User talk:Ed/Archive May 2007
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ed. 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. |
Caution
Hello Ed. I see you are aware that I have unprotected Wikipedia:Esperanza, hopefully for the last time. In case you haven't come across it yet, there is a relevant section on my talk page. It is important reading for both you and Dev920. You are on your honor to behave as a civilized Wikipedian with regards to future editing of the page. Picaroon (Talk) 00:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Humping
Hi there; yes, I think if that is the choice then yes, you're crazy (just kidding, no hard feelings)--Anthony.bradbury 01:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Disturbed user
Yes. Clearly, It would be difficult to make a definitive statement of a person's mental health purely on the basis of a few wiki postings. But it is also fair to say that it is possible to at least speculate on it, and there are some postings we see that appear to be quite blatant indicators of psychiatric disturbance. My suggestion was only that this editor should take advice; I made no diagnosis. But my first comment stands.--Anthony.bradbury 01:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Talk page comment
Per this post: It takes two to tango. You must stop edit warring as well. Matthew 23:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I can't even figure out what you guys are actually warring over :-\, "Esperanza was a Wikipedia project that existed on Wikipedia for sometime, It became defunct per an MfD." ... wouldn't a simple sentence like that suffice? rather than the story? Matthew 23:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Hi Ed, thanks for the welcome back and also for the cookies. I know that Esperanza was important to you and that both you and Dev want only the best for Wikipedia, though our views may differ. I hope that my proposal will be acceptable to Dev and to the other parties who have shown interest in this issue. I do want to mention that I am unsure whether the list of projects should be omitted as being redundant and arguably too favourable to Esperanza. On a personal note, I want to apologise for any hurt feelings my words have caused. I'm not used to being so combattive, and this dispute has brought out parts of me that I'm not comfortable with. Thanks again for the welcome. --Kyoko 05:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
about university exams
Speaking of your "angry side", as you put it, I want to point out a certain comment you made on Picaroon9288's talk page concerning Dev920's exams. Your comment may have been due to stress, or perhaps because you are unfamiliar with university exams, or maybe both. In any case, I would encourage you to wish Dev good luck on her exams, regardless of your personal differences with her. Though the exact nature of exams may vary from school to school, university examinations normally take place over a period of several days, each one possibly lasting for a few hours, and there may be oral and written components, and sometimes a take home essay component as well.
I don't know exactly what Dev is studying, nor am I familiar with her specific institution, but I can speak from personal experience (yes, I do have academic credentials, but I don't often mention them) that final exams in university are stressful. Imagine having to write, on the spot, several multi-page essays on questions you've just seen that force you to draw together everything you've read over the course of a semester, without even being allowed to have the books at hand for reference. Imagine being presented with a text and given a short time (30 minutes or so) to read and analyse it, and then have to orally present your analysis to your professor, and have to defend your analysis on top of that. Imagine being given a couple of weeks to prepare a take-home essay exam where you are expected to submit an answer of 20, 30, maybe more pages in length. This is on top of having to submit final reports for each class. So if you assume that the average university student is taking 4 to 6 classes, has final exams for each class, has to submit a final report for each of those as well, and is likely working at the same time to pay off expenses, you can well see what a stressful time of the academic year this is.
Again, I don't know exactly the nature of Dev's studies, but as a friendly suggestion, I urge you to apologise for your words, to set aside your personal differences, and to wish her good luck. --Kyoko 21:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC), modified 11:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ed, when I asked you to apologise, I didn't mean that you should do it in a half-hearted way as you did here. Consider how you would feel if you were the recipient of such an apology. You wouldn't feel very soothed by it, would you? I strongly suggest that you strike out that second paragraph and apologise for that one too.
- Furthermore, you wrote on my talk page, "She's apparently not interested in dealing with this anymore." I don't think that's quite fair. Both you and Dev have asked for delays when things in real life forced you to spend time away from the mediation. And incidentally, I noticed that you broke your Lenten promise to stay away from the computer, in order to keep participating. It's important to remember that there is more to life than Wikipedia. Nothing will be harmed if the mediation is delayed for a few weeks. --Kyoko 00:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
things to keep in mind
Ed, please read through this entire list and think about what I've said.
1. Dev has every right to remove messages from her talk page, within the limits of Wikipedia policy. It's her talk page and not yours.
2. As a member of the kindness campaign, I would have thought that you would be more understanding of other people's feelings. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but in my view, your current behaviour fails to live up to the ideals of both the Kindness Campaign and Esperanza.
3. If you ever want to become an administrator in the future, your recent actions will likely have a negative effect on a future RfA.
4. Even if Dev is just a few years older than you, you have to remember that other countries have other educational systems. I'm not familiar with the educational system in the UK, but there are many countries where you take an examination at about 17 or 18 years of age, and the results of that exam play an important role in what general class of university you can go to, or if you can even go on to higher education at all. In some countries, you cannot retake this exam if you do badly. That means that if you do have a bad result, it affects the rest of your life.
5. As tired as I am of dealing with this mediation, it's not a time-sensitive matter. Nothing tangible will be destroyed if there is a delay. Nobody is going to die. It can wait.
6. In the end, the essay about Esperanza is just that: an essay. Its content has no bearing on your grades, your future income, your family and friends, the fate of humanity. It's just an essay about something that once existed on Wikipedia.
7. For that matter, it's just Wikipedia.
Again, please think about what I've said. There are much more important things to become upset about. --Kyoko 12:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you OK with this proposal? Dev and Kyuko are so if you agree to it, I'll un-protect the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
about user talk pages and WP:OWN
Ed, I am trying to be patient with you, but you don't seem to listen to what I say.
The WP:OWN policy applies to articles only. The full name of the page is "Wikipedia:Ownership of articles". The policy applies to content disputes within the article namespace, not the contents of user talk pages. Dev was well within her rights to remove your messages from her talk page. You may not like it, but it's true. In fact, and you may be surprised to learn this, even vandalism warnings are allowed to be removed from a user's talk page. This link says "Well the current consensus is that people are allowed to remove what they want from their talk page." Other pages that discuss this include this one and this one. While the practice of removing vandalism warnings is controversial, currently there is no policy that expressly forbids it.
Your messages weren't even vandalism warnings. Dev is free to remove messages from her talk page if she wants. Also remember that the fact that she removed the messages means that she must be aware of them. It's her talk page and not yours, so please respect her decision to remove your messages. If it were my talk page, I would have left them, but again, it's her page and not mine.
As for your sense of urgency, in purely Wikipedia terms, the mediation is not an urgent, time-sensitive matter. Blocking rogue or hacked admin accounts is an urgent matter within Wikipedia, but editing the Esperanza essay is not. I'm not even sure why you are so eager to edit the essay, considering that you've agreed to Steve Block's text, a text that the three most active parties (you, me, and Dev) in this dispute are willing to accept. In my view, any further edits to the essay beyond what we have collectively agreed upon will likely reignite the debate and inflame tempers. In the larger scheme of things, Wikipedia is about the encyclopedia articles, not about essays on inactive projects. --Kyoko 12:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
about delaying the mediation, and Dev's talk page
Ed, I know that you feel that the mediation is, in real-world terms, "urgent and time sensitive". Let me ask you which is more urgent: preparing for a set of examinations whose outcome will affect the rest of your life, or fiddling with an essay with absolutely no impact in the physical world? Saying that the current text is the wrong version is a matter of opinion. If the mediation is delayed, the worst that will possibly happen is, as you say, that someone will read the essay and get an impression of Esperanza that you don't happen to agree with.
You've asked for delays in the mediation before. Isn't it unfair if other people aren't also given the same courtesy? Dev shouldn't be urged to keep participating, nor should anybody else.
Concerning Dev's removal of your messages, it's her talk page, and if anyone needs to refer to your messages, they are preserved in the page history. If you look at a lot of user talk pages, there are a fair number of people who remove messages that they find objectionable. Most people will remove messages that they find hateful or hurtful from user talk messages, whether it be their own page or someone else's. If Dev found your messages stressful in that fashion, she is welcome to remove them. I'm not saying that your messages were hateful or hurtful, but if Dev was bothered by them, it's her opinion, and her choice to remove them. Insisting that another Wikipedian do exactly as you want them to, in the absence of any violation of policy, only makes you look presumptuous. As the disclaimer in every single edit window states, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." --Kyoko 14:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
copy of what I posted on EA mediation page, move to close and indef protect Steve Block's corrected text
Hi Ed, this is a copy of what I posted to Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Mediation:
Now that Dev, Ed, and myself seem to have agreed upon Steve's text, as modified to list 2 and not 3 tranches, I move that the text be moved to the main Esperanza page, and more importantly, that it be indefinitely protected to avoid any future edit wars. I know that the idea of indefinitely protecting a page may be controversial. As an alternative, I'm willing to banned from any future editing of the Esperanza essay once the mutually agreed upon text is posted, if that is what it takes to conclude this dispute. I can't speak for Dev or Ed if they would be equally willing to walk away once the essay is posted.
I know that I said on Ed's talk page that the mediation can wait, while he has insisted on mine that it can't. Considering that this mediation would seem to have fulfilled its purpose, i.e. finding a mutually acceptable essay to describe Esperanza, I am convinced that we (Dev, Ed, and myself) would likely be unable to develop the essay any further without disagreement. Ed is determined to make further changes to the Steve Block text; Dev is determined to leave it as is, due to academic demands. Both editors are equally convinced that they are upholding what they see as community consensus. I see no possible compromise between these two positions, which is why I am now advocating posting the mutually agreeable text and protecting it indefinitely. --Kyoko 20:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikifriends?
Greetings, Ed. Thanks for your comments at my my editor review and your contributions to RuneScape. Could we be Wikifriends?
Since Esperanza and the community have been destroyed, perhaps you could post your RuneScape username (mine's Hildanknight). so I could add you in-game? We could also communicate through e-mail, MSN Messenger or Google Talk. If you don't wish to publicly reveal your e-mail address or IM handle, but you use IRC, you could post your registered IRC nick (again, mine's Hildanknight), and tell me your e-mail or IM handle through IRC private messaging.
I have been watching the conflict between you and Dev920 unfold over the past couple of months months. Your attempts to improve the essay are commendable, and if we're going to be Wikifriends, I think it's time for me to openly support you. Should you file an RFC against Dev920, I'd be happy to certify it. If both of you have made 3 reverts within the past 24 hours, I'll help you revert to your version of the essay.
You may be interested to know that Dev920 failed History. Although I can't stand her - her incivility, ageist comments and removal of posts to her talk page (I won't list everything because I don't want to make personal attacks) - I feel compelled to defend her after reading your comments regarding her exams. However, I will have to do so later, as, ironically, I'm in the middle of my mid-year exams, and I shouldn't be on Wikipedia now - I should be studying for my E Maths and Literature papers.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi again - inquisitive idiot, here!
An article on which you have commented and provided some assistance to me, Still Pending, has been placed in AFD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Still_Pending_(2nd)). The article was recently the subject of a speedy delete, so I don't really understand why it is nominated again for deletion. Maybe you can provide some insight. I also don't really understand what the nominator means by "procedural nomination." Can you explain? Also, please join the discussion, if you wish. Thank you. Stampsations 21:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- So - this has been in AFD for over 5 days. Will some admin come along and close it? How does that work? 70.59.140.85 02:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
== Re: ¿Cómo estás? ==
Pues muy bien, gracias! Y tú, ¿qué tal estás? He visto que estás aprendiendo castellano - ¡guay! Parece que tenemos el idioma que todo el mundo quiera aprender. xD Si necesitas ayuda puedes contar conmigo para echarte una mano, ¿vale? Y a propósito, como no sé mucho de "User talk", si hago errores no hagas caso, por favor. :) Todavía no estoy seguro de cómo se hace. Tedejomadrid 19:50, 1st April 2007 (GMT)
Re: ¿Cómo estás?
Aaaaaaah, freetranslation.com es una tontería, yo solía usarlo para traducir cosas de español a inglés, pero ahora tengo Babylon - que es mucho mejor. :) Asimismo vivo en el Reino Unido y ya no es tan difícil aprender palabras nuevas. Bueno, sé que en los E.U. hay muchos hispanohablantes, en breve vamos a apoderarnos del país! xD Mwahahaha, vamos a ver.
Adopt-a-User podría estar bien sí! Enseñame a usar Wikipedia y te enseñaré a hablar español sin tener que usar freetranslation.com... :P Tedejomadrid 14:20, 2nd April 2007 (GMT)
WikiProject MMO Newsletter - April 2007
| WikiProject MMO Quarterly | |||
| April 2007 | Issue I |
|
|
|
Esperanza essay
Hi Ed, the additional sentence is OK in its current position, where it doesn't disrupt the flow of the paragraph. I'm not quite content with the wording "deletion debate result" because to me, it sounds rather clunky and needlessly alliterative, but it's not a big concern. I'm more interested in the rest of the encyclopedia. --Kyoko 07:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Accusations of a Sockpuppet
Hi, I saw you are a clerk for dealing with sockpuppetry, so I ask for an unusual help. I have been continuosly accused of being a sockpuppet of User:Jsimlo by the User:DreamGuy. Before I turn down my account and create a new one, I wanted to show the User:DreamGuy that he can not just go an scare everyone with an always-victory strategy as he repeatedly does. Is there a way to stop User:DreamGuy adding the suspected sock tag to my page? The User:DreamGuy is the only one that has ever accused me anyway. No admins or other users that dealt with me needed to accuse me. Acusation goes all around my contributions, but are clear here, here and here. If nothing else, I have not violated any of the rules on the WP:SOCK and jsimlo is kind of a friend, so I would like at least clean the mess. Thanks. Give it back 20:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, right there by admitting you are a friend of his you've demonstrated that you are, in fact, a meatpuppet, and meatpuppets are treated as sockpuppets by the rules here. See WP:SOCK (although, really, odds are your "friend" is really "you" and you're a full on osckpuppet, but either way, sock or admitted meatpuppet, your article should be blocked from editing. And if you create a new one to do the same sorts of edits you were doing on this name that one will just get tagged as a sockpuppet as well. AS far as not doing anything on the list of prohibited actions, you sure have: creating a new account to avoid accountability and to try to give people a false sense of consensus, just for starters. DreamGuy 18:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
You left this rather odd message on my talk page, and now I am taking it to yours:
- Hi, DreamGuy. I'm not trying to take sides here or anything, but I don't think it's fair that you've accused Give it back of sock/meatpuppetry for such a long time without submitting a checkuser. This user is fairly new, and I request that you neither bite the newcomers nor assume foul play. Could you please take a step back and look at the situation? The last thing we want here is a really bad dispute.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 22:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Last time I checked, checkuser was not considered a good tool, because it only caught people stupid enough to use the same IP address. It also was not used in the vast majority of sockpuppet cases, both for not wasting the time of the people who do them and because it only catches the most incompetent socks. This is pretty clear cut case of, at the very least, spamming and meatpuppetry, as he himself admits he is "friends" with the person who created the software he is adding external links for and creating new articles that do not come anywhere near close to meeting encyclopedic guidelines for. New users don't as their first steps show up to immediately jump into a pre-existing dispute like this and make their first edits... no, their ONLY edits... to take up where the old conflict left off, make a new article advertising someone else's product, and immediately start wikilawyering like an old pro. Now, considering the main account in question is that of a computer programmer, it's trivial for him to fake his IP address. With actions as clear cut as this... and with the person ADMITTING to being "friends" with the user on this very page and making such a check unnecessary, what do you expect checkuser to do, exactly? If you've been around any length of time you know what the answer to that is. I realize we aren't supposed to "bite the newbie" but this clearly is not a newbie and not someone making good faith edits here. I see ANI, and people have been permanently blocked as sockpuppets for less evidence than this. So, while I can understand you wanting to follow the assume good faith thing, there's really no room for any of that just by a quick check of that accounts' edit history, not to mention his personal attacks on me and vandalizing my user space. The person has no edits of any value whatsoever other than only small addition to an article that he only did so explicitly demanding I revert to try to use in making complaints, but because that was a reasonably valuable edit (his only one) it stayed. Could you please take a step back and you take a look at the situation as it is instead of how the admitted meatpuppet account wants you to think it is? Because the last thing we need is a someone playing the system tricking someone who should know better into doing his harassment of other editors for him. If there's some rule now where we're supposed to file a checkuser for some reason, fine let me know and I'll do it for all the good it'll do (whee, red tape), but then maybe the admins on ANI need to know that also, because they skip that all the time in cases a lot less obvious than this one, and in this case we have an admission of meatpuppetry by the account accused on top of all the evidence, so what more do you need? DreamGuy 01:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Oyeeeeeeeeee
He estado ocupadísimo por un ratico, siento no haberte contactado. Pero bueno ahora he vuelto y voy a continuar actualizando artículos. :) He visto algunos que necesitan atención.--TeDejoMadrid 16:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Romeo & Juliet
Having come to the decision that your well-phrased argument does more good without than with my semi-lucid rant, I've removed it and your "Shh!" comment following it in Talk:Spoiler. Just letting you know, since that makes messing with another person's comments marginally more polite. --Kizor 19:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I hope that my "shhh" comment didn't offend you or anything...that was a bit of humor. (yes I can be funny sometimes; I am human) I'm not forcing you to do anything, but I really don't see any problem with your edit, especially since it still does bring up some very good points. But...that's up to you.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 19:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not at all. I might be a bit too neurotic or over-critical about my own comments after spending the better part of my considerable time on Wikipedia for the last two weeks in a constant hopeless battle for the spoiler tags, so I've put it back. Here's hoping it doesn't create new openings. --Kizor 20:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
user subpages are the best solution
Ed, your last sentence on my page is exactly my point. Try as we might, we all have our own opinions of how Esperanza was and how it should be remembered, and it's simply too difficult and too time-consuming for us to try to find common ground. There is so much more to Wikipedia than the Esperanza essay, and I don't want to spend the next few months trying to get an acceptable text, in a repeat of this mediation. With individual subpages, you can create a text to your heart's content, and if someone happens upon the Esperanza page, he or she can read through the MfDs, the deletion review, and the individual essays, and make up his or her own mind about Esperanza. --Kyoko 22:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ed, please stop. You can't always get everything you want in life. --Kyoko 21:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ed, do you want Esperanza to be remembered as an organisation that caused nothing but trouble? You may not realise this, but wanting to revive what should be a dead issue only reinforces the outsider's perception that Esperanza was a bad idea that caused nothing but trouble, true or not. In other words, your efforts are having the opposite effect of what you wanted. Please drop the issue, and stop bothering me about it. You're making it very uncomfortable for me to be on Wikipedia right now. --Kyoko 22:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
LEAVE ME ALONE!
Ed, I'm not trying to hide the good that Esperanza did or tried to do. I just feel that pursuing further changes to the essay is a bad idea, considering that at least one major party (Dev920/DevAlt) has spoken out against my earlier proposal. I don't see why you are so intent on changing an essay that you yourself had agreed to. Opening up the essay again risks raising all of the point of view debates that led to and made up the mediation. Please stop asking me, or Dev, or anybody else to continue the debate. Continuing to do so can be seen as a violation of WP:HARASS. Furthermore, edits like this one to DevAlt's talk page are borderline personal attacks. Whether or not she chooses to respond is up to her, and shouldn't be seen as a sign of cowardice. You might think it rude, you might think it cowardly, but keep it to yourself.
Please do not write me, or DevAlt/Dev920 again.--Kyoko 23:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)