User talk:Cailil/archive6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page To leave me a new message, please click here.

User page

Talk page

Admin

Logs

Awards

Books

Talk archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 13:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And whatever you do, don't delete the Main Page, or add hoaxes to MediaWiki:Watchlist-details. Jehochman ^Talk 13:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the messages WJBscribe & Jehochman. And I'll try to remember not to indef block Jimbo either ;)--Cailil ^talk 13:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Conga rats! Now you can do endless, wearying, thankless housework like the rest of us guys! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC) with his orange mop and bucket

Conga rats? Why do I get this image of latino rats dressed in sombreros dancing to a samba rythm??? Urghhh! Cliché city!!! ;)--Ramdrake (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Orangemike - I'm looking forward to it ... kinda :)--Cailil ^talk 14:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations :)--Ramdrake (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!! America69 (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

← Congratulations. I think you'll do a great job. Just remember that the learning curve is steep and unforgiving, especially these days, so always err on the side of asking for help or a sanity check and you'll be fine. MastCell ^Talk 16:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. This is long overdue. :) Durova^Charge! 17:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Glad you finally ran for it :) SirFozzie (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeahh! My main bit of advice - if you do not mind my giving it - is, do not let this change the way you act. You were a great editor before, just keep doing what you have always done. Oh, that and be on the lookout for vandals now that you can stop them in their tracks. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Thanks again to everyone. I wont let this go to my head, but if it does slap me with a trout or two :)--Cailil ^talk 21:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late congrats, I am usually a lot quicker to pimp out my {{admin dashboard}}. Anyhow - congrats, and take a look it may prove useful in finding uses for your new buttons. –xeno (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hand me down

The admins' T-shirt.

Don't worry, I washed it first. Jehochman ^Talk 18:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm wearing it with pride ;)--Cailil ^talk 21:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

AFD

You mentioned that you are not afraid to AFD articles. Does this qualify? Romanesti (winery)

Chergles (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Chergles if this is your first deletion query I'd recommend you read the deletion policy just to familiarize yourself with it. What I see wrong withthe article is that there is "no assertion of notability" and no sources given in it. However, before you or anyone else tags it for AfD or speedy deletion you should do some research to see if you can find if the subject is in fact notable. A lightning google search I did while writing this reply shows me that Romanesti seems to be one of Moldova's largest wineries.

My feeling is that it should be merged and redirected to Moldovan_wine_producers (or Moldovan_wine). See WP:MERGE & WP:REDIRECT for details of these procedures and guides for them. It's best to build consensus for merges before doing them BTW, so you'd need to start a discussion on both Talk:Romanesti (winery) and Talk:Moldovan_wine_producers (or Talk:Moldovan_wine). But as it stands the content at Romanesti (winery) is not up standard and would fail the notability guideline for companies--Cailil ^talk 23:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

work needed

Congratulations on your RFA. Visit WP:AIV occasionally and use your sysop powers in this needed area. Chergles (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I recommend you start with CAT:CSD. Be sure to read the criteria carefully. You have four options: 1/ delete the item, 2/ remove CSD and replace with PROD, 3/ nominate for AfD, or 4/ remove the CSD tag. You need to think about which response is most appropriate in each situation. If somebody complains about a deletion, you should restore the article and send it to AfD. I recommend using plain English explanations when deleting. "Article apparently fails to assert notability" is crystal clear, and the word "apparently" leaves the door open to discussion. Keep in mind that an assertion of notability can be poorly formed and even bogus, but if it is there, the article is probably not a candidate for speedy. Those are good situations for PROD. If notability is questionable, AfD may be the best choice. Deleting is a good place to start. If you mess up, no humans are injured, unlike blocking. Once you can process a bunch of CSD cases without getting any complaints, ask me for the next training exercise. :-) Jehochman ^Talk 17:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jehochman - will do. I'm not going to rush into anything. I'll start a CSD patrol tomorrow and if I've any questions I'll drop you or MastCell or Fozzie a line. Thanks again--Cailil ^talk 20:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm neglecting this Jehochman and I apologize for that - I have some time-consuming obligations in RL at the moment and will get to CAT:CSD on Friday--Cailil ^talk 20:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on your successful RFA. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User page

I'm taking out a comment since you already read it and it might be interpreted the wrong way by others. Usually, housekeeping is done by the user, not the person writing it, but why not an exception here. Good luck on being an admin! Chergles (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

CombiMatrix?

I saw this http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=6377.php and thought whether or not the company is Wikipedia material. The article is here CombiMatrix.

Is this article worth keeping or deleting, in your opinion? Obscure company, not much written about it, but in the huge world of the internet, there are some stories about it in investment websites. Not really sure if it's worth the effort to improve this sort of article. Chergles (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles need multiple third party reliable sources to prove their notability. That said this article asserts notability so it is not a speedy delete candidate. You can put it up for AfD if you consider it not to meet wikiepdia's criteria. See WP:DELETE--Cailil ^talk 20:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Domestic violence

Got rid of a really nasty edit summary by a serial vandal. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Category sort

I have made a small change on your userpage ,so that the category is sorted properly instead of "U" for "User:" . Hope you wont mind. -- Tinu Cherian - 07:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Grand, thanks for doing that--Cailil ^talk 14:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Rules?

What's your opinion on Wikipedia rules? Are they optional? Or do you follow them? I don't know the answer. If I did, I'd do something, not just ask you.

One rule (official WP policy, not a guideline) is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UN#Sharing_accounts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UN#Company.2Fgroup_names states: Accounts that represent an entire group or company are not permitted; see Sharing accounts below.

Shouldn't you issue a warning and then make your first block? From what I read, you should not prevent account creation so the individual user can comply with policy and start his own account. By doing this, you would be doing your first block. Enough people have spent enough time in your RFA, don't waste our time and effort by failing to use the tools.

The offending user is: User:Ca204valry. Proof of policy violation: See user talk page: We are the IT Team at SIBM. We maintain sibm.edu and the SIBM section on wikipedia.

They also are treading on thin ice by editing their own article. Chergles (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for raising the visibility of this apparent problem. First off, to be clear, administrators are not obligated to make blocks when they see wrongdoing. Cailil was just promoted, and he might not want to block anybody too soon. I would be happy to look at this situation for you. Jehochman ^Talk 00:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

help needed

I have carefully reviewed the matter and am putting warnings.

Please block this 3RR violator for the shortest possible time period (recommend 8 hours). This user was properly warned about 3RR and reported to the 3RR board. Nobody did anything. I am not involved in the article in question nor is the reporter of the violation (for the most part).

The user who has violated policy and needs blocking is User:Wikisurfer61 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikisurfer61 . I, personally, don't like blocking but it must to done fairly and not selectively. Selective blocking is really persecution and unfairness. So if someone has violated policy, they must be treated like everyone else.

You have the tools. Please use them. Chergles (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Chergles it would best to go through WP:AN3 for this sort of thing. First becuase I wont be blocking anyone until I have done some new admin school work and since I haven't done any (due to real life obligations) I can't help here now. And second becuase by using the noticeboard sysops who are online at the time will be able to deal with 3RRs as they happen.
Having looked over this a bit I have to say that a block in this case now would be punitive and that's not what blocking is for - we don't block as punishment for infractions of the rules, we block to prevent further disruption. If Wikisurfer61 edit wars again report them to WP:AN3 and note the warning you gave them in this instance, but I think it best to AGF that this user has got the message - unless they do it again--Cailil ^talk 13:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

help needed 2

Please help. You didn't want to block someone so here's the reverse. I have looked at this person. They seem reasonable. They were blocked for 3RR but they are sorry and also claim a long record of good edits. Please unblock and reduce the punishment to time already served.

If you don't want to block, then please fulfil this UNblock request. The user is User:Wolfkeeper You have the tools, please use them. Chergles (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Chergles it is unnecessary for you, or anyone else, to advocate unblocking a user where an unblock request has been filed. Everyone can see all the users requesting unblock at Category:Requests for unblock. As regards Wolfkeeper's block I agree with Chillum's review and would consider an unblock in this situation "out of process".
Just FYI, there is no need to propose blocks or unblocks on sysops' pages. We already have categories listing these administrative tasks (ie Category:Requests for unblock, CAT:CSD, etc) and boards for reporting live problems (ie WP:ANI, WP:RFCU, WP:AFD, WP:RPP, WP:AVI and WP:AN3).
Don't take offense Chergles but please don't demand that I 'use the tools' as you have done twice this week. It is my responsibility to use my administrative privileges in accordance with site policy, community consensus and my best judgment - not "on-demand". I will review or investigate situations that anyone brings to my attention but I will not protect, delete, block, unblock, etc, on-request or on-demand. I will only use these privileges where I deem in accordance with site policy and standards; this is the way all sysops operate becuase our decisions are our responsibility.
I'm guessing that you are unfamiliar with the proper channels, forums and established site processes for this sort of request. You should consider reading and using WP:ANI, WP:RFCU, WP:AFD, WP:RPP, WP:AVI and WP:AN3 to get a feel for how the community handles 'situations'; how we go about protecting or deleting pages; and what rigours are involved in blocking and unblocking users. These forums are open to all users and as such have the benefit of transparency and community oversight--Cailil ^talk 23:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for administrator attention gives a long list of all of the channels to request sysop action openly and in process--Cailil ^talk 23:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I want you to use the tools, that's why I asked. I want you to find a good reason to block or unblock a user, partly for experience and partly to put that RFA to good use. What I am perplexed is why you won't use your tools "on request". Other admins do this thousands of times a day. Regular editors complain (hopefully with valid complaints) and the admin either does something or concludes that nothing should be done. Are you saying that you refuse to take requests and only use the tools when you see a case that needs it? If that is the case, we need many more admins because each would just use the tools for the small part of WP that they inhabit and would not accept any requests from others.

What if other admin did the same thing as you (not take requests) in the Anacapa matter? If so, Anacapa would remain as 99% or more of admins do not edit the same articles as Anacapa. Chergles (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Chergles sysops use their tools after investigation and using their judgment - not the judgment of any one else. Telling me to unblock someone is what I mean by "acting on-demand" - the fact that we already have a process for unblocking makes that a problem. The reason we have noticeboards for admin requests is so that community oversight exists where there are errors of judgment by sysops. Again if you want to request my attention or have a question about policy/protocol etc feel free to post here. I may decide to take action in these situations if they warrant it. However, where, when and what tools I use is at my discretion. If you are in a dispute yourself you can ask me to review the situation. If you find a complex problem that my skill set is pertinent to post it here. If you want advice feel free to ask but again I will decide if sysop actions are required and if I am going to perform them. If you want a page protected you should use WP:RPP, if you want a page deleted use WP:AFD or WP:CSD. If you see a 3RR report it to WP:AN3 - all admins including myself are patrolling these pages and this is how everyone else operates. These are the protocols we all follow Chergles. I realize you are trying to be helpful but you need to follow site processes so that you can learn about them--Cailil ^talk 21:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Alleged topic ban

When you get confirmation from someone you can believe that I have never been topic banned, don't apologize. The history of this article indicates that whenever a false accusation is proven false, no apology is ever given. Kossack4Truth (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I've stricken the part of my comment at AN3 that said you were topic banned. But please do not disrupt the project to make a point. Your comment here is unconstructive - it is flamebait; and multi-posting your AN3 report to WP:ANI is a prima facea case of forum shopping. This behaviour is tendentious and is disruptive. Please reconsider making this type of contribution to the project--Cailil ^talk 15:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

[1] Sorry Kossack I was correct the first time--Cailil ^talk 17:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: question

It wasn't ever officially passed (unfortunately). It probably should've been though...this time I'll follow it more closely, particularly given that I'm looking for article probation to pass this time around. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Ncmvocalist--Cailil ^talk 15:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the topic ban was never in effect even there. Although myself and MastCell (and several others) at that point felt it was justified, there was still not a clear sort of consensus to implement it because he had retired. The current discussion has taken care of the issue this time though. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi, I saw you asking about where you could best help, now that you have admin tools. My own suggestion (which you are free to ignore <grin>), is to check Category:Administrative backlog. For example, there are several move requests at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog which could benefit from administrator attention. Up to you though, to find your own niche.  :) There are also suggestions at the bottom of Wikipedia:New admin school/Dealing with disputes, such as to review the backlog at Category:NPOV disputes and see if any "disputed" tags can be removed from articles where the discussions have died down. And if not, the presence of a completely uninvolved administrator can often be really useful in getting things resolved. --Elonka 16:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks will look at these--Cailil ^talk 17:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

2000 Primary Group

I have another way to use your tools. I have formed the "2000 Primary Group". Initially it was to re-write a really bad section. 2 other editors agreed that it was a poorly written section and I re-wrote it. Because of the other editors neutral and fair judgment, we formed this informal group. Now we want to make the first edit of our group. We plan to consult each other first to see if there is a consensus. If our idea is too radical, the others in the group will caution us and the one with the idea won't pursue it as an edit (or do it with the black mark that the discussion group rejected it). In other words, we'll edit as individuals but we will seek a consensus/pre-approval first that our idea is a good idea.

We have decided that the "cultural and political image" is biased. Who is to choose what image/opinion to use? Only the postive (POV)? Only the negative (smear)? We plan to be very fair and make the suggestion to 2 articles, one of each major US politician from the 2 major parties. That way, we would not be picking on one party.

We plan to be polite and have good suggestions. Will you protect us as long as we follow our goals of good behavior? Others may call us socks in an effort to hurt us. The other two are: User talk:Floridianed and User talk:SMP0328. Wouldn't you agree that we are not each other's socks. That will diffuse at least that potential attack. Chergles (talk)

Chergles I'm really not sure what you are requesting here. But I must ask, have you ever joined a wikiproject or a task force? You should - they perform the same types of function that your group wants to. Have a look at WikiProject United States presidential elections and WikiProject Politics. I would strongly suggest you join such a wikiproject or create a task force for your group to avoid looking like a "cabal".
It is unclear to me exactly what your group's goals & intentions are but it sounds like something the people at WP:USPE would be very interested in and it might be of mutual benefit for both that project and you 3 editors to work with them.

Chergles I understand that you have suspicions about checkuser but you need to move on - if you 3 are accused of sock-puppetry an RFCU would come back negative - you need no "protection" from this.

On a side note, have you considered requesting a mentor - it's a good way to get to know other editors and to familiarize yourself with site policies and processes - I know a few good editors who might be happy to mentor someone with as much enthusiasm as you--Cailil ^talk 22:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would be interested in a mentor. What I am afraid of is not a negative RFCU but one from a checkuser who doesn't like our pre-edit discussions (maybe disagrees with them) and then say "likely". Then I would have been called Anacapa and SMP0328 and then probably banned forever. If I then request unblock from the unblock board, they would say "trolling, request denied, checkuser can't be wrong." If you are willing to stick up and say "Chergles is a reasonable person based on the edits" then I feel more comfortable. Of course, my edits would be entirely reasonable. Also, if you know any possible mentors, let me know. Chergles (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Chergles don't worry about all the hypothetical & horrible things that could go wrong - they probably wont happen. You've been honest about user:hotpotatoes and we can all see you're a very enthusiastic and well intentioned editor - we don't throw the people like that out. And if something mad did happen you could contact me or any sysop via email (like you did Durova) and I will investigate it. If some such hypothetical block was bad the community would overturn it - you'll never have anything to worry about as long as you stick to site policy. And if anyone brings up the Anacapa block contact me and I will explain that it was an error. Additionally by being within a taskforce or wikiproject your group would be interacting with tens and maybe hundreds of users so you would not be isolated. Please consider my advice about joining a project or task force.

If you want to request a mentor follow this link and pick one of the free mentors (sometimes called "adopters")--Cailil ^talk 23:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Respect Thread Conversions

I'm looking for folks to help convert Respect Threads to wiki formatting on Project Fanboy: WikiFans. Respect Threads, showcase scans of feats performed by comic book characters and have gained an audience on several comic book message boards. A few other wiki editors and myself are trying to convert them from the unprofessional look of a bunch of posts on a message board to the formatting common with WikiMedia wiki's. To view an example of what we're doing, here is a link to Respect Silver Surfer.

I was wondering if you might have time to contribute your comic book knowledge and/or scans of comic book characters performing feats, and help us out with our Respect Articles project?Millennium Cowboy (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Trouble brewing

Could you watchlist Dan Crow (computer scientist) and Blurb.com? I've been dealing with a banned editor "JP" (who was allowed to vanish and had her WP:CSN banning thread blanked). More eyes may help. Jehochman ^Talk 08:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

They're on my watch list now - will keep an eye on them--Cailil ^talk 10:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

You were right, even in your criticism of me. Unfortunately, Lisa and I have a long standing history of this. On the Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms her edit warring led to the complete disolution of the page. On the Shituf page her warring led me to just let her have the whole page, except for a single sentence I fought tooth and nail for to keep the entire article from contradicting itself. And here again her edit is the last one standing. Even worse, she FOLLOWS me from page to page, and opened an RfC on me demanding that I be barred from making ANY edits ANYWHERE on Jewish subjects (we're both Jewish).

I hope that you'll at least read that MedCab case (not RfC) so that you can see that Tim is misstating what I asked for. Of course I never asked that he be barred from editing articles on Jewish subjects. I asked that he be prevented from forcing Christian concepts into such articles. The Shituf article was a good example. Rather than accept that Judaism views worship of a trinity as non-monotheistic, he insisted that Judaism just doesn't understand Christianity, and that the Jewish concept of shituf needs to take the Christian theological categories of Trinitarianism, Arianism and Tritheism into account. I was not the only person trying to get him to stop, though I admit I was the most persistent. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

We're cluttering this person's talk page. The problem was a term and definition mismatch. Either the terms needed to match the definition, or a recognition of a mismatch should be made. I don't care either way. That's not forcing a Christian concept into a Jewish term. That's simply creating consistency of the normative meaning of words on an encyclopedia with a generic audience. The agenda isn't "Christianity." The agenda is "English."Tim (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what to do other than changing my name or obediently trying to find some obscure subject she isn't interested in -- but I'm starting to think I'm the primary subject, and not the articles. My apologies for going along even up to 3 edits, and my apologies for not learning how to deal with this kind of thing. It's quite unnerving. And it's been going on since December of 2007. Do you have any suggestions? Should I change my name and try to hide? Thanks. Really, I'm open for suggestions.Tim (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm preparing a post for AN/I where I will try to bring attention to this case. Can you show me any diffs of the issues you outline above with LisaLiel?--Cailil ^talk 21:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. How do you go into the history of a page that doesn't exist any more? The first page completely disappeared. Is it still out there somewhere? Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms.Tim (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sysops like myself can see pages that have been deleted. If you can give me a "red link" the page I will be able to look into its history--Cailil ^talk 22:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to Glossary of Lisa's terms?--Cailil ^talk 22:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just dug into the history of the link I gave you and it was still there -- just renamed. I'll go into the history, but it may be a day or two before I can get everything together. I haven't been keeping links to all of these and will have to step through an eight month old thread one edit at a time to follow it. But I'll give it priority. Shituf was the other page. I'll go through those too. Not sure I can find that RfC on me. Can you see if it's still around? The wording is a little eye opening.Tim (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No RFCs relating to the name Teclontz - was it under another name?--Cailil ^talk 22:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it was me. I'm kind of unimaginative with my teclontz handle... even for my yahoo and aol screen names. I'll try to find that. L'Aquatique might know where that is. It was a month or two ago.Tim (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't see any RFCs in LisaLiel's deleted contribs - if it was deleted for oversight reasons I wont be able to see it, nor will any normal admin. Was the deletion of that page discussed on ANI or elsewhere?--Cailil ^talk 22:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I may be using the wrong term. Is mediation a different thing? It had to do with the Shituf page. I know that much.Tim (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gender of God?--Cailil ^talk 23:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

By Jove! I think you've found it!Tim (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No actually it's this one Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-07-07_Shituf - which is not deleted yet and yes I can see where she demands you are prevented from editing anywhere in relation to Jewish concepts and Christianity[2]--Cailil ^talk 23:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, that's not what I requested. And there's a context. Tim tried for months to force Christian ideology into an article about a Jewish concept called shituf. I asked only that he be prevented from doing so, because the effort of trying to prevent him myself was exhausting. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

[3] I've read it. And the following quotes your proposed solution as of July 7th 2008:

I want Tim and Carlaude to be prevented from making edits to articles on Jewish concepts which insert Christian concepts into them, particularly when Judaism differs with Christianity on such concepts. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Now my terminology - "Anywhere in relation to Jewish concepts and Christianity" - may look different, however, to request such a topic ban would in effect mean preventing editors from working in any topics in relation to Jewish concepts and Christianity - no normal topic ban could be formulated otherwise. I'm not commenting on the ins and outs of this BTW, but I need evidence of what Teclontz refers to in his above posts--Cailil ^talk 19:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow! You're good! I think I need to take a look at it now that you're found it. But my wife it calling, so... I'll get back with you tomorrow. And thanks again.Tim (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Question: I'm going through all the old edits and categorizing edit wars, personal cracks, wikithreats, bad faith editing, etc. It's slow going, though. This has been going on since the beginning of December and there are dozens of instances I'm categorizing. It could take weeks to get through them all. How long do I have to get everything together? There's just so much of it. Or should I post it somewhere as I keep documenting? Thanks.Tim (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've started a User:Teclontz/Documentation_Page, but so far it's only through December 10th. I have a ways to go. Fortunately there are some breaks (I got a bit unnerved and had to stay offline for a few months to recover). A couple of things are in several categories (an edit war with a personal crack in the edit line, etc).Tim (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm up to mid day December 30, 2007 now. After this flurry the pace should speed up again. Also, I'd stand by at least 90% of these first impressions, but I'll give it a second pass when I'm finished to make sure it's solid. There is a long history of bullying here, and a lot of edit wars. It will take some time.Tim (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I haven't looked yet, but did Sl agree to changing his edit line as you asked?Tim (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that Sl did not remove his uncivil title -- and I removed both. Please look at one of my first responses to him in which I gave him the benefit of the doubt, but his refusal to take what I offered as a simply "mea culpa" was a continuation of a NPOV bias I've experienced from him when dealing with Lisa. Sl agrees with Lisa's WORDING most of the time. I'm trying to get Lisa's MEANING to be expressed in a way that is comprehensible to a generic audience. This is a continuing problem, and because Sl sees Lisa's wording the way she does, he can't seem to understand that people from a non-Jewish background cannot. Therefore, at the very time I'm fighting the strongest for NPOV, Sl slaps me on it. It's a real blind spot for him that I've repeatedly tried to correct him on. I'd invite you to see the series of edits Storm Rider and I worked on together on the Arianism page, for an example of what I am striving for. In the end,Storm Rider and I were extremely happy with the result.Tim (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

After going through the edit histories I've been unable to find your saying to Sl that his wording was uncivil. My identical wording was uncivil, because it was the same? How about a title "I like you" and another "I like you too" -- is that uncivil because it's the same? It's clear that something is off here -- and I need a break from this. I'll check one more time tomorrow night for some reasonable "mea culpa" from somewhere, and I'll be happy to respond in kind. "Gee, Tim, I read you wrong." "Gee, Sl, I'm sorry for thinking you were biased. My apologies." I'll bet you a barnstar it won't happen.

What's most troubling to me is not the continuing bias from Sl. As I said, there's a history here of his inability to understand the concept of NPOV WORDING concerns for a generic reception audience. Maybe he's just not a writer and doesn't understand reception. But the fact that he continues this, and won't even admit he's wrong is one thing. Your cautioning me not to do the exact same thing he did is entirely another. I came into this hopeful. Now I'm just troubled.

I'll check in tomorrow night to see if I'm wrong. Ater that, what's the point?Tim (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No Tim I didn't ask SLR to change his section heading. I asked you to refactor your remarks to him and I pointed out that your response to his post was to make a post with an alomost identical heading - that comes off like you're mimicking him sarcasticly. But perhaps you didn't mean that when you wrote the post.

This is a text based medium and one needs to consider how an outsider will see and read a post. Consider this - I can see that you are frustrated even from your posts here - but it's just not a good idea to post when one has a strong feeling like anger or frustration. You are also assuming bad faith in relation to SLR - this is not helping. I appreciate there may be deeply held views involved here but everyone needs to assume good faith. You need to try to see it from the other perspective and if you still feel right use an appropraite noticeboard (ie the NPOV noticeboard) for outside views.

This process should be about dispute resolution - the first step of which is to disenegage from the disputed area. Relax, this will take time and a lot of dirty linnen needs sifting through - but I will get through it.

I recognize your efforts to "jargon-bust" may have been frustrating Tim and I sympathize with you but you need to build consensus for wording changes - posting while frustrated probably wont help you do ths. Also remember that WP:NPOV is about articles showing balance to many notable and due POVs, it's not about "neutralizing" wording. If wording is biased it would fall under wp:peacock or wp:weasel (except in the case of quotations - which should always be attributed). I will not be getting involved in the complexities of content however. The four of you seem to be doing your best in that area - my concern is that the atmosphere is becoming poisonous at the page and between the four of you - that has and will disrupt the project and I am trying to prevent further disruption. Please consider taking some time away from that page in the spirit of disengagement and dispute resolution - I have already asked Lisa to do the same--Cailil ^talk 12:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WHEW! I have a feeling that at last somebody "gets it." Yes, I agree that weasle wording isn't the goal. My problem comes from things like:

• "Belief in the Trinity is forbidden for Jews, but okay for Christians."

Jews perfectly understand what they mean, but it's gibberish to Christians, because, to a Christian, a Jew who believes in the Trinity IS a Christian. A Christian will look at that and read:

• "Belief in the Trinity is a Christian doctrine and not a Jewish one... but I already knew that."

What Jews mean, of course, is:

• "...but okay for [Gentiles]."

That wording means the same thing to Jewish, Christian, or atheist readers -- and they get the exact same meaning that is intended by the quote. The problem, of course, is that you can't change a quote that way. But you CAN note it on the talk page and get people to find a better quote. Lisa is trying to defend Jewish orthodoxy. I'm trying to communicate it. And since Sl agrees with Lisa (as I do 99% of the time except for terminology), he seems to think that my problem with her is one of intended meaning (what the editors and sources understand). It isn't. It's one of reception meaning (what the readers will understand). This is a continuing problem. I do agree with you that we need to disengage. I'm going to try to not even LOOK at the page for a while. Actually, I need the break anyway. The second galley to my book still needs some editing before the final print run because I'm changing one of the base text forms to a Greek text acceptable to Eastern Orthodox readers (another reception issue). Regardless, this isn't a problem of just being told to be civil. Lisa wants, and passionately needs, to defend Jewish Orthodoxy. Sl agrees with her Orthodoxy. What I need is for them to do it in English. And if I can EVER get them to understand what you just got, this entire problem will go away forever. I'll take your first bit of advice and disengage. But please, please, please, if you can offer any kind of long term advice on this singular problem, my endless row with Lisa (and Sl in the umpire section) will go away entirely.Tim (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick question: I'm still compiling the Documentation Page. How much time do I have on this? I don't know how long the process lasts, and I want to be complete, and fair.Tim (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom cases take a long time - sometimes a month sometimes more. There will be separate stages as well: requests; evidence; proposed outcomes; final decisions. You should have at least a week or two at the evidence stage - maybe even longer. I don't foresee any need to rush, so you should have plenty of time. I would recommend posting evidence as soon as you're ready though--Cailil ^talk 20:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'm going as fast as I can. I think the section I'm in is the thickest of it, so it should go a lot faster in another day or two. If it takes as long as a month I should be able to finish the record, proof it, and get a third party review to make sure I'm not including something that doesn't belong. Really interesting medium here -- nothing is totally lost, is it? I really hate that you guys got dragged into it though. I've been hoping for it to just blow over for a while now.Tim (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

template_talk:weasel

I hav written a form for decisions that I want you to render regarding that locked template. You do not need to inspect history and talk space to fill it out, because two versions are on the administrator's noticeboard. BrewJay (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:LisaLiel

Is now giving assurance she won't edit war again... --Stephen 02:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Stephen - I've unblocked LisaLiel per her commitment not to edit-war[4]--Cailil ^talk 11:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Feminism

My pleasure, thanks for the note! Cirt (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you think you could help compile a list of relevant WP:FAs at Portal talk:Feminism? Cirt (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, Durova (talk · contribs) has started a list at Portal talk:Feminism/Selected article. You could add others there if you think of them. Cirt (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Cailil, for working on the portal. It is shaping up really well! Awadewit (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If I could tempt you onto Skype it would be great to coordinate the portal drive there. Voice seems to be a good medium for featured content drives. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 23:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually very tempted by Skype at the moment - so that might be a possibility in the not so distant future :). Its really User:Grrrlriot we should be thanking for getting things off the ground at portal:feminism--Cailil ^talk 00:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Gender of God

Hi, I am okay but in transit and with infrequent and undependable access to internet. I will check the article when I can, but assume that any act you take that is consistent with the notes I have added will be okay by me. It seems - based on a cursory look - that the main participants in the debate are Lisa and Tim. Lisa too often seems to be willing to edit-war, but she is clear about her point of view and it seems like she generally represents the Orthodox Jewish POV accurately. Tim on the other hand often makes big claims that he says are "obvious" and i have real concerns that he just does not "get" NPOV and NOR. I think it is key not to elide a Jewish 9or any religious) POV with the "Biblical" view - the Bible is a primary source and mainstream Judaisn has its interpretation of it, different Christian movements have their views, and critical scholars debate other views. I think it is essential that these distinctions be made clearly in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Mass Deletion

Hi! I noticed that you made quite a heafty edit to the "Fourth Wall" article a few days ago. The only reason I bring it up is I was quite proud of my first contribution and noticed it was gone when I went to show my buddy. Any particular reason why you cut so much out of the article? -- Macmooreno (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the removal form that article is our site policy on verifiability - everything added to wikipedia must be cited to reliable sources, otherwise it will be considered original research and be deleted. There are also issues of encyclopedic weight which determine what information deserves to be added to articles - this is also measured by the use of reliable sources which "back-up" or reference the material that is added. A summary of site policies and guidelines for adding information can be seen at WP:PROVEIT--Cailil ^talk 00:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Your Note

Answering my original post here--Cailil ^talk 20:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Calil, I've let several people know about this. Three of them disappeared off of Wikipedia after run ins with Lisa; JerryofAiken, Egfrank, and Bikinibomb. A fourth, Kim Brunning, tried resolution with Lisa months ago, but I've not encountered her since. In each case I've asked them to say something (even to tell me I'm flat wrong) if it is relevant to the long term hijacking of pages going on, with edit wars, AfDs, Mediation Cabals, and threats to have me "banned" as a means of trying to cow me away from trying to have articles not contradict each other. I've had a couple of emails from different people bounce back, and tried to contact them here. This is a huge problem. We've BEEN losing editors and I'm close to leaving myself.Tim (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I forgot -- I've also contacted Carlaude because he is the other party in the Mediation Cabal. And I've tried to communicate with L'Aquatique on her talk page because she's also been a witness to this.Tim (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied here--Cailil ^talk 20:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Calil -- a lot of people are here and they were obviously contacted by different people. As for my own contacts, Lisa's already followed me around and shown diffs on there with my contacts. You told her to stop just now, remember? Also, here's another scare tactic diff on my talk page from some weeks ago: [5]. I'm no wikilawyer, but this bullying has driven off other editors and is attempting to drive Alastair and myself off as well. Besides, other than Carlaude, everyone I contacted had been driven off already and were unlikely to show up.Tim (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied here--Cailil ^talk 20:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make the disclosure and then take a break. This is a fast day, too -- and that doesn't help on the nerves. I'm sure all of the Jewish editors here are a little rattled just from that.Tim (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Re just a note

Yes, I am around. How do I properly join the arbitration, simply by adding information to the Evidence page, or are there other steps? --Yamara ✉ 23:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's just a matter of making a contribution on the evidence page. Keep your evidence under 100 diffs and try to add as little opinion as possible. The case is specifically about Alastair Haines in relation to another group of editors - so you're not a party. Nevertheless the addition of your experiences would be helpful for the ArbCom when they are analyzing the issue. I've mentioned some of the issue you and Alastair had at Masculine and Feminine so you can refer to (or differ from) some of my evidence--Cailil ^talk 12:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

can you e-mail me?

slrubenstein at yahoo dot com Slrubenstein | Talk 06:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

just sent you a message now--Cailil ^talk 12:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

L'Aquatique has gone to far at RfA

Please intervene with L'Aquatique at RfA. The accusation of stalking Ilkali goes too far. Speculations have their limits. CC'd to Casliber. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Feminism currently up for portal peer review

Notifying you because you were an early significant contributor to Portal:Feminism:

Portal:Feminism has had a lot of changes and work recently and is currently up for portal peer review. Comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Feminism/archive1. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Enforcement

Calil -- if it helps, I'll let you and the other admins know my whereabouts so that they can enforce whatever they need on any screen name I use. Honestly, it won't be an imposition if I just get away from the editor I don't get along with. But I'll need to let you guys know in some way that is offline.Tim (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim I think the idea of Lisa and you staying away from one another is a good one and if I can help facilitate that in any way do let me know. As far as WP:SOCK is concerned you can legitimately create an alternative account and keep the connection between the two confidential. Or you can discontinue your current account and make a fresh start. So AFAIK there should not be a problem with this--Cailil ^talk 18:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If this works, we'll each be a lot more productive than we've been this past year. :-)Tim (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL -- thanks for making us shut up! -- this will go away when I disappear.Tim (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to go back over what I said above about WP:SOCK - when I say that one may "create an alternative account and keep the connection between the two confidential" - WP:SOCK asks users with alternative accounts either to publicly link them or to disclose the connection between accounts in confidence (this can be to a admin via email)--Cailil ^talk 08:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- I've already let L'Aquatique know, and can let you know also.Tim (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Warhammer 40K Project updated

File:W40000 Symbol.png

File:W40000 Symbol.png

The Warhammer 40,000 project page has been updated!

• Assessment tags have been added to the project banner.
• New material, including transwiki instructions and an organizational chart, has been added to the main project page.
• Please help us get the Warhammer 40K project back on track!

Protonk (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Sent with Auto Wiki Browser to all 40K project members.