User talk:Awiseman/Archive/Jun2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 18:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

That's fine, but your first edit summary only said "rv album cover as display", which to me wasn't a good reason to remove it, which is why I reverted. As for the usage elsewhere in the article, the copyright box says it can be used "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question," and it seems like it's being used that way. --AW 20:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's o.k. to use it in the body of the article if you are discussing the music. Also, forgive my deficient edit summary. Orane (talk • cont.) 20:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any factual evidence to affiliate him to a religion. Until cited with strong sources, I think the category should be removed. If you research you will see that, he was also named to be Jewish. I don't share this opinion; however, what I know is that he never publicly stated his religious affiliation.--Scientia Potentia 10:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your note on my talk page recommending that I place warnings on user talk pages whenever I revert vandalism. I do that from time-to-time, when the vandalism is particularly egregious, however I don't always take the time to do it as the manual process is fairly cumbersome. I have applied to use some of the tools like VP that automate the process, but so far have been declined since I'm relatively new, and don't have enough mainpage edits. I suppose they have to use some kind of criteria to decide if folks like me are working in good faith. Anyway, once I get it automated, I'll do a better job of dotting those "i's and crossing those "t's." Again, thanks for your suggestion. Cmichael 04:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, thanks --AW 17:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are two basic things that WatchlistBot can do for you. It can create a watchlist from the list of articles that are already tagged, which I will set up next time I'm at my other computer. It can also tag articles for you, which takes a little more effort on my part, but I'd be happy to do it if you'd like. The way it figures out what to tag is by first tagging categories, starting from Category:Tennessee and traversing the hierarchy. This part, I say yes/no to each category before it is tagged. Then, the bot can automatically tag all articles in all tagged categories, without my help. There are some other special features of the bot, like helping with assessment, or creating a hierarchical diagram of the category structure, but those are not usually very useful at first. Ingrid 20:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your article list is done. Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennessee/Articles. Let me know if you want me to help you tag. Ingrid 23:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate it! I'll let you know shortly --AW 15:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I suppose, though I've been using wikipedia a long time before your message, and to be blunt, knew it all. Not trying to sound pretentious. I'm just a little curious why you gave me the welcome message ~9 months after my first contribution. I guess late is better than never, though. Meh.--Charibdis 03:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because you had a blank talk page. That makes me think somebody is a new user. Plus you hadn't made many contributions, so it couldn't hurt. --AW 15:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey Awiseman, I was wondering how can a page be protected against vandalism by unregistared users. The Ontario Provincial Elections are approching and due to this fact, vandalism, although Canadian politics and elections are not fought as dirty as American ones (no offence), will be a major problem. This is a major concern because there are groups in Canada that are really anti-Conservative and will say that the Conservatives are "religious fanatics and wolves under sheeps' skin". An example of this was an edit made by an unregistared user named 24.57.88.31 on the John Tory article (John Tory is the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario). The statement that Conservatives are "religious fanatics and wolves under sheeps' skin" is uncalled for and that is why there is a need to protect these pages till the elections are over. Please advise. Thx. -- Nat.tang 01:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks deniz^T_C 15:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I couldn't care less what you write on the Corcoran IP talk page, although evidently someone else using the account does. Isn't there some way you could do it so it didn't cause new messages messages to pop up all the time? I am not registering for an account though, thank you. 67.101.243.74 21:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once you leave a message it always says that. That's part of the reason usernames are helpful, it won't say that for anybody else, and nobody else will be editing your talk page. But it's your decision, that's fine, it's just not good practice to remove legitimate comments. --AW 21:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Scotland or whatever might not care but I've dealt with your comments before and consider them harassment at this point. There are already 3 instances of msgs or templates left by you expressing how you feel about registering for an acct. There are 3. From you. There is no need for more. From you. Other users are welcome to post that msg and you are welcome to start discussions, but filling the talk pg with the same comment over and over is not helpful and disruptive. Assuming good faith does not mean you assume good faith the fifth time or more after another user does the same thing. 67.101.243.74 21:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I don't see what you're saying. On March 16 I said "you should register for an account" and on April 10th posted later the usual template that shows the benefits of registering. Like I said above here, if you don't want to register, that's fine, but you're not supposed to remove other people's comments if they're in good faith. See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments and Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable about that. That's my main dispute, which is why I brought it to the third party thing. --AW 21:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The key there is "...if they're in good faith." Your messages are not in good faith as the previous baiting of 3rr dispute, multiple aggressively (and -by admin decision- wrongly) placed vandalism warnings, the 3 different demands that IP users sign up for an acct on the same pg (you missed one, go back and count), your repeated stalking of the talk pg, etc., is all evidence opposing good faith. Good faith can be assumed the first time, not many times later. You should move along, AWiseman... 67.101.243.74 21:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users shouldn't remove comments from the talk page of the IP address they're using. That page serves as a record of past activity on that IP address, for the reference of both admins and other users. It is appropriate to remove talk page comments for the purpose of refactoring, but refactoring is appropriate only for removing irrelevant comments unrelated to improving Wikipedia. User talk page warnings don't qualify for refactoring unless the comments were maliciously added to a named account. For an IP address shared by multiple editors, talk page warnings would never be appropriate to remove. -Amatulic 22:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this third opinion. Please refer to the admin's decision the previous time AWiseman tried this when I presented extensive evidence of his disruptive behavior. Also, here are the admin's statements stating that AWiseman's comments can be removed. Related policies and guidelines give the user at the acct or IP the authority to responsibly moderate their talk page. They do not give AWiseman that authority. Regarding the merits of the third opinion, refactoring is not a WP policy, it is not restricted to registered accts, and the msgs in question would qualify as repeated msgs - exactly what refactoring is intended to reduce. 67.101.243.74 22:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Amtaulic. I hope this is solved. And despite the IP's arguments, the other user said "invalid" warnings can be removed but that removal of valid warnings "looks suspicious," and that some of the IP user's edits were ok, but some were vandalism. I hope I'm done with this though, I'm tired of it. --AW 13:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, some points:

• See Wikipedia:Assume good faith. That isn't happening here.
• You are, of course, free to disagree with the opinion. It's just an opinion, and not binding. It is expected, however, that both parties who agree to bring a 3rd opinion into their argument, will expect that the 3rd opinion will serve as a tiebreaker. That means someone will be disappointed.
• That said, an editor using an anonymous IP address does not own that address. And no editor owns their talk page. In particular, IP-address editors share their address with multiple other people, so they do not enjoy any authority to moderate a talk page as if they own it. Anyone has the authority to post appropriate warnings to user talk pages. If you are an anonymous IP user and the warning doesn't apply to you, then ignore it, but don't remove the warning else it appears like you are trying to hide your behavior.
• The admin decisions linked only says that inappropriate warnings can be removed; and I see a good case being presented for the appropriateness of those warnings.
• The links "stating that AWiseman's comments can be removed" appears to refer to warnings that no longer matter.
• While not prohibited, policy frowns upon any user blanking valid warnings from talk pages. Archiving them elsewhere is OK.
• If my opinions are insufficient to resolve the issue, and you think it's worth pursuing, take it to arbitration. Alternatively, post another plea on Wikipedia:Third opinion to get another view, but this time form the plea properly according to the guidelines on that page. I'll let someone else respond if you go that route. -Amatulic 19:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amatulic, thank you for your expanded opinion. I have copied it over again in order to respond to each point (in italics).

• See Wikipedia:Assume good faith. That isn't happening here.

I did assume good faith the first several times AWiseman edited the user talk page. Currently three of his requests that IP users register and several other warnings and questions appear on the talk page. In the most recent case and several previous cases, his messages (they were not warnings in this most recent case) were added to the talk page in response to no editing dispute or any other action that typically calls for discussion between editors. In short, AWiseman simply added even more repeated messages to the talk page. As an experiment, just now, I did a preview edit of the talk page in which I restored all of AWiseman's numerous previous comments. The talk page, if they were all restored, would more than double in length and AWiseman would be the author of more comments there than all editors using this IP and any other editor who has commented there combined. As such, assuming good faith is a responsibility of every editor; assuming it when the other editor repeats an action which had previously been resolved with determinations not in his favor - and continues to insert repetivite messages, in this case, simply because another editor with whom there is an ongoing discussion suggested, as AWiseman before, that IP users register for accounts - is not a case where one can assume good faith, just as one does not assume good faith when an editor inserts superfluous and unspecific language into an article.

• You are, of course, free to disagree with the opinion. It's just an opinion, and not binding. It is expected, however, that both parties who agree to bring a 3rd opinion into their argument, will expect that the 3rd opinion will serve as a tiebreaker. That means someone will be disappointed.

No argument here. AWiseman brought the 3rd opinion request all on his own without even informing editors at this IP.

• That said, an editor using an anonymous IP address does not own that address. And no editor owns their talk page. In particular, IP-address editors share their address with multiple other people, so they do not enjoy any authority to moderate a talk page as if they own it. Anyone has the authority to post appropriate warnings to user talk pages. If you are an anonymous IP user and the warning doesn't apply to you, then ignore it, but don't remove the warning else it appears like you are trying to hide your behavior.

Agreed that ownership is held by the residences of the Corcoran College. The latter part of your argument is a matter of opinion -a best judgment area- as there is no policy that thus defines authority over IP talk pages.

• The admin decisions linked only says that inappropriate warnings can be removed; and I see a good case being presented for the appropriateness of those warnings.

I don't see anything even resembling a good case for their appropriateness. All I see is an argument that because AWiseman wants to leave a (several times already repeated) message (related to no specific edits or ongoing discussion), an unregistered user should not be allowed to remove it. There is no policy that supports this argument and there are, as I have cited above, administrative review decisions opposing nearly identical actions by the same user on the same user talk page.

• The links "stating that AWiseman's comments can be removed" appears to refer to warnings that no longer matter.

Disagreed completely. See my response two lines above.

• While not prohibited, policy frowns upon any user blanking valid warnings from talk pages. Archiving them elsewhere is OK.

Agreed. The operative word is valid.

• If my opinions are insufficient to resolve the issue, and you think it's worth pursuing, take it to arbitration. Alternatively, post another plea on Wikipedia:Third opinion to get another view, but this time form the plea properly according to the guidelines on that page. I'll let someone else respond if you go that route.

Agreed. I have no interest in a third opinion on the matter. I believe I am removing repeated messages in agreement with the previous decision of an administrative review. AWiseman is always welcome to begin or add to a discussion on the talk page, but repeating the same message without a new reason for doing so is already part of what is covered by the previous decision.

Thanks, Amatulic, for your considered opinion in this matter. Unfortunately, we continue to disagree. 67.101.243.74 21:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I congratulate you both on keeping things reasonably civil. For what it's worth, I believe that both editors have acted in good faith (although neither of them has assumed good faith in accordance with WP:AGF; I suspect neither fully understand the meaning), and that both should just let the issue go.

I believe that the anonymous editor hasn't maliciously blanked the talk page, but should avoid doing so in the future. After all, it looks mighty suspicious to see an anonymous editor doing that, and future blankings will cause altercations with other editors, guaranteed. (I myself occasionally un-blank anonymous talk pages that have been blanked.) I also agree that the anonymous editor would be better served getting an actual user account, but I recognize that it's an individual choice.

Finally, I believe that AWiseman should consider the possibility that 67.101.253.74 has done no harm, in this instance only, in blanking 67.101.253.74's talk page comments; just accept it for now, assume good faith, and move on. This really isn't worth the hassle of arbitration and getting other admins involved. -Amatulic 22:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Thank you for helping to do the tedious task of cleaning up Asshole (game). - hmwithtalk 21:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! My first barnstar! --AW 21:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]