User talk:John69

Please stop changing links to "Wesleyan University". If you wish to suggest a change regarding the long-standing disamgibuation, Talk:Wesleyan University is the place to discuss it... before making such a change. - Nunh-huh 02:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Also, do not replace the content of pages with your own comments. Please add your comments to the bottom, and keep the other content intact. Thank you. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 02:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You seem to be unfamiliar with the usual way we conduct things here. I'd be happy to point you to helpful pages if you need them. We work by general agreement, not unilateral fiat, and so it is important to reach agreement on that talk page before making your changes. When you do so, take care not to erase previous comments. The steps to resolve differences of opinion are to discuss; if discussion proves fruitless, make a request for comments, or take a poll to gauge the proportion feeling various solutions are amenable; if the request for comments and poll do not lead to a result, and the dispute is among personalities rather than viewpoints, mediation may be invoked; and if mediation fails, then is the time to discuss "arbitration". - Nunh-huh 02:35, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I have protected Wesleyan University so no one else can edit the page until the dispute has been resolved. Google returns 163,000 results for  and only 6,020 results for , so it's fairly clear that the former is the more well-known, and according to Wikipedia policy, if two things have the same name, and one is vastly more well-known than the other, then the more well-known thing's article belongs at the logical title (in this case, Wesleyan University) with a link to the less well-known thing at the top of the article (in this case, to Wesleyan University (Philippines)). Incidentally, you can sign your username and a timestamp by typing four tildes ( ~ ). Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 02:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "if two things have the same name, and one is vastly more well-known than the other" Could you put the URL pointing to Wikipedia's policy above? Thanks. John69 02:43, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambig --Asbestos 02:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Disambiguation - see "3. 'Primary topic' disambiguation". Also, if you want to tell me something, it's standard to say it on my user talk page, or at least leave a note on my talk page saying "Please see my comments at User talk:John69" or something to that effect, to make sure I get the message. Also, I am only taking Asbestos's side because it is clear to me that the Wesleyan in Connecticut is more well-known than the Wesleyan in the Philippines, and therefore according to the policy I have linked, the article Wesleyan University ought to remain as it is - with a link at the top to Wesleyan University (Philippines). Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 02:52, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * John - regarding your comment on my talk page: the current organization of Wesleyan University does exactly that: if a reader is looking for the Wesleyan in the Philippines, it gives them that choice at the top of the article. Also, please (as I said) read about "Primary topic disambiguation," which applies to this situation. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 02:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * First of all, this is not a mediation case, and I am not a mediator. Secondly, while Google may not be a perfectly accurate means of measuring notability, it's the best gauge most Wikipedians have. Please tell me how you have come to the conclusion that they are equally notable. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 03:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As a point of information, you can put a request for page protection at Requests for protection. Putting the notice at the top of a page doesn't in itself have any effect! - Nunh-huh 03:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== FROM:DA HULK, TO JOHN69- IM BLOCKED BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your RfAr
It is rude to open a request for arbitration in which you mention me without telling me so. Incidentally, I made it quite clear on several occasions that I am not a mediator, nor was I a disinterested party in this dispute. I was just another user with an opinion. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 17:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) .