User talk:Tristessa de St Ange/Archive 7

NicholasTurnbull's Talk Page

If you post a message to me here: I will copy both your text and my reply to your talk page when I respond.

If I post a message to you: please reply here copying my original text, so that my "new messages" indicator lights up and I can know which message you were replying in reference to.

Please don't remove, or otherwise edit, other people's posts on this page like certain users have as it is somewhat discourteous, and prevents messages being archived intact.

Thank you :-)

Archives: One Two Three Four Five Six Seven

Article evaluation?

Hi. I noticed you haven't been editing for the past few days, and perhaps this isn't the topic anyone would like to deal with right after a wikibreak, but I was wondering if you'd care to check Bogdanov Affair. I have been trying to improve this article over the past couple months in my odd snatches of free time, and I think it is currently a useful and informative piece of expository writing. (A dreary rain of sockpuppet edits has continued to drizzle upon it, alas, leading to episodes of semi-protection and an awful lot of blocks.) Zippedmartin mentioned a few issues on the Talk page, which I tried to address; at the moment, I can't think of any other things to do with the article, and I'd like any additional opinions you have to offer.

Like the saying says, "Criticism is the only known antidote to error." Your comments are welcome. Best wishes to you and yours. Anville 17:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Mark Kramer?

Hello there Kramer: I just happened to stumble across your username whilst looking through an article's edit history, and wondered: are you Kramer as in Mark Kramer, of Shimmy-Disc and JREF Paranormal Challenge fame? If so, I just wanted to say what an honour it is to meet you here, because I have long admired your work that you did as the JREF Challenge Facilitator in demonstrating the right way of using scientific method to combat the delusional; your exchanges with applicants are greatly educational, I think, to anyone interested in the field of paranormal investigation. Your masterful approach to handling such outlandish claims - despite applicants frequently dropping out due to your success in devising a watertight protocol - was a lesson to us all on how to deal with the irrational superstitions that proliferate in society, and thus I count you amongst my scientific heroes. You've actually, I note, been here longer than, since May '04; and so, I look forward to seeing you edit here more often, as I feel your expertise would be of great value to the paranormal-related articles here. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nicholas, Sadly, I am not the Kramer to whom you refer. Kramer is a nick-name that I acquired as a kid and which I have adopted for Wikipedia. Nonetheless I appreciate your encouragement and your contributions. Best, --Kramer 05:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Trustees elections

Hello! This is just a friendly reminder that responses to the "interview" questions for the Wikipedia Signpost are due soon. The important message and questions were left on your meta talk page. If you have not already done so, please kindly take a look at them, and we would appreciate your reply as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i am voting for u —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterone (talk • contribs)

Hello again, Nicholas: just a reminder that I need your reply as soon as possible; we're about to publish and would love to have your response before publication. Thanks again. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis an Onefortyone

Though banned from biography articles per Arbcom, Onefortyone still appears to be editing in celebrity (mostly Elvis-related) articles [1] [2] posting unreferenced POV stuff about him. (for example: "the work hints at a darker side of the Elvis mystique and questions the spiritual nature of his reign."). Perhaps we should ask arbcom to extend the ban to all edits about celebrities (in albums too) instead of just specific biography entries? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post a request for clarification. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is very interesting that another user, who didn't contribute to Presley-related topics in the past, now continues to remove my contributions from Wikipedia articles and even placed a note on the Request for Arbitration page. This supports my suspicion that there are several sockpuppets at work. As for the allegedly "unreferenced POV stuff about him", I have quoted from George Plasketes, Images of Elvis Presley in American Culture, 1977-1997: The Mystery Terrain, p.37. Onefortyone 00:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation

Hey, what happened to your Foundation candidacy (candidatcy?)? I thought you were standing, but you don't seem to be on the list of candidates for which to vote. Have you withdrawn? If so, I think it's a real shame, because I think you'd have made a great Board member. --David Mestel^(Talk) 22:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

scientology publicity

Hello

can you please review the Chick Corea wiki entry, there appears to be blatant use of this profile to publicise scientology. The page now has a direct link to the German scientology website as well as a scientology video. I find this objectionable.

Please take a look.

Thanks

damian.

User Lochdale

User:Lochdale has again removed well-sourced paragraphs I have written from the Elvis Presley page. This is not acceptable. See [3], [4], [5], [6], etc. Lochdale's behavior supports my suspicion that this user identity has primarily been created to remove my contributions and to harass me. See also his contribution history from the beginning. Onefortyone 01:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Onefortyone: I am sorry to have to be this blunt with you, but the particular diffs you cite above are not really an infraction on Lochdale's part; the material was as such that any editor would be within their rights to remove it in the interests of article quality. It may have been "well sourced" but it made improper attribution of generalities (e.g. "most people" suggesting a widespread view of multiple sources, in reference to one author's opinion of Presley's sex life).

It is also questionable of what merit the addition of such material in the articles in question is, especially since the various quotations do not appear to assert fact, rather offer analysis and opinion - remember Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia, and thus should generally stick to the factual elements of a given subject. That should not, of course, be taken to completely abrogate the idea of including multiple POVs referenced to sources in order to work towards NPOV; but in general Wikipedia aims towards what is, by and large, accepted by the mainstream when dealing with autobiography.

After all, Wikipedia is neither an advertising mechanism nor an exposé. You keep posting talk page messages to me asserting malefaction on Lochdale's part; it is undeniably true that there is a clear tit-for-tat going on between the two of you, but I have stated before that you both need to stand clear of the dispute. If you continue to tenaciously follow each other's every move, and attempt to reverse each other's editing attempts on the subject, that is precisely all you will achieve; an argument, ad infinitum. In this particular case, indeed, Lochdale is not actually incorrect to remove the material, and so it would strike me in this case that the best course of action would simply be to restrict yourself to editing material that you do not possess a desire to promote a given POV within.

I do hope you understand that in saying this, I have interest in both reducing conflict within Wikipedia and to resolving the long-running dispute that yourself and Lochdale have been engaged in for far too long. I have reiterated such sentiments repeatedly, and frankly I think this is the last time I will try and make this point to you. In future any accusations relating to Lochdale's actions would be best posted on AN/I than written to me, because I have already offered you my advice on that subject. Should this continue, however, it may be the case it is necessary to have greater restraint via Arbcom placed on one or both of you to bring this rather irritating mess of an issue to a permanent close, as I am tired of it. That said, if at all possible, I would like to avoid the use of authority-controlled action as I consider you are intelligent enough to appreciate the need for you to change your behaviour and would consider it fairer all round if such a course of action was not necessary. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was phrased with admirable care but perhaps the content is unnecessarily reserved. The "greater restraint", or potential for it, is already available. I think it's time for this to be invoked. I refrain from doing this myself as you earlier seemed to regard me as a participant in the dispute. (Whether I was a participant or merely a baby-sitter/mopper-up, the page histories will show I haven't been one for quite some time; and for what it's worth I can assure you that I am thoroughly sick of the Presley article and would be happy never to see it again.) -- Hoary 12:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has already been through the Wikipedia dispute resolution process, the community has already examined this issue thoroughly, and I don't see the need to be overly concerned about who is a party to the dispute. Arbitration Committee decisions tend to specify whether or not the administrator taking action needs to be uninvolved or not, as I recall. Regardless, I am wondering if Nicholas is looking into this further or has any ideas about resolving this chronic problem. Jkelly 17:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Lochdale simply claims that my edits are questionable, but this is not true. He also claims that most books do not support my contributions, but he is wrong, as facts show. You should have noticed that, as a kind of compromise, I didn't mention sources such as the controversial manuscript book by Elvis's stepmother Dee Presley in my last contributions, primarily centering on what is written in reputable Elvis biographies. But this material has also been deleted. It seems as if Lochdale did not read any of the major Elvis biographies. I have not yet seen that this user has given direct quotes from one of the sources he claims to have read. He frequently misquoted Guralnick's name as "Guralnik" in the past (see, for instance, this discussion), and he didn't even know the exact title of Guralnick's book Careless Love: The Unmaking Of Elvis Presley, as he cited it as "Careless Whisper". See [7]. He also disparages university studies I have used for my edits. He says, "I would disagree with that the information presented is really worth mentioning as a lot of it seems to be from college disertations etc...." See [8]. This statement speaks volumes. Lochdale's only aim seems to be to delete my contributions. Just one question. Is there a reasonable argument for excluding the whole paragraph on Elvis's male friendships from the article? See [9]. These friendships with members and employees from the Memphis Mafia are well documented and part of every Elvis biography and they are certainly accepted by the mainstream, as all these people played a significant part in the singer's life. Why should this paragraph be totally removed from the article? On the other hand, look at the unsourced "Trivia" sections of the article, for instance [10], and sections such as Elvis Presley in the 21st century or Elvis Lives?. These sections are fan stuff in no small degree, as they are always singing the praise of the megastar. Is all this material encyclopaedic? I don't think so, but some user's, among them Lochdale, do frequently support these sections by their contributions (see [11], [12]). Though I am not of the opinion that all this material should be included in the article, I never removed these paragraphs, as Lochdale frequently does with my contributions. In my opinion, Lochdale is part of an Elvis fan group which endeavors to suppress specific details about the singer's life from the article, if he is not somehow related to multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes (we have already discussed my suspicion here and elsewhere). And what about the well documented FBI files I have cited and the false claims by Lochdale concerning these files? See [13]. It seems as if I am the only user who frequently, and accurately, cites his sources, and Lochdale is frequently deleting the passages I have written. These are the facts, and Lochdale's deleting tactics are not acceptable. Onefortyone 13:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Onefortyone: I can understand your response to the foregoing looking at it from your perspective, but it still strikes me you have rather missed the point. Let me be even blunter:

— Just because something is sourced does not mean that it belongs in the article especially when those sources are the only provenance of a given claim.

— Wikipedia is not the place for revelations about Elvis Presley's sex life. Wikipedia is not interested in obscure and rather tenuous factoids or inferences about a dead rock star's sexual relations.

— This fruitless dispute is wasting both your time and that of other Wikipedia users. It thus detracts from what we're actually meant to be doing - writing an encyclopaedia.

— I have no interest in your theorism about who is, or who is not, forming clandestine organisations in support of Presley's reputation.

Perhaps that is clearer. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I may have missed the point. However, as Elvis is often referred to as a "sex symbol" who allegedly had many one-night stands, some sources which prove that this was not the case should be mentioned in the article. By the way, this is only a very short part of my recent contributions. What about Elvis's male friendships which played an important part of his life and which are documented in every biography? All this material has been deleted by Lochdale. I have now rewritten some parts of the said paragraphs. Onefortyone 14:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Onefortyone, give it a break. Presley may indeed often be referred to as a sex symbol or as having had many one-night stands; but it is hardly an encyclopedia's job to confirm or refute what's written in gossipy magazines or related in beer-fueled bar chats. Even before my slight interest in Presley's music dissipated (thanks to work on his WP article), I never heard anything about his one-night stands (merely some talk about his perhaps illicit taste for young girls). Still, toward the end of the period in which I attempted to stop the Presley article from complete collapse, I read Guralnick's Last Train to Memphis, which makes it abundantly clear that once Presley's career had taken off and girls were throwing themselves at him, he had plenty of one-night stands. Many were merely sexual; during the same period he'd sometimes just like to talk. Later in life he probably had a normal decline of the libido, aggravated by the effects of drugs; the huge "mafia"-interviews book (which I skimread) suggests that well into his thirties he was still enjoying plenty of one-night stands. None of this seems remarkable in itself, all of it seems a bit tawdry (my apologies to Nicholas for mucking up his page with it), and I've nowhere read that it affected his movies or music. It's trivia. -- Hoary 00:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything that can be done to stop this constant issue involving Onefortyone? He is pretty much obsessed with the Presley article and is now generating other articles dealing with trivial figures for the sole purpose of referencing them in the main article See [here] This article is a travesty when compared with articles dealing with other music stars such as John Lennon. Is arbitration the only solution? Lochdale 02:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion here removed by the God-King

User:Jimbo Wales, removed the discussion that went here. I will not write here why I think he probably did (and I will especially not mention the M-word) as I fear it may incur the Foundation's wrath. For anyone who wishes to view the removed text (which I feel is fairly innocuous) click this diff link. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Recording Ensemble Project

I noticed your proposal for a WikiProject on Recording Ensembles. I hope I got the subject matter right, and that you don't mind if it is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects. I know that I should have consulted you first, but I didn't think to. Sorry. If you don't want it there, please feel free to remove it from the page. Thank you for your consideration. Badbilltucker 23:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare) dispute

Please take a look - I am trying to add a new text about Anne Hathaway. It's a play by a Canadian playwright and is on the emerging scene. I am mystified as to why the fellow who keeps reverting insists that to mention "Shakespeare's Will" (the play) in the context of new texts about Anne Hathaway, is spam. Please help. Thank you. Josiewarvelle 13:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock on myself

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Mate I unblocked and then reblocked anons only and deactived autoblocks - has that done the trick??

Request handled by: Glen 12:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is a shared proxy from the University of Sussex (the only place I have Internet access at the moment!) and I'd be most grateful if someone could unblock it. I'll keep an eye on the proxy contribs, if that would help. Obviously, it's bad form to unblock yourself, so I won't touch it. Thanks. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mate if its an autoblock you're fine... but I'm on the case now for ya Glen 12:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on this page - or throw the unblock template back up... or, please, unblock yourself (as it isnt you thats blocked so you arent breaching policy really...) Glen 12:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all :) Well, the policy doesnt actually stipulate to my recollection but it does state you cant unblock yourself (the implication being you were the one blocked). Since you werent blocked, you arent unblocking yourself (as in your blocklog remains clean...)

Hell. thats my story and im sticking with it anyway! Welcome back :) Glen 12:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Insertion of YTMND references in Wikipedia article

Apologies if I caused any trouble or anger. I'll make sure to discuss controversial edits to articles before making them in the future. --EBCouncil ^{Speak with the Council} 16:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I just thought I'd say hi, since we haven't talked for a while... I've become a little less involved in advocacy since we last spoke (pressures of life, etc.), but I've started writing the Report on Lengthy Litigation for the Signpost, which is quite fun, although I don't think I've quite become a bona fide hack just yet. I've tried to become less of a process wonk, although I think I'll never truly leave that part of me behind, and I'm not entirely sure that I want to - WP:PI, after all. By the way, I must say that I admire your Chutzpah wrt Jimbo's edit... David Mestel^(Talk) 17:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lineal Heavy weight boxing champions

Hi, you replied on meditation, is that something new, i thought i should post on administrator noticeboard? I want to recreate that article, was deleted for no reason, will need your assistance, also i need a good wikipedian to look after my edits. Boxingwear —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boxingwear (talk • contribs)

Removed IP-posted comment by banned user BoxingWear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! =)

Good to see you! I was wondering the other day why I never saw your edits around anymore and was sad when I saw you mentioning you "don't even edit Wikipedia any more, really". (Even though I have been kind of cutting back myself.) Hope things are going well for you, and if you ever feel like dropping a line, the e-mail link on my page does work, last time I checked. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help is needed on NOR issue

I need your opinion urgently about NOR on Languages of Iran; as you will see from the history of the article and its talk page I have been told that we cannot take a calculator and add up the figures on this article and demonstrate the discrepancies because that is counted as Original research! Is this true? Is adding up the figures on a list and showing their discrepancies counted as original Research? Kiumars

WikiProject updates

I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status. You could give input on the project's talk page... Smee 21:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Also, a Userbox for project members, {{User Scientology project}} Smee 21:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Man, thanks

Thank you for being one of the few kind users that I have had the fortune of dealing with. It seems that there are very few that assume good faith, and try to be respectful and complacent as much as you do. Why are most people on Wikipedia so uptight? Why are they even here? To be a truly productive Wikipedian is extremely demanding, I can understand that. Not only do they have to go through the research to make an article great, they also need to debate (sometimes for months) just to reach an ultimate decision of inclusion of what they have worked so hard to write. Finally, Wikipedia would be a great place if everyone were as patient and long-suffering as you have projected yourself to be. Keep it up. IBeatAnorexia 23:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your last comment on my talk page: I would like to apoligize in regards to my behavior recently on Wikipedia. I suppose that I became over-frustrated in my attempt to create new, interesting content. The way people are treated here just gets to me... Though I shouldn't lash back so readily. I understand that you have a job to do, and if you must block me from the project, that's soley your perogative, and I wouldn't blame you for it. Maybe it's time I move on, as Wikipedia is at a level higher than I can adequately cope with. IBeatAnorexia 23:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually ....

I just got your e-mail and was about to call you but remembered that it is probably a bad idea to call you at all hours of the night now! I was so thrilled to hear from you. I will call you tomorrow afternoon. And no, not editing again. I have to for an assignment for university, but once it over, I plan to go right back into retirement. How the hell are you? Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would like to join the Guerrilla Mediation Network in the future.

Hello! I am too busy to be helpful right now, but I think I would like to join the Guerrilla Mediation Network sometime in the future. I am on the Mediation Committee. Thanks, Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Townshend

Thank you for your note. I understand your action. It is a source of regret to me that a this edit war (the third such war on the topic in 15 months) erupted again. An administrator worked very hard the last time this happened - a few weeks ago - and fashioned a compromise. I was not entirely happy with it - but I signed on and agreed to it. As did the others. I understood that the administrator was trying to resolve the situation. All had been well in the article until this morning - when the issue suddenly arose again. My actions today were solely re-active in trying to restore the status quo ordained by the administrator a few weeks back - and encourage arguments to be taken to the Talk Page. Alas there did not seem to be a great willingness to do that. There seem to be recurrent attempts to insert pejorative material into the article - disproportionate to the incident and the actual resolution of the matter in 2003 - by which the police surveyed all the evidence and decided not to prosecute Mr. Townshend. My sole concern is that the article should not end up doing that the police decided NOT to do.

I think that a soft ban should help cool off matters and I accept your reasons for instituting it. I hope and trust that none of the earlier participants in the original edit wars (of which today's actions were a minor skirmish in comparison) - editors NOT covered by the ban - will take advantage of the situation to change the article from the NPOV status it had for several weeks until today's new bout of changes.

How long do you propose the soft ban be in place on the 3 editors in respect of this article? Thank you. Davidpatrick 01:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. 23skidoo here. No objections to your action and I'm glad to see at least one of the parties involved understands (see above). With respect, though, I don't think this will solve the issue right away as there are other parties who are not directly involved in the current situation (editors I see David references above) who could take advantage of the situation to basically continue the same battles. If you could help me keep an eye on things, that would be much appreciated. It may be necessary to soft ban a couple more people if they start acting up again, though hopefully it won't come to that. Unfortunately this situation has arisen during a particularly busy week for me in the "real world" so I can't be on top of things as much as I'd like. 23skidoo 02:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding soft ban

The action is under discussion at WP:CN. Feel free to comment there. Regards, Navou ^banter / _contribs 16:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing

Andy Mabbett alias Pigsonthewing was banned a number of times in the past and in one case for a year for aggrevating Wiki users. [14] [15] 71.80.39.237 01:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

71.80.39.237 01:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for fixing up the introduction to Bogdanov Affair. I don't know if you noticed or not, but back in December, Kendrick7 nominated that page for Featured Article. It failed, naturally enough, on stability grounds more than on content (I managed to fix up most of the content complaints, but I concur on the stability issue). Anville 17:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some help please.

I created a subsection on the article RuneScape for "notable users" as shown below:

Notable Users

Over the course of time, there have been several players in the game that have attained popularity. Some have created fansites that they associate with their RuneScape identity, while others simply stand out on the highscore system. Some of them include:

Zezima - Currently holds as the highest ranking player within the highscore system^[1]. He began playing between late June and early July year 2001^[2]. Zezima has participated in an interview on both tip.it^[3] and Rsforums^[4]. He and his friend created a website for one purpose among several to dispell many rumors that have circulated around about his character and status in real life. He had attained considerable popularity in both being the first player to attain 99 in every stat in the game, and maintaining the highest rank in the highscore system for a respectable amount of time. His name is featured on a t-shirt bearing the words, "I Pked Zezima."^[5] He is also noted in over a 1,000 videos on the popular free video sharing website YouTube. Due to this broad reputation, many rumors float around both within the game itself and other websites. The same person behind Zezima also used to play a game known as Triple Triad x, in which he was able to maintain a rank within the top four players.^[6]

W13 - Gained popularity for creating a well known fansite, namely Zybez. W13 also created RuneScape Community, a popular message board for the Runescape community gaining on average 225,594 hits per week.^[7] His name is briefly mentioned on a news update on the offical RuneScape site.^{[citation needed]} He is characterized by an unequipted player wearing a yellow partyhat. His account was permanently banned, possibly from being stolen.^[8]

With no debate on the actual legitimacy of this section, I would like to understand the legitimacy of the arguments that have been used to remove it, and I quote:

"There are no reliable sources covering these notable players (indiscriminately compiled statistics don't count). Unless someone provides some sources to establish notability, the section should go. :::-Amarkov moo! 22:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, we dont need unreferenced cruft - • The Giant Puffin • 20:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)"

Why did they mention "no reliable sources" ... "Unless someone provides some sources to establish notability" ... "we don't need unreferenced cruft"

How was this section unreferenced? I referenced the heck out of that section (as you can readily see). Any way you can help me understand (what the heck) is going on, and why I was accused of not referencing the section (when I did), will be greatly appreciated, thank you for your time, Nicholas. Shimdidly 19:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. You have shown to me the character of a compasionate and thoughtful Wikipedian, and that's why I came here to ask on this subject matter. I would like to thank you again for your great work. Wikipedia is a better place with users like you around. Shimdidly 17:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing of AMA

I thought you might be interested to know that I disagree with your closing of the AMA MfD, and I posted my closure information on the MfD page. I'm not going to overturn your work and begin deleting, but I just thought I'd inform you. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMA MfD

Dear ^demon: I do apologise for "stepping on your toes", if you had your eye on that MfD, and I'm also sorry that you don't agree with my decision. It was my view that the discussion itself didn't reach consensus and didn't look like it was going to, so on that basis, it seemed natural that the only sensible MfD outcome would be one of "no consensus" under the circumstances. I would, however, like to respectfully disagree with your closure.

Whilst I can see merit in your MfD closing in terms of the right course of action, I might point out that in fact your closing decision does not seem to be addressing the consensus (or lack of) developed during the discussion and instead reads like your own personal MfD vote on the matter. For example, "I have read all of the arguments here ad nauseum, and I have listened to both rationales since the beginning", "I feel that this group is inherently bad for the community and our efforts would be best served elsewhere", etc. are not summations of consensus developed on that vote, but are instead your own personal decisions upon the specific issue of the subject.

It is my personal view one should not close MfD discussions by basically ignoring the discussion and carrying out what you think is best, as it would otherwise render the whole object of MfD - to gain consensus, or to indicate a lack of it if it is not gained - entirely void, and make the outcome entirely a matter of arbitrary decision on the part of the closing administrator. I hope you can, at least, see my perspective that merely a cursory inspection of the discussion shows there is not a consensus to "Esperanzify" nor delete the page. If this is your personal opinion, you are of course free to advance it; but you should not close an MfD on that basis. Of course, I am not going to fight whatever you wish to do instead, and I will stand clear of the MfD should you wish to carry out your own actions, as I am not in the habit of wheel-warring. Thank you very much for letting me know, and I do hope you don't consider me hopelessly obstinate for disagreeing. Cheers, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do admit my closing statement does read like a personal opinion, and I wish I could've phrased it better (I'm not the best with words). The main reason I believed that consensus leaned towards delete was I believe that not only yes/no had to be taken into account, but rather the strength of each side's argument. You were correct in saying that if numbers alone were taken into account (and done by simple majority), the weight of the argument tipped towards deletion. However, as the numbers were too close, consensus could not be reached on numbers alone. Therefore I took the liberty of reading into each side's argument and I believe those advocating deletion presented a stronger case, if you will. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ^demon: Thank you very much for your prompt reply. I can see your point, definitely, and this was exactly the reason why it was closed as "no consensus" - there wasn't really any consensus to either keep or delete. The trouble with assessing this on the basis of the strength of argument expounded by each side is that it is extremely subjective, in that it will be entirely reliant upon one's own views on the subject; the strength of a given argument or proposition is, unfortunately, always in the eye of the beholder. Consensus is not the strength or weakness of comparative arguments; it is to do with what gains a general support in terms of aggregate views held by Wikipedians (a far greater bar than that of simple majority). Wikipedia:Consensus sums this up well:

"While the most important part of consensus-building is to thoroughly discuss and consider all issues, it is often difficult for all members in a discussion to come to a single conclusion. ... To compensate for this, people first simply check if the criterion of supermajority is achieved, and on that basis make a first order assumption on how close one is to rough consensus." (emphasis mine)

In other words, what one is testing is whether there is consensus towards a particular point - you don't insert your own reasoning as a "tie-breaker", as it were. If there is no consensus towards any side of the debate (which I think is evident from the discussion) it isn't acceptable to pre-empt this with your own decision making. This is how things on Wikipedia have always been run, I believe, and it isn't something one can circumvent merely because of one's own opinion - which was, at least, how it looked, and your assessment above of your view that the deletion advocates presented a stronger case has no relation to consensus. I am not trying to be argumentative nor unpleasant here, but I do feel you may not fully understand the manner in which Wikipedia precedent considers consensus to exist. Thanks a lot for listening to my rather long diatribe on the subject! Cheers, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you're right. Pardon me then. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMA

Nicholas I have to agree with you, we have lost sight......I have the feeling in a week or two AMA is going to fall on its sword. Is there anything that you recomend that be elimated, fixed or changed to prevent this? Æon ^{Insanity Now!} _{Give Back Our Membership!} 21:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AH! Thanks for the insite, I will be posting your comments soon on the AMA talk page and several other advocates. Hopefully they will see the value in it and begin to take steps in the right direction. Also any help in doing this is of course apprecated the the AMA is a Wikiproject not a solical club so non AMA member would be welcome to make changes. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} _{Give Back Our Membership!} 03:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:AMA

Thanks. I wonder why he didn't do the same to my userpage. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 03:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't intend to snub you - I read Aeon's message before I saw your reply to my comments on the AMA talk page, and I was writing in response to Aeon's query. I should, though, have put it on the AMA talk page as well. My apologies. I hope my recommendations may be of some use. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I didn't feel snubbed; just curious. :-) Your recommendations thusfar are a great springboard for ideas and discussions. If you are willing, Aeon's started a discussion thread on the Meeting page and I would truly appreciate your participation. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 04:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to chat any time

Hey, I was glad I could help you just now on IRC. I try to hang out on #wikipedia-medcab so you can find me there any time you want to chat. --Ideogram 02:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guerilla Mediation Network

I can't claim to be a terribly experienced mediator, but I've developed a somewhat inexplicable interest in it, after starting out with small disputes that never made it to MedCab. What's it take to join up? --Moralis (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming guerrilla mediation

My impression was that your section for responses was intended for each person to make a brief statement on where they thought the article should go. It's started to degenerate into the usual bickering. Apologies if I'm out of bounds here but you may want to step in (unless I've misunderstood your intent). Thanks - Raymond Arritt 16:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NicholasTurnbull, I think you assessment of the current situation is spot on. I hope the recommendation I made makes some sense and is at least considered thoroughly, as I wholeheartedly believe is right solution and will bring about positive change (turn one FA into two!) I hope your mediation can bring about some well-needed closure to the unneeded and incivil quarrels and strife. ~ UBeR 21:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think you will need to step in and remove bickering. I also hope you might take over the current straw poll, which Mel Etitis has left hanging William M. Connolley 09:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nicholas. I appreciate you taking this on. i was just wondering if you might be able to step in anytime soon, to start helping/guiding the discussion, and to meditate between the two sides? I appreciate it. thanks. --Sm8900 13:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your approach to archiving is seriously confusing to me. Why did you not also try to archive the very related discussion below the section you archived. One approach to the poll you archived is here yet you exclude it. It appears to be considered irrelevant in that context, yet is was very relevant. I don't understand it. Also, since that poll was before the mediation, why is it included as part of the mediation? A new poll, (started after mediation) is rejected. It is rejected because you want to find out what the basic issues are. But the poll that was rejected was exactly to determine what the basic issues are. I am utterly confused about your approach. It seriously makes no sense to me. I cannot even begin to understand where you are going. --Blue Tie 23:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, William M. Connolley has already reverted me. If I go and revert again, I am accused of edit warring. If I do not, I am in the position of assenting by silence. I have presented my argument on the talk page and gotten almost no response. I have no where to go. --Blue Tie 23:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're up to on GW. You've closed the straw poll *after* I've already closed it. If you're trying to cause confusion, you're doing well. But since that seems unlikely, please be a bit more explicit about doing whatever you are trying to do William M. Connolley 09:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your services could still be helpful, but you appear to be missing in action. --Blue Tie 00:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to note I complete agree with both William Connolley and Blue Tie. I'm not sure I understand what occurred in this whole process, or what the approach of this mediator was. I will note, though, that things do seem to have gradually improved naturally at the entry. --Sm8900 00:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soft-ban on Townshend editors

I am one of the three editors you soft-banned on the Pete Townshend article. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pete_Townshend#Soft-ban_on_fixated_article_editors) I have faithfully observed the soft-ban. I note that one of the other editors has decided to start editing the article again. I was under the impression that the soft-ban remained in effect until it was lifted and that it was not appropriate for an editor to unilaterally revoke such a ban. Your comment on this issue at the time was: Upon the event of these users violating this soft-ban, administrators may, at their discretion, implement blocks from editing Wikipedia in enforcement of this. Davidpatrick 13:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywoodbabylonpedia

141 is on a roll; see the titillating state of the article Nick Adams, its history from late April (not helped by 141's chronic aversion to edit summaries), and Talk:Nick Adams, in which the fearless shedder of light in the darkest places expostulates: Do you really think that this material isn't encyclopedic? The private life and personal relationships are certainly important parts of a celebrity's history and must therefore be included in a biography etc etc. -- Hoary 05:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply; yes, that sounds very fair to me. -- Hoary 08:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NicholasTurnbull, I do not understand the unfriendly notes you left on my talk page. See [16]. As I can see from your contribution history, you seem to be not fully aware of what has actually happened.

You said that you have advised me "very specifically that material such as unsupported inferences across multiple sources (that is, original research built out of multiple references) and material relating to individuals' private lives does not belong in Wikipedia biographies."

First, would you please explain to me where I have included "unsupported inferences" or where I did "original research" concerning a Wikipedia article? Since the first arbcom case, all of my contributions are well sourced and I am regularly citing my sources. And if I am citing many independent sources (including published books, academic studies, articles in reputed periodicals, original letters by eyewitnesses, etc.) to support an edit, then it is not original research according to the Wikipedia guidelines. For a list of sources I am using, see [17].
Second, material relating to individuals' private lives certainly belong in biographies and also in Wikipedia biographies. You say on your user page that you are studying Computer Science and doing freelance software development and project management. It seems to me that you haven't much experience with writing biographies. Otherwise, you would have known that most biographers agree that details concerning a person's private life are part of every biography. Here are just two examples from Wikipedia biography pages you have visited some time ago:

From Pete Townshend:

Personal relationships

Townshend met Karen Astley (daughter of composer Ted Astley) while in art school and married her in 1968. The couple separated in 1994 and Townshend announced they would divorce in 2000. They have three children, Emma (b. 1969), who is a singer/songwriter, Aminta (b. 1971), and Joseph (b. 1989). For many years Townshend refused to confirm or deny rumors that he was bisexual. In a 2002 interview with Rolling Stone magazine, however, he explained that, although he engaged in some brief same-sex experimentation in the 1960s, he is heterosexual. Townshend now lives with his long-time partner, musician Rachel Fuller. He currently lives in Richmond, England.

From Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky

A disastrous marriage

Tchaikovsky's homosexuality, as well as its importance to his life and music, has long been recognized, though any proof of it was suppressed during the Soviet era. Although some historians continue to view him as heterosexual, others — such as Rictor Norton and Alexander Poznansky — conclude that some of Tchaikovsky's closest relationships were homosexual (citing his servant Aleksei Sofronov and his nephew, Vladimir "Bob" Davydov). Evidence that Tchaikovsky was homosexual is drawn from his letters and diaries, as well as the letters of his brother, Modest, who was also homosexual.

During his education at the School of Jurisprudence, he was infatuated with French soprano Désirée Artôt, but she married another man. One of his conservatory students, Antonina Miliukova, began writing him passionate letters around the time that he had made up his mind to "marry whoever will have me." He did not even remember her from his classes, but her letters were very persistent...

Tchaikovsky could have tactfully attempted to dissuade Antonina. Instead, he replied that he could offer only gratitude and sympathy in reply to her love. He retained enough sense to have discreet inquiries made about Antonina from a friend. That friend returned with a highly unfavorable account of her. Even with this information in hand, Tchaikovsky allowed his feeling for drama and Fate to outweigh his common sense, and he hastily married her on July 18, 1877.

Within days, while still on their honeymoon, Tchaikovsky deeply regretted his decision. By the time the couple returned to Moscow on July 26, he was a state of near-collapse...

Tchaikovsky lived for years in the fear that Antonina would reveal publically the true reason for their separation. Anatoly tried talking her into accepting a divorce. She would not, however, consent to the necessary fiction, needed for grounds of divorce, that Tchaikovsky had committed adultery. Tchaikovsky's publisher, Pyotr I. Jürgenson, tried his best to intercede in the matter on the composer's behalf. Eventually in the summer of 1880 Jürgenson discovered that Antonina had taken a lover the previous winter and had a child by him....

Tchaikovsky himself never laid any blame upon Antonina. He considered his falling in with her, at a time when he had grown to be married for the sake of being married, as something to simply attribute to Fate. Tchaikovsky never lost his personal ideal of marriage. When Anatoly became engaged, the composer wrote him a warm letter of congratulations. There he confessed, "Sometimes I am overcome with an insane craving for the cares of a woman's touch. Sometimes I see a sympathetic woman in whose lap I could lay my head, whose hands I would gladly kiss...." Biographer John Warrack maintains that the terms of this letter reveal Tchaikovsky was actually far from the realization of a true relationship with a wife, and that what Tchaikovsky describes may be a vision of his lost mother^[9].

Most Wikipedia biographies include such sections. See, for instance, Errol Flynn where the actor's private life and "post-death controversies" are intensively discussed. James Stewart, Marlon Brando, John Wayne and many other actors have their "personal life" and "controversies" sections. There is even a "Rumours and Controversies" section in the Mozart article. Could you please explain to me, what is so different with Elvis Presley?

Furthermore, you said that "The Onefortyone Arbitration case specifically refers to your use of sources to support original research, and inclusion of material on celebrities you consider to be gay; and it also includes the remedy that you may be banned from articles in the event of disruption..."

First, the arbcom says, "Onefortyone ... may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research." As far as I can see, I have not violated this probation, as I have cited many published sources.
Second, in a similar case of 2006 the arbcom said that my former opponents "Ted Wilkes and Wyss have repeatedly insisted on an unrealistic standard with respect to negative information regarding celebrities that is current in popular culture, gossip and rumor Talk:James Dean#Removal of "Rumors" section and Talk:Nick Adams#Rumors, gossip or speculation contravene official Wikipedia policy." Therefore, according to the arbcom, "Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality," and they were both placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation.
Third, as you only refer to the older arbcom decision of 2005, you seem to be unaware that there was another, more recent arbcom case concerning the Elvis Presley article. Would you please have a look at this newer arbcom decision which confirms that my "editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content." Furthermore, the arbcom says that my opponent Lochdale "has removed large blocks of sourced material from Elvis Presley" and that he "shows evidence of misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." Therefore, Lochdale is the person who is now "banned indefinitely from editing articles which concern Elvis Presley." (For more details, would you please contact Fred Bauder and the other arbcom members.)
Fourth, one or two Elvis fans were frequently harassing me by removing content from article pages and by falsely reporting me for probation violations at arbitration enforcement (see [18]). They were revealed as being sockpuppets of user

Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo

request links: view • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 00:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Suzulu (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
MRMAGOO3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
HarveyDanger (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Mingy Jongo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
MachoMax (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Mr Zuckles (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Code letter: C

Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo reported Onefortyone (talk · contribs) for probation violations at arbitration enforcement. I was curious about the number of single purpose accounts edit-warring with Onefortyone on multiple celebrity accounts, and asked Dmcdevit to look into it. He found the above list of confirmed sockpuppets. All are banned, except Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo who was blocked for a week pending review of the situation. Thatcher131 00:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information needed Per C, please list diffs relating to the pattern of vandalism. Real96 02:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, read what Thatcher wrote. ;-) Dmcdevit·t 08:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some diffs: Suzulu repeatedly removed large blocks of well-sourced material from Elvis Presley. See [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], etc. This user also mangled direct quotes from books. See, for instance, [29]. And he even repeatedly removed content from talk pages. See [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], or, using the IP 217.196.238.133, [35]. The same person also removed passages from Nick Adams. See [36] and, as sockpuppet MRMAGOO3, [37], [38], [39], and, as IP 203.202.144.22, [40], [41], etc. Mingy Jongo deleted a long paragraph from Elvis Presley. See [42]. MachoMax repeatedly removed large blocks of text from James Dean. See [43], [44]. There are many more examples of this kind. I would call this vandalism. In addition, User:Mr Zuckles called another user "you frickin pinhead". See [45]. This is certainly a personal attack. Onefortyone 12:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. Dmcdevit·t 08:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You further said that I have inserted "tenuous information about Elvis Presley's sex life. This information does not belong on Wikipedia, and more importantly, original research disguised by a veneer of references is also not worthy of encyclopaedic inclusion."

Sorry, the "tenuous information", as you call it, is to be found in many books and articles which were all cited in the text. Did you realize that my contributions to the Elvis article didn't deal explicitly with Elvis's sex life. Concerning the Elvis Presley article, I have added material to the sections on

the singer's manager, Colonel Tom Parker (see [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]),
the world-wide Elvis industry (see [54], [55]),
the Memphis Mafia (see [56]),
Elvis's death (see [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]),
his consumption of drugs (see [63], [64], [65], [66], [67]),
Priscilla Presley (see [68], [69], [70]),
Elvis's close relationship with his mother (see [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81]),
his youth and early stardom (see [82], [83], [84], [85], [86]),
the allegations of racism (see [87], [88], [89], [90]),
Elvis's male friendships (see [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99]),
the FBI files on Presley (see [100], [101], [102], [103]),
the singer's movies (see [104], [105], [106] [107], [108], [109]),
his musical career (see [110], [111], [112]),
his final stages in Las Vegas (see [113]),
theatrical plays and music by other musicians relating to Elvis (see [114], [115]),
Presley and the Beatles (see [116]),
the Elvis cult and its critics (see [117], [118], [119], [120]),
Presley's political beliefs (see [121], [122]), etc. etc.

This endless list shows that I have added much material to all sections of the article and also written a critical section on the Elvis cult which has now been totally deleted for inexplicable reasons and despite the fact that other users were of the opinion that it belongs in the article. As far as Elvis's relationships are concerned, it is my opponent, presumably a member of an Elvis fan group, who frequently claims, without providing sources, that Elvis was a womanizer who slept with hundreds of women. However, the many sources I have given, among them Elvis's wife Priscilla, say otherwise. They all support the view that Elvis wasn't overtly sexually active. Certainly information about the singer's personal relationships, which is part of most Elvis biographies, should be included in a Wikipedia article, especially in view of the fact that Elvis has been called a sex symbol. It may be your and Hoary's personal opinion that you do not want to read such details in a biographical article, but most other Wikipedians, particularly those writing biographical articles, think otherwise.

You also said that you cannot tolerate my "periodical edit skirmishes with users, regardless of who those users are or whether they are sockpuppets."

Sorry, one or two Elvis fans who are using many different sockpuppets are frequently endeavoring to suppress any critical voice from the article. Therefore, they delete large blocks of information. See, for instance, [123], [[124]]. They also mangle direct quotes from books and remove commentaries by other users from talk pages. This is not acceptable. And this was also the opinion of the arbcom. Onefortyone 22:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, would you please remove your warning from my talk page. Onefortyone 02:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMA ABC & accident on my sandbox

I really don't mind that people get into my sandbox and play around, you should not be sorry!

Ah, interesting change to the "ABC"! --Neigel von Teighen 10:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graceland

I'm beginning to have a problem with a user, Onefortyone, who does not Assume Good Faith - and simply reverts edits I've made at Graceland - (which he has done elsewhere I see) - with explanations deceptive like "some additions" - adding trivial material as he has done at the Elvis Presley page. He had also made a personal attack on myself for assuming my intentions at the Elvis Presley page (and others working to make it a good and featured article) with a long diatribe on several user pages for whatever reason - see his contribs list. I've left considerable material (much dubious and trivial) in the Elvis Presley article from this editor and he does this without assuming good faith. He is now starting in at Graceland and has warned other editors he will be doing so shortly at Elvis Presley. I've seen you've been involved with this before and appeal to your observation at the very least over this matter. If this editor didn't have such a repetitious and vengeful edit history I wouldn't be concerned - but unfortunately this is otherwise. Thank You. --Northmeister 23:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that removing all quotes that may include some critical remarks on Graceland and only including material that praises the National Historic Landmark is in line with NPOV. It is very interesting that User:Northmeister, who claims on his user page to be an Elvis fan, reappeared on the scene at exactly the same time when the many sockpuppets of User: Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo were revealed as edit warring with me on Elvis related topics. See [125]. Interestingly, Northmeister has not only removed material from the Graceland article but also the entire critical section on the "Elvis cult and its critics" together with many other sections from the Elvis Presley article. See [126] etc. Some of his edits may indeed make sense but others are not NPOV, as they clearly endeavor to suppress critical remarks concerning the subject. Just one example. Northmeister first removed this passage from Graceland claiming that the commentary was "not appropriate for opening" in order to substitute this one concerning trivia about Bush and Koizumi's visit in its stead. If the first commentary is "not appropriate for opening", then the other one he included is? I don't think so. Therefore, I have moved this material to another section of the article. I even created a new section entitled "National Historic Landmark". What happened? Northmeister repeatedly reverted the article to the version he prefers. See [127], [128]. He even says in the edit summary, "revert second reversion by user onefortyone ... without discussion." For the discussion, see [129]. It should also be noted that Northmeister mangled some direct quotes by removing these passages from the article. This is not O.K. Onefortyone 01:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More personal attacks, more innuendo - "Elvis Fan" or "Elvis Mafia" (as he has claimed in the past to others) or "Doesn't want criticism" and especially SOCKPUPPET. God help Wikipedia. This user has one purpose DISRUPTION to MAKE a POINT to paraphrase:- that "Elvis is gay" - that "Elvis dies on the toilet" - that "Elvis was fat" when he died - that "Elvis fans are a cult" - that "Elvis slept in the same bed as his male cousin" often - that "Graceland as a National Historic site" is not that important - that "Elvis slept with Nick Adams" - that "Elvis mother was a drunkard" - that "Elvis was racist" - that "Elvis music stole from black music" - that "Elvis used to stay up all night telling stories" - etc. etc. Trivial matters, sometimes based on the opinion of no-one taken out of context, sometimes based on a selective sentences from credible authors placed in incredible places - put into articles like Nick Adams, like Elvis Presley - like Graceland - Like Natalie Woods - over and over and over again. If he were truly editing Wikipedia to help out - assuming good faith - ensuring NPOV etc. his edits wouldn't be single-minded toward innuendo and all the above to fill up an article with numerous quotes out of context. He'd be off doing other notable things. Not the case though. --Northmeister 03:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit shows more than a thousand words which kind of "relevant" and "encyclopedic" information you wish to have included in the Elvis article in order to reduce its trivial nature. Onefortyone 01:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope so! Joan inspired me with her words: [130]. --Northmeister 02:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guerilla mediation

I want to help having watched the RfC grow nearly out of reach to any ADR.--Ziji (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any response to my MedCab case?

Hi Nicholas. I realize you're a busy person and that MedCab is probably a low priority for you, but I'd like to know if there's going to be any more activity on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-29 Pac-Man Championship Edition. I got an initial response from you and from User:Moralis (who said he was reluctant to continue working on it because the other party, User:JAF1970, was being difficult to reason with), but otherwise, the only activity on the MedCab page has been the ongoing argument between JAF and myself. At this point, it looks like JAF has decided to stop arguing, though he still refuses to admit that he may have done anything wrong, and in another Talk page he essentially threw up his hands and said "Fine, you guys do whatever you want. I reserve the right to say I told you so." when several CVGProj editors explained things to him.

I know that my arguing on the MedCab page probably didn't help things, and I apologize. I'm still upset at the guy, especially for having been accused of breaking mediation when I did nothing of the sort. But c'est la vie, I suppose. In any event, I'm curious to know if the MedCab case will stay open or be closed, and also if it's possible to archive the dispute topics in the article Talk pages that were affected, so that the atmosphere isn't poisoned like it is now. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close Mediation?

Could you please close http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-06-29_Infobox_Fraternity , it appears we have some level of agreement, I guess.Naraht 14:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy

Hello,

I was wandering aimlessly around the Dispute Resolution pages and noticed that both the AMA and Advocate Cabal are inactive. Are there any plans to resuscitate an advocacy service or create a new one, or am I missing one somewhere? Just wondering. Have a nice day.

The Rhymesmith 04:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

hi! just to give you a heads up, you can join me and others, spreading the wikilove,

[131]

just click on the link above to help me!

--Éowyn Alestrii 15:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of ARC (Scientology)

ARC (Scientology), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that ARC (Scientology) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARC (Scientology) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of ARC (Scientology) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

WNN and wn:Wikinews:AudioWikinews

Hi, If you are the Nicholast that was willing to look into doing audo stuff for Wikinews, could you please get in touch? If not apologies ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cayra mediation

Hi, Thanks for volunteering to mediate here. I've made my points on the talk page of Cayra. If you can take the time to read that page, you will have been fair by my standards. Thanks again for your time.

wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999[reply]

Please keep in mind that wikieditor9999 has forumshopped this one all over the place. Seicer and I both responded to the frivolous (indeed, uncivil) report he filed at the WP:WQA (and, modesty aside, we are the two most active WQA volunteers), and yet he has turned on us with an unprecedented amount of hostility (e.g. here). I would strongly suggest rejecting the case, because this user appears to be forumshopping this until he gets his way (and attacking anyone who doesn't give it to him). Even in his mediation request, he's asking you to lock the article, because it seems he is desperate to keep it from being deleted. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Scientology new style logo.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Scientology new style logo.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MEST (Scientology)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article MEST (Scientology), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of MEST (Scientology). Cirt (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Scientology new style logo.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Scientology new style logo.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. jj137 (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Medcab-infobox

A tag has been placed on Template:Medcab-infobox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.