User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/15

☕ A@📧mail ☕ 🐣c🐣 😎 💀d💀 😎 ⭐b⭐ 🧮 🗄️ 🧹

⬅️ Previous Archive Page (#-1) ☕ 🗄️ ☕

Next Archive Page (#1) ➡️

🌳 🍀 🌳 🌿 🌳 🌱 🌳 🗄️ClueBot Detailed Index Archive #AndreJustAndre/Archives/15🗄️ 🌳 🌱 🌳 🌿 🌳 🍀 🌳

Mediation for anarchism article

Hi, Andre. Are you ready for your first Mediation? I've taken the liberty of assigning you to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/anarchism. All the relevant discussion is in Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/anarchism. I would be happy to discuss this matter with you privately by AIM. Uncle Ed 14:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to take this one on. Brace yourself, this has always been a difficult page. Uncle Ed 19:23, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

64.12.117.5

Whoops. I did a direct block from the Recent Changes pages and didn't go through the block user page, so wasn't looking at the list of AOL IDs. Thanks for letting me know. Zoe 04:07, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Human Rights Servey on Wikipedia (The final post of I_sterbinski)

Dear all,

Wikipedia was recently a subject of intensive research of an huge international human right organization. A team of people from different nationalities and ages were acting on Wikipedia for 20 days, investigating previously noted anomalities of Wikipedia free editing and forming a final report, which (between the others similar reports) will later be a guide to all future moves of the organization concerning Wikipedia. Acting under an account of a real person, their privacy is to be held private. Therefore, very few private information will be revealed.

Also, this is a result of the lack of final possition of the organization concerning Wikipedia and human rights, which was still not formed.

The team's final post on Wikipedia, where they explain their actions can be found on the following addresses:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:I_sterbinski

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Macedonia#Human_Rights_Servey_on_Wikipedia_.28The_final_post_of_I_sterbinski.29

The team would like to thank to all the persons who took part in the correspondence with us.

We also want to appologise for keeping our identity secret for a longer period.

Best regards,

Aleksandar, Biljana, Asparuh, Christos, Valjon, Michael and Ana Luiza

I sterbinski 01:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

A bit new?

I'm not "new" to Wikipedia. I've been around since January of 2004. --WikiFan04^{Talk 18:37, 28 Aug 2005 (CDT)}

Vandal on Legend of Legaia

There's a vandal adding nonsense to the Legend of Legaia article. I've reverted it once, but don't want to get into an edit war. If you (or another admin) could step in, that'd be greatly appreciated. Kertrats 22:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, but I think you re-reverted back to the vandalized version somehow. Not sure if you had noticed, so I thought I'd point it out. Kertrats 23:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello, Andrevan! I recently expressed my interest in becoming a mediator with Uncle Ed, and he encouraged me to apply. Thus, I've done so at WP:MC. Also, he asked me to propose a new mediation format that would make the process go smoother; I have created such a page at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Proposed. Here are my ideas for mediation:

1. Every mediator will have an office (similar to the desks used at the cleanup taskforce), at User:MEDIATOR/Office. This is where s/he will place all the current mediation.
2. Every mediation case will be on a subpage, at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/PARTY 1 and PARTY 2. Thus, we can just put {{Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/...}} on the WP:RfM page and in the mediator's office.
3. Each case must first be approved by a mediator. Both parties MUST have agreed to mediation, as I beleive it's fruitless to mediate if one party is unwilling to settle their differences. Only a brief summary, without diffs or links to pages, will be accepted before the case is approved. The case may also be rejected or referred to the arbcom. In addition, both parties MUST agree to the goals of the mediation. (Again, I feel it's fruitless to mediate if both parties don't know what they are negotiating for)
4. Once approved, the next mediator without a case will take the assignment. In other words, the task will automatically move to an open office. If there are several open offices, it will go to the one which has been open the longest. If there are no open offices, it will go to one with the least cases/longest time on a case (if this wording isn't clear, see the "Open Tasks" thing at the right of the proposed page). Thus, there will be no "picking and choosing" of cases, streamlining the process. (An exception will be made if a mediator is an involved party).
5. Then the mediator will work with the parties... this is the actual mediation part.
6. The case can then be closed by the mediator- if both parties have met the goals, then the case is successful. Otherwise, the mediator can dismiss the case or recommend it to the arbcom.

I hope that makes sense; let me know what you think. I look forward to becoming a mediator! Thanks a lot for your help. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for assistance in better understanding the arbitration process

Andrevan, I am contemplating my involvement in a matter which was recently submitted for arbitration: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:Rktect. I'm definitely at least peripherally involved, but I don't seem to be able to find enough information about the process to evaluate when it would be appropriate for me to make additional comments. Can you provide me with a little assistance with this? Fred Bauder, one of the members of the Arbitration Committee who has voted to accept, provided me with some information, but I'm having trouble evaluating my involvement in terms of becoming an additional party to the case or not. Maybe there are additional policy documents that I just can't find?

Ken ^{talk|contribs} 02:06, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Jtkiefer's RFA

Thanks for your support on my RFA, oh and good luck on your bureaucratship nom. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:24, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

What happened to my new article

I am trying to create an article on Inclusionism, to provide information on a new religion.

Why did you delete it? Or, redirect it? It is not the same as universalism.

How do I recreate it? I still have quite a bit of work to do and more information to provide. I don't understand why you are not allowing me to speak freely about this topic.

Thanks,

-Lou Keeble

Thank you! I will read the style guidelines again since it has been a while.

-Lou

Meaghan Walker Williams Using Wikipedia For Personal Vendetta

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Kate_McMillan

This page was created by Meaghan Walker-Williams, a fact confirmed by cross referencing her ip address.

When I added information to disclose this fact, she removed it.

This disturbed woman has made a months long project of defaming and threatening me across the internet, including the creation of anonymous blogspot pages smalldeadanimals.blogspot.com and comments to my own original site under a variety of assumed names, including physical threats of violence.

Please remove this page and remove this person's privilages. I have no interest in jumping through the hoops to "settle a dispute" per your community instructions, but I do hope you have an interest in Wikipedia's reputation as a legitimate online source for information.

This is unacceptable, and no person should be open to such attacks.

Kate McMillan http://www.smalldeadanimals.com kate@katewerk.com

Is there any thing on the Kate McMillan entry that is not true? Does she not have 3000+ visitors a day? Is she not quoted by newspaper sources in Canada as a "reputable blogger?" Has she not done more radio interviews than blogger Mike Brock who has a page up?

You can see her comments about Marc Emery were recently quoted in 2 national daily newspapers. She is endorsed by a member of Parliament as an "inspiring friend" and she is the administrator of the Western Standard's Blog, and her Libranos artwork has appeared in a recent contreversy in the house of Commons?

Does she dispute that she actually made the comments about Aboriginals, Angolans etc... weird.. since the quotes have been sourced...

So what's really the problem? Or is she saying that she's not important enough to have a Wikipedia entry about herself?

If she wants to edit the Wiki Entry, then she should be free to do so, in accordance with Wiki rules...

Is there anything about the Wiki Entry that is innacurate?

Then I don't see what the problem is.

If Mike Brock can have a Wiki Entry, or Ezra Levant, or any number of Canadian writers and bloggers or media personalities.. why not Kate McMillan? Somena 04:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Scimitar's RfA

Thanks for supporting my request for administrator powers, which has been successful. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks again! Scimitar ^parley 16:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone at this organization use real names? Because I'm tired of having my name dragged through the dirt by a disturbed internet "stalker".

Http://smalldeadanimals.blogspot.com

That is a blog operated by Meaghan Walker-Williams, who operates under the name "Somena" at this site, and is using it to libel me. This woman is emotionally disturbed, and should not be allowed to participate in any venue that is used for research purposes, however questionable in its legitimacy.

Furthermore, her entry contains a number of factual errors - which is predictable as she has absolutely no knowledge of me outside of the "information" she believes to have collected as a result of her unhealthy obsession.

my email address is kate@katewerk.com

I want to hear privately from an administrator. This is not a game.

Wikisource logo

Thank you very much for your recent words of support for my Sourceberg update. I was just wanting to ask everyone that does support-- is there anything you'd like to see changed/tweaked/altered? By all means go to my user_talk page and tell me! Thanks again! -- en:user:zanimum (http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Logo)

Talk:Hubbert peak theory

Most users have been able to maintain a healthy debate, but there is a clear problem with one user who does not feel the need to follow Wikipedia policies. So far nothing supporting a block, but he is clearly not being helpful. I think a review of the talk page (you'll have to start from the top and review the whole thinng) will reveal that to be a vast understatement, but I'd like to stick to civility as much as possible. The user appears willing to continue and ignore any attempts to get him to follow policy. I thought I'd test out your admin and advocate skills :). Thank you - Taxman ^Talk 19:09, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Slight problem

I dunno who to ask, so I thought you could help me. Often, I scan articles for images and see if they have an appropriate copyright tag or none at all. Recently, I have tagged a large number of images uploaded by Empty2005, who never adds a tag at all. I have asked him politely on his talk page twice already and they were already notified once before me. I doubt just asking again will work, since they seem to ignore it. Like I said on his talk page, I now have to go through his contribs to see what he uploaded and if it is used in an article and if it has an appropriate tag. It would be a lot easier if it was mandatory to add a tag before uploading an image, but I dunno if that would ever be implimented. Should something be done or should I just forget about it? Thunderbrand 21:19, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

You might consider raising this at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use. Jacoplane 22:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

FFVI infobox issue

Hello,

I see that the infobox is your primary complaint with the nomination of FFVI as a Featured Article. Currently the original infobox using the FFVI logo. After seeing the your to fix page, i understand that you do a lot of work with the video game infoboxes. For a long period of time during the FAC for the article, the info box was changed to include the gameboxes. [see here]. I remember there being a complaint that the N. American box is not the primary image used for the infobox, as per the CVG consensus. The reason that the box was not used is because the N. American box has the game mislabeled as Final Fantasy III instead of FFVI. Calling the article Final Fantasy VI and showing a box for Final Fantasy III would confuse people that go to the page and do not know any of the game's history. Therefore, I humbly ask if there is anyway that an exception to the rule can be made for this game??--ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Andre, the article is now using the box art image. Is there any way we can convince you to change your vote now? – Seancdaug 03:21, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!

Dear Andrevan, thanks for your vote of confidance at my RfA. I'll try hard to make the soggy mop proud! — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 19:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

I was just testing <_< I'll stop and try out the sandbox. (posted by Buckun, 23:42, September 4, 2005)

Barnstar

Nothing in particular. Just good edits. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:50, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Hi, just a quick note to thank you for your support on my RfA. I was pleased to see so much support, especially from people such as you who I do not know very well, if at all. Now that I am an administrator I will do my best to please the community’s expectations. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 17:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for supporting my RFA. I really appreciate that you supported me even though it had been a lost cause for a long time. Rl 12:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)