User talk:Calabraxthis/Archive 2009

Archive 2005

←

Archive 2007

Archive 2008

Archive 2009

castletown

can you show me how i went wrong with my edit please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.209.4 (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Fiske-Harrison

That's a little harsh, warning a user for blanking a COI page they created about themselves rather than apply db-blank to it. I've reverted it back then tagged it appropriately. --Blowdart | ^talk 18:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree in part but s/he was messing around creating gratuitous pages and I applied the wrong warning message inadvertently. I see the page has now been deleted anyway.--Calabraxthis ^(talk) 19:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Bronze Age

I've removed the Central Asia stuff as the article it's based on doesn't seem to exist. See the talk page where I also say that Keys isn't the best of sources. Mind you, the recent Inca edit is dodgy, not just the reference but I thought bronze smelting might be older than the Inca. dougweller (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Dunmanway Massacre

Hi, I see you're listed as a third opinion wikipedian and I'd like to have your opinion on a pretty contentious article, the Dunmanway Massacre, which involved the deaths of up to 14 people in April 1922 in Ireland. I don't want to colour your judgment before you read the piece with further comments, so I'll just say, that I favour this version [1] and another user favours this one [2]. Debate is here Talk:Dunmanway Massacre. Not tremendously civil on either side I regret to say, but I feel certain users have not been engaging with the issues in good faith. Regards Jdorney (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying.Jdorney (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a fourth opinion. I've agreed with you, but felt that this time the point had to be made by editing the article. --Red King (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you User:Calabraxthis for your decidedly “neutral” opinions on me, as opposed to my edits. You would probable have a different view to me also on WP:NPA were we are advised to comment on content, not on the contributor. That you were canvassed outside of WP:3 were it was filed and asked for your views may account for the colour and tone you adopted. Like your obvious view of WP:NPA, we will also disagree I suppose on your view of the WP:3 process and canvassing. In light of this, I will take both your comments on me and my edits as less than “neutral” third opinions.--Domer48_'fenian' 14:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have raised your conduct here on the WP:3 talk page, as I found it counter productive to the aims of Third Opinion. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

For my future records, and in order to rule a line under this incident, I note that I refused to respond to Domer48. After I placed netural and independent comments on the Talk Page of the Dunmanway Massacre Article, (an article on which I had not previously provided comments) following a Third Opinion invitation, I observed that Domer48 had a long history of edit warring on topics which related to the political troubles in Ireland. Indeed, he had made regular appearances before the Arbitration Enforcement committee and was a repeat offender as is set out in his block log - a total of 8 separate blocks for offences ranging feom edit warring to breaches of civility and deliberately antagonising other editors. Consequently I declined to respond to any of his comments on my talk page or to make any further comments on the talk page of the article in question. In reaching this course of action, I found the following advice on trolls to be helpful.

Domer48 then tried to bait me, as set out in his postings above, for having the temerity to have raised points which were not in accordance with his own views on the article and then to have applauded other commentators for taking action. In doing this he gained the support of another editor who shared similar views on the Irish political articles. Once again, I declined to comment. I point out for the record that both Domer48 and his colleague were subsequently given blockages by the Arbitration Enforcement committee for their collusive editing conduct on a different Irish article, the proceedings of which you can read about here.

The entire set of my edits on Irish political articles is therefore limited to the lone Dunmanway Massacre talk page edit referenced above. I remain happy to provide Third Opinions from time to time but agree with the revised policy that Third Opinions should not be canvassed (ie. I will only provide Third Opinions when I find you, not when you find me).

And if, in what I hope is the unlikely event that Domer48 visits this talk page again to make threats, then I provide advance notice that I will not be responding directly to you. Kind regards--Calabraxthis ^(talk) 09:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

A report was filed here by User:Jdorney setting out what they considered to be the issues on the article talk page. However, prior to this they had also canvassed other editors for their views [3], [4] on the discussion. Having filed the request, Jdorney then approaches two editors, User:JeremyMcCracken and User:Calabraxthis. JeremyMcCracken had the good sense not to respond to being canvassed, Calabraxthis you did not, a trait you continued to follow. You then offered you’re canvassed Third Opinion here, which I responded to here in a reasoned and polite way. While Calabraxthis was unable to respond to my reasonable opinions on the article talk page, they were more than willing to go to another editors talk page to offer what can only be described as a personal attack. This goes directly counter to the stated position of WP:3 not to mention WP:CIVIL and Assume good faith and this type of conduct can only have an adverse effect on the WP:3 process and the confidence of editors.

As Wikipedia:Third opinion want to know whether the outcome was positive or not as it helps to maintain and improve the standards of their work, I responded on the talk page here on my experience. This resulted in some very positive feedback, a constructive discussion. EhJJ offered their opinions here, and suggested that there should be an expressed warning against soliciting third opinions and that all third opinions are open to scrutiny. They also said that there is a degree of quality assurance that they should try to maintain, and thanked me for bringing this up.

Athaenara in their comments here found my comments thoughtful and reasonable, and while having been canvassed themselves a very few times felt the only appropriate response is to point out the project's open nature and its accessibility to all uninvolved editors who check the active listings.

RegentsPark said the canvassing was, in their opinion, inappropriate, and suggested the project add a Do not post messages about this 3O request anywhere other than here and on the article talk page at the bottom of the 'How to list a dispute' section. The message on User:Red King's talk page by User: Calabraxthis they said was not in the spirit of a third opinion and that a third opinionator should keep a neutral tone even after giving the opinion to avoid any impropriety and should not consider editing the page (opinions, rather than action). RegentsPark also agreed with User:BigDunc that the opinion of User:Calabraxthis (whatever its merits) was effectively compromised. Athaenara did agree fully with RegentsPark and BigDunc about the improprieties... and that the chief contributory factor: one user "randomly messaged" editors found in the category, which we do not oversee, to solicit opinions in support of his view.

Calabraxthis your participation in this discussion was only notable by your absence and complete failure to offer an opinion.

Now, your latest attempt at an Ad hominem attack and piss poor transparent effort at Poisoning the well, just dose not surprise me. Now I’ll offer the same advice to you that Black Kite offered User:Jdorney here, when they tried to use an editors record. As to my last block, and your use of it, while Tznkai expressed regret for imposing it, your misrepresentation of it dose not surprise me at all. The one light of hope that you have displayed to date, is that you now agree not to be canvassed. That you have indicated that the article you did offer an opinion on was your first and only Troubles related one, should mean that we will have no need to cross paths again.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Note to self, per my observation above of 20 February 2009: Res ipsa loquitur, Quod erat demonstrandum. This matter is closed. Kind regards--Calabraxthis ^(talk) 19:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Miranda Devine

Hi Calabraxthis, thank you for taking the time to help me. I've actually decided that I agree with you, and at this stage don't want Devine getting the satisfaction of me kicking up a stir about her article. When I've got some time though I think including a larger section on the causes of the fires would be good, including climate change etc.... Thendisnear (talk) 12:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Kind regards--Calabraxthis ^(talk) 13:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)