User talk:Ideogram/Archive 10

Notice of arbitration review case

Please be advised that an arbitration matter on which you commented has been accepted as a review case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta/Review. You may present evidence on the case page or additional comments on the talkpage. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration procedure

I saw your post on the review case page. The editor filing an arbitration case should always be considered a party or at least a nominal party for purposes of participating in the case, receiving notices, etc. In fact, I explained this to a party to another case on my talkpage just yesterday, so this is not a unique practice in this case. No reflection on your editing or your compliance with the prior decision is intended. Newyorkbrad 05:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I can accept that. I hope you understand I'm a little sensitive on the subject. --Ideogram 05:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Medcab

I am trying to help out. G e o. Talk to me 05:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, we really don't want you taking cases. --Ideogram 05:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i have sent you a email using Emailthisuser. Let us continue this discussion through that. G e o. Talk to me 05:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been speedily approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. --ST47Talk 22:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medcab bot

Yeah, I think that should be the most recent version unless Xyrael has made any changes to it, which I don't believe he has... ~~oh, there's a new operator now? Well you should ask Sean Whitton then.~~ Cowman109^Talk 01:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's the same person. Should be fine then. Can't hurt to ask him though. :D Cowman109^Talk 01:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: MedcabBot

As you have observed it is somewhat broken and I am being spammed with error e-mails. Can I have the fix code of yours, please? :-) Toolserver e-mail is swhitton@tools.wikimedia.de —Sean Whitton / 10:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Review

The review relating to the above-named arbitration has been closed without action because User:Certified.Gangsta has not edited for several weeks. Should Certified.Gangsta return to editing, the review may be reopened. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid - clarification or new case?

It's unclear what you're requesting, but this is probably best framed as a new arbitration case, rather than a review of the old one. It's an old issue, but involves a new group of editors. You might want to read all the information about arbitration. Arbitration on Wikipedia, unlike almost everything else, is about people, not content. --John Nagle 04:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is mostly the same people who were involved in the old case. I was hoping to save some time by framing it as a review and not a new case, but I can certainly make it a new case if necessary. --Ideogram 04:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest starting a new case, if you want to go this route. You have to name editors as parties, inform them, put together evidence sections, etc. You can certainly reference the old ones. Read up on the procedures. This is a very formal process and quite time-consuming. --John Nagle 05:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pathetic propaganda attempt by *** removed

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

these types of uncivil edits - seen here - (i.e. personal attacks) are not contributing to the community and i request you consider this when in conflict. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I absolutely have to do this.

		The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your endless efforts in making sure ROC and PRC/HK editors don't go at war over each other, for standing up for us Chinese editors, and for consistently dealing with buffoonerly and misinformed editors on AfD discussions, I hereby honour you as a Defender of the Wiki. Pandacomics 18:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was refreshing knowing that a fellow Chinese editor wasn't going to let something as ridiculous as that slide. I'm generally not a very good debater, so I kinda popped in and out. I still can't believe what's coming out of their mouths though. Pandacomics 19:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no patience for bullshit. My quick temper has gotten me in trouble many times, right here on Wikipedia. Which is why it is such a comfort to have your support. --Ideogram 19:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo for your work on Allegations of Israeli Apartheid and attendant RFA

I only wish I had learned of your efforts earlier. Please do keep me posted on what you feel is of interest and importance on WP. BYT 14:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Computer science

Oh I agree that it wasn't blatant vandalism or in bad faith, which is why I put a mere warning level 1 on that IP's talk page. Groupthink 06:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD China allegations

Hi. It was good speaking with you yesterday. I take breaks on Fri nite and Saturdays. Anyway, I put a proposal on the Talk page I hope you will consider. The idea is to first focus on the NPOV requirements for the TITLE ONLY. Some key keep-voters already support name changes for some other of these apartheid articles, so you may get consensus for a MOVE & Rename. Second step is to deal with your concern with NOR, which may become less relevant after the rename. Thanks for reading this. Take care. HG | Talk 03:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw it, thank you. I have read it and am thinking carefully about my response. --Ideogram 03:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Ideogram, I would suggest that continuing with the kind of behavior exhibited at Allegations of Chinese apartheid is not a good idea. My interest in the subject was picked when the whole AfD saga started. I have and will continue research this fascinating subject, regardless of the AfD results. My view is that all these authors' opinions about apartheid-like practices in different countries are the bases for an excellent and informative article. Rather than editwar with me or others, I invite you to collaborate with me and others to create good material for this article or a similar article in which viewpoints about apartheid-like practices in all countries about which these concerns have been raised. Edit warring is never a good choice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

I'll make this as simple as I possibly can: the next time I see any edit from you, on any page, using language that even remotely approximates "shut the fuck up", for whatever reason, I will block you for 7 days. Subsequent blocks will be longer.

I don't care what your reasons are. Even if you feel you have been provoked, such behavior is unacceptable, and it stops, at least on your part, right now. Consider this your final warning. Nandesuka 21:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to threaten to block Bishonen (it's buried in a bunch of text, have to search for it) and ^demon for 7 days. That would be quite amusing. --Ideogram 14:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HG

Ideogram, hi. I have greatly appreciated your helpful dialogue with me. You've given me good information, expert assessments, and honest responses regarding your positions. You have, in effect, helped me formulate my thinking and I hope that you will continue to do so. However, your latest rebuttal to Jossi -- under my Note to the Admin -- does not appear to respond to my Note in any way. Furthermore, I am concerned that it will distract people from giving me the feedback that I am requesting respectfully. Therefore, I would ask that you either ~~strikeout~~ or remove that specific comment. Perhaps when things settle down, you can pursue your rebuttal elsewhere. Thank you very much. P.S. Personally, I extend my support to you in this frustrating situation. Best wishes. HG | Talk 02:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. good luck. HG | Talk 03:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you are right! <trying to tear self away...> HG | Talk 04:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your interjection last night was helpful, thanks. I'd like to ask you something but I'm not putting it on the AfD because it may appear that I'm pestering you (though I don't think you'll mind my asking). The likelihood of a no consensus outcome is strong. If no consensus is reached, your position fails. While I am sympathetic to your desire to delete based on WP:NOR, and realize you are not overly concerned with the title, perhaps you would be willing to accept a fallback position? For example, would you modify your vote to: "Delete and, failing that, Keep and Rename to "Controversies regarding human rights in China" or something similar? (Note that this fallback would allow you to challenge the Content of the renamed article on content-related policy grounds.) If you decide against doing this, I'd like to hear your thinking on my Talk page, if you choose to share it. Thanks again for your consideration. HG | Talk 15:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the AfD! I guess I underestimated the strength of your synthesis argument to overcome so many Keep votes. And I'm sorry about asking you (above) to participate further, when you'd already spent so much time on it. Take care. HG | Talk 02:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many things happen in the fullness of time. But at least I can cite your never when apologizing! Tx, HG | Talk 02:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ideogram for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Jehochman ^Talk 19:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above matter has been referred to Wikipedia:Community sanctions noticeboard for further discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 05:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Welcome back

Here and there. Been quite busy for the past few months, but now I've got another article in the works. -- 我♥中國 17:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden City

Thanks! and of course, thanks for your contribution to the article, too. I'm working on a map (incomplete version here) to go with the article. Hope to finish drawing it this month. Stay tuned! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]