User talk:Eleuther

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to my talk page

Hi, I'm Joe and I welcome your comments.

  • If you're responding to something I said on another talk page, including your own talk page, please respond there, not here, to keep the discussion in one place. If you do respond here, I reserve the right to move your response there for clarity.
  • If you're adding to an existing discussion on this page, please observe the parking conventions (indentation, etc.).
  • If you want to start a new discussion, use the (+) tab at the top and go for it.

I reserve the right to reorder and re-indent and re-title entries on this page, to make it clear who's talking to whom and why, but I won't change your text, except perhaps to remove it if it's obscene or junk or something like that.

Eleuther 01:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stiff Brigade (whatever that is)

I frankly thought that you were of the stiff brigade as to quotations from eminent personnel, but by all means....Masalai 10:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the speedy tag

Why do you think the speedy deletion is not obvious? It says in the tag's description that it's intended for articles that give no context or consist only of external links- this article falls into both. --Wafulz 03:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I think deletion is probably right, here, too -- that's why I nominated it. But speedy is only important for obvious garbage. This author seems to be a PhD physicist, so a little time for comment should be allowed. It may just be a stub, or it may be a candidate for an article about a fringe theory, or it may turn out to be something else. Eleuther 03:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks and sorry

It was a long day. Sorry.--St.daniel 23:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Hey, thanks for the correction about the Duke Presidents template. How would you suggest to fix this with minimal aesthetic obstruction? Are you suggesting to delete those prior to Few or to have something in the template clarifying this point? -Bluedog423Talk 21:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I did my best to clarify without making it look ugly. Let me know if you think any more changes are necessary. Thanks! -Bluedog423Talk 21:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, blue dog. I suppose it's a matter of opinion, but I would not refer to anything pre-1924 as "Duke University". I would just say "Trinity College", or maybe (once per article, if it seems relevant) "Trinity College (the predecessor to Duke University)". Eleuther 08:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Wilber

Can you or you help me find a way for someone to step in on the Ken Wilber page, I am in the midst of an unfortunate edit war with goethean. I think a third-party should come in to handle this conflict. Please, please!!!!! fast!!!! :) ForrestLane42 19:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

goethean has been going wild with edits that seem to me to be reversing the hard work u and backface and others have done. ForrestLane42 16:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

[edit] In re ForrestLane42

Hi, User:ForrestLane42 has been visiting articles that I have edited in the past, nominating them for deletion, and blanking them. Apart from being idiotically spiteful, this is Harassment. — goethean ॐ 15:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Then after I called him on it, he removed my message from his talk page. — goethean ॐ 15:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, Backface and I suspect ForrestLane42 of sockpuppetry on the Ken Wilber talk page. — goethean ॐ 17:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, goethean, be calm, don't overreact. I think ForrestLane42 was probably trying to follow the deletion procedure, but just doesn't understand it very well. Even if not, the best approach is to keep your cool. As for the identity of Truthiness406, if you really want to follow that up, you'll have to talk to an administrator (there's probably a template for it), I can't check on it myself. My advice is to let it be unless it gets a lot worse. Cheers, Eleuther 22:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll take my complaint elsewhere. — goethean ॐ 22:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Eleuther: after this, I no longer consider you a neutral informal mediatator in regards to the dispute at Ken Wilber. — goethean ॐ 18:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Touchy! I was just trying to make the TOC look less lop-sided, believe me it did not remotely cross my mind that someone might take offense. I hope this is better. Eleuther 02:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you care if I am Truthiness, in fact the truth is that yes Truthiness is from my computer but not from me, ForrestLane42, you know there can be other people using the same computer. I asked my friend to look at the situation and he gave his 2 cents, so sue me if someone else has another view than yours goethean. Issue resolved.... goethean, u need to get a grip. ForrestLane42 03:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Easy, man! I didn't raise the issue, and I advised goethean to drop it. The main reason I would care (if I did) would be to give you a friendly warning that some admins around here are hyper-sensitive to sock-puppetry, so if you give the appearance of it, you could find yourself blocked without appeal, and without anyone looking at any other issue. I would not like to see that ... Cheers, Eleuther 03:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Eleuther, having a friend use my computer to raise his own points isn't sockpcerkery is it?? goethean doesn't like that I have looked at other integral pages and made changes. thats his problem isn't it? ForrestLane42 03:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

maybe i shoudl nominate goethean for harrassment? ForrestLane42 03:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

  • Suspicion of sock puppetry was reasonable under the circumstances, but my feeling was (and is) that it was too minor to pursue either way. Also, it's okay to ask a friend for comments, but it's better if the friend discloses the relationship and the request in advance. Otherwise you could also be accused of the related offense of meatpuppetry (see the official policy here: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppets).
    Please don't pursue the harassment thing. Neither you nor goethean is guilty enough of it to be banned, and both of you are guilty enough to make everyone else tired of listening to you. You should both stop fretting about it, and if you can't, at least don't write about it for awhile! Cool off and edit peacefully for a few months, and see how you think about it then. Cheers, Eleuther 04:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry what is a girl to do???? Tired of listening to goethean, maybe, little old me....I think I have been pretty reasonable given the long history with goethean. cheers... ForrestLane42 21:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42

[edit] Tim McV

I'm not an admin, but I happen to have Incidents on my watchlist and so I saw your note. I'll keep an eye on the article and revert on sight (though it looks like some bot has taken over this job) on the basis that it's simple vandalism rather than an edit war. Getting the account(s) and IP blocked is beyond my powers, but then again blocking is not much of a deterrent anyway, especially for a throwaway account on a movable IP.

Thanks for posting the heads-up. Teamwork is best for squashing things like this, as no one person can be awake continuously to monitor an article. --Pete 00:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Pete! I agree and appreciate your help and attention — see longer comment on the AN/I page. Eleuther 00:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post on...

I'd actually (after re-reviewing the provided link) suggest that you post it to the 3RR noticeboard, as essentially that is what this is all about. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Chicago Humanities Festival AfD

thanks, for the help on fixing chicago festival page, but doesn't the tag u used not give it a 5 day period where at the end it either stays or it goes??? how will they know if there is consensus 13:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Hi, ForrestLane42, the next time you want to start an AfD, please study the policy first at WP:DEL and all the pages it links to, and then study the procedure at WP:AFD — it's pretty complicated, and you need to get each step right. This will help you be more successful. (PS. I gave you bad advice when I suggested using {{afd1}}. I should have said {{afd}}. That's partly why I felt obliged to try to straighten it out.)
  • You are correct, the basic idea is that there is a 5-day comment period (approximately). At the end of the period, some administrator will evaluate the comments for consensus, and either delete the article or not. This is a judgement call by the administrator, i.e. it's not a straight vote. But usually the consensus is fairly clear from the comments. If the result is no consensus, the article stays, but it can be re-nominated for deletion later.
  • I think the comment period only begins officially when the request is listed on the AfD log, so it probably only began when I fixed the templates today. But I'm not 100% sure about this.
  • The nominator (that's you, in this case) can cut the period short by withdrawing the request, which you seem to have done. However, the process still isn't complete — it will only be complete when an administrator closes it. You'll see what that looks like when it happens, real soon now.
  • Please take time to understand other people's comments before reacting, and don't jump on me like that! The remark about dueling editors came from User:Edison, not from me. However, I can understand his point. For a person coming onto the situation for the first time, the first few paragraphs of the AfD sound like a cat fight. I have already expressed the opinion that both you and goethean should lay off each other for awhile.
Feel free to contact me via e-mail if you would like to discuss things in a more private context. Maybe I can be of help. Cheers, Eleuther 22:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goethean and ForrestLane42

Recently, Goethean and ForrestLane42 have both come to me for administrator mediation of sorts, each accusing the other of various wrongdoing (personal attacks, harassment, etc.). I noted that you have worked with both of these editors on Ken Wilbur (performing mediation yourself), and I would like to hear your story and point of view regarding these two and their volatile relationship. If you are uncomfortable with discussing this on the wiki, feel free to email me. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 09:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eleuther, FWIW, Larry asked me the same thing, and I wrote up a response on my talk page that you may find interesting. I'm not sure if this conversation should be centralized in one location, but if so, I'd be happy to host a discussion on my talk page. Pro crast in a tor 11:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the invitation, Pro, I'll reply on your page. Eleuther 14:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ken Wilber, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

[edit] RFC

Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/ForrestLane42. — goethean ॐ 15:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ken Wilber.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 16:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC).