User talk:Trebor/archive1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: 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! Ans e  ll  03:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Babyshambles
Have you not seen this page?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Libertines_and_Babyshambles_bootlegs

I suggest you do a Speedy Delete on your new page and link to this instead. There's no need for us to go through a lengthy vote for deletion.Damiancorrigan 18:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, my mistake. I was in a hurry. Damiancorrigan 21:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The Libertines
What the hell are you doing to the article's history page? Please try to make several changes in ONE edit, instead of messing up the history. It is impossible for others to reproduce the changes and see how other versions looked like. Please stop immediately! -- dreadlady 18:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I just noticed: Improving an article doesn't mean rephasing it until it is incomprehensible. You may form more pretentious phrases, but please make sure the article remains skimmable. e.g. You change Their success included a #2 single and #1 album in the U.K. charts. However, the band experienced problems, many caused by Doherty's considerable drug use, and split at the end of 2004. to Although initially their mainstream success was limited, their profile grew culminating in a #2 single and #1 album in the U.K. Charts. However, the band's music was often eclipsed by its internal conflicts, many of which stemmed from Doherty's considerable drug use. Overdone, isn't it? -- dreadlady 19:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yea, well I just thought you should maybe go through the whole article, change it to your likes and then edit. Of course you can do this several times, but, as I said, please try not to do it seperately for every change, simply because you already dissipated almost one page of history. I didn't mean to say your edits were useless. -- dreadlady 04:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Jaseball
Hello Trebor, nn games/inventions are not speedyable, so I had to change to a prod template instead. Thanks, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC).

FNC
Hey, I know you're trying to help, but i would very strongly encourage you to re-read all the relevant info before jumping in. We've already had discussions, votes, and RfC's on this issue. You jumping in and trying to referee only causes prolonged discussions on issues that have long since been decided by the appropriate wikipedia processes. I appreciate your effort, but in this case in particular it's best to know what all has already transpired before suggesting anything. /Blaxthos 16:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would be more than inclined to have a vote if Cbuhl were to show any inclination to accept losing. But since we already had the NPOV discussion, already had discussions about undue weight, explained why weasel words are OK here, explained why NPOV doesn't apply to the intro, why he is misreading WP:WEASEL, and WP:NPOV (at Foxnews, and on his talk page, and on the WP:WEASEL talk page), why there was a consensus, what the consensus is, and he refuses to accept any of it.  I am just going to refuse to participate in the discussion.  If he makes any changes against the consensus, I will revert it, until he can show that consensus has changed.  Ramsquire 18:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand you are trying to help, and I thank you for your efforts. But the onus is on Cbuhl.  If he says he will accept the result of the vote, then I will participate in a straw poll.  However, for days now, he is simply repeating the same argument, no matter how many other editors point out he is misstating Wikipedia policy.  So, I'll wait and see.  But as you can probably see, most of the editors are pretty frustrated and have no desire to re-visit this issue. Ramsquire 18:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

FNC/Debate/RfC/AGF Alphabet Soup
Trebor,

I appreciate your willingness to assist in this situation, however I think it is important to note the following:


 * WP:AGF specifically states that one must not continue to assume good faith when evidence to the contraty exists. As several editors have pointed out, there are several actions by cbuhl that give overwhelming evidence that he is not acting in good faith, specifically:
 * Wikilawyering
 * Calling a second RfC as soon as the first one closed (satisfying WP:CONSENSUS) on the same issue.
 * Making a WP:POINT
 * Finding new excuse to raise the same point when first attempt fails ("try different policies until one gets the resut one desires").
 * Claiming victimization of personal attacks, when none exist.
 * Soliciting support for his position by approaching uninvolved parties on their talk pages.
 * Refusing to listen to multiple editors' explainations as to why his position is incorrect.
 * Gaming the system.


 * The vote you proposed has already occured. Why pander to someone who obviously refuses to hear any voice but his own?
 * I already announced several times that I no longer AGF with the editor in question,

The way to end it? Simply stop responding. If you agree that it should end, then absolutely do not call for another vote to rehash dead issues -- all that does is stir the water more!

Admittedly, I had planned to stop responding after the last post, but then more people kept jumping in, seemingly without understanding the complete history involved. I think several points you made on my talk page actually were covered in previous public postings (regarding AGF, personal attacks (which you also claim occur, so I am asking for you to cite them if you still assert they have occured), past votes and consensus).

If you think Cbuhl is correct, then jump in the fray -- I think even with two or three more voices the consensus would not be overturned (though I strongly acknowledge WP:CCC) but this is just one big whinefest over sour grapes. If you do not think Cbuhl is correct, then I urge you to explain to him why he is wrong (as we've all tried) instead of coddling him by agreeing to another vote. I also suggest re-reading what happened to the one person who did decide to AGF and re-participate in the (invalid) second RfC. Might make you think twice about acquescing to the squeaky wheel.

Anyway, hope this didn't come off as too harsh. /Blaxthos 21:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Response
"I think cbuhl is still acting in good faith (based on the tone of his postings) and doesn't think the issue is as cut and dried as you do."

His tone shouldn't be how you evaluate his "good faith" -- actions speak louder than words.

"the current intro came after discussion (not a vote) at the end of the last RfC which had began on a different topic."

Negative. The end goal is the same, even if the vehicle used is differet. Please read WP:POINT. Finding new ways to effect the same goal is clearly discussed in several policies and guidelines.

"it had been going on for 5 days already with little progress."

Indeed, there is no progress to be made. Consensus has been reached. Issue has been discussed to death. Current discussions are to try and help Cbuhl (and now you) understand why further discussion is moot.

"I'd been following the discussion for several days without commenting and thought it was getting nowhere, so suggested a poll, with agreement in advance to adhere to the result, might break the deadlock. But then you jump on me as if I've done something wrong."

One individual who refuses to accept the community consensus is not a deadlock. Wikipedia would get nowhere if every change had to be met with complete agreement by all parties. To be honest, I do think it's wrong that you want to continue opening the issue for discussion, totally bypassing the endless work that we have done to (1) refine the article to meet with consensus views, and (2) explain to Cbuh79 why/how his view is out of line. That shows a complete disrespect to all of us who have used hundreds of kilobytes to try and help him understand why.

"You shouldn't be afraid to defend your position,"

Hey now, let's not violate WP:OR and WP:AGF with me -- my reasons aren't because I am "afraid to defend [my] position". My "defense" (improper wording) of "my" position is neither a defense, nor is it my position. The consensus was reached a while back by a number of editors (not asserted by me). The reasoning for such can be foudn in the endless volumes on the talk page. The "defense" (which should be described as "explaination") has been explained at least half a dozen times by like, five or six editors.

You should also note that this isn't the only place Cbuhl has been told he's wrong on this issue -- go read the talk pages for the policies and templates he's even trying to cite! How many people saying "that is incorrect" do you think we need before his continued objection should be viewed as invalid?

"if you think there was already a vote (an actual poll) on the issue in question can you point me to it because I can't find it."

WP:CONSENSUS does not require an "actual poll" or vote -- in fact, in circumstances like this it is very much more productive to have a collaborative effort (which we did!) instead of "pick one." You should be able to read everyone's comments (from the last 2 weeks or however long it's been) and get a pretty clear indication that the only one supporting Cbuhl79's position is Cbuhl79.

Again, I think it's nothing but counterproductive for you to give validity to Cbuhl79's behavior. The precedent this sets is dangerous and not in the best interests of the project -- I liken it to a prison sentence that won't be imposed until all appeals are exhausted, and there is always an opportunity to repeatedly appeal. /Blaxthos 08:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Addendum - Thought these quotes, from WP:CONSENSUS would help Cbuhl and Trebor get some clarification:

"The preferred way to deal with this problem is to draw the attention of other editors to the issue by some of the methods of dispute resolution, such as consulting a third party, filing a request for comment (on the article in question), and requesting mediation. Enlarging the pool will prevent the railroading of articles by a dedicated few. In the case of a small group of editors who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a larger group of editors, it is worth considering that they may be mistaken."

- WP:CONSENSUS

"Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate."

- WP:CONSENSUS

Hope this helps! /Blaxthos 08:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool Reflection
Hey, sorry I came down with both feet the other day. I know you were just trying to help resolve the issue, and I was unnecessarily forceful towards someone offering assistance. I found much of the past conversation on the FNC/Talk archive page (recently created) and I think that a good portion of the previous work might have been overlooked by a lot of latecomers. I have since moved it back onto the talk page to try and provide a more complete context. I still assert (per WP:CONSENSUS and best practice) that a simple this-or-that vote/count is absolutely not the way to resolve something that has gotten this much attention. I also assert that the whole mess is invalid and lacks jurisdiction -- this has been resolved, the lone holdout just refuses to hear any voice but his own.

At any rate, regardless of whether what I say is right or not, the way I responded probably lacks some good faith towards you, and for that I sincerely apologize. Heat of the moment. ;-)

Thanks for helping so far! /Blaxthos 01:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Fox News Request for Arbitration
This is a notice that I have filed a request for arbitration. You are either an editor with which I am in direct dispute, or an editor who has been involved in the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by cbuhl79 (talk • contribs)

Peer review bot - images
Thanks for the note; I picked that up also and fixed the error, yet somehow the next few articles I reviewed still had the same problem (I think I forgot to WP:BYC). AZ t 16:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiThanks
... for being the first one to comment on Peer review/Jenna Jameson/archive1. Actually fixing or otherwise responding to specifics will take a bit of time, but I'm very grateful for the interest. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I responded to all your comments. Please take another look and see if you have more concerns. Thank you for your help! AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the AMA!
Hello Trebor Rowntree, I see that you have decided to join the AMA. I'll be the first to say welcome! We're always in need of more advocates, especially since were backlogged most of the time. Just a few pointers for what we do. We communicate by putting a template on our talk page. The template is AMA alerts (which you already have). The AMA also has it's own IRC channel which reports new cases to us, and also new alerts. If you'd like to jump right into a case, you are free to check out WP:AMARQ, which is our new request for advocacy system. The instructions for how the technical part works is on it's talk page. You can also use the AMA userboxes that appear under here. If you have anymore questions about the organization, just ping any advocates talk page, including our coordinator, Steve Caruso. Again, welcome to the AMA! -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a question: Are you currently working the case AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/stone put to sky? If so could you cange the status to open. It's just so we can keep track of how many new cases we have. Thanks! -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You can open it if you want to, or you can wait for a responce. There's no real rule of how it's got to be done. Usually opening it will tell other advocates that your on the case though. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleveland steamer discussion
Oops- it appears to have been me that removed some of the discussion from that page- it was indeed unintentional; not sure what happened there. Thanks for catching this! Badgerpatrol 21:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

GoldenEye (soundtrack)
probably all the hype with Casino Royale 2006! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD Notification on College Tonight
Hi there. In an earlier AfD vote on the article College Tonight you voted Keep. This is a notification that the article is up for deletion again and since you haven't yet responded, at least one closing admin was unsure if that meant you had reconsidered your position or simply hadn't noticed. Note, this is not a request to vote Keep again (actually I'd prefer to see it deleted!), just a notification that another vote is taking place. Thanks! --Arvedui 18:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Goldeneye "the women of" section
Hi. I see you're getting blamed for the removal of the section - it was me actually. I have had a problem with these since they were added. Recently I tried to salvage them but decided (for reasons I've explained at Talk:Goldeneye) that they should be removed. Mark83 13:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Goldeneye: Sockpuppet?
These edits   bear a remarkable resemblance to those of a similarly minded editor who I warned about removing information for no valid reason. Worth watching! Mark83 21:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved from your user page
KenL 00:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Please refrain from contacting me. I have nothing to say to you or your lackey who feel you have the right to arbitrarily delete other people's "awful" work.(moved from your user page --Kimchi.sg 00:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for your help
I know the dispute was resolved befor you could jump in, but I appreciate the effort --DrewWiki 10:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy
Regarding article Palestine subsection demographics. The dispute was over
 * Parties disagree whether the article should or should not contain multiple conflicting peer-reviewed and non peer-reviewed sources
 * Parties disagree whether Mark Twain and Katz breach the regulations vis-a-vis sources contained within WP:RS and WP:V

This was mentioned in a RFA I posted for Palestine [] and rejected by one participant. I am confused on how to proceed with conflict arbitration. You can read details of this argument on the article's talk page. Thank you.Wood345 05:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

List of characters in the Super Smash Bros. series
No longer redundant. See here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: reasoning
Please see WP:V The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. Rick Ufford-Chase and Fighters + Lovers fails WP:NOTE.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 16:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's ok in Rick Ufford-Chase but in case of Fighters + Lovers it's obvious it fails all notability options.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 16:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ok, let's look why Fighters + Lovers is notable. What they did to the fashion world except a couple of t-shirts and 2 or 3 newspapers articles ? I see nothing that justify encyclopedia entry.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 16:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I must disagree. Three newspapers notes are not non-trivial published works. They simply cannot be.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 16:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's assume, for a while, that a couple of newspapers articles about company is sufficient for notability. Just buy The Economist (or some mutation in your country) and read it, you'll find notices about companies - small, big ones... And you'll find there who is their boss, who was named as their boss, what they do, their financies, etc. About each company you'll find there two or three articles - openning in the region, closing etc. Is this a non-trivial published work ?  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Even there are three articles in newspapers I really do not think that Fighters + Lovers is allowed to be in encyclopedia. It is just a local not notable company.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 17:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is my personal opinion. That's why I use it in our conversation and not in the AfD debate. Imho notability is one of the biggest Wikipedia's problem. There are articles about things whose notability is terrible - a lot of articles start with "is the first, was the first in something" which asserts doubtful notability. Or a couple of newspapers articles posted under the pressure of actual events - meaningless in the history.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 17:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And one more - what about fashion models - there are thousands and thousands fashion models with local newspapers articles.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 17:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it seems wiki is a google mirror. But to be precise - bbc.co.uk or usa today are local newspapers too in fact (but reliable of course).  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 17:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What I thought with locality is that e.g. some European state's newspapers are much smaller then USA Today.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 17:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read this Wikipedia:WikiLawyering: 1. Using formal legal terms inappropriately regarding Wikipedia policy. 2. Breaking the spirit of a policy or guideline through sticking to a too-literal interpretation of the letter thereof. 3. Asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express. 4. Hiding behind misinterpretations or technicalities of policy to justify inappropriate actions.

Specially 2 is a case of Fighters + Lovers.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 00:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Saying you're wikylawyering is nothing against good faith. Spirit of WP:NOTE is getting mess out. As Gabi S. said you've estabilished verification but not a notability.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 01:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No it is not, just read it again what it says. You have three articles about one product - about T-shirts. All them looks like reprint of press-agency. What I want is the exact definition of "non-trivial" and I don't believe Fighters + Lovers is subject of multiple non-trivial works.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 01:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're breaking the spirit of notability policy. Its principle is handling with mess. You insist on a couple of articles and you pass them off as non-trivial works.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 11:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Al-islam.org
This is another article created by ... would you be willing to start a 2nd Afd for it (it survived one with "no consensus" a year ago), or else perhaps bundle it with Articles for deletion/Rafed.net since it has the same WP:WEB problem and the same arguments apply? Thanks. &mdash; 19:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Rafed.net
Following a deletion review Rafed.net has been relisted: Articles for deletion/Rafed.net (2nd nomination). - brenneman  01:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Username
HI Trebor, just to let you know I've opened a Request for Comment regarding your username. Per the policy Username, "Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies, groups, or include the URL of a particular website are discouraged and may be blocked." Please don't take this personally, the policy exists for a reason. This does not mean you will be definitely be requested to change your name, but it is a possibility. You can follow the debate at WP:RFCN. Thanks,  Dei zio  talk 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The case has been closed, name allowed. Happy editing,  Dei zio  talk 11:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:Films
 Welcome! Hey, welcome to the Films WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films and film characters. If you haven't already, please add User WikiProject Films to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for November has been published.  December's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia.  Check it out!
 * Want to collaborate on articles? The Cinema Collaboration of the Week picks an article every week to work on together.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Supernumerary 05:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Albert Einstein
Your recent edit to Albert Einstein (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 19:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My RFA
Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

Hasmonean
Just wanted to say thanks for the feedback. Good suggestions. Kaisershatner 21:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help
That was a mistake. Thanks for redirecting the article and any other help you can lend to the study would be most appreciated. Remember 22:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sunderland
I' am undergoing that procedure now. I' am reverting the other facts section, into different headings completely. Rasillon 13:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)