User talk:UninvitedCompany/Archives/2007 May

Maclellan crest

Hallo, first sorry for my like this belate answer, I come not frequently on en:wiki. Graphic with MacLellans crest I made according coats of arms on map Scotland of Old. This is edited by sir Iain Moncreffe, bt, Albany Herald - an british heraldry authority. When someboby from clan or family Maclellan has an better graphic examle, I make sure correction. Tell, pleas, Yor corespondent, that may better, wrote direct to me, on my talk page on commons or pl:wiki.

And sorry for my owfull english :(

regards --Steifer 08:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Your oggs

Hi again UC. I was just browsing and listening to some of your ogg samples that you've contributed and I am truly impressed, especially Hanon. Ever think of putting a CD out there? ;) Cricket02 13:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The OGG files I've contributed are mainly placeholders intended to attract more capable pianists than myself, being recorded by more capable recordists with better equipment than is available to me. I believe that my recording of Beethoven's Pathetique has been the subject of a rather scathing review on commons, where at least one user thought that it was worse than nothing and ought to be deleted straight away. My response is that a better Free alternative should replace it as soon as one can be found (or produced). Sadly, the only free recordings that are available are (with rare exception) ones that are public domain by virtue of circumstance: recordings by U.S. military bands, old recordings out of copyright, and so on. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I for one am still impressed and have had the pleasure of enjoying many or your recordings and would like to say thanks for finding the time to record and upload these fine samples that have improved so many composer articles, in addition to everything else you do. Cricket02 07:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Wiki Award

Awarded to UninvitedCompany for his all-around exceptional contributions to Wikipedia. Cricket02 07:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise: Special:Contributions/HappyInGeneral

I read your notice [1], and I agree that there is a revert war going on, which I don't like, so please help me clarify a few things by commenting on my contributions.

The Suppression_of_Falun_Gong page:

- I think that this contribution is essential: [2] because it's well sourced and very relevant to the page. Please review and let me know what you think.

Also the tags are necessary because the current version of Suppression_of_Falun_Gong [3] is hijacked by the POV of Special:Contributions/Samuel_Luo a Falun Gong critic who is proposed for being banned [4], also you may observe that the contributions of Special:Contributions/Pirate101 and Special:Contributions/Yueyuen are only imitating Samuel Luo's behavior.

A few questions:

Is the information well sourced?
Is the information relevant?
Do we have consensus on that page?

My opinion regarding these questions, and please let me know if I'm wrong.

+
Basically if the material is well sourced and relevant it should be in that article.
If the article is not on consensus than there should be tags presenting that.

As far as I see it, I'm acting according to the wikipedia rules and spirit, where Samuel is not, he is even removing tags that show that the article is disputed.

Also please note that there was a legitimate section for this on this page [5] however this was deleted: [6]. Abusively and repeatedly [7].

Also please review this section of the evidence page: [8]

PS: Note that this is question is here for more then a month now: [9]

I would really like more input on this issue, which would be also very much appreciated. Thank You.

--HappyInGeneral 14:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

McConn on revert parol for a year?

I've just noticed that this is the conclusion you've come to, and I'm quite surprised. I doubt that there is anything that I can do about your decision, but I still feel the need to defend myself. It's true that I've engaged in edit warring, but rarely have I ever reverted without discussion (in fact using the talk pages to explain each of my edits is something I make a priority of), and rarely have I ever participated in a revert war that wasn't over edits that were quite clearly inappropriate. I believe that I've also been regarded by most other users as very reasonable, including by those that are on the opposing side, such as Firestar and Tomananda. It's rare that people rationally complain about my editing behavior. I also make a point of using the talk pages to discuss content without pushing my opinion about Falun Gong. And because of these things, I haven't felt any warning or threat that some action might be taken against me. I appologize for the fact that I haven't been following the arbitration case or participating in it. This is mostly because I was away from wikipedia for about two months, and only really came back after the pages were opened up to make some edits that I thought were rather straightforward. (I understand now that this was probably wrong and that I should have waited for the arbcom case to finish before making such content changes). Anyway, were I to know or have been warned that my editing behavior has been a problem I would change immediately; you don't need to put me on any kind of restricting parol to do that. I respect your position and understand that you've done your homework, but from my perspective this kind of decision without any warning seems like jumping the gun. Thanks for listening. Mcconn 16:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Rules applied inconsistently? Seeking clarification

Note about this query in this section: This is more of a question seeking clarification from arbitrators / similar ranked persons on Wiki about Wiki rules rather than a complaint. I wanted to keep the query to the ArbCom decision talk page but if I can't get an answer there, please give me a reply either here on your talk page, or preferably, my talk page, thanks!

1. I notice that Samuel has been deemed incapable of promoting a viewpoint outside his activism and has an obvious conflict of interest in that sense, but don't Falun Gong practitioners also have a similar COI? Many of the pro-FGers did not even want to see a Criticism section. Now, they are only willing to see one that is heavily truncated and has been responded to by their Leader or Master. Isn't this an inconsistent application of the Conflict of Interest rule? (If not, pls explain)

2. Moreover, if users like Asdfg (pro-FG) are given a second chance and commended for turning over a new leaf and now appears to conform to Wiki rules, why shouldn't Tomananda be given that chance, and Samuel (who had 3, not 7 blocks btw, if overturned blocks are not to be counted)? I find it once again an inconsistent application of Wikipedia rules that anti-FGers must be banned yet pro-FGers have, at the very most, only been given a year's parole (except McConn). I also note with amusement that despite User:HappyInGeneral having declared a POV war previously on the FG discussion page, he can be found not to merit even a revert parole.

3. Arbitrator Fred Bauder also mentioned that the real flamers have not been sanctioned (e.g. User:Omido) so far so should this ArbCom decision be expanded to include these users? Or are arbitrators bound to only consider the users involved and mentioned in the ArbCom case?

4. I note from Fred Bauder that NPOV does not require excision of POV language. I accept that, but hope that he would expand on this point further, preferably by giving examples in this FG case. Moreover, if that edit I made was objectionable then does that mean Fire_Star's one (the version I reverted to) was also objectionable, or is it my edit in itself that was objectionable?

5. How exactly do we deal with unregistered users who vandalize Wikipedia + Wiki user pages? Note that there have been a series of anti-FG vandalism actions recently, which is curiously well-timed as they hardly existed before this ArbCom case, as well as the fact that there have only been numerous pro-FG vandalism actions before. See also the numerous times anti-FG and '3rd-party' users had their talk pages vandalized. So how do we prevent abuse of this, especially when banning IP addresses does little good to an organization that exploits the weaknesses of Wikipedia? (If you cannot answer this one, that is understandable, but if you have an answer that would be of great use)

Now just one suggestion:

1. Instead of revert parole-ing numerous users, how about simply revert parole-ing entire Wiki entries, namely the FG-related ones here? This would be the best way of preventing edit wars ESPECIALLY by unregistered users (or users exploiting this Wiki weakness), as has been supported by my relatively limited number of edits on the main Wiki FG-related entries (compare the edits I made + content I wrote on the pages' talk pages, compared to the actual entries themselves). Jsw663 19:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Desysop

Just chiming in to confirm the email I sent the other day with an edit. Thanks -O bli (Talk)^? 09:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OI! I'm still an admin -O bli (Talk)^? 08:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS

Hey UninvitedCompany! I noticed that you are one of the OTRS accounts, I have sent to OTRS the permission archive for Image:Davidlbazelon.jpg, but they did not respond or put up the link on the image page. How long does it take normally? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 16:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Vote tally

I think you forgot to update the vote tally for the PalestineRemembered case. --Abnn 18:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abnn, I took care of it as an Arbitration Committee Clerk, although if it's a simple forgetting to update the tally, any user can fix it. Newyorkbrad 19:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine Remembered Case

I note that the actual unblock was for the purpose of participation in the ArbComm case, and the user has been cautioned (by the unblocker) that they may be reblocked if they edit anything other than their talk page and the ArbComm case. If your position on hearing the case is accepted, we should release them from that constraint. GRBerry 21:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Others have agreed to unblock the user unconditionally. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I know, the only admin that has said so publicly is myself. GRBerry 14:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]