Eraserhead1 (talk | contribs) |
Anachronist (talk | contribs) →3RR: apologies |
||
Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
::::You are all edit warring, in spite of not technically violating 3RR, warring is still blockable. I see no discussion from anyone on the talk page about your dispute, although I see you left a note for Tarc. I have also warned Tarc and Mathsci. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 19:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC) |
::::You are all edit warring, in spite of not technically violating 3RR, warring is still blockable. I see no discussion from anyone on the talk page about your dispute, although I see you left a note for Tarc. I have also warned Tarc and Mathsci. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 19:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::::Fair enough - by the way we have been discussing it [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images/Proposed_decision#Eraserhead1.27_s_recent_actions|here]]. But not very productively. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 19:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC) |
:::::Fair enough - by the way we have been discussing it [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images/Proposed_decision#Eraserhead1.27_s_recent_actions|here]]. But not very productively. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 19:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::::Forgive me -- it honestly hadn't occurred to me to look ''there'' for a discussion of a current dispute. I think it has only tangential relevance to that ArbCom case, and should probably be moved to the /images talk page (in my humble opinion). ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 19:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:59, 31 January 2012
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Taiwan sockpuppet
Saw your ANI post. Is User:Huayu-Huayu the same person causing the problems?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Could be, its difficult to know for sure. Your guy seems much angrier. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Example at ANI: USA vs. America
At an ANI discussion, you stated "America still isn't a redirect to United States, even though I've never heard anyone use it to refer to the Americas." As it is very tangential to that discussion, I thought it would be better to reply here. When people say "Columbus discovered America", does this refer to the USA or to the Americas? Fram (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Fair point, I hadn't thought of that. To be fair though the definition of countries does change over time and the US didn't exist in any sense in 1492. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Update: new user warning test results available
Hi WP:UWTEST member, we wanted to share a quick update on the status of the project. Here's the skinny:
- We're happy to say we have a new round of testing results available! Since there are tests on several Wikipedias, we're collecting all results at the project page on Meta. We've also now got some help from Wikimedia Foundation data analyst Ryan Faulkner, and should have more test results in the coming weeks.
- Last but not least, check out the four tests currently running at the documentation page.
Thanks for your interest, and don't hesitate to drop by the talk page if you have a suggestion or question. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for all your support at the AN discussion. I notice you're a javascript developer. Please let me know if you happen to have a lot of experience discussing technical/software issues via email. My theory is that we geeks tend to get into some kind of disassociated mindset in such discussions which is highly effective for that type of communication, but feels inhuman and off-putting to many others. So per that theory, and assuming you're accustomed to that type of communication, that would explain why you don't seem to see as much problem in my behavior as others do. What do you think of that (if you care to share)? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think that's part of it. I do think that its important to be human in discussions as well - there's a balance.
- With regards to behaviour the evidence presented so far shows that you were right in your application of policy and that you probably went a bit far as I pointed out.
- I don't think even they think you've done anything worse than that as otherwise they'd have bought something good to the table when I requested it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
hatted some of your comments
I hatted some of your comments on the proposed decision talk page. I'd have hatted Resolute's, too, if I'd caught it early enough. I don't want to start another cross-editor shit war, I just want to hear from the arbs if they choose to talk. please respect that. --Ludwigs2 11:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've already reverted my change :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- What is the process for the move. I see the debate was closed, and the consensus was a move to Libyan civil war. Why is this link now up for a speedy? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- The target page needs to be deleted so we can move the existing article over the top. See WP:MOVE for more information about the move process. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- I will read that! Thanks again. Ism schism (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal
Hi there. I have offered to mediate a MedCab case you are involved in here. If all involved parties accept this offer, I hope to be able to bring a reconciliation on the issue. I would appreciate it if you could read the statement I posted on the page and let me know if you accept my offer of mediation. Thanks. Whenaxis about | talk 02:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that anyone cares. As soon as I took it to the cabal the people who wanted change withdrew. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for being lazy in responding. I thought that I didn't have to respond immediately. I actually do care and wish to see a resolution.VR talk 19:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- While you obviously didn't have to respond the day I opened the request ideally you should have responded within a week or so. I think you should take to Whenaxis if you want to reopen the case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Eraserhead, I did receive a notice from Vice regent and I reopened the case here. I will be notifying the others to see if their interest is still in resolving the dispute. So, when you are available feel free to take a look. Thanks, Whenaxis about | talk 21:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Eraserhead1, you never indicated to me that I needed to respond before the case had a formal mediator. So I didn't know.VR talk 00:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Eraserhead1, you never indicated to me that I needed to respond before the case had a formal mediator. So I didn't know.VR talk 00:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Eraserhead, I did receive a notice from Vice regent and I reopened the case here. I will be notifying the others to see if their interest is still in resolving the dispute. So, when you are available feel free to take a look. Thanks, Whenaxis about | talk 21:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- While you obviously didn't have to respond the day I opened the request ideally you should have responded within a week or so. I think you should take to Whenaxis if you want to reopen the case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for being lazy in responding. I thought that I didn't have to respond immediately. I actually do care and wish to see a resolution.VR talk 19:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
It appears that you two are the only ones still interested in this mediation. We could continue this mediation and if there is a dispute later about this topic you can redirect the parties to this page. Also, the parties who are involved can contribute to this mediation later if they would like—if you have a problem with this, please let me know, otherwise I will assume that my proposal is okay. To carry on this mediation in a timely manner, I kindly request that you add the mediation page to your watchlist (you can do this, by clicking the star icon next to the searchbox in the top right corner) and when you are available, please add an opening statement to the mediation page outlining the key issues that you think need to be discussed. Thanks, Whenaxis about | talk 21:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I'm not currently interested in taking this forward, I'm involved in more than enough controversial topics already. I took it to mediation as it seemed that was inevitable and the best way of resolving it, but if only one person will take part other than me I'm not really interested. Sorry. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Vanbrugh
Sorry, not entirely sure how to use wikipedia yet. I realise the first batch of changes in their enormity was unacceptable. Now just adding to/ correcting some smaller areas which I feel can be improved slightly.
Liweiwang (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Vanbrugh
Sorry, not entirely sure how to use wikipedia yet. I realise the first batch of changes in their enormity was unacceptable. Now just adding to/ correcting some smaller areas which I feel can be improved slightly.
Liweiwang (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at liweiwang's talk page.
Protection log
Good call. I was unaware that the two pages began with different protection spans, and brought them to the same expiry date (the one on Talk:China). I'll drop Elockid another line to tell him to re-extend the protection of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) tomorrow if he sees fit. Deryck C. 18:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Cool :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
3RR
You're at or beyond 3RR on Talk:Muhammad/images. You've been reverted now by multiple editors. WP:BRD, OK? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- So do you have a concrete objection? And I have been extremely happy to first engage in discussion and secondly to make changes when I know what changes need making so I don't think edit warring is a legitimate issue to complain about here.
- If you have any concrete objections beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT I'm more than happy to discuss them, and if they are sufficiently fundamental I'll be perfectly happy to revert.
- The issue is that concrete objections have been extremely thin on the ground - and the old warning was against WP:POLICY, has free speech issues as it clearly deliberately is trying to prevent people (mostly moderate people I would have thought) from participating in the ongoing discussion and it goes far beyond similar warnings/headers of other controversial discussion sections - even ones where a consensus has been reached. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am not a party to your particular dispute here. I am not interested, I don't care who is right or wrong, I have no opinion. I was just acting in my admin capacity to inform you of a 3RR situation. The warring will stop one way or another; if blocks must be issued to stop it, so be it. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- 3RR only applies over 24 hours, and its been much longer than that. So you'd have to show edit warring. Given I have been keen to engage in productive discussion I don't really see how that applies. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- You are all edit warring, in spite of not technically violating 3RR, warring is still blockable. I see no discussion from anyone on the talk page about your dispute, although I see you left a note for Tarc. I have also warned Tarc and Mathsci. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough - by the way we have been discussing it here. But not very productively. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- You are all edit warring, in spite of not technically violating 3RR, warring is still blockable. I see no discussion from anyone on the talk page about your dispute, although I see you left a note for Tarc. I have also warned Tarc and Mathsci. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- 3RR only applies over 24 hours, and its been much longer than that. So you'd have to show edit warring. Given I have been keen to engage in productive discussion I don't really see how that applies. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am not a party to your particular dispute here. I am not interested, I don't care who is right or wrong, I have no opinion. I was just acting in my admin capacity to inform you of a 3RR situation. The warring will stop one way or another; if blocks must be issued to stop it, so be it. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)