User talk:Tristessa de St Ange/Archive 7

Archived talk page messages: Archive Vol. I / Archive Vol. II / Archive Vol. III

Thief!

Dear Mindspillage: I've stolen your user page theme, which, amusingly, you originally stole from Talrias to begin with - I do hope you don't mind :) All the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hah! It would be awfully hypocritical of me to mind, now, wouldn't it? And now we're categorymates, too. (You can keep your color scheme, though; I look awful in yellow...) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Diplomacy in the Machine

Hi Nicholas. I was reading up on things to do when one doesn't have a "meltdown" situation but rather a more minor difficulty, and found your committee. I've had a discussion with a user (link) who I think is "out of line" in terms of his process for discussions. I do not wish to challenge his dedication to contributing to the effort, but I think he's just behaving in a way that does not promote good will. I've tried my best to see if I can have some impact on his style, so we might come to a compromise on what is civil discourse. He and I do not really have any huge disagreement over article content (outside of a fundamental difference of opinion in whether Ignore All Rules is a good idea). I just don't like how I'm being treated, and I don't want to feel so depressed about the outcome of my conversation with him that I quit Wikipedia. So I'm interested in some cool heads getting involved in telling us what we're doing wrong here, and how people with our points-of-view might have a better conversation. Thank you! (P.S. I prefer having a note given on my userpage of an update, with a link, rather than have discussions duplicated! Thanks!) Metaeducation 09:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year

For last year's words belong to last year's language

And next year's words await another voice.

And to make an end is to make a beginning.

T.S. Eliot, "Little Gidding"

Happy New Year! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Why did you block User:Tommstein?

I went through his contributions since you warned him and he made no personal attacks. On what basis did you block him? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 03:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Nicholas. Based on your evidence, there was not sufficient reason to block according to WP:BP. The so-called POV edit was in fact largely accurate; it should say "most publications", not "all". (BTW, how did you establish that is was unsourced and POV?). And one mildly sarcastic response is not sufficient to warrant blocking for disruption. You warned Tommstein, and he stopped making personal attacks. The block was unnecessary and without grounds. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to explain in detail how you have personally determined that insertions into an article that are massively documented to be accurate on said article's Talk page are in fact not only POV, but block-worthy POV? Would you also similarly care to explain how mild sarcasm has now become a blockable offense? Given that WP:BP also says that blocks for "Disruption" should be noted by administrators on WP:ANI, and I don't see anything else that you could have possibly used as an ostensible justification, would you also please explain why you flagrantly broke Wikipedia policy on a very serious issue, user blocking, by not noting the block on WP:ANI?Tommstein 19:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to put my objections to banning Tommstein forward. Banning one person and refusing to treat others on the opposite side with equal severity when they have been guilty of posts that are far more controversial is demonstrating major bias to say the least. The second point is that Tom had done nothing remotely offensive after he had been warned, and yet he was still picked on and banned, it appears solely due to 'daring to disagree' with NicholasTurnbull. If putting ones own side of the story and defence forward means immediate banning, then the Wikipedia project is one of the worst places for Freedom of Speech and debate, and is turning into a dictatorship if this kind of abuse is allowed to continue and possibly grow. The phrase comes to mind—'power corrupts'. Was this incident a 'one off', or is it a sign of underlying lack of good administration on Wikipedia? Central 21:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears that such notification on WP:ANI is not always required, per Wikipedia:Controversial_blocks. Additionally, the block is logged automatically here. - CobaltBlueTony 15:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to assume that either you just made that up out of thin air, you didn't read Wikipedia:Controversial_blocks very carefully, or someone edited out whatever you were using as justification before I got there.Tommstein 07:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's review, shall we?

Once you are convinced that a block is warranted, the recommended procedure for controversial blocks is:

1. Check the facts with care.
2. Reread appropriate parts of Wikipedia:Blocking policy.
3. If possible, contact other administrators informally to be sure there are others who agree with your reasoning. The administrators' noticeboard, IRC and email are effective tools for this.

1. Place the block, exercising due care in the wording of the "reason" message, and include a link to the user page of the user being blocked. Hm, no requirement to use the noticeboard here.

1. Place a notice of the block on the talk page of the affected user, with additional rationale, outlining the facts and the part of the blocking policy you feel applies.
2. Be willing to discuss the block with other Wikipedians. Such discussion usually takes place either on the blocked user's talk page, or the administrators' noticeboard (the latter especially in those cases where it was already raised there).

I did not see any sentence which could be interpreted that the admin must use the noticeboard. Since the block procedure requires admin priveleges and additional data to be filled out, and the servers do the rest, I cannot tell where NicholasTurnbull violated any policy or guideline in his action. If you can quote and link the precise phrase which supports your assertation, please provide it. Otherwise, rereading the policy may be a ball back in your court, as it were. - CobaltBlueTony 03:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Read step 2 more carefully. And possibly steps 1, 3, 4, and 5 (if you had numbered the list right).Tommstein 07:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly urge the inclusion of more administrator's comments on this project stopping issue. There is too much animosity for one Admin to handle alone. Duffer 06:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are still monitoring user:Tommstein's edits or not, but if you are, I feel I need to point out several more of his recent violations of wp:NPA and general harassment.

• "reinserted deletion justified by the most asinine argument ever seen on wikipedia or, indeed, the world" -edit summary-
• User talk:Tommstein#Personal attacks - please stop - A list of comments made by Jehovah's Witnesses in direct response to his or user:Central's verbal abuse and non-stop harassment. I made a brief defence for myself, which Tomm subsequently deleted, twice. One of those "quotes" he attributes to me was infact several different replies, but Tomm had rolled them all into one as if they were one "quote." There's got to be a policy against such deceit..
• General non-constructive and extremely hostile comments by Tomm (Special:Contributions/Tommstein), just click on whichever, you'll likely find a violation every other click.

I know Tomm has recently requested comments about the one day block you gave him so I am not sure if you had to recuse yourself from monitering him or not, if not, then please look into these continuous violations, if you cannot, then please point someone who can look into these matters to this post. Thank you. Duffer 12:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:TINMC

Bonaparte is playing musical chairs. Rob Church ^Talk 18:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it was based on this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal&diff=33603157&oldid=33603063 Bonaparte talk 18:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I have practically the willing and time to deal with mediation. And I enjoy very much, this nomination may come as an award. That's all. Bonaparte talk 18:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Loxley

Well, I went ahead and moved back some of the material that Loxley deleted some time ago, merging it in with the current article. In response, he reverted my changes outright. He doesn't want to deal with this maturely, we wants an edit war. At this point, I'm ready to take this to mediation. Can you point me in the right direction? Alienus 21:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Your code is now a box

This user opposes the ridiculous glut of userboxes, and thinks they must die.

• now you face a dilema - you don't like userboxes so you want to nominate this nonsense for deletion - however, this box opposes userboxes so you want other users to adopt this box on their own user pages - i will let you think about it :) God of War 09:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin RfC

>I think that such things which do not fall under the purview of encyclopaedia editing really don't have to go through the cumbersome deletion processes, simply because otherwise we'll end up doing nothing else than squabbling rather than writing the encyclopaedia.

So you are suggesting that Kelly Martin's actions have reduced squabbling??? Kaldari 14:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas, could you take a look at

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rbj and possibly add a comment, if you feel so inclined? r b-j 16:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

WISHING YOU

A Happy New Year!!!!!!!!! Jason Palpatine 22:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes, ohnoes!

KM	This user supports Kelly Martin for ArbCom.

Ciao. Rob Church ^Talk 13:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Nicholas for your Barnstar. It means a lot to me. I feel good. I will continue my work. Thank you. Peace. Bonaparte talk 08:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/06_12_2005_Alienus_and_Loxley_edit_war_over_Dennett_and_Philosophy_of_the_Mind

In your summary of the Cabal you mentioned how philosophy is about the interplay of ideas, not whether a particular idea is right or wrong. So how do we stop someone with a particular idea from twisting all the articles in a field? In the Cartesian materialism article we are dealing with a user, Alienus, who has a 'thing' about Daniel Dennett. I have corrected many of his incursions into other "philosophy of mind" articles. Alienus is an expert at "edit wars", he started this edit war with an accusation that "Loxley" was about to begin an edit war, he reverts having made small, erroneous changes then accuses me of making reverts rather than revisions. You have got to admire his skill at operating the Wikipedia environment.

But there is an issue here. Alienus has a hero. He is trying to insert the ideas of this hero as the principle and true ideas across a series Wikipedia articles. Should we just give way because he is persistent? loxley 10:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

And you have a villain whose existence you wish to downplay. The truth of the matter is that, every time you've made contributions, I've bent over backwards to integrate them. In response, you do blanket reversions of my changes. The problem here is you. The solution is for you to go away. Running around and harassing people like Turnbull is a fine example of why you belong in another venue. Alienus 11:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are bound to see it like that. Dennett's ideas are well represented in my version of the article. Please stop insulting me. I have taken this to arbitration. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Cartesian_materialism

Bogdanoff affair "mentions"

I am sorry, but Ze Miguel comment in connection with the PHD mentions is not only approximate: it is false. The lax of April 27, 2002 does not apply to the theses of Bogdanoff. The regulations which apply to the delivery of a doctorate depend on the date on which the inscription in thesis was taken. In the case of the Bogdanoff brothers, it was in 1991. Therefore, the regulation that applies in their case is the law of 23 novembre 1988. Here is the law text (http://www.andes.asso.fr/GUIDE/annexe/node11.php)  :

"Toutefois, les dispositions de ces arrêtés restent applicables aux candidats inscrits en vue de l'obtention de l'un de ces diplômes et ayant choisi, conformément aux dispositions transitoires prévues par l'arrêté du 5 juillet 1984 relatif aux études doctorales. de poursuivre la préparation de leurs travaux et de les soutenir dans les conditions prévues par les textes antérieurement en vigueur."

In English:

"However, the provisions of these decrees remain applicable to the candidates registered for obtaining one of these diplomas and having chosen, in accordance with the transitional provisions envisaged by the decree of 5 July 1984 relating to the doctoral studies to continue the preparation of their work and to support them under the conditions envisaged by the texts before in force."

It is clear. Grichka passed his thesis in 1999. Igor in 2002. They started their thesis in 1991, long before the "new doctorate" mentionned by Ze Miguel (27 april 2002). Therefore, as the law stipulates, the only legal text that applies to the Bogdanoff thesis is the text of July 5,1984 (http://guilde.jeunes-chercheurs.org/Textes/Doct/A840705-2.html) :

"L'admission ou l'ajournement est prononcé après délibération du jury. L'admission peut donner lieu à l'attribution de l'une des mentions suivantes : passable, honorable ou très honorable."

In English:

"the admission or the adjournment is pronounced after deliberation of the jury. The admission can induce the attribution of one of the following mentions: passable, honourable or very honourable."

I know well the circumstances in which Bogdanoff passed their theses at the University of Bourgogne. Taking into account their celebrity (and to avoid discussions), it was decided to allow a "discrete" passing grade to them (Honourable) and not at all "the lowest passing grade" (passable). Insofar as it was the text of 1984 which applied to the theses of Bogdanoff, the jury knew perfectly that the "Honourable" ranking was not the lowest one (which was indeed "passable"). Consequently what is written in the article of Wikipedia is absolutely false and should be corrected.

AMA Considering Mediating

Nicholas -- there's a proposal on the AMA talk page about taking on informal and formal mediation. I've steered folks to TINMC several times but it doesn't seem to take. Maybe if you could take a look at the proposal and give a comment about what TINMC is all about that would be helpful. Up to you though, just thought you might like to. --Wgfinley 01:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

re:Please don't exploit MediaWiki bugs

I read that thing and I feal that in this case it is not being used for fraud and can't be because of how it works, however maybe not everyone should be able to get to the instructions on doing it. If however it had been proven that this was causing a problem with the database or the software I would remove it immidently. --Adam1213 Talk + 08:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

JWs

Thanks for the heads up, Steve suggested opening up a different case to them apparently. I'll see if I can resolve their problem like this, otherwise from the amount of mediation they seem to be needing a more formal process might suit them better. - FrancisTyers 20:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Request

Thanks Nicholas. We (Natalinasmpf and myself) seem to be able to resolve our disputes now, so I don't feel a need for outside help. Thank-you for taking the time to be of service to the community. I will add a note to the Mediation Cabal page. --BostonMA 23:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC

This is a pre-emptive strike: I'd offered to help Tommstein put his statement in order when it had barely poked its head into user space. While I'd imagine that you neither knew that nor actually cared (and why should you?) I just wanted to make it clear that it was only because I hate to see anyone going off half-cocked. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What a kind, good deed to do, Aaron. You won't have to feed the orphans for a whole month now. Rob Church ^Talk 06:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)