User talk:Idag/Archive 3

Third opinion project
Your request for a third opinion has been edited to comply with Third opinion. If your entry as originally worded contained information vital to an understanding of the dispute, please add those details to the article talk page where the dispute exists. Thanks. — Athaenara ✉  07:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks :-) Idag (talk) 07:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :-) — Athaenara ✉  07:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Removing uncivil remark
Hi Idag,

Thanks for removing the remark about me being a willing tool of the ARI. Anyone who searched my name on the web would see I'm not associated with the ARI, and often though not always have disagreed with things they have said and done. They would hardly consider me an objectivist for that matter. Anyways, thanks! Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No prob =) I know where you're coming from, we had an anon on the Fourteenth Amendment page who gave us all giant headaches till half the editors quit in exasparation.  Idag (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I just added my support on the incident report page. Hope you guys get the help you deserve! I'm working on other things but I'll keep an eye on the case to see if I can provide additionl support through comments. Ethan a dawe (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you much. Hopefully we can get this thing sorted out so we can make reasonable edits in peace.  Idag (talk) 02:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Certify
Sure! Ethan a dawe (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll do it in a few hours when I get a break. I appreciate your effrots by the way! Ethan a dawe (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

CheckUser
I posted this on TallNapoleans page too. I think a CheckUser should be submitted on lilith. She sounds very much like Edward, or Bert trying to sound like Edward. Given the number of Socks that regualarly poop up on Ayn Rand (see my user page, section 4) it isn't suprising that it would happen again. What do you think? If they aren't, then that's fine, I'll appologize, but I'm fairly confident we are seeing old block freinds return with fresh insults. I've seen socks argue with socks who turned out to be them. Are you up for filling the reuest out, or shall I? Ethan a dawe (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

RFC on Lilith
Here it is. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ayn Rand
Thanks for your improvement to my edit of the "homosexuality" portion of the Ayn Rand article. — DAGwyn (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Ayn Rand/Raymond Boisvert
As a contributor to the discussion on whether or not to included Raymond Boisvert's criticism in the Ayn Rand article, your input is currently requested at the Request for Comments on this question. Thanks. Macduff (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Conservapedia's fixation on homosexuality
I had trouble parsing your post on Talk:Conservapedia at first, until I realized that you misinterpreted me. I thought you were being rude and dismissive, but now I realize what you meant. When I said "This is just hearsay;" I was referring to my assertion that the statistics were faked, not the facts in the article. Sorry for not being clear! &laquo; plushpuffin  ( talk // contribs ) 01:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Industry-crushing
This was a mistake, right? Cool Hand Luke 14:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Avalanche
I have brought the latest edits to the attention of a third party. I await his action, and will revert the Seddon edit myself, if not more, if necessary. Kja er (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference issue
Hi, your citation has a typo. I didn't fix it because I'm hoping that we can all agree, at some point, to stop adding these "criticisms" of Ayn Rand's philosophy (or literature, or life-style) that amount to "she is evil" or "her philosopy is preachy" or "she doesn't understand human nature" - these are all too much ad hominem or non-specific - hence, not encyclopedia article material. No matter how notable the person, it isn't a criticism of her philosophy that should be taken seriously or reported if it isn't even something that a History of Philosophy 101 prof could give at least a "D" to as a one or two sentence statement of a critical concept. Where is the part that says, "her understanding of human nature is in error because she says x, instead of y"? Where is the meat in that sandwich? Best Wishes, --Steve (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ayn Rand
Hi, you are doing great work on the Rand article. However, the introduction has been damaged a lot, mainly because the continuous reversions since my rewrite yesterday have left footnotes in the wrong place, sentences removed because apparently out of context after poor edits and so on. I have not attempted a reconstruction, but I have left some notes on the talk page. There is one person there (I am sure you know who I mean) who tends to insert poorly-thought and poorly-worded edits without regard for overall meaning or flow. Best Peter Damian (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed that. I was going to fix it, but then decided to wait for the RFC to finish so that the article will stabilize somewhat. Idag (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

RfM
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Request for arbitration
Hey Idag,

Thanks for the invitation--but I just read over the entire Talk page for Ayn Rand, and that's about as much as I can handle. I am really not interested in being a party here and would prefer to be left off. I could go into some detail, besides just the "I really don't have the time for this" (which is true), but that may not be so relevant; suffice it to say that I can live in and be happy in Wikipedia without ever touching that subject matter. My one edit (OK, maybe two) to the article were only grammatical anyway. Please advise on how I get left out of this. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and good luck! Drmies (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation
Thanks for spotting the omission. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

RfAr
Hi Idag, you might want to mention in your RfAr that the mediation couldn't go ahead because Steve and Kjaer wouldn't sign up for it. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You also need to notify the parties.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 22:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Idag, I only just saw your note about posting notifications. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 06:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries =) Idag (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the notification: []. I read the arbitration article you referred to and remain confused. What am I supposed to do now? Syntacticus (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem =). I think the next step is you get a chance to make a statement about what you think is going wrong in the article.  I'm trying to avoid putting words in your mouth, so the best I can do is just to tell you to tell the administrators what you think is going wrong.  Idag (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 00:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand arbitration evidence
Please make note of the message posted on the evidence talk page regarding the need for supporting evidence. This is a general courtesy note being left for all editors who have submitted evidence in the case. Be well, --Vassyana (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hola, Idag. I've just been trawling through the fun and games at Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand/Evidence and noticed you had identified me an Objectivist! I assure you nothing could be further from the truth - I am a raging subjectivist of the Kierkegaardian mold. If you wouldn't mind refactoring this I would quite appreciate it. Cheers, Skomorokh  23:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Admin award
Thanks for placing the admin award on my talk page. I'm not sure I did anything to help, but I stand by my assessment that the body of administrators as a whole have both let down that article and its editors for avoiding the difficulties of trying to sort it out in favour of the "easy work". With the number of admins on wikipedia, it is almost scandalous that only myself and slp1 were moved enough to try to deal with it all, and it confirms some ideas I have about what is wrong with the entire site, though I'd love to have them be proved wrong. DDStretch   (talk)  19:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. If you think about it, all of these disputes are about a few lines in a gigantic article that don't really make much of a difference in the overall article.  Hopefully this ArbCom thing will encourage more admins to do what you did and keep the kettle from boiling over. Idag (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't find the barnstar
I tried to find the Barnstar of St Jude, but no one has created it yet! You might like to suggest to the wunderkid that he deletes his most recent comments and apologises. Without that I doubt there is much chance of him avoiding the proposed sanctions. I thought of suggesting it to him directly but I doubt it would go down well. Its water off the duck's back to me, and if he asks politely I will tell him that I see my work in the tradition of the American pragmatists and that while I like the poetry of the transcendentalists I don't find their philosophy of particular interest. If he strikes out the invective I will happily post support for your proposal. However one of your statements is wrong, he has indulged in abuse on the talk pages, and his main page edits on other articles have all been reversed as vandalism (my father lent a dollar to Elvis being one example). Good luck anyway, WIkipedia needs people like you prepared to rehabilitate the incorrigible. --Snowded (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I just figured the proposed remedy was a bit extreme for someone who's completely new to this thing.  Idag (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Have stated support for your proposal. Good luck!  --Snowded (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks =) Idag (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Good luck
on mentoring one of the editors. I just noticed why it's probably a good idea that he gets one soon. J Readings (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand
The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.


 * is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
 * and are banned from editing  and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for one year.
 * is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for six months. is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for six months, but is free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
 * and are banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for three months, but are free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
 * is reminded that article talk pages are for content discussion and encouraged to broaden his content contributions.

In the event that any user mentioned by name in this decision engages in further disruptive editing on Ayn Rand or any related article or page (one year from the date of this decision or one year from the expiration of any topic ban applied to the user in this decision, whichever is later), the user may be banned from that page or from the entire topic of Ayn Rand for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator or have any other remedy reasonably tailored to the circumstances imposed, such as a revert limitation. Similarly, an uninvolved administrator may impose a topic ban, revert limitation, or other appropriate sanction against any other editor who edits Ayn Rand or related articles or pages disruptively, provided that a warning has first been given with a link to this decision.

Both experienced and new editors on articles related to Ayn Rand are cautioned that this topic has previously been the subject of disruptive editing by both admirers and critics of Rand's writings and philosophy. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics like this one, it is all the more important that all editors adhere to fundamental Wikipedia policies. They are encouraged to make use of the dispute resolution process, including mediation assistance from Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee, in connection with any ongoing disputes or when serious disputes arise that cannot be resolved through the ordinary editing process.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)