| Revision as of 03:41, 2 September 2007 editMercury~enwiki (talk | contribs)9,783 editsm →Most disappointing.: pf -> of← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:02, 2 September 2007 edit undoHornplease (talk | contribs)9,260 edits →Most disappointing.: clarityNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 138: | Line 138: | ||
| I stopped counting at the point, however, one should note that when I request page protection, I do not consider the dispute. ] is usually achieved during an edit war in ] of the page, which is whatever version the page happens to be in. I'll admit, I did not know an editor was blocked in the case. Regardless, the editors should resolve the dispute before reverting. I hope this helped. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Cheers! ] <sup> ] </sup> 02:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | I stopped counting at the point, however, one should note that when I request page protection, I do not consider the dispute. ] is usually achieved during an edit war in ] of the page, which is whatever version the page happens to be in. I'll admit, I did not know an editor was blocked in the case. Regardless, the editors should resolve the dispute before reverting. I hope this helped. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Cheers! ] <sup> ] </sup> 02:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :I am well aware of where you followed it from. That indicates precisely my point; that you were aware that one of the users had been warned after breaking 3RR, and that the other had indicated his unwillingness to take it further. That hardly qualifies as an ongoing edit war. If I had thought an edit war was in progress, I would have requested protection myself; I have indicated as much on two unrelated talkpages in two unrelated disputes (in which I am not a participant) in the past 48 hours. What you chose to do, even knowing - or at least in possession of sufficient information, if you had been on the 3RR board, that one could deduce - that the edit war was over, was apply for protection of the page. | |||
| :There is no need to quote ] to me, and in particular, snidely. I am well aware of that essay, and it is used too easily as an explanation for carelessness, which is ''not'' its intent. You will note that my primary concern is not the version that it is currently in, but that your conduct in this matter was lacking in thought, and that as a consequence this page is locked for five days unless I fight a pointless little battle elsewhere. (Five days during which, as I point out, the Japanese Prime Minister is busy making a big deal out of this individual and he is on every front page in Asia and a few in the rest of the world.) "The editors should resolve the dispute before reverting"? Yes, I know. Again, you should know when stepping in is needed and when it is not. And making obvious statements like that to someone who has ten thousand or so edits and no blocks for 3RR (or reports, either, actually) takes the cake. ] 05:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:02, 2 September 2007
You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
 Archives |
I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented.
|
Top
Please feel free to leave me a message. Thanks. Navou (talk · contribs · count)
References
Hurt locker?
You comment intrigued me, what's a hurt locker? Can you resist a red link? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I should be more careful. I'm in a unique line of work, and sometimes we have our own lingo. The context sometimes does not carry over. It means, if you were to put me in the hurt locker, you would be making life hard, or making me feel bad. If I can find some RS, I'll write an article, I can't resist a red link easy, especially if its on my talk page. Navou 22:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba 12:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Your RfA
I'm done! :-) Now it's time for the other nominators to drop by, and for you to answer once more those standard questions. Do it calmly and wisely! :-) Good luck! Best regards, Húsönd 01:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the nomination, I'll give it a go! Navou 03:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hey there, overall i think you've done an excellent job of maintaining "impartiality" in that whole situation. My question regarding the workshop is something i think would be something good for you to answer on the RFA page. That's why i was asking him. I hope you can tell i was not trying to go behind your back, contrary, i think you would make a good admin (something i cannot say for many others who are already admins).... does that make sense? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 04:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Nah, I lose all paranoia on wiki, I think basically, people are good. And its my assumption that we are all here to do just this... write the encyclopedia. As far as the question you pose, you may ask whatever you please om the RFA, and I'll do my best to answer it if I choose. Additionally, I think that question would be best asked at the arbitration, you might not be the only one wondering about it, the other parties might have the same question, you might just be the first to ask. Regards, Navou 04:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've offered comments on all your workshop proposals - and in fact struck a few of my comments within the last few hours (i struck rather than refractored because there is some underlying truth to them - i just don't think they should be focused on. Let me know if you need some clarification. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 04:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- In reference to arbitration only: I have commented about this on the workshop talk. Please feel free to ask questions or comment there if you like. And best regards, Navou 04:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I put a response there for you. In the meantime, I am not sure this should be brought up with your RFA -for a number of reasons. In the meantime, good luck and you have my "unofficial" support. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 17:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- In reference to arbitration only: I have commented about this on the workshop talk. Please feel free to ask questions or comment there if you like. And best regards, Navou 04:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) I'm not sure how to relate my participation at the arbitration with this RFA. But I will look at the comments on the workshop page when I get back home, and thank you for support. Cheers! Navou 17:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good - like i said - i think i'm having a difficult time of applying the "concept" to the "greater question", so we'll just stick to the RFA. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 17:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Let's please put an end to this
I ask you to look at the edit summary in this link. That's about as offensive as it gets! This guy needs to go and go for a long time! I'm not going to put up with his shit anymore - this is so ridiculously offensive. I will tell him off if he comes near me again. Racism/religious persecution/whatever you want to call it (especially unprovoked) has absolutely no place here. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 02:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hello, it appears User:Maxim has handled the situation. I'm not sure what I can do, however. Navou 03:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I gotta tell you - this is not making me any more likely to accept things that might be handed down by the Arbcom. That kid is an offensive troll who belittles and barbs everyone - taking it to the recent level where he mentions nazis is absolutely the last straw with me. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 03:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
RfA
I'd just like to say well done on the so far successful RfA, I've left an optional question on the page for you to answer. Regards, Onnaghar 12:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, and I got your question. Cheers, Navou 17:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Re: Mathbot and AFD
The bot used to link to open discussions on /old like : 1 2 3 4 5 and so forth. This feature was great, can you bing it back? Navou 17:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- The feature does work, but only when there are under 20 articles, like here. Some people think going beyond 20 articles is too much, and I agree. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Community enforceable mediation
Great effort. I hope it works out. I can give you some suggestions if you're interested. I may also want to become involved, e.g. as an apprentice mediator. --Coppertwig 16:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Outstanding. Put yourself on the list at Misplaced Pages:Community enforceable mediation/Requests under training. Next case I get I'll clue you in, also, you might let Durova know. Also, suggestions are always good, make a section at Misplaced Pages talk:Community enforceable mediation so that they can be discussed! Best regards, Navou 17:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Most disappointing.
On requesting unprotection for Radhabinod Pal, I notice you requested protection for it. I'd like you to note the comments I left on the protecting admin's page. I doubt you even read the talkpage, or attempted to check the records of the editors involved, including what they were doing at the time you requested protection. There are good reasons why protection should not be the first attempt at resolution, especially a fixed-period protection. You acted in this case without acquainting yourself more closely with the concerns, which is not acceptable. "Cooling down" edit wars is important, but not if they are cooling down on one side themselves. Hornplease 00:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I actually followed the dispute from the 3RR board, as you can probably see form the history, I've been working on the archiving. I'll note that
I stopped counting at the point, however, one should note that when I request page protection, I do not consider the dispute. Protection is usually achieved during an edit war in m:The Wrong Version of the page, which is whatever version the page happens to be in. I'll admit, I did not know an editor was blocked in the case. Regardless, the editors should resolve the dispute before reverting. I hope this helped. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Cheers! Navou 02:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I am well aware of where you followed it from. That indicates precisely my point; that you were aware that one of the users had been warned after breaking 3RR, and that the other had indicated his unwillingness to take it further. That hardly qualifies as an ongoing edit war. If I had thought an edit war was in progress, I would have requested protection myself; I have indicated as much on two unrelated talkpages in two unrelated disputes (in which I am not a participant) in the past 48 hours. What you chose to do, even knowing - or at least in possession of sufficient information, if you had been on the 3RR board, that one could deduce - that the edit war was over, was apply for protection of the page.
- There is no need to quote m:The Wrong Version to me, and in particular, snidely. I am well aware of that essay, and it is used too easily as an explanation for carelessness, which is not its intent. You will note that my primary concern is not the version that it is currently in, but that your conduct in this matter was lacking in thought, and that as a consequence this page is locked for five days unless I fight a pointless little battle elsewhere. (Five days during which, as I point out, the Japanese Prime Minister is busy making a big deal out of this individual and he is on every front page in Asia and a few in the rest of the world.) "The editors should resolve the dispute before reverting"? Yes, I know. Again, you should know when stepping in is needed and when it is not. And making obvious statements like that to someone who has ten thousand or so edits and no blocks for 3RR (or reports, either, actually) takes the cake. Hornplease 05:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)