User talk:MountRainier

Hi

Talk to me...

My articles at CodeProject.com
I have been doing writing and editing of professional articles about various software development issues and have been awarded MVP for the year of 2013. Here is my profile page, and the list of articles.

DRN organisers
Hello. I am just letting you know that I've made a proposal to create a rotating DRN organiser-style role that would help with the day-to-day running of DRN. As you are a listed volunteer at DRN, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, and the other open proposals at DRN. You can read more about it here. Thanks! Steven  Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 00:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

DRN needs your help!
Hi there. I've noticed it's been a while since you've been active at DRN, and we could really use your help! DRN is going to undergo some changes soon, so it'd really be great if our backlog is cleared before the start of August and we have as many people on board to help with the changes (they include a move to subpages and the creation of a rotating "co-ordinator" role to help manage things day-to-day. Hope to see you soon! Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 11:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The new face of DRN:
Recently the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard underwent some changes in how it operates. Part of the change involved a new list of volunteers with a bit of information about the people behind the names.

You are listed as a volunteer at DRN currently, to update your profile is simple, just click here. Thanks, Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 17:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Michael.haephrati. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not affiliated with any of them. There are historical products mentioned for the technology aspect they have provided in the past. Michael.haephrati (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. MrOllie (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC) My recent contributions were reverted with no actual reason. These are historical products and the mentions are technical and refer to technical articles. Michael.haephrati (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally I would prefer to point to you the advice at Conflict of interest — which is not solely about financial aspects — which has good guidance and suggests that the article talk page be used in case of disputes, not continued edit reversions. We protect our encyclopaedia and it is better to hasten slowly. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. MrOllie (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello. I have brought that matter to the Amiga community one time, and in a single user's page. Following your comment, I made sure my post indeed reflects a neutral point of view. Michael.haephrati (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This statement is certainly not neutral, and 100% qualifies as off-wiki canvassing. http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?p=745685 Gaijin42 (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You are correct. Fixed thatMichael.haephrati (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing for AfD
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia  as a result of your . You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I indeed canvased outside of Wikipedia not knowing that it is against the policies. I did not publish a similar request on the deletion page and the user who have done that, have done that on his own (probably copied from my forum message). I have nothing to do with him. In any case, I am sorry for that and apologies. Michael.haephrati (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've increased the block time and removed email access due to the sending of emails to users after your block to get they to change their mind and try and keep the article. Canterbury Tail   talk  13:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Upon consideration I over-reacted and I've set the block back to the original 36 hour block. It is once again due to expire 03:04 on Saturday. Canterbury Tail   talk  17:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing so. However, I am still appealing against your decision in the first place (even though you have reverted it) and against the block from sending emails, as none of my very few emails can be considered 'canvasing' or are in anyway against any policy.M. H.  18:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Your block extension has been rescinded. Your original block will be expiring tomorrow, but you're worried about not being able to send emails via Wikipedia between now and then? How is that a not waste of block reviewers time? OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Ohnoitsjamie, the purpose of my appeal (or any appeal, for that matter) is to have someone else review 2 decisions, which in my opinion are a result of a very bad judgement. I hope anyone will do the same if he or she encounters a wrong decision taken by an Administrator, here and anywhere. So to answer your question: No. I am not worried about not being able to send emails via Wikipedia between yesterday and this morning... My appeal is about the 2 wrong decisions, and especially because I don't think any editor should ever have the slightest fear or hesitation to send an email to an Administrator about anything! Have a nice day! M. H. 08:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
ukexpat (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Windows NT Service Isolation (September 26)
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Windows&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hasteur (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Windows NT Service Isolation concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Windows NT Service Isolation, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Windows NT Service Isolation


Hello MountRainier. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Windows NT Service Isolation".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

DRN needs assistance
You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Help needed at DRN
You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

DRN help needed and volunteer roll call
You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)