User talk:KeithTyler/Archive2

Brutalism
Thank you for putting the dates into the captions. Not so messy-looking after all, and they help establish the time-frame. Wetman 20:04, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Spelling
See "Usage and spelling" in the MoS. The general rule, in articles not concerning any particular country, is "both versions are acceptable, but don't change from one to the other for no good reason". I have absolutely no problem with US spellings, but I do have a problem with people who have nothing better to do than "correct" all other spellings to them (like the anon did in that article). Hope this clears things up. Proteus (Talk) 17:37, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reason magazine

 * Was it considered "libertarian" back then? I've personally only become aware of the term Libertarian since the mid 90s. Reason is certainly referred to as "libertarian" now, but how long has it worn that term?

Of course is was!! In the '70s, Reason was the Libertarian magazine, often mistakenly thought to be published by the Libertarian Party. Michael Hardy 20:03, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello and salutations
Hey there. Seen you've been active working on cases at the AMA, and I just wanted to extend an offer for any help I can give regarding them; I've been absent for some time and want to finally get down to doing the advocate thing. If there's any cases I can help with in any way, don't hesitate to let me know. Wally 05:12, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * As for the lug (anon) v. Franc2000 matter, I trawled through Franc's user page and couldn't even find the one comment. Not knowing what else lugnut said, and given that he himself cannot remember any incidents, the only recommendation I would make is that he register his nick, continue editing, and return if the vandalism accusations ever recur - however, given that we can find neither incidences of posting or of concomitant disputes with other posters, there's precious little to do here.


 * Where the arbitration case is concerned, that's a bit more of a conundrum. You've offered your services and they've been accepted, but this person has stated that he himself wants nothing to do with the case?  (This is how I read it, anyway - if you meant that he wanted you to have nothing to do with it, that's a different fox hunt altogether).  Speaking generally, I would say that your role should be passive assuming a) the case is not exceptionally difficult, or the user exceptionally new and b) the case is not now nor is it becoming an absolute disaster (i.e. the user is scaring up a permban partly through lack of successful defense).  If not all those criteria are met, however, you have an obligation in that user's interest to do pursue to the uttermost every means available to you on his behalf, until the case is concluded or he dismisses you.  If you'd like I'd be exceedingly happy to look at the specific case and offer an opinion - at the very least, as it seems the user is to take no steps in his own defense you have prima facie grounds to pursue it as you best can.


 * On the latter especially, please consider me at your disposal for any meager assistance I might give. Wally 03:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Then, regarding the anon, all I can say is that he might as well register and then see from there. There's not a ton you can do for him without him registering, and his reply probably did little to help matters.


 * Regarding the arbitration case I would argue that you have an even more pronounced obligation to help defend him, especially given that whether or not justice is being done is under question. If he's being railroaded, an advocate is exactly the person who is in a position (and who has the authority) to object about such behavior. Wally 23:42, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey again - how're things? I actually have something of a favor to ask. I took the Ray Foster case re. deaf, and we're proceeding to mediation. The other person involved, name of Dcreemer, has asked for an advocate of his own. The dispute's about the article, not the people, and mediation should be able to rapidly clear up the problems, as the dispute is not very hairy. Nonetheless, if you're not too occupied and could see your way to representing Dcreemer, I'd appreciate it. Wally 03:10, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Call for AMA election
AMA Member Advocate,

There's a poll currently in the AMA Homepage about making a new AMA Coordinator election. Please, cast your vote there (though it's not mandatory). Any comments you have about this, write it on the AMA Homepage talk page. Cheers, --Neigel von Teighen 18:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

AMA Membership Meeting
As AMA Coordinator I am requesting that suggestions be placed on AMA Membership Meeting plans for our first membership meeting, to be held in the near future, (hopefully before any election occurs.) Since we have never had any kind of "official" meeting we need to discuss how this will occur (i.e. Wiki pages or IRC channel), how it will be structured (i.e. meeting agenda) and if there will be any "chair" to supervise the meeting and meeting "secretary" to write up minutes or keep some kind of official record of what transpires. Thanks in advance for your input and your continued work as an advocate. &mdash; ©   Alex756   19:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Clarification and Conclusion to Deaf Mediation
I have received and acknowledged Ray Foster's request to end mediation and stand down as advocate.

I apologize at not being able, until now, to more fully report to you the facts of the dispute as I saw them when I requested mediation. It appears that a number of issues which were not known to me had sufficient pertinence to end any mediation proceedings (which were not occuring anyway).

I requested mediation because RfC had not met with any positive response (only a single user replied, who didn't think it merited an RfC), and there were insufficient users present to make a quickpoll effective in the dispute. Additionally, not only was Ray Foster deaf, but Dcreemer has a deaf child, and as you no doubt now know by reading the talk page, their discussions became heated to the point where language bordering on the insulting was used, at which point Dcreemr seemed to absent himself. Not only that, but the dispute on the page itself was sufficiently technical that I felt it would be better to have a single designated mediator look at it rather than people wandering in to reply to an RfC. It was given all this that I felt mediation would be the most effective course, and in which mind I advised Ray to allow me to pursue it.

In the intervening period, Ray posted an apology to Dcreemr for any poor conduct or insulting behavior on his part. This was the main concern sending me to mediation, and in which I had the natural idea, expressed to both Ray Foster and Dcreemr, of working out a compromise to the article in the process of ending their more personal dispute (to my mind, mediation is a process designed to rectify issues regarding users through [where applicable] effecting a compromise on the pages in question). This issue now gone, the dispute may be concluded by simple user discussion, and had I been aware that such had occured I would have recommended a withdrawal of the mediation request, which given this new information I support in full.

I would also like to clarify that I neither instructed nor empowered Ray Foster to revert any changes to the deaf article. I advised him to "please refrain from editing or commenting on the page and encourage others to do so." He apparently misconstrued this to mean ensuring other users did not tamper with the article until the issue was concluded. My idea was merely that Ray not edit &mdash; which might cause further controversy &mdash; and that other users be requested not to either, as that could also have negative rammifications. I also wanted to provide some sort of mechanism by which the page would not be drastically changed while Ray was in a place from which it would be inappropriate to make edits. I had noticed his request on the talk page for users not to edit the article pending mediation, and did assume that he was doing what I had advised. Had I known that he was reverting other, innocuous changes, I would have immediately clarified the issue and undid the reversion. As it stands I have explained this misunderstanding to Ray Foster, as well as on the requests for mediation page.

Thank you for your help in resolving the issue and noting such developments necessary as to bring this dispute to a close in a more amicable and timely way, as well as doing my the favor of involving yourself whilst you had many other duties to execute. I am glad of the positive outcome, to which your involvement is substantially owed, as well as of the considerable simplification of its conclusion by way of facts of which I was unaware. I am additionally pleased at any influence I was able to have in the good and unconfrontational outcome.

Thank you again,

Wally 21:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Logs of first AMA Membership meeting
You may view the log of the first meeting on the following two pages: AMA IRC Meeting log (1-23-05) (first hour) and AMA IRC Meeting log (1-23-05) Pt II (remainder of meeting). If you are interested in commenting on the agenda of the meeting please do so here:AMA Meeting (suggested topics).

OFFICIAL SECOND MEETING NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

 * "The second AMA Membership meeting will be held on Sunday January 30 2005 at 19:00 UTC on freenode IRC channel #AMA. That is 2 PM Eastern NA Time, 11 AM Pacific NA Time, and 8 PM Central European (Amsterdam/Stokholm/Warsaw/Venice) Time. All members are invited to attend."

The coordinator is requesting that members submit the following information for the upcoming coordinator’s report:


 * How many individuals did you help as an advocate
 * What is the maximum amount of time you put into a case
 * Do you feel your work as an advocate was successful?
 * How can the advocacy program of the AMA be improved?

Thank you. Please submit your responses here: AMA Coordinator/January 2005 Survey


 * &mdash; ©   Alex756   23:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) (The Coordinator)

OFFICIAL AMA THIRD MEETING NOTICE
The second AMA IRC Membership meeting was held on Sunday January 30, 2005 at 19:00 UTC on freenode.net IRC channel #AMA. Attending were Wally, Metasquares, Anthere, Sam Spade, and alex756 (coordinator). The log of the second meeting can be found here: AMA IRC Meeting log (1-30-05).

"The third AMA Membership meeting will be held on Saturday February 12, 2005 at 17:00 UTC on freenode IRC channel #AMA. That is 12:00 Noon Eastern NA Time, 9 AM Pacific NA Time, and 6 PM Central European (Amsterdam/Stokholm/Warsaw/Venice) Time. All members are invited to attend.

Suggested Topics and Specific Proposals

 * MEMBERS PLEASE REVIEW


 * Suggestions for topics/proposals and agenda to be discussed at the next meeting are to be found at: AMA Meeting (suggested topics). All members are requested to make proposals there and respond to proposals on the talk page there before the beginning of the next meeting so discussion can be held forthwith concerning such proposals. Thank you, your Coordinator.

The coordinator is requesting that members who have not done so already submit the following information for the upcoming coordinator’s report:


 * How many individuals did you help as an advocate
 * What is the maximum amount of time you put into a case
 * Do you feel your work as an advocate was successful?
 * How can the advocacy program of the AMA be improved?

Thank you. Please submit your responses here if you have not done so already. &mdash; ©   Alex756   23:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Quixtar/Alticor/Amway
Thanks for the advice and tips. User:Eddieuny 21:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ray Foster v. Dcreemer
God, I should hope so. :P Wally 00:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please do not make edits on my behalf
Can you plaese restore my application for an Advocate that you [changed] on the page Requests_for_Assistance page. It is making a statement on my behalf which I did not make. Please note that people's posts are not articles and should not be changeed by other users. The post is an application for an Advocate, so it should not be left changed very long. I will restore it to my actual statement shortly if you are not around. THankyou.WikiUser 19:55, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mediation in Pitts. Trib-Review
In the matter of AMA_Requests_for_Assistance, I think that there is agreement that mediation would be helpful. The Anon requested it and I agree. Is there any chance of mediation happening? It isn't critical, the article is progressing. (Actually I should say "articles". The dispute includes the article on the newpspaper's owner, Richard Mellon Scaife.) Anyway, if a mediator is available, then I think it would help. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) (PS, I bring this to you because you visibly active in AMA matters. Let me know if I should communicate elsewise. W. -01:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC))

I am sorry not to have responded to you earlier, but frankly trying to research this dispute makes my head spin.

I suppose mediation would be a decent next step. However, your assertion that the user has made legal threats against you and the Wiki itself would almost require Arbitration, to enforce a ban for the duration of potential legal action. I'd almost say the case should be split, with the Pittsburgh issue going to Mediation and the legal threat issue going to Arbitration -- except that a successful Arbitration would make the Mediation theoretically irrelevant. But maybe we could ignore the legal threat issue for the time being. If we can reliably contact the anon, we can at least alert him to the fact that making legal threats is a bannable offense.

Another next step here might be to attempt Negotiation, which is something I'm trying to push and to my knowledge has not been done in a formal capacity. This would be like Mediation without a mediator. I think this would help mainly because I personally find attempting to follow things on the PT-R talk page impossible. Another alternative would be informal mediation, a form of mediation which would bypass the RFM process (which has been notoriously lacking) and use a disinterested third party as mediator.

If we can reliably contact the anon, I think either negotiation or informal mediation would be a fair next step. If that rapidly falls apart we can move on.

I could use a few things -- One is a link or links to any legal threats the anon has made. And I could also use an explanation of your view of this dispute(s) between you and the anon re PT-R.

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ [ AMA ] 00:32, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Kevin, thanks for addressing the request by the anon, user:147.72.93.172/user:147.72.93.199, to which I agree. I do not know the most appropriate way of handling this matter. You may be right that there are two separate issues: general editing behavior and the libel accusations.

I believe that the original request was for an advocate, which indeed may be helpful. Overall, I think that the Anon's poor editing behavior is a minor issue that does not reqire sanctions. However the articles (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Richard Mellon Scaife, and Teresa Heinz Kerry), the editing process, the other editors, and the Anon's contributions would all benefit if there were an experienced editor who could work with him.

The legal threats against Wikipedia have been vague and repeated, most recently on February 8th.(, repeated below) Anon user claimed that a sentence asserting that the P T-R had printed gossip about Theresa Heinz Kerry being a lesbian was a libel on the newspaper. The dispute is shared by user:Gamaliel, and was already in progress when I began participating. Even after the assertion was changed to reflect correctly the gossip that had been printed, and after being warned repeatedly about making legal threats, the Anon continued to refer to legal action against Wikipedia, apparently even claiming to have consulted with "outside help" over libels in the P T-R article. During this time he variously claimed to work for "the competition" and, prior to that, to be "just a reader." In fact, he uses IP addresses that belong to the P T-R and are used by its employees.

The editing issues probably are soluble through regular RfC's, etc. But I don't know how to regard the legal threats against Wikipedia and its editors. Perhaps someone who has dealt with such issues before should review the Anon's statements.

Thanks again for addressing this matter, and also for all of your contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:14, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * user:147.72.93.172/user:147.72.93.199
 * Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Richard Mellon Scaife, and Teresa Heinz Kerry


 * Wikiquette and other issues
 * Does not use Talk page norms, like signing his posts. (He's finally learned to post on the bottom). This is despite frequent requests from other editors.
 * Does not add summaries to his edits.
 * Does not respond to messages on the user talk pages.
 * Confuses the actions of other editors, in particular user:Gamaliel and myself.
 * Once added a slew of comments into an article, which I transferred to the talk page (a tedious little project).
 * Generally assumes bad faith.
 * Personal claims:
 *  It seems you want to twist reality to make it something else, which is fine. I don't work for the newspaper. I'm just an informed reader.
 * As a Pittsburgh reader who was surprised to see so many oddities appearing about the paper and Scaife, I felt I should edit these entries for fairness.
 * good thing I work for the competition, and not the Tribune-Review. (repeated below)


 * Libel accusations
 * From Talk:Pittsburgh_Tribune-Review
 * Someone continues to post the erroneous, and frankly libelous, conjecture that the newspaper accused the wife of a prominent American polititian of being lesbian. This is in complete violation of Wikipedia policy.
 * This site has been warned several times about the nature of the lie being printed. When it continues to be published it becomes an actionable libel ("intentional lies"), and I believe both the candidate's wife AND the publisher of the newspaper have a good case against the editors and operators of this site.
 * Warning by Gamaliel and me about legal threats.
 * I will continue to explain why printing "intentional lies" is tantamount to libel, in this case against both the politician's wife AND the publisher of the newspaper. I cannot be a plaintiff in this case, so do not consider this a legal threat. Rather, I am trying to explain why, professionally, I easily can say that printing the erroneous and unedited lie that the newspaper accused the wife of a political candidate of being a lesbian is libel. Someone might continue to edit my words, but the facts don't change. Let's hope either the politician's wife or the owner of the newspaper never see that printed.
 * I appealed this issue to the administrators. In no way has the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ever accused the wife of any political candidate of being a lesbian. The charge that is has is libelous. It smears the newspaper, its publisher and the wife of the candidate.
 * ''You are the same person, by the way, you kept insisting that the newspaper called Heinz Kerry a "lesbian." This is libel under Pennsylvania law, but that didn't stop you. In fact, when called about it, you kept printing it! Of course, your libel was OK because you "signed" a "name" to it. Quite frankly, at this point you don't seem to have much credibility. Come to think of it, you haven't told "us anything about the paper" except half truths and outright intentional lies that would be actionable in this jurisdiction (good thing I work for the competition, and not the Tribune-Review. I had no duty to turn you in).
 * And practicing libel is a Wikipedia tactic? Fine. Maybe the internet community should begin to address the inherent problems of Wikipedia, and how uninformed "encyclopedia" pieces that violate libel law are "comprehensive." Saying that a major American newspaper called a candidates wife is libel. It libels her, and it libels the paper. It's a baseless smear that was bandied about on this site for weeks. Rather than be ashamed of such behavior, you argue that, well, it libels no one now, so everything was OK. No, it's not OK.	 I've forwarded this site to several journalism organizations so they can write about libel and lies in the age of cyberspace. Let the students tackle this as a learning experience.
 * Another warning from Gamaliel.
 * Just on a lark, I went over to the Teresa Heinz entry in Wikipedia. Again, the libel that the Tribune-Review called her a "lesbian." Complete lie.
 *  Just as you continued to spread the libel that the newspaper called Heinz Kerry a "lesbian."
 * By the way, Willm, your errors have simply been lack of research and poor sourcing. Galamiel (or whatever his/her name is) have been intentional and verge on tortiary libel. Attempts to mark them as "intentional lies" (a very real concept) have been unsuccessful. I have sought outside help on this when outright libel was presented. It's too bad that this medium is at the mercy of people like that.
 * From talk:Richard Mellon Scaife
 * For some reason, people continue to scribble "facts" about Scaife that are little more than Internet rumors, with what seems to me little basis in fact. A "fact" is raised, only to be somewhat disregarded. Much of it seems libelous, and the sources cited by the authors are less than mainstream publications.


 * See my reply to you on my talk page User talk:Willmcw -Willmcw 01:24, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

I assume that you've seen the reply at Talk:Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Do you have a sense over how to proceed? Will you respond? I'm foregoing any edits to the article to allow the dialog to progress without distraction. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:42, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration
I am interested in helping you with your arbitration case. Please give me a means to contact you. I cannot always use realtime due to personal constraints. - Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  [ AMA ] 23:15, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've sent an email to the email address listed on your website (subject is "Arbitration"). anthony 警告 02:38, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case merged
Please be aware that Raul654's request against Anthony DiPierro has been merged into the existing case against him. Thank you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:41, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

Regarding the edit history of Shawn Mikula, I would recommend asking the Arbitration Committee to issue a temporary injunction to undelete it (in a blanked and protected state) so that you both can view the evidence. I am not sure how they can deny that request, if it is clearly important to any defense. I doubt the WP:VfU crowd is seeing that. -- Netoholic @ 22:30, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

Template:Edit summary
Hi, I noticed that you noticed that there are several of these. Template:Summary includes the image. Perhaps some merging is required here? Also, putting a section heading in template:edit summary makes template messages/User talk namespace rather bloated. Alphax τεχ 00:30, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Image:School 09 sm.gif
Hi Keith. I've tagged Image:School 09 sm.gif as unverified. Please go to that image description page and put anything you know about it, especially the source and copyright status. Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 18:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fromwikipedia
no problem, i figured it was a mistake... :)  ~leif &#9786; HELO 20:54, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Aw fork
There's a silly debate going on. The state of Massachusetts, commonly known as "Massachusetts," is officially named "The Commonwealth of Massachusetts." Some users are making a big deal about this. One user moved Massachusetts to The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I consider this move vandalism and I think I successfully reverted the move. I left The Commonwealth of Massachusetts in place as a redirect to discourage any attempt to repeat the move. I don't think there's presently a fork, although there may have been one briefly during the time when I was trying to undo the move. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

AMA Meeting Proposal
Hi! I put together a proposal for another AMA meeting that I'm hopeful you can chime in on. --Wgfinley 20:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deletion policy/Teletraffic Engineering
Hi there! The discussion on 'using WP for student projects' seems to have run its course, so I have closed it and drawn conclusions. Could you please look over them and indicate on the talk page whether you agree? Thanks. Radiant_* 09:45, May 18, 2005 (UTC)