Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography (politics and government) articles by quality/115 and User talk:Abtract: Difference between pages

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:05, 13 October 2008

Please be aware that I am starting a physics degree course and need to devote 
most of my energies to that. I will only be a spasmodic visitor to Wikipedia, editing
occasionally just for a change of scene. If you leave me a message, it may well be 
a week before I respond; I will respond here unless you specify otherwise. If you want 
me to look at an article or discussion, just ask but bear in mind the delay factor.
I have deleted 90% of my watch list.

/archive 1 /archive 2 /archive 3 /archive 4 /archive 5

Deletion of User:Abstract et al

I notice you've tagged user pages in another user's userspace for deletion - Are you that user, or are you otherwise related in some way to User:Abstract? No concern about the deletion, but wanted to doublecheck. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was an alter ego ... thanks for asking. Abtract (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, then - Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck

Good luck studying for your degree. It has been quite pleasant to watch your becoming a mediating, patient editor. Hopefully we'll still see you around cleaning up disambiguation pages a bit; in the meantime, all the best! -- Natalya 14:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I'll need it. I will be around occasionally but hopefully in the background. Abtract (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bold, revert, discuss

The recent 3RR events might serve as an illustration of situations WP:BRD. On Baba, there's a bold edit by Sesshomaru, a revert by Abtract, and then it should have gone to the Talk page instead of being again reverted by Sesshomaru again. On the other side, on Saiyuki, Abtract lead with the bold edit, Sesshomaru reverted, and then it should have gone to Talk instead of being again reverted by Abtract. Both of you need to back down and become familiar with WP:BRD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I have been regretting my stupidity since the events; it won't happen again. Abtract (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: pointer

Thank you for pointing that out - just to let you know that I did look at it before adding my thoughts on remedies. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expected no less. Abtract (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of disambiguation pages concerning siblings

I have nominated List of disambiguation pages concerning siblings, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of disambiguation pages concerning siblings. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6 hour block

Per this, I am executing a six hour block. I note that Collectonian acknowledges that the edit was correct, but it still is a matter of editing an article that has already had contributions by one of the other parties. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I am aware, I am under no restrictions and there certainly is no agreement in force ... what are you talking about please? Abtract (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am slightly disappointed you have not replied in view of the facts that you are online and editing, that I cannot talk to you any other way and that you have not left me with the normal option of asking to be unblocked. Abtract (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|I am not under any restriction and there is no agreeement in force ... lots of discussion but no agreement; indeed I have proposed the form of an agreement but it has been ignored by the other parties and the blocking admin}}

note to reviewing admin: the discussion can be found here. It was decided that the parties agreement was not required for implementation, although it was hoped that they may find a form of words to clarify what might happen in grey areas. The second option proposed by Ncmvocalist is the one adopted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where was it "adopted"? And where was I notified of its adoption? Collectonian clearly doesn't think it's in force or she wouldn't have asked you "Well, is this in affect yet?" The last I heard from you was "It went quiet, and I am trying to gather my energies to try and shove through a wording that nobody likes (which seems to be the only way to get agreement at the moment), after which I shall hand out some arbitrary blocks </humour>. Seriously, I am thinking of adopting NCMVocalists second otion and letting you, Sess and Abtract agree a split between the outstanding issues. Once that is agreed it can be adopted and I will come down like a ton of bricks on any violation </not humour>. I trust you can see that violations need to be dealt with severely if it is to work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC) on your talk page ... since then nothing. This doesn't seem like a decision to me ... you certainly have not notified any of us that a decision has been made. I expected fairer treatment from you than this; I certainly expect the block to be lifted on review assuming you don't have second thoughts (admitted you are wrong is not a sign of weakness you know). Abtract (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I often acknowledge I am wrong, and I often apologise (although not necessarily both together). This is not one of those cases. Was it "officially" in force? Perhaps not, but I think it is irrelevant; there is that mass of discussion on my page that clearly indicates exactly what are the problems, and you think you are able to carry on doing that stuff because I haven't got round to dropping a nice little template on everyones pages? Nope, bad faith is just that - you know Collectonian had been editing that page and you also know she wants to be left alone by you (and comments you have done the same thing on a different article, making a "good" edit within her "sphere of edited articles") so you were being disruptive. Per the proposal we had been working toward, that was sufficient to be blocked - so that is what I did, for just so long enough for it to register but not to effect your editing massively.

I further note that the unblock request was not answered. This means that a reviewer (or two, but it is likely to have been looked over at least one) could not decide on whether it was legit or not, and chose not to respond. So, it was not so bad to be overturned but not so clear to be denied. Make of that what you will - and if you still want to pursue this I suggest you take it to WP:ANI or open a WP:RfC. In the meantime I will put a wording in regard to the future editing of you, Collectonian and Sesshomaru on the various parties talkpages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This block has expired, nothing to appeal now. Stifle (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restrictions on editing of articles between Abtract (talk · contribs), and Collectonian (talk · contribs) and Sesshomaru (talk · contribs)

Important Notice These restrictions are imposed upon the above named editors, and are not subject to amendment without agreement of a majority of the "involved administrators".

Abtract, as one party, and Collectonian and Sesshomaru, as the other parties, are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. (Note - this remedy may be expanded in scope to include interaction of any other user if it is later deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 administrators to prevent harassment.)
A division between both parties of future work on disambituation pages may be agreed, at a neutral venue such as one of the involved admins talkpages, but otherwise the above restrictions apply.
The editors are already aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and are reminded that edit-warring has a disruptive and detrimental effect on Wikipedia. Should either user edit-war in the future, they may be subject to further sanctions (including wider revert limitations, blocks and bans).

Involved administrators are LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Natalya (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and JHunterJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who should act with due notice to all the other parties. Other admins are welcome to add their names to the above, and comments by any other party is welcome.

The discussion relating to the drafting of the above restriction (adapted by LessHeard vanU from the original - and revision - by Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs)) can be found here.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

+ + + + +

This is the notice - which I will be posting on the pages of all named parties. I note your comment re Sesshomaru, and will investigate upon completing these postings. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:LessHeard vanU has demonstrated a bias against Abtract throughout this stupid affair. Though he is not such a bad admin that this bias was detectable by Abtract, who often thanked him in good faith for his warnings and interventions, the fact remains that he has shown a tendency from the outset to take Collectonian's assertions at face value, and to be more sympathetic to Collectonian than evidence demands. Collectonion is aware of this, having appealed to him in the recent past when more neutral mediators (Natalya, JHunterJ, and Ncmvocalist) were available. I ask that LessHeard vanU bear this in mind going forward. 86.44.16.18 (talk) 06:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sesshomaru templating a talkpage of a dab page you have edited

My view is that Sesshomaru was not interacting with you, as it is not a page that you have edited and is a general notice not addressed to you or your manner of editing the dab page. I will drop a note that you would prefer he did not again so edit a talkpage of a dab page you have edited. Please ask any of the other admins to review this if you are not satisfied by my response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And was my edit for which you blocked me interacting with Coll ... for God's sake I created the page that Sess edited. Abtract (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page edit history - you created the dab page, not the dab talk page. What I "unilaterally" imposed was a wording that all three admins had taken as the basis of the restriction, I have included Sess as a party and made allowance for the splitting up of dab pages by agreement. There were no objections to the basics. However, if the other two subsequently disagree with this wording then it is open to redrawing - I have provided copies on their talkpages, and noted it on WP:AN also. If you know of any other admins who might wish to participate, please invite them to do so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm methinks you hide behind a technicality because you are becoming personally involved. Abtract (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collectonian has made a query [here]. Any response to same venue. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't talk on an archive sorry. Abtract (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an archive (that is the box above) but a facility using that process to centralise a couple of matters I am dealing with - however, you can respond to my talkpage and I will transfer it in due course (such as when any conversation has ended). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but when you move a significant set of discussions from your talk page into another page with "archive" in the title I think you must expect me to consider it an archive. If you would like us to talk, can I suggest you open a specific page for the purpose as JHJ did some time ago? Abtract (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re User:Sesshomaru and WP:NEWBIE

Thanks for the note on my talkpage. While not the best example of interacting with a new editor, S provided a link to the relevant policy. I also note that Collectonian has opened a dialogue with the editor, so a welcome message is likely not needed. It wouldn't be good to come from you, anyway, since it may be regarded as indirectly interacting with S and C (as might my commenting to S regards his edit). As far as defusing rather than conflagrating the situation, I am not even going to ask you what you are doing reviewing S's edits to a talkpage that has recently been edited by C (the article also being edited by C). I hope you will make more effort to avoid the editing areas of those contributors from now on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Dab minimum descriptions

Can you provide some basis for the statements noting that only minimum descriptions are necessary in dab page entries? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed ... mos:dab#Individual entries says "The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link". Hope that helps. Abtract (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sure does. It had come up before in another dab, and I wanted to make sure I understood the guiding precedents thoroughly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Abtract (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24 hour block

Per [1], noting the editor already editing that article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you didn't take the view that Coll was interacting with me when they made 7 edits on that page subsequent to my last edit there one week ago, in what way was my edit worth a block? Abtract (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to try to game the restriction, I would comment that the above edit and the previous one mentioned by you was to an article that had been substantially edited by Collectonian since April of this year, that this was easily apparent by reviewing the edit history, and this is precisely why the restriction was put in place; this is obviously an article in Collectonians sphere of editing, and your past "transgressions" is not license to continue. You edit was worth a block because it was a violation of the restriction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are having difficulty justifying your position on your own talk page ... I did warn you that the restrictions were badly worded and suggested an alternative and much clearer set of words. Also, I see that Coll is yet again claiming that I made an "unfounded" report of them for 3RR; perhaps you might like to ask them to justify that statement please. Abtract (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This block seems to have gone well over 24 hours ... Abtract (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

I note that you have twice insisted on an edit without responding to requests to discuss your opinion with other editors who watch the Singular they article. There are many editors watching this high hit article. The text you are removing is essential to the explanatory logic of the article. The wording can be remodified, and you can certainly challenge anything else about it, but the place to do that is on the talk page.

The warning relates to the potential for you to be seen by others as deliberately provoking "ongoing disharmony".

You have clearly ignored two requests to discuss your change on the talk page. If your criticism of the current text is valid, surely others will support you.

Further repeated reverts by you to your own prefered version of the text without use of the talk page will be treated as edit-warring and vandalism to the sense of the surrounding text.

If a job's worth doing, it's worth doing properly. Since your change is opposed, seek change via civil discussion on the talk page. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you look after your own editing pattern and leave me to look after mine. Abtract (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert House

Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Disambiguation pages with all red links but one to understand the good reasons for the red links on pages such as this one. --Orlady (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on the talk page. Abtract (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring on Douglas County Courthouse: please stop and discuss

Hi, as you are aware, there is ongoing discussion at wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation about disambiguation and/or SIAs for NRHP articles. Your latest edit of Douglas County Courthouse, which was one tagged for further cleanup, seems to me to be wp:pointy and disruptive in the context of this discussion. I agree that you technically have a point in that the dab was not perfectly done, as indicated by my tagging it for further cleanup. However, it seems unhelpful for you to delete info in the article rather than helping in the further cleanup needed. I will revert it. I guess i hope you would agree to a "pact" like JHunterJ has agreed to do, rather than tearing down NRHP disambiguation. Would you please discuss in the ongoing discussion? doncram (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know I have entered the discussion and given some very good reasons why what YOU are doing is quite wrong;I have also given you a good compromise solution but you refuse to take it even though it is the clear answer to what you perceive as being a problem. You seem obsessed by the NRHPness of some places which is out of step with what wp is all about ... now go away and play and take your silly warnings with you please. Abtract (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to be honest that i am primarily working on NRHP articles and lists of them (meaning geographical lists of the NRHPs in a given state or county). For me, disambiguation of them is a necessary adjunct activity, which i am trying to do as economically as possible while complying with dab editor rules. I'm sorry if i gave you the misapprehension that I think NRHPness is overly important. In my view, a building or site or district or ship is whatever it is, first, and NRHP listing is a secondary thing that reflects notability more than conveying real notability. However, NRHPness does convey that lots of documents are available, hence an NRHP is verifiable and hence wikipedia notable. I don't know if this helps. I do appreciate that you have been trying in good faith to guide me to what you perceive is a solution. However, i see other cans of worms opening up with going the SIA route. Specifically other editors like JHunterJ and Remember the dot seem to be actively converting SIAs to dabs, or explaining why they would do so. And i have posed problems for SIAs myself. So I appreciate your suggestion but i don't yet believe it would solve all the problems that ensue. doncram (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguous NAPPA (disambiguation)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on NAPPA (disambiguation), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because NAPPA (disambiguation) is a disambiguation page that only points to a single article, or no articles at all.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting NAPPA (disambiguation), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to delete it. Abtract (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So does the discipline of physics at degree level teach that "less accurate" is "more helpful"?

--JohnArmagh (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ... what's your point? Abtract (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Individual entries (revisited)

You might wanna join in on the discussion over here. You were the one who initially wanted the change and, after you presented a swell argument, I amply agreed with you. Now it's being "challenged" by two editors. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've commented there. Abtract (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roll back on Indo-European people

The article has a level of value (I am not associated with the article), and your methodology for addressing that issue seems excessive at this point in time. Apart from that, your application of the notice has not taken properly. For that reason, I have rolled back to the previous edit. If you still feel strongly about it, then I would encourage you to address it on the talk page, and to then look to apply the template appropriately. -- billinghurst (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up:I would think that it would be your responsibility to use a template appropriately, not the job of someone else to correct it as it failed for the second time. It is a really ugly and insensitive template, and I would think that its use in such circumstances excessive.

Further, as a courtesy, if you are going to apply such a template then have the courage to have the discussion. Your methods are excessive for something with an alternative resolution. Simplistic resolution is to remove the disambiguation on the page, however, have the discussion, not solely stick a DELETE notice. Five day urgency for such is nil, and would probably fail a deletion request. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MMM it's quite difficult to figure out how to apply it properly. Personally I see nothing excessive about using prod for this page which should not exist (imho). Abtract (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bolster

Okay, firstly... sorry about that; it was a question of timing. I didn't see your edits on my screen when I made the 'notability not asserted' decision.

Secondly: just adding the word "notable" to an article... that's not an assertion of notability. Well, technically it is, but not plausibly so, because you didn't say anything about why it's notable. I could say that a lump of mud is "notable", but unless I can actually provide a reason... then I haven't actually asserted any notability.

Is there anything notable about the Bolster? I have no idea. I'll put it into your userspace if you ask me to, but Hotfrog isn't a very reliable source for notability (and note that the Bolster's website doesn't appear to exist). DS (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Requests for arbitration#Abtract and Collectonian (and Sesshomaru)

Please note that I have made a RfAR here with you as a named party. You are invited to make a statement in respect of the request (You may wish to review both the request and the main page before doing so.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, iirc, I read that in the page JHunterJ had made for the discussions between you and Sess. But even then, I wasn't concerned by who initiated it. The main point is that you both agreed to void it - without both agreeing to do so, the restriction would have still been in effect. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]