Westrim

Feel free to leave a polite, concise message. If you think I've done something incorrectly, please inform me here in a polite manner.

Welcome!

Hello, Westrim, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! eric (mailbox) 18:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Code Geass

Yo! Sorry about miscopying the ~~~~ in the talk of Code Geass. I wonder if this guy will settle down or not. Elliott B (T | C) 05:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I was considering reporting him, but I don't know if he is worth the hassle. Apparently his IP has been blocked before for edit waring. Maybe we should take it up with a review committee or admin? -- And good to see you're human too. Hehe. Oh, if you want you can use my talk page's template on your's as well. I think it's a nice little disclaimer to have. Elliott B (T | C) 05:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Well, enough frustration over that guy. I'm off to sleep and will check back on things tomorrow. Peace. Elliott B (T | C) 05:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

FMA Light Novel list

I removed your last post from Talk:List of Fullmetal Alchemist light novels[1] per WP:TALK as it had absolutely nothing to do with the list at all, but was simply you airing your personal opinions about me. As for your comments, I never once brought up PiQ, you did. When I referred to our past disagreements, I was referring soley to the issues with Code Geass, as I had completely forgotten that you had even done anything on PiQ. And, for the record, if you had actually used a proper edit summary in your first edit, it wouldn't have been called vandalism, but reverted in good faith. And if you hadn't kept ignoring your edits being reverted with proper edit summaries and instead just kept blindly reverting without even bothering with edit summaries and simply blanking out any warnings left on your talk page, it wouldn't have been marked vandalism either. When you did finally decide to actually attempt to talk (while still reverting), your very first message was hostile and it took multiple messages for you to even acknowledge that you had been inappropriately changing a reference. Once is a mistake, doing it repeatedly when you've been asked to stop, told to stop, and told why, is not. So don't try to place all the blame there on me as you started that in an antagonistic fashion, and immediately went on the edit war and attack path rather than politely asking why your edits had been reverted or even bothering to read the messages left for you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ulala

There is nothing that can be merged to the article, so a redirect will suffice. The real world information is already in the article and the in-universe information is on the character list. TTN (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet merge was the consensus, so if you can't find anything to do that with, leave it for those who can. As the nominator for deletion, you don't exactly have a NPOV. The design controversy and parts of a couple other segments should be integrated into the character list and Space Channel 5. Give it a couple of days to happen. When the merge is completed, the redirect should be to her entry in the character page.Westrim (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If nothing can be merged, there really isn't much you can do to force it. The lawsuit is already provide in better quality, the other appearances of the character are also already covered, and the in universe information is covered in the character list. What else is there? TTN (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Return

I'm back. I was never really gone, but life has been hectic and my computer crashed, so I've made few edits over the last several weeks. Westrim (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

P90 article

Only two editors are butting heads, though. If he was debating the merits of whether to include the link more explicitly within the body of the article itself, I could work with that. Instead he's dismissing it as a continuation of previous debates (that I had no part in), and therefore not even worthy of consideration on its own merits. That's the problem I wanted a third opinion on. Thank you for at least considering my idea, even if you disagree, but I needed another editor to note that debate only works when we listen to each other. What would be a more appropriate venue to ask for help? Westrim (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

Unfortunately only the content dispute part falls under the remit of WP:3O - WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF issues would need to be raised elsewhere. Assuming that discussion via talk pages has been tried unsuccessfully, you could next try WP:Wikiquette alerts.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  02:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I had actually gone to wikiquette alerts first, but from the description it seemed too harsh a first step. I'll try to get through to Nukes one more time, and if they still refuse to consider my idea on its own merits, I'll go ahead and report them (they and them are singular, as I try not to assume gender). Thanks. Westrim (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what I was supposed to consider more. Considered and rejected as it lacked merit. Understand, you're in an edit war with two separate editors now. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked again

I looked over your recent edits after Nuke4Tots informed me of your recent edit warring. Accordingly, I have imposed a 24-hour block on your account plus the 17 hours that remained on the block I lifted on it last month.

Since you have remained civil during this, I decided not to give you a templated notice. But the fact is that you can't use other Wikipedia articles as sources. Period. It doesn't matter how long they've survived ... remember that the infamous Seigenthaler edits were in that article for months. To not only insist on this but reinstate it several times when removed on the rationale that it's been vetted in those articles is rather egregious edit warring. I have to block you again. Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the courtesy of not putting up the official notice but the block still smarts. Did you read both discussions an the talk page, and the one on the talk page of the 3rd opinion editor? Because a few hours (with no intervening conversation) before he asked you to block me, I had just told the editor This flag once was red that if nukes4tots continued to refuse to AGF and stop accusing me of trying to violate consensus that I would go to wikiquette alerts with the problem.

Also, the edit war was on one topic, not two, as he claimed, and the edit war is mutual, so I feel singled out when I get blocked and Koalorka, who was using the edit summary to yell at me and accuse me of vandalism, is not. I try to follow the order of dispute resolution, but I'm learning here that it's perfectly fine to skip that and go right to requesting blocks, which will be granted without asking the blocked editor for an explanation first. That doesn't seem right at all.

"Deep breath, moving away from anger."

Yes, I do remember reading about Seigenthaler, but its entry on those lists had survived several edits and the removal of various other weapons. I had also found several forums with comments on its use and pictures of Mexican military with it, although, being forums, they could not be used as sources. I tried to navigate some weapons sites, but got nowhere or to yet more forums.

Regardless, I explicitly said that I was not using the Wikipedia articles themselves as a source, but the sources on those articles as the source. There were several external links and sources (although a couple have been removed since this began several weeks ago) that appeared to have the info, but I couldn't navigate them to find the specific mentions of the P90 due to the language barrier. I invited Koalorka repeatedly to check with the editors of those two articles for their perspective but was ignored, as were my other questions.

Looking back, I can see how my edit summaries and talk page comments could be interpreted to read as though I was using the articles themselves as references, but I assure that was not my intent, and until these two discussions are resolved to the satisfaction of an outside editor, I pledge not to edit the article itself, only the talk page and other, unrelated, articles. But to continue the discussions, (again, only on the talk page) I need to be unblocked. Or here: if I edit the article AT ALL for the next week or so, feel free to ban me and my other account (Westrim2) for as long as you deem proper. But please, take off the block. Westrim (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I just realized that at the same time Nukes was posting his message to you he also left a message in the section above, which was my copy of my conversation with the 3rd opinion editor. That makes it clear to me that he had seen that I intended to report his behavior and decided to head me off. I hereby request a block of Nukes4Tots for his malicious behavior. Westrim (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you got my response to your email but if you didn't, I'd rather say it here. We can discuss this at AN/I after the block expires if you want. Since policy is clear on not using our own articles as sources (it hasn't occurred to you that you might be able to put the footnotes from those articles next to the entries, and if you feel you need to be assured about them we have plenty of Spanish-reading editors who would gladly verify them for you), and you continued to reinsert the edits with the same reasoning, I feel they were on solid ground reverting edits clearly against policy and thus they weren't edit-warring. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, connectivity trouble (The sooner I get a new router, the better). No, I didn't get your email, not sure why. I was hoping to get the block overturned rather than merely expired, as that looks and sound better, but oh well.

I've clearly stated both here and on the P90 talk page that I wasn't using wiki articles as references, so I don't know what I can do to convince you of that when you don't respond to what I said. Koalorka was the one who had a problem with the entries, so I was trying to encourage him to check with the editors, rather than simply dismissing the entries and me. As I've said, my reasoning was misinterpreted as being solely based on the articles which is mostly my fault for not being clear.

I do feel that Koalorka was edit warring, as exemplified by the edit summary here [[2]]: regardless of right or wrong I don't see how an edit summary like that could not be considered edit warring (as Nukes4tots only reverted it once, I don't view him as a participant in this disagreement). Both editors have been extremely unwilling to court different viewpoints, as shown by their responses both in the two current disagreements, and two several weeks ago that are undoubtedly affecting attitudes now, linked to here [[3]] and here [[4]]. I do hope that you will consider these links in your next response. Westrim (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in my response; I made the mistake of sending my email and then shutting down Outlook Express before Norton could finish scanning the outgoing message. While I don't see Koaloarka's behavior in the linked diff as necessarily indicating an intent to edit war (ALL CAPS is uncivil, but nothing else; and your edit summary just before that does seem to suggest you'll keep reverting), his behavior is a bit confrontational. After what's happened, though, I'm not sure I'd give him the benefit of the doubt if it recurred ... he might look like he was trying to goad you into edit warring to get you blocked again.

As I had suggested in my lost email, you should consider copy and pasting the Spanish-language footnotes used in the linked articles. If you need verification, there are plenty of Spanish-reading editors who can help you out. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Count of "Odd Items" (Changed and Properly Signed)

Hello again. Subject is Bizarro newspaper comic. To clarify my original goal in making the particular edit you took out, it was my intention to describe the way Mr. Pirarro writes a single numeral (2, 3, 4, or more) just above his signature in each daily drawing. The numeral is the count of the "odd objects" he placed in that day's drawing. Pirarro began doing it earlier this year and he has been perfectly consistent; my wife and I engage in a daily contest to spot the items tallied by the numeral. If you don't relate to this, perhaps you had a collection of pre-2008 cartoons. BTW, I examined drawings at bizarro.com and the sample cartoon (the "Wikipedia Salesman") is an example of what I see in the newspaper every day. Direct email available: markhamjf[the at-sign]cox.net. JM in San Diego CA (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Westrim. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Westrim. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Westrim. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)