressively editing his own article. Fred Bauder 18:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand, Fred. DrL is not Christopher Michael Langan, and if it turns out to be necessary, that can be proven. Would you by any chance mean her defensive pattern of editing in response to the even more aggressive offensive editing of the article by others, dating all the way back to Byrgenwulf's addition of "crank" and "pseudoscience" categories to the CTMU and/or Langan articles? I apologize if this seems impertinent, but I think it's an important distinction to make. Asmodeus 18:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.
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 05:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Dog sites
I acknowledge the difficulty in defining the difference between "commercial", "non-profit", "volunteer", and all the other variant forms of sites. But, based on the criteria at WikiProject Dog breeds, the two sites in question seem to me (someone who, regretably, knows a LOT less than he should) that these two sites qualify for inclusion on the basis of their "external links" qualifications on the bottom of their project page. The Dog breeds project is the older of the two extant dog-related projects, and I imagine that the data is included based on their standards. They would probably be the ones who would know best whether these sites qualify as commercial or not, but I tend to think that they probably primarily qualify as "non-profit" or "volunteer" or similar. Badbilltucker 18:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Asmodeus is indefinitely banned from editing Christopher Michael Langan and all related articles including but not limited to: Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, Crank (person), and Academic elitism. He may make suggestions on talk pages if he is not disruptive. Asmodeus is also placed on probation indefinitely and is cautioned to be courteous to other users. He may be banned from any article, talk page, or subject area which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing or incivility. All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern. Haldane Fisher and Hal Fisher are banned indefinitely. FeloniousMonk is counseled to consult with other administrators with respect to disruptive users and to cooperate with them in a collegial way. ScienceApologist is counseled to be more patient and diplomatic with users who may edit their own article or advance original research. Bans imposed by this decision may be enforced by appropriate blocks. All blocks to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 17:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, DrL ... as I've said over on Asmodeus' page -- I'm outta here. There's no way I'm going to contribute my time and expertise to anything that can produce decisions as preposterous as the remedies of this arbitration did. Cheers. -- QTJ(Talk) 11:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 11th.
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 04:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 18th.
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 06:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Another attempt to fix Werdnabot
Create intermediate page User talk:DrL/Archive. JRSpriggs 08:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To DrL: As you can see from the revision history, I have tried several times to get Werdnabot working on your talk page again. I have no special access to Werdnabot itself, but I have helpped several other people with it. (1) I tried moving Tractatus to the archive, in case the great size of the first section (without any time stamps) was preventing Werdnabot from reaching the second section to archive it. However, you reverted my change before I could find out whether that was the problem. (2) I guessed that the absence of an intermediate file between your user page and the archive could be preventing Werdnabot from verifying that the archive was a subpage of your user page (which is a new requirement for archiving to work). So I created such an intermediate page, but that did not work. (3) I changed the "_" in the archive's file name in your invokation to " " just in case Werdnabot had been changed in a way which resulted in it not recognizing that they are equivalent (it is very picky about file names), but that also did not work. (4) Finally, I just took out your Werdnabot invokation and re-installed it, in case there was some problem in the invokation which was not obvious to me. That finally succeeded as you can see. Werdnabot has now archived your page again. I hope that this helps. JRSpriggs 07:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, it occurrs to me that you could make editting your user page easier while keeping Tractatus visible here. You could move Tractatus to a subpage (perhaps the one I created, see above). Then replace it here by a template which would give the appearance of having it here, but would not make the page so long when editting the page. Put in "" for example. JRSpriggs 07:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th.
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 07:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
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 07:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
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 06:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.
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 05:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
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 06:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
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 17:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I'm Ral315, editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost. It appears that you have not edited in at least three weeks. To avoid spamming your talk page any further, should you be on leave, your name has been removed from the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to continue receiving the spamlist, please leave a note on my talk page to that effect, and I will restore your name, and keep you on the list indefinitely. Ralbot 08:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies
Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 20:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter
The March 2007 issue of the Biography 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. Mocko13 22:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Section on lawsuit
Just wanted to let you know that I have made some edits of the entry on Chris Langan, and some comments in the talk page, and that I am currently attempting (in the face of resistance) to remove the section on the lawsuit. FNMF 01:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You may additionally be interested in this and this. On the other hand, you may have lost all interest in Wikipedia. Anyway, thought I should at least leave a note. FNMF 08:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy lessons from the Langan entry
For an account of what I believe are important policy issues arising from the problems with the Christopher Michael Langan entry, see here. FNMF 03:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you missed it, see the reply by Jimbo Wales to the comment by Asmodeus. Mr Wales makes clear he believes the block by FeloniousMonk of FNMF was unwarranted. He also suggests an RfC. My feeling is that if Asmodeus and yourself would like to have the ruling banning you from editing the Langan entry rescinded, now might be a favourable time to get the ball rolling. Of course, it's a huge mountain to climb, but the material which has accrued in the last week adds further weight to the argument (specifically, by the clarity with which Mr Wales has explained the gravity of NOR and BLP violations in relation to the Langan entry). At least if you undertake such a process now, involved users will know that Mr Wales could well be paying attention. But, again, the effort required would be Herculean, if not Sisyphean. FNMF 23:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

An RfC?
Hi. I am volunteering to assist you for a little bit if you are interested in organizing an RfC for wide Wikipedia comment on the issue you brought to our attention here. I think it would be useful for the whole Wikipedia community to examine the issue you bring. Maybe not; what do you think? You could 1) just appeal your situation, or you could 2) generate a useful Wikipedia discussion on the role of "verifying the truth of assertions" in Wikipedia pages -- or some other phrase that you see as the general issue for which your particular complaint is a specific example. Can we have a little discussion about that here? I will check your TalkPage every day or so. Good to meet you. --Rednblu 02:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

---

We might have a conversation here about what should be done. But we should keep in mind that everyone will be listening. So in the process, we would have to keep that in mind. Does that make sense? --Rednblu 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Some ideas for structuring a calm, pleasant, and informative RfC are posted here. --Rednblu 15:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Previous AfD vote
Hi. You previously voted in an AfD for Tim Bowles. Would you please pop over to Articles for deletion/Tim Bowles (3rd nomination) and give us your input again? Thanks. --Justanother 20:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography 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 BetacommandBot 18:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Invite


Gregbard 04:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC).