User talk:Radar33/Archives/2011/May

The recent case you nominated for mediation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved: STSC removed my TB notice. – AJL^talk 05:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Could you please also include 2010 Senkaku boat collision incident in the "Articles concerned in this dispute" section? STSC (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you already did something similar that with this edit. – AJL^talk 03:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Why did you move my thread?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

---

I'm not sure why you moved my thread - it actually says in the thread that WP:AN is the correct place to request an interaction ban, why did you move it to ANI? Exxolon (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I missed that comment somehow. Please see my revert here (restored looks like this). – AJL^talk 00:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

This message is to inform you that a request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Senkaku Islands, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. Mediation of this dispute will begin within two weeks (once a mediator has been assigned to the case), so please add the case page to your watchlist.

• For an explanation of what is involved in formal mediation, see Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy#Mediation
• For a guide to accepted cases, see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide#Case phase

The entirety of the above two pages (the MedCom policy and the guide to formal mediation) are also important reading for editors who are new to formal mediation. If you have any questions, please post them onto the case talk page, or contact the MedCom mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 15:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Thanks

Thanks for the clarification. That was my first time using Template:wb. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Question from Phead128 about Senkaku mediation

What exactly am I suppose to do if i wish to contribute some "ifnormation" to the mediation committee? where do I add my info or edited my contribution?Phead128 (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You may post it in the talk page of the RfM. – AJL^talk 04:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Did I sufficiently answer your question, or would you like me to elaborate further? – AJL^talk 05:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, I would appreciate it if you could post a link to where I can perhaps contribute some information for the mediation committee? I really appreciate it :D Thx u. Phead128 (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Here you go. – AJL^talk 03:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Moving conversation to User talk:Phead128's talk page, as I am watching their page, but I'm not sure they are watching mine. – AJL^talk 05:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Pro-Wikipedia POV

Please give some thought to my edit here. --Tenmei (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to your message. – AJL^talk 19:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey

I saw your action at Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis. There is a consensus in favor of the merge. Count the votes. There are more "merge" votes than "don't merge" votes. B-Machine (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not based on the number of !votes, rather, it is based on the merits of the !votes. Even if it was based on the number of votes, 8 "votes" in favor and 5 against 6 "votes" in favor, 5 against, and 1 completely different proposal, is hardly a consensus (61.5% 50.0%, usually 70-75% is suggested). If you feel that strongly about it, please feel free to open a new merge request at WP:WPAFRICA or open a request for comment. – AJL^talk 19:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by merit? The reasons for the merge were good. B-Machine (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say "don't merge" or that there was consensus to "not merge", I said there was no consensus. There's a big difference. I'm not going to debate with you over it any further; and I'll say this yet again: please feel free to propose a new merge request at WP:WPAFRICA or open a request for comment — unless you're scared that another merge proposal will fail as well, in which case you're fighting a losing battle anyway. – AJL^talk 19:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I fear nothing. It's just that I'm being ignored. B-Machine (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

not vandalism

Just a reminder edits like this are not vandalism. I'm not arguing against reverting, but I'm arguing it shouldn't be labeled vandalism. tedder (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, I was using Twinkle, and selected the "POV" option. It automatically put that as the edit summary, so it's not entirely my fault. – AJL^talk 22:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. I know you "know better", sometimes I use "vandalism" on the twinkle revert and then settle down before welcoming/warning an IP. Same sort of issue. It's all good. tedder (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious, what do you mean by "know better"? I know what it means, I'm just a little confused at your usage of it... – AJL^talk 23:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I meant it as in "you've been around here long enough that it's a jerky move for me to say something, which is why I didn't use a template" and I followed that up by indicating I have trouble using the 'revert vandalism' button on Twinkle too, so you're not alone. tedder (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. – AJL^talk 23:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ok, I know what I did wrong now... Clicked "rollback (vandal)" instead of "rollback" or "rollback (AGF)"... Now I know for the future. Thanks for pointing that out to me. – AJL^talk 23:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's a question for you (if you're still watching): Would you classify this edit as vandalism? – AJL^talk 23:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Still here, unless your page gets busy I'll stalk. That could be argued as vandalism or a test. If I was feeling generous, I'd use 'AGF', write in 'test' for the summary, then leave {{uw-test1}}. Or just a general 'welcome' template. But I doubt many people (admins or others) would give you much hassle unless there was an obvious pattern of marking good-faith edits as vandalism. The edit that prompted me to come here wouldn't be enough to even note; I wouldn't leave it on the page of an editor who has a history of ignoring WP:AGF and/or would be offended by me doing so. The only reason I even mentioned it is because it was on a page that has issues with POV editing (on both 'sides'), so it's especially important that the edits and reverts look legit. tedder (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and in regards to that IP edit to the commons page, it's clear if you look at the edit history of the user. My comments are about that one edit in isolation, partly because I didn't click through the IP contribs before replying tedder (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No worries, unless someone is wearing my patience thin with contentious editing (or editing that could be perceived by others as contentious), I generally AGF (unless it's a blatant personal attack/vandalism, and in that case I'll just report it; see the history of my user page).

And don't worry about it being too long, I try to read everything so I can better grasp what the other person is trying to say (or at least what I think they want me to understand from what they said, if that made sense). – AJL^talk 23:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, more text usually makes the context and intent clear. It's all good- we need more solid editors around here, thanks for your work. tedder (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Gah... We keep edit conflicting!!!

Thanks for the compliment as well, I think it's one of the first times I've gotten one (that I can remember). – AJL^talk 23:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Best Approach

Resolved

I'll leave it to you to determine the best approach here, Prioryman has reverted me but as he's the main advocate of not merging and also the primary contributor to the 'threatened' article, I suppose your call is most neutral. If we call a halt to merge discussions for the time being I think it best to alert B-Machine of this, as he clearly feels entitled to begin the discussions again as it stands. Bob House 884 (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

strike that, you've answered my question on my talk. Bob House 884 (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Close it

Please close the discussion at Talk:2010-2011 Ivorian crisis. After reading the comment made by Primecoordinator, I think Second Ivorian Civil War should be merged into 2010-2011 Ivorian Crisis. 19:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by B-Machine (talk • contribs)

 Done – AJL^talk 19:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, this is absurd. How many more misconceived and time-wasting merge proposals are you going to allow B-Machine to inflict? Have you seen his comment here? His attitude is just plain juvenile. Prioryman (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This will be the last one. – AJL^talk 08:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, please WP:NPA. – AJL^talk 23:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for your leaving

I feel very sorry for your leaving from helping resolving that name/title disputes. I am very grateful for your sincere and hard efforts there! Some treatments you encountered there is unfair and not in line with WP:Civil. I have less and less confidence in the environment of the dispute and mediation on that topic (the name/title). With all my best wishes to you! --Lvhis (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Me, too. I hope mediation will continue anyway. If not...I don't know what the next step is...I mean, I know what the two options are, but neither is particularly palatable. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Lvhis: Unfortunately, this was just one of the many, many, issues that needed to be addressed. It however happened to be the one that has come up the most often. If the rest of DR/mediation attempts for any of the other issues go this badly... Well, I'd rather not think about it. Thank you for the wishes, and good luck to you to.
• Qwyrxian: The mediation may possibly continue (in about another year, given the slow progress of it currently). What are the two options you were thinking of? ArbCom is one (if you go that route, I would suggest focusing on the behavior of editors involved, not necessarily the content involved), or ANI (again, with the same suggestion, but with possibly less-dire consequences).

– AJL^talk 23:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:2010-2011 Ivorian Crisis

At Talk:2010-2011 Ivorian Crisis, we could use your input, if you want to, of course. B-Machine (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)