User talk:Cuddlyable3/Archive 1

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/Fuel Injection, 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.

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Fuel injection.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 00:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Fuel injection

Hi Cuddlyable3, I'm Ryan - I see you have agreed to me mediating the above dispute in part. It's probably best if the same person mediates the full dispute, it keeps the process much simpler I am sure you will agree. Anyway, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on how you'd like to proceed, if your not happy with me mediating the copyright implications part of the dispute, then we can find other users to mediate the dispute - the most important thing is that all parties are happy with the mediator of the dispute. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ryan. I respectfully disagree that having the same person mediate both issues is best, if two are available. Hence my separate agree and disagree votes about your mediation. My reasoning is that the issues have very different scopes for Wikipedia, and I am encouraged by the way that WikipedianProlific has enunciated them separately in seeking mediation. I think we shall progress better by keeping them separate. I shall help as best I can with answers to both issues.

Below are my thoughts about the first issue:

Diagram for Fuel_injection - One revert of a diagram has occurred and WikipedianProlific has expressed some reasons and interesting proposals. IMO this is not (need not be) raised to a dispute, and I am optimistic that we can restart discussion. Unless you advise differently, I shall post a brief reply to him at Fuel_injection:talk in about 12 hours.

I also think it would be helpful to get rid of the two WP:RPA markers that I placed in the discussion as they may now seem a provocative reminder that is no longer called for, and a distraction to new readers. Cuddlyable3 21:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response, I now understand the concern. In that case, the best option is to decide exactly what the dispute is that needs mediating, and which issues need addressing in the above mediation. This is the best way to kick start things so everyones clear on the issues involved, and the scope of the mediation. I'll keep you posted. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wouldn't mind taking a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Fuel injection so we can decide on a venue for the mediation to take place, it would be much appreciated. Thank you, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cuddlyable3/Sandbox

Hi cuddlyable3, I've removed some text from the mediation page that you added as we haven't started the mediation yet. So you've got a copy of it, I've put the text in the above link in your sandbox. Before we get stuck in to the mediation, we need to decide the issues to be mediated by me. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reversion

In general, talk page comments of other people should not be removed which is why I reverted it. JoshuaZ 19:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuaZ thank you for contacting me. "In general" I also agree with you, and that is because usually comments about an article are good-faith expressions about how it might be improved. We have to say "in general" because sometimes there is vandalism. Please consider what an editor Greglocock persists in adding to the illegal_prime talk page:

"The whole article is fanboy Mee krob"

"This entire page is a bit of fanboy geekdom"

"delete the entire article. Or re-title it nerd-boy trivia"

"I think this article should be removed"''

I do not call the above vandalism and they can stand. Greglocock can always raise a RfD.

However the latest comments by Greglocock that I removed are IMO vandalism because they comprise:

a nonsensical (and impossible to verify) claim to "have an algorithm", inserted merely to mock the article
a puerile abuse of my name "Perhaps Fermat will give you a cuddle". Cuddlyable3 20:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be correct then. Sorry about that. Feel free to revert my reversion. If the user continues to be problematic please let me know. JoshuaZ 23:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Joshua. Furthermore, I can not find any examples of the quoted comments on talk:illegal prime, and the Fermat joke was pretty mild. Please provide diffs of the quoted comments. Thatcher131 19:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. The fanboy and geek comments were made a year ago to another user. Please provide diffs of substantial personal attacks directed at you, or open a user conduct RFC against editors whom you believe are incivil toward you. In the mean time, stop changing other people's comments on article talk pages. Thatcher131 19:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of the age of the comments. Furthermore, doing this on a large number of different pages is not helpful and can be disruptive. In general, if you think a comment is serious enough try alerting an admin rather than just removing it. 13:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoshuaZ (talk • contribs).

Talk Page Vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Fuel_injection, you will be blocked from editing. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 11:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Illegal prime. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Hu12 19:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring talk pages

If you continue to refactor talk pages other than your own user talk page, I will block you. The comments you have removed are personal attacks only in the most torturously extended sense. For example, you brought up the subject of "competitive urination," Scheinwerfermann merely responded in kind. This looks like light-hearted bantering to me, and if you have a problem here I suggest that it is your difficulty rather than others. I will of course be willing to evaluate additional examples should you have any, but so far nothing justifies removal and edit warring over these comments. Thatcher131 19:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if you remove my warning, I will still act as I believe necessary. I understand that you are in dispute with other editors on several talk pages. I reviewed those talk pages and found nothing that would fit my definition of a personal attack, and certainly nothing that justifies edit warring. WP:RPA is an essay and does not authorize removal of comments from article talk pages when such removal is opposed by other editors. At worst, the comments I saw were poor attempts at humor and you are responsible for your own role in escalating these rather silly disputes. I remain willing to look at evidence of real personal attacks. Thatcher131 20:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to second what Thatcher131 said. WP:RPA is an essay and it gives you no justification to remove other editor's comments from article talkpages. There is leeway to remove comments on your talkpage but that is generally not extended to the article talkpage. Besides, as Thatcher has pointed out, none of the text you are removing falls under the canopy of what Wikipedia characterizes as a personal attack. Thatcher's statement about blocking was less a threat than a warning about what will happen if you continue to edit war at these article talkpages. Please stop before you do get blocked.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked: 8 hours for edit warring on Talk:Fuel injection after multiple warnings. Thatcher131 21:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is considered vandalism WP:VAND --Hu12 22:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that users have broad discretion over their own talk pages. Quoting from WP:VAND, "The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion." Behavior that is blockable on project talk or other users' talk pages is permissable on one's own talk page. (Just to be fair and clear about all the relevant policies.) Thatcher131 23:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]