User talk:Peter M Dodge/archive nov72006/

User:Wizardry Dragon/Templates/UserTalkPageArchive

Archived Discussion

MfD[edit]

Hi,

I have reverted your bizarre reopening of the MfD. No admin should simply revert a closing without discussing the matter with the closer, or taking the matter to DRV. For a non-admin to do so is very strange, indeed. I'll assume AGF here, but further reopenings from you may result in a block. If you disagree with the closing, DRV is available. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by what you're saying here. The dispute was closed without prejudice to it being re-opened. Are you saying I should have discussed the matter with DRV first? -- Wizardry Dragon _{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The MfD was closed without prejudice to an entirely new MfD. You merely edited the old one. Furthermore, I recommended that some time pass before renomination for mediation to proceed. I assumed everyone would understand that cooling off time was necessary. As you did not, let me be more explicit: I insist you wait at least 10 days, to give the RfM time to mature. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that bit in your ruling, and certainly understand it and will abide by it. I really don't think it should be deleted myself, which is something that was the subject of some talk on Psychonaut's talk page, I merely felt that there was enough dispute to reopen it so a more binding descision then "closed as inappropriate." :) In any event, for my future reference, how would I open an entirely new MfD then? I simply followed the steps outlined on the MfD page. -- Wizardry Dragon _{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness, WD - I had no idea you were you so avid to have Psychonaut's ProblemUser watchpage deleted. If you wish to renominate his page, under you OWN name and under your OWN charges and rationale, please feel free to do so and I assure you that neither Z nor myself will do anything other than watch you and Psychonaut hash it out. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 20:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... okay, that explains things a little better. :) When any page has had a previous MfD or AfD, one needs to alter the suggested page-name for a new nomination a bit by adding "(second nomination)" to the end of it. Otherwise, one simply over-writes the prior debate log, a very bad thing on many levels. I see now that your action was one of confusion only. I thought you had actually reverted my closure, but you really only over-wrote my closure accidently. My apologies -- I wouldn't have been so harsh had I realized this.

For AfDs, this can accomplished by using the template "Template:afdx" instead of "Template:afd1". For MfDs, this must be done manually. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I've dealt with AfD's before in the case of vanity articles and such, but my experience with MfD has been null, and I'm finding it's a little different. :) I could probably easily hack a mfdx template in my userspace when I have a moment. Anyways, no hard feelings, I just apologize for the confusion I caused. Cheers! -- Wizardry Dragon _{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof! 1.3[edit]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Wizardry Dragon! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) I look forward to using it as this should make combating vandalism a lot easier than doing it by hand as I have been. Cheers! -- Wizardry Dragon _{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo[edit]

Dear Editor, I am informing you that I have mentioned the recent revert war on Kosovo at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Kosovo. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo ban[edit]

The users specified have engaged in disruptive editing under the meaning of Article probation. This ban is not intended as punishment; rather as a means of preventing disruptive editing from becoming part of the "culture" of how this article is edited. Future bans for disruption, should they be neccessary, are likely to be longer. This ban should not be viewed as endorsing the behavior of other editors or of a particular version of the page. The users are not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page. At the end of the ban, anyone may remove this notice.

_{Posted by Thatcher131 17:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC) for the arbitration committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo.}[reply]

I made some notes on the case but left them at my other computer. Generally I believe you and MK103 each removed the disputed sentence twice, Fairview reinserted it three times, and everyone else involved only had one revert (either in or out), so I went for the twofers. As I told Fairview, although no individual violated 3RR, each "side" did (there were 10 reverts in all, I believe). Probation is meant to allow admins to be proactive in not allowing a culture of disruptive editing to develop again. Hopefully a group of good editors can negotiate politically sensitive edits. Thatcher131 00:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question[edit]

You are posting on my talk page. You have removed My replies to accusations against me and removed a section requesting other editors not discuss articles on my talk page but on the talk page of the article. You continue to warn me not to remove sections, while you just blanked my comments. Please explain how that makes sense. Kilz 00:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is due to an edit conflict which is caused most often when two editors are editing on the same article at the same time, or when one editor is editing using an old version of an article when it has since been changed. I will attempt to restore the changed seciton.

I fear that I will be accused of removing sections that you removed with that edit.Kilz 00:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to elaborate on the issue at hand, blanking: there is a difference between archiving your talk page, and blanking out parts of it. Archiving a talk page is moving it wholesale, or several sections wholesale, to another page. You cannot remove warnings from your talk page without obvious reason - this is considered vandalism. You do not own your talk page - Wikipedia does.

I have not selectivly archived. The archive page contains all edits to my user page that were removed from my talk page. You have posted that I have selectivly removed things. Please provide an example of what is not on my archive page. Kilz 00:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By posting on and using Wikipedia, you agree to be bound by it's guidelines and policies. If you do not like them, you can always discuss your objections on the appropriate talk page. There are some I disagree with too, but I still am bound to abide by them. Hope this clarifies things a little. -- Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 00:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]