User talk:Andyparkerson

Hello Andyparkerson! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Netsnipe ► 02:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

Nadine Gordimer

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nadine Gordimer. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. -- tariqabjotu 01:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ, but thank you for your concern. If you care to look at the Nadine Gordimer talk page, you will see that this has been discussed extensively. I have not violated 3RR, nor even come close. But again, thanks for bringing your concerns to my attention. Andyparkerson 02:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at 3RR again, and it means something other than what I thought it meant. So yes, I did violate 3RR. Thanks for letting me know. I'll take a day or so off, and then try not to let it happen again. Sorry for the violation. Andyparkerson 02:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You dont have to take a day off, as you are not banned, just warned. Just try not to do that in the future. If you do accidentally violate that rule in the future, you should revert back to before your own 3rd revert and apologize on the talk page. RogueNinja_talk 02:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking the day off because I'm spending too much time here. :) I thought 3RR applied to the same revert more than 3 times. I see now it doesn't. It's just frustrating, and I need some distance. Again, thanks for the warning. Andyparkerson 02:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is fair to say that the discussion on what to include (if anything) about the robbery of [Nadine Gordimer] has gone on for several months and has gotten us nowhere. Each side is still arguing its original points, and there seems to be no spirit of cooperation here, or willingness to compromise on key issues. Lquilter has repeatedly mentioned that mediation might be a good idea, and I must agree with her. Mediation is a voluntary process, and its results are non-binding. If both sides do not agree to the mediation, then it will not occur, for its results would then be meaningless. It is, however, the next step toward Arbitration, which is binding. The goal of mediation is to arrive at a solution that is acceptable to all parties. It is not to force one viewpoint on others. It is very important that all sides agree to this mediation. I am in the process of drafting the Request for Mediation. If you have a problem with mediation, or do not wish to participate, please speak up now at Talk:Nadine Gordimer#Mediation. Andyparkerson 23:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Nadine gordimer, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Important Retraction

I have retracted my initial refusal of mediation to allow 70.* a chance to vote on this matter. Since he has been the flag-bearer on this issue, if he votes "Agree," I intend to go along with him. That's only fair. Yakuman (数え役満) 08:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sistine Chapel ceiling

I'm glad you picked up the error pertaining to Pope John Paul II. --Amandajm 08:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Nadine Gordimer.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]}

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Gordimer and policy

Hi. I've taken a strong line over the last few hours in relation to the BLP, NOR, and NPOV violations at the Gordimer entry. As a consequence the entry has been blocked for a week by user Durova (who did not take a position on the dispute). If you read through the section "BLP and notability" on the Gordimer talk page, you will see how I understand the policy issues. It is my belief that, having established the violations, it is up to editors to insist on enforcing policy correctly. I thus do not favour mediation, in particular given the lengthy history of the dispute. I have also referred the entry to the BLP noticeboard. I hope you will examine my arguments, find them convincing, and support enforcement of policy at this entry. FNMF 09:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting on the Joji Obara talkpage!

Thanks for contributing your opinion on the Joji Obara talk page, in the on-going RfC. I'd like to ask you to revise what you said though: you suggest "property developer from Japan" might be a more neutral way of putting it, but this seems discriminatory to people of different ethnicities residing in Japan. He isn't only from Japan - he IS Japanese. Suggesting that somebody from Japan isn't "a true" Japanese national unless they have the right ethnicity is highly racist, and would be the same as suggesting that a Jew who has lived his entire life in the States, and has a US passport, should not be called "American" but "from the USA". I do not accuse you of racism, nor holding these views. Actually I'm happy to assume the very opposite is true - exactly because of that, I'd be very thankful if you revised your comments on the Joji Obara talkpage. Thank you in advance. Mackan 14:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My proposed compromise would suggest no such thing. It merely states the facts in neutral language. It would identify what his occupation was "property developer" and where he lives "from Japan". The problem lies in that "Japanese" refers both to a nationality and to an ethnicity. It is confusing, and problem-laden. I merely suggested using unambiguous language.Andyparkerson 15:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim vs Motto

Can you participate in the discussion on the fraternity infobox talk page. I think the fields Maxim and Motto are synonyms, but since you added Maxim beneath Motto, you must know the difference between the two. Is it simply that some groups say Motto and same say Maxim, or do you know of a group that has both? Thanks for your participation.--Ccson 04:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lowercased names

Given your work to keep the text formatting on Bell Hooks and Catherine Yronwode WP:MOS compliant, would you consider watchlisting the articles Brian D Foy (no typo, apparently the 'd' is not an initial) and K.D. Lang? The "official" formatting occasionally comes up on them as well, so it would be nice to have an extra-editor on the lookout. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 04:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]