User talk:Starkt

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Nlu (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

hello Starkt
Thanks for responding to the survey and diplomatically engaging on the ucr talk page. Just to let you know, there are currently 2 user conduct Requests for Comment currently being organized on UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower's activites, set for a tentative filing date of this Thursday. Several weeks ago, WHS, ElKevbo and I organized a Request for Arbitration against UCRGrad, which was rejected as no prior steps in WP:DR dispute resolution had yet been tried. So since then I've reengaged with those two for the primary purpose of following these steps through to the end. An advocacy request on my part for assistance in articulating NPOV agreements for contentious areas identified by the survey lead to IB requesting advocacy to "defend him" against my organizing activities, but upon reviewing all the available evidence his own advocate ultimately "sided" with the NPOV I think everyone other than those 2 has, in their various ways, been pushing for the article.
 * UCRG conduct RFC
 * IB conduct RFC

I'd be happy if you could help with the gathering of evidence/information or the organizing of either of these conduct RFCs, following these examples here. the purpose of doing these is to get the broader wiki community to weigh in on their conduct violations primarily. of course, no one expects either of them to change their ways, but further evidence of their not doing this in the near future will clear the way for a solid request for binding arbitration, which is the primary reason i'm doing this. Best, --Amerique 16:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Starkt

I noticed you commented on the RfC. To which side where you commenting on (UCRGrad posted the enitre RfC so it could be confusing). It doesn't matter to me which side you did post on I just want to make sure there is no confusion. Aeon Insane Ward  17:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

lol roger that I will check it out and fix it if that is ok with it you Aeon  Insane Ward  17:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey starkt. I also want to ask if you really meant to certify both sides of the RFC.  I could be misunderstanding your intent or the RFC process but it appears as it you've certified both sides of the discussion which is very confusing to me ("He's right!  No, he's right!). :)  --ElKevbo 17:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Bots
I see no edits from the bot to suggest it was reverting your edits. The edits I see from the bot didn't touch the sentence in question, could you provide a diff please. As for the accuracy factor, I don't know any humans who are 100% either, at least the bot doesn't have a POV - it's not perfect but it's pretty damn good :) -- Tawker 14:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edits
Hi, Starkt. While I for one agree with the recent edits you've made to the UCR article and likely won't agree to any UCRGrad or I-B will make, I just wanted to make sure in advance that you're aware of WP:3RR so you don't end up getting a block or something. Despite UCRGrad's rampant disregard for WP policy as evidenced by his wikilawyering, he's shown in the past that he'll report other users for rule violations without hesitation. Anyway, just wanted to let you know. -- WHS Talk 21:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I just happened to be looking around on Wikipedia and the new messages thing popped up, so here I am. From what I understand, reverting doesn't necessarily require going to an earlier version of a page and saving that edit. Articles can also be reverted in part, so if you were to say copy and paste a portion of the article from a previous edit and use it to replace a newer version of it, that would also count as a revert. From WP:3RR:

"Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word."

In any case, as I've already mentioned, I agree with the edits you've been making for the most part and just want to make sure that you don't get reported for any rule violations. -- WHS Talk 08:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Editing in itself is perfectly acceptable. For example, let's say a statement says "UCR is a university in California." If one were to change the statement to say "UCR is a university in California and was founded in 19xx.", and a second person further changed that statement to "UCRiverside is a university in California and was founded in 19xx.", that would qualify as editing. However, if someone else came in and changed it back to the very first statement, that counts as a revert due to the contributions of editors being removed rather than changed. I hope that helps clarify things. Also, regarding your comments on the UCR talk page, I've found a reference for the statement you wish to include. It's also on the article's talk page, if you're interested. Regards. -- WHS Talk 08:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. UCRGrad, while definitely breaking the spirit of 3RR, hasn't actually violated the letter of the rule. I apologize for my lack of clarity in explaining it. While one is only permitted to revert three times in a 24 hour span, it only applies to the specific section reverted unless the article as a whole is reverted. What this means is, say there are five sections on a page. UCRGrad could revert sections one through four, even though it would technically be four reverts, since he is reverting each section only once. The policy applies when specific information is reverted to over three times, and not reverts in themselves. Again, it's my fault that I didn't better clarify the rule to begin with. Either way, I encourage you to read the page on the 3RR as well as the other guideline pages. Anyway I'm heading to sleep now, so have a good night (even though at this point it's practically morning). -- WHS Talk 11:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing your edits
I choose to follow the one-revert rule, and if I only edited previous versions without UCRG and I-B's POV, that would essentially be a revert. But rest assured that when I make edits to this article, I'll try to keep them from getting lost in a non-neutral version. szyslak (t, c,  e ) 23:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

hi starkt, sorry, I haven't been able to keep up with the article very well this week to help out. next week i should have more time. I'll do what I can.--Amerique 01:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The next RFARB
They've both indicated they don't want to undertake WP:Mediation. I am for initiating further data collection this week for the next RFARB, RFARB2.0, for which I've pulled the evidence from the current RFC and saved it on yet another user subpage located here:. I truly think the last one failed mainly for a lack of due process, but we will see. I am not in a rush to do this, but will be working on compiling further evidence and developing a comprehensive statement through this week.--Amerique 23:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Starkt,

Scratch what I said about collecting new evidence. The ARBCOM will not be concerned with evidence at this point. Basically, all we would need to initiate the arbitration request are individually prepared personal statements as to what the various problems are working with UCRG/IB and what you think the committee should do about them. I should have online by this thursday or friday. will let you know.--Amerique 00:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put up my preliminary draft statement on my afformentioned userpage. You can put yours up there now or wait until after I file the request, which I intend to do next Monday. Best,--Amerique 00:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Starkt,

While I appreciate your support for the next Request for Arbitration, and realize that what you are have been doing is not "reverting" so much but a more strategically concentrated form of editing, I have to ask you to revise your statement. Using the word "revert" in reference to what you have been doing gives people the impression that you have been continually sending the article back to your preferred version, which, from what I understand, is not what you have been doing or really been advocating. Anyway, as UCRG seems to have left for the time being, there is no rush to get your statement done right away, but I would like to have the next RFARB ready to go in event he does return to engage in more "revert warring." Best,--Amerique 01:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've gotten the format of the next RFARB mostly ready to go with minimal further editing necessary. I would like to open the question of whether we should file this week to further discussion on my talk page, as UCRGrad himself seems to have suddenly become absent. Best,--Amerique 02:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see you in these parts again, Starkt
All good things turned out well in the end after all. Best, Amerique dialectics  05:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)