User talk:Quillercouch/Archives/2005

Re:Welcome

 * You're welcome! (In the other sense of welcome...) If you need anything, let me know! -- Essjay ·  Talk 01:44, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hi
I'm just browsing through the Wikipedians in England category and notice you are not in a 'county category', probably because the category hasn't been created for it yet. Would you like created? Alf melmac 19:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, A lot of people use Wikipedians in UK category, that cat is going out of style though as far as I remember from the notice on its page. Proportion, not a clue, honestly. The more aware UK users become, the more likely they have themselves in a county cat. I suggest it to people who write on local articles that I watch, I know at least two others who do the same. Snowball effect I hope. Alf melmac 10:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, done and added to your user page. Soon have some 'neighbours' I'm sure. Alf melmac 10:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello
Thanks for your poetic contributions.

I thought I would just mention that I'm not quite so keen on linking dates. Dates of birth/death are good, since it can be useful to look at what links to 1960 to get anniversaries etc. Otherwise, linking a date means something quite widely significant about tying the event to the year ...

Charles Matthews 10:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

User page vandalism
No problem on revert the vandalism. I have you watched now, but actually I found it using CryptoDerk's Vandal Fighter. I highly recommend it if you plan to get into RC Patrol. I hope you are enjoying the site. See you around. Psy guy (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello again
I don't mind about the Palgrave names; but, to explain, I have a policy of creating redirects like J. Milton as I go. In the longer term it adds to the site to have redirects, and these sometimes pick up red links on other pages that otherwise would still be there. Charles Matthews 13:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquette
Btw. This is worth reading: Avoiding_common_mistakes:


 * Deleting your User Talk page or removing text from your User Talk page. Your User Talk page is the best way others have of communicating with you. It's OK to clean up or archive old content, but please be careful before removing content from your User Talk page; it may look as though you're trying to hide criticism.

This unsigned comment is from User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters; he complains that I removed some vandalism he did to this page. - Poetlister 22:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

(Incidentally, compare Lulu's friend SlimVirgin, who did precisely what Lulu complains of, but Lulu didn't put this sort of nonsense on her page! - Poetlister 12:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

List of Jewish jurists -- Request for mediation
I've added List of Jewish jurists to the list of requests for mediation. Please take a look and make any comments that you wish. Thanks. --Nlu 16:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have left a note on Rachel's talk page about this and suggested mediation be cancelled. Arniep 23:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Rachel has decided to go ahead with the mediation as Lulu has continued to make unfounded accusations on his talkpage. I'd appreciate if you could take a look at Categories_for_deletion, personally I think this category just shouldn't exist as gay people have lived in diverse eras and countries with different laws so it is pretty meaningless, and also Categories_for_deletion which is pretty stupid as we can never list all wealthy characters in all books, films etc. and as Rachel pointed out, wealth is relative. Arniep 13:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Please note, my edit summary regarding "obstructionist" and "WP:POINT" was directed at Lulu, not you. Jayjg (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:Mediation
Please direct all inquiries to our chair, Redwolf24. Judging from the edit summary, I believe that Redwolf24 was under the impression that the case had been resolved already. I forwarded your email to him and I see you've left him a note as well; he should respond to you soon. Thanks for your understanding. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 23:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe that Redwolf24 has replied to you by now? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll remind him to respond to you. He's pretty busy and said he would get back to you soon. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Please direct your attention to Requests_for_mediation and make a response there. Thanks very much! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Max Born
I've left a note on the talk page for Antidote. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society
Dear Poetlister don't worry it will be solved. I asked a very good admin whom I trust. It will be solved. I would like to thank you for letting me know. By the way if you're the one from picture I find you cute. Bonaparte  talk  14:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am you know :). By the way how come that you like so much poetry? Bonaparte   talk  20:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment
Reverted to last (anon) version to remove change by Antidote - why don't Jewish members of acadamies of science count as Jewish?

They do. The list is just extraneous as all it contains is other lists. Antidote 20:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply
Please place your request for unprotection at Requests for page protection. Homey 16:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

User:RachelBrown/List of Jewish juriststemp
Thanks for the message, but I'm removing the category again. I don't want to and don't have time to find out the background to this, but while the page is in userspace it should not be in an articlespace category. If/when the page is moved back to the main namespace, then by all means put it back in the category, but until then please don't. I'm sure this is policy, but I've not found a reference to it yet. I'll post again here when I do. Thryduulf 17:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've found the reference now: See Categorization - "If you copy an article to your user namespace (for example, as a temporary draft or in response to an edit war) you should decategorize it." Thryduulf 17:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You should first ask the person who moved it why they did it. It looks like it was SlimVirgin. If that doens't get you any reasonable explanation then ask at Requested moves. To move a page just click the 'move' tab at the top of the page (see m:Help:Moving a page for help), I would do it but I don't want to step into the middle of something I have no knowledge of. I'm going to be offline in a few minutes and all day tomorrow (UK time) so I haven't got the time to investigate further unfortunately. You should also ask about why it was moved on the article's talk page (it stays on people's watchlists when a page is moved so people should notice). Thryduulf 23:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See the discussion on WP:VPA about this. Thryduulf 23:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Poetlister, I was just implementing the simple rule that Thryduulf also referred to: there is a strict separation between the User namespace and the main (encyclopedia) namespace. The category "Lists of Jews" belongs to the main namespace, so there should not be user subpages in it. As long as the page is in its current location, it should not have the category on it. I'm not involved in the page move, and I'm not prepared to say anything about the desirability of this article in the encyclopedia. As for why the page was moved to user space: I see that SlimVirgin has answered that question at WP:VPA. Eugene van der Pijll 11:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I do understand the issue: User space articles should not be categorized into namespace categories.
 * Please note that you have now reverted this page 4 times in 27 hours. That is very close to the WP:3RR limit, and you may be blocked the next time you insert the category. Not by me, 'cause I'll be away from wikipedia for a day, but another admin might. Eugene van der Pijll 13:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Poetlister, you have no right to edit the subspace of a user who has left. Furthermore, this draft was a POV fork of List of Jewish jurists. If you want to argue for changes to that page, you should go to the talk page. What do you see as the problem with List of Jewish jurists that this draft page would solve? SlimVirgin (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR
Poetlister, you have violated 3RR at User:RachelBrown/List of Jewish juriststemp. I'm leaving this warning because I don't know whether you've been warned about it before. If you violate it again, you may be reported and blocked from editing. Please review Three revert rule. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Stop leaving personal attacks on my talk page. I had almost no interaction with RachelBrown. As for your reverts, it makes no difference which version you revert to. Undoing another editor's work more than three times in 24 hours is a violation of 3RR, even if you revert to a different version each time. Read the policy. You should either say what your problem is with List of Jewish jurists on its talk page and reach a compromise with the other editors on the page, or leave well alone. What you may not do is create POV forks, edit other people's user subspace, or edit war to have draft articles retained in categories. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

RFC
Hi you may be interested in this: Requests for comment/Antidote, Requests for comment/Antidote/Contribution table, Requests for comment/Antidote/User comments, Requests for comment/Antidote/Voting. I would appreciate your endorsement of the rfc at Requests_for_comment/Antidote. Thanks Arniep 16:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, getting articles locked or nominating them for deletion if they don't get their own way is a regular activity of this user. If you look at Requests for comment/Antidote/Voting you'll see that was the first page where the user began to use multiple voting to try and force their own viewpoint, voting 6 times in total. The renominated it in November then requested a deletion review when it was not deleted. Arniep 16:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a sock puppet
I think that we can be confident of this. I hope that this misunderstanding is reverted shortly. Certainly an indefinite ban for a "suspected" sock puppet is somewhat over the top. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 22:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether Poetlister is a sockpuppet of RachelBrown or not, but I've not seen any discussion about it - please can someone link to the evidence. Thryduulf 01:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I too am puzzled by this. Poetlister, you can mail me from my User Page. Charles Matthews 08:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Its on the Admin notice board, although to date there is ZERO evidence that they are the same person. No ArbCom, nothing. Extraordinarily suspicious, especially given the circumstances of the block. Would be a questionable decision at the best of times, but when a dispute is in progress, it adds even greater weight. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 10:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And of course, even if they were, given that User:RachelBrown isn't banned, it seems absurd that a sock puppet of a valid account might be banned. If RachelBrown was an indefinitely blocked user, well, fair enough. If RachelBrown was User:Willy On Wheels for example, sure, then ban sock puppets. But not because of what? Because they voted on the same AFDs 5 times? Even if it were true, it didn't make any difference to anything, so a ban full stop is excessive. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 10:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Now, let's assume good faith, all round: there may be a big query, and the alleged sockpuppetry may also be mistaken. I'm not rushing to any conclusions. Charles Matthews 11:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that we should assume good faith. I assume that Kat has evidence to substantiate her accusation and can provide it here. Until she does though, I don't see why I shouldn't be assuming good faith on Poetlister's part. It's not actually a policy of Wikipedia that I know of that AGF is suspended when an admin points the finger at an editor. -- Grace Note.


 * That's interesting circular logic there. So a Wikipedian admin who bans someone due to suspicion in clear violation of WP:AGF we are expected to assume good faith that their absence of good faith was reasonable?  I am sorry, but that's just going around in circles. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 12:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is, which is why I've asked Mindspillage (or any of the other admins) who are attacking Poetlister to present evidence here. I'm not surprised they haven't. The administrapo prefers not to explain itself to the hoi polloi in cases like this. An admin has decided Poetlister is to be attacked and that's that. Very disappointing that Wikipedia works this way but that's how it is. -- Grace Note.


 * I should point out to Zordrac also that using a sockpuppet to give the impression of greater support for your position than actually exists is frowned on, and this wouldn't be the first user ID blocked for it. Getting a meatpuppet to vote for your side is not though, curiously enough, even if they show no understanding or particular interest in the issue at hand. -- Grace Note.


 * If proven, there would need to be an Arbitration Committee decision as to the incident. If one exists, then it should be presented for us to look at.  If it was proven through ArbCom that they were a sock puppet, and, furthermore, that the violation was sufficiently significant to warrant an indefinite ban, then there would be no problem.  Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 12:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No, there doesn't need to be an arbcom decision. If Mindspillage presents reasonable evidence here, you can decide for yourself. Mindspillage is an editor in good faith. Also, I am sure that if she has made a mistake or has insufficient evidence for it, she'll undo the block. From what I can see, Poetlister wasn't actually doing anything wrong, but some people really don't like socks and spend more time harassing them than they do actually editing the encyclopaedia. -- Grace Note.


 * I have heard from Poetlister offline; who may well leave WP as a result of this. I would need to be convinced that an infinite block was on a sound footing. Charles Matthews 11:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

unblocking
Somone unblock Poetlister. I don't agree with the false accusations that have been made and with this sharade. Bonaparte  talk  08:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I would be prepared to unblock Poetlister, on my own initiative. I would however like to see what the principals in this affair have to say on that, first. Charles Matthews 09:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Please unblock. I don't agree that someone should be blocked without any ArbCom resolution first. This was too zealous done. Unblock and let Poetlister to defend herself. -- Bonaparte  talk  12:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)