User talk:Simon Dodd/Archive 2009

Archived talk page discussions from 2009

Clarence Thomas

I have blocked you for 12 hours for edit warring on this article. I don't condone the actions of User:RafaelRGarcia in the least, but I do think the appropriate recourse would have been to request protection of the article or make a report at the BLP noticeboard as opposed to edits that were the equivalent to reversion -- Samir 06:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I can understand if you wish to question or appeal this block. You are welcome to use {{unblock}} for appeal. Thanks for understanding -- Samir 06:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Just to clarify, I agree that the appropriate response would have been to request page protection - and I did precisely that, see [1]. The request sat there, with no action taken, for more than eight hours. I also respectfully disagree that the edits were functional reverts, but that isn't an issue that an appeal will help resolve - I'm not interested in the penalty, I just want to clarify what the rules are to avoid future problems. :) Simon Dodd (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The Edit War

I just wanted to take a second and drop you a line, sorry about the end result of the WP:ANI report. Both sides were edit-warring, though. Twelve hours is not a big block, trust me.

If I can offer some advice, when you get into a situation with someone who is edit warring, just file the reports and let it go. I know it's tough to just turn your back on it, but if you stay involved they'll take you down with them. I'm very sympathetic to what you were doing, but when you do battle like that, admins are going to block both sides.

If it happens again, revert once and discuss. If it becomes an edit war, let the admins handle it. It'd very frustrating, but it's the best way to handle it (and keep yourself safe).

When you come off of your block, if you need any help on anything, please let me know. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas

Hi Simon, thanks for your note. I have extended protection for one week. Rationale is here [2]. While the mediation cabal attempt was a good college try, my feeling is that this should go for formal mediation barring a breakthrough in the next week. Outlining the specific points of contention and what was achieved (and not achieved) by MedCab in summary on a talk subpage would be a good idea in anticipation of mediation. I'm not even sure what proper wikiquette is in general, but feel free to take things to WP:RFPP for page protections, especially for anything I do, as I tend to be away often. Thanks -- Samir 09:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Simon. To answer your question, I think RfC is the most appropriate route if you are concerned specifically about another user's conduct -- Samir 06:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

An unusual response? Indicating there is no dispute at the time of mediation usually means acceptance of all the other parties say on the mediation page. I would suggest indicating the same on the mediation page, with a link to a diff (or make a diff) that illustrates a satisfactory resolution to all issues for you. I have unprotected the article given the absence of activity on the talk page. -- Samir 03:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit the article to a version you consider appropriate. Put a diff to this on the mediation page. If there is no dispute, then it should be acceptable -- Samir 03:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, if it is reverted, do not revert back, but put it down as evidence that there is indeed a dispute requiring mediation -- Samir 04:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Leftosphere

I have nominated Leftosphere, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leftosphere. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. --Dynaflow babble 22:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Roberts

Hi. Were you aware I was joking when I said you were a filthy partisan? I was joking with basically everything I said on that issue other than the general premise (that i think it should be included in the lead). It was obvious it wasn't going to get changed so I had a little fun with that page, I guess a little too much as I got blocked for my comment to you lol. Anyways good debate there, I carried on with you mostly just because it was fun matching wits. Cheers DegenFarang (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix

I am not so sure why we need to quote the clause a second time in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

O.K. I have added it back. Are you aware the article is currently under consideration at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saxbe fix?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I just told you that the article is up for consideration at WP:FAC and the commentary there says to get away from citing blogs. Yet you just added bloggingheads.tv.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Also, I think you mean conservative when you said liberal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
3. You also added a reference with very lazy formatting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
4. I am going to remove the bloggingheads and change liberal--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
   1. P.S. Is "fails to cut the mustard" the professors term or your own slang addition to the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in the article. The article has failed its FAC. I would appreciate it if you would continue to help clean it up. I want to shoot for a renom in about 10-14 days to give it one last shot at a March 4 WP:TFA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is again up at FAC. The renom is controversial, but your assistance would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Clarence Thomas. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 13:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

AFD For Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houston Tower

I have found more sources for the Houston Tower at http://www.google.com/search?q=Krahl+Houston+Tower&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS278US278 and have included a few to the external links. I havn't incorperated them into the article yet as the AFD is preventing me to spend time on writing and expanding it (as the Deletion Votes hold majority right now so there wouldn't be any point of expanding an article that has a majority vote of deletion even thought i found a way to fix the problem and even recreating (due to the AFD red tape) it will cause problems if I used the sources.) I am contacting you to determine that I believe that you should change your vote based on the new source results I found. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 19:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District

Hi, I hate to bother you, but do you have any more references about this case? Bearian (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to add both "additional support beyond the text of the case describing it," and "general background". Bearian (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix

I spent a few hours digging at the University of Chicago Law School today. Please have a look at the new content that I have added. I would like to renominate the article at WP:FAC by the end of the week, but it would be best if it is clean before it gets there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

After another research adventure earlier today, I think this will be up at FAC with the latest changes in the next day or two. Your continued participation in its improvement would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Commentary welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saxbe fix.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: AfD challenge

Thanks for the notification! –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Bristol Indymedia DRV

You may wish to read WP:BLUDGEON. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• WP:BLUDGEON refers, inter alia, to responding to every single comment in a discussion trying to explain why it is wrong or argue with it. With due respect, that seems to be what you have done in the DRV in question. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

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

AfD nomination of Blue Sun

I have nominated Blue Sun, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Sun. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Robofish (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix FA and TFA

This user helped promote Saxbe fix to featured article status.

This user helped promote Saxbe fix to the main page as Today's Featured Article on 6 March 2009.

I am recognizing you for being one of the many people who came together to improve Saxbe fix as part of its development which has resulted in its WP:FA and WP:TFA status.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Relisting at AFD

Nope, almost anybody can do it. A few things, though; be sure to add {{subst:relist}} to the discussion page. Good luck! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You also need to make sure you remove it from the discussion page for the day it opened and move it to the current one. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And you probably should:

• Not relist AFDs that you started or commented in
• Only relist for a second time when there's been pretty much no contribution to the discussion. See WP:RELIST.

I've closed the Bristol Indymedia AFD as there is no real way that another week will make a difference. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Your merger proposal

I notified people who had been involved in writing the articles which is perfectly proper. Also, if you make a merger proposal, its best to do it properly as you have now discovered. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Safford Unified School District v. Redding

Great job so far. This should go onto the DYK page. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Since this is a new article, it is eligible for the Main Page section called, "Did You Know?" It is a nice way to showcase your good work. You can nominate it yourself at Template talk:Did you know, or ask another editor to do so. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your question

(replying here because I'm really not interested in continuing to argue over the AN3 report, as far as I'm concerned that whole point is moot)

Regarding this question: my understanding of the talk page now is that there is consensus for including the information, but not necessarily for how it should be included (full quote, or brief mention along the lines of "Goldstein said he likes Thomas' style", or what), so it's best to refrain from re-adding it until it's been decided how best to include it. WP:3O would be one good way to get further suggestions. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This, and your accompanying insinuation of "administrator misconduct"[3], is just rude and dirty. I specifically said that I posted on your talk page because I didn't want to continue arguing but wanted to offer an answer to your question. Now you try to present it as me attempting to "sweep things under the carpet"? You can go fuck yourself. If this is the treatment I get for trying to answer a question and help out, I'm not interested in listening to you anymore. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

For the last time, there is no "de facto topic ban". Did you not see this? Go do whatever you want. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Your signature

I noticed your signature now includes the image of a flag. Our policies, specifically Wikipedia:Signatures#Images, prohibit using images in signatures. Shubinator (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Shubinator (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Noticed your message on Shubinator's talk page, I have one of those pages too (here) it's not in violation as long as you subst: it.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, as Giants says, substituting is fine. Transcluding is more work technically (as in, on the servers), so it's best not to transclude everywhere. But with substituting, all the code is on the page, so the servers don't have to reach to as many other pages to render a single page. Shubinator (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

To make a sig even more interesting, you could use substituted parser functions. I remember someone's sig was "The Duke of {{subst:PAGENAME}}" for a while until some crats asked him to change it because it was too confusing. Shubinator (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Garden uses a substituted parser function to make his sig be a random color each time he posts (or, at least, he used, to; not sure if he still does). Subst'ing in signatures not common, I think, but anyway there are people who do it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

RE:Civility

Thanks for the Kudos. Although you set a good example yourself by not responding in kind to the somewhat acrid tone of my mistaken "consensus he claims to enforce" comment, I merely followed the example of good communication. My beef with you at the ANI thread was simply for being to stubborn about not accepting critique - and I do think that the drama you created over the perceived injustice was very much out of proportion and was injust to rjanag who merely tried to do his best in a difficult situation. I hope that you will consider this as friendly advice. As i mentioned in the first thread I was in an analogous situation last week - I reverted four times - he four - I brought it to ANI and was chastised for editwarring and given an official blockwarning. At first I thought it was unfair as I had only followed policy's letter - but thinking about it and receiving the same advice from some friendly admin's I - I realized that I had not followed its spirit. After thinking bout this I decided to commit myself to the 1RR in order to be sure to always have the moral high ground when dealing with edit warriors. You might consider doing that yourself - I think it will save me a lot of unnecessary grief in the future.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You didn't have to, but I appreciate the gesture. There's not much more to say; we were both dicks and there's little point arguing over who was a dick first, we can keep those opinions to ourselves. It's pretty clear that this has gotten blown way out of proportion compared to what either of us expected in the beginning, and it seems like we're both tired of dealing with it (I know I am, at least); probably better just to let the lurking drama-mongers at ANI have their fun, they'll talk about it for a few more hours and then get bored. I'm about to call it quits for the night, let's hope tomorrow will be a better day for the both of us. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow

Thanks for the award. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've become fed up with the way Wikipedia lets problematic editors get away with it. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

de facto e pluribus unum...

No comments on any ongoing disputes, but since your best friend isn't here to tell you, I'd bet you wouldn't really want to be known as "the guy who says 'pettifogging,' 'de facto,' 'ex ante,' 'a fatiori,' or 'vainglorious' in normal conversation, outside the firm which can at least try to keep that stuff limited in your briefs?" A thought, from an old lawyer to another. Steveozone (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, footnote. My kid, who's sick of law, just mentioned that "anyone who's in a profession should be able to explain it to somebody else who doesn't want to be." Steveozone (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Palin and ancestry

Thank you for your support on the recent deletions that were made to her ancestry. I have removed those deletions.

--Dranster (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

William Byrd Traxler, Jr.

Thank you for taking care of the merge, Simon. Happy editing — jwillbur 21:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the template follow-up

I didn't have Huggle running, but wanted that vandalism gone quickly... Was about to go look for templates. (Need some template links on my user page, but it's so pretty without clutter. LOL) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for templates and suggestions.

File:Pie.jpeg

Proofreader77 (talk) has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of pies by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

(LOL only template I know how to use without automation :) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Sarah Palin, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: Do not archive prematurely again. If you feel archiving is taking too long, feel free to gain consensus on the talk page to change the wait time for the bot to archive. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI/AN

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Who_is_a_bigger_one.3F_OR.2C_The_bad_act_and_the_apparently_good_solution, Eating pie more fun. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Your meger of Bristol Indymedia

i have reverted your merger as there is no consensus for this. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI/Consensus

Please show this consensus you keep speaking of. At present and from the two AfDs, I see both were no consensus. So, there was no consensus for anything (making it an instant keep), how does that translate into consensus for merge? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, this has turned into a back and forth and no good can come from that. I have closed the ANI post as such and will let the RfC run its course. From there, I don't think we have much to talk about. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Happens everyday, never had anyone say anything about it. Several non-admins close AN and ANI posts where they become back and forth swipefests. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, when you removed the tags (for whatever reason), they were readded not by me, but by an admin...Chillum. So, even an admin thought no admin action was needed. Just because I am not an admin, doesn't mean I don't know how to or when to close a ANI post. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Your little post right there on my talk page was exactly the reason I closed it. You are WAAAY too involved in the discussion and are letting your emotions get the best of you. You don't know when to let it go. When the discussion was closed that meant it was over....on all fronts. Now, if you want to WA (which is actually WikiProject Western Australia), you go right ahead. But I will use your own words against you where you admit to "monopolizing the admin boards". So tread lightly. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Let me make this clear, if I see anymore comments like this one, which is essentially a veiled personal attack and trying to incite a response from someone by any means necessary, I will personally take you to ANI myself. Drop the subject and move onto another page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • So what you are saying is you are actively annoying other editors, like Rjanag, and are block shopping? Is that what you are saying? Dude, let it go. The post got closed by me and then again by an admin, which proves, I was right to close it. If the admin would have left it open, I would have been at fault, but since he closed it it shows there was no need for it and your admitted "monopolizing" of the admin boards. You need to find another subject to go on cause right now you are doing everything in your power to block someone over closing an ANI thread. That is a little overboard and nuts, dude. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I like you, you're silly. OK, even Rjanag below said I wasn't out of line. Even you said and I quote "there may even be circumstances in which his closing a debate is okay"....so don't act like you are Mr. Innocent and have been told by others I have been wrong. They have said I was right and Rjanag said below (after you hounded the poor person) that he has "more to contribute to this discussion"...you hounded him to death because he wouldn't give you the answer you want. Do this...you want the ANI discussion in the open....I double dog dare you to post it and we will see how bad you are laughed out of ANI. Go for it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Timeframe

(responding here since the ANI thread was closed)

Pretty much like I said at ANI, I don't think there needs to be a timeframe on this. It's not seriously damaging the encyclopedia being up, so deciding whether or not to merge doesn't seem urgent; waiting for a clear consensus to emerge seems like it would be better than trying to find consensus in an AfD that clearly is controversial. If RfC isn't fast enough, there may be quicker ways to get input (such as finding an active and relevant WikiProject). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you asked for my input and this is what it is. If you think there should be a clearer indication of the timeframe, you are welcome to ask others to comment; my statement above doesn't limit you from doing anything (since I am not involved in this dispute and am not going to take any action either way), it was just a suggestion since that's what you seemed to be asking for.

As for the rest of your post, about this article being a "poison"... this is a reason why you might want to just take a step back from the article for a bit, as NH suggested above, and keep things in perspective. It's easy to get worked up over an article you've been heavily involved in editing or discussing (God knows I've done it before), but in reality it's usually not a big deal; few people are looking at the article, and it's just one article in the vast collection of junk that is Wikipedia (I mean, face it, for every GA or FA in this encyclopedia there are tens of cruddy stubs). And, since Wikipedia is not finished, the presence of one bad article for another week or two won't ruin the project; saying unequivocally that such an article can stay forever would, as you suggest, be bad, but just letting it hang around for a few weeks while its right to exist is under discussion is not terrible for the encyclopedia. My advice is that any time you catch yourself thinking that an article is poisonous, is ruining the encyclopedia, or anything like that, just take at least a couple hours off of it (to either work on some other area, or just get away from the computer for a while) and consider how much of a problem it really is in the grand scheme of things. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, just for clarification about NeutralHomer's closing of the thread: you don't have to be an admin to comment on threads at ANI or to close them. Maybe it was inappropriate to close a debate where he was one of the main participants (I'll leave that up to others to decide), but being a non-admin isn't really a big deal. Just for future reference. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If you find it dispiriting, you are welcome to leave the project. Like I said already, I am not interested in turning this single-article dispute into a fundamental issue about Wikipedia's very foundation. I don't think I have anything more to contribute to this discussion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Escalating conflicts

Simon, I think you'll be better off if you let this one go and see what happens with the RfC. Like what happened in our conflict a week or so ago, you are repeatedly taking users to a new forum, and accusing them of a new thing, every time you don't get a positive response at the previous one. With every new noticeboard you go to the conflict gets worse, the participants dig in their heels more, and we get further away from talking about the actual article and improving the encyclopedia. Things will be better for all parties involved if you drop the WQA and other threads and just focus on participating in the RfC and talking about the article, not worrying about individual editors or the "propriety" of their actions. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Jess Cates

What do you suggest I fix it with? I haven't found a scrap of information on this guy. Nothing in Google, Books or News. All I can find is directory listings. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 10:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Good call. You made a very precise, unflaggable argument that I agree with. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Protocol

Excuse protocol note. FYI: Initiated topic as a request for a neutral space for an informal step of dr, but after the requestee deduced context (indicating she already would know), I mentioned your user name here. No continuing discussion (comments wrapped up quickly). Unless some formal procedure requires notification, no further protocol notes. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(2)

My apologies, but "protocol" (now highlighted) would seem to require this notification as well: FYI a message by me on an administrator's talk page re your communication on Talk:Sarah Palin. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Palinproject.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Palinproject.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 05:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't like how it was "formed", blame TWINKLE, don't blame me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:AnnAlthouse-5-18-08.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:AnnAlthouse-5-18-08.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You copied the file from an original licensed under a Creative Commons non-commercial license, which is not accepted by Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Image use policy states: "Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only [...] will be deleted on sight, unless they are used under fair use." You licensed it as commercially usable without permission, therefore I notified you. You can ask for permission to use the picture under a better license and send it per OTRS. If you don't provide a permission, the picture has to be deleted. The picture can't be used under fair use because she is alive and a free picture can reasonbly be obtained (for example, by asking the owner). Feel free to contact an administrator for questions about whether I acted correctly, an admin will look at the file at the end of the waiting period, too. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair use is not the same as a free license, check Wikipedia:Non-free content. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Heads Up

Just want to make you aware that your WQA post on me has been archived. Let's leave it that way, shall we? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN

I'm bothered by how heated and personal the level of invective surrounding Talk:Clarence Thomas has become. I'll add that your Mediation Request appears to me to consist largely of imputations of malice and personal abuse, which is generally not the foundation from which successful mediation can proceed. In any case, I'm not sure whether this is the best approach, but I've solicited cooler heads at the administrators' noticeboard in an effort to de-escalate things and move them forward. MastCell ^Talk 03:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh hey, I came to discuss this same thing. Your mediation request consists of demands. That's not how mediation works. MastCell has broken no policy, you have a content dispute. If you want mediation, you have to act like you'll actually work towards a solution which is acceptable to all sides, not demand that you get your way. If you file the same thing for MedCom, you'll be declined. Its fairly simple. You're not getting your way, and you're getting irritated. That's not going to help. I suggest you read WP:TIGERS and edit a butterfly article or something else with no strong feelings attached for a few days. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As you did at AN, and again with all respect, you're mistaking the place you started reading for the beginning of the story. What you're missing is that I repeatedly sought to "work towards a solution which is acceptable to all sides." I made proposals on the talk page and in edits; I solicited outside input at BLPN; and I pursued the dispute resolution process as I understood it. The problem is that MastCell won't give an inch. This dispute boils down to one word: "far." Although he claims to not be wedded to the term "far right," it's impossible to take that claim seriously given the tenacity with which he has resisted every attempt to remove it. That term - specifically, the amplifier "far" - is the whole bone of contention in this dispute. If he would agree to remove it, this dispute would be over. The question you have to be asking is why that one word means so much to MastCell that he's fighting with this kind of tenacity to force it into the article.

Nor is it true that MastCell has broken no policy: he is pushing for the inclusion of material that violates WP:BLP (see user:Noroton's thoughtful comments at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Clarence_Thomas and on the article talk page). It's ironic that you cite WP:TIGER, given that it holds that "Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views" - strong views, for example, like the "extremist" slur that MastCell is trying to smuggle into the article. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Repeatedly trying to get things your way against consensus and experienced advice is called tendentious editing, Simon. You're too close to this to see it clearly, I think - the quote Another key to the problem here, {name of contentious editor}. You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral. seems to apply here. MastCell isn't violating BLP, no matter how many times you say it. You have a content dispute; that's all. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a BLP problem whether it violates policy or not. I think it does. Even if I'm wrong, if policy doesn't dictate exclusion, the material should still stay out as prejudicial, for all the reasons stated by myself and other users. I'm not perceiving my biases as neutral (as with your citation of WP:TIGER, there is much irony in which side of the dispute you're citing WP:TE to), and invocations of WP:THETRUTH don't change the facts that the term "far right" implies that someone is an extremist, and that its use in this article accordingly implies to the reader that Thomas is part of the far right. He isn't. One can think Justice Thomas is wrong about things, that he's a fool, a liar, and a knave - but he isn't on the far right. Either way, whether framed as a BLP violation or a content dispute, BLP applies, and BLP says that we must get the article right. It follows that unnecessary, inflammatory, and prejudicial material doesn't belong. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you are now arguing the content dispute with me. I'm not going to get dragged into this. I'm simply telling you that there is no BLP violation; you are attacking MastCell and accusing him of POV pushing, which is ludicrous; and there is absolutely no policy which states NPOV = hagiography. None. We happily and accurately state that Ronald Reagan and Jane Wyman divorced following disagreement about his political ambition; this is not character assassination, is is very well sourced content. Now, one can disagree about whether this belongs in his article or not, or how to phrase it, or where to put it, but those are all content disputes, not BLP violations, even if your opinion is that it is gossip about the private marriage between the two. Even if, in fact, you think they divorced for a completely different reason. It is still a content dispute, and your disagreement with another editor does not make it in any way a BLP problem or them a POV pusher. You are attacking MastCell and maligning his character because you disagree in a content dispute; cease. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Talking about hagiography is a red herring. No one is arguing for the article to be hagiographic; the issue is whether or not the article should brand Thomas as being a member of the "far right." No policy requires that result, and whether you agree that policy forbids that result or not, it's hard to see why that result should obtain.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean by "That result should obtain" KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

When "obtain" is used as an intransitive verb, it means to prevail or succeed (sometimes used more loosely to mean "happen" in the same sense). See, e.g., Int'l Underwriters v. The Home Insurance Co., 662 F2d 1084 (4th Cir. 1981): "The facts here are the same [as the previous case under discussion] with the insignificant addition of the fail safe feature of the noose. We think the same result should obtain." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually comprehend the word, yet your intended meaning escapes me. Rephrase with an eye to clarity rather than obfuscating? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought that what I said was pretty clear, but I'm happy to unpack the point step-by-step:

1. No WP policy requires that we include a quote that falsely brands Thomas as a member of the far right.
2. I think that at least one WP policy forbids inclusion of the quote.
3. You dispute point 2, arguing that the policy at issue allows the quote, although you presumably agree with point 1.
4. If we assume that you are correct that policy doesn't settle the issue one way or the other, the inclusion of the quote is a matter of editorial discretion and consensus, with the burden on those who would include the material to explain why it should be in the article (see WP:BURDEN).
5. No argument has actually been advanced for including the material. The only rationale that has been advanced is that it is a quote that can be attributed to a reliable source (but not, by the way, as a statement of fact rather than opinion; reliability isn't dispensed in gross, so while an editorial is a reliable source for the opinion of Newspaper X on subject Y, it may not be a reliable source for fact Z about subject Y). But that isn't an argument for inclusion, it's an argument for the quite separate point of why it could be included.
6. Nor can one imagine a good argument for inclusion. There is no need for the quote, so there is nothing on the other side of the balance to justify the risk of the reader being mislead. If we had to rely on that source - perhaps because there wasn't any other source available - there might be a colorable argument for chancing it. But there isn't. We can readily cite any number of reliable sources that make the same fundamental point (Thomas is on the right of the court, and often voted with Rehnquist and Scalia) without the prejudicial "far right" term. So why should we use this quote, given the risks?

Hence, whether or not you agree that policy forbids inclusion, given the absence of serious arguments for inclusion (whether actually stated or merely imaginable), it's hard to see why that result (viz. inclusion) should obtain.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes gods, if you meant "I don't see why it would default to include" or "why it would result in inclusion" then why didn't you say so? That would be the content dispute part. None of this addresses that you've been making accusations of BLP and POV pushing against another editor who is on the "other" side in a content dispute. Now, I hope I'm done here, because I'm really, really not arguing the content dispute with you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yowzah! Simon, I've tried to wrap my head around this because you've been popping up quite a bit on my watchlist over the past couple weeks (BLPN, the Sarah Palin talk page, AN, and so on). I'm afraid the pointer to tendentious editing above is pretty much on the mark, and your accusations of bad faith against some of your "opponents" are sufficiently inappropriate and persistent to warrant a topic ban and/or block if you continue in that vein.

A few things to consider that can keep you out of trouble:

1. A lot of the comments you make on the article talk pages are more or less "editorial comments" (in the sense of saying oh, puh-leeze), and seem more directed at the topic of the article rather than the article itself. There's nothing wrong with that sort of thing on an actual web forum (and in fact I at least partially agree with your sentiments), but remember: Wikipedia is not a web forum (or a blog, for that matter).
2. I've also noticed that you tend to use legal terminology in a very "shop-talkish" manner. There's nothing wrong with legal terminology, of course, but it is a shorthand that most of your fellow contributors may not be as familiar with (e.g., KC's confusion about your use of "obtain" a few lines above, or your use of the term "pro se litigants" on the Palin talk page). Try to bear in mind that Wikipedians who contribute to articles that involve legal issues aren't necessarily lawyers. Or to put it another way, if you're the only one at the party speaking legalese -- and as far as I could see from a quick scan you're the only one using the lingo --, you're probably going to run out of people interested in listening to (even if you're right).
3. There's always something else to improve. Trying to shift a consensus that is currently at odds with your point of view takes a slow, sustained, and above all cool-headed effort. Insulting people's motives is the worst way to go about it, and arguing a point long after it's clear that you're not convincing the person(s) you're trying to convince isn't much better. "Exhausting the patience of the community" is something you should avoid at all costs here. There are other articles or parts of articles you could work on a while, I would think.

I'm watching your page, so please don't feel the need to use the talkback thingie. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 20:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Resignation of Sarah Palin

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Resignation of Sarah Palin. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resignation of Sarah Palin. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggest removing "a**hole" from your comment

I suggest removing that word from your comment about Olbermann and O'Reilly. No need to use inflammatory language like that, even on talk pages or delete discussions. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minister for Men (2nd nomination)

Just a note to point out that your closure of this probably wasn't advisable. While I agree with your comment that this was a fair candidate for a non-admin closure, it should not have been closed by you in particular, as you had taken part in the debate and voted. I doubt it's a problem in this case as the result really was pretty obvious, but it's really best to avoid doing that - leave it to an uninvolved user. Thanks! ~ mazca ^talk 16:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, just thought I'd let you know so you could avoid it in future! It's not just non-admin closes that are restricted like that - admins aren't supposed to close discussions they've participated in either. Cheers ~ mazca ^talk 18:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Re

Its not a "dispute" (no sources, no proposed changes), the guy is simply a sock trying to pick a fight and create a conflict out of nothing. Nobody is "worshiping dictators" on Wikipedia. This is simply User:Brunodam or User:Luigi 28, attempting to get back at me for reporting their socks all the time. All posts of User:Sir Floyd should be removed from Wiki. I know its all my claims, and I do intend to file a checkuser, but I'm going on vacation in like 30 minutes :P. And anyway its so obvious you really ought to take my word for it. Among other things, he just announced his "departure from wiki", right after I told him outright that I know he's a sock. Regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama article probation, request for enforcement

Just a courtesy note, your name came up in a report at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Requests for enforcement#User:Simon Dodd. I have not looked into the history enough to form an opinion and I'm unlikely to take sides, but if I may offer some friendly advice, please don't panic! It appears from initial comments that nobody going to be sanctioned based on this report, so the best thing is probably to keep things low-key and friendly, and not worry who started it. Hope this helps. Take care, Wikidemon (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Taitz

Thanks for the kind words on my talk page! It's always good to run across people who can disagree without losing respect for each other. And though I couldn't agree with them in every respect, I likewise think that your arguments on that issue have been well-reasoned and intelligent. Thanks again! --TheOtherBob 15:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

AP as sourcing

Actually, the AP is perfectly acceptable sourcing for when a statement is accurate or not. They're specifically good at that. Your reversion[4] on those grounds is specious, I am sorry to have to inform you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Clemens

Sorry to keep beating this drum, but I infer from your surprise at his recalcitrance at the Taitz AFD that you share (even if to a much smaller degree) my concerns about him, or at least, of an admin behaving in that way. If so, is there anything that can be done? I pursued sanctions at ANI, but no action was taken.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless Jclemens makes a habit of inappropriately closing deletion debates (or engaging in other problematic administrative actions), it probably is best to simply move on (aside from addressing the Taitz situation, of course). —David Levy 19:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

It has come to my attention that Wikipedia reverted the delete on the Josip Broz talk page. Mr DIREKTOR had already started deleting my work on a another Wiki page (Korcula) even though it was referenced. So again thank you!Sir Floyd (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

NOTIFY

I'm afraid I can't think of a word for that, but I completely see what you're trying to get at - it's a very good metaphor. The text looks good, save for the spelling mistake on "judgement" (sorry, I'm picky like that). Otherwise, it well points out that it's essential to notify in certain situations, but shouldn't blindly be avoided in those which don't require it per verbatim. You're right that a long essay isn't needed, but whether or not others want to add information, your text provides an excellent foundation of the concept. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting stuff - I've never come across it without a middle e before. But since you wrote it, I'll succumb to your spelling, even though I always argue in favour of BE! Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed an earlier qy of yours about this, and responded at [5]. Sorry for the delay. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Henry Skinner

Before you lecture me about reading WP:PRIMARY again, you had failed to read WP:BLP, especially the part where it says "Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source" since Henry Skinner is relatively unknown. If you consider him famous, BLP still prohibits the use of court records unless it has already been published cited by a reliable source. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Actually, rather than edit warring over this, I'll just pretend he's famous. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That overreads WP:WELLKNOWN. WELLKNOWN is a warning to be scrupulous in the sourcing of claims about high-profile public individuals, and tacitly sanctions careful use of primary sources (its admonition to "[e]xercise great care in using material from primary sources" precludes reading it to forbid using such materials). This dovetails nicely with PRIMARY's concern that "it is easy to misuse" such sources, and we accordingly limit their use to describing the primary source rather than interpreting it. Quite plainly, citing a court opinion from the fifth circuit that says more or less in haec verba "this is a habeas case" for the proposition that that case is a habeas case decided by the fifth circuit is descriptive not interpretative. If you're still confused about this, please feel free to raise it at BLPN.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Real America

Hello Simon Dodd, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Real America has been removed. It was removed by Youngamerican with the following edit summary '(I agree that there will be inherent pov in any target, but prod is only for articles, lists, and dabs, consider WP:RfD)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Youngamerican before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

I nominated it for deletion here. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 05:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hank SkinnerDeletion

You might add your comments over at the deletion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hank_Skinner if you want to keep the article. I'm not too familiar as to how the process works, but every comment helps. BTW, nice try undoing Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's edits. I'd lay odds it's his persistent vandalism that got the article a deletion nomination.grifterlake (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Traditional marriage movement AfD discussion

Here is what I was posting to the AfD discussion as the AfD closed; I deleted it from there so as not to have posts after the AfD was closed.

I read what you wrote. You didn't justify posting a tally. Yes, the tally may be of relevant to how the closing admin finished the debate, but you are not the closing admin, the closing admin should not rely on your tally under the best of circumstances, your tally was both erroneous and posted well before the end of the EfD. For you to pretend that you didn't post that when the AfD was not complete is ludicrous; if today it completes the full seven day run, then it was incomplete yesterday when you announced the votes "so far". And no, what you say does not mean a no consensus close. What the closing admin says is what means a no consensus close.

And as it turns out, it looks like your reading of what the closing admin would do was wrong. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States

If it interests you to add to or change the title of the page Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States. Mrdthree (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Al Megrahi

Hi. I undid your edit here as it contravened WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. Please ensure you are familiar with these policies before editing again. Thanks, --John (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I was in the midst of writing a comment for the article talk page, but this venue is fine instead. I am fully familiar with the policies you mentioned. I am also familiar with WP:CIVIL, and given the condescending, sneering tone of your edit summary and comment on my talk page, you should consider reviewing it too. [Addenda: I just realized, glancing at your user page, that you're an admin. That being so, see also Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." Admins are not exempt from WP:AGF, and both telling an editor adding a perfectly reasonable edit that they should "try Conservapedia maybe if you want to construct an article like this," and speaking down to an editor of nearly five years' standing as if they were new, fails it.]

In any event, I do not think that your interpretation of those policies to bar the inclusion of a statement that amounts to applying fourth-grade math to two undisputed facts is correct. I can kind of see where you're going with the BLP citation, because it does bar self-published blogs as sources for material about a living person. (Much the same goes for RS, see WP:SPS.) That's of dubious applicability (the blog in question is neither self-published, and therefore per se unacceptable, nor MSM-hosted, and therefore per se acceptable), and we can come back to that point later or have it published by an op/ed columnist. What truly mystifies me, and what I'd like you to address, is how on earth you conclude that it violates NPOV to run the math on how many days this convicted murderer served for each of his victims. What in the letter or spirit of the policy leads you to that surprising conclusion? I could see concerns that the way the point is worded could violate NPOV, but just including the fact of it? That is truly counterintuitive.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if it hurt your feelings to get a note about your edit. However, five years should have been long enough for you to internalize WP:RS. Someone's blog is not a reliable source. An op/ed columnist is not a reliable source either, for the sort of thing you wish to add.

However, if you think this matter contains anything that is "undisputed", you may wish to read up on it a little. Reading our Wikipedia articles would be a great way to start, though obviously if you want to get involved in shaping the article you will want to read up on it in far greater depth, as I have done. Good luck and happy editing, --John (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

More condescension. It didn't "hurt my feelings" to "get a note" - I merely noted that an admin charging policy violations is ill-served to be doing so in ways and tones that play fast and loose with AGF, CIVIL, and the admin's code of conduct.

It's also very noticable that your reply is nonresponsive. You fail to engage on the NPOV point at all; the conclusory assertion that it violates RS is no reply at all, and is particularly misplaced when it so entirely misses the point. "Someone's blog," as you note, is not a reliable source. But that is wikilawering over a strawman. Not all blogs are invalid sources under RS, and SPS makes abundantly clear that the rationale is not a ban of blogs in abstracto, but rather to elucidate a particular category of the ban on material that does not come from reliable sources. That is why blogs maintained by newspapers are expressly allowed: because newspapers are reliable sources. It is why blogs maintained by recognized experts are expressly allowed: because if Robert Reich makes a statement in his area of expertise, it is reliable whether it is published by a newspaper or on his blog. Where on the continuum between blogs that are acceptable because they are controlled by reliable sources and blogs that aren't because they're self-published a blog hosted by a well-known and well-reputed think tank that is a reliable source sits, I do not know. I do not know that the community has ever decided that question - but I do know that the conclusory assertion that RS settles the question on its face and so obviously as to require no additional comment is weak.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can see you feel very strongly about this matter, and that you don't seem terribly well informed on the area. Editing Wikipedia articles on subjects you feel strongly about but don't know much about is getting into dangerous waters, I find. Why not calm down, pour a nice cup of tea, and start here, with a well-balanced treatment from The Economist? Happy reading, --John (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That continues your use of an inappropriate tone while being both nonresponsive and inapposite. Nonresponsive because it fails to address the policy questions to which it purports to respond, and inapposite because the editorial you cite has no bearing at all on the material in question. Your attitude will be addressed at WQA shortly, and if you are unwilling to address the substance of the issue here, I will raise it at RSN. A better response would be for you to refactor your comments here, improving your attitude to include appropriate and on-point responses, but that is a choice I leave to you.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

And regarding your misunderstanding of WP:RS, what interpretation do you give to "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources."? See, that's what happens when you edit angry! Read up on it, take some time to think, and come back with a clear head. Best, --John (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Again: entirely inapposite. It simply assumes the answer as to whether this is a self-published source (not all blogs are self-published sources and not all self-published sources are blogs; wikipedia's concern is self-published sources, a concern stemming from WP:V. And in any event, I have already expressly tabled the sourcing issue for now, because I simply don't believe that your real concern here is the sourcing. I say that because you cited NPOV as a reason to remove, which tells me that you would object on NPOV grounds even if this was published on the front page of today's New York Times. I want you to address the question I actually asked: what exactly is the basis for your claimed NPOV violation? At this point I'm not sure whether you're deliberately avoiding the question or if you're having comprehension problems.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's see if you get it this way. Here is the text you wanted to add to two articles, one on Megrahi and one on the Scottish Minister of Justice.

"Megrahi had served just 3,123 days of a life sentence, 11.5 days per victim." (my emphasis)

The parts I believe contravene WP:NPOV are "just" (whose judgment is that?) and the factoid about how many days this represents per supposed victim (there is considerable doubt among those who have studied the case about whether Megrahi actually committed the offense he was accused of, and no criminal justice system allocates punishment on this per capita basis, so it is just commentary).

The part I believe contravenes WP:RS is the sourcing of this extremely controversial material, which in both cases relates to a living person, to a blog, however respectable you believe it to be. If the material is truly noteworthy it will be possible to find a better source.

I don't think I can explain it to you in any simpler terms. Best, --John (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for finally addressing the NPOV issue. Unfortunately, your argument is wide of the mark. As I mentioned in my first reply, concerns that a particular wording of the point could violate NPOV, but it would be truly bizarre to think that including the point at all, in any wording imaginable, is a per se violation of NPOV. Now you seem to concede that your objection is indeed to the wording. If that is so, however, removing the material three times violates WP:REVERT's warning to revert a good faith edit only as a last resort. Given the rationale that the wording violated NPOV, outright removal or reversion would only be the last resort if there's just no imaginable wording change that would fix the problem, and I give your command of written English more credit than that.

As to the theory that some math is "controversial" - I don't see it. There's nothing controversial about stating how long he served and dividing the number of victims into that time - these are all matters of record. It wouldn't even be controversial to do so if that required the assumption of guilt (which is a controversial point, I am told); it doesn't, although your argument would be stronger if that was required. I must once again ask you to clarify your thinking. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that you still do not get it, and that you felt the need to file a WQA report against me. I feel you are an intelligent person, acting in good faith, so I shall persevere with you. It is often the case that one's own POV can cloud one's judgment. Take a sounding off other long term editors when that happens. If it was only me who thought your edit was POV, you would have a point. It isn't. If one's writing is truly NPOV it shouldn't be possible to tell what POV the editor holds. This clearly isn't the case in your instance.

Would it be POV for an editor to add to our article on George W. Bush that the number of US war dead in Iraq was 1.48 US dead per day of his presidency? Even it was reliably sourced I would say yes, and I believe a consensus on the project would agree. See also WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. Your suggestion of attempting to find a compromise that all can live with is an excellent one and I look forward to seeing you in talk towards that end. --John (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, one's POV can cloud one's judgment. It is interesting that editors on the other side of this content dispute seem to believe that my POV is clouding my judgment while they, too, make judgments that seem equally influenced by their substantive views on the case. A risky business, this telling the goose what is good for it: it may be sound advice, my good gander. For instance, it is hard to see why, with the clear sight you presumably have on less inflammable subjects, you would have dismissively portrayed as being clear as glass a sourcing question that you must know as well as I to be subtle and intricate question that is as clear as mud.

Re Bush and the war: I'm not sure that the analogy is sound, but assuming that it is, I would not say in vacuo that it would be POV to include such a statement. I would want to see wording and context. A SYNTH violation would be a problem, of course, but I'm certain that a reliable source can be found for the Bush number, and enough has already been said for this evening on whether the existing source for the Lockerbie murderer's number is viable. UNDUE - probably not either. Again, it would depend on the handling.

Lastly, on alternative phrasings, I do rather feel that it's incumbent on you to suggest an alternative wording, since you're the one who sees the POV problem. It would be a bit of a blind man's bluff to ask me to rewrite something to address problems that you see and I do not.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to finalize this, now that the WQA thread has been closed, by apologizing to you for the gratuitous reference to Conservapedia in my edit summary. That was being unnecessarily blunt and you were right to query it (though WQA was probably over the top). I shall try harder to assume good faith in future, even in favor of people who are adding stuff I think clearly contravenes our policies. Even good people have blind spots I realize.

Meanwhile, as often happens here, after the dust has cleared we have a couple of articles that are looking quite good. I remember back in 2005 when I first saw Wikipedia how impressed I was that some of the more controversial articles (eg Israel, abortion) were among the best, and the tremendous hope that gave me that writing an encyclopedia in this way could actually make quite a good product. My faith in that has wavered now and again but essentially still persists, hence my continued participation here. Anyway, nice to meet you, no hard feelings, and I'll see you in talk no doubt. --John (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheerfully accepted, and no hard feelings here, also. :) I do think that the blog sourcing issue that started all this is one that should be looked at and thought about, and as I mentioned above, I will probably post that to RSN when I have time. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Kenny MacAskill

Agreed. I've bumped it up to indefinite. Semi-protection can then be removed if and when things die down. Cheers. youngamerican (wtf?) 18:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Pro-Euro Conservative Party

I was surprised to see it prodded. They made quite a splash in the press at the time and throughly wound up the Tories, and they got sufficient coverage to make keeping the article seem obvious to me. I'd heard of them before as I was one of the very very few people in the UK to actually vote for them, on my political journey leftward. Fences&Windows 01:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's less of an embarrassment now! Fences&Windows 01:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

User: AlbagubrathMegrahi

Why are you complaining about this username? Just because the latter part of the name has some newsworthiness does not mean that it is unacceptable. What you are saying basically is that one couldn't in theory register a name like Niceladmacaskill or Badboybarrack for example. Where does it end? --Cyber Fox (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The name المقرحي alMeqrahi/megrahi carries no subjectivity in itself, and as to the link between the name and my contributions, thats an assertion and not a fact. Believing that someone has been stitched up (as many experts on the case including Robert Black QC) and choosing their surname as a user name does not send out any message other than that I like the sound of the name. It would therefor be innapropriate to remove the name ( Otherwise you'd have to change the name "Celtic" or "Bohemian Rapsody" for anyone that contributed to articles on the band Queen or Scottish football/soccer) I am no more nor less opinionated than any other individual but my choice of name here is my own business. AlbagubrathMegrahi (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have read the wikipedia username policy and am quite happy with my personal choice.reagan is a widely held name, and how do you know my surname isnt Megrahi? Its frankly a subjective interpretation of your own which Id put down to peevishness at other views on the case being put forth on the talk page. The edits I have made are to encourage a wider breadth of sources than just UK and American ones, and having an interest in a current event which takes place in my own back yard is no more biased than constantly suggesting improvements to the Barak Obama article if you live in Washington. Furthermore, all of my edits have been to talk pages and not in the articles themselves (in other words, suggestions to articles which any other user is welcome to respond to). AlbagubrathMegrahi (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Reagan would be a no no then. He bombed Tripoli in 1986 killing innocent civilians as well as funding terror in Nicaragua because he didnt like the government. I prefer the name Megrahi to Reagan (and happen to believe he is innocent, as does Robert Black QC). 92.235.178.44 (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Chase Coy

Hello Simon Dodd, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Chase Coy has been removed. It was removed by 128.211.196.149 with the following edit summary '(Chase Coy is on the ITunes "Rising Stars:Folk" list of the Itunes Essentials. If being put on a list that includes artists like Amos Lee, Joshua Radin, and Joe Purdy isn't good idk what is.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 128.211.196.149 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Please sign your posts on Talk Pages

Just a friendly reminder. I am sure you are well aware that when you add content to talk pages as you did here [[6]], you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --Cyber Fox (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Signature

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. User:Simon Dodd (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As long as you get the point re signatures. You are not exempt and should know better I would have thought.

And btw it isn't a template, i made it up. LOL --Cyber Fox (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A minor oversight. I nominated an article for deletion earlier today and forgot to substitute the article name into the edit summary link; goofs happen, and they aren't the end of the world. They are particularly de minimis in some contexts. The purpose of the edit summary, for example, is to put editors watching it on notice that the article was nominated, and give them an easy way to find the discussion. My goof there made no odds, because interested users were still on notice and could get to the discussion simply by clicking through to the article. The same with many notification templates. To be sure WP:SIGNATURE doesn't exempt templates, but just how much of a production should be made with pure motives (as yours, of course, were not, partaking of a cheap "gotcha") about it when forgotten? Well, the thrust of WP:NOTIFY is that a user ought to be put on notice that they are being doused, and that good courtesy is for the person holding the hose to be the one to do it. Neither of those objectives are compromised by an accidental failure to sign. Nor does wikipedia's page history allow any danger that the identity of the person adding the template will be obscure, let alone hidden. Not signing was an an error; it shouldn't have happened. Dramatizing it, however, as a cheap shot over a content dispute, shouldn't happen either.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It was not a cheap shot and the editor you sent it to was very annoyed about your criticising his new username. It is Wiki policy to encourage unregistered users to register a username which he did and then you jumped on him just because you didn't like his edits. I think it is a case of ... if the cap fits! --Cyber Fox (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(1) It was a cheap shot; your sole interest in the matter is that a user on your side of a content dispute groused to you about the substance of the template. Do credit people with a little more wits and perspicacity than to pretend that you patrol and enforce WP:SIGNATURE as a matter of course. (2) As to his beef with the substance of the template, I'm sure that is so, but that has nothing to do with the issue you're raising here. He hasn't raised the signature issue here, on your talk page, or on the page to which the template directed him, and for good reason: he's evidently (and sensibly) more interested in the substance of the template than mindless WP:BUROcracy. (3) As to the substance of the template, arguing that we encourage people to register is a red herring. Of course we do. It's fatuous to equate criticism his offensive choice of username with criticism of the act of registration in abstracto.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It matters little how I came about the information, the point is that your oversight made a new user uneasy and felt that he or she was being picked on. I had every right to bring this to your attention and especially so when they asked me to help as they felt intimidated.

We want users to register and coming down hard on them at the outset is not acceptable. You could have spoken with user and explained your concerns, but no, you just waded in and upset him or her unnecessarily. --Cyber Fox (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I did speak to them and explain my concerns; they simply removed the discussion from their talk page (cf. WP:CAIN). Check the history. As to coming down to hard, when users do things that are unacceptable from the get-go, they are going to be criticized--within the limits of WP:BITE--from the get-go also.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Of interest

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional marriage movement

*"Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions Better late than never Anarchangel (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)"

• "(we needn't get into the question of how WP:CANVAS interacts with the inclusion of the subject in various special-interest listings, see User:Anarchangel's inclusion above)" -Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Preserved for posterity in the edit record, although of course editors are at liberty to remove unsolicited contributions from their talk page. Anarchangel (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting conundrum, isn't it? As a matter of course, AFDs are cataloged into various lists so that people interested in a particular category of articles can more easily find discussions pertinent to their interests. In most cases, that isn't a problem. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Take the Time, for example, was included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs. That's fine, because that list is framed at a very high level of abstraction. It is read simply by people who are interested in music-related articles, a very broad category.

But what if there was a "list of Dream Theater and prog metal-related articles for deletion"? We would expect that most editors reading so specific a list would be reading them because they are fans of that subject. Since fans will be sympathetic toward inclusion, the average editor reading such a list would have a predictable slant vis-à-vis the nomination, in a way that the average editor who reads a list of album and song related nominations would not.

That's where the canvassing issue comes in. WP:CANVAS allows notification, and there's no doubt that including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Take the Time in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs (or including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional marriage movement in, say, a "list of political articles for deletion") is merely notification, neutral both on its face and in effect. But CANVAS does not allow votestacking, i.e. "selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion ... [and] encouraging them to participate in the discussion" to the end of producing one's preferred result. Paradigmatically, this occurs when someone nominates an article for the second time and sends talk page notes to all those who voted to delete in the first nomination, but not to those who voted to keep.

Yet the principle of votestacking is not limited to that situation. A mass-posting that brazenly solicited one side of a debate would violate it, too. The afore-mentioned hypothetical "list of Dream Theater and prog metal-related articles for deletion" would very likely violate the rule. So too, I suspect, would including nominations in a category called "libtard/conservatard [*delete to taste] articles for deletion." It isn't that any user reading such lists will vote in a predictable way, any more than the traditional model of votestacking requires that a person notified will vote that way. Nor, I submit, is it exactly a question of intent, although I recognize that's a more controversial point. Rather, it's about the underlying purpose of CANVAS. CANVAS isn't about preventing sin; that is the means, not the end. The end to which CANVAS is directed, it seems to me, is preventing the distortion of consensus (in an encyclopædia that runs on it), by stacking the vote.

Notifying a list of deletion debates whose audience will predictably skew towards one side of the debate, then, may constitute "selective[] notif[ication]" when it is not neutral in effect, even if it appears neutral on its face. That can happen if the list is framed at a level of generality that appeals primarily to editors of a certain point of view. Suppose I include a nomination of an album in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs. Whether my intent is to solicit a particular side of the debate or just to notify, that action would be neutral in effect because the list is too general in scope to be conducive to votestacking. By contrast, if I include a sludge metal album in a list of sludge metal articles for deletion, even if my intent is just to notify, the list is so specific that my action is not neutral in effect.

And so we come to grasp the nettle. Is the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions likely to be watched by people with all sorts of views on that topic? Or is it more likely to be watched by people with a particular (broadly-defined) opinion on the topic? I think it's very possible - actually, I think it's more likely than not - to be the latter. That's a problem.

I hope it's clear from the discussion above, I do not mean to question your motives in including the nomination in that list. It is the neutrality of the effect not the intent that concerns me. And I don't raise this issue as a collateral attack on the result in that particular nomination (I thought the closing admin miscalled it, but DRV endorsed the result and I accept the community's decision). But it's an interesting issue that merits discussion.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF, SD, B4 U go Section 8 (military). They Who Must Not Be Named are not out to get you. Anarchangel (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Kizzel was citing a blog. He cited this post on Jake Tapper's blog. That the post claims to be quoting an MSM source doesn't make it any less a blog (cf. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). That's why the blog's URL begins "blogs.abcnews.com" and at the top of the blog entry, it says "Share this blog entry with friends." Your confusion arises from a misreading of policy: you've correctly absorbed that some blogs are allowed, but seem to have confused that concept as meaning that allowable blogs somehow aren't blogs. Not so. The prohibition is on self-published blogs; nevertheless, that Tapper's blog is not a self-published blog, and (probably) falls beyond the general prohibition on self-published sources, does not make it any less a blog. It just makes it non-self-published and thus presumably vaild as a source under WP:SPS. With such a presumptuous name, you should be more precise and attentive.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

McAskill

I have reverted your edit, the article was a coatrack for opinion from here and there and it needed trimming, and a few people worked hard to tidy it, I will start a discussion over which version is preferable on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A couple of your comments there are a bit near the bone, this for example was unnecessary, Really, an opinion poll is opinionated? What penetrating insight.- Simon Dodd also your accusations of a whitewash and overlaying a new version without consensus are unsupportable, please assume good faith, there was nothing of value removed and there was a consensus of half a dozen editors that the new version was an improvement. Off2riorob (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you have reverted again, are you interested in talking about it? Off2riorob (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

We can talk about it, and I've added notes on the talk page, but we're not going to talk about it while the article is a whitewash. Saying "let's talk about it" while the page reflects your preferred version is a very common stalling tactic. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You are again not showing good faith, I am not stalling anything. Also stop with the accusations of whitewashing. Off2riorob (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A whitewash is the upshot of the changes you want to cast in stone. That may not be your intent, but it's the effect. The version you're protecting removes a significant bulk of directly-relevant material, creating an anæmic shadow of what the article was, and raising serious problems under WP:UNDUE - which, you'll note, can be violated by giving too little relative weight as easily as it can be violated by giving too much weight.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take care, I see you have reverted again, you are close to a report at 3rr, regards Off2riorob (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral framing of your request for comment

Your comment is not framed in a neutral way and requires rewriting. Are you going to do it or shall I do it for you, it also should be added to the bio section as well.Off2riorob (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the neutrality of the RFC. I'm not sure how to add it to two categories at once for an RFC, but if you can do that, feel free. I do think the request may now be moot, however, for two reasons. First, partisans for the whitewashed version have demonstrated an unwillingness to leave the article in its non-truncated form while the RFC process runs. Second, it is more and more apparent to me that we're going to have to go down the subarticle route; if we don't, the material will be deleted from MacAskill's page on the spurious grounds that you have advanced about it not being relevant there, and will be deleted from Megrahi's article on the far sounder grounds that it isn't relevant there. The only viable compromise is a third article framed in a way that objections to relevance will be impossible.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you are satisfied doesn't make it correct, another editor , me, has asked for it to be written a bit less opinionated and yet again you treat my opinion as worthless. Off2riorob (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't alter the section unless you have consensus do do so, and please don't revert. Off2riorob (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I won't be reverting for at least 24 hours. I make no guarantees beyond that.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, to add another topic to the request you simply add a | and the other topic, like this {{Rfctag|pol|bio}}

and then you would get something like this...

A user has requested comment from other editors for this discussion. Within 30 minutes, this page will be added to the Politics list.When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. This tag will automatically be removed after 30 days. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

• Biographies

hope that helps for the future. Off2riorob (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi

Congratulations on this new article. It needs some work but then doesn't almost everything around here? I'd be grateful if you could redact this, or else provide diffs that I have done the things you accuse me of. A quick read of the talk page makes it clear that, far from my edit being unilateral, there was a consensus there for the changes I made, and that, in spite of your having raised the matter centrally, yours was the only voice proposing to retain the lengthy quotes on the article. I can understand your being annoyed that the consensus didn't run your way, and even accept a certain amount of venting about it, but I am also duty bound to protect my reputation on the project, as you will understand. Anyway, best wishes, and see what you can do, --John (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, I appreciate it. Remember what I said; this project is driven on the heat and light generated by well-managed friction between editors with different views. When all this is done, we'll have the best coverage of this in the world. For free. --John (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Power ballad

Hi - just wanted to say thanks for trying to get constructively involved over at Power ballad. This isn't a request for anything else, I'm just at the point where I want to thank everyone who I think is helping... Luminifer (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

More macaskill

Please don't attempt to rewrite the section, there was half a dozen editors that colaborated on the section, if you have any issues, please bring them up one by one on the talk page, there is no need at all to rewrite the section. thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's see. You made a few spurious complaints and an amorphous general complaint. I made a good-faith effort to deal with the spurious complaints, and you rejoined with a revert and a demand for word-by-word discussions on a minor copyedit. You have yet to identify any serious problem with the new version, although you have identified yourself as someone who doesn't read too closely (the Cameron complaint) and as someone who has a very poor attitude to his own shortcomings (the high dudgeon complaint). And all this is set against the background of an ongoing pattern of poor faith, incivility, and tendentious editing on your part. You know, I think that with all that in mind, my answer is "go f*** yourself." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't continue your editing, you are creating an edit war. Off2riorob (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to only be editing there to cause tension? Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• It takes two to edit war. Why don't you try quitting reverting and actually talk about your concerns on the talk page? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. It's obvious why you're edit warring despite my efforts to accommodate and discuss your concerns. You have to have actual, specific concerns to discuss them, whereas your reverts are the product of nothing more substantial than personal animus against another editor. Sad.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem angry and opinionated and I don't think it is going to help you in this situation. Sorry. Off2riorob (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And you seem like you're a tendentious editor trying to goad me into a 3rr violation. Be careful not to walk off that cliff yourself.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Here, I've helped you out by creating a subsection for you to talk about the particular concerns you have with the new language. [7]

Your attitude is very poor, I left your first edit for a long time and discussed it at length with you, I have no desire at all to as you say goad you into anything, and I a will wait for other editors to join in. Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• That's a startling admission. Any pretense you could have offered that your concerns were in good faith just went up in smoke: asked to discuss specific objections, you admit to having nothing. Your demand to "discuss" the changes is empty; you have no specific objections to raise, you just don't like it (or more likely don't like the fact that I made it) and now propose to sulk around in the hope reinforcements show up who share your view. Which is exactly the reason I posited above for why you chose to edit war instead of discussing your concerns.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I appreciate you honest neutral comments, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverting bad-faith vandalism

Your edit summary is wrong and I will look at what to do with your as I see it, false accusations. Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

follow me round

Please don't follow me round getting involved in other things , that is a bit like stalking me and creating trouble. Off2riorob (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If you continue to follow me round attempting to create edit wars I will be forced to report you, please leave me alone. Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• That is now the second article I have seen where you have demonstrated a troubling pattern of unilateralism, refusing to seriously engage in discussion with editors who disagree with you. Yesterday it was me; today it's user:Philmillhaven. I notice that you've now made at least a token attempt to start discussing the issue on the article talk page. That's a good start; continue down that path and see if you can't resolve your concerns that way. It is always a necessary precondition of resolving concerns, however, to be able and willing to articulate just what those concerns are. That was what sunk you yesterday; learn from the experience.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop following me round and reverting my edits without even a comment in the edit summary, I feel attacked by you and like you are following me round looking to cause trouble with me. Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If your are going to insist on following me round and insisting on causing troouble with me or for me then I wil be forced to request assistance, please leave me alone. Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!!

Thank you so much for all your help on the Bethel Church page, and especially for taking it off the deletion list! -o0pandora0o (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Care to talk here about Jesus quoting from Psalms, since the Bethel talk page isn't a forum? ;) - o0pandora0o (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sure. :) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I spoke with my mom last night about it, and mentioned Psalms 22, and she had no idea that the two were related. At KC, Psalms and King David weren't preached about much. He was vilified for some reason, possibly because of his role in the Bathsheba and Uriah fiasco, I'm not sure. It was weird, I don't even remember getting "David and Goliath" all that much. Mom remembers when we left and went to a new church, that the first sermon we heard at the new church was on King David, and was positive, and we all looked at each other and were very confused. KC just took the Bible and used what they needed when they needed to, and made it sound like they needed it to sound.. - o0pandora0o (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to Sharon Keller has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. You are engaged in the same edit war and are not attempting to reach consensus, unilaterally deciding what is correct and using the edit warring template as some form of threat Mysteryquest (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ironically, you are misusing the "misuse of template" template. The 3rr warning template that I posted to your talk page is usually given when someone has performed three reverts in 24 hours as a warning that discourages them from adding a fourth and thus violating 3rr. You have ([8][9][10].- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag Arbitration

Hello. I mentioned you and referenced your Wikipedia posts in a recently-filed request for arbitration. I therefore thought it appropriate to notify you of the fact.

The request is at Rjanag Arbitration.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag Conduct RfC

A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you are mentioned in this RfC and the prior RfA and commented on Rjanag's conduct to him and in a prior AN/I.

The RfC can be found here.

Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:

(a) posting their own view; and/or

(b) endorsing one or more views of others.

You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.

Information on the RfC process can be found at:

1. RfC Conduct
2. RfC Guide
3. RfC Guide 2
4. RfC Rules

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)