User talk:KieferSkunk/Archive 5

Deletion of Daniel Geduld Article
I would like to protest the speedy deletion of the Daniel Geduld article. The page has existed for quite some time and there was no opportunity to address your complaints. I believe that the significance of the article was there, that he is a voice actor and creator of an internet show that has been written about by NPR among others.--Dans1120 21:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted the article because it appeared to contain no assertion of notability or any good sources. Upon further review, however, I've restored it and nominated it for deletion through the standard AfD process.  If this article is to be kept, it needs more reliable, verifiable information from secondary and tertiary sources that prove this person is particularly noteworthy.  Lots of voice actors don't get listed on Wikipedia because they've only had one role in a minor TV show, so unless there's something there that sets this person apart, this may end up going the same route. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 23:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate it! I hope it improves.--Dans1120 03:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Dans1120 is the user dans on the Something Awful Forums, who posted this thread last night which prompted the nomination for speedy deletion. That editor added the following material to the article which violates almost every condition of WP:BLP:

reinserted the unsourced line, "Other entrepreneurial accomplishments of Daniel J. Geduld include a "pay-per-torrent" site, an original concept in which users pay to download torrents of movies that are otherwise freely available."

added the line, "Mr. Geduld is often fond of quipping, "I choose logic" when the subject of religion is the topic of conversation."

inserted the citation, "{cite web | title=Bad stand up comedy |date=March 20, 2006 | url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzvyp5b03zM | accessmonthday=November 5 | accessyear=2007}" for the unsourced (and WP:BLP violation) line "It is theorized that Geduld's marijuana bar was intended to host an audience that would, when under the influence, find his stand-up routine funny." Which had clearly been added by an anonymous user to defame the subject of the article.

And added the unsourced image -which is almost certainly a copyvio- of the subject eating a bug, then placed that at the head of the article.

His only vested interest in keeping this article on Wikipedia is clearly so he can continue to defame him. That editor has a history of vandalism in which he is often assisted by other members of the SomethingAwful Forums. Cumulus Clouds 04:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For instance, 74.134.250.229 edited the article's talk page to read "this guy is gay." That same user edited your talk page with the comment "dans is a cool guy." This is probably an SA Forums user who has participated in the past with vandalizing that article. Cumulus Clouds 05:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If that is the case, why didn't I modify the page when it was reverted. Before that, I simply added an uncopyrighted photograph, caption and a citation.--Dans1120 22:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I figured it would probably be best to let the article go through a more formal AfD so, if nothing else, it could get wider admin attention. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 05:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * With your permission, I'd like to report Dans1120 to ANI for his frequent vandalism. Cumulus Clouds 05:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't need my permission to do that. I don't feel that anything written here is vandalism, though, so it's your call. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 16:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

dans is a cool guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.250.229 (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna need more than that to go on. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 05:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If you wanna...
If you wanna tweak it to block email be my guest. Kwsn  (Ni!)  23:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Look here. Thing about me is I'm not the greatest with explaining things a lot.  Kwsn   (Ni!)  23:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like he's back again today and editing as notFnagton on your page Kwsn. Sorry you had to get involved in situation with such an intense wacko so soon after becoming admin's.  Both of you.  --Marty Goldberg 01:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[Finding Nemo 2]
I see you performed a speedy deletion on an article undergoing an AfD. While I'm sure no one objects, you may want to close the AfD:  Cheers! --Hyperbole 01:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoops, I actually missed that AfD. Thanks for the notice - I see someone else took care of closing it.  I arrived at the page from CAT:CSD and just speedy-deleted it without reviewing the AfD.  I see that I was in line with the consensus there, but I'll make sure to pay more attention to those in the future. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 05:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Adverbs
I take your point about WP:NOT not providing reasons for speedy deletion; but as a fairly recent recruit to the RC patrol, I'd be glad of your advice. I have been concentrating on the {endless flow of) obvious no-hopers needing speedy deletion, and have several times found it hard to find an appropriate reason in CSD, particularly with:

1) rambling articles about nothing much, obviously unencyclopedic but too long for "nocontext", not about a person so not "bio", not quite incoherent enough for "nonsense".

2) school-project type definitions of things already thoroughly covered in Wikipedia. Is there, for instance, no CSD reason that would have fitted that "List of adverbs"?

The first time I tried a ProD, the originator promptly took it off again without amending the article. As the wording on the template says "you may remove this template if you object for any reason ... if removed it should not be replaced", ProD seems to me fairly toothless for newly created articles, whose proud authors are still watching them; then we are back to AfD, which seems a sledgehammer to crack some fairly trivial nuts.

Any advice appreciated! - JohnCD 22:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I'm pretty new to this myself, so I'm not sure how much advice I can really give.  But in general, if an article talks about some person, group, company, website, music band, etc., and doesn't give an indication of notability, it qualifies under CSD A7, which states that an article must have an assertion of notability.  WP:N further sets the bar for what kinds of sources and information will satisfy that criterion.  A7 is pretty broad, so it will cover a lot of things that other criteria don't.


 * That said, "List of Adverbs" is a topic that really could only have a WP:NOT rationale placed against it. It might qualify for "no context", but the context is pretty easy to discern (it's an article about a part of speech).  It doesn't really qualify under A7 because it's an abstract concept rather than a concrete entity the article is describing.  And the CSDs specifically say that, by itself, any reason derived from WP:NOT doesn't qualify for speedy deletion.


 * That means this particular article kinda falls in a bit of a grey area, and in cases like that, I either don't touch it and let a more experienced admin handle it, or I convert the CSD into an AfD or PROD, as appropriate. Since you said you tried PROD already, AfD is really the only remaining alternative.


 * Hope this helps. I'm learning as I go along, so if you were to ask me this again in a couple months, I'd probably have more info for you. :) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 01:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion proposal follow-up
Thank you for taking the time to speak to me on my talk page about the Corning (Amtrak station). I certainly do not wish to interfere with consensus, but the speedy deletion process would not have allowed time for any consensus to be constructed. I should have told you of my actions on your talk page, sorry about that, and I thank you for extending the courtesy that I failed to extend. Cheers!--MrFishGo Fish 03:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. :) For future reference, if an article is nominated for speedy-deletion, you can place a hangon tag directly below the CSD template, so that admins are notified that you intend to improve the article.  Note that this may not save the article from being deleted, but in "edge cases" like this one, it would probably help. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 04:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

CSD:A7
Hi. :) I came upon an article you had tagged for deletion by criterion A7, The Story of a Noble Family. I just wanted to remind you that A7 is specifically very narrow and does not at this time apply to films. There is a somewhat current conversation (gone a little dormant as such conversations do) about expanding A7 to include the products of speedily deleted individuals here, in case you'd care to weigh in. Meanwhile, films will have to be addressed through PROD or AfD unless they meet other criteria. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I'll pay more attention to that. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 19:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Atari 2600
Another problem for you to take a look at. An anonymous IP (which today also registered as  Tokchief) keeps removing the "Notable Games" section (5 times in the past week). Originally it was a gallery section, which (when correctly removed) I put back just the info. Then I trimmed down the list and kept it at just games that had actual references on their notability, and provided these references. These include 1UP, GameSpy, and the AtariTimes - all well known verifiable reference sources. Now I could see even possibly putting it in to more of a paragraph format, if you think it makes a difference. But this guy's repeated removal of referenced material and taunting in the edit summaries is getting a little ridiculous. --Marty Goldberg 20:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and tagged the section with prose and added some commentary to the Talk page about it. That should hopefully help.  The other editor has a point that there's no real context in that section (despite the references) to indicate why those games are notable.  Prose will help, and will also make the section more encyclopedic.  I don't see anything else that really needs to be done at the moment, but if he continues to delete the section, politely ask him to discuss on Talk first.  Also be aware of WP:3RR - that applies to you as well as him. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Can I get your opinion on this, how can we as an encyclopedia that is supposed to be neutral present information that says these games are somehow "notable". There is no authority on decided what games are notable for this platform.  --Tokchief


 * Also it should not matter if I edit as my IP address or not. The point still stands.  --Tokchief  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokchief (talk • contribs) 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Tokchief: Please review the WikiProject article guidelines on notable content, as well as the notability policy itself. There is a case for calling out at least some of these games because they had significant cultural impact on the industry and/or community, or the console's success, or any combination thereof.  We don't hit POV if we explain the notability in terms of objective facts, such as sales numbers and review scores.  We DO hit POV if our justification for putting in a particular game is just WP:ILIKEIT.  Does that help? &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 21:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Albanian Chess Championship
Please see Talk:Albanian Chess Championship Voorlandt (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

64-bit
Your even hand is needed again, over at 64-bit‎. There's currently a discussion going on at its talk page, and Theaveng keeps removing referenced paragraphs and rewriting the intro paragraph (into personal opinion) against this discussion. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I left a note for User:Theaveng asking him to stop using the edit summaries as a place for discussion. I'll keep an eye on it. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, someone else had already warned him on his page regarding another thread. He just removed references again as well.  This guy is really emotional, gets personal in his writing (look at the recent C64 edit history), and really tries hard to ignore or reinterpret the standard way of doing things on Wikipedia.  He won't come up with any references to the contrary, just keep re-editing things to his personal opinion. He even tried rewriting the entire entry lead to 64-bit to support his view because I had cited a section of it in one of my edit summaries.   I told him he needs to provide references to the contrary and not just edit on personal opinion.  I'm almost ready to cite him for his attitude and conduct over at the complaint board.  --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen his name come up in related discussions before. He's received a number of warnings - might be time to ask for intervention from more experienced admins.  If/when you make a report, link me to it - I'd like to read the discussion so I can be more effective in situations like this in the future.  Thanks. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 01:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Now he's gone and made changes to the Jaguar article to support continued edits at the 64-bit article. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And he keeps making repeated edits there directly against the Jaguar's own developer manual. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the entire Jaguar section from the 64-bit so it stops his continued disruptive editing, and the discussion is just focused to the talk page there. However, he's still continuing the disruptions at Atari Jaguar claiming the developer's manual Atari released is a not a valid reference to the hardware because its "biased". --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, if you feel that his edits are disruptive, take it up at WP:ANI - there's not a whole lot I can do about this at the moment. (I do not really have the time right now to police things, and I also don't have the experience.) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 23:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

*pokes*
So...it's been at least a month now..how's adminship been for you? Dihydrogen  Monoxide   ♫  05:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not bad! I've done a whole bunch of speedy-deletes, mainly, and I've continued helping with discussion and done a few admin-style reverts.  That part has been kinda fun and is along the lines of the sorta gnome-like work I like to do.  But as you can see from above discussions, I'm getting asked to personally intervene in a few things where I don't really have the experience or expertise to do so.  That can be a little frustrating, but I'm sure it comes with the territory.  Doing my best to learn as I go, though. :)  Thanks again - I really appreciate it. :) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 07:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good to hear you're enjoying it, and you seem to be doing quite well. Keep it up :) By the way, if you have a minute, could you help me out with the GAR for Call of Duty 2? Thanks,  Dihydrogen   Monoxide   ♫  07:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Nash Ramblers and other old stuff
Not sure if you're still watching the page, but I left a response at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Grammar. Hope it's of interest. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Skunky!
* fluffs Kieferskunk's tail* ^_^ - ∅  ( ∅ ), 18:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, hi! Who are you? &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 23:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Another skunky :-) I just thought it was awesome that Wikipedia has a skunk admin, so I thought I'd say hi! - ∅  ( ∅ ), 02:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool! Skunks are awesome!  And thank you - I'm having fun helping out as an admin. :)


 * I checked out your Talk page - you seem like a pretty cool guy! You've been doing quite a bit of editing for a while. :) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 16:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments
Here -. I admit that the last comment I made to Dlabtot was rude. I was obviously letting myself get frustrated at being accused of incivility when I would make a point that couldn't be answered. I will try to be more patient and keep a cool head approach. Thanks again - :) Starkrm (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Cortana
Hi,

I've done a bunch of work (copyediting, trimming some of the unnecessary dialogue from citations) on Cortana. Let me know whether the prose is up to snuff for you now. Personally, though, I don't find organization of the article awkward or deficient. If you could be more specific about that particular part of your objection, or perhaps at least provide some examples of where the flow of the article doesn't work for you, that'd help us in improving it. Thanks! — TKD:: Talk  07:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy presidential campaign, 1968
I notice that you prodded this article, and an anon removed the prod without comment, so I listed it at AfD. You can leave commentary if you wish. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

CVG Barnstar!
For your excellent contribution to the Lunar Lander article, I award you this barnstar! &mdash; Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! :) It just seemed like the right thing to do with that article. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

WQA
Per comment left at WQA, I am an uninvolved WQA participant who tirelessly spends his time replying to requests. I reverted the edits based on the misleading and/or deceptive edit summary, with no other facts at hand. Given that no DIFFs were provided or that no other mention was made of the edit summary, and given that the edit summary contradicted the edit in general, I felt that a full revert was needed.

That was not disputed. But what I do dispute is being labeled a sockpuppeter or being somewhat unreasonable in my original edit. I was only given so much in the original post to go by, which is why I was surprised at this comment.

I am not pressing the issue further, but I thought you would like to know that I reverted on the basis of the edit summary, not the content. Contributions on both sides on the mentioned article are not the best of quality and are very much POV in my opinion.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 02:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * From what I could see, that looks about right. My comment from earlier was in relation to what looked like a continuation of hostilities after I'd seen ReluctantPhilosopher agree to cool down.  Beyond that, I don't have much else to contribute at the moment. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 04:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the comment on User_talk:SpinyMcSpleen. :D -- Nn123645 (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In case you're interested
Just starting another article series, this one a 3 part on the history of the design of the Atari 2600. By the way, would there be a chance in interviewing your father regarding his time at Lucasfilm? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up on the series. I'll take a look as time allows.  As for my dad: If you can find him, sure, you can ask him whatever you like.  But I'm not in contact with him, for personal reasons. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 21:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WQA
I endorse your version of events more or less absolutely. You basically have a situation in which both users have violated Wikiquette (one more severely than the other), and neither is prepared to take any responsibility. I don't think Wikiquette Alerts can help them at this point. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I appreciate the feedback. :) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 21:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Guido
If you think his behavior at WP:WQA is blockworthy, block him for that; if not, discuss it with him. Just because he has behaved poorly there doesn't mean that he was edit warring at Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Mango juice talk 19:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * From what I could see, his block had nothing to do with the WQA. He performed 6 reverts within 24 hours (7 within 25), despite warnings from other users.  That's pretty clearly WP:3RR vio to me.  I simply reviewed the diffs that were provided in Seicer's warning and agreed with his and the blocking admin's assessment. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Guido never did anything "despite being warned", and he was never warned by "users". Seicer left a warning message and a 3RR report at basically the same time: there was no point to that warning.  Further, I do think the reasons this led to a block did, illegitimately, have to do with the situation at WQA, because Seicer felt the need, based on the WQA interactions, to try to have Guido blocked (after all, he wasn't editing the article in question), and tried to draw attention to Guido's actions on WQA in his WP:AN3 report.  As for the activity itself, have you looked at it carefully?  What's really happening here is a revert or two followed by the start of discussion and no more reverting, on several separate issues in the same day.  In other words, behavior that is what we want to see, and would clearly not be a problem if it happened a little slower.  Mango juice talk 21:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really see how you can say that Guido wasn't engaged in WP:3RR - as I mentioned earlier, every one of the diffs that Seicer pointed out was a straight-up revert of other editors' contributions. It doesn't matter whose version is right, he was still going against 3RR, and Seicer pointed out the 3RR behavior long after it should have been pointed out.  I do not agree that Seicer only did this because he had some sort of vested interest in getting Guido blocked.  The blocking admin blocked him because of an apparent edit war, I happened to agree with that assessment, and the purpose of blocking was supposed to be to get the guy to slow down.  All that's really happened in this case, though, is that now Guido seems to think he can behave however he wants, including doing mass reverts and undos, and there'll always be someone there to back him up.  I don't think that's right - rules are rules, and all editors are expected to abide by them.


 * I realize that Guido is also discussing the situation in Talk, but that does not excuse an edit war. The rule is that once you hit that 3-revert limit, you're supposed to go to Talk and stay there until you can get to a point where you can make constructive edits.  Rely on other editors to help your cause if they see things your way. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 21:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * From WP:3RR: the spirit of the rule is to prevent sterile edit warring, not to punish users who exceed a given number of reverts in a given time. And although the specific text isn't there now, 3RR long contained an exception for "reverting without edit warring."  Plus, the 3RR doesn't mandate a block, it allows one.  Anyway, I'm not saying he didn't break 3RR, I'm just saying he wasn't edit warring, and blindly blocking people for breaking the 3RR when they aren't edit warring when the whole point of 3RR is to prevent edit warring is dumb.  Mango juice talk 22:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the crux of this argument is that we disagree on whether Guido was edit-warring. I saw what I perceived to be a clear edit war.  You obviously see it differently.  I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.  Keep in mind that Guido was blocked once before for 3RR, and his attitude certainly shows that he won't think twice about reverting people as many times as he needs to to get his point across in the future.  (Personally, I find people who employ that sort of attitude incredibly frustrating to deal with.) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 23:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem agreeing to disagree on the specifics of this case; after all it's done with now. My only actual concerns with you are the following two things.  (1): Something doesn't jibe about the conclusion that this was an edit war.  Either you were unaware of Guido's good faith attempt at discussion concerning the issues in dispute, or you think that this is an "edit war" despite the presence of that communication.  Do you think the communication is not in good faith?  Or is it that it came too late (in which case a block would still be inappropriate since it would have lost its preventive purpose)?  See WP:EW; I think you have a bit of a misconception about the principle  (2): The way you stepped in and, without addressing my points, denied the unblock, is dismissive of my time.  The least we can do as admins is refrain from stepping on each others' toes; that's why I left the note about consulting with the blocking admin, so that other admins would know I was reviewing the block.  If you noticed that I was in the process of reviewing the block, you should not have done what you did, even if you disagreed with me; at least, you should have responded to my points to open a discussion.  Mango juice talk 14:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. From (1) above, the second conclusion is true: I do believe he was edit-warring despite an otherwise good-faith discussion.  I reviewed the Talk page, the times of the edits, the times of the reverts, and the specific content of Seicer's diffs, and I still believe that even while trying to discuss the issue, Guido was also engaging in 3RR on the article page.  Just because one calls for an RFC does not automatically put them in a position to enforce a specific version of the article - if he needed help doing that, he could have asked for the page to be protected (which is one of the ways to prevent this sort of thing in the first place).  By taking it upon himself to ensure that the version of the page that was being discussed in the RFC was still there, he was edit-warring.  I do not think the discussion itself was in bad faith, but I do think his actions outside the discussion were counterproductive and were still in violation of both the letter and the spirit of 3RR.


 * When I reviewed the block, I simply looked at the sequence of events (and as I said, I reviewed the edit histories of both the article and its talk page, as well as the diffs), and I came to the conclusion that Tariq was right to block him. The only thing you had said at the time was that you were consulting with the blocking admin - you had otherwise said nothing about the situation on Guido's talk page.  Since I was not initially involved in the 3RR notice on the AN3, I didn't see if you had made points there.  And I hadn't interpreted your statement of consulting with Tariq as "I plan to unblock this," or even "I am reviewing this", just "I'm going to ask Tariq what the block was about."  I will keep that in mind for future reference.


 * I think you can see by the kinds of responses Guido's giving you that he doesn't think very highly of WP's policies - I've seen plenty from him that indicates he's yet another person who feels that he can do what he wants when he wants because he's him. That sort of entitlement frankly ticks me off to no end, and I'm not happy that he's now been enabled (in my opinion).  As I mentioned elsewhere, I'll be keeping an eye on the situation, and I won't hesitate to bring this back up again if I see his disruptive behavior continue. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 17:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As for my message on Guido's page, if you only read my message there then you didn't really see what I was thinking. It was my message on Tariq's page that I had expected/hoped you would have looked at.  (Seeing the message on Guido's page, I would have checked out Tariq's page in your position, to see if the blocking admin had said anything).  Anyway, this response sets me at ease.  Sorry if I was upsetting to you.  Mango juice talk 18:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Aye, misconceptions abound. Perhaps you should have written to me on the talk page so I could be notified instead of hearing about it from a third party.
 * I had no "vested interest" in getting Guido blocked, however, he violated 3RR quite clearly by edit warring -- which was agreed upon by other editors in their reverts of Guido's edits. I had followed the user's edits since numerous editors were complaining at WQA (which spilled over everywhere else) regarding his behaviour and prior edit warring, and it was readily apparant that he was persisting in his edit warring despite his last block which was for the exact same issue. No difference in this block than the last. We'll have to agree to disagree on the operational definition of an "edit war", but I would like to have another administrator take a look into the matter outside of the three involved administrators in this so far.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea, if for no other reason than to get some feedback from a party that is completely uninvolved in the dispute. We're all involved now, so no one of us is really qualified to say whether we handled it the best way possible. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 01:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I will be stepping out for a bit, but if anyone makes a request, I'll be more than happy to oblige in any way possible. Let me know if you need anything.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed
Hi there, sorry about that edit i did on the talk page, i should have just moved it to the bottom. I'll get it right next time! Ged UK (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) Mistakes happen! &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 19:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser1
I appreciate your comments to Cheeser1, except those I noted on his talk page. He has, on record, accused me of threatening physical harm to a woman, an action that is already having repercussions outside Wikipedia. I cannot tell you how seriosu this is. I need you to either help me get this retracted, or guide me to the next level of complaint. Thanks for your help. Neil Raden (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, the discussion was on my talk page. Neil Raden (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Neil. I'd like to make it clear that, while I don't agree with the manner in which Cheeser1 responded to you, I currently agree with the substance of what he said.  In short, I agree with his assessment that your "holiday greeting" to DebV was out of line, per WP:NPA, and that it could be taken as a personal threat of bodily harm.  Whether you intended it that way or not, that's apparently how she received it.  What followed was a continuation of bickering between you and her that had apparently been going on for months, for which you were previously blocked.


 * Please understand that I am trying to treat everyone fairly here. I obviously do not know all of the history of this situation, and honestly the details of your dispute with DebV don't interest me.  What I am basing my judgement on is the history of your dispute with DebV as I was able to research it by reviewing your Talk page, DebV's talk page, the original Wikiquette Alert against you, the conversation between you and Cheeser1, and your WQA against him.  I made a couple of missteps in handling Cheeser's side of this, and as a result he now feels that I support your side of the dispute.  I am not on either side - it's not for me to take sides, but to interpret policy and violations thereof.


 * I don't condone statements that come across as veiled threats, and I'm pretty sure the rest of the adminship here at WP don't take them lightly either. Such things can and will get you permanently blocked, even if there was no direct threat or any intent on your part to follow up on it.  If nothing else, such statements can be (and often are) considered harassment, which is also not tolerated here on Wikipedia.


 * So basically, my opinion is thus: I feel that, while you did not make a direct, actionable threat of violence against DebV, your statement was close enough to cause serious concern of harassment and/or veiled threats, and I feel she was justified in seeking action against you. I also feel that Cheeser1 was correct in taking the discussion to your talk page and trying to explain the situation to you, though I do feel he pursued it for longer and allowed himself to get more upset about it than he should have.  That was what I tried to address with him.


 * I feel that your responses to Cheeser1 basically boiled down to "You're wrong, I did nothing wrong, and I'm sticking to it no matter what you say." I personally would have left it at that and advised DebV to move up to the next level of dispute resolution if she felt the need to do so.  (Keep in mind that WQA is a non-binding board to help people resolve civility differences and get back to constructive editing - people there rarely take punitive action against editors, but instead refer or escalate the matter to the appropriate authority board such as WP:ANI when appropriate.)


 * That's about all I have to say on the matter for now. Thanks for your time. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 01:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your time, even though we are in extreme disagreement. However, there is one thing I would like you to look at. Here is a note I left for Cheeser1 on his talk page.


 * What is the point of this addition to the Wiley Protocol discussion page: {{Notable Wikipedian|Nraden|Wiley Protocol|editedhere=yes}? To me it displays your extreme prejudice. I do not edit the article. I try to add some information [on the discussion page] for content and try to keep Debv from adding distortions and contrivances. You will see that most of her content was deleted by other editors. I agree that I'm COI, but this is over the top. And if you go back and look at the history, you will see that Debv is equally COI, but you've neglected to give her the same treatment. Please remove it or add Debv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nraden (talk • contribs) 01:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * From what I can see, you are in a conflict of interest much more than DebV is, though I agree that if she is an outspoken critic of the Wiley Protocol, she should probably not be directly editing the article either. But you have been identified as the husband of the author of the Wiley Protocol, and that places you in a COI situation regardless of anyone else's relationship to it.  Yes, it may be appropriate to also add DebV, but I agree that having that template there is appropriate with respect to your personal involvement. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 01:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I DID add Debv, but Cheeser1 promptly reverted it. You are right when you say "from what I can see," because you don't see it. Debv has been waging a hate campaign against Wiley for a few years, and Wikipedia is just one front. Whenever anything on the internet appears about Wiley, she comes in right behind it spreading negative information. How can you possibly say that isn't COI? (and please don't say, as others have, that that is "off Wiki" and therfore not relevant because so far as I know, when I married Wiley 35 years ago, that was "off Wiki" too). I don't have that much time on my hands. If she weren't on Wikipedia, I wouldn't be either. That's my COI basis. Besides, we WLU made the agreement months ago that  neither I nor debv edit the article because we were BOTH COI. Then Cheeser1 puts up a COI template with my name on it, but not Debv's. I added one for Debv, and Cheeser1 deleted it. Isn't there some mechanism to moderate the behavior of this guy? And what good is Wikipedia, really, when this kind of behavior is allowed to occur? I've read the boards, they are full of petty conflicts, anonymous people oppressing others with their authority and rarely getting the peer-reviewed treatment they deserve. You handled Cheeser1 with kid gloves, and now look what he's done? I've written books and magazine articles, given speeches in praise of the applicationms of semantic technology that underlie a wiki, and singled out Wikipedia in particular, but given my recent experience, look for just the opposite. This doesn't work. I've spent hundreds of hours just trying to get a few paragraphs about the Wiley Protocol edited, and I can't get anything but horribly slanted and biased information. I've asked to have the article deleted because it is so misleading and inaccurate, and I can't do that either. Please, have a look at the Wiley Protocol discussion page. I just re-wrote the article, not terribly different from what's there, correcting some mistakes, removing the blatant bias and adding the sourced information to counter some of the negatives. I can't get anyone to act on it. If this is the way Wikipedia works on something so incidental, how can it possibly work on articles that are truly meaningful. I'm rapidly becoming a vocal, prominent critic of this venture, and I have an audience. Neil Raden (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll say this again, very simply: You are Wiley's husband. That puts you in a conflict of interest.  DebV appears to be an outspoken primary critic of Wiley Protocol, therefore it makes sense to also mark her as COI, and if Cheeser1 reverted that, he may not have fully understood what was going on.  But going on at length about this to me isn't really going to help you - I would seriously recommend that you bring this topic up at WP:COI/N, where the admins there can better assess the situation.  I am not the person you need to convince - I only stepped in to this conflict to try to defuse the tension between you and Cheeser1, and to try to explain why I agreed with his assessment of your communication with DebV.  I am starting to get really tired of dealing with this, to be honest - you've had this long-standing feud with a critic of your wife, and it's spilled over onto Wikipedia and is really quite disruptive, in my opinion.  I don't really have anything more to say about it - I don't wish to be involved any further. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 01:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguity in WQA
Hi, I just wanted to give you some feedback concerning WQA. I think it's important to keep in mind that while we all live in slightly different worlds (that's why we need to assume good faith, after all), some of the people on WQA are in a conflict because they live in a world that is radically different from everybody else's. That's why I always try to be as unambiguous as possible there, and if I get this (or anything else) wrong I would like to get the same feedback that I am giving you now. If I try to read the mind of Zenwhat (educated by this experience) and look at the end of the second Cheeser1 discussion, then I see the following: "The second(!) complaint about this editor who just insulted me. And now he is under attack from one of the big guys. Now or never! But of course, the other idiot (Hans) would support him. But KieferSkunk comes to the rescue and tells him how wrong it is to accuse me of not assuming good faith: Hans is calling the kettle black! Hans seems to hope that KieferSkunk meant something else, he asks for clarification, but Seicer gives him the death blow with his terse response. I have already won this thread, so I won't draw further attention on myself by posting to it."

By the way, since I am very self-critical and also very much aware of the different ways in which people can perceive things, I still think it's possible that you directed your reply to me. I only found out that Seicer's "You" was sarcastic by asking him. If I can't tell, I think we can't expect Zenwhat to get it right. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for writing. At this point, I'm a little confused as to what's going on - I've been stacked solid with work stuff lately, so I haven't had much time to keep on WP/WQA goings-on - is the development you referred to something that happened within the last couple of days?  I'm not entirely sure how to respond at the moment. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 00:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I understand what's going on now. I left a couple replies on WQA:Cheeser1 (2).  Hope that helps. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 01:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:JimBobUSA
Thanks for your response. I have replied at Wikiquette_alerts. I think if you have a scan of Talk:Yamashita's gold, you will see what I mean. Grant |  Talk  12:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Need help?
Thanks for the offer. I've attempted to mutualize with the anon in this edit to the character's article. Seems to have been settled, least for now. I'll let you know if anything starts up again, though maybe you could tell the guy to leave more civil edit comments? Expressions, like these, only worsen the situation (s)he is in. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree that his use of the word "Fuck" was a breach of civility, but to be perfectly honest, I think you goaded him into it. What you two were in was a classic edit war, but what the IP user was doing was not vandalism.  Please make sure you fully understand what vandalism is, in terms of Wikipedia policies.  You accused him of vandalism and left him several warnings about it, but he didn't appear to be vandalizing the article - instead, he was reverting your edits to a version that stated Ash's role differently than your version did.  I can see how you both would get frustrated by that.  At worst, this would breach WP:NPOV (POV-pushing) and WP:3RR (three-revert rule), but more likely it's simply a disagreement between the two of you.


 * To avoid this sort of thing in the future, you should take the discussion to the article talk page and try to resolve it there, coming to consensus before editing the article further. I don't see a history of discussion on that topic in the talk page, though you made reference to a discussion that happened in a different user's talk page.  You can't expect the IP user to have followed that.


 * Please let me know if you have any questions. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 23:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiley Protocol
Hello KieferSkunk. It appears that the dispute over at WP:COIN is calming down a bit. Can you clarify whether it is fair to close the COIN thread yet? Your original report mentioned placing various COI tags, but I couldn't reconcile your report with what I can observe over at the various articles and Talk pages. I did notice that Cheeser1 replaced the 'COI' tag someone had put on Talk:Wiley Protocol with 'Notable Wikipedian|Nraden|Wiley Protocol|editedhere=yes'. Raden seems to be concerned he is not being treated symmetrically with Debv, but it's not quite obvious how we would achieve this. If you feel the situation is too confusing for you to address any further, we can just wait for the archiver to take the issue away in 10 days after the last edit anyone makes to the report. If you feel inclined to reply, you can do so here. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I basically stuck it up on COI/N because I was losing interest in trying to deal with it myself, and I frankly didn't want to keep getting badgered by Nraden over what was going on. I figured that reporting it there would allow other, more experienced admins to come to a better conclusion than I could.  At this point, I really don't want to have any more to do with it. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 00:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Tetris Attack article
You've done a good job watching over the Tetris Attack article! keep up the good work! Poobslag (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! :) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 02:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Atari 2600 and Atari 2600 Hardware merge
I've gone ahead and removed the merge tag from both pages.

Looks like I didn't pay close enough attention to the history of these pages; I didn't realise one was split from the other. I should stop editing into the wee hours of the night... 8-) Marchije (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. :) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 18:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

re WP:WQA per User:Nfitz reporting me
Hi, thanks for the message on my talkpage. To save you from researching the various sources I shall provide you with the links which should help explain the background (in rough chronological order);
 * Original ANI report
 * User talk:Nfitz
 * My archived notes - most of which are Nfitz copying back my comments and appending theirs.

Short history - User Phillipe enacted an indef block on a new account which, after two minor corrections of vandalism, replaced the content of two pages (including WP:Five Pillars) with the comment "This is retarded". I understand that Phillipe offered an unblock on the basis that the account apologised for their actions and promised to not repeat them. Phillipe brought the matter to ANI where I commented.

I have explained at length to Nfitz why the block and summary are appropriate (perhaps not perfect, but little is) and why referring to Phillipes earlier explanation/comment are "lies" was entirely inappropriate. Nfitz disregarded the explanations and continued the use of the term lies - for which I had issued an official warning - when referring to Phillipes comments. I then blocked for 24 hours to stop the disruption caused by Nfitz's disregard of WP:NPA. Other admins reviewed unblock requests and were unwilling to lift the block. Since then Nfitz, when not on a break of their own, has written to me vexatiously insisting that their view of the situation be adhered to. I am not prepared to do so, and advised Nfitz according;y. I have now proceeded to archive any comments made by Nfitz to my talkpage.

The first archive was under the summary - per WP:DENY; Disruption of Wikipedia, which continuing to pursue a discussion when the other party has made it clear they are not going to respond and therefore disrupting the building of the encyclopedia, knowingly is vandalism. The second archive was under the summary - per WP:TROLL; Making comment for the intent of creating a reaction, rather than attempting to build the encyclopedia, is trolling. Further archiving - under neutral summaries.

I have not called Nfitz a vandal or troll - I have referred to their later examples of continued pestering of me after I have fully explained my reasoning and requested that they consider the matter closed as vandalism and trolling. I fully expect the difference to be lost upon Nfitz, who seems intent to pursue their unique vision of what constitutes vandalism, inappropriate behaviour, and application of WP policy without regard to any advice or comment. I consider the referal to WP:WQA as yet another avenue they have embarked upon in their insular quest for... whatever.

If there are any further issues you wish me to comment upon, please let me know. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Kiefer, excellent summary you just posted at WEA. I'll remember that if i ever see a situation like that, you're the person whose help I should ask for. DGG (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! :) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 16:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting some help
Hello KieferSkunk, I'm looking for some help regarding a POV dispute at Barack Obama. Certain editors claim the article is POV because certain issues are not explained in depth, even though they have been told several times by several other editors that the issues they point out should be, and are, addressed in depth at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Just looking at the talk page and edit history, you should be able to get a good idea of what's going on. Thanks in advance!  Grsz  ' 11 ' 16:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: LessHeard_vanU
I browsed your recent discussion with Nfitz about LessHeard_vanU and his actions. I have tangled with that person also, in the days before he was an admin, and believe me, I was quite disappointed to see he got adminship. I found him something of a hypocritical, knee-jerk reactionary then: He accused me of poor conduct and personal attacks, while he repeatedly called me a "twit" and other unpleasantries; accused me of "disrupting Wikipedia" when I merely gave him a reductio ad absurdum of the point he wanted to make (on a talk page... which I did not disrupt, and called him on the accusation), then finished off by saying "don't bother thanking me, though I doubt the thought even entered your mind"... then whined later when I didn't thank him, as per his own request. (This over the issue of whether the T in "The Beatles" needed to be capitalized each and every time the name was used in an article; professional writers all said no, while the "yes" people tended to be Beatles fans, with Beatles refs in their usernames, and none had written professionally. - He changed sides, over the course of that debate... which went on way too damned long, in everyone's opinion. I was glad for the change, but not for his ongoing poor attitude.)

When I discovered he was now an admin, "I was depressed", to paraphrase Slim Pickens in Blazing Saddles. Had I known he applied, I would certainly have weighed in, chapter and verse, with his prior treatment of me as an editor. (And I continue to stand by my words and actions, from that time. I showed respect; he did not.) It appears he hasn't grown up any more, as an admin, and for what it is worth... I will cheer as loudly as anyone, should he lose his adminship sometime in the future, and will be happy to speak up if his continuing as an admin should ever come into question. Ill will, hypocrisy and short-sightedness do not help a situation such as this. I have been wanting to mention this to somebody, outside a "public" forum, for some time. (Yes, I know he could read this post. So be it.) Anyway, feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. The old debate is logged somewhere on here... I hope it remains buried forever, but it contains his words and mine. Thanks. Zephyrad (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback. I'll take that into consideration if there's ever an occasion for me to participate in a recall discussion for the admin in question.  Can you help me out a bit by pointing me to some diffs in the arguments you had with this user in which these unpleasantries happened? &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 16:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I missed your reply. I will need to dig out that old debate, but once I find it (not a high priority just now), I'll be happy to send you the appropriate links/anchor tags. Zephyrad (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, found it, in less time than I ever expected: The main debate is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Policy; his "don't bother thanking me" is on my talk page, under User_talk:Zephyrad. Hope this helps. Zephyrad (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And speak of the Devil...
A user named Koavf is doing mass page moves, from "the Beatles" in the titles to "The Beatles", despite the official titles of the works in question (cf. IMDb, for "Birth of the Beatles", for just one example), or naming conventions here... not to mention that long-drawn-out T-vs-t controversy mentioned above (the Devil of which I speak). I seem to recall that an admin can bulk-revert such changes and take action toward the user involved... right now they appear to be piling up too quickly to go after one by one, and I don't need another damned debate on this (non-)issue. He is doing similar with other non-Beatles works, with similar title issues. (I also notice his talk page is chock-full of debates, complaints, and warnings of various kinds.) If you can't look into it, could you please refresh me on where to post an alert? (I am not going back to the Wikiquette-alerts page; I do not need my head bitten off another time in the name of cluelessness by others.) Zephyrad (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Followup: I left a note on his talk page, with a link to the relevant policy debate. I will now go and get myself a nice, thick raincoat and some waders, just in case. Zephyrad (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I took a quick look at the debate, and it definitely looks like a complex issue. However, here's my take on it, which I hope will make sense:
 * If the article is about an album, book, movie, game or other work, the title of the article should match (as closely as possible) the title of the original work. For example, I noticed a move involving Recording The Beatles (as opposed to "Recording the Beatles").  The original book is titled with an uppercase "The", so the article rightly capitalizes that word as well.  However, I believe you are correct in "Birth of the Beatles" using the lowercase "the", since that work is officially titled with the lowercase "the".
 * When the article is about the group itself, I believe the agreed-upon policy within the WikiProject should be what determines the capitalization of "the". "The Beatles" at the beginning of a title or segment is fine, as that's standard titling rules.  "Something Involving the Beatles" is also correct, per the project's policy and also per the standards that policy cites.  As I understood it, the band was named without emphasizing the definite article - for instance, you would never say "Want to listen to my The Beatles album?" or "I'm going to a The Beatles concert tonight!".  (However, that debate also mentioned The Who, which I believe WAS named specifically with the definite article, and in personal experience, I've heard people say refer to "a The Who concert/album".)
 * In short, I don't think there's a hard and fast rule that will apply to every possible case. Each band that contains "The" in its name needs to have its name evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and the best source for that is any official publication by the band or its members, its agents, its official biographers, historians, etc. who are known to be experts on that band's history.  My experience has been that the majority of bands using "The" in their names use it in standard title case and not as a definite article, meaning that "the" can and should appear in lower-case when it appears in the middle of a sentence or phrase, or could be dropped entirely depending on the grammatical context.  The exceptions come when the band itself or its publisher specifically calls out the definite article in some official way - even if it's in the title of a work where the capitalization of "The" seems out of place.  (I would posit that, so far, the works I've seen using "The Beatles" with the definite article are third-party works and were not created by the Beatles themselves.  Thus, they do not prove that "The Beatles" is correct.)
 * Got a bit long-winded there, didn't I? Sorry about that.  In any case, I see some cases where Koavf's move may be correct and others where it's apparently not.  I don't really have time to correct the issues myself right now, but if they're still there later when I have more time, I'll see what I can do about them.  Thanks for the heads-up. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 00:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you thought that was long-winded, you must not have read the debate page. ;-) My God, that went on a long time, and for no good purpose. I agree that not every last change may be bad; however, the last thing I'd want to see is the whole thing stirred up yet another time, by someone who wasn't there the first (or the forty-seventh) time around. I figure if it's old pages that weren't deliberately changed by another admin at the close (please!) of the debate last year, then they should be reverted before THAT can of larvae gets reopened; newer pages could be looked at on a case-by-case basis. (You could ask Kingboyk about this... and about all the grief the T-vs-t thing caused, for too many people. My dispute with LessHeard_VanU came from it, for one.) - I never joined the Beatles WikiProject precisely because I didn't want to get sucked into this sort of thing (having to deal with "fans", whose fandom and/or lack of training as writers limited/skewed their judgement); the debate proved me right, in ways I couldn't have imagined, and I still managed to get sucked in. If you don't want to handle this yourself (and I couldn't blame ya!), you could pass it on... presuming another admin hasn't already seen what's happened, rolled his eyes, gone "#*&@$%, here we go AGAIN!" and taken action. Anyway, on with life. Thanks for your time. Zephyrad (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear User: IMPORTANT WIKI ARCADE GAMES PROJECT NOTICE
As you should be aware the wiki arcade games project has been marked inactive and with good reason. I am trying to increase the activity of this project but first I need to know who is still actually interested. So to find out I have put inactive next to the name of every person who has put them selves down as a participant of the project. If for whatever reason you do not intend to participate in the project anymore please remove your name from the participant list altogether. If you do but not in the near future leaving inactive next to your username will be helpful. Not taking any action at all will of course lead to inactive remaining against your name on the participant list. If however you have every intention on continuing in participating in the project please come change the "inactive" next to your username to "ACTIVE" so that it is clear who does and who does not still have interest in participating in the project. Thankyou for your time. --Hybrid360 (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian
Hello,

I don't want to be seen to be "forging friendships" as such given the circumstances surrounding Requests for comment/Yorkshirian, however, I must thank you for your input none-the-less.

I have a question: what do we do if Yorkshirian fails to acknowledge the RFC? Distruptive editting (in my humble opinion), has continued, including some claims that i've doctored a naming convention two years prior to me joining Wikipedia!!! (see here).

I do want to resolve this issue, and "nip-it-in-the-bud" at RFC. I'm happy to work hard to bring Yorkshirian into the community, however, I have no quarms taking this to the next level of mediation, as I truly believe that I have nothing to be concerned about other than the actions of this user.

Your opinion and input would be greatly welcomed. --Jza84 | Talk  00:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If the issue continues without a response from him (and I assume you've notified Yorkshirian about the RFC), please file a report at WP:ANI (or one of the links given from there). They should be able to help you more quickly.  Unfortunately, people are not required to participate in mediation or RFCs, though it's usually in their best interest to do so.  If you file a report at the noticeboard, please reference both the WQA and RFC attempts, in addition to your other diffs.  I'll be happy to provide a reference. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 00:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a quick thanks for your replies and efforts. I'll take note of this advice too. Although it is discouraging that ANI don't seem to be interested in the slightest, it is encouraging that you've cared and been impartial and commend you for that. Thanks again, --Jza84 | Talk  15:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Response
I have 30 days to decide whether I want to reply or not to the RFC since that is when the bot closes the RFC, as per its guideline ("Ending RfCs"). However, since those two point blank refused to reply to address absoutely any of my points once I attempted to engange on the WQA, then I'll need that aloted 30 days to decided whether its a waste of time to play their little game or not. Or some persuading from an admin why it would be worth commenting on it. They're clearly more interested in attempting to get a sanction put against me, than actually enganging with or answering me in the dispute proccess, like on WQA. This is a violation of WP:HARASS.

In the meantime I think it would be for the best if Jza completely kept off my talkpage, hes not welcome and in my view is further violating WP:HARASS. I only wish to engage with that person on article talkpages. Meanwhile, Jza has spread his politicial hatered of Yorkshire and dislike of me into actual article mainspace. Can you please advise on how I can report this person and take it to a higher level? I asked you before in the WQA, when I was asking you to review his behaviour, but you didn't advise. Thank you.

PS - further more you seem to have endorsed MRSC's propaganda on the RFC within minutes of its opening and before there was any response at all, is this how the RFC process is supposed to work? Also why are people such as MRSC and Jza84 signing a section which says "Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute", they're directly involved in the dispute. They're one of the half of the cause of the entire dispute in the first place. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the thing, Yorkshirian: I already stated in the WQA that I agreed with Jza, MRSC and Harkey Lodger on their assessment of your hostility toward them. You did not appear to be working toward consensus, you were showing open hostility, and near as I can tell, your only real complaint against these people (and Jza in particular) is that they were putting in article content that you didn't agree with for one reason or another.  Additionally, WQA is there to address civility issues, not content issues.  Aside from your complaints about Jza's "propaganda" and his "racist" comment, the rest of your responses have been to the content issue, while they have consistently been trying to address your behavior.


 * As for my endorsing MRSC's RFC: You'll notice that I added an outside view, which is a summary of my own involvement in the WQA. I have not signed the endorsement section of the main points in the RFC, however - I have only endorsed my own view.  My view happens to be mostly in agreement with what was said above it, but as of now, I've limited my involvement in the RFC to (a) entering my own outside view, (b) clarifying endorsement rules for MRSC, and (c) notifying you that the RFC had been filed. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 03:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI I have filed a Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents relating to conduct since the RFC. I feel like it is getting worse since it was filed. Is there any other way to deal with the behaviour since then? MRSC • Talk 06:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * One more note on the RFC: Yes, you have 30 days before the bot closes the RFC as stale, meaning that it hasn't gotten any traction. That is intended for disputes that have been resolved and were not properly closed.  However, any admin may close it much sooner than that if it's clear that one party isn't going to cooperate with the process, or is just gaming the system, and your stating your intentions to sit on the RFC for 30 days is clearly a statement of non-cooperation.  I would encourage you to post a response there now, as it will be a more organized forum than WQA for you to express your concerns about other people's behavior as well. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 15:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll look into it some time tonight. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I replied on the RFC and expressed my willingness to water down the way I address people on here and attempt the "desired outcome". On the condition that Jza and MRSC do exactly the same thing in the "desired outcome" section, as an act of good faith to show that they are willing to change contentious behaviour towards me too and that this is not just some attempt at bureaucracy to try and "null the oposition" in content disputes. I feel this is a reasonable solution all round. Thank you. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I do think that's reasonable. Thank you.  I'll make sure the others see the update, and if I can, I'll help with mediation.  We now have another admin (see below) who has said they would be willing to help out as well, so hopefully we all can get you folks back to peaceful and constructive editing. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 19:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation
You also might look into Mediation Cabal, which is an informal mediation process. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I see the page has a backlog tag. If you'd like, I'm willing to help informally mediate. Let me know on my talk page if you're interested and if so, I'll start looking into the contrib history. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Blanking talk pages
Hi Kiefer, re: is blanking talk pages allowed? Removing warning notices is allowed, I know, but could you explain where it says that it's OK to blank talk pages? It seemds to me that according to Talk_page_guidelines and Talk_page_guidelines it's not allowed. Many thanks in advance, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC).


 * Hi Alasdair. I couldn't find any specific mention either way of whether user-page blanking is accepted or not.  However, Talk page guidelines mentions that users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, and WP:BLANKING links to a specific section of the user page guidelines, which also state this fact.  The latter link notes some important exceptions (such as sockpuppetry notices and block/unblock templates), but otherwise, blanking one's own user talk page is considered the same as removing comments.  It's not the preferred method of dealing with unwanted content, but it is not strictly forbidden either. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 23:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the guidelines you linked to are in reference to article talk pages, where removing other peoples' comments is not allowed. I believe that may be where the confusion is.  As I mentioned, it is generally acceptable for a user to blank his/her own user-talk page, but it is not acceptable to remove comments from (or blank) an article talk page. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 23:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Many thanks :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yoshi525
I feel you should be warned about this user - he plans many malicious acts against you, and says he will strike soon. 86.141.15.129 (talk) 09:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Um... thanks, I guess? &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 16:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)