User talk:Robdurbar/Archive 5

Mark Street Block
Dear Freind yesterday I was blocked for 24 hours for reverting the intro to Transnistria. I feel this was an error of judgement and I am writing to object because I hate Edit wars very much. As the only editor that edits Transnistria that ever lives there and perhaps has ever been there I strongly object to the intro as would 97% of all Transnistrians that support the current indenpenence from Moldova. The intro I was insisting being used was discussed and agreed in Archive 8 section 2, the intro I defended was not mine but user Penambuco's, as of October 30th. This was reverted by evilalex. I reinstated the intro because the page was locked because of Evilalex. The Transnistria page is complete Moldovan/ Romanian propaganda, It is a sad relection on what should be a fair reflection. I am the sole representative of the Transnistrian viewpoint and I get reverted and edit warred non stop. There is not a single line in the entire page that is mine. Most of it is mudsliingling nonsence and intruths. Not a single edit of mine remains. I offered a panel of journalists from the euro parliment to assist the page. It was refused. I am asking for the intro to be rewritten or reinstated as per the archive agrement. We also need mediation Mark us street Dec 1

Okay I will try your way
Hi again, I am prepared to try your way, I still think the other reverters should have been blocked and not just me on the basis my edit had the high moral and wikipedia ground in that it was debated on the talk page. I was always prepared to allow all views pour through, what I object to is having people pour their views over my head. I have vast experience on conflict resolution in every corner of the globe, sometimes it feels I've been through every global conflict. All I want is an honest page for Transnistria, Its not Eden, but it is a million miles from the current way its portrayed. Personally, I have long lost my passion for conflicts and politics, but I have developed a deep sense of desire to ensure ordinary people do not suffer while conflicts unwind and resolve themselves. This current page is deeply damaging to ordinary people trying to ilk out a life for themselves in an already harsh environment. This world has made me old and wise and the only thing I hate is hatred and the Transnistria page is 99% written in hate. Most of it is pure nonsense. These ordinary folk are desperately trying to be part of the world and not outcasts as portrayed on Wikipedia.. I am not experienced here but I am their voice. I will do as you ask and work the mediation process. Mark us street Dec 1st

What do I do??
Hey again. Could I use your help as an admin? User User:Vintagekits has accused me of breaking the three-revert rule on Bobby Sands - please see my talk page for his citations of this User:Logica. I reverted only three times, and even then not within a 24 hour period. I think he was annoyed that I caught him reverting 4 times within 24 hours, but I gave good faith and did not report him. However, he is ignoring my messages that indicate that I didn't break the rule, and whenever I try to remove his acusation from my talk page he keeps reverting. Where do I turn to? Could you help out? Logica 02:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didnt ignore your messeges, infact I replied to all of them. As you will see Logica broke the 3RR over a 25 hour period and this was imo a calculated effort to break the 3RR. You will also see from the history of the page that I only made two reverts, the others are orginal insertions, edits and added citations which obviously are not reverts, thank you Vintagekits 02:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see Bobby Sands edit history. As the three-revert rule states: "an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia page within a 24 hour period". Vintagekits broke this rule. But I did not report him. Do you think it is worth reporting him subsequently because he doesn't seem to accept that he is wrong. Logica 02:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention here. Whether to use the term "Volunteer" for IRA members is being discussed at another location (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles), point 18), and I have recently submitted it for dispute resolution, as it appears to be going nowhere. So Vintagekits shouldn't be changing pages in this way anyway, when he knows full well that the issue is in dispute. Thank you, nonetheless. Oh, and I'm a mixture of human and physical - more human now though, and specically cultural/historical ;-). You should know better than talking about a "divide", no matter how obvious it is!!! Logica 00:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And should User:Vintagekits be editing the "mediator response" section in the mediation case I mentioned above? You can find it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02_IRA_%27Volunteer%27_usage. Logica 01:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Have a look again to see the section that I wrote in! IT IS NOT THE "mediator response" section Vintagekits 03:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I assumed all of the section onwards was for the mediators, seeing as though it stated that "You don't need to provide evidence for anything, just let us know what's up." Logica 19:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC) yeah, well you were wrong unfortunately Vintagekits 19:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for the help (again)! Logica 22:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

IP edits of FAs
Thanks again for the initiative and work on this issue. I thought I'd drop you a note here (and feel free to reply here) about some futher, hopefully not major changes that you might want to make. I don't see a need be retroactive on this - the December 1 counts/% can stay as is. Also, while there would end up being five rows per day, only the top row, with the narrative for the day, would need to contain percentages, as well as total counts for the day; the other four rows would just have counts, no diffs, no narrative, no percentages. (I suppose you could even put those detail rows in a separate table, to get them out of the way.) -- John Broughton |  Talk 18:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You refer to the edit counts as involving "new user and ip editors" - "NUIP". But - correct me if I'm wrong - there isn't any way to tell a new registered user from an older one, without laborious research; you're only counting IP edits.  (And I think that's fine.)
 * I added the counts to the table, but didn't change the information in the section above. I thought that might more easily demonstrate the value of having both in the table.  If you're agreeable to the change, I'd be happy to edit the section above to match the changes in the table.  (And if the extra work is irritating, I'll be happy to calculate percentages and add them to the table, each day, after counts are posted.)
 * It was great that you did the analysis of 95 IP edits by yourself, but I really think there are advantages to chopping up the day into parts (I now suggest 6 hour chunks, not 4 hour, since there seem to be - based on one data point, admittedly - not as many IP edits as I thought there would be). The advantages that I see are:
 * It's a way to divide up the work.
 * It's likely to get more people involved - deciding to count 25 or so IP edits is a lot less daunting that deciding to count 100 or so.
 * It makes it easier for those who doubt the numbers to select one or two periods and do an count themselves, to confirm or disprove the numbers.
 * If there is a difference in counts between two editors, it's a lot easier to track down why, and make corrections, if the discussion is about a six-hour period (25 edits) than about an entire day (100 edits).


 * Interesting - pretty consistent results. A couple of notes


 * I'd do one of the six hour blocks myself, but I'm confused about what you're doing with new users, so I'd like to get more info, for consistency. I noticed that you removed "new user" in the methodology, but didn't change "NUIP" - a typo, I suggest.  Have you stopped checking registered users who might be new, to see if they have been around for four days or less?  (I think that only counting IP editors is less work, and easier for others to check, but I respect your work here, so if you have been - or want to continue to - count new users, I'll do the same.  In any case, I want to edit (or you can edit) the methodology section to clearly state what is being done.  And if you've switched to IP-only, I'll be happy to redo the December 1st figures using that approach, for consistency.  Just let me know.


 * Yes, I absolutely think that counting the number of vandalizing edits that are reverts by IPs (as opposed to some other type of beneficial edits) is worth it. Right now the count of beneficial edits is pretty low, and if in fact most or all of these are simply reverts, then that would show something very important.  So, put differently, I strongly support a change in methodology, and agree with you that the first couple of days might well be considered tests, and we can discuss further whether it's worthwhile to go back and redo the prior days (contrary to what I said in the prior paragraph, which I'm not going to revise.)


 * Again, good working on you with this; sorry for my delay in getting back to you. I'm glad the second day was pretty light; I do appreciate the time you've putting into this.  John Broughton  |  Talk 19:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I counted 78 IP edits for the article on the 3rd. But I have a question:  if an IP address does (say) six edits in a row, do you count that as one edit or as six?  (I used the latter approach, but am okay with the former; whatever the answer, however, I do want to document it in the methodology.)


 * Also, I'm going to tinker with the table so that the number of IP edits is also recorded within each six-hour block, as part of the modularization process. John Broughton  |  Talk 02:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just about finished with 12/4 (Weird Al), 12:00-17:59 quarter of the day, so you don't need to work on that.  John Broughton  |  Talk 20:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria
Every edit I have ever made has been reverted

The Transnistria page is pure Romanian/ Moldova Secret Service Prpoganda. As a major voice of Transnistria here I have not been allowed a single edit here nor has an other Transnistrian editor. Frankly. it is a sad when they will not allow the Transnistrian voice to have a single word on the main page. Currently It is pure lies and propganda. They agree things and then delete the parts of the agreement they don't like. The link to tiraspoltimes was voted on and is always removed. TSOID removed it again today. We have proven the Terrorism word is not true. But the Romanian Secret Service types just flaunt the rules and plough in their edits and insert Terrorism even though it is clearly not true. . The Independence Referendum is always deleted and the section is deliberately written in a highly confusing manner. The first day I arrived in Transnistria I was told be a senior person that The Moldovans treat the Transnistrians like animals and this Transnistrian page on Wiki is an example of the pure bombastic nature of the Moldovan/Romanian people here that refuse to allow the Transnistrians have a say on there own site. There is three views possible; ours, yours, and how things are. Here thr page is currentlly entirely yours. We want to turn it not to ours but to how things really are. This we are denied. Sadly for you we are Free and will remain free, we are in a position of strenght and this you cannot see. The current tactic is to strangle and starve the Transnistrian people into submission. Treat them like animlas like the Americans treated the indians in the west in the 1850s. When this fails. How can we ever meet in the middle. One place we can currently co-operate togather is here. So far I have not been allowed to insert one single work on the main page as it is defended the the Romanian Sectret Service types. Until there is mutual respect we can abandon hope, Surely it is in your interest to work together, to find common threads? Or am I dealing with pure hatred here ? No effort is ever made to reach compromise. Perhaps I am wasting my time trying. Maybe we are never meant to work together and have respect. Does anyone have any idea how to reach out to the other side. I have tried so many times. Currently you have me. I can leave it if you want. Have your honourless proaganda site and I can go...... and what then. ...Mark us street Dec4th 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mark us street (talk • contribs).

Thanks from Transnistria
One more thing, the biggest edit war is the intro. Currently the Romanians/Moldovans never touch it EVER which in itself says how one sided it is. They also refuse to enter any discussion on changes to the intro, I am happy if a minor change is made. It think it should be refered to as accurately as possible, perhaps as ' a de-facto' unrecognised country that is 'de-jure' a region of Moldova and its sovereignty is a constant issue of contention between Moldova and Trasnistrian parliments This is the exact case here. I really need someone to help me balance things. It's pointless me suggesting anything on the Intro. Will you consider drawing one up please. . Mark us street Dec 5th


 * I would just note that the article had been locked for quite some time (for good reason) and there is not much point in changing it (especially the intro) once unlocked since Mark insists the PMR is an independent country, albeit unrecognized for the time being, moreover, needing protection by Russian peacekeepers on the border to protect them from the belicose Moldovans attempting to "starve them" into submission. I, nor most of the participants, have any desire to be drawn into an edit war. I have currently suggested a neutral intro on the Talk:Transnistria page that accurately and as simply as possible states the historical facts with no judgement on what they mean or interpretation of what the PMR should be considered. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

BOMBINGS
Please, in sixteen years there has been two explosions both prior to the independence referendum. One was not a bomb but a grenade that exploded perhaps by accident. So Transnistria has had one 'bomb' in 16 years and this merits a section. It is wrong. Mark us street 20:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this canvassing?
Hey again. In the mediation case over the neutrality of "V/volunteer" in describing IRA members, one user has messaged tens of other users with a pro-republican stance to comment on the mediation page. You can see this at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DownDaRoad. This has caused many of theses messaged users to come and back up points made from a pro-republican stance. I understand Wikipedia guidelines state that:

"Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view." Spam

Yet this user seems to have done exactly this. What course of action could be taken? Surely this will disrupt the mediation process because it will now be heavilly biased. Logica 00:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

E-Sword
Please note that E-Sword just went through a deletion review, the consensus of which was to endorse the deletion. The re-creation was an out-of-process restoration. Mackensen (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

E-Sword on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of E-Sword. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Refdoc 17:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

British Isles
It's a pretty weasel opening paragraph at best. Like, who misunderstands the term? Who possesses the true understanding of the term? Controversy is now hidden in the piping. Is that what WP is about? LOLMelForbes 18:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See, if one editor got the the opening paragraph balanced on both sides, and it's not really very difficult. It's incorrigible and should be totally re-written, and longer, naturally. I am the only Irish based (born in Britain) editor left on the page. I won't revert your edits, but Thark is a different story. MelForbes 18:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are not the only Irish-based editor left on the page. Assume good faith? Bastun 20:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me Rob. Sorry Bastun. MelForbes 20:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I too despise the trolling, and I do admit mei culpa at times. What I cannot understand is some editors getting all hotted up because the term is generally avoided in Ireland, although Bastun would demur from me, and that puzzles me. It's really nothing to do with being Anti-British. Imagine Great Britain being called Isle de France, and there is a reference to that going back to Norman times.  Or the fate of Margaret Hassan, one of her captors at his trial alluded to her as being British.  Maybe he thought all of the so called British Isles was owned by Tony Blair.  There are lots of reasons why so many Irish people refrain from using the term. MelForbes 21:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sir,

This is another newspaper article written on Annie Mae Leonard-Mitcham. Your criteria for entry calls for multiple articles from notable sources such as newspapers etc.

Macon Telegraph and News	(164th yr- No.126) By Wendy Walters

Sunday, May 6, 1990

New Grad, 64, finds degree ‘Exhilarating’

Anne Mae Leonard Mitcham had good reason to hold her arms up high in a sign of victory Saturday as she walked across the stage at Wesleyan College to receive her diploma. At 64, Mitcham was graduating from college not a day too soon. Mitcham has reared 11 children, of whom eight have completed college and three have obtained master’s degrees. But she herself didn’t graduate from high school until she was 42. And while the students’ families and friends cheered for their favorite graduate Saturday and clapped politely for the others, Mitchum got a round of applause from everyone during her victorious walk across the stage. Age didn’t matter as she celebrated with the other students. Mitcham hugged another graduate after the ceremony and said, “Honey, we did it.” Mitcham also gave Wesleyan president Robert K. Ackerman a hug as he handed her a well-earned bachelor of arts degree. “I feel exhilarated!” she said later with a huge smile. Mitcham attributed her success to almost everyone except herself. When posing for a picture with her husband, Mitcham said, “You’d better let him hold (the diploma) because he deserves it.” Mitcham also had grateful words for her children, her grandchildren and her teachers. “The faculty at Wesleyan have been so supportive. During the times of frustration, they said, ‘Keep on going,’ and with those words, they inspired me,” she said.

Annie Mae Mitcham
A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself.

Annie Mae Mitcham is very well known Throughout Central GA as an educator for the under privileged. She has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of her which qualifies for inclusion according to the rules.

There are several entries in this media that are far less notable and news worthy than this subject.

20:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Mitchamz 20:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

These are articles that were featured in the newspaper that serves all of Central Georgia:

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_multi=MT|&p_product=MT&p_theme=realcities2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_site=macon&s_trackval=MT&p_text_search-0=annie%20AND%20mae%20AND%20mitcham&s_dispstring=annie%20mae%20mitcham%20AND%20date(all)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no

Macon Telegraph - May 12, 2006 - B

Ready place in the motherhood hall of fame If they ever build a motherhood hall of fame - a Cooperstown of hugs, rocking chairs and sweet potato pie - then Annie Mae Mitcham gets my vote on the first ballot. She raised 11 children, 10 of her own and a nephew she adopted. Nine of her kids earned their college degrees, and one son served his country with a career in the Air Force. For years, Annie Mae washed other people's clothes and cleaned other people's houses to help put biscuits on her own table. After...

Please reconsider your position on this matter. 01:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)01:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Dread Central
Hi, Why was Dread Central considered as non-notable even after the additional references from 3rd party sources? User Centrx was the one who helped me rewrite the listing to be more notable according to Wikipedia standards. So, how do I petition to undelete?

Also, why are my external links contributions considered trivial while others posting links to other sites like Rottentomatoes are allowed?

Please help kwlow

Thanks for the constructive criticism. It's much appreciated compared to other folks who wanted to delete topics that they don't like. I believe Dread Central is notable and will work on getting it up to standards.

--- kwlow

Hi
Please see this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=95429779

I left this complaint, and although there are only 3 reverts put there, it appears that the admin who removed this didn't pay attention to any of my comments. Could you please look at it? Ncmvocalist 13:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

University of Phoenix protection
There's a complaint at AN/I about your decision to fully protect this page rather than semi-protect it. What's your take? Is semi-protection sufficient? Did you see something in the history that made semi-protection undesirable? I don't see anything like that, but I don't want to just undo your full-protect without discussing it with you first. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Football League Championship results August 2006
You recently proposed Football League Championship results August 2006 and Football League Championship results September 2006 for deletion. I have moved the articles to AFD instead, for two reasons: 1. I disagree with the prods. 2. But most importantly, I believe that a wider discussion is necessary to establish some kind of consensus and precedent on this one, since this would affect many other articles as well. Articles like Eredivisie 2006/2007 - August 2006, Eredivisie 2006/2007 - September 2006, Eredivisie 2006/2007 - December 2006, Jupiler League results July 2006, Jupiler League results August 2006, Jupiler League results September 2006, Jupiler League results October 2006, Jupiler League results November 2006, Jupiler League results December 2006, Danish Superliga Results - July 2006, Danish Superliga Results - August 2006, Danish Superliga Results - September 2006, Danish Superliga Results - October 2006, Danish Superliga Results - November 2006, etcetera. Because you proposed the above two articles for deletion, I would like to ask you to join the discussion, at Articles for deletion/Football League Championship results August 2006. A ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 01:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

University of Phoenix
You recently fully protected University of Phoenix due to an "edit war" over the inclusion of a link to http://www.uopsucks.com. However, the links were inserted by various IP addresses, and two single purpose accounts. Therefore, a better course of action might be to semi-protect the article, and to block PhoenixStudent and Rdenke for disruption, as these accounts have been used for the sole purpose of adding the disputed link to University of Phoenix, then, in the case of PhoenixStudent, protesting the removal of the link in a manner amounting to a serious violation of WP:POINT, if not outright vandalism. Due to the fact that the registered accounts have no substantive contributions beyond insertion of this link, it is likely that both registered accounts and the IPs being used to insert the link are being operated by the same person. We shouldn't fully protect articles every time someone engages in transparently obvious sockpuppetry to insert a dubious link. John254 22:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"st. edward's C of E"
I have completely gone over the article, and although not finished i would be most grateful if you would look over it to make sure it is "heading in the right direction" thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twilight Aruseus (talk • contribs) 23:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

I have now fully gone over the piece and believe it satisfactory to become an article, when you have time would you be so kind as to check it, if it is fine to go through with, thank you very much for your assistance.

The game (game) semi-protect
I ask that you reconsider your decision for the following reasons:

First, the last AFD(#5) for this article was semi-protected from the outset. So semi-protection is done pre-emptively. Second, you would not be technically pre-emptively protecting. I can show 5 other AFDs for this article that have had problems. Also, there have already been multiple edits from WP:SPAs. This article even has an outside website in order to influence Wikipedia. See this mission statement on the website:"The Lose The Game campaign is an attempt to influence major media outlets into covering The Game, thus providing "reliable sources" to cite on Wikipedia" and the list of reliable sources so far found or planted by the campaign. This constitutes a direct effort to influence an AFD that should not be allowed. I ask that you reconsider in this instance, and take into account WP:IAR, both sides are served by the semi-protection of the current debate. Thanks. KnightLago 03:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Of Will Effertz article
I'm curious as to why Will Effertz is considered "non-notable". Gringo300 02:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll try to dig up some more info on Will Effertz, perhaps he's played with some more bands or people... Gringo300 14:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Annie Mae Lonard Mitcham
What can I do to make Annie Mae Leonard Mitcham's entry acceptable for this site?

22:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)22:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)22:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Hi. Sorry for anticipating you on the 3RR page. Sometimes people forget, and I wasn't watching the time too closely William M. Connolley 11:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
The trouble has died down. Please unprotect Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Thanks, John Reaves 14:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Non notable to who?
Very notable to recording musicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salakaihdin (talk • contribs)

Thanks
Hi Robdurbar, just got back into Wikipedia after quite a while away! I've picked up your message regarding the Anglo-Celtic Isles info, thanks for that. I'm curious to ask how easy it is to undo the redirect to British Isles page? Is that an Administrator job? Kind regards...and Happy New Year! Pconlon 17:33, 31 December 2006

Hey, thanks for the note! I don't blame you for tiring of the whole 'British Isles' debate...it does rather seem to go around in circles doesn't it!! It is so important to me and other Irish people that I'll keep checking on and, if need be, correcting the article from time to time. I see that you stayed with the debate for a good while and stood as a voice of reason - thanks. I was very disappointed in your lack of opposition to the bullying of the Anglo-Celtic Isles page, but you've otherwise been quite fair. I think that I'm not going to change the Anglo-Celtic Isles redirect - it could just inflame the 'BI' article debate. If its useage continues to grow, as I believe it will, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Kind regards! Pconlon 18:36, 31 December 2006

First, Happy New Year! I've noticed your interest in Transnistria, and maybe you would like to vote in the survey on the inclusion in Tiraspol article of the images with the Soviet tank monument in Tiraspol and Transnistrian Government building in Tiraspol with statue of Lenin in front. The survey is here. Thank you, Dl.goe