User talk:Dronkle/Archives/2011/December

Blocking of editor done way too quickly

As per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sneaky_vandalism_campaign_involving_fake_references there appears to be information that editors did not take into account in their rush to indef an editor based upon one-sided information. Whilst that information may have been presented in good faith, it would be pertinent to wait for the editor in question to comment. They have now done so on their talk page, and their comments have merit. You are getting this message as you have supported their block on the thread in question, and I think you should go back and read their comments and reconsider your position. It is disappointing that too many people jumped the gun on this occasion in condemning the editor in question. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 05:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Your request for an ARBPIA 3 case

Hello Peter. Regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#ARBPIA 3. Is it possible that your making this request was influenced by Wikipedia:AE#Jiujitsuguy? I notice that settlements are mentioned there as well, and the apparent unwillingness of some editors to follow the WP:WESTBANK compromise any more. Some of the arbs who voted against a case hinted that they would consider some action short of a full case. Risker said "the community appears to be addressing this situation as I write", though I'm not sure what she was referring to.

Complaints, whether at AE or at Arbcom are more likely to lead to a concrete result if a very specific request is made, even if it's just for a set of topic bans. At Arbcom, my sense is you were just dumping the problem in their laps and inviting them to come up with a solution. I guess this is a long-winded explanation for why I had no comment to make in your Arbcom filing even though I was notified, and there do seem to be ongoing problems in the I/P area. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Your request for arbitration

Your request for arbitration has been declined. The voting arbitrators felt that the case was not yet ripe for arbitration and that there are other avenues to resolve this dispute. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Dronkle/Archives/2011. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Jim Craigie (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Fame

"Jimbo Wales ponders Wikipedia blackout" - there were the poll respondents who registered their views as Confused, Uncertain, LOL, and Fuck knows. [1]  Chzz  ►  05:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

your boomerang

Hi are you going to open an ANI thread about your complaint? Youreallycan (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rob,

I'm waiting to see if people tell me to go elsewhere. You were the first person to comment and you disagreed with me. If I went straight to AN/I without someone at AN telling me to go there, it would seem that I was forumshopping on my accusation of forumshopping. It would be nice to have Tim's comment on your cloud suggestion.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

For me this issue is all about neutrality and users acceptance of the administrators neutrality. I see good faith and reasonable doubts about both of these administrators and as such, stepping back is the best thing they can do now. Youreallycan (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Decisional balance sheet

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Doctor Ox's Experiment (opera), you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Doubling (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Ox

I approved your DYK and have two minor questions to the wording which may have to do with a lack of English on my side. "loss of traditional rhythms might bring unhappiness" - is rhythm used here in a broader meaning? "At the time Morrison knew neither the Verne nor Bryars's music agreed to the proposal after a lunchtime meeting."? - I inserted the Dortmund performance to the opera house where I learned to love opera. Btw, I have trouble with the very first line on your user page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Already in prep, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I admire your further improvements. Now that we have more on the music, the final remarks there might go to reception. Did I ever tell you that my brother is a double bassist (here)? We are free on opera DYK, so I inserted the pic there, you may change the hook, every hour, if you like, endless possibilities, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Even for the Main page: use your chance (again), s. WT:DYK, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Doctor Ox's Experiment (opera)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem: Abode of peace

The first section does not undermine appearance in the lede but only supports it. It has been there for some time and there hasn't been a good reason given for removing it other than a historical dispute on Etymology which does not change the wide recognition for mention in the lede. You have undermined the continuing discussion on it, and are effectively engaging in edit-warring. Please explain your reasoning in the talk page and self-revert to the long-standing community consensus until a new consensus is agreed to. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 12:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not taking an accusation of edit-warring on my first edit from someone who has been making the same revert every other day. The etymology section and the talk page make it clear that the interpretation you want in the lede is at least controversial and most likely a distinct minority view among academic etymologists. I known that it is traditional to gamble at this time of the year but the dreidel is WP:WEIGHTed against you.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

You engaged in an edit-war to forcefully change disputed content before the dispute is settled. I didn't invent the phrase nor insert it there. It was in the lede long before the dispute began. It's based on popular recognition, for which there are ample sources. The dispute between etymologists is covered in its section. A popular meaning, supported by RS and long-standing community consensus supersedes linguistic considerations in a lede: WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Your reasoning disregards one of the pillar guidelines for article introductions. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

archived manually rather than get involved with this nonsense in my space further--Peter cohen (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Little fix

[2]. Hope you don't mind. Bishonen | talk 20:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC).

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Dronkle/Archives/2011, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Mak (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Dronkle. You have new messages at Voceditenore's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

William Tell

Hi Peter - thanks for the welcome! I was at the prom - was a truly spectacular performance, so that was enough to prompt me into action here. Not sure that WP editing won't morph into a massive procrastination activity, but hopefully I'll keep making some small contributions, learn the ropes, before getting onto some more significant stuff (speaking of small edits, hope I'm putting this in the right place...!). See you around... Lackingdirection (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

::Haha yeah - sorry about that - gave me the perfect excuse to listen again on a wet sunday afternoon. Do make any improvements you can think of though! Nothing about Britten in the booklet, or Grove that I can see. How was Gothic? Came across an interesting discrepancy regarding what century this was set in (13th or 14th - waiting to hear back from Viva...). I'm definitely enjoying this editing thing... – Lackingdirection (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Dronkle/Archives/2011. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Smerus 10:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Peter

and sorry for the niggling bother.Nishidani (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

MT

Hi Peter! Thanks for the note; I was thinking of you earlier today as I was looking over the MT article. Unfortunately, it had fallen below GA standards so I felt compelled to delist it.

I'd very much like your thoughts and feeback on improving the article. I was thinking about submiting it to Peer Review later this week; perhaps you'd like to participate? Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)