User talk:Xymmax/Archives/2010/September

Would you take a look at this?
Since you refereed the Afd, I thought I would look to you for advice. I have also left a message on Crotalus's talk page.

Before the page was deleted, copied the page and saved in on his talk page. He then, under the guise of creating another draft of the Shakespeare authorship question (as per the directive stemming from this decision, into the draft pasted part of the Oxfordian article that contained similar information.

He then created a new article in the mainspace, Oxfordian Theory - Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays, with the edit summary of "forking play portion from draft3, adding in mainstream dismissal to opening para and several lead graphs to maintain NPOV". However, a comparison with his archived copy of the deleted article shows that it was not forked from the talk page draft, but pasted almost verbatim from his archived version.

His action comes at a particularly inopportune time, since we are supposedly engaged in mediation about the SAQ. I posted a protest on his talk page, giving my reasons and asking him to comply with the AfD result, which he deleted as a "personal attack".

Can you advise me on what I should do, if anything? I had hoped the mediation would solve our differences, but it has yet to come about and I now wonder if it will. I realise this is a tedious subject for most people, but any advice you can offer I would appreciate. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting question. I think, though, that I should defer any involvement. It appears that Seddon has just accepted the mediation request. If it is going to have any reasonable chance of success, the participants will need to engage each other without outside interference from the likes of me. Good luck. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

 * We've been answering your question. I really don't want this to go stale yet again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

BravesFan
When you leave a message that must be answered, you need to say so explicitly. The problem with being so polite is that if you are ignored, you haven't created a basis for taking any further action. A message such as, "You need to respond to this issue, or unfortunately it will be necessary to place a block on your account in spite of your valuable contributions", is the sort of thing that is appropriate. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We've been around this block too many times. I point out he's not sourcing, take it to ANI, admin warns him gently, he does the same crap all over again. Let's put an end to this cycle already. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The above of course assumes that it is my intent to block BravesFan; I already have stated that such is not my intent. Rather, my intent is to engage him/her in discussion. I understand that a number of people have lost patience with the editor. If we reach a point where a block is imminent, I'll clearly tell the editor so. Now, if there are other admins who are of a mind to block, that is their perogative, and I won't take offense. But I have not satisfied myself that a block is necessary. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  12:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what are you going to do if BF doesn't answer? If that happens, then all you've accomplished is to prevent anybody else from doing anything. Looie496 (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to worry about that now. It appears that blocked him for 31 hours. Not my preferred course of action obviously; we'll see how it works out. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  14:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Guess what he's up to again. That's right, more unsourced info. This time, he's added that "The Boys Of Fall" is the new #1 on the country charts — the Chart Highlights from Billboard.com aren't even out yet, and he's confirmed that he pulls the #1 info from what ever shows as #1 on the "Real Time Tracker" on Sunday night. tl;dr: The instant he gets unblocked, his first edits are to add the same unsourced information he's been warned a zillion times not to add. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Left another note. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you really think more polite notes are gonna help? He clearly isn't reading the things. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, but it makes it abundantly clear to the editor and everyone else that he/she is being afforded every opportunity to avoid further sanctions. BTW, BRS blocked again, this time for a week. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  17:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)