User talk:Showmebeef

Welcome!
Hello, Showmebeef, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Madalibi (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

August 2012
Your recent editing history at Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. ''Whether you think the users removing material are right or not they are acting in good faith. I count at least 4 reverts in about 5 hours, no more please'' Ba se me nt 12  (T.C) 23:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. I didn't know about this rule. I believe there are some concerted efforts by some folks (I hate to suggest where they might hail from) to delete certain controversial sections. I think a page protection is a good way to go. How do you go about getting that put into place? I could search for how to do it, but if you could provide a pointer, it's much appreciated. Thanks!


 * Oh, I did post my comments regarding each section I feel warrants the inclusion in the article in the talk section. I was hoping that the other editors would do the same thing. But they don't--some of them don't even register a user id and kept deleting the paragraphs.

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

--Andromedean (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)==Technologies used for Olympic sports==

Thanks for your contributions here, I made similar points to yourself earlier. Since two editors are clearly being disruptive for nationalistic or politically motivated reasons and are employing every tactic to remove important and objective information which describes how technology could undermine the fundamental principles behind fair sporting competition, I suspect we will have to consult an higher authority. --188.220.205.42 (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. I guess I (plus the OP) am not alone here to observe that some are practicing cyber hooliganism. Tags/labels are slapped onto the article without much justification while slashing/modifying the piece to make it utterly unreadable.
 * Yeah, a higher authority might be needed here as no self-restriction have been practiced by certain editors. Any suggestion as to how we can reach for one? I think I can post a note on Treehouse asking for suggestions. (Showmebeef (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC))

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Electric Catfish 17:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * With due respect, I have clearly stated the reason for the revert as being "deletion not justified: repeated requests for providing justification have failed." The proof of these requests are here. Vast amount of the article has been deleted, and the editor who has made the deletions has repeatedly ignored my requests for justification for making the deletion--no specific violation against any Wikipedia guideline is cited by the editor against any statement he has deleted. (Showmebeef (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC))

Note the response on my board! Haven't we been using DRN resolution for a week now and got nowhere? Perhaps the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WQA is the way to go, since the disruption seems to be widespread and not isolated to the technologies section.--Andromedean (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, we haven't really used WP:DRN--we only used "talk page and got nowhere. On DRN you would get experienced user(s) who would provide neutral, 3rd person observations that I think would certainly help in the case we've got here, and the focus in on content. But we can't really use it due to the RfC. I think what you suggested, WP:WQA, would help, but probably not as effective as DRN since the focus is on etiquette--it could easily descend into something like a "you did this, he did that" fight. I visited the board there, and have seen users slashing it out right there, just like on talk page--although you potentially could get more 3rd party users to chip in. Does it not require that no outstanding request for resolution as a pre-condition? Showmebeef (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have just been warned for 'soliciting' for asking for an experienced mediator on the board!

Assuming me posting this message isn't soliciting, perhaps we could keep a record of the following infringements by certain un-named persons?

''Tendentious editing. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. The consensus process works when editors listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on, and are willing to filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, destroy the consensus process. Issues that are settled by stubbornness never last, because someone more pigheaded will eventually arrive; only pages that have the support of the community survive in the long run. Shortcuts: WP:FORUMSHOP WP:ADMINSHOP ''Forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring. Raising the same issue repeatedly on different pages or with different wording is confusing and disruptive. It doesn't help to seek out a forum where you get the answer you want, or to play with the wording to try and trick different editors into agreeing with you, since sooner or later someone will notice all of the different threads. You can obviously draw attention to the issue on noticeboards or other talk pages if you are careful to add links to keep all the ongoing discussions together, but best practice is to choose one appropriate forum for the consensus discussion, and give (as much as possible) a single neutral, clear, and objective statement of the issue. See also Wikipedia:Policy shopping.''

Then present it at one of these forums.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WQA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/I --Andromedean (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's rather worrying though if it is just a consensus without any insistence on hard factual information, reputation of sources, or declaration of 'conflicts of interest', or there is nothing for any article to become the preserve of any special interest group.--Andromedean (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I have sent the article 'Technologies in track cycling' to the Dispute resolution noticeboard --Andromedean (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
and another answer. NtheP (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Question on unfounded suspicion
Why have you done this? Do you have any reason to suspect me for anything? If you do suspect me of anything, without even circumstantial evidence you could at least have the decency to tell me. The implied distrust is hurtful and I recommend that you read this thoroughly. As for what weight you should give my opinions the answer is "equal weight". 88.88.164.152 (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am a new user here and just started editing and recently got a taste of the "politics" involved here. I've found that there are some users who know the inner working of Wiki well have used that knowledge to their advantage. So I want to learn about Wiki as much as I can. That's why I posted the question. It's nothing personal. To be fair, (in response to your note that "you could at least have the decency to tell me") I did ask if you could post your comments using a registered user id, (right after your first post, then)--especially now that you've shown quite an interest in the RfC and have posted there repeatedly. If you took exception to what I did (although I don't think I did anything quite wrong), I apologize. But you won't find out about this if you haven't followed me around, right? Showmebeef (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I hardly followed you, I merely pressed your "contribs" link to see if you were active as you had not responded to my reply regarding my previous editing. I still think it would have been better if you had waited for my response before taking it further, although I can understand asking for advice on how to deal with such situations. Some of the places to report things are needlessly complicated. About the section discussed in the RFC. Do you have any sources that meet my criteria? Feel free to respond to my comment there if you do (or if you don't, but disagree with my criteria). 88.88.164.152 (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I sincerely appreciate your response. I believe I've started with a healthy doze of "good faith" for anyone, but recent happenings have severely damaged that confidence. So my excuse there.
 * As for response to your comments, I do have something that I think I can challenge your reasoning there. I am in the process of fashioning them in a presentable way. Stay tuned.
 * Best regards, Showmebeef (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Technologies used for cycling/olympic sports
I'd like to thank you for the help in this article. As it is proving very controversial, and things may be getting out of control I may not be in a position to return to this page. Be prepared to continue the good work, and thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 09:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I truly believe that the democratic nature of Wikipedia would allow the truth to prevail in the long run. As I said, knowing how Wiki works it very important. I believe by working with the confines of Wiki rules, which in most part is a tried-and-true set of guidelines that favours the majority of the population here, it would work. Losing an editing right is not worth it--it like a losing one's voting right.
 * I will continue to contribute on this topic for what I believe it right--I was busy the last few days. Showmebeef (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope you are correct, however one Wikipedia article about itself questions whether democracy is the best solution for controversial issues since these can be hi-jacked by those with a political rather than factual interest. Does this look familiar?

Level of debate, edit wars and harassment The standard of debate on Wikipedia has been called into question by persons who have noted that contributors can make a long list of salient points and pull in a wide range of empirical observations to back up their arguments, only to have them ignored completely on the site.[70] An academic study of Wikipedia articles found that the level of debate among Wikipedia editors on controversial topics often degenerated into counterproductive squabbling: "For uncontroversial, 'stable' topics self-selection also ensures that members of editorial groups are substantially well-aligned with each other in their interests, backgrounds, and overall understanding of the topics...For controversial topics, on the other hand, self-selection may produce a strongly misaligned editorial group. It can lead to conflicts among the editorial group members, continuous edit wars, and may require the use of formal work coordination and control mechanisms. These may include intervention by administrators who enact dispute review and mediation processes, [or] completely disallow or limit and coordinate the types and sources of edits."[150]

Consensus and the "hive mind" Oliver Kamm, in an article for The Times, expressed skepticism toward Wikipedia's reliance on consensus in forming its content:[66] Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices.

Anonymity of editors Wikipedia has been criticised for allowing editors to contribute anonymously. Its critics claim that the consequences of this include a lack of authority and accountability, and poor quality of discourse.[147][148][149] In Wikipedia itself the term "anonymous" is used in a much narrower sense than in the citations above. Namely only those editors that do not have a registered account, and use an auto-generated IP-labeled account, are called anonymous or "anons". To disambiguate the two notions on anonymity, in the remainder of this section the term unregistered is used for the narrower Wikipedia meaning. --Andromedean (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I strongly believe that Wikipedia should make a much greater attempt to encourage editors to declare (and search) for any conficts of interest, at least on controversial issues. --Andromedean (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics". Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 08:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. There is a current proposal gaining support. Please add your input. Amadscientist (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please reconsider the version Sport and Politics has accepted to avoid the dispute going to mediation
Please reconsider the version Sport and Politics has accepted to avoid the dispute going to mediation. It would be like starting all over again. You cannot reasonably argue that you have made greater concessions than he has if you accept that version. Minor changes in your direction has been accepted (cut one quote on home advantage). Bauche has been included (he was in Sport and Politics's version, but not in the version most recently accepted by him. I think the suggested version require close to equal concession from both sides (remember he was opposed to any inclusion). Hence it is a reasonable compromise. Please read the version and consider. We gain nothing from moving on to the next form of dispute resolution. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I duly note your recommendation here. However, as I have noted in the section I have just added on the DRN, since last Fri when a decision was made to include the section and Andromeda posted a draft til now, which fell on a weekend and I was away, I hardly have anytime to provide my input to the board. I have made a recommendation to create a separate section for each contended subject (which I meant to introduce once Andromeda releases his draft but don't really have time to do)--I have seen it worked well. Once each topic reaches a consensus, we move on.
 * Honestly, you won't agree to a version that is mainly exchanged between me and Andromeda with hardly any input from yourself and S&P, am I right?
 * Regards, Showmebeef (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably not, but the section has since been updated based on Andromedean's input, and he may well be closer to accepting it than Sport and Politics who hasn't commented on the most recent changes. If you can at least read the current volunteer proposal and comment on it it would be very helpful. I note your reservations about the apparent urgency, but I felt (and still feel) it was neccessary to reinvigorate the debate (which could easily have been closed as failed if there was no movement today), and I believe it has moved the proposal in the direction of a compromise. I have commented about home advantage; you may be correct that there is no effect, but it doesn't matter as some British cyclists claimed this was the explanation, just as some French cyclists claimed the explanation was rule-breaking equipment. We must cover both sides. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see my recent update on DRN RE: home disadvantage. It turns out my hunch was correct (although I understand that "hunch" doesn't worth a penny when it comes to Wiki articles). But the article I found that eludes to the research work has more than adequately validated my contention. As for the urgency issue--this article has been lingering on RfC for well over a month, because we cannot get anything done on the talk page. Finally we are on the DRN with some supervision. I don't think 3 days (after the decision has been for inclusion) of discussion (of which I missed 2.5) does its justice. Hope you understand. Regards, Showmebeef (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Showmebeef, have you agreed to the latest changes? It is all news to me. Whilst I finding the discussion tedious, it makes a bit of a mockery of our efforts if it is still in a form which is significantly at odds with our views.
 * Andromedean: let it be clear that I have not agreed to the version that 88 has put there on the page, not even close! I thought we were still debating various topics. Even on the discussion on "home advantage" issue, I have made my concession and made the suggestion I could accept. 88 countered with a different version which I haven't consented to. Personally I'm rather disappointed, to say the least, with 88's rush to put this version on the main page without a final roll call. Showmebeef (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This deserves a defence. It was not intended as, and is not, the final version. The version that was in the article had serious issues, most importantly misrepresenting the views of a living person (completely unacceptable). It had never been close to consensus after Andromedean unilaterally introduced it as necessary for discussion (which it was not, it could have been introduced at the DRN). Furthermore, the discussion on the active DRN had completely rejected it. The intent was to get an undeniably problematic version of the section out, as it seemed like the discussion on the final details could get long. Whether the discussions continue on the DRN, as I thought they would, or on the article talk page is not important. Please don't consider the version I put in the article the final version, and continue discussing with Sport and Politics to find an agreement. I hope you can understand why I did it, and that it was in no way a substitute for discussion. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia, see you in 2014 88.88.167.157 (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * My contention was that the reader should be clear how Chris Boardman's statement contrast with the UCI rule "Bicycles shall comply with the spirit and principle of cycling as a sport. The spirit presupposes that cyclists will compete in competitions on an equal footing. The principle asserts the primacy of man over machine" this was being slipped in as a summarised opinion by a blogger at a different place.


 * I think your main objection is the 'home advantage' issue. I agree there is far too much emphasis given to this based on the evidence. I would like to hear you views on both of these points. Moreover the text has been changed through without expicit consent by 88.  If amadscientist has made the decision and has the authority to close the dispute then this makes it closed, but otherwise I'm afraid I must ask this to go to the next step.
 * No, "home advantage" is only but one of my objections. Showmebeef (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally I believe truth is essential, neither do I think consensus has been reached here. It would eventually go to an arbitration committee in which senior wiki editors would take their own decision based on the evidence, and perhaps the prospect of this would bring unreasonable editors to agree to reason before that point was reached. I think the evidence in support of our views is so strong they would be supported, although I could be wrong. I believe the issue is important enough to pursue since it goes to the heart of sporting principles itself --Andromedean (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The dispute was closed by Amadscientist as only wording issues remain. You have both expressed agreement to mention home advantage in some way, thus only the exact wording remains to be decided. It can be decided on the article talk page. The advice of Amadscientist was that we should let the version I placed in the article remain there for a week before starting the discussion on the exact wording. I doubt I'll be a party to this as I don't really care very much about exactly how we word the section. Andromedean also accepted my change of the temporary version in the article if Amadscientist had the final say of which version to place there. Amadscientist has seen which version I have placed in the article (evidenced by his punctuation fix), and clearly has no intention of changing it to an older proposal. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Amadscientist said we leave it out editing for 48hrs to a week but it was not a rule. It is true that I agreed to the first version of amadscientists article on the basis that the 'conforming to the spirit' rule was added as a fact and not an opinion. It hasn't, and I don't think the Laura Trott bit was in. I am unaware that showmebeef had agreed to the version you have inserted, and we owed a courtesy to show it to him before closing the dispute. page.--Andromedean (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it is not a rule I used the word advice. You can start discussing the wording on the article talk page whenever you feel like it; I won't take part anyway. It was closed by the volunteer, not me. It was closed because what you describe are wording issues. The DRN case was about including the section, and about which points to include in the section, not about the specific wording of those points. Consensus was achieved on what to include once both of you stated that you supported some mention of home advantage, which was the last issue whose inclusion was opposed. Good bye. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Au revoir! Showmebeef (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Version 'agreed' to by ShowmeBeef
As far as I can see 88 has published the second version of a madscientists text which we were dead against. What showmebeef wanted was an edited version of this first version of amadscientist. I just wanted the UCI rule inserted alondside Chris Boardmans statement ''Bicycles shall comply with the spirit and principle of cycling as a sport. The spirit presupposes that cyclists will compete in competitions on an equal footing. The principle asserts the primacy of man over machine"''
 * You are absolutely correct. I was going to break amadscientist's version into debatable sections where contention still exsit. Showmebeef (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

''Technology in track cycling

Cycling has received attention due to an impact of technology that may be similar to the now-banned FastSkin swim suits used at the Beijing Games. Aerodynamics and lightness are more important in equipment than any other Olympic sport. The search for refinement is relentless. While opting out of their use at the world championships earlier in the year, the British team introduced new cycles for the London 2012 Olympics.[1] They outperformed rivals, Australia and France with margins, greater than expected.[2] In France the performance of the British was greeted with suspicions and allegations of foul play.[3]

The director of the French Olympic cycling team, suggested subterfuge, and a little discussed, cutting edge technology was used to produce the quickest bike. British Prime Minister David Cameron defended the UK Olympic Cycling team to French news, "Of course there is no cheating," he said. But France's world champion cyclist Gregory Bauge, demanded the U.K.'s secrets be revealed.[4] French omnium specialist Bryan Coquard supported the British believing the secret is due to the best equipment being revealed at the last moment as well as stating: "[T]he Australians didn't race cohesively, Jack Bobridge missed two turns. Among the Britons every turn was perfect."[5] Chris Boardman the former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team was asked if the British teams high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage, he replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not."[6] British Cycling is secretive. Its technology is built at Advanced Composites Group, an English manufacturer of high-end composites that are used in Formula 1 racing, aerospace, and the America’s Cup sailboats [7][8][9] The Union Cycliste Internationale UCI recently amended its interpretation of the sports rules to allow a nine-month grace period after first competition use to bring a product to market.[10] All bicycle and rider equipment at the games were declared legal by the UCI and passed fit for use under its sporting code.[6]''--Andromedean (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen: As you both have already expressed your opinions, me as well, on 88's rush to push the version under contention back to the main page, this is good enough. I think the talk page for the article is the appropriate venue. Thanks! Showmebeef (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a final point before we move onto the talk page. amadscientist on his talkpage seems to be under the impression that we both stated support for the second version, subject to minor changes which is now published and that's why he shut down the dispute. It appears as if he will be prepared to use such 'claims' in mediation.  I was trying to be civil, but am damned if I can find any such agreement from either of us. Immediately before dispute was closed S&P was asking everyone to ignore me for being so out of step, then after I clarified my disagreements, bang it was closed.


 * For a second time I have been completely politically outmanoeuvred by clever devious editors. Through S&P starting from an absurd bargaining position (everything is POV and synthesis), 88 deliberately confusing two different versions of the article when he knew damn well we were against one, and then claiming we are in agreement with a version we clearly aren't, it seems to have been forced through. Once again I smell a rat and politics and bias wins over reason, honesty and hard work! --Andromedean (talk) 07:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "88 deliberately confusing two different versions of the article when he knew damn well we were against one, and then claiming we are in agreement with a version we clearly aren't, it seems to have been forced through."--I completely agree with you on this one. 88 appears to want to be an honest broker, but in all reality he is not, and he knows that (the trick you mentioned here is just one of them). This is a fact he cannot escape no matter how many times he changes his IP address. Showmebeef (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Showmebeef:I see you as more reasonable than Andromedean, however the claim that I deliberately confused two versions is unkind and untrue. If you both, in responses to a new volunteer proposal, continued to discuss on the basis of an old version without making this explicit, you are very easy to misunderstand. 88.88.166.230 (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Amadscientist (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI of Andromedean
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I had no desire to to this. However, I think Andromedean's repeated accusations require community attention. 88.88.166.230 (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Post DRN activity: Technologies in Track Cycling
Showmebeef, I'm not sure how you resume with this, I took a short break as is recommended to allow emotions to settle down.

I agreed to respect the decision of the DRN volunteer to include the a version of his choice as a starting point for further discussion. However, since the DRN was closed prematurely without any agreement from yourself (and explicit agreement from myself), it is entirely within your rights to change it to a version you believe is suitable. For the time being I will refrain from editing it, but I have added some comments for discussion.

Thanks for you comments on the other issue. I have only just seen it! --Andromedean (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you intending to be involved in this? I may need to make a decision on whether to take it to mediation or otherwise. To be honest it is like arguing with a brick wall and it may prove impossible to change even slightly now without going to arbitration. --Andromedean (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Since the DRN was closed prematurely without any agreement from yourself (and explicit agreement from myself), it is entirely within your rights to change it to a version you believe is suitable." In that case, the intermediate form that was proposed by Amadscientist would be a good starting point. We can appeal to Amadscientist to put that version, which can be considered neutral and compromised among all, back to the main page. What do you think? Showmebeef (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea, although it may be better if you approach him since he still seems to think it is just me who is unsatisfied with the outcome.--Andromedean (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Showmebeef: There are an ongoing 'discussion' going on on the talk page which you may or may not wish to be involved with, but it may be useful to verify your views regarding consensus of the version of the article which was published, since S&P is claiming everyone except me was agreed on the version published and is (paradoxically) threatening to delete it completely. Perhaps it may be worth reading through this, and clarify if you still wish to approach amadscientist, or to be involved in any mediation as I need to make a decision in how to continue. Note this is just a polite message considering you have indicated you wish to be involved not forum shopping.--Andromedean (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sport and politics (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Sport and politics: How dare you to accuse me of engaging in an edit war when you yourself have used revert times (revert1, revert2 and revert3) prior to this? I am merely reverting what you have reverted 3 times! Talk about abusing the power and policy!!! Showmebeef (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * By making your reversion all you have done is nothing more than continue the edit war, you are fully aware of the discussion on the talk page.Yo have also knowingly reverted when the changes you are reverting to have been discussed before without a consensus to implement them being reached as seen here in the collapsed discussion box. To then revert to a version which includes them is perpetuating a revert war and by definition you are taking part in that revet war. Sport and politics (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

High-tech warfare
I discovered something in the source, and have changed the wording accordingly. Hope you'll find the change acceptable. Note that it is closer to your version than to Sport and Politics's. "British team" in her version is factually incorrect. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

help for an/i case
check under the sports and politics section of an/i for a section entitled "it's not my fault it's your fault" where i explain why an interaction ban should be made. i also left a similar message on s&p's talk page. 199.101.61.190 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Kunming attack
I have reverted this edit of yours. It is strictly unnecessary to quote the full "reaction" of Ban Ki-moon and the UN. In fact, it's not necessary to quote such reactions at all. This is not expert commentary or situational analysis. These soundbites are just meaningless rhetoric and bring nothing to the article. Kindly refrain from creating such WP:QUOTEFARMs in future. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 02:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Guangzhou Opera House, designed by Zaha Hadid, 2010.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Guangzhou Opera House, designed by Zaha Hadid, 2010.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Zuma Satellite Launch
You have put up a valiant effort in the 2018 in spaceflight discussion regarding the Zuma satellite launch. Unfortunately the result is that the satellite is in the ocean yet the launch is a 'success'...Brilliant. Still, well done mate.192.222.134.89 (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your encouragement! I tried, but in vain perhaps, to make this list of a reflection of the actual facts. In the end, I found this quote from the noted "Sage of Baltimore" H. L. Mencken rather illuminating:
 * "Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance."
 * It only takes a few diehard believers to hijack this forum, in the name of democracy. Showmebeef (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)