User talk:Sdedeo/archive2

Nakhichevan
Hi Sdedeo. Just wanted to thank you for your invaluable help in resolution of the dispute on Nakhichevan page. Your proposals were all eventually accepted by all parties, and despite attacks on you even those who were badmouthing you had to accept that your proposals were the only reasonable solution to the dispute. I hope certain people will have the decency to acknowledge your input in resolution of the conflict. So this is another dispute successfully resolved with your mediation. Don’t give up. Take care, Grandmaster 06:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbit Choudhury
Hi Sdedeo, I do not have any problems in discussing the issues raised on the talkpage, so I do not know why you self-reverted yourself. The Businessworld article is from Businessworld (India), a weekly. Also, the Dartmouth comic strips are of the Dartmouth university and not Tuck school of Business per se - Also, you'd have noted that they do not talk of b-school life at all. It appears that you've gone on an extended wiki break. Enjoy your break, but do return, as we really need people who work selflessly. --Gurubrahma 17:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories vs Controversy
From the 9/11 Attacks talk page:
 * "I know you are acting in good faith. But it's bad that I required for moderation and that moderation itself is biased by the place where you live. And note: This ain't the kind of bias you may have conscience you are acting acording to. I simply didn't find it right that ignored that request of mine. But, if my suposition about the place where you live/'are from' is wrong, I've nothing left to do than accept you as moderator. And then my position will change from the one i just expressed."

So, If my suposition was wrong, I'm now asking you to come back to debate. Otherwise, I realy prefer to wait for some moderator that fullfils that little constraint of my request. Thank you anyway.Normal nick 22:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nick, I have made clear why a demand for a moderator with a particular viewpoint or racial/national background is anathema to the wikipedia project -- please see the talk page. Sdedeo (tips) 22:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey.. Calmdown, I just wanted a moderator that would be culturaly neutral, not a moderator with a particular point of view. Having here an American Moderator is almost so unfare than if it was a muslim. I don't want a particular viewpoint from you, but at least, you should be culturaly neutral, in order to somehow challange Wikipedia's problem I've quoted above from the WP:NPOV article. That's why i made that request some lines above in this conversation. I know that this reaction of mine sounds very unpolite and controversial no matter how politingly i try to write it. But under the light of what I'm talking about it is quite reasonable. Normal nick 23:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC) 11/9 Septemper Talk Page.


 * The Paragraph of the WP:NPOV article i'm talking about is the one haveing to do with Anglo-Américan bias.
 * Please don't interpret my answer as somekind of xenophobia. I know it may sound like so, but it realy ain't. As you asked me to assume your good faith, please do the same about me.Normal nick 23:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nick, there is a really basic fact about wikipedia, which is WP:AGF, and you need to understand that that means inquiring into the racial/national backgrounds -- or personal viewpoints -- of other editors except in a purely informal or curious sense is Not OK. There is a separate point about "Anglo-American focus" -- not bias -- which stems from what editors tend to know -- not believe.

Again, I suggest you familiarise yourself better with the principles of wikipedia, which include a belief that contributors are able to go beyond their own viewpoints and nationalities and produce excellent, NPOV articles -- a belief that, so far, has been bourne out by the wiki's great success. And, as I mentioned before in a purely friendly sense, if you don't believe this -- which is fine -- you may find a different project elsewhere on the web more in line with your goals.

Sdedeo (tips) 23:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. I think I got your point. If you'll be glad in mediating that issue please come back to the tak page. Thank You. Normal nick 23:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Great -- I'll get back to the article. I'm sure we'll be able to solve the problem pretty quickly. Sdedeo (tips) 23:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I owe you five bucks
Wow, the arbcom process was excruciating. I wish I'd listened to you and just dropped it; as you predicted the result was less than edifying. If it comes up again in other disputes you resolve, please refer people to me if they think arbcom's the way to go. In any event, I am glad you're back. People like you help make WP not suck. IronDuke 02:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hee hee. Yes, unfortunately really the only thing we can do to keep WP functional is prevent forest fires! Sdedeo (tips) 02:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hornets nest
Nice place eh...I just take it personally when someone moves my comments around...I am sure you meant nothing by it. I am unbending on this issue. I am convinced that it is imperative to not permit nonsense in major article space just to appease those that don't want to read the truth. I feel it would be the same risk for Wikipedia to embrace the fantastic and impossible and then put it in article space as it is for some of the biographies that have had harmful POV inserted. Wikipedia does not need to suck.--MONGO 03:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Mongo, as an administrator you have a duty to be even more civil and mature than the average user. Please take that into consideration. Please respond on the 9/11 attacks talk page with a firm yes or no as to whether you wish to continue participating in the mediation in good faith. Sdedeo (tips) 03:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky
That came and went quickly! I am perfectly happy with any effort at mediation. I had not noticed a dispute needing mediation as yet, but given it is Chomsky one is bound to turn up soon. Let me know if you have any advice. Lao Wai 08:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to withdraw the mediation process for the Politics of Noam Chomsky, we seem to have largely resolved the issue now. Thanks for your help. --Zleitzen 13:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Great, I'm glad you guys worked it out. Sdedeo (tips) 16:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Architect1
I don't know what you mean. I didn't vandalise anything. I think that someone must've logged into my account. Gee, sure is creepy thinking about it. Do you know how to change your password? So no one can log into my account? Or try to block a user who did it?

Thanks for reminding me,

--Architect1 21:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Architect1 -- there was some weird thing under your username just now at the cosmology page about Narnia . You might have left yourself logged in somewhere? You might have to change your password (go to preferences) but also track down that rogue computer! Sdedeo (tips) 21:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

ContiE has impersonated me on other wikis
Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.

The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.

I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here  Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 07:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am not an admin, and I am totally unfamiliar with both the articles and the people you are discussing. Sorry I can't be of any help. Sdedeo (tips) 16:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Zleitzen
Hi Sdedeo, thanks for helping mediate the Chomsky article. I wondered if you could have a look at the mediation of the Cuba article. User BruceHallman has been asking for mediation for some time on this and we still haven't heard anything. It's chaos in there at the moment with all sorts of conflicts, blocks and bans seemingly going unchecked, it's been like this for a week. --Zleitzen 15:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll give it a shot! Sdedeo (tips) 18:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oop -- looks like it's already been assigned to someone -- Ellisca. I'll let them handle it. Good luck! Sdedeo (tips) 18:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, looks like I'll be on the case after all. Sdedeo (tips) 20:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sdedeo for the mediation, apologies for dragging you into that awful mess. I've also found the attitude of many editors on that page to be extraordinary but I'm grateful that it was yourself attempting the mediation rather than a less experienced editor. And your advice has been heeded. --Zleitzen 23:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's quite alright. I always learn things, even when the mediation is unsuccessful. I'd say my success rate is around 75%, which is not too bad, but I have to say I was not sanguine when I saw that some people had become convinced they were defending wikipedia from the "Fidelists" (!). Anyway, all the best, Sdedeo (tips) 00:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

McCloy article
Nick -- what is going on re: the McCloy case? Why do you want to remove me? I haven't heard from any of the participants. Sdedeo (tips) 20:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I think you got confused: Ellis2ca was the user assigned to the Cuba case; he is also a disputant on the McCloy case, which I am mediating. You meant (I think) to remove Ellis2ca from Cuba, but removed me from Ellis2ca's case by accident. I've assumed this is the case. Sdedeo (tips) 21:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I am sorry, Sdedeo - I got it all rather muddled up, my apologies. Yes, you're quite right, I meant to remove Ellis2ca from Cuba, not you from McCloy, it's just I got it the wrong way around because Ellis2ca was on my work list as being assigned to McCloy, but, as you point out, he was working on Cuba (but inexplicably hasn't self-assigned on the Cuba request page). Shall I leave a note at Cuba? Again, sorry for the mix-up; I've been so busy with real life that I've lost track of the cases to some degree. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Cuba article
We appreciate your help but its fruitless until Adam Carr is censored here. He is a diruption to the whole process of the articles development. His comments on both the Cuba talkpage and mine show absolute proof he is unwilling to have any sort of a NPOV and insists on labeling Cuba as a communist country with no democracy even if its weak which is very untrue as we have shown in articles. I have tried to get a couple admin to step in a have him blocked for violating the WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL but that has basically gone to the wind. I don't know what else to do anymore. I have basically given up on contributing to the article now becuase of this. :( --Scott Grayban 16:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I still believe that we can come to a compromise that solves the article's current problems -- I'll give it my best shot and we'll see what happens. Sdedeo (tips) 16:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I really really want to make this work. But these trolls are comming in that are bent on communist cuba is only that and starting wars and I have asked 3 admin to help with no avail. No one seems to want to curb this at all and I am at wits end. If I give they win and then its a POV article. If I keep fighting for a NPOV they are going to start in with more harrasement on the talk pages. *sigh* :( --Scott Grayban 20:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Try not to think of it as "fighting". If we can't get a consensus article now, there will be a flamewar, people will get bored, maybe there will be an RfC or whatever, and eventually other people will come along and fix the article. Sdedeo (tips) 20:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

They got me banned by lying. I don't care anymore. The win. --71.32.15.197 21:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You should not have reverted! Wait out your ban -- not much else you can do. Sdedeo (tips) 21:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope i'm done with Wiki -- its a joke -- its POV articles. --71.32.15.197 21:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are done, then leave: please do not remain to vandalize other articles. Sdedeo (tips) 21:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Sdedeo, I don't mean to remind you of your experience on the Cuban page! But I wondered if you could take a look at this and give me your thoughts. I would be specifically interested to hear your thoughts on my statement, if you have any. I think the issue is more serious to wikipedia than the rfc implies. Feel free to email me if you would prefer not to go through the normal talk processes.


 * --Zleitzen 04:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Sdedeo, we've made the newspapers ! Ha, Ha! Meanwhile, there does appear to be a gradual progression towards consensus on the article, despite the Miami Herald's pessimistic tone!--Zleitzen 17:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious! The things people will do to get attention! Glad to hear things are getting better. Sdedeo (tips) 23:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

BBB Website
I have continually deleted the reference to the BBB website and you keep adding it back in because it is "sourced" material. This makes no sense as anything on the web is "sourced" but that does not mean it is accurate. The BBB site is not accurate and will not be allowed to continually be referenced. The company is currently working with the BBB to resolve this issue, but thier data is over 3 years old right now. Further, you have an incomplete site as the BBB site further states that most of these are "unsresolved" because the consumer never responded back. Yet the partial quote in the article does not state this...and the intent of the original author was to harm the company image, which will also not be tolerated. At the end of the day the one "selective" paragraph plagrized from the BBB site is an inaccurate and incomplete reference to the company. I am asking you once again to stop restoring this reference.

If the BBB reference is posted again, I will be forced to contact Wikipedia and report this inconsistency on your part. In addition further action will be considered. Please consider your actions on this article.

"15:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)"


 * Please read no legal threats, a key part of wikipedia process. Sdedeo (tips) 04:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

ACLU
In reply to your comment to me re: references, it's a big task to reformat the refs! Tedious, too. Surely there are some of us who are more adept at such and have cool tools to assist with it. Perhaps bring it up on the article talk page? -- Perspective 21:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"Good Faith" my ass
I see no "good faith" where Nloth is concerned, and no need to bother with anyone who tries to remove information already sourced in the article. 190 Proof 12:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmph! Nloth 23:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Test messages
Hi Sdedeo! When using templates such as, you should subst tehm, i.e.  . Thanks, JPD (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have no idea why this is necessary (do you?) but I'll try to remember! Sdedeo (tips) 15:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Butchpenton
I've reported his 3RR violations here. Feel free to report him for personal attacks, should he make any more of them, or any other violations. Ladlergo 21:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

help!
I'm trying to get the Censorware page to properly bounce the reader to the new title Content-control software but something is going wrong (I did two page moves because I messed up the hypenation.) Can someone help? Sdedeo (tips) 16:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Oop -- fixed now, guess it was a cache problem. Sdedeo (tips) 16:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ken Standley
I'd like to hold off on others for now, I'd just feel more comfortable waiting to see how this batch of AfD's goes. If successful I'll list the others in a single batch. I have a hunch he'll be adding more soon anyway, so I could combine them all then. Thanks for your help and advice! --AbsolutDan (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, sounds like a plan! Sdedeo (tips) 02:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Peppered moth addition
Could you provide a source for the following addition you made to peppered moth evolution, if possible?


 * Further, some evolutionary biologists have questioned whether the example is an authentic case of natural selection.

Thanks for your time, and remember to avoid weasel words wherever possible. -Silence 23:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Silence -- I was just referencing the discussion of Coyne, Sargent, etc. below to make it clear that there are two controversies. If you don't believe those references are good, we are in trouble and should delete that whole Coyne section altogether. Sdedeo (tips) 23:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)