User talk:Mindspillage/2006archive5

This is an archive of my talk page from May 2006. Please add new messages to my current page.

Absolute pitch
Hi, List of people with absolute pitch has been AfD'd. Sorry I voted before I saw you'd created it and there had been a discussion about it at Absolute pitch. Any thoughts on the deletion proposal? Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

(her comment there):
 * Just a comment. I took this out of absolute pitch (as per article talk) because the list was growing out of control and wasn't of much value to the article anyway, figuring that if anyone cared about the list so much they could maintain it (source, verify, etc). As this hasn't been done I don't care what happens to it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Some Rouge admin you are!  + + Lar: t/c 17:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The link you deleted contained a list of all software available for achieving Absolute Pitch. It's basically the list that was on  wikipedia plus some more programs I've found. I consider this usefull information for everyone, so please leave it on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.93.232.162 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 1 May 2006.
 * WP doesn't typically itself try to be an exhaustive list of software. Perhaps if you explain on the talk page of the article why it's a good link it would be more likely not to be removed?  + + Lar: t/c 12:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration/user Zora and others
Hi, I just came back to Wiki for today to change a tag on a picture; after this, I won’t be involved any longer; however, it is on my mind, so I’ll say it: in today’s geo-political climate where every opportunity is being grasped to try to dismember a country like Iran, or at best capitalize on some internal ethnical disputes, unfortunately many are being manipulated into making racist remarks and sympathize with the separatists ideologies. Indeed, even some countries that are not a hot potato like Iran, such as Greece, are finding themselves defending their heritage, more and more these days (Albanians are laying claimant to Macedonia). Now with that being said, many editors came here and tried to purge articles relating to Iran from inaccuracies, and found themselves in frivolous disputes. While I blew the whistle on the edit-war problems, in the course of evidence gathering though, I realised, via delineating that a certain user with aplenty time to spare, and armed with an agenda, namely user Zora had instigated the first of many of these disputes a year ago, all the while vociferously labeling the other editors as Nationalists; fascists and others, which really unjustly indicates those who opposed her may be chauvinist, bigots etc. Upon a review, I see this user had selectively self-designated herself as a Semi-involved party; yet, after all the obvious diffs pointing towards incivilities, a one-sided editing motto, and the fact that she still is disputing contents that frankly were/are simply historically inaccurate, the committee has issued a mere caution warning? And, a user such as I, who had not participated in edit-wars as of early March/06 (I joined Wiki in Feb/06), is given a possible topical ban? The fair recommendation would have been to at least include users like Zora in the probation along with others. Sadly, the down side to this lackluaster efforts, most likely due lack of adequate time for the arbitrators to properly review the case--is, the fact such imbalanced proposals causes some not to take this institution as seriously as they would have liked to. You should really try to promote an atmosphere of purer academics here, and come down hard on [all] sides that with a click on a key-board, inject politics into an encyclopedia. You certainly don’t want the reputation of the site being as untrustworthy. I truely salute you and your refreshing userpage my dear lady.Zmmz 09:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR ARBITRATION -- RE: STEPHANIE ADAMS DISPUTE
The article on Stephanie Adams is no longer being edited from an objective standpoint. A group of users are maliciously ad vigorously removing factual comments that have been added by GODDESSY due to a frivolous discrepancy and are decreasing the quality of the article substantially.

We ask that you take a look at it and proceed with arbitration and/or have the page fully protected to where it was when we added the information back.

-- Justice For All

Amgine RFA compromise
I suggested a compromise on the RFA under comments. A way to get use of much needed tools now and expand to full use over 60 days. Worth a try. -- FloNight  talk  18:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't get how (nonvoters) people decide these things these days. The Foundation could have just come in and mandated he had the power and that would be that, but no... have to do things the consensus way... and the community can't seem to internalise that he's doing us all a favour. I think FloNight's idea is a reasonable compromise (props for thinking creatively!) but it's kind of disparaging to Amgine to make him go through it, IMHO.  + + Lar: t/c 19:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggested compromises. FWIW, it's up to Amgine whether he accepts (and I see that he has! Heh, he doesn't want to get involved in anything hairy politics-wise around here anyway). I think it's just about a lost cause already but thanks for your efforts; I do agree with Lar that it's a little disparaging, as he's been around longer than I have and knows quite well what he's doing when he does something likely to cause controversy, but if he is willing then it's worth proposing. Unlike with BradP, it's not strictly necessary to assign Amgine sysop rights by the Foundation; he can go on as he's been going on. But it's just silly. Sigh. Casual observations: almost no one in the oppose list has interacted directly with him, and a good portion of the supporters have. (Though I am more bummed about it than he is; actually he doesn't care much, and I feel frankly a bit insulted by those who are so positive that I have nominated a bad candidate! Ah, well.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

User talk:TeaLoverDenise
Hello. Would you mind taking a look at this re:spam blacklist please? The user's website was added and she'd like it removed because it's showing up in search engines on the blacklist. She says she added it due to a misunderstanding and (implicitly) promises to play nicely in the future. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 23:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Cherry blossom tree 17:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
As on of the people I respect most on the project, your support means a lot to me. I find myself agreeing with just about every one of your positions. Anyway, thanks again. - Taxman Talk 05:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Volunteering for OTRS
I'd like to volunteer to help with OTRS. Ral315 (talk) 06:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Questions regarding your ArbCom actions in Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al
''You may respond here. Further questions may follow.''


 * Regarding your motion in the matter to limit me to one account,
 * 1) Why have you sought to do so? Please provide the strongest supporting edits you can, specifically to support your contention that I have continued to assume bad faith and make disruptive edits.
 * 2) What do you hope to accomplish?
 * 3) Will I be notified when it passes, and what are the criteria for passage?
 * 4) What is the precise definition of a sockpuppet account, and how would this account meet it, if at all?


 * Regarding the block listed under the matter,
 * 1) Has it been established that the referenced block is related to the matter?
 * 2) How is it related to the matter?
 * 3) Why are there no supporting edits?


 * Regarding the parole assigned in the matter,
 * 1) Have I violated this parole? If so, please provide the strongest supporting edits you can to support your contention.

&mdash;StrangerInParadise 06:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To answer your questions:
 * I seek to do so in hopes that the reputation you have, and that you have attempted to draw on to lend credibility to your words with this account, will be taken into consideration in your further participation in Wikipedia. (Where previously, you could use this account without affecting the reputation of the other.) You will be notified when it passes. Such motions pass by support from a net majority of active arbitrators; it will be in effect as soon as someone closes it properly. You are restricted to using one account and one account only, no matter the purpose; any other account used by you will be considered to be a sockpuppet. (Using more than one is discouraged to begin with, for that matter, but as there are legitimate reasons for many users to want more and impossible to prevent it from happening, we do not forbid it.)


 * As for the block, why don't you ask Alkivar or NoSeptember? I did not place it; enforcement is not generally done by arbitrators.


 * As for the personal attack parole, I don't know and am not going to go combing through your edits to find out if anything you have posted is technically a personal attack. However, you have been continuing to assume bad faith of others, and to go about lawyering when blocked rather than acknowledge any wrongdoing; it is unbecoming and perhaps you will think better of it if you do have an established identity whose reputation is worth keeping. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I value the reputations of both my accounts which are separate for legitimate reasons external to Wikipedia, and I resent the characterization of their defense as lawyering (if there were not so much abuse of process, my defenses would seem much less lawyerly, if even needed). My possession of these accounts is permitted, and there is zero evidence of multiple-account wrong-doing on my part. Your statement that I have attempted to draw on to lend credibility to your words with this account, is untrue: I have only in casual conversation with a fellow editor refuted the claim that I am new to the project and have few article space edits. As you know, this was ludicrously dragged before ArbCom as a sort of smoking gun, which is the only reason you are aware of it. Your desire to merge these reputations, while interesting, is well beyond your remit.

The only significant difference in these two accounts is that on this one, I have stated that, These few simple assertions have been the lighting rod which has brought all manner of prohibitive sanctions and administrative abuse to what has been a fairly quiet editing record. In the case of the 43 UN Wikipedian messages- commonly and erroneously called spam- I stopped at once and agreed not to repeat, which should have been the end of the matter. The reason this falls to you is that you have made a motion stating that I have continued to be disruptive and assume bad faith faith, implying that I have violated my parole and require further santions, but you have not offered an single piece of evidence to support this. This would be acceptable if either you were not subject to review, or your actions were to be accepted on a transendental level of faith, but neither of these things are true. Please provide evidence to justify this additional level of interference.
 * Bad faith mass-blanking and deletion is vandalism, per WP:VAND and common sense
 * The standard in CSD-T1 does not provide for the deletion of templates because they are divisive in the world, but only if they are divisive to a disruptive degree on Wikipedia
 * UPP was a poor policy proposal
 * Admins who ignore process are annoying
 * Guanaco acted acceptably, MarkSweep did not

Additionally, there is the matter of Alkivar's block being listed on my ArbCom matter, without a single piece of evidence to support its validity, or even that it was connected to the underlying ArbCom matter at all. Alkivar, NoSeptember and your clerk, Johnleemk have all been notified of this, but have refused to cooperate. NoSepttember placed the note on Alkivar's behalf, without acertaining his actual intentions. DragonflySixtyseven has elicited a response from Alkivar which suggests no relevance to the ArbCom matter. Technically, the clerk should ask Alkivar what his intentions were, and ask him to annotate or remove the record; if Alkivar does neither, the clerk should remove it a s a matter of course. As a member of ArbCom, you were a reasonable next point of contact in resolving the matter.

Please take this matter up with the clerk, and look to your own motion, as I maintain that I have not in any way violated my parole, yet cannot challenge these- and your- undocumented actions except to say they are unjustified and without proof. I would rather engage your actual reasoning.

&mdash;StrangerInParadise 16:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Congrats!
... You're going to be busy! Congratulations. :-) Antandrus (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! That's awesome. Remember that sleep is good for you. Mak (talk)  20:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Congrats, except: just what the world needs... more lawyers! Well, better you than Willy on Wheels, I guess!  + + Lar: t/c 20:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you guys. (Hey, I think the world could actually use more lawyers who are fans of free content and free expression. ;-)) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ya but how do you feel about Free Minds and Free Markets??  + + Lar: t/c 00:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, I used to have a subscription, actually, but I let it lapse... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've subscribed on and off for years... once it lapses it can be hard to resubscribe. I find I skim it now, nod and say "ya ya, that's right but so what?" and then go back to reading The Economist which while it is a bit more conventional politically, is a lot more practical informationwise.  + + Lar: t/c 01:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  02:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I appear to be a bit late with my congratulations, but that doesn't make them less congratulatory! What is the opposite of IANAL? :-) --RobertG &#9836; talk 09:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * IAAL? &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  21:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC) :P

Congrats, and e-mail
Yes indeed I got your message ... let me check and see why my return message didn't get to you; I wrote it almost immediately after you sent yours (most strange!) Antandrus (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)  Let me know if you didn't get it:  it's flagged as sent and went to the gmail place. Antandrus (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Look now ... I forwarded it manually from my sent box. If that doesn't work I'll send it from my main e-mail address (in case gmail doesn't allow incoming from Yahoo ... though that's rather a long shot hypothesis) Antandrus  (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

OTRS
Hi Kat,

I see you're looking for volunteers to man the info-en OTRS queue - mind adding my name to the list? -- ChrisO 14:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Integrity: Does Anybody Care?
Over the last few months I have worked hard to raise a red flag about extremist groups using Wikipedia for propaganda purposes. I have now brought the issue to the attention of those at the very highest levels within the Wikipedia community.

Now that I have gone through all of Wikipedia's bureaucratic hoops, what steps are being taken to correct the problem? How are policies being changed to prevent advocacy groups from using Wikipedia to disseminate propaganda?

There is widespread agreement that "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" is not an impartial article written by impartial people, but nobody cares enough to fix the problem. Is leaving the same group of editors in charge of the same article supposed to produce different results somehow? How long will it be before the article claims a correlation between natural disasters and Protestantism again? Now that this has been brought to the attention of the powers that be, what mechanism has been put into place to prevent that from happening again?

Can it be that nobody in the Wikipedia community, including ArbCom and Jimbo, cares about the integrity of Wikipedia? I have suggested several approaches to help prevent this kind of misuse of Wikipedia in the future. Is Wikipedia going to adopt these approaches, or will you continue to ignore the problem and discipline whistleblowers instead?

We all know that ArbCom knows how to give users the boot - they do it all the time - but who is going to actually fix the problem?

Lou franklin 16:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

User Jayjg's revert war at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel
This is not a formal complaint, but I would like to informally draw the attention of some members of the arbitration committee to the behavior of user Jayjg, an arbitration committee member at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel and its talk page. There is a dispute about the inclusion of a description of a translating group. Jayjg has removed the description I added on (10:12, May 8, 2006), (10:19, May 7, 2006), (23:19, May 5, 2006) Jayjg and other times. While the article is not heavily edited, there is certainly no consensus that the description should be removed, nor has Jayjg supported his reasoning for removing it after being challenged to do so by myself and another editor. I think that as a member of the arbitration committee Jayjg should be held to an even higher standard than at-large editors. TopRank 01:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Meta talk
Just left you a message on your meta talk page; just bumping you here just incase you are like me and don't check meta often. A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 06:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

So whats up with the anons on Clive Bull?
They said they called Wikimedia and talked to you in their edit summary. --Syrthiss 14:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, they were just reverted by Danny...soooo maybe they talked to him. --Syrthiss 14:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

A question regarding ArbCom procedures
Hello. Being you one of the Arbitrators involved in the ArbCom case Messhermit, I would like to ask you to please read this request of mine here. I am approaching other arbitrators with this same question, but it's not so easy to get in touch with them. Thank you for any advice you can give me on the matter. Andrés C. 20:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

please consider before finishing Terryeo's RfA
Please read the discussions here and here  before finishing off Terryeo's RfA. A number of us are hoping the arbitrators will vote on banning Terryeo from Scientology-related talk pages as well. Thank you. BTfromLA 17:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is covered by the "appropriate comments" wording. Innappropriate comments can and should be removed, it seems to me.--Sean Black (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Merecat
I don't think he came back disruptively. He apparently stacked votes as an anon IP and that's what led to the checkuser, not anything to do with Rex. He had POV disagreements with Ryan that get escalated to RfC's edit wars and what not. I think he deserves to be unblocked or at least have a term limit placed on it. Follow merecats edits and I think you will see it wasn't disruptive. This is what I have done and is why I defend him. --Tbeatty 18:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured article status
Will you help me get Stoke-on-Trent to featured article status?? I'm already doing a peer review on it soon! --Sunfazer | Talk 11:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat%2C_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek
Hi, I think you may want to take a look at this as I feel Davenbelle may still be lurking. -- Cat out 14:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Bassoon
Is this correct? I just noticed this edit, and it seems wrong to me, but I'm not sure. Thanks, Mak (talk)  03:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Subpage.
Hi Mindspillage, Thank you for your message, and no worries with deleting the subpage. I've now removed the off-site pages with those two new problems and will restore them in a few days. I've since emailed Brion et al a few other things, but on further investigation they were variants of the original problem, and are resolved by the same fix. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 07:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ryan Lafraniere
Hi...I was just wondering if you could let me know where the article subject actually made the request. I'm pretty unconvinced of his notability too, but there's been a bit of foolishness going on with this article recently, so I've been keeping an eye on it for that reason. (I actually speedied it at one point, until somebody else pointed out past vandalism of what he asserted to be a valid notability claim; I just didn't feel up to disputing that. I'd still be happy to delete it as nn, for what it's worth.) Bearcat 07:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, that works for me. Thanks. Bearcat 18:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Yoke.xcf
Oh yeah, that image upload was a mistake. Image:Yoke.png exists at commons, and that one is the one liked from Yoke:Aircraft. You can go ahead and delete. (You're an admin, right?) &mdash;M e ts501 talk 12:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Per your note on my talk
Regarding Tony Sidaway -

I did not exactly listen to you reagrding leaving him alone. I'm like a junkie. However, you also recomended using intermediaries. So can you tell him that shortening other people's signatures and refusing to leave an edit summary that says he's doing so is terribly uncivil? brenneman {L} 04:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

OTRS info-en template changes.
Please see meta:Talk:OTRS/en about changing some of the template titles, and OTRS/en for additions and deletions. -- Jeandré, 2006-05-28t13:18z

I'm sort of online at a cafe, but cannot get IRC (or log into my en.wn account). If you notice this, you might mention it to Dannyisme. And I'm available on cell, usually. - Amgine 18:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
for helping to make sure that hesher sticks around. I knew that I had heard the term referenced before in media, and I searched for Hessian thinking I may find something there, until I googled Hessian+mullet and found Hesher, then checked WikiPed. Maybe I'll do some updates to the page, it hasn't gotten a lot of action and seems in need of it, but I'm not an expert, so maybe not. It should lose the non-objective POV, as "redneck" is more than appropriate for a description of hesher. Have a good day.

Tim Sailor 22:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)