User:Peter M Dodge/Archives/archivefeb012006

Question

Hello, would it be alright if I asked you a couple questions about your view of the Naming Conventions case? --El on ka 02:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Would be fine as long as you realize I don't appreciate being pressured, and reserve the right not to answer questions that are I feel are inappropriate, improper, or am not at the liberty to speak about. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 15:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

RFCU clerk

Since you're already pretty much a de facto clerk at RFCU, I've discussed the matter with Daniel and decided to go ahead and make you official. If you'd be so kind as to get with him and fill out whatever "paperwork" he has for new clerks, I'd appreciate it. Welcome aboard. Essjay (Talk) 06:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd happily accept my commission, or whatever it is you call it - clerkship I suppose? :) Thank you both for your votes of confidence, I appreciate it greatly, and will endeavor to do my best over there. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 14:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We Thank You

Hey, Wiz! I got your message aand am replying (obviously). You guys are most certianly welcome and am just glad to help. The only "repayment" I need is you guys to be happy (and if I can help with the real life issues tel me). Happy Winterval (the cards below)! —¡Rand fan !^{Sign here?} 17:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm here if you ever do need something. It's really the least I can do. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and in addition...

Hi Peter, thanks for the well wishes. Let me also say that I'm sorry to hear that you are having health problems, and also that your life has been affected by the death of one close to you. I don't know the details, nor do I know when precisely this occurred, but I do know that the holiday season is a particularly difficult time to mourn someone. I wish there were something I could say that could take that pain away. I hope that over time, the pain of your loss will be leavened by the memories of the good times you shared. I also want to thank you on behalf of E@L for your support of her during her difficulties. I hope that I can be there for you too if you need support. Thanks again, --Kyok o 04:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

She thanks me enough as it is :) I appreciate the thought though. Mm. As to the specifics, well without getting into the background or details too much, my ex and friend Reena committed suicide a few weeks ago. Anyways, let me know if I can ever be of help and I'll happily oblige. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I hadn't expected a reply on your talk page, but fortunately this page is on my watchlist. I wasn't trying to pry, and you needn't have told me. But now that I have some idea what happened, I'm saddened by her death, and I hope that you will try not to blame yourself for what she did. I have the feeling that I've been saying this a lot recently, but I hope that with time, the pain of her loss won't be as crushing as it is now. In my experience, the pain of losing someone you love never completely goes away.

If you were wondering about why I find this time of year so hard to go through, in short, my best friend died almost eleven years ago, and the anniversary of her death is rapidly approaching. I've told Ayelie the full story if she cares to tell you. And yes, it still hurts, but the pain isn't constantly overwhelming as it once was.

It will probably sound ludicrous or even insulting for me to wish you Happy Holidays at this time. I know how alienating it can be when you see people all around you who are smiling and laughing when you just feel miserable, but I hope that you find some joy or at least some comfort during this season, and if I can help you towards that, please tell me. Best wishes, --Kyok o 04:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You guys help more than you know. Helping E@L as you guys have has put me at peace considerable, I worried a lot about her, and I know I am not the only one. Thank you. Love, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, fucking yay. I come here to thank you for trying to cheer me up and see you're having the same kind of problems. I don't know what to say except ... tough it out, kid, like I am. This is not a good year, but there's always tomorrow. Okay, I'm going to stop trying to cheer anyone up, and just...take a nap or something. *hugs Peter* --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 21:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC) On Wikibreak due to Drama Overload

We do best to remember the good times, and not their passing. And there's always the magical ball of fire :) Hang tough Elara. You're a good person. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Please feel better

I hope you are feeling ok. If there is anything I can do to help you, I will try my best.--C J King 22:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh. Nothing is going to bring Reena, or the others I lost before her, back. I simply try not to dwell on such things. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

==James McCune Smith==

My edits tonight are my Christmas present to you. Be well and have a wonderful time. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 05:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Aw! Thanks a ton. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 14:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Online bullying by Oden

I hope you understand why i was angry towards Oden. Perhaps you were not present to mediate this... Oden has been constantly abusing the system by overwriting my works and accuse me of using copyrighted materials whereby he himslef is doing the same... as far as iam concerned, i have seen other editors has expand the article and made minor changes to make the article looked more profound, but Oden is trying to be a smart-aleck by stating facts which arent true at all! Please help me by telling him not to carry on abusing me, if he should he should state it nicely in his own words, not copying and paste the words possible. I am frustrated, I hope you do not take side on him...YuRiPa 15:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The wrong conduct of one user does not vindicate improper conduct on your part. Strive to be better, not just as bad, or worse. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 15:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

about WP:EA and why I'm inclined to leave

Hi Peter, I hope you are feeling at least a little better. Part of the following message is what I told Fredil about Esperanza:

I'm inclined to leave Esperanza, because it looks as if it has become just what its detractors have alleged: a bureaucracy-obsessed group that talks more about helping others rather than providing any actual assistance. I know this statement sounds incivil, but I really do feel hurt by how Esperanza has changed, and it's only making me feel worse.

Don't get me wrong, there are many great, kind, and helpful people who are members of Esperanza. It's just that their caring nature seems to be unrelated to the Esperanza of today. As I said, if Esperanza wants to reform itself, it will have to do it without me. --Kyok o 21:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been bouncing the idea around of restarting a group with the core goals of Esperanza but none of the endless bureaucratic dickery. The newer users that have taken it over really have been nothing but bad for it, in my opinion. As Kelly would say, it's people making a group for the point of being, or feeling, important. My opinion is better elaborated in an essay I never quite finished (and is quite old too, 1000 edits ago): User:Wizardry Dragon/Esperanza. It's funny - when I first met E@L it was over the MfD, and we were on different sides. But as things progress people really seem to be understanding what my complaints where then. As I keep quoting Dmcdevit on If this is the civility parade, I'd rather stay home. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Peter, I read your essay and I agree with much of what it says. I hope I wasn't being unkind in my remarks above, but that is the impression of EA that I'm getting right now. I can well see why people would want to delete the group entirely. I had told Fredil how disappointed I was that more people didn't show support for Elaragirl, especially Esperanzans, and I wonder sometimes if her position re: EA might have had something to do with that. I've dropped my EA membership and updated my userpage to reflect that fact. As you can see, I've updated my signature as well. I'm still keeping the EA subpage in the hope that the group will be able to remake itself, but as I've said elsewhere, Esperanza just made me lose hope. I hope you and especially E@L understand. I really don't want to hurt her feelings. --Kyoko 22:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Hmf, I'm sure she will understand. I think she feels the same herself a little bit, though only she would know for sure, as a matter of course. What I'm thinking of doing is starting from the ground up all over again with something else. I don't know if it's worth it or if people would be interesting, but a group with the ideals that EA had when first made is helpful and in my opinion needed in the Wikipedia environment. Lemme know if you're interested. I'll draw something up today when I have time. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Postscript: It really breaks my heart to see people glossing over Elara, though. :( ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm interested. Personally, the one thing that Esperanza has going for it is its stress alerts page. I could be mistaken, but the various programs that were started around the time of its MfD don't seem to have led to the interaction with the encyclopedia at large that they promised. It's all very disappointing. --Kyoko 22:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- (Oops, merged! :) ) I'll see if I can't draw something up. I agree that the stress alerts program has merits. Esperanza in my view was always an extension of the "wikilove" that Jimbo always has pushed. Wikipedia has been falling lately. Admins have been abusive, users disheartened, some users abusive, and overall the environment has become negative. So lets take some steps together, and make the environment positive again. That is the beauty of Wikipedia - all of us, here, working together. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  - I'm glad that you can be so optimistic at a time like this. Maybe I should tell E@L myself why I chose to leave Esperanza. Let me also add how sorry I am for all the people you have lost. --Kyoko 23:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
    - I try hun, it's all any of us can do. We do little good by remembering the faults and failings in life, and the sorrow, we must remember the good things that bring us joy. That is the whole point, of course, of such a group - to foster kindness, hope, and love. We are all respected and valued contributors, and we should love each other for it. Needlessly dividing ourselves over conflicts is disruptive and hurtful. We should strive to avoid such pains and help each other better ourselves and the encyclopedia. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
      - I left a detailed (much longer than what I've said previously) explanation about why I chose to leave EA on E@L's talk page, because I don't mind if other people read it. I just think that for my own sanity's sake, it's best that I recuse myself from the overhaul discussion. --Kyoko 23:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
You just stay strong, and never forget that people carre for you, love you, and that hope springs eternal. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Disageee

On [1]. DR should not grant immunity from PAIN, just as content RfC does not grants immunity from 3RR. Comments at DR are not outside the scope of WP:CIV, at least not according to any policy I am familiar with.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, NPA is not the civility police. We are not here to tell everybody to regard others with flowery speech, simply to avoid pointed personal attacks that lead to disputes and divides in the community. If there is a personal attack, then that is the purview of PAIN, if not, then it should go somewhere else. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Peter

Would you do me a favor and click on the bottom two external links in this version of Decline of Buddhism in India? Here it is:[[2]]. Freedom Skies says they're dead links, but I can see them just fine. Can you?

Hi Peter,

Please disregard the above. It's handled to the best of my ability now.

I've removed all users from my Watchlist. I've also removed some common areas. I'm letting you know so that if you need to respond to me - please do so on my talk page. Sorry about the length of my talk page; I will be archiving soon.

As they say in Christian parlance, I'm "letting go and letting God". There is a Buddhist equivalent to this, but it gets too complicated to explain. In any event, please contact me any way you feel like and whenever you feel like it. NinaNinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 19:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how to proceed

User Nelson Ricardo took a cleanup on my talk page a bit too personally and decided to be publicly rude to me, in turn, I responded with an explaination of talk page etiquette. I was then personally attacked in a very deliberate and flagrant manner. diff: [3] --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, the best bet is to report him on WP:PAIN if they're not already there. If they are, make a note of this misbehaviour for myself or another reviewer as we go through the reports. Be sure to post diffs. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN requires that a warning tag be in place before an incident is reported, that's why didn't submit one. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not a hard and fast rule. The thrust and point of the rule is that they have to have been warned of their misconduct beforehand (ie, they are not being blind-sided by it). Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandal and Sock Puppet Problems

I'll list this for you to show how I tried to take care of the problem. Originally I made note here at the bottom. I just wanted it to be known to be people that a mass revert took place by the user Apocalyptic Destroyer. As far as I know the IP 70.19.145.44 who is Guardian Tiger who is Apocalyptic Destroyer, who is RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH who is RevolverOcelotX. The last two users are banned accounts for Sock Puppet and Vandalism. I made a second request for a RevOcX her here and was subsequently deleted by the above IP. The above IP also tagged my IP adress for a 3RR ( here )although I had not made any reversion recently. Then this Guardian Tiger followed me around to edit what I edited. I will make another attempt at a user check because now to me it is obvious the user is using the same (false) bully tactics and reversions to the same pages to his old user. I truly apologize for bringing this up on your page, but I wanted to make sure someone saw this. I will once again try to make a check user.ShuckyDucky 18:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I made a report hereThank You.ShuckyDucky 18:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. I have cleaned up the request a bit, I hope that you do not mind. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project )

Thank you, I really appreciate it. I noticed you even dotted my "I"(so to speak) up above. I hope the format makes sense as I was trying to show the difference in edits. Thanks again!ShuckyDucky 21:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Will do

I have had to deal with very persistent people one of whom does not research thoroughly but thinks it's unfair if someone loses his patience and makes remarks about competence and the other feels that doesn't this article say that pretty much after Khilji it was all over for Buddhists anyway except for out in the Himalayas? If you follow the edit patterns of the editors in question you'll see them repeating every single act of Hindu actions thrice or more in the article and downplaying on moslem actions, removing citations from the BBC about the Hinduism/religious non conversion priciple and basiclly following an agenda which has the article as the first casuality. I cite, correct and condense only to have it removed by people who can't write encyclopedic articles but are in it to push POV.

You adviced me "Calling someone disruptive, is, in and of itself, disruptive." "you are starting to sound and act disruptive." was the remark by Nina that made me lose my patience.

In any event, thanks for the friendly warning. All core policies should be followed by everyone involved, including myself.

_{Freedom skies| talk} 18:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely my point. I discussed the same thing with Nina on IRC (indeed my words were a little stronger to her than to you) .. If you saw the message about me wanting to discuss things with her on IRC on her talk, that's what it was about. I don't think either of you were entirely in the right, but you have to realize that part of NPOV is representing as many pertinent points of view as possible, such as how Will Beback and I handled the links section in Lou Dobbs. Just realize that you're both not saying the uncivil things you said out of malice - you're both just frustrated with each other. Take a moment, sit down, take a breath, and remember that you're both just doing what you're doing to help improve the encyclopedia. I can tell you that Nina may be someone direct but she's a good person and respected editor. She may have made a mistake for standing up for Tigeroo (I'd aghree with you if you said so), however, she was only doing it because she felt that he was a newbie being bitten - so please realise that she is acting out of good faith, as I am sure you are as well. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

New sockpuppet allegation

I noticed that you have removed information you considered private from a post in the sockpuppet investigation. That was information that was vital to the defense against the false allegation. Please communicate that entire post to the admin who conducts the Checkuser investigation. - DP1976 19:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The information will be available to them if they do a checkuser request, so they'd see it in any event. I merely removed it from the public eye as it's release was a privacy policy problem. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you believe this? I'd appreciate it, Peter, if you'd look into the Talk:Free Republic discussion and the sockpuppet investigation. There are two users here, BenBurch and FAAFA, with extensive and turbulent histories here during their entire eight months at WP. This includes protracted edit wars, extensive use of personal attacks, and generally troll-like behavior. Abundant evidence thereof is available in the archives of their own Talk pages. Let me thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter. It's making continued participation at WP very unpleasant for the targets of their false accusations. - DP1976 21:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be improper for me as a CU clerk to comment on a dispute when there is a CU request open regarding it. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A challenge

Peter, we've never been introduced, but you've certainly made a name for yourself around the wiki as a defender of neutrality. I have a case that would be particularly challenging: Breast implant which three admins: myself, User:Davidruben and User:Sarah Ewart have been trying to mediate over the past month. There are a number of editing parties with very strong views on the issue, which is why I wanted to see if you personally were interested in assisting with neutrality in the article. Talk:Breast implant is a jumble, but gives you a sense of how difficult satisfying all parties is. Let me know if you are interested in having a go at sorting through it. (P.S. I'm from Ottawa but live in Toronto where I am cursed at on a daily basis by people like User:Deathphoenix for wearing my Sens colours in public) -- Samir धर्म 20:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not adverse to it, but I need to know some basics first. What are the basic issues? What parties are involved in the affair? Hmm. Read the guidelines for posting a mediation at WP:MEDCOM and come back to me with answers for those questions. We needn't that formal a venue, but the answers to that kind of question would be most helpful in going forward. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:35, 27 December 2006

(UTC)

Thanks for reaching out to me

I appreciated your note and offer of neutrality. You can learn alot about me by going to our non profit foundation webpage [4] In the last 3 days, I've had every link of mine removed from Wiki ... even all the links to articles I had been quoted in (including the Scientist, Chemical & Engineering News, Wired Magazine, Glamour etc.) All gone. Posts I made were removed, and a edited archive made. On November 20, 2006, the Supreme Court of California ruled in my favour ... unanimously ... in a case officially known now as Barrett Vs Rosenthal. Others call it Quackbusters 0 / Rosenthal 3. Barrett's viewpoint POV is all over Wikipedia and I am not allowed to post contrary evidence. From the moment I arrived, every edit of mine was undone. I can honestly tell you, that the article on Barrett Vs Rosenthal was basically unrecognizable as to the facts. It's better, however, even now, there are many flaws and bias toward Barrett. For" several weeks my link [5] gave a balance ... then this weekend it was disappeared. I can assure you, I only want facts on Wikipedia. Please remember, Barrett has been waging a legal battle against several of us and on the internet. They just took a huge beating in the Supreme Court of California. In Time Magazine, he was quoted as saying, "Now I am The Media." That's quite an ego to be defending myself against. Many kind folks have written and shared Wiki stories similar to mine of being bullied off. It's quite interesting that I beat them in the Supreme Court in a unanimous opinion of 7 justices ... but I lost in Wikipedia. How I even knew to come to Wikipedia about the case (six long years of my life ... )was people wrote me telling me it looked like I lost the case and better get the facts out there. I haven't read your whole page yet to understand your missions ... I'll go do it now. Healing and Blessings to you from the Jungles Ilena 23:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide third party sources of this evidence? The more websites you have that support your view, naturally, the more seriously we can look at this view. I do see why they could have removed the link in particular, as the case itself could be considered a political sticking point, but a flat out link to http://www.breastimplantawreness.org would probably work - I see no reason why it would not be considered a reliable source, as it does not constitute original research. My suggestion, however, is to try a little more talking than flat out editing, especially when it comes to adding links - people tend to assume bad faith on the count of people that are just adding links, they think that they are just trying to advertise on Wikipedia. I am not saying I agree with them, but you must realise that you come off as advertising one point of view, which leads to abrasion (at best) with those of an opposing point of view.

I would also humbly suggest that you apologize to some users. KillerChihuahua did not word his comments in the most positive way, but he was saying what he said out of concern for you and trying to help, so I feel it wasn't the best thing to do to comment on him as you did. I understand you felt attacked, and he reacted to your response in a similar fashion, but I think you both need to realize in the heat of the moment we sometimes say rash things, and apologize for it. It would help diffuse this situation somewhat, and I, for one, would appreciate it deeply.

As a tangential thought, some jurisdictions have the transcripts of court proceedings available online. I know the Supreme Court here in Canada does. Do you know if such a transcript would exist for the case you talk about? If it does, this would be a very valuable resource to reference in applicable parts of Wikipedia. Could you see if this is the case and get back to me? I would much appreciate it if you would.

I hope I have been of some help in this matter and look forward to your reply. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)