User talk:Yummy Dunn

Removal of material from talk pages

Please note, whilst you are free to remove material from your talk page instead of archiving it, removal of warnings is taken to mean that they have been read and understood. Mjroots (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know hoe to archive it, so deletion was my best option Yummy Dunn (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)

To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!

View the full newsletter

Background

Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way.

Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process.

An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here.

Progress so far

Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created.

As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May)

Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes.

Proposed changes

Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement:

1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum.

Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN.
Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum.
Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum.
Applicable at following noticeboards: Dispute resolution, Neutrality, Reliable Sources, Original Research, Biographies of Living Persons, Notability noticeboard, Fringe theories, Conflict of Interest, Ethnic and cultural conflicts, External links, Third opinion, Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee.
Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise.
Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired?

2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute.
It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent.
If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors).
The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?".
Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired.
Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline.
Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time.

3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect edits

It is subjective as to weather the edits are incorrect, I could argue that this is a misleading heading? Yummy Dunn (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, your edits yesterday were objectively incorrect, for reasons explained further below. — Richardguk (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In your recent edits to London Borough of Merton and Greater London, you replaced references to "The largest ethnic-minority communities" with "The largest ethnic communities", and "The percentage of population from ethnic minorities" with "The percentage of population from ethnic backgrounds".

This is incorrect, because everyone has an ethnicity, even if they are not in a minority. So the articles needed to make clear that they were referring to minority ethnic groups (as distinct from people of white British ethnicity, which is the majority ethnic group in the standard UK categorisations). Though "ethnic" is sometimes used colloquially to mean "non-European", this is not correct in formal writing.

Can you tell me what you term as "formal writing" ? It is certainly correct terminology in an academic context. I did not mean "non-European", but was referring to their ethnology. Yummy Dunn (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Formal", for these purposes, as in suited to an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia; or (to avoid being circular), as you would expect in quality serious publications intended for educated readers.[1][2] Everyone has an ethnicity, whether as a majority or minority group in relation to the local population. By replacing a perfectly correct phrase with a colloquial and formally incorrect usage, your edit implied that 75% of Merton residents have no ethnic background, which is nonsense. — Richardguk (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In some parts of the UK, these groups are no longer a "minority", and anyway the correct term is 'ethnic groups', it is not PC to refer to people a 'ethnic-minorities' Yummy Dunn (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the context of the sentences you edited was solely in relation to minority groups in those areas. For example, it is absurd of your edit to state that "25% of the population of the borough was from an ethnic background", because everyone has an ethnicity. However, I see now from your deleted talk page entries that you have a track record of ignoring previous advice on this. Please do not dismiss the concerns of other editors. If you cannot abide by consensus, avoid editing. — Richardguk (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are duly noted Richard Yummy Dunn (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Richardguk (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in Royal Tunbridge Wells you changed the name of the post town. But Royal Mail's name for the official post town is "Tunbridge Wells", as was made clear in the wikitext comment that you also deleted. You can check the post town name and official postal address at http://www.royalmail.com/postcode-finder For example:

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

Town Hall

Mount Pleasant Road

TUNBRIDGE WELLS

TN1 1RS

Please take care to ensure that you do not change articles without verifying that your amendments are accurate, especially when other editors have previously reverted similar changes.

Thank you.

Royal Tunbridge Wells is used as a Post Town, I clearly have it on an envelope in the form of a franked address, the Royal Mail prefer the former, but allow the full name it desired Yummy Dunn (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because some people use "Royal Tunbridge Wells" in their addresses does not make it the official postal address, which is maintained by Royal Mail in accordance with section 116 of the Postal Services Act 2000. You do not have equal status with Royal Mail as a reliable source on UK postal addresses. — Richardguk (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood me. Many firms use 'Royal Tunbridge Wells' on the roundel on their franking machines, such machines are endorsed by the Royal Mail, who (it is acknowledged use the shorter form), do not prevent firms from franking their mail "Royal Tunbridge Wells" Yummy Dunn (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the two possibilities, individual franking marks obviously carry less weight as reliable sources than Royal Mail's own website (to which I linked above, and which agrees with its printed reference work, Address Management Guide, 5th ed.). The post_town parameter is clearly intended to list the official post town name, not aliases for the name which may also be in use. After all, there is space for only one name, so the official one must take precedence. — Richardguk (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not disagreeing with you, just making the observation that the full name is used in a postal context Yummy Dunn (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Richardguk (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've also returned to your habit of making ethnic changes such as this. You were advised not to do this without agreement before and if you are about to start up again then I think it will have to go to ANI for action ----Snowded ^TALK 12:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think another round of "ANI action" is progressive? Yummy Dunn (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try not to threaten action, it does not wash we me, try dialogue instead Yummy Dunn (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've been to ANI before for this, the idea is that you learn from that experience. If an editor persists in making disputed edits then the normal result is an ANI report Whether it washes with you or not it will happen. Making personal attacks doesn't help much but its again a behaviour for which you have been previously warned. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made no personal attack to you or anybody else, and would be grateful if you could desist from making defamatory comments about me, I'm sure YOU don't wish to be blocked. As I said previously, feel free to provide constructive criticism, and I'll endeavour to listen and (hopefully) learn Yummy Dunn (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited St Austell, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rose Croix and Royal Arch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Your attention has previously been drawn to both WP:BRD and WP:NPA try and abide by them ----Snowded ^TALK 13:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To what are you alluding to? Yummy Dunn (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire pattern of editing to date, which includes repeated breaches of BRD and personal attacks on other editors. DuncanHill (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should be very careful not to accuse me of something I did not say or write, defamation still applies. In no article have I made an attack personal or otherwise on any author. Unless you want to find yourself blocked (or worse), I'd retract those unsubstantiated comments Mr Hill. Yummy Dunn (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have falsely accused other editors of vandalism and being biased in your edit summaries. DuncanHill (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a legitimate article, based on prejudice, that, I'm afraid is vandalism. I try not to edit subjects of which I have no knowledge or understanding, I'd suggest you adopt the same position Yummy Dunn (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove any article, as you well know. DuncanHill (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not had time to get back to the article, I've been busy responding to points and questions on my talk page Yummy Dunn (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry in St Austell

Re: this edit, I have reverted you, and warn you against further edit warring and use of misleading/incorrect edit-summaries. There is a discussion about the section on the article talk page here - please join the discussion rather than blindly reverting. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may find it more productive, by initiating a discussion first on the talk page, rather than asserting your prejudices in removing the article, without providing constructive criticisms on the subject Yummy Dunn (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? There is a discussion, which you ignored until I pointed you to it! And I think you'll find, if you canbring yourself to look at the article history, that I did not remove the section. Please remember it is very easy to see who did what and where on Wikipedia, so making counter-factual allegations against other editors will not help you. DuncanHill (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of this section you said you reverted the article, it was natural to assume (given your previous history on such things) that you would have deleted it, as I see you have not this time, I'm happy to retract what I said earlier Yummy Dunn (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made it very clear what I had done. Just to make it even clearer - your edit summary, in the edit which I undid, was both false and a personal attack on another editor. These are not allowed on Wikipedia, as you have repeatedly been told. DuncanHill (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was no personal attack, on either yourself or another. Clearly Law is another subject of which you have little or no understanding of ? Yummy Dunn (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You falsely accused another editor of both vandalism and of being biased. That is a personal attack. DuncanHill (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be getting confused. Telling somebody they are an A***Hole would be classed as a 'personal attack', pointing out that someone allowed there personal prejudices to intrude and therefore edit in a less than objective manner is merely constructive criticism. Editing an article which was the subject to a discussion to try and reach a consensus, might well look like vandalism. Both of these last two points are based of facts. May I respectfully, suggest that you spend more of your time trying to engage in constructive criticism (which is welcomed, believe me) than by trying to cause arguments by your actions Yummy Dunn (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A thread concerning you at ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The direct link to the section is here. DuncanHill (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm sure if someone wants me to participate, they will enter into dialogue here Yummy Dunn (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate. Nobody Ent 01:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will it achieve anything if I do? Certain editors appear to think they "own" an article, are happy to criticise without injecting anything worthwhile into the 'argument'? Certain topics will always bring out prejudices in those of that disposition Yummy Dunn (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Novemner 2012

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. specifically here DuncanHill (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can advise me as to which references you feel are out-of-date, I'll endeavour to update them, Masonic yearbooks for Cornwall are freely available for consultation in the Courtney Library of the Royal Institution of Cornwall in Truro as is the book on the 250th anniversary. Yummy Dunn (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on St Austell. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion: offer

You appear to be engaged in a long-term pattern of disruption around ethnicity changes and free masons. Would you like to voluntarily commit to a topic ban on those subjects and to be civil? Alternatively, we can propose and enforce community sanctions, but a voluntary topic ban would avoid messy drama. Toddst1 (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree to the former topic, but the later subject I have knowledge on (whereas most who comment appear not to have any knowledge on the subject at all), however, thank you for being civil in your communications Yummy Dunn (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's disappointing. You're leaving me only a couple of options, so as an uninvolved administrator, I'll handle it this way (see section below).

You are welcome. Civility is not optional. Toddst1 (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FINAL WARNING: disruption around ethnicity changes and free masons

You have been engaged in a long-term pattern of disruption around ethnicity changes and free masons that has led to numerous discussions on ANI. That disruption must stop immediately.

Any further disruption related to these topics including but not limited to the addition of unsourced or poorly sourced material, edit warring, removal of sourced material or incivility may lead to an immediate block without further notice or discussion. Anyone observing disruption by you related to these areas in the future may bring the matter to my attention or bring the matter to ANI for immediate action.

Please consider this an opportunity to change your behavior as that would be the best outcome. Toddst1 (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]