User talk:Wizardman - Wikipedia


2 people in discussion

Article Images

To those leaving messages: Try to keep them brief and to the point. Posts that are too lengthy may not get a timely response. Thank you. To those leaving RfA thankspam: Consider yourself welcomed. I appreciate the thought, but they tend to take up a lot of my page and archives, and I really don't need them for anything. Wizardman

Is this the same guy? If so he seems to have managed the White Socks? SGGH ping! 17:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I saw you deleted the page Morgan Newton right here. Could you explain to me why he would not be notable? The Arbiter★★★ 01:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I really don't mean to sound argumentative, but could you please explain how the copyright was violated? Was it almost copied word for word from the site? The Arbiter★★★ 17:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hmm...ok...If he actually lives up to the way he played in high school, he may become notable one day. I'll keep an eye on him. On a completely unrelated note, do bots have to be used universally on Wikipedia, or could a user just create a bot for his or her own personal use? For example, a bot that does automatic talkback templates just for the user that programmed the bot. The Arbiter★★★ 17:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Wizard,

I wanted to speak with you first regarding the deletion of the Aqua Connect article. First, the vote was to Keep the article by majority. Secondly, the article met all of the general guidelines for notability. The notability of the article was proved with over 13 qualified references. I believe that this article was deleted because of a personal attack by ONE editor. If the question at hand is notability, then it has been proved. Please advise... MacJarvis (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I moved the above comment here from a unrelated page or I would have never seen this... It appears to me the company is probably notable despite Mac's misguided promotional efforts. (The first AfD closed as no consensus and the 2nd was marred by his antics.) If its OK with you, I'd like to move the article into the Article Incubator for cleanup & further development. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Forgive me for getting in direct contact, however I have serious concerns about this motion:

"Mattisse is indefinitely banned from participating in FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors with whom she has had previous conflicts."

The wording is imprecise and is likely to lead to difficulty in implementing which will cause more conflict than it is intended to resolve.

Problems of wording:

  • "FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors" - The intention is to avoid Mattisse being involved in any article quality assessment process of articles where certain users have been significant editors. The wording, however, doesn't make that clear, and doesn't give guidance as to when a person is a significant editor.
  • "editors with whom she has had previous conflicts." - This is also unclear. Again, there are people in mind, but they are not named, as they normally would be in an ArbCom case. I do not know who all these people are, so I cannot advise Mattisse on this matter - and Mattisse herself may not know who would consider themselves to have had a previous conflict with her.
  • "indefinitely banned" - This is going against the spirit of the case, which is to allow the mentoring process some time to work, to give Mattisse an opportunity of working toward co-operative and harmonious editing. Motion 2.3 has a 6 month restriction, which appears more appropriate.

This case has gone on for quite a time now, and it would be a shame for all concerned if in an attempt to close it quickly before the holiday season these ambiguities were not addressed.

Clearer, more workable options may be:

  1. Mattisse is banned from FACs and FARs for 6 months.
  2. Mattisse is banned from tagging Featured Articles for 6 months.
  3. Users who have difficulty working with Mattisse are to make themselves known to ArbCom who will then inform Mattisse and Mattisse's advisers. Then for 6 months, Mattisse is to check the Revision history statistics of Featured Articles she wishes to become involved with by editing, tagging, talkpage comment or article quality assessment to see if any of these users are among the top five contributors. If any of these users are among the top five contributors, then Mattisse is to consult with her advisers and await a response before getting involved.

I have removed DYK and GA from the list, as these are not significant problem areas. Incidents there have been isolated. I feel some or all of these options, or a variation of them, would be acceptable to all concerned, and are worth considering. SilkTork *YES! 01:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'd have fixed it myself, but it's your reserved turf: at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions/Proposed decision#Academic sourcing, you have a non-working link, [http:/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources]. I think all you really need is [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

[1]

John Vandenberg thought there was more than enough evidence to run a CU check on Fowler. Do your research first before making such claims.

Furthermore, the fact that you would dare say this, when it was two sentences in a work without any references by a guy who never published on Oscar Wilde LABELLING HIM AS A PEDERAST. You are saying that the source was credible to say that the guy was a supporter of having sex with young boys.

That statement alone makes me want to have no further connection to Wikipedia. The fact that you would find -me- in fault in the situation where the source was clearly bad in a matter so incredibly controversial gives me no faith in your understanding. Good bye. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Materialscientist (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Can you be more specific about the punctuation? Merry Christmas Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 07:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

YM has done some tweaks. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 07:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I have several questions that I would like answered about the asmahan case, can I ask you them? or someone else? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

You may have an opinion on this debate: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#All-American_in_infobox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated for a WP:GAR. Many of the issues during GA were not yet address. See Talk:Hypertension/GA2 Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply