User talk:Feezo/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Thank you kindly

Thank you for your support

Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Also, I don't know if I ever mentioned it explicitly, but thank you for trying on the SI mediation; that was an enormously difficult crowd to work with, and they sure didn't treat you very well; you showed great poise and did the best you could. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Closing mediation cases: don't forget to put a link in the archives

Hi Feezo. We unfairly expect new mediators to learn the administration side of formal mediation without assistance, so you probably weren't aware of this, but when closing a case, don't forget about this step. Hope everything is well at your end. Regards, AGK [•] 16:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Informal mediation

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In view of the reasoning expressed in Qywrxian's edit here, will you assist us in acting as an informal mediator. I hope you will help us by taking part in a process which resolves the persisting disagreement we have. I perceive harm in the consequences which follow from Qwyrxian's diffs at Talk:Senkaku Islands#U.S. Control prior to 1972 (permanent link). Qwyrxian does not. --Tenmei (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Just one, short, stale, limited-scope thread. --Tenmei (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC) If you have input on that thread, I'm happy to hear it if you have time, although, as pointed out above and on my talk page, I actually don't know what could have been caused due to a disagreement about grammar. Unless maybe Tenmei is concerned that I gave in too easily? I'm not sure. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Feezo -- As you can see, I have collapsed your comment and I have labeled it "off-topic". Collapsed -- "off topic" in very narrowed focus of this thread Trying to resolve the content issues before the user issues will be futile. Neither side is going to give in, so the debate will likely be "won" by whichever side can exhaust or drive off the other. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC) This comment is relevant, appropriate, indisputable in the context of Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute and the current cast of characters who participated in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands. However, it is off-topic in this unconventional request thread. --Tenmei (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC) In any other user page context, this would be unwelcome and it would be doubtless seen as a good cause for offense. However, in this unique thread, it only underscores the nature of a non-standard request: (a) informal mediation, (b) limited topic -- one thread only, (b) limited participants -- Qwyrixian and me + you (and AGK if he should choose to be a fly on the wall observer). Reiterating my request: Will you mediate a narrow dispute in which mis-communication is a high barrier we cannot overcome on our own. IMO, this is worth the investment of your time and thoughtful attention because (a) there is a high likelihood that a successful outcome will develop; and (b) the obscure topic portends likely consequences in contexts beyond to the East China Sea.--Tenmei (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC) If this informal mediation requires that I understand the relevance of the historical events related to Ieyasu that you posted on my page at User Talk:Qwyrxian#Mere pretext, you can probably count me out; I simply don't have the wiki-time to try to figure out what you're talking about. If you want to tell me in one paragraph of 100 words or less with zero links of any kind why you think my concern about a grammar error was so much of a problem that you want to raise it again many months later in the context of "informal mediation", then I will respond. But I am seriously struggling just to keep up with my watchlist and other critical WP things right now, so unless you can put it to me in much simpler way, I'm sorry that I can't help. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Qwyrxian -- Nothing to do with User Talk:Qwyrxian#Mere pretext. This is not a problem within my power to resolve with 100 words or less. To be more precise, it's not "my" problem at all; rather, it's "your" problem. Without the assistance of someone other than those whom you have already rejected, my efforts were futile in January. The optimism invested in this gesture appears to be rebuffed again today. The phrase "100 words or less" is disingenuous because I have already explained at the top of this thread using less than 30 words: I perceive harm in the consequences which follow from Qwyrxian's diffs at Talk:Senkaku Islands#U.S. Control prior to 1972 (permanent link). Qwyrxian does not. In a sense, my response to your words of annoyance above is a shrug. If not now, when? I am marginalized along with Deng Xiaoping. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Feezo -- This is not about me; rather, it is about we might still be able to do together. Qwyrzian's words above only serve to illustrate why I persist in seeking help through mediation (quod erat demonstrandum). If not now, when? If not you, who? --Tenmei (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Senkaku Islands dispute I am withdrawing from active participation in this subject, but not from my on-going interest in mediation about Talk:Senkaku Islands#U.S. Control prior to 1972 (permanent link). Is it possible that my contributions are somehow "feeding" conflict? One way to test the hypothesis is by simply stepping back for a while. --Tenmei (talk)

Uncategorized

It does serve a purpose; namely, categorization is not just about having categories on articles for the sake of having categories on articles, but about grouping together all the relevant articles about a particular class of topic in one place. Stub templates aren't sufficient as categorization by themselves, because they only group some articles, and they do so by a characteristic of the article (i.e. it's short and needs to be expanded), not by characteristics of the topic. As well, they're temporary categories for Wikipedia maintenance purposes, they're not meant for the end user (and should really be hidden categories for that reason), and they're meant to be removed from the article once it's been expanded beyond stub length, at a time when the article still has no permanent categories on it at all.

A river in England, for example, is only properly categorized if it's in a category that groups it with other rivers in England — but if its only "category" is "England geography stubs", which jumbles rivers and lakes and forests and mountains and ponds and cities and all manner of other geographic topics, and isn't river-specific, then we simply haven't put it in its proper encyclopedic context by filing it in a category that's actually meant for the user who might be looking for rivers in England.

And more importantly, the untagged uncategorized articles list has to be cleared to zero on a regular basis — it cannot have fifteen or twenty or fifty articles per day left on it just because they're "categorized" as stubs. If it's on that list, it has to get cleared off, period. Bearcat (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What will happen if it doesn't? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

When I started working with the uncats list about a year and a half ago, the backlog was well over 40,000 articles. Yes, really, forty thousand. That's why it has to get cleared on a regular basis: because it can never get that large again if we take our role as an encyclopedia seriously. Just because it's not important to you personally doesn't mean it's not important to the project as a whole.

And believe me, I'd be quite happy if someone could program a bot that could look after it — because frankly, I don't actually enjoy it. I do it because it has to get done, not because it's what I really want to be doing. But the problem at this point is that some pages which do have proper categories on them can become uncats through user error (closing HTML tags incorrectly, inappropriate page blanking, etc.) or a system bug (for reasons which still aren't entirely clear, pages which merely get moved to a new title sometimes show up on that list too) — and a bot can't really distinguish or sort out those issues properly. So unfortunately the task still needs human eyes — and at any rate, any page that shows up on your watchlist because I've tagged it as an uncat would show up on your watchlist if a bot did it, too. Bearcat (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain that last bit? Bot edits can be hidden from watchlists (hideBots=1). Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration on Senkaku Islands

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Senkaku Islands and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Qwyrxian has used your support vote on his RfA to boost his standing in the arbitration.[1] May I ask you whether this was done with your approval? Would his action compromise your position as a mediator? STSC (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian is free to use any material not protected by mediation privilege, as you are. He knows this, and in fact I encouraged him to use that material. Qwyrxian is a diplomat par excellence, and continues to exemplify the qualities for which I recommended him for adminship. If you have any concerns relating to formal mediation, you are urged to contact the Mediation Committee. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 17:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Untimely deletion

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your deletion of the mediation threads was unexpected. For me, the surprise was untimely. Are you willing to explain this edit: (Deletion log); 21:29 . . Feezo (talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands" (For the Mediation Committee, due to arbitration case) Regardless, please provide me with a copy of the missing threads, including the incorporated sub-page threads. In order help make this possible, I have created a new sub-page. Please recreate copies of these useful diffs at User:Tenmei/Sandbox-Archive 1 --Tenmei (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Increased transparency in the dispute resolution process is needed. --Tenmei (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)  Not done. See [2]. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 00:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Transparency in the dispute resolution is not demonstrated here. Shouldn't that be an implicit part of everything you do? Your non-response clarifies nothing which could be better understood.This exacerbates in an unnecessary way. This fails to ameliorate or mitigate a problem which didn't need to be a problem. This denigrates even the asking of questions. In other words, I have to ask if this a good time or place for building a brick wall? Your signature incorporates the phrase "watch the sky", but I only know how to post words on your talk page. Skywriting is a skill I have not yet mastered. --Tenmei (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC) As this is an issue of MedCom policy, I defer the decision to the Mediation Committee's chair. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC) It will be nice, though, if I can get back some of the search results I did so I don't have to repeat them again. The raw numbers will suffice. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC) The pages are usually made available again once the rFAR has concluded. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification of arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 31, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Itō calculus

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Itō calculus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijani-American

hi Feezo! You have previously edited the article Azerbaijani American, that's why I decided to ask you to look at this version of the page [3] I have done many edits to it, expanded it tremendously, added many fresh, new sources, including unique statistics from the Department of Homeland Security, and in general made this article more consistent with other similar articles about "hyphenated Americans", such as Russian American, Turkish American, Iranian American, Armenian American, etc. This version of the article, however, keeps being reverted by some users, including IP anons[4], who are otherwise never improving the article in any way, content with keeping it in a sorry state and just revert. The article as well as its talk page could benefit from your insight and knowledge. I have left extensive comments myself, and each time I edited, I left an overwhelming number of sources, going above and beyond of what's necessary. I don't want this simple article to become artificially polarized, and thus think your "two cents" would help improve it. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Middle Earth Exception

You might want to bring this "exception" up on the guideline talk page. It isn't conventional that a WikiProject can create a consensus that supercedes a guideline without discussion on the guideline's page. Otherwise, these same WikiProjects could create a "consensus" that says plots should be detail for detail, should be the primary focus of the article (i.e. little real world content), or that fictional characters should be written as if they are real. Then we have no point to a guideline because people are creating their own rules as they go. So, I would suggest bringing this "exception" to the talk page to be discussed as I can understand the idea behind this exception within that universe but even when I read that description on the WikiProject page I found some issues with how it was worded.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You know, I've never notice that the consensus was so small. I will contact some more experienced project editors as I am sure there must have been more discussion that 4 people. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that you had anything to do with the consensus, or are even part of that project. It's more about the fact that should there exist an exception to a rule from a guideline or a policy, that exception needs to be identified by that guideline through a discussion on that page. Otherwise, as I stated above, anyone can get a consensus to for any exception. An RfC for that WikiProject isn't necessary because that project doesn't supercede any guideline or policy. No WikiProject does. The reality is, if they want that to be an exception to the rule, then they need to propose such a thing at WP:WAF so that more people can voice on it and a proper wording can be established for all fiction that might fall under that criteria.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Should the exception be undone in the meantime, e.g., remove the notice at {{WikiProject Middle-earth}} and fix articles that currently contradict the manual of style? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make a start, I have 6000 pages on my watchlist, and maybe 100 of them are not middle-earth related :D Carl Sixsmith (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason to change articles right now, because if a consensus exists on the guideline page to make such an exception then changing the pages now would merely be unnecessary work. As for the noticed at the WikiProject Banner....the same applies. If a discussion ensues at the guideline and the result is that no such exception should be made, then the notice should be removed and pages should be changed. Until then, just allow the discussion to take place and see what happens.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

As a regular editor of Tolkien articles and a project member I'd like to have seen a notifier about such an important change at the main project talk page, not only on the guideline talk where nobody ever takes a look. For the time being I have removed your changes because I do object to them. Please let's discuss this at the main project talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth which gets more attention than the guidelines subpage. De728631 (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Since that seems to be the main forum I have also commented on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. And as I wrote there I am quite disappointed that you didn't care to inform the project more obviously about that formal discussion. It would have been a matter of courtesy to let us know about the WAF discussion instead of throwing the consensus argument at us after having had this discussion on a higher level. De728631 (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello De728631, thanks for your message — I wonder if maybe you could scale back the combative tone a bit? Expressions like "didn't care to inform the project" and "throwing the consensus argument" to me seem to be a product of the kind of "us vs. them" mentality associated with the all-too-frequent perception that wikiprojects invariably struggle against the will of the "wider Wikipedia" outsiders. Of course, this is not your fault, nor the fault of this wikiproject. It's inevitable that a gathering place of like-minded people will establish its own internal community and ways of doing things — that's why it's so important that these not conflict with the global community and ways of doing things. The more investment a project has in its own processes, the more likely it is to encourage partisan defense — on both sides. This isn't to say that there can never be exceptions to the rules when applied to a wikiproject: but these need to flow from a general consensus in the first place, or the project will likely be seen as exercising undue authority over its sphere of interest, which again is likely to result in partisanship and hurt feelings.

Again, if I haven't made this clear, I deliberately express no opinion on whether the wikiproject (or Wikipedia) should use past or present tense in any particular set of articles. My interest is only that of a facilitator, and I hope that we, both as Wikipedians and Tolkien enthusiasts, can reach an agreement that is acceptable to all.

With best wishes,

Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I might have been a bit too colloquial but your way of dealing with the matter made me think of this rivalry you just mentioned, it looked much like the project had totally been ignored. Because there are valid reasons why WP Middle-earth chose these specific guidelines as I have now explained at the WP:WAF talk page. Actually the Wikipedia manual of style explicitely permits using past tense for dealing with fictional history (Conversely, discussion of history is usually written in the past tense and thus 'fictional history' may be presented in that way as well) — and that's what we do in the Tolkien articles. Regards, De728631 (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, in the above discussion, Carl Sixsmith said he would contact other "project editors", by which I assume he meant wikiproject members — so the project was apparently involved since before the WAF discussion (unless he didn't follow up on this; you can ask him if you want). Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Garnett edit request

Hello. You locked Kevin Garnett. Please make this edit for me. Thanks. [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.72.180 (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ohio politicians

Thanks so much for helping to update all of those pages yesterday. As you will see, there are more updates to be had, and also some pages to be recreated. I have done the research pertaining to a specific Senate Journal, and you will see that the Ohio Senate sections of many pages will need to be updated. Also, would you please consider creating these pages? They were deleted due to vandalism, but should be represented here.

They are:

• Nan Baker http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=16
• Louis Terhar (http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=30
• Sean O'Brien (politician) http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=65
• Bob Peterson (Ohio) http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=85
• Andy Thompson (politician) http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=93
• Brian Hill (politician) http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=94
• Casey Kozlowski http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=99

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.17.37.187 (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks those pages were created by a user who was banned for persistent copyright infringement, so the deleted versions are likely to have copyright problems. Even if they don't, they were deleted under a valid criteria (WP:G5; some multiple times), so I can't just restore them indiscriminately. There's no reason they can't be recreated, but it would be better to start from scratch. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 17:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind starting them from scratch and having them moved by an admin?

There's no need to create empty pages — you can use articles for creation to request them. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Attacks by Marcus Qwertus

User:Marcus Qwertus is out on a mission to revert any edits done to Ohio politicians regardless of their legitimacy, and has reverted numerous articles and talk pages for no good reason except for "denying" the accused individual. Obviously, he has harmed numerous articles. I have put out edit requests on many protected pages which I hope you can get to ASAP. He also has reverted Joe Schiavoni, which previously checked out 100% as a legitimate article. You will see a edit request to revert that page back to what it was yesterday. The same goes for Tom Niehaus and William G. Batchelder. Regardless who is doing this or making the requests, if they are legitimate, then they should be accounted for.

Is there anything we can do to ensure that important updates do not constantly get reverted? 76.250.190.255 (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands closed

An arbitration case regarding Senkaku Islands has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. User:Tenmei is indefinitely topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.
2. Tenmei is advised that his unusual style of communication has not been conducive to resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Tenmei is urged to develop a different style of communication, which is more similar to that used by experienced Wikipedia editors. Until this happens, Tenmei is advised not to engage in topics which are the subject of a dispute.
3. Tenmei is banned for one year.
4. User:Bobthefish2 is topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed, for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and user space.
5. User:STSC is warned to avoid any sexualisation of discussions, especially during disputes.
6. The parties are reminded that attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project.
7. The topic covered by the article currently located at Senkaku Islands, interpreted broadly, is placed under standard discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
8. An uninvolved administrator may, after a warning given a month prior, place any set of pages relating to a territorial dispute of islands in East Asia, broadly interpreted, under standard discretionary sanctions for six months if the editing community is unable to reach consensus on the proper names to be used to refer to the disputed islands.

   While a territorial dispute is subject to discretionary sanctions due to this remedy, any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in these topical areas, after an initial warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

SI mediation pages

Since the arbitration case is now over, may the Senkaku Islands mediation pages now be undeleted? If not, can I as an admin go back through and copy out only the data gathered? We're trying to figure out how to proceed with getting a consensus on the name, and at least part of the mediation produced some useful data that myself and others want to refer to. If you want to use the latter approach, I would be happy to first email you the specific info I would like to remove so that I don't mistakenly copy out something you think needs to remain hidden. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Feezo/Archive 6! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Quick question

Hi, Feezo. I have a quick question. Can an uninvolved user in a Request for Mediation case leave a vote when it has started? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about the discussion on the case talk page, it's not an official part of the case, which is on hold while we prepare our response to the statements we've received. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Best wishes, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Wikipedia:Representation

Hi there! My name is Whenaxis, I noticed that you are on the Mediation Committee. I created a policy proposal called Wikipedia:Representation. I think that this policy would help the Mediation Committee as well as the Arbitration Committee because the goal of this proposed policy is to decrease the amount of time wasted when an unfamiliar editor files a Mediation or Arbitration Committee when other forms of Dispute Resolution have not yet been sought. For example, an editor may come to the Mediation Committee requesting formal mediation when other dispute resolution areas have not been utilised such as third opinions or request for comments. A representative works much like a legal aid - there to help you for free and:

• File a formal mediation case or an arbitration case on your behalf
• Make statements and submit evidence at the case page on your behalf
• Guide you through the expansive and sometimes complex policies and procedures of Wikipedia

This proposed idea can also help the editor seeking help because it can alleviate the stress and anxiety from dispute resolution because mediation and arbitration can be intimidating for those who are unfamiliar.

I would highly appreciate your comments on this proposal at: Wikipedia talk:Representation. Cheers and Happy New Year - Whenaxis about talk contribs 22:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

requesting a limited edit block for vandalism

It appears that you have the ability and the interest to effect a limited page edit lock to prevent vandalism as noted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kapil_Sibal#Another_vandalism

I am unfamiliar with process in this matter, so if I've gotten it wrong, please advise.

Fydfyd (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Useronline

Could you please consider unprotecting Template:Useronline, as it has only 9 transclusions, and thus doesn't qualify as highly visible template. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 02:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Y Changed to semi-protection. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Feezo,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing Feezo/Archive 6 a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Feezo. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit filter 39

Hello, of possible interest: Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#Filter_39_.28School_libel_and_vandalism.29. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Much obliged. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, user. MemoRamso (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

re:Infinite Monkey Theorem

Hi there: One thing you might add to the Infinite Monkey Theorem is Dr. AE Wilder-Smith's contention that in fact the mechanics of the Origin of Life are such that chemically what would happen is that the keys would hit the page creating a letter but then as they lifted off the page would remove it. His position based on actual bio-chemical reality shows the total absurdity of randomness creating something like DNA or life from matter by chance. He debated Dawkins in '86 at the Huxley Centennial Debate on the Theory of Evolution vs The Doctrine of Creation. He was a dear friend of mine & a very brilliant scientist. Chip Rohlke Christ is Creator.com Ministries 24.170.168.28 (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

DUKLJA Knowingly or not,you are supporting Serbian nationalistic rhetoric on Duklja article.But ok,some day eventually the truth and common sense will prevail.It always does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.27.190 (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles concerning Montenegro

Hello, I see that you are one of the Admins on Wikipedia and since I am new to Wikipedia and I am still figuring out how things work around here I would much appreciate a little help.The problem I have is with Serbian editors who are editing almost every article concerning Montenegro according to their version of history thus using Wikipedia as a tool for spreading their nationalistic propaganda.Montenegro is very small country and there are not many Montenegrins around here and when ocasionally some Montenegrin editor writes something here they drive him away by sheer numbers and by proclaiming his sources "nationalistic" and "POV" while they are in fact those who are using such sources that totally contradict and oppose official Montenegrin history(or to put it simple-they are using their superior numbers to steal our History and present it as if its theirs-Serbian history).Antidiscriminator,Panonian,White Walker,Pax Equilibrium are some of the most notable Serbian editors who do these things,but they are not alone.I would be very thankful if you would be so kind and explain me if Wikipedia supports this kind of behavior(using it as tool of nationalistic propaganda)and if not,where is the appropriate place for me to put in a complaint,because every sane discussion with them on this subject is fruitless(as we can see from their previous quarrels with Montenegrin editors)and as I already said they will just overpower me with their sheer numbers. Best Regards

p.s. For example,in article about Duklja it says that Duklja was part of Serbian realm and that Serbs lived,but the reliable sources does not suggest that.DAI(De Administrando Imperio) only says that in Duklja live Slavs,while surrounding countries are inhabited by Serbs and Croats.In a letter from 1077, the Pope refers to ruler of Duklja Mihailo as "Michaeli Sclavorum Regi" or Mihailo,King of Slavs.In the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja,from which most data of the early history of Duklja is collected inhabitants of Duklja are called Slaves or Croats,depending on version,but never Serbs.So how can one conclude that Duklja was part of Serbian realm?!I am really trying to be neutral on this one and I think that only solution is to erase any nationalistic conotation from this article. Montenegro in my heart (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! To answer your question, Wikipedia does not condone any kind of propaganda, nationalistic or otherwise. Our content policies are based on the principles of neutral point of view and reliable sourcing. The dispute resolution page details the procedures for resolving content disputes. For help dealing with an uncivil editor, see the wikiquette assistance page. Please feel free to let me know if you have any further questions. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Lamia move

Hello; a few years ago you participated in a brief discussion on the Lamia (mythology) talk page about a potential move of the article. An identical move request has been officially posted, and your opinion on the matter would be appreciated. For more information see the Talk page. 170.110.235.42 (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Feezo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

YGM

Hello, Feezo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Beatles "The/the" Mediation Input

As an IP I cannot voice my input regarding this matter via email, as the links are hidden to IPs. I will be going on vacation later today and as this input window is closing I can only blurt out arguments here, for which I apologize. After some historical observations of negative editor disciplinary behaviour I will not be obtaining a user name. I have never had one. Sorry. Please do not let sock or other sidetrack issues cloud any judgements. This has been one of the rants, used exhaustively, in the past, as a distraction from the resolution of issues.

---

• WP articles should be consistent style and MoS articles trying to guide these endeavours should be observed or changed to suit.
• "the Beatles" refers to four individual Beatles persons.

"The Beatles" refers the the rock band as a singular unit.

This style has been observed in hundred of Beatles article consistently and to change this de facto standard setting for one article could open up a huge rip in the consistency fabric as all articles will be subject to the same arguments based on this one example's outcome. This will continue disputes here ad nauseum and not be productive for the WP concept as these hundreds of articles become hotbeds of distractions base on this outcome.

• Since The Beatles trademark and/or copyrighted name seems to have varied throughout history on album covers and in media usage it cannot have any bearing on the decision of style in WP. Mostly all capitals was used on album covers but exceptions are noted and WP tries to avoid this style in prose. I have to discount any of this in the weight of my vote.

In Conclusion: my vote is to use both spellings in a style that adheres to content usage in the sentence, whether referring to the individual band members, or the collective singular band/group. This style appears to maintain the current de facto standard observed in hundreds of other Beatles articles and adheres to the WP:MOSTM to capitalize trademarks.

---

Thank you. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Penyulap is disrupting the straw poll at Sgt Pepper

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Now User talk:Penyulap is disrupting the straw poll at Sgt Pepper. What should I do, can you help with this please? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Hello — unfortunately, I do not feel I can directly involve myself in user conduct issues without jeopardizing my neutrality in the mediation case. The poll does not appear to be a productive use of anyone's time, and I recommend closing it. Will you agree to this, if Penyulap does as well? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC) sounds good. It's well past what people are willing to cope with. Be aware that the proposal was changed significantly during the course of the poll, and I don't think it's been marked as such. Penyulap ☏ 06:00, 21 Jul 2012 (UTC) Well, they stopped being disruptive there now, and I'm sorry I guess you are right, you should only handle the mediation. Other admins have stepped-in to protect the talk page from disruption. I think we should allow as many people as possible to weigh-in, so that we never have to do this again, so I say let the poll run its course and not do it again anytime soon. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC) It would seem that anybody that disagrees with your points is being disruptive, despite your name calling and insulting tone. I believe this is the forth person you have charged with this label in the last few weeks. Perhaps assuming some good faith is in order on your part? 99.251.125.65 (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes

I am still involved in this. --andreasegde (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Beatles mediation email

Hi - did my email about the/The get to you? I didn't get the copy that I was suppposed to, so wondwer if there's an email problem. Please let me know. Tvoz/talk 04:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I got it :) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Twice I bet! Tvoz/talk 05:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please note that GabeMc is currently changing more musical group articles to "the" to suit his preferences. Depending on mediation outcome his edits will need to be traced and corrected. This may involve hundreds of hours of research to find these buried in his thousands of minute corrections, many one and two characters. GabeMc's edit history comments are mostly irrelavent and deceptive such as "improve prose" where he changes "The" to "the". Out of control seems to be the way to edit now. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC) whatever you 99, DON'T ask for a reference !! I tried it when I saw that flurry going on, and let me tell you, approach with *EXTREME* caution !!!! Penyulap ☏ 04:58, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC) As I said to Gabe, above, mediation does not include policing user conduct. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7