User talk:FloNight/Archive Sep 2007

USRD Newsletter - Issue 11

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 21:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent Arb com.
Hello Flonigh, As I am only on Wikepedia in a very on/off fashion, I missed the recent Zero/Zeq arb. com case. As there were a few things in that case  which was not mentioned (AFAICS), I take the liberty of recounting them here:

As you might know, Zeq and Zero were strongly in disagreement from day One on Palestinian/Israeli issues, and for almost as long Zeq  was "fishing" heavily for private inf. about Zero0000, see e.g.: 

Then in May 2006 Zeq was first blocked indef by Zero for "deliberately revealed private information on an anonymous editor", I have no idea about  what Zeq wrote (it was oversigted?), but Zero0000 wrote later, laconically, that he had expected that Zeq would be unblocked. Which indeed he was.

SlimVirgin unblocked him:

However, remarks about Zero´s "real-life" qualifications remain apparently quite acceptable: ,. BTW, to my knowledge, Zero has never claimed anything about his "professional qualifications", except that he "for various professional reasons" is "using a pseudonym". (Also, I just cannot help wondering: what if I ever referred to other anonymous editors "lack of qualifications or professional experience" in an area?)

Secondly, Zeq was in strong disagreement (over the "Israeli Apartheid" article) with Homey, a "minor notable" in "real life", and starts an article about him, see:  Btw, I believe another user had started an article on the same Homey earlier; that article was deleted and that editor was banned indef(??). While Zeq got one away with one week.

Thirdly; Zeq was in strong conflict (mostly on the "Israeli Arabs"-article, I believe) with a third editor. Zeq then makes an article (a biography) also about this editor (who, unlike Zeqs two first victims, never was an admin). The article is Afd after a while:. But is is too late to "save" the editor in question: he has since faced tons of abuse on Wikipedia. (Indeed, in my two years here I have not seen anybody so abused, see: ...and look at some of the contribs.)

Well, whatever the outcome: I cant´t help having formed the impression that "outing" editors on Wikipedia is a very, very bad thing indeed, except in "some" cases (and I leave it to others to figure out what those cases have in common). This has not increased my respect for Wikipedia. Regards, Huldra 08:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your interest. As you noted the case is closed. I think we will take a wait and see approach before any changes are made to our ruling. Take care, FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month
NCurse work 07:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 12

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 22:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Rejection
I'd like to point out that I sought guidance in whether or not to post this as an arbcom case and was told that because the individual was previously the subject of an arbcom case for this behaviour Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration that it was unnecessary to go through the motions again since they previously did not work and even an arbcom case didn't temper his behaviour. I was also referenced a previous arbcom case as precedent for thisRequests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing_2 where this was the case. If this is not to be the case this needs to be clearly defined.--Crossmr 14:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That case is very old. This seems to be an entirely separate issue. IMO this user deserve to have a chance at mediation to solve their dispute with you. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The subject is different. The personal attacks and editing behaviour are the same. I've elaborated more on the rfarb talk page.--Crossmr 16:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied there as well. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to look at and discuss my point.--Crossmr 17:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but even with a third editor attempting to reach out to this individual and offering compromise he's interested solely in edit warring as far as I can tell. You tell me where with edits like this, and  and this kind of attempt at offering him a compromise  there is any evidence he's actually interested in discussion and this isn't just continuation of the same hostile and disagreeable behaviour he demonstrated before? He sits there demanding consensus that the individual be an expert if he's a self-published source, but then declares any mention of WP:V null and void in the discussion?  and this is little more than a taunt. I think i've been more than a good sport in attempting to maintain a professional discussion level with the multitudes of personal attacks and other uncivil behaviour hurled in my direction. --Crossmr 05:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I need to listen to you more and edit other things. I'll let the case work its course and hopefully other editors will assist in these articles.--Crossmr 05:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Louisville
Hey, I didn't know you were a Louisvillian! (Assuming from your Wiki-project membership.) I was born and raised in Louisville, although I moved up north a couple of years ago. I'm proud to have my fair city associated with such a thoughtful and fair Wikipedian as yourself. Thanks for all you do for Wikipedia! – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words. Actually, I live in Georgetown, KY, (originally from Huntington, WV). I've spent a large amount of time in Louisville for work and play, though. It is a nice city. Always good to meet people from Kentucky. And you do good work here as well. :-) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimaina Atlanta
Hello, Thank you for volunteering to be a part of the Atlanta Wikimaina bid southeast team. We are holding meetings weekdays at 7:30pm EDT in #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.org. For more information about IRC see Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/IRC. If you are able to make it, that would be great.

We now also have Google group for coordinating this bid. To get updates on the bid and our progress, please join the Google Groups mailing list at Google Groups wikimania-atlanta.

There is also a group on the social networking site Facebook in which interested parties can express their support for the bid.

If you do not wish to continue to receive these notifications about the bid or would rather they go to a talk page on a different project please change Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/Notify_list --Cspurrier 22:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

One very minor annoyance caused by one of the very best Wikipedians!
Hi, FloNight, I hope you won't mind if I point out one thing (I promise, only one!) you do that I don't like! When you add a comment to a talk page or Wikipedia page, you delete the part of the edit summary that would tell people which section it is. For example, if I look at this diff, I can see that you told Geogre it was an excellent answer, but I have no idea what the context is. If I want to find it, I have to either note that the section immediately below is ==User:LightningCurrent==, and click on that in the TOC, or paste a combination of consecutive words from your post into "find", so that it brings me to the appropriate section. However, if you look at Nihiltres's edit just before yours, you'll see a → sign, and if you click on that, it brings you to the appropriate section. Your comments are often quite insightful, so it makes it more annoying that I have to go to extra trouble to find out what you're actually commenting on! I wonder would you consider leaving the /* section heading */ in the edit summary box as a general rule? (I have to admit that I don't do it myself every single time either!) And while I'm here, can I thank you in particular for your careful examination of the evidence in the Abu badali case! Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I'll try to start doing as you suggest. I wish everything was this easy to fix. :) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

stalking?
Hi FloNight, I am concerned about the user that left these messages on Fyslee's talk page. He is not concerned but I don't like the looks of it. What do you think? -- Dēmatt (chat)  00:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 13

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 19:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)