User talk:HelloAnnyong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Something to say? Add a new thread.


links
archive 1
archive 2

Contents

[edit] Hello?

I tried to delete the page, but it doesn't look like I can. I have never used this website before, so I really don't know what I'm doing, and the instructions are quite long. Sorry if I have upset you.

Jason —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvanderweele (talk • contribs) 04:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it came off that way. You didn't upset me, and I don't want you to feel isolated or anything. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I think this topic is a little premature. Once the term 'grassnews' gets a bit more coverage in secondary sources - that is, ones you haven't written - then you can readd the page. Right now you're going around blanking pages, which isn't the right thing to do. I'll mark the page for deletion.
If you need help with Wiki editing, please feel free to contact me at any time. Just post here and I'll get back to you as soon as possible. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm trying to get the hang of this, it took me about 2 minutes just now to figure out how to reply to your message! I'm glad you can fix my posting for me. This is totally different than any site I've ever seen, but its really cool! Thanks again for your help, I think I'm starting to pick up on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvanderweele (talk • contribs) 04:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh, glad you enjoy it. One final thing: when you post on a talk page somewhere, be sure to sign your posts by typing four tildes - ~~~~ - after your comments. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shalom Neuman, FusionArts Museum

I removed your redirect here because all it did was create a re-direct to a re-direct. The bot mis-tagged it as a copy (advised the bot's human here because I created the museum article from a merge of the founder's article, which I noted in the initial edit summary. It's more notable than he is. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 04:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks for the heads up. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries, have a good night. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 05:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your tagging of Biographicon

Yo, would you care to explain your tagging of the article Biographicon on the talkpage? Suggestions as to which specific sections of the article need writing would be particularly appreciative. Although I am guilty of it myself, drive-by tagging without explanation is unhelpful. Regards,Skomorokh 16:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Rutter

Thank you for your pointer regarding the need for a third opinion. I am sorry for the confusion. can you look again at the discussion page on Rutter and tell me whether this is acceptable?

KingsleyMiller (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The request for a 3PO on interpretation of a source was made by me in relation to a dispute about the source on the John Bowlby page. The disputed passage was also put in at least two other articles, including Michael Rutter. Kingsley first changed my request for a 3PO which has been changed back and then entered another 3PO on the identical point, which has been removed, and has now simply copied a chunk, but not all, of the discussion on the source to the Michael Rutter page, whilst saying he will not take part in the identical dispute in relation to it on John Bowlby but only in relation to Michael Rutter! All this games playing is causing alot of clutter and confusion and is simply a huge waste of time. I am endeavouring to keep the matter simple and easy to follow for the poor person who picks up the 3PO - unless they all run screaming! Fainites barley 18:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you have seen my note regarding your third opinion. I am sorry you thought I put words into your mouth and I have copied the note you made below in reply and onto my TALK page.
HERE IS THE NOTE COPIED FROM THE MICHAEL RUTTER PAGE

Third opinion note Hey. There was a third opinion put out for this page. I've removed the request since there's no actual discussion going on about the topic at hand. If you have a problem with something on the page, please discuss it here first. If no consensus has been reached, then you can seek a third opinion. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me but I think you are both wrong the suggestion is that the discussion should take place on the relevant page and that is all that I did. I even copied what I had done to — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) to check that what I had done was correct. I do not think it is fair to say that I 'played games' or 'put words into mouths'.
KingsleyMiller (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
PPS I am sorry to say that however good your third opinion maybe it did not deal with the substantive issue which was contents of the list rather than the style. Nevertheless I take my hat off to you for negotiating a very tricky subject.
Wikipedia needs more people like yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsleyMiller (talk • contribs) 19:58, April 5, 2008
Thank you; your comments are much appreciated. And if you think this was a tricky subject, then you haven't been on Wikipedia enough. There have been some pretty ridiculous edit wars around here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
GIVE ME A CHANCE TO FINISH EDITING PLEASE!!!!!!
I TAKE BACK WHAT I SAID BEFOREKingsleyMiller (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Whatever. Between the edits on that page and the Bowlby page, you should know about adding in original research. Adding fact tags is no reason to get all bent out of shape... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were bored and going to bed?

We agreed that the article did not sound encyclopedic. It sounds fine to me now.

There is nothing in this article which is either 'tendentious' or for that matter 'contentious'.

I feel Fainites has pulled the 'wool over your eyes' and that in order to decide whether the piece is OR or not you really need sight of the copy of the Rutter article Fainites has. Without it you really are editing 'blind' so to speak.

The point about Rutter's work is that he helped children by identifying the ways in which the theory of 'maternal deprivation' harmed children. This is how he made his reputation. Now you are suggesting they should be left out!

Rutter is a child psychiatrist. 'Attachment' is his middle name. He has identified the ways in which Bowlby was wrong. These should not be left out because they form the essence of his work in helping the lives of children.

I cannot believe Fainites has written above that the biography should include, "Then some stuff about Rutters work on the nature/nurture - genes/environment stuff".

If 'attachment' is not biological where does Fainites think it comes from?

It is people like Fainites that make me feel like crying.

What is the point of an encyclopedia?

Sorry if this does not make sense. I really will go to bed now.

kipKingsleyMiller (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Kingsley please make an effort to try and stop copy/pasting bits of other editors posts from other talkpages out of context all over the place. It just makes the conversations very difficult to follow and doesn't help anyone. Fainites barley 11:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3PO

I put another response on John Bowlby if you had a mo. Or half a mo come to that. Fainites barley 22:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment. Fainites barley 14:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion on Cardiff as a primate city

Hello,

you recently gave a third opinion saying that Cardiff should not be on the list of Primate cities until a source is found. The thing is, there are no given sources for the hundreds of other cities on that page, so I feel the removal of Cardiff is giving undue weight, especially when it fufills the criteria to be a primate city Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but there hasn't been any controversy over that. All I was saying is that, in the case of a disagreement such as this, the problem can be solved with sources. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hello i am owner of "ranad" article.

i want do my article for my best but i don't know how to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manzzzz (talk • contribs) 03:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I should probrably note that after you write an article you will lose all "ownership" to it and it will be freely available. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Child Psychology

Please could you leave my request for a THIRD PARTY opinion alone. You persist in saying that the references are original research when they are not. Why did you not look at the article before making your decision instead of continuing to repeat this assertion?

A major problem with your intervention is that you have preconceived ideas about Child Psychology and this has hampered your judgment. For example there is absolutely no doubt 'monotropy' is an aspect of 'maternal deprivation'. There is absolutely no doubt that this theory is itself 'discredited'. (In the same way for example Robert Mugabe is 'discredited'). This is not a matter of opinion. This was one of the major achievements of Michael Rutter. Some would say it is down to Rutter we now talk in terms of primary carers instead of mother or father.

Because you are not aware of this does not make the fact tendentious or controversial. My fear is that if I ask for help I will get somebody like yourself who does not really understand these issues and therefore make the same mistakes as you have done and the request would be pointless.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? I have no preconceived ideas about child psychology. I'm allowed to have opinions, and I'm more than allowed to leave my opinions on an article. You don't WP:OWN the article. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep stating the piece is original research when if you looked at the article you would see it is not?

Not even the other side disputes this!

Surely you should have looked at the article before making the statement.

The statement is wrong. So why keep repeating it?

This is not about 'owning' the article or having an opinion it is simply a matter of checking.

Why have you not checked?

KingsleyMiller (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me but I may have misunderstood. Are you now saying my argument is with you not Fainities?

Fainities has offered to e-mail the article. If you are setting up a new dispute that is fair enough. (But Fianities does not believe the work is OR because he or she has a copy) If you are not sure consult Fainties and get a copy otherwise please return the dispute as originally set out.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE CAN YOU CLARIFY THISISSUE?

KingsleyMiller (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] October Sky ....

Hi my name is Yanik from the band October Sky. I've notice that you were trying to help me at the same time as I was trying to understand Wikipedia. I wanted to move the : October_Sky_(band) page to October_sky_band since it was more official.

I didn't want to make it harder for you guys but I didn't realize you were working on the page at the same time as me. I thought my internet was freezing and not SAVING the page. So that's when I saw (MOVE) fonction and tried to move it that way.

I hope this will not cause any damaged to wikipedia or the band page. Please understand that we are trying our best as an unsigned band. Thank you very much and feel free to contact me as soon as you can.

Have a good day Yanik - October Sky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octobersky (talk • contribs) 05:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Michael Rutter

I'm awfully sorry, you've caught me at a very bad time, so I won't be able to offer assistance on this. Have you posted a request on the WikiProject talk page? Hopefully one of the other members will be able to help out. Cgingold (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's okay. Yeah, there's actually two requests on that page for help. Thanks anyway. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Shmarya rosenberg

Th4e article should not be deleted. It is entirely neutral, and contains appropriate sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsdjfhkjsb (talk • contribs) 12:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello, annoying

Sometimes I see your user name on my watchlist and, until today, I always thought it was "Hello annoying" which struck me as one of the stranger names I've encountered. Has anyone else misconstrued your signature? I think I must have poor reading skills.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. If they have misconstrued it, they haven't said anything. My username is actually a reference to Arrested Development (TV series). — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Could you please help me?

HelloAnnyong: could you please help me? I am new to Wikipedia and every time I try to write this article it is put up as a candidate for deletion. I also had to get a new account because my last user name was blocked. I read more carefully through the user name requirements and saw what was wrong with it. The article Recycle Your Homework is about recycleyourhomework.com, a new web site that takes a new approach to homework help for high school students. By the way I love your user name!

Thanks, Awryh (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. To be honest, I don't think you're going to get that article through. Basically, we have criteria for what make articles notable. For websites, the criteria is at WP:WEB. Basically, Recycle Your Homework would have to be covered by at least two secondary, neutral sources. I remember marking that page for deletion because it basically read like an advertisement, which is against Wikipedia policy - see WP:ADVERT. You've got your work cut out for you on this one, I guess. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DUDE!

DUDE! Why did you delete my file? I'm just sharing my cities culture with the rest of the world! Please take it back! I beg of you!!!!!!! :,( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baconshake (talk • contribs) 02:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Third opinion on Gumstix

Thank you for your participation on the gumstix article as third opinion, your input is very apreciated. Actually User:Oskay is acting as a neutral party too, and discussion is ongoing to see how information could be rewritten in a neutral way, so you can participate further in the discussion if you wish to have another opinion on the improvement of the article, or abstain, as help already arrived :) Thank you again for your interest in mediating and improving Wikipedia Iunaw (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I wanted to thank you for the time you took at North Korea to help, tell me if you need a 3rd opinion any time, I'll be there. Mthibault (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the John McWethy help

Just wanted to say thank you for the third opinion on the John McWethy page. I was pretty sure that conspiracy theory addition didn't belong, but having someone look at what was going on was very useful. In the same vein, thanks for helping maintain that page as it seems the other person has now moved on to trying to blank the talk page! Hopefully things will settle down there soon and we won't have to fuss with the page again. Mantisia (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Rutter

Just to let you know - I removed the OR and replaced it with a section from a book by Holmes about Rutters contribution on the subject of MD. Fainites barley 22:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Your 3PO didn't work. neither did Vassyanas. Neither did the view of a Psychology PhD who looked at the Rutter paper for us. The trouble is - Kingsley just assumes that anyone who disagrees with him is part of a cabal or feminist conspiracy or acting in bad faith or something so its difficult to see how mediation would work. At least he's not quite so personally abusive as he used to be though. I might try a request for formal mediation though. Fainites barley 21:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd opinion

thanks! NJGW (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fiction & Notability

Please have a look at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/RFC1 as your input would be most welcome and would encourage other editors to contribute to the debate, which will remain open until the end of the month.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harappa.com

Hi,

I disagree with your attempt to remove the Harappa.com citation as a non-notable website. The site has been around for 13 years, publishes most of the major scholars on the ancient Indus Valley civilization, and indeed is the major site for learning about the culture, used by scholars and students all over the world. It has won numerous awards. It is linked to from many educational websites, has been featured in the press and so on. While many site on the subject promote one ideology or another, it has remained very scientific and publishes the research or scholars at Haravard, the University of Wisconsin, The Tata Institute in Mumbai, the University of Helsinki and so on. Harappa2 (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I put the page up for deletion because it doesn't satisfy WP:WEB, Wikipedia's criteria for websites. Add some sources showing that the site has won numerous notable/well-known awards and/or has been featured as the subject of two or more secondary works, and then we can talk. Read WP:WEB for the criteria that need to be fulfilled. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Rutter

Actually there's two - one on Rutter and one on Attachment theory. Ho hum. Fainites barley 23:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added you to the discussion also at;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-25_Michael_Rutter
Given the above comments I hope you don't mind.
KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I actually do mind, but I gave a statement anyway. Please don't keep hammering with me requests; I really can't keep up with your edits. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Americanism & Colin

I made a complaint here [1]. Some of it involves stuff from before your involvement, but if you want to share any impressions, please feel free. Thanks for your efforts. Life.temp (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User/Admin Marskell & Anti-Americanism

Hi... I've "chimed in" at the Talk page of the Anti-Americanism article, like you asked me to. And I have made it quite clear that I will be making no further contributions. User Marskell removed most of my edits, clearly in a tendentious manner. And with an uncivil comment. I made my edits in good faith. The way I see it, expanding the part about "Definitions and usage", the background and history of the word, might have been one way of providing the article with a more neutral ground. Trying to bridge a gap between Life.temp's and Colin4C's approach. The tendentious edit by user Marskell, and the fact that he is an administrator, have however made me think that I would be wasting my time by even trying to make any further contributions. I have stated my opinion about Marskell's bullying on the Talk page of that article. If there was some meaningful way I could report it I surely would. But it seems, from the procedures, that I would have to engage in a mock "dialogue" with a bully, a scoundrel provided with administrative powers. That is of course meaningless. ΑΩ (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to add that one particular part of user Marskell's edit represents a very clear instance of highly biased censorship. The article is about Anti-Americanism, and the larger part of the text that has been removed concerned the very origin of the idea. I made a reference to this website: Encyclopedia of the American Foreign Relations. There is an article there - Political Parties (early 19th century) - clearly stating that the Federalist Party was "framed as the Anti-American party" by the Republican (i.e. Democratic-Republican Party) press, after the Battle of New Orleans. A well referenced article, and I'll say that website seems to be a highly reliable source. But like I've said, the individual in question seems to be a long-time editor of that article and an admin. So the way I see it, I'll simply have to assume that his "soviet censorship" somehow conforms to the spirit of this place. Sorry about that. ΑΩ (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I responded on the talk page of the article. Haven't been called a scoundrel in a while! Marskell (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Uh... not too sure I wanna get involved in this.. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
And isn't everybody forgetting that it is me who is the bad guy? [Statement made for purposes of irony - not to be use in evidence against me at the High Court of the Mandarins or any other place of jurisdiction] ;-) Colin4C (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello HelloAnnyong. Have you withdrawn from the anti-Americanism Third Opinion process? Should I repost it? Life.temp (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I still read the posts once in awhile, but it's just too much back and forth. Technically 3O doesn't apply since there's three editors involved; at this point, I'd say WP:RFC, or just wait for the Medcab to start. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] trademarks

"Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs)"

This sentence is poorly written, and thus up for interpretation. It would be wonderful if you could simply provide one real world example of when these symbols could be used. --Chunk Champion (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's sort of a hard one. I can't remember ever seeing any TM or Rs in any articles on Wikipedia. For example, the article on Claritin contains none, even though Claritin is a registered trademark. Also see Johnson & Johnson#Johnson & Johnson Consumer Brands - no symbols there. Also none on Listerine, Mylanta#Drug names, Nicoderm, Visine, and so on. I also think that the section at the beginning - the one about how the symbols may add undue attention - can apply here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The exception applies to words that have been genericized. A classic example is the word kleenex which has come to be used to refer to any facial tissue but can also refer specifically to Kleenex™ brand tissues. In my not so humble opinion, there probably aren't very many situations where an article can't be written so as to avoid situations where the ™ and ® symbols are "unavoidably necessary for context." Mmyotis ^^o^^ 15:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand the first sentence. The second one is like a triple negative so I'm confused...but thats fine with me. I'll just assume trademarks can never be used unless we are talking about Kleenex™ and Xerox™. --Chunk Champion (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3O

Hi there; I notice that in a comment to user talk:Neon white you suggest that he signs posts to WP:3O with five tildes, to preserve anonymity. This is not the guidance on the actual WP:3O page. Would you be good enough to clarify for me where your guidance is derived from? Thank you. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 10:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Under "How to list a dispute," it says: "Sign with five tildes (~~~~~) to add the date without your name. This is important to maintain neutrality." On my comment, though, I wrote "neutrality" not "anonymity." Did I mess up somewhere? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I think it's my mistake. Certainly I substituted the word anonymity for neutrality, though I think the meaning in the context would be the same. But I was looking at the instructions for giving a third opinion, while you were talking about the instructions for asking for one. My confusion, I think, and please accept my apologies. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
No worries, man; just glad to get everything worked out. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renaissance Pleasure Faire of Southern California -- spam?

Hello, I'm back after a long hiatus. I just wanted to let you know (as someone who's been a good steward of the Renaissance fair page) that I've nominated the Renaissance Pleasure Faire of Southern California page for speedy deletion as spam. I've been looking over the individual fair pages, and while most of them are pretty thin, this one is outright ... well, I don't know quite what to say. Every one of its footnotes (88 of them!) is a link, and every one I've followed leads to a commercial advertising site. It hasn't got much content, either, mostly just list after list of acts and merchants.

I hope I'm not being harsh, but ... geez. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying, but I think that since the faire is so notable (it's one of the originals, I believe) the article should stay. To that end, I've removed both the CSD and all those links. I'm gonna try to work on the page first. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a more humane approach. Good luck. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] discussion archival policy?

Hi there,

I'm not sure I agree the edit wasn't constructive. If you examine those pages and pages of arguing, you will notice that the current top-level organisers of that website have taken turns to come in and spam their website on the page, and engage in circular arguments defending various acts such as: putting their website URL #1 in the list of external sites; creating a new external links category of "other" to advertise their website; editing the history section to advertise their website at the top of the page. What has frustrated me and others on that page is not just their blinkered sense of being the best, but that they rotate their core organisers to give the appearance of consensus in the discussion page. I have noticed other discussion pages in wikipedia eventually get archived. And frankly I think that they have figured since they cant get a wikipedia page setup ( it was deleted ), they can't advertise their link on the page, they will just dominate any other discussion with pages and pages of the same thing over and over. Addressing that imbalance was the goal of this edit. They've yet again left, no doubt to return with the same rotating furor, and we are left with a discussion page that appears to have nothing but unbalanced representation of a single website.

So what to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.137.103 (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between outright deletion and archiving. I've gone ahead and properly archived all the stuff there, as you can see. Generally archiving is only done when a page gets overly long, but I guess it's okay to do here. If they want to snipe at each other, that's fine; it's still sort of on topic, so they can mention it there as much as they want. Once their links make it to the main page, it's a different story. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, now you have archived all the discussion on that page that wasn't specifically related to their website, since they came in and created a new topic every time they replied or sent a new person in. And it starts half-way through. It may be "sort of on topic" but nothing else can get discussed there now because they have spammed it so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.137.103 (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3O / ZCBI

Thanks for stepping up. I was unwilling to enter into an edit war for fear of 3RR, and my original massive culling was to stop myself AFDing the darned thing as an advert. I don't think Saurabhmadan gets it, and it wouldn't surprise me it Userlinks:Arindammandal1 turns out to be a sock puppet account. Oh well! --Blowdart | talk 15:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, I thought the same thing. We'll see if it becomes a problem. If we're in agreement on the AfD thing, then maybe we should nominate it.. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Given he also created redirects for On year mba, and One year pgp course (is a PGP course an MBA? I don't know, but I find the idea of a single year MBA very suspect with regards to legitimacy) it does smack more and more of something rather fake here. --Blowdart | talk 16:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems_with_the Van_Resistance

Dear User:HelloAnnyong There is something wrong in the whole process. It is "supposedly" Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; all articles must follow Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. The current version of the article is owned by couple of Authors that WP:OWN the article and do not let any editor involved with it. There is a current exchange between another Administrator which involved with the issue, please look at these exchanges. User_talk:Khoikhoi#Problems_with_the_Van_Resistance and User_talk:Seemsclose#Re:_Problems_with_the_Van_Resistance. It has been told to me to negotiate with people. If you read the responses, my edits, without any credible source provided forward, are rejected by MEOW. I'm questioning the validity of whole process and integrity of the people involved to this process. ALL MY editions, which provide full citations, and use WP:style guide to help other editors reach the sources I use, is being favored over a person who keeps the article as it is. My improvements can be reached at this page User:Seemsclose/Van Resistance‎. I'm in a position to think, If one editor rejects, and in the position of responsibility (Admins, third opinions) do not take responsibility, an article can be kept forever in poor condition (poor= no Verifiability) at the Wikipedia. I'm personally asking to you, which version, (the [version] or my version) is your personal choice. --Seemsclose (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oh well

Disheartening isn't it? There was a point when it actually looked as if mediation might get going - with sources and two completely neutral mediators. But no...... There is an enduring problem with Wikipedias inability to recognise that in some circumstances, forms of dispute resolution that rely on assumptions of good faith and willingness to put your cards on the table cannot work and something else is required. In the more popular subjects its not such a problem as there will usually be a preponderance of sensible editors. (Mind you, that didn't work with attachment pages last year when the whole lot were run by one attachment therapist with 6 sockpuppets for over a year). It requires an unnatural degree of perseveration to keep going. At least the Attachment theory page is looking alot better now. Thanks for all your efforts anyway. I hope you will still be around to help. Do you feel up to tackling Michael Rutter again? Fainites barley 17:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Blimey! [2] Tough stuff. It is a shame it had to end like this - but people did try - including you and a variety of admins and mediators. Fainites barley 22:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I know, man, I feel really bad about how it turned out, but.. I suppose there was no other way. Anyway... back to work, I guess. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey! We're volunteers remember! Fainites barley 23:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)