User talk:Ncmvocalist/Archive 4

ANI archiving
Ahhh, thank you so much for helping me try to archive WP:ANI! I thought I was the only one getting enraged at sitting there watching that whole stupid page load in my browser. (BTW, your talk page could use a bit of a snip too! {) —Wknight94 (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, no problem :) Google is ticking me off so much though...refusing to load and all...of all the times it doesn't work. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just coming here to say the same thing! Isn't there a bot that archives, though, or has this seriously always been manually done? I'm sure I missed the memo. I can help as well here and there, what parameters are you using to archive? 24hrs? 48? Keeper    76  19:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The bot does it based on inactivity in the thread... which means that it can't use human judgment to see which threads are obviously over and done with, even if they've only been inactive for a short period of time. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)
 * That bot goes either too slow or too fast - not that I can blame it; it'll never know if something is actually resolved or not. It's set at archiving threads that don't get responses for 24 hours. I wanted to archive about 10 resolved threads (some aren't marked either!) yesterday, but thought I'd leave it for a day - got rid of them into the archives with some more now. :) Not using any real parameters - generally, if it's something that's done from my own judgement, I've put it away. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder if a 12 hour absence of action might be a more useful parameter - it gives the half of the world that was asleep when the discussion paused chance to add to it if required... Obviously, there will still be the "Please will admin close XfD" - "Done" that can clear, but anything that has/requests opinion should be kept for a while longer (IMO). —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessHeard vanU (talk • contribs)


 * I just wanted to take the time to thank you for archiving AN/I. Great work. It needs it.  Syn  ergy 14:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please link in the edit summary the archive to which you are sending things. – xeno  ( talk ) 19:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies
I was doing several things at once and thought that was on the main AN/I page. Apologies. -  Jéské  ( v^_^v  Mrrph-mph! ) 20:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's okay. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I read it
I read it quite clearly. If you had actually read what I wrote, you would notice that 1) I expressed dissatisfaction that the thread was closed only 8 minutes after the last message and 2) that I felt administrator action may still be required. Part of a section being "closed" doesn't mean the entire section is closed as I frequently see sub sections of discussions closed while the debate carries on around them. 90 minutes after a comment in a section is too soon to archive it, whether you feel further admin intervention is required or not, obviously another editor did.--Crossmr (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Kossack4Truth topic ban
MastCell just clarified this. Kossack4Truth is under restriction as per this discussion on ANI-- Cailil  talk 17:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What to do?
I guess you've followed it, so I'm not adding anything really. I just noticed (via an indirect mention on Talk:Obama), that Kossack4Truth filed both a 3RR and a WP:ANI with various accusations against me. No notice on my talk page about any of this, of course (by anyone, interestingly). It appears the complaint tries to muster together four distinct edits I made, concerning two completely unrelated topics on the Obama page. It's frustrating, obviously; but it does appear that the various admins, including you, did the right thing with the reports.

I'm a bit worried about what to do with such things into the future. Of course, I may or may not learn of any administrative pages at all. But I more-or-less assume that K4T will continue to try to incite conflict and engage in various wikilawyering. I suppose in this case, the fact I never saw it until everything was already closed was for the best. Any sage words on how to walk the line of contentious editors while trying to keep hot-button articles free of unencyclopedic content? LotLE × talk 00:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard subpages and archiving
Stop archiving the Bedford thread - it's now open to review, it's not just resolved like that.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  15:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Beat me to it, but I hope you see NCM that I'm not the only bothered by your presumptive editing here. Beam 15:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahh... I had not noticed that there was drama over this prior to coming to this page. Now that I've been inspired to look around, I see that there is in fact a medium-to-high level of noise about it.  Can I ask that you stop the agressive archiving/subpaging/whatever until there is some consensus? -  brenneman  02:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Un-deleted this just in case you had missed that I added a comment to an older thread. In the event that you'd seen it and simply chosen not to respond, I apologise for being a pain in the arse. -  brenneman  05:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you do archive threads (you seem a bit too aggressive about it), you should use a descriptive edit summary. If you can't be bothered to explain what you're doing in an edit summary, please leave the archiving to the bots. Thank you, Kusma (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at your contributions, you're right. It seems it was an archiving-to-subpage that pushed my getting-annoyed-at-people-about-imperfect-edit-summaries trigger. Happy editing, Kusma (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right..
ANi is not a forum. And, following that correct statement, you are not the owner of that forum. I don't take particular issue with your manual archiving (others do), although it worries me that your judgement is apparently supreme, but 7 minutes after a unilateral 'founder backed and enacted' desysop and you want to stop the convo? C'mon, it's not a forum, but this is a big event. Until there is a satisfactory way to comment on this event or until the community decides that ANi isn't the right place to discuss this happening why don't you chill out? Go have a cigarette, come back in 20 minutes. Respectfully and peacefully, Beam 15:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it's funny like that. The most stupid lamest things end up being the loudest most asshole filled threads and then the most serious issues are calm and civil. Beam 19:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee report
You have been named as a party in a report seeking a hearing by the Arbitration Committee concerning events at Talk:Barack Obama and WP:ANI. I have posted the report at the Talk Page for WP:RFAR since the main page is semi-protected. Feel free to add your statement, and please transfer the report to the main RFAR page if you see fit to do so. Thanks. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I saw that you removed a personal attack from the above editor's Arbcom report. I suggest you leave these in (and consider self-reverting).  On the one hand, yes, we should insist on civility.  On the other, if you edit these messages to the point of incivility then you're inadvertently supporting their argument by hiding their misbehavior.  Wikidemo (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay - I too think it's rubbish and I don't intend on submitting a statement at this point in time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

My RFA
Thanks for commenting in my RFA. I will try not to do anything wrong, but if you see me do something that I should not have, please tell me.

Cheers! J.delanoy gabs adds 21:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy note...
... that I've mentioned you at ANI, here. —Giggy 12:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your concerns
Hello. I am not sure that you were fully aware of the circumstances when you made your comments. If a group of editors join together as a team to insert libellous unsourced material on the BLP of one of the most eminent scientists in the world and one of them (in fact ) starts using language like "eurocentric history" and "exposing western idols" to describe their opponents or their intent, it is very hard not to use terms like "extremist" or "conspiracy theorist" to describe their position. At the moment a lot of libellous material remains on the talk page of Michael Atiyah which will appear in web searches for Atiyah. Various administrators have been monitoring this situation before you raised your concerns. I freely admit that I might have confused the opinions expressed by two different members of this group of editors pressing for the inclusion of attack material in flagrant violation of WP:BLP and actually said so much today. I am sorry if this has created any problems - this was quite unintentional and I certainly hope that this slip note might not be regarded as a serious offence. The gross BLP violations were quite extraordinary and administrators were slow to leave warnings. ELonka did nothing, but Slrubenstein kindly gave a long and careful explanation of the stringent BLP policy to the two newly arrived SPAs, following my explicit request. I was unhappy to spend my time activating administrators in this sorry tale, which has deeply upset a lot of mathematics editors. My mainspace editing today on Differential geometry of surfaces was completely disrupted. Might your reaction perhaps have been a little dispropertionate in these extraordinary circumstances? These SPAs have certainly achieved part of their goal if you even contemplated that I had committed a blockable offence.

Well that was just my two centimes worth. I can now at last have dinner here in France after a very long day, where like I have felt at the end of my tether because of Perusnarpk's continual forum shopping and harrassment. I hope you will understand this. Very wearily, Mathsci (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Perusnarpk
This editor has opened an RfC against Fowler&fowler. For someone so new to WP, he seems expert in finding all the different noticeboards. Wouldn't you say this SPA in fact appears to be using WP as a battleground despite warnings from Slrubenstein and Nishkid64? He might have been encouraged by what you wrote to me. Mathsci (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In view of what has just happened to Perusparpk and the 3 other indef blocked meatpuppets, I wonder whether it might be an idea for you to be more careful in future about what you say to editors like me. I do not think you judged this situation at all well. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Archived ANI
Thank you for closing and archiving my report on BLP concerns.

I was posting a comment agreeing with the action at the same moment you were archiving it. Dunno why that didn't show up as "edit conflict", but instead posted my comment in the main page (under an unrelated parent). I know that the "closed" mark says don't add anything, but I felt that my concurrence with the action was worth sneaking into the archive. I am pretty certain that we will soon see reference to that archive in some sort of "complaint" against me, so I want my agreement on the result to be contained in the archive. Yours, LotLE × talk  19:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I realized that. Meanwhile, 3 other users decided to edit-war on whether it lives or stays in the archives. I've moved it to a separate page (should've done that first but I forgot we can do that!) I'll add your comment in. Oh, and thank you for the note. :) It was reassuring for me too! Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Great. If you could be so kind as to get my final agreement stuck in wherever it bounces to, that would be great.  I have no opinion on how long to wait for archive and whatnot, but I'm obviously in agreement about closing it as "resolved".  LotLE × talk  19:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops
Thanks for correcting me - here - on the community ban. Time to RTFM again! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Assessment
Hello, I've made some suggestions for the assessment department for WP Law and listed them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Assessment. I can help with a lot of whatever is needed to update the assessment department for WP Law. I do some assessment in WP Tax but I want to include assessment in WP Law as well particularly since there are so many unassessed articles. EECavazos (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thnaks
thanks for order

Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 06:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the close
That might have been my most surreal experience yet on this Wiki. Absolutely strange. One thing I don't deal in--never have, never will--is personal attacks. To be accused--and so vociferously--was a new experience for me, especially given that all I did to "instigate" it was defend Blechnic from false accusations. As it stands, I hope that user will quit finding incivility where there is none and move on, as it's not fun defending one's self against baseless accusations. S. Dean Jameson 02:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Question
Which comments here fit that? User:Fritzpoll commented that we needed tea, which I agreed with. User:TravisTX was talking about Blechnic and not on the situation with Jameson, as he states. That only leaves User:Eusebeus, which accuses me of impropriety and doesn't offer suggestions. User:Xenocidic doesn't comment on the situation. And User:Jaysweet recuse himself because I asked him to remove his calling someone else a liar as inflammatory to a discussion related to the matter.

And, if you are to suggest that there isn't problems communicating with User:S. Dean Jameson, then please explain these(in reverse chronological order): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, et al.

Note - number 2 proves that there is a relationship between Eusebus. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're willing to accept the third party input given by myself at least, however reluctantly, then this is resolved. Otherwise, I stand by the recommendation I closed it with. The evidence is meritless, and you really should consider moving on, or taking it to the next step of dispute resolution as we can't help you here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just want Jameson to leave me alone. I just asked for a small redaction of a comment that said that someone else couldn't read. I didn't want it to escalate, and I definitely don't need an editor to follow me across multiple pages. I tried to move on, but as the diffs I pointed out above, the other user has refused to. If you think that the evidence that I gave on the Wikiquette page doesn't show difficulty between two users, then you are definitely are in contradiction with User:Fritzpoll on the issue. Also, you did not provide any actual advice. You also claimed that I ignored others advice without anyone actually providing it besides one user. I think this is enough to warrant you to reverse your decision and to strike your comments accordingly. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And one last thing about Fritzpoll. You conveniently left out his first comment, when he expressed dismay and confusion that you had even brought the "issue" to WQA. Several different users commented there. None agreed with you that I had any issues with civility. This is my last post to you, unless you should choose to post to or about me in this or any other place. S. Dean Jameson 03:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Commenting where you comment is not "following you." And you escalated it, not me. I haven't been badgering you with false accusations. If anyone needs to leave anyone else alone, it's you letting this drop, and leaving me alone, which would be fine with me. S. Dean Jameson 03:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No one in that discussion (or the Blechnic one that began it) had any problem communicating with me but you. Again, Vocalist, thanks for the close. It will be interesting to see if OR lets this go now. S. Dean Jameson 03:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you an admin? Because I can't find a documented RfA, and I can't find any information that suggests that you are. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Let me cut to the chase. The answer is no. I have already demonstrated above why your closure of the page was improper. I can further document your relationship with one of the people that S. Dean Jameson improperly canvassed. If needed be, I will apply for an admin to remove your close, but I would prefer that you remove it. It was improper, as I have demonstrated above, and it was further verified by Jameson's posts on this page. If you are unwilling to do so, this will be noted, as I have pointed out that you already misstated my actions and the actions of others, and that you are unwilling to actually attempt any kind of mediation, but instead closed the issue before it was resolved. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither S. Dean Jameson nor Ncmvocalist are administrators, but I am. Ottava Rima, it is time to stop this. You have refused to accept that other editors have interpreted the sentence involved in a different way than you have, and that you have interpreted it in a way that was not at all what was intended. This is not the first time you have demanded that your position is the only acceptable one. This behaviour is becoming increasingly disruptive and has absolutely nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia.  I repeat - it is time to stop. The close was appropriate.  Risker (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To all who are concern, the topic of discussion is Jameson's actions in regards to my person and constantly following me. They are not, as Risker has improperly claimed, about any of my feelings about a "sentence". Risker is also a close associate of Jameson, and clearly biased. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(cross-posted from my talk page)

Appropriate?
Risker, there are many problems with what you have previously stated. 1) "You have refused to accept that other editors have interpreted the sentence involved in a different way" This shows that you do not understand the case. Clearly, it is about the user not leaving me alone, not about the original comment that prompted him to follow me constantly, and to continue to treatment in an incivil way. 2) "The close was appropriate." My diffs prove otherwise, especially with Ncmvocalist clearly claiming a consensus that did not exist, and advice that did not exist. These two issues right here are serious, and I believe that your reaction, in light of these two, is problematic to say the least. And say what you want about my behaviour being disruptive. However, most people in the community know and value my mediation work, and I know when there is a problem between two users that needs outside help. If you are unwilling to see that Jameson refuses to leave me alone, then you are unwilling to actually look at the problem objectively. If you continue to threaten me in the manner that you have, while doing the proceeding, then I will have to file a complaint about you at AN, because you blatantly stated that you were an admin, which was a threat to use that power. I believe that you will do the right thing and strike your unbecoming comments.

Also, the fact that you were canvassed by Jameson previously (as seen here) shows that you are not unbiased, and you are abusing your authority. Such things have resulted in admin losing their priviledges. I expect an apology for you breaching a conflict of interest or I will file a report. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See now, there you go again, Ottava Rima, trying to bully me this time. Now you are here on my talk page bragging of your mediation skills and stating that the Wikiquette Alert you posted was closed one way when it was actually closed quite differently than it was, and implying that I should be desysopped for agreeing with the closure. Ncmvocalist did not close the thread as having consensus, he closed as "Stuck - Filing party (Ottava Rima) does not agree with third party input".  In what Ncmvocalist will recognise as an unusual turn of events, I agree with his closing of that thread; your posts there imply that you will not be satisfied unless everyone agrees with you, while in fact nobody posting in that thread agrees with you. You and Jameson have been given advice—to disengage and leave each other alone. That means both of you. Your complaint on Ncmvocalist's page was that he made the closure despite the fact that he is not an administrator and I have responded to let you know that I, as an administrator, agreed with that action; you can now no longer complain that his decision has gone unreviewed by an administrator.
 * Many editors ask me for my opinions and comments on articles; Jameson has done so a couple of times, and so have many others. I was going to suggest that you take this to one of the administrative noticeboards, fully expecting that you would be dissatisfied with the outcome, but it seems Ncmvocalist has already raised your behaviour in respect of this matter. I will cross post your comment and my response to Ncmvocalist's talk page, because it is better to keep things in one place.  Risker (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between bullying and trying not to be bullied. By stating that you were an admin in the manner that you did, you initiated any kind of bullying tactic. Your use of terms like "bragging" and the rest are unnecessary and unwarranted. Furthermore, your understanding of what I said leaves much to be desired. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase what you wrote to me: "Strike your comments or I will take you to ANI." Or, even more simply, "Do what I want or I will make your life miserable." Sorry, OR, that is bullying pure and simple. You complained that admins didn't close the Wikiquette thread, so I gave you my opinion as an admin. I had to make a point of saying that I was an admin, because you were complaining about the lack of attention from admins. Now please drop this and find an article to edit, OR; I'm aware you do have some talent there and some of your article work has been seen favourably by some editors whose opinions I respect. I am quite concerned, however, with your insistence that everyone behave to your standards and agree with you on all matters. That is not a very effective way to operate in this environment. Risker (talk) 06:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Risker, can you see how "Neither S. Dean Jameson nor Ncmvocalist are administrators, but I am." may come off? I have struck the above claim based on AGF. However, the emotional response was real. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Risker's up-front identification that he is an admin was probably in repsonse to your earlier question about "Are you an admin?" which from an outside perspective seemed to indicate that you wanted the opinion of an admin. I didn't see it as any kind of a threat. Dayewalker (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is why I struck according to AGF. I was lacking at the time. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You might like to keep an eye on this
I wonder if you would mind looking at | this edit and keeping a watchful eye on the page and its talk page. Thanks. Abtract (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input
I would like to thank you for taking the time to review and comment on my RfC. I understand that doing so can entail a large commitment of time. While I do not claim to be perfect on this account, for the most part I have voluntarily decided to adhere to WP:1RR per the recommendations of others on the RfC. Hopefully this will address the bulk of your concerns.

On the proper interpretation of some aspects of WP:BLP and related portions of WP:RS I fear we may still disagree to some extent, but I would hope that honest editors who adhere to WP:AGF can agree to disagree on such things. In the end the details must be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the spirit and the letter of those policies and guidelines are being adequately adhered to. --GoRight (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. It's praiseworthy you're voluntarily trying something - and as you say, hopefully this will address those concerns.


 * Re: BLP edits, my main concern is with the Fred Singer diff I put up at the ANI, and your response to it - I think I wasn't the only one that was concerned by them either (particularly, at the time). In any event, best of luck! Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Psychic
...yep: here. ( LotLE × talk 18:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Whoever opened it seriously needs to read WP:TLDR. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

On Civility
Dear Ncmvocalist, thank you for your kind message. I have been deeply aware of my own incivility so that the arrival of your message was not unexpected. For reasons that may be evident, I do not feel that I can offer my apologies to User:MiS-Saath, however I am in truth deeply saddened that I have behaved towards User:MiS-Saath the way I have done (paradoxically perhaps, I do not regret my uncivil behaviour - for this, I am inspired by the King in Shakespeare's Hamlet who somewhere says: I must be cruel only to be kind). It may be useful to point out that User:MiS-Saath has been shown to be involved in very dubious activities on Wikipedia in the course of the past days, such as forum shopping (evidently, User:MiS-Saath cannot have been acting as a scholar, rather as an agent provocateur, or a hooligan --- as I have mentioned it elsewhere, it is highly dubious that a citizen of Israel should introduce herself as an "Arab editor"; in the latter link she writes: "Hello fellow arab editors" - I do not hesitate to bring up the Israeli citizenship of MiS-Saath, because as I have indicated elsewhere, I have personally a deep bond with the Jewish community). This amounts to cyber-warfare against Iran, especially given the fact that User:MiS-Saath has not proved able to justify any of her edits (she has proved unable to provide a single reliable reference in support of her persistent and destructive edits; in response to my repeated questions with regard to references, her only response had been that it was up to me to prove that she was wrong! Yours sincerely, --BF 03:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

ps) The body of the above message is identical to that of the message that few moments ago I placed on the talk page of User:Nishkid64. --BF 03:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
8-) Toddst1 (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned
This line is a part of your imposed restrictions on my editing. Not that I accept them, or will modify my behaviour towards others who choose to denigrate Article standards in Wikipedia, but I became curious in reading the definitions, and was wondering if you would be able to clear up some questions for me?

This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.

1. What constitutes a "gross violations of fundamental policies"?

A disruptive editor is an editor who:
 * Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.

2. Is it tendentious to point out that if the information they want to add is self-evidently valid and important to the subject, it should be trivial to provide multiple citations from reliable sources which agree that it is both true and significant.


 * Cannot satisfy Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.

3. Is editing "despite opposition from one or more other editors" when I cite sources and the opposition does not considered disruptive? Is it disruptive to insist that only once they have justified their edits beyond a reasonable doubt does the burden of proof shift to myself?


 * Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.

4. Is accepting moderations compulsory? What is the role of consensus in the view of its subject-area relationship below?

Article standards
 * Neutral point of view
 * Verifiability
 * No original research
 * Biographies of living persons

Working with others
 * Civility
 * No personal attacks
 * No legal threats
 * *Consensus*
 * Dispute resolution

In addition, such editors may:
 * Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Civility,No personal attacks, Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

5. While I am not new to the word "campaign", I wonder if you might be good enough as to explain how a Campaign to drive away productive contributors is conducted in Wikipedia?

Much appreciated--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 13:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Mangalore
Hi Ncm. With reference to the article's request for assessment, I realize from the failed FA nomination (as per User:Ealdgyth) that the article has a few reliability issues. Though Ealdgyth left it to other reviewers, I didn't quite see others giving much thought to this. I am not personally convinced by those sources. Can the A-class requirement discount this particular aspect before granting it the grade? I'm not quite sure about this as I haven't run through such an A-class assessment before. I could use your thoughts here before making a call. Mspraveen (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * On a totally different note, has the Tag & Assess 2008 tally been finalized and the Q&A circulated in the noticeboard as yet? I didn't find this at least. Is there a reason you are waiting before you do this? I've fed in my comments in the questionnaire to add to one set of entries. Mspraveen (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are you talking to me?
You know my opinion of you. Don't come to my talk page about stuff that does not involve you. I can't prevent it, but I will revert it from now on. ThuranX (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
Ncmvocalist, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA. Thanks in particular for commenting on my positive approach! If ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have one small objection to the closing on my RfC
I have already added a comment to this effect on the discussion page but I don't want to modify your summary myself. I would appreciate it if you would modify the closing to clearly indicate that my topic ban was not a direct result of this RfC. Please state this explicitly, rather than implicitly as you may have already tried to do. --GoRight (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I ask you again, please explicitly indicate in your summary that the action taken against me through WP:ANI did not originate as an outgrowth of the RfC. Your current summary clearly leaves the erroneous impression that it did. --GoRight (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The community sanction link indicates that it was a result of ANI discussion - again, RFCs cannot directly result in sanctions as you suggest. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

By which rationale stated in Requests_for_comment/User_conduct have you taken it upon yourself to unilaterally declare my RfC closed without any consultation on the part of other participants? There was still on-going activity and edits on the main page right up until the day before you closed it. --GoRight (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
I've replied to you. Thanks for your input; interested to see your response. --Dweller (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * On the basis that what I really want is a good user editing well, not banned, I've gone ahead and started an RfC. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've already spent a good amount of time today on Requests for comment/Sarumio. I might add to it later, but perhaps others will help me out. --Dweller (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks
I appreciate the support here. Please allow me one major and two minor screw-ups per month. LOL. Anyways, thanks. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 05:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol, sure - and you're very welcome. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you
, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse  for nominating me and  Wizardman  for co-nominating me. &mdash;  JGHowes talk  -  19 August 2008

Mangalore A-class review
Well you mentioned there were some sourcing issues. I couldn't find any sourcing issues. If you mean the last 4 at the FAC, then they have been resolved at the FAc talk page Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Mangalore/archive1. Kensplanet (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For further details on this assessment, it's best to contact Mspraveen - he was left to do this review to gain some experience on it. But briefly; he'd raised a concern that he wasn't convinced over the reliability of some sourcing - but he wasn't sure if it was a significant enough issue to fail the article. Beyond that, the dept haven't communicated on the issue and the article failed by default. If those concerns were resolved, then another member of the dept. would have looked at it and possibly one more after that before it passes. But I do think it's worth spending the time bringing it up to FA standard if it's just a referencing-template issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfB
Thanks for the comment. Really thanks, because I did wonder if people would miss the statement I wrote. I certainly took no offence at your placeholder neutral! If anything is still unclear, please feel free to ask. --Dweller (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's okay. ;) Just a note; I might not be around for a couple of days - will continue when I'm back. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

RfCs
May I ask why you're reverting my conclusions and inserting your own? Wizardman 16:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, just thought I'd check. For a minute I thought you rv'd me but I see what you did, it's fine. Wizardman  16:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Fasash Nua
How I got there: I remembered that he was at RfC/U, saw some more helpful comments from him at FAC, and clicked on his talk page, where I found the link. Sorry for the extra trouble I put you through; I'll know in the future to go through the main page. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Workgroup Indian music
FYI: There is a small discussion on whether there could be a workgroup created for Indian music within WP:India. Mspraveen (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

RfCs not showing up on RfC lists
Hi, noticed you as an in-the-know person ... I've been able to successfully place an RfC flag on Talk:eNom -- twice -- but both times it fails to appear on Template:RFCecon_list. Can you enlighten me if I'm doing something wrong, or help get it fixed if there's a bug in Wikipedia's code? Thanks. Thirdbeach (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Problem fixed, somehow or other. If it was you, thank you. Thirdbeach (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing Sceptre's RfC from the approved list
Hi. Why did you remove the Sceptre RfC from the main RfC page? Your edit summary says it's per an (incomplete) link to (somewhere on?) the page you removed it from, and per an AN discussion. Where is this AN discussion, please? As far as I can see, there's nothing about any RfC in the section named "Sceptre" on AN. I noticed MBisanz asking for someone uninvolved to make a judgment call whether to restore it here, and this is it: me. I'm uninvolved, and trying to form an opinion by, firstly, asking your reason for the removal. Please respond asap. Bishonen | talk 17:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC).
 * P.S., I've found the complete version of the link now, that was just my browser playing up. But I don't see that it explains anything. It looks like you're offline, but I prefer not to wait any longer; I'm re-listing it now. People should be able to find the RfC, in my opinion, and I never did understand why you unlisted it. Please feel free to discuss the matter when you come back online, if you disagree with my action. (Friday has re-listed the Majorly RfC, btw.) Bishonen | talk 17:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC).

Carnatic music
You seem to be in a dog fight with another editor regarding content additions. Why don't you consider going to Requests for mediation or the extreme WP:RFC (which you already seem to be active on)? Mspraveen (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The last time someone tried to get him into mediation, it was rejected because of his lack of consent. But I agree - this is not going anywhere at this rate so it's time to try again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Carnatic music: if there is an NPOV dispute, then you need to provide reliable sources for your side of the argument. Until you have them, you need to desist from blanking article content. --erachima talk 07:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Vandalism lists blanking of referenced content as a type of vandalism, so I will not retract the claim.
 * Now, to quote myself, "if the article is incorrect and you wish to defend the truth so righteously, then I suggest you get busy on your search for sources disputing the historical role of Ugabhoga to Carnatic music." You are in an NPOV dispute, it is true. NPOV disputes are resolved via references, attribution, and the inclusion of all significant viewpoints, not by the clashing of egos and revert warring. --erachima talk 08:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to request that you please make something clear for me: are you disputing the factual accuracy of the Ugabhoga section (i.e. claiming that it is not a part of the subject of Carnatic music), or are you disputing something else about it?

Because if your dispute is not with the information, then we may be able to work out a compromise on the format of its inclusion in the article that solves the problem. If it is with the factual accuracy then, again, bring out your sources refuting its content. --erachima talk 08:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To date you have not responded to above comments by User:erachima regarding your action of deleting a section that existed with consent of other editors and then initiating a RFC. Such actions are against wikipedia policy. Please reverse your action and  respond to above comments. Naadapriya (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)



Mspraveen (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Reply to your comment on my userpage.
LessHeard vanU is clarifying lot better and it will be followed up accordingly.

To the best of my knowledge first you deleted valid Ughaboga section a while ago and then requested for RFC and consensus lot later. Such acts are against the guidelines. Other editors have also pointed it out. Please reverse your action otherwise an Admn or with consent someone else has to do it for you. RFC can continue and the section can be modified after it is concluded. Naadapriya (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A-class rating
Hey there. Hope you're doing well. I was quite curious to know what happens if an article falling under WP:India gets an A-class rating from another related WikiProject. Does the assessment from WP:India needs to be formally completed or is the A-class applied anyhow (just as we'll do for GAs)? Your thoughts will be appreciated. What's up? What's keeping you busy besides the RfC? Mspraveen (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you're talking about :) Anyways, things just been fine at my end. Just been DYK-ing some movie articles besides tagging and assessing WP:India articles. Mspraveen (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Well I was considering the rigorous A-class review of Rang De Basanti at WP:Films. I believe that it should be clearing this hurdle very soon. I was wondering if it is an automatic upgrade for WP:India or a formal review is necessary. Let's wait until this review gets over and we can discuss it then. Btw if you can spare some time, you might as well punch in your thoughts on the review page?

WP:RFAR/Alastair Haines/Proposed decision#Implementation notes
Regarding this edit to Alastair Haines ' implementation notes: be careful you don't step on toes. "Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page."

Are you interested in Clerking? Anthøny  ✉  19:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Assessment department
The assessment department has been defunct for a while. I reopened it and fixed some glitches such as wikilinks to WP India, but which should have been to WP Law. Please direct assessment department discussions to its talk page. EECavazos (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please address comments on this issue tot he talk page of the assessment department. It can be found at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Assessment.  Thank you.  EECavazos (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Further, I have alerted some WP Law admins to this situation. Lets refrain until they give input on this issue. EECavazos (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Reassessments
I just noticed that you reassessed already assessed articles for your own personal reasons. Your time would be more constructively used by assessing unassessed articles. Feel free to reassess C class articles once there has been a consensus to reject the C classification. "Adoption" does not mean exclusion of the C class, "adoption" means that the case is closed and cannot be reopened later for discussion on rejecting the C classification.EECavazos (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

An exercise
NMCvocalist: I have asked EE to submit to me, using e-mail rather than talk page, a list of his top priorities of things he wants to change or keep about the assessment page. In other words, if you could make it look exactly the way you wanted it, what would it say?

I'd like to ask you to do the same.

This way, I can see what both of you want - because I can't piece it together from looking at the edit history and trying to guess which diffs were important, and which ones just were. My goal is to seperate the content conflict from the personality conflict, and keep this a positive exercise. Are you willing to go along with my idea? Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you are unwilling to participate. I am going to excuse myself from further involvement. By the way, |this kind of in-your-face editing violates WP:Civil and WP:Don't template the regulars. You and EE are both very intelligent editors and I believe you can work this out. My final advice to both of you is not to conduct yourselves in a way that makes that less likely. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Law/Assessment
Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you - it's been the first week of classes. I think the current page at WikiProject Law/Assessment is pretty good. If you want to make such major changes, we should discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Assessment. Thanks for staying calm and being professional. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Bravo Plantation
Thanks for your response on my page. While I can see interpreting his comment the way you did, I was also influenced by other editors on that Afd who believed BP was making the subject up. The AfD creator said the subject was made up. So did the first person to!vote on the Afd. Miquonranger03 calls it a neologism, which is a fancy way of saying it was made up. At which point BP said "It was just a figure of speech as I created it!" . Edward321 (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Ncmvocalist. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 23:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:MLVkalanidhi.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MLVkalanidhi.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What about your RFA ?
Hi Ncm, Do you mind me nominating your RFA in future ? Some of the possible oppose reasons would be your old block history and lack of mainspace edits ( < 10 % ). I have been watching your contributions to RFA, ANI and WikiProjects since some time now and I am sure that you are a good admin material. Main space contribs is something you should be also concentrating from now. Wanting to know your thoughts in this matter --  Tinu  Cherian  - 10:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

--  Tinu  Cherian  - 12:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Shall we then refactor the abusive words?
. Otherwise, it seems wise to close that thread and take it to DR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Shall we also refactor abusive and uncivil actions, like those where I am accused of sock puppetry, and those where I am threatened with the block, and those where editor pretends to be my graduate school mentor, etc, etc, etc. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Was there a problem here?
Perhaps you could explain what happened here? Risker (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To put it simply, a big mistake. The moment I realized what happened (which was almost immediately), I reverted it promptly. Sorry for the trouble caused. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I figured as much, just wanted to give you an opportunity to explain before either Giano or Ottava Rima took umbrage unnecessarily. Risker (talk) 04:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Mistakes happen. He self reverted. Trouted.  Syn  ergy 04:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - this wasn't a mistake. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Well, I created Requests for comment/Sarumio which has been mostly quiet, other than a scathing comment from Sarumio himself. I've done virtually no editing whatsoever of football-related articles since posting the RfC, and have deliberately not watched the user's edits to avoid stoking conflict, so I wouldn't know. Perhaps TRM is in a better position to say. --Dweller (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A present
Hi! Thanks for your help with Harry Potter, have a barnstar :D

Foxy Loxy's RfA
Hello, this message is to inform you that User:Foxy Loxy has restarted their RfA. The new discussion is located at Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 2. Glass  Cobra  09:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

reason for deleting my article
hi, i just wanted to know the reason why you deleted my article on " stages of erythropoeisis". the content was completely true to the best of my knowledge and added to the page that was lacking in content.i hope u reconsider the decision. with regards atit ghoda --Atit ghoda (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

but wat if the source isnt a website?
hi, thanks for replying to my previous query. but i still have one query. wat if the source of the content isnt a website and is obtained through research or other reference books. do i write down the name of the books that may contain these references? this is because no website is having much information about the subject i wrote. hope u reply soon yours sincerely, atit ghoda --Atit ghoda (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarumio RfC
Please see this. --Dweller (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on POC's talk page
By painting a wider picture do you mean some kind of discussion about what we dubbed 'The Commonwealth realm wars'? I'm sure I speak for a lot of people when I say I would welcome this. The revert wars and shouting matches are tedious and very counter productive. Regards, --Cameron* 15:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Woa, that is completely the opposite of what I was thinking of. I don't endorse POC's of G2's behaviour but I think you're making a mistake blaming it all on G2. Looking at both of their edits (and block logs) neither of them are saints but neither of them are entirely to blame. I'm sorry but I'm opposed to the course of action you have taken on the admins notice board. --Cameron* 19:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, I look more at POC's horrid use of Huggle. More biting, bad templating than I've seen in ... years.  And he doesn't recognize it (see my posts on his talk page)
 * Try being polite; I would be receptive to that. Prince of Canadat 22:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have also been an idea to have spoken to me about this, rather than about me behind my back? It might have cleared up many of the misconceptions and misunderstandings that are evident in your "report". If you'd like to see a sampling of PrinceOfCanada's behaviour, please have a look here; I compiled it for the explicit purpose of a possible RfCU, but avoided filing one because I though PoC's behaviour might improve. Each time I thought the list to be unnecessary, it was added to, and needs added to again. If you've any questions, please ask them to me. --G2bambino (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI case
Hi Ncm. Is an Rfc optional? PS- you're my buddy, too. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd endorse an Rfc, as it's apparent that editors are peeved with G2. The Arbcom is very selective about which cases they'll take on. If an Rfc fails? Mediation Cmt comes next. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette case
Giggle giggle, perhaps Wikipedia could use a Meditation Committee. Sometimes, things can get stressful. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann
Please revert your revert. That editor is well aware of who Keith Olbermann is and has repeatedly made sarcastic comments. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKeith_Olbermann&diff=244509491&oldid=244509140 RafaelRGarcia (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Compare those two to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Keith_Olbermann#Intro_Needs_Work RafaelRGarcia (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought removal of clearly non-constructive content was allowed. For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_W._Bush&diff=244264590&oldid=244263643 RafaelRGarcia (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

75.139.138.105
I commented on your last report on Administrator intervention against vandalism, just wanted to make sure you saw it (since you're using HG) :) -- lucasbfr  talk 15:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Kaovf
Hi Ncmvocalist. Someone has to leave a notice at Justin's talk page. --  fayssal   -  wiki  up®  17:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cheers; I'd forgotten about that completely. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your help at AN. Much appreciated. --  fayssal   -  wiki  up®  18:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi again Ncmvocalist and sorry for bothering. I've just read again the notice and I believe that your personal views may be interpreted by the recipient somehow different than the way the community's judged the issue. I see no clear sings of an appeal clause being discussed or raised at the community discussion. Please let me know if you disagree. Thanks again. --  fayssal   -  wiki  up®  16:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi FayssalF. I don't mind omitting that bit if necessary, but I do think it's pretty standard in how previous community editing restrictions, general sanctions or bans have been treated. Where a sanction has been imposed by the community, traditionally, appeals are then handled by the community (undisputed). However, I presume that the issue with the views I added at the end of the notice, are either with the duration before an appeal, or the mention of ArbCom.
 * Generally, appeals have never been considered favourably for at least 6 months, where restrictions of this nature has been imposed indefinitely. This is of course arguable.
 * ArbCom's jurisdiction on the matter (for the lack of a better word), if any, is also arguable. If my understanding is correct, appeals may be made to ArbCom over any restriction, sanction or block. However, assuming the norms haven't changed from earlier this year (on community bans), the Committee generally won't (and shouldn't) touch an appeal on a community sanction/ban unless it has come to the community first, and additionally, the community could not come to a consensus either way. I don't think exceptions have arisen at any time so far, but it is a grey area and there may be certain grounds to appeal on (eg; all admins in the discussion abused their privilleges or were 'involved' in the dispute, or if there were genuinely private and very very special mitigating circumstances).
 * I think I've covered all bases, but please do let me know if you find a problem with anything I've said, and would prefer if I omitted certain or all parts concerning appeals in the notice. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing above which I'd disagree with. It misses considering the main relevant point which is the nature and particularity of the case on hand. We have dealt with a case of a user who had already been banned before appealing and getting a 1RR parole. This is a situation where there was no consensus to ban but there was no discussion, let alone a consensus to an appeal. There was none because it was clear that the appeal was used once. After that there was a breach of the 1RR parole and after that were blocks for edit warring tendentiously. How many appeals are out there?
 * Naturally any banned or topic banned users would appeal regardless of the explicitness of the message/notice. The ban/topic ban already carries that implicitly. Saying it explicitly without being explicit at the community discussion is another thing. -- fayssal   -  wiki  up®  17:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect, when crafting the sanctions, the very reason I did not specify the duration of the sanction and system of appeals was because I intended those proposals to entail the default terms (those which I've noted above) - it's a norm to have the default appeal terms explicitly specified in the notice, even if it was not in the discussion. The fact he was at ArbCom before, I felt, does not mean that the norm changes, because it's never been a system to only allow 1 appeal. ArbCom have opened cases more than once on the same individual/matter in the past, or passed motions on prior cases, and I see no reason to justify a change to that practice in this case. I made a note in relation to this prior to making my sanction proposals.
 * Essentially (with or without the notice), whether it's to the community or ArbCom, he can and will make as many appeals as he wants. But each appeal carries a risk of its own - in part or full, it may be granted or rejected, or superseded by either more restrictive or less restrictive sanctions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your help Ncmvocalist. --  fayssal   -  wiki  up®  22:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Happy I could help, and I hope it assists in resolving any concerns/problems on the matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You are a Winner!
I trust you clicked each link (well... at least the first two, you may have got the idea by then) ;~) ? As you made a good faith attempt to resolve this matter some weeks ago, I wonder if you could have a quick look at User talk:LessHeard vanU and give me your thoughts? My viewpoint remains quite clear, that Abtract trolls and otherwise disrupts two editors and acts in bad faith - creates and edits an article to get round a undertaking, claims they are "leaving" but does not do so, provokes an edit war (with provocative edit summary included) and then claims 3RR violation - with regard to same. Your review previously found instances of inappropriate behaviour on behalf of all parties, and I would be grateful if you could again cast your non-jaundiced eye over the matter. It is regrettable that the agreement you drafted was not taken up by Collectonian and Sesshomaru, but I think the time has come to start issuing sanctions to try and resolve this issue. I look forward to your response at your leisure. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You may care to look here too. Abtract (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review, and I await your consideration upon remedies (so much more friendly sounding). As for the 3RR report from "uninvolved" Ab, I note on the 3RR page that there was one by Sess on Ab that was dismissed as "stale" - which may also bear some remedying if it falls under the same ambit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. If you feel inclined to comment further my talkpage is at your disposal (there is already a discussion ongoing). My only question at the moment is; do we request agreement from the parties, or do we unilaterally impose the agreement, or do we take it to the Admins Noticeboard for d'kummooneetee to ratify the imposition? Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we're reaching the end of a remedy at User_talk:LessHeard_vanU, if you wouldn't mind taking a look at the end of that section. -- Nataly a 19:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Restrictions on editing of articles between, and and
Important Notice These restrictions are imposed upon the above named editors, and are not subject to amendment without agreement of a majority of the "involved administrators".


 * Abtract, as one party, and Collectonian and Sesshomaru, as the other parties, are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. (Note - this remedy may be expanded in scope to include interaction of any other user if it is later deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 administrators to prevent harassment.)
 * A division between both parties of future work on disambituation pages may be agreed, at a neutral venue such as one of the involved admins talkpages, but otherwise the above restrictions apply.
 * The editors are already aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and are reminded that edit-warring has a disruptive and detrimental effect on Wikipedia. Should either user edit-war in the future, they may be subject to further sanctions (including wider revert limitations, blocks and bans).

Involved administrators are, , and who should act with due notice to all the other parties. Other admins are welcome to add their names to the above, and comments by any other party is welcome.

The discussion relating to the drafting of the above restriction (adapted by LessHeard vanU from the original - and revision - by ) can be found here.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

+ + + + +

Thank you for your work on this. ps. I only became aware of the other thing too late in the day - but I would have been happy to support your position. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Version 0.7 reviewing
Hi, I see that you've signed up for the 1.0 review team. We need your help right now, because we had around 70 nominations last week! As you probably know, Version 0.7 is coming out soon, mainly based on the bot selection. This relieves us of the burden of manually assessing 30,000 articles, but we need the manual system to catch the articles that might "fall through the cracks" - such as a couple of missing provinces needed to complete a set. If you're no longer interested in reviewing, please can you remove your name from the list of reviewers?

You should consult the criteria and the FAQs, but I would suggest that most manual nominations of B-Class articles or higher are expected to pass, unless they are fairly obscure. You can get a good sense of the importance by looking at the article in the bot's list (check the talk page to find which projects have tagged it); an importance score (excluding quality) of <700 indicates that the article is probably too obscure, unless it is needed to complete a useful set (e.g., all the counties of England). I take the view that if someone who is knowledgeable on the topic spends the time to nominate the article, it is likely to be OK, but just occasionally people try to argue for an obscure or poor-quality article.

So, are you able to help? Many thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. After Friday is fine - we are aiming to complete this by October 20th.  Also, can you note the VersionIDs for nice versions for us, and add them to the relevant subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7?  Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

sigh...
it's bad form to make a disparaging comment and then archive the discussion. if you want to really close the discussion, leave me a message on my talk page so we can discuss the matter. don't treat me like I work for you, because I don't, and I'm not all that interested in being obedient to an authority that you don't possess. I have no problem with you - really I don't - and I'm more than willing to talk things out, but please don't put on airs, because I am extremely unlikely to respond to that in the way you expect. are we clear? -- Ludwigs 2 21:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I consider that if you're "extremely unlikely to respond in a way expected", you're threatening to either edit disruptively or create even more heat than light or use Wikipedia as a battleground or something along those lines - please don't. More than one user has criticized your approach and the problems it can cause (even if it was blunt, it was civil - not disparaging). I hope you take such criticisms constructively in the future. The situation in the WQA was over, which was why it was closed (as another dispute should be in another WQA, if it warrants it). Anyhow, I'm willing to assume good faith and think that we've both miscommunicated with each other. I'm sorry for anything I said that offended you and I hope we can move on. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * my apologies if I come off snippy. the real problem I have on wikipedia (if I may be honest) is that I'm indifferent to authority of any kind, and tend to talk back when people try to pull rank on me.  that is often interpreted by others as being a lot more challenging and aggressive than I actually mean to be, which in turn tends to make people defensive, and mad.  I get the feeling that there are a number of long-term editors here who would dearly love to tell me that I'm just a newbie who doesn't know his place, and they are probably correct - I don't know my place, and I probably never will; I don't ever think in those terms at all.


 * but don't worry, I do take criticism well (though not always in the way people want me to), and I never make threats or aim to disrupt or any of that silly crap. life's too long to let that stuff get in your head. mainly my mouth (err... fingers) just get ahead of my brain sometimes, and something I meant to say dispassionately comes out with more bite than I might have liked.  my apologies if that's the case here; I meant no harm and no insult.


 * sooner or later I'm going to have to work out the kinks I have with Dave and a small cadre of other editors here who've taken a dislike to me (Dave's a maybe, though a couple of others I fear are lost causes...), but you're correct: that was neither the correct time nor the correct place to do it. I'll keep working on curbing my more snappy instincts.    -- Ludwigs 2  05:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's one of the disadvantages of relying on typing text alone without hearing or seeing how a person said what they said - but it's okay, and I'm glad we sorted it out quickly. ;) And always remember, just because you and dave weren't right on this occasion, doesn't mean that you haven't been in the past, or won't be in the future. All of us make mistakes and it's okay - it's part of gaining experience. What counts is how often we make them, how we learn from them, what we do to avoid making them in the future. :) Take care, Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Link Tool
Hi Buddy,

Give the tool a blast and see what you think.

Comments/suggestions/bug reports to my talk page please.

Best,

Chaotic Reality  07:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Your username has been included in a current WP:RfAr
Just to let you know that I have initiated an Requests for arbitration, and have carelessly bandied your username about within my statement. I would be happy if you were to look over the matter and make any corrections or comments you consider germane. I would specifically note that I did not make you a party as I was the person who requested your input in formulating the wording of the restrictions, and am taking any consequences for doing so (which I am hoping will be in the order of a big garland of flowers and some praise - which I will blushingly concede that you are due your 25% or less...) Joking(ishly) aside, your comments will likely be very appreciated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Heck, that was good beer, that Old Speckled Hen, last night... I noted your statement/evidence at the RfAR - and if the case is accepted I will likely be borrowing from it considerably for my evidence. Thanks for your past efforts in this matter, and hopefully the only things you will be advised of going forward will the result(s) of the Request/case. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks indeed for your factual (as I have come to expect) statement. Just for your personal info, when JHJ agreed to release Sess and me from "the agreement" it was because Sess "wanted out" (in his words) and I agreed ... lest you think I initiated it. Abtract (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, iirc, I read that in the page JHunterJ had made for the discussions between you and Sess. But even then, I wasn't concerned by who initiated it. The main point is that you both agreed to void it - without both agreeing to do so, the restriction would have still been in effect. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, just ensuring you had all the facts. Abtract (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Ditto from me, although I did not have as many supports. Thank you for your reasoned and kind rationale. Kindest regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U
There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux  ] [ x ] 15:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Tag & Assess 2008
Can you list overall placeholders in Tag & Assess 2008. -Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I reminded because you were Drive coordinator for Tag & Assess 2008.


 * -Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanx a lot.
 * -Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing in User:Synergy
IRC.  Syn  ergy 09:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin opinions.
I removed my post as I understand that good admins may get hurt at it. Also, maybe the discussion page was wrong - ANI would be correct. I have no grudges against people who readily discuss and understand points made by their opponents and offer arguments instead of opinions. However, those admins who tend enforce their opinions without discussion should be stripped off their adminship. I was just showing my consent to the initial point made by Tinu in the subsection. I am never against consensus and always prefer to change other's views by presenting facts and reasonable arguments rather than opinions. I believe in the army's saying opinion is like an ass - everyone has one (hope not an A rated sentence on your talkpage) :-)) -- GP Pande  talk!  15:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom clerk-like edits
I think it's time to nip a fermenting issue in the bud here. Recently, you've resumed making edits that should be left to the ArbCom clerk team. (,, , , plenty more.) As you know, several users have privately contacted you (via email, IRC) requesting that you cease these type of edits; evidently this has not worked.

It's general consensus amongst the clerks that your edits are, although well-intentioned, not helping things. I'm now moving the extended request for you to not make these types of edits (read: anything that is clerk-like) on-Wiki. This is not desirable, as I prefer to not air criticisms of other users in public where possible, but private communication has had little or no lasting effect.

I appreciate that you are trying to help, but, for the sake of preventing confusion and keeping the "image" of the clerk team—which was once in itself a controversial body, although admittedly not to the same extent today—as neutral as possible, please cease immediately these sorts of edits.

Anthøny (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've indirectly complied with the request as so far as not making edits to the clerk noticeboard as I appreciate (despite my own reservations) that it may make things confusing. Similarly, on proposed decision and final case pages in line with the rules and exceptions. Evidently though, I need to draw a picture for each of the clerks individually seeing the message I've given in return is simply not sinking in. The several arbitrators that I contacted on the matter have directly stated that edits like  are not a problem for a non-clerk (and found them helpful), and evidently, the clerks think they have authority to say otherwise - they do not. Additionally, suddenly suggesting that 2 templates that have been edited by non-clerks for many months is now off limits is a problem in itself because I cannot appreciate the clerking body targeting my edits.


 * The clerks exist for the Committee whom exists for the community - not any other way. The community expects disputes to be dealt with as quickly and effectively as possible, and any member of the community has the right to push disputes towards achieving that objective and fix obvious discrepancies (like typos and fmting errors on a proposed decision page, as well as those trivial edits I made to the templates). This is particularly so when dispute resolution is falling short of that objective, even in the final stage of arbitration. The clerking body do not have the authority to deprive any editor of that legitimate right, or to prevent them from exercising it (whether it is on the odd occasion, or whether it is on a more regular basis). The edits you've cited are not within (or confined to) traditional clerking duties.


 * For the clerks to be brought to arbitration over ownership/authority issues, or bringing a non-clerk to arbitration because the clerks want to go on a power trip - and I will be utterly blunt - is pathetic. But it seems from the increased aggressiveness in these messages that this is going to become the case. Whether the result from this is something that I've already suggested to that arbitrator of what will become of my future edits in total, or whether it's in the clerks being told that they do not own these pages, the net result, regardless of what is said, will not change: turning the so-called image of the clerking body into something that is more than controversial, borderline embarassing. Please don't, as I think it will be very sad if it comes to that.


 * If you still wish to assert authority over my edits relating to ArbCom, then I'm likely to escalate this elsewhere (if not already) - however, you are of course welcome to do so yourself too.


 * Unimpressed,


 * Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

NMC: You're a very good editor with a long track record of positive contributions to wikipedia; I do not want to offend you in any way. As I'm sure you've noticed, that's not my mission here. However, as the last time our paths crossed, I was passing by, though, and noticed this discussion, on which I wanted to offer a personal 3-0 comment. Here's the thing: from a neutral perspective, the argument in your post above twists the policy of WP:OWN just a bit too far. OWN is not a defense to making uncivil ordisruptive edits. The Clerks may not own the page, but nevertheless, it is uncivil and disruptive to go and change things in that space. I'm sure you would be unimpressed if someone came and unbidden, removed your non-smoking userbox, and replaced it with a bunch of his own - all completely accurate, but all completely unsolicited by you. You don't own it, but it was rude of the person whose userpage it isn't to come and tell you which userboxen to post. I would not blame the clerks (and the arbitrators) for feeling the same way.

Here's the thing: I know you're trying to help, but actually, when people jump in to do the jobs that other people are doing, people in a position of responsibility, it actually prevents or delays a just and proper oversight. Even though in the short term you are helping advance the clerk's work, you may actually in the long run be making worse by preventing the clerks from getting their just desserts (or perhaps causing a good clerk to resign). Clerks aren't quite like admins, but they are in a position of reponsibility, and those of us who are not, should let them do their jobs, whether they do it well, or badly. If they do it badly, there is a proper way of dealing with it. Being their training wheel or crutch isn't it. So NMC, I am glad you are behaving responsibly - because that's the kind of editor you are. But I hope you will not just behave because someone is telling you. I'd like you to rethink their side of it, and not be resentfully compliant, but empathically compliant, if possible. That's my contribution. Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Please see my most recent post to my own talk page. Then please see recent posts to Sarumio's. The guy is impossible. He just cannot stop himself making mass edits without bothering with consensus. He is clever enough to lie low when he needs and disruptive wherever he chooses to work. A topic ban would be inappropriate recourse now. I think this needs ArbCom. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * btw The Rambling Man is now on a very lengthy wikibreak. Although he's popping in from time to time, he's likely to be restricted by time and technology when he does so, so probably even more limited than I am! --Dweller (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Ncmvocalist, just popping in from Varanasi. It's interesting to see a bunch of different editors in a different field of Wikipedia altogether condemning Sarumio's flippant behaviour through his mass edits.  It's beyond football articles now - he moved onto rugby for a while before I caught him doing exactly the same thing he was told not to do with the football articles.  Now it's a case of changing town for village or vice versa without any consensus to do so.  I'd have had his ability to edit removed some months ago - we've wasted hundreds of Wiki-hours cleaning up after him, it's not good enough.  Hope that makes my position crystal... Cheers. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. Topic bans are pointless to consider. He's clearly disruptive everywhere he chooses to edit. He'd simply accept the ban and move on and disrupt a new area. Some editors are, sadly, incorrigable. --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

re Abtract ArbCom
You may have seen this at one of the Admin noticeboards, but here is the notice I received at my talkpage; I would like to voice my appreciation for your past, current and whatever future input you have (had) in this and related matters. Thank you. Mark (LessHeard vanU) (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Carnatic music - info box
Hi. You have mentioned a Carnatic music info box would be better for Carnatic music. Can you share your thoughts on what will be covered in such a box? The Indian Music seems to cover the high level items in Indian classical music, which may be good enough, until the next big improvement on the info box, right? VasuVR ( talk,  contribs ) 13:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U request
A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Vithoba: Class A Application
I saw you changed the grade. I need suggestions for further improvement, lack of coherence was another issue. Can you please read the entire article once and point out where topic sentences or more context may be needed. To resolve the RS, i have approached the RS/N and section below, please help to decide if the rationale provided by me is valid or should i search alternate sources. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, i have replaced all disputed references. Please take a look.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please take a look for class A rethink? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Adoption of C class in WP Aus
My view is that using C class has been an underwhelming yawn. At first I opposed the idea on it just complicating things for no good reason and I still feel this is true. At the same time I am slowly rating some articles with C class, especially when they don't have appropriate citations from reliable sources.

Using C class doesn't provide any quick fixes so it is difficult to discern any real benefits. At first there was a lot of confusion about criteria. There is still of lot of inconsistency between types and many articles rated start are probably C class. However other editors who do more assessing or work on specific sub projects that I am not familiar with, may find may find good reasons and have other opinions contrary to mine. So in summary, adopting C class might have some benefits and probably some confusion. You might want to look at WP:VG/A, who also adopted C class. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Workshop - Piotrus 2
Yes, I'm still working on it. I'm hoping to finish the workshop proposals by the end of the week; but, as I've mentioned, the evidence does not lend itself to easy drafting. Kirill (prof) 13:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm basically done at this point, and just waiting for further comments. Kirill (prof) 23:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey Ncmvocalist! Thanks for the barnstar. I am very sorry that i could not respond to you earlier. I have become very inactive in Wikipedia these days. How are you?--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
But really, I think it's just arbcom that need be aware. I suppose Jehochman, Moreschi or Chaser could be notified. I'll do that now. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: RFArb page - Motion: Tobias case
Would like to request that you change your vote to oppose (from abstain) so this may be archived sooner, before the RFArb page gets too much longer. I make this request given that the active current case (Kuban) has similar proposals - I expect they can be tweaked in such a way that it will eliminate the need for amending the Tobias case, while providing any necessary clarification. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not necessary to oppose the motion to allow the section to be archived; if it doesn't pass in a reasonable time then it simply lapses. If no arbs have commented in a few more days then that can take place. What you really want to be bugging us about is moving those open cases to proposed decisions :) --bainer (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, lol...cheers! :D I'd completely forgotten (think I'm in PD mindset still). Hehe, I've already begun bugging on one of the open cases last week - that should be on PD soon. Kuban will be the next target, once the wording re: userpages is satisfactory. Cheers again, :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Thanks for your attention to | this. Considering that you have already condemned such behavior, User:Srkris continues to do the same thing, repeatedly, and this for more than ten days and for the past five days, ever since I brought it to the attention of WP:ANI. If you are an admin (even otherwise), I'd like to know what can be done to prevent this. I seriously cannot understand how someone with | FIVE blocks for uncivility, Wikistalking and Sockpuppetry is still continuing to do Wikistalking and uncivility without the faintest remorse and how WP Admins aren't noticing a troll who is hiding all the warnings in his talk page, as pointed out above, by sweeping them under the carpet! If an editor with such a bad editing history and an outrageously bad block/warning history can continue to go on a POV rampage, without any civility, to stalk other editors thereby creating a negative edit atmosphere, I fail to see the need for guidelines or policies. Any help appreciated. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 03:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded at your talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. While I am happy that his behavior was punished, I find it ironic that all the aforesaid stuff went unnoticed but he got blocked for edit-warring. It is like being sent to judicial custody for petty theft when one is a murderer. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 23:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Any arb?
What makes you think you can rv changes on the RFAR templates 3 times and then say on each summary "(any arb. who prefers..."? You're not an arb, not even a clerk. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because 1/ it was an undiscussed bold edit and 2/ I've reverted on the basis that the previous long-standing version was better. If an arb prefers the bold edit, then they rightfully have the authority to restore it rather than let it become a venue for edit-warring between a variety of other uninvolved editors. Clear? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You fail to realize the paradox. You edit these all the time on the grounds non arbs/clerks can do so and yet you say someone else can't? Yet you then say only an arb can change your changes? Oy the hypocrisy! Clear? Sumoeagle179 (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously I wasn't clear, or you wouldn't mis-state my position. I edit on the grounds that any uninvolved editor may make bold edits; if either the clerks or arbitrators disagreed with an edit, they're always welcome to revert on the grounds that the edit was inaccurate (eg; a case was active with new motions when I'd edited the template to mark it as stale). I am not aware of this happening to date for the edits I've made. In this case, there was long-standing content (or format) that was substantially changed without any discussion. Ms2ger was welcome to make the bold edit, but I reverted in the same manner. If Ms2ger's new undiscussed version was preferred, then it'd be restored by an arbitrator. Perhaps you feel there is a hypocrisy because you failed to gather the facts before commenting. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll intervene here as a Clerk: please refrain from making unapproved changes to Committee pages, but moreover, refrain from reverting through your preferred version of the template—such behaviour is wholly inappropriate. I wish to note that Ncmvocalist is here perfectly correct in his actions, and speculation over his suitability to revert changes made to ArbCom pages without any prior discussion is unhelpful: the changes still do not belong. Thanks, AGK 16:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So he can make changes but only arbs can change that? What contradiction.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What...? That's not what I said at all, Sumoeagle. My comment was noting that changes should only be made by an Arbitrator (or a Clerk), or with the agreement of one or both; if a change is made contrary to that, any editor is permitted to revert. Therefore, changes to the status quo can only be made under those conditions; anybody, however, is permitted to take action to ensure the status quo is retained until such a time as agreement is sought from the Committee or its Clerks. AGK 16:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Putting on my clerk hat here, anyone can make changes, but a major change should be discussed first. Honestly, the difference in the two verions isn't that big a deal to me. As to this rv'ing with no discussion (and note Sumo did start a discussion of sorts), one more rv and I'll full protect the templates and I don't care which version is in place at the time.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 16:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Coren already protected one of them, so I'll protect the other two also.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 16:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I had no intention of editing the templates on that matter after the 2nd revert on each  at 15:46-15:47. This 2nd revert made at 16:04 would've been made at 15:48, but I clicked show preview instead of send and was replying here in another window. If I'd seen the clerks already discussing this on the talk page at 15:49, would not have made the 16:04 edit. In any case, apologies. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's all just figure out which is better. I'd especially like to know which is better technically.  — Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 16:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies

Possibly unfree Image:MLV1.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:MLV1.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ­ Kris (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You have been reported
Your stalking behaviour has been reported at Wikiquette_alerts. ­ Kris (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply requested
It appears that you do not wish to proceed re, nor do you respond to email. Please clarify William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded at talk page.

3RR on M. L. Vasanthakumari
Be easy. This is a bit delayed, but the request for full protection over the edit war just came in. I'm declining in favor of warning. Also, the website you're warring over is not a reliable source and should not be in the article. Regards, لenna  vecia  05:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up; I've used some other sources for parts of the affected content, and left the 'citation needed' tags for the rest. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

My arbcom candidacy
I've replied to your question: I'm sorry about the delay. I've had a stinking cold for the past few days. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 13:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

AN/I
Thanks for the message on my talk page but can I ask you not to do the same in future. Such a message could be misconstrued as canvassing. The AN/I thread is on my watch list and I would have commented anyway. I'm sure you realise that your post wouldn't have influenced me. Nevertheless a more jaundiced eye could read more into it and I have to emphasise that i wish to remain a non-involved editor. The only reason I commented was when I looked at it on the WQA page it seemed an obviously frivolous request and digging further I found a disturbing pattern of behaviour. Regards. Justin talk 17:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help in conveying the complete context of my situation | here. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 09:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)