User talk:Renamed user e8LqRIqjJf2zlGDYPSu1aXoc/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Reply from Endarrt

I've responded to it's edits in the edit summaries when I most recently reverted. Regards, Endarrt (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

All I see is edits like this one where you say to "discuss changes" first. The editor has attempted to start a discussion at Template talk:Strathfield platform box, which you've ignored. My question still stands. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Question

Hi Mendaliv. I've read over the various WP:DR pages and so forth (which is how I came across your name), and I'm a little unclear as to exactly how to proceed if I should decide to do so. If a user is being generally disruptive and tendentious, but there is no one major dispute that you can point to, what is the procedure? User talk page discussions have already taken place to some extent, as well as a number of other discussions on article talk pages, and I'm wondering where to go from here. I was initially considering an WP:RFC/USER, but even the RfC/USER process seems to be geared more towards specific disputes on specific articles as opposed to broad behavioural concerns identified by a number of editors. What is the correct course of action here? --Rob (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(P.S.: I know I've seen your name around somewhere else recently, and while I haven't figured out where yet, in looking through your edit history, I have to say I absolutely love your edit summary for this edit.) --Rob (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! I just noticed you're not and Administrator. For some reason, I had it in my head that you were. Oh well. If you can answer my question, great. If not, I'll hunt down someone who is an Administrator. (Yes, I know how to do this...I'm just apparently blind, deaf, and really really dumb tonight. ;) ) --Rob (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Heya! You probably saw me at WP:RSN#Medical review in the Lancet. Sorry if my not being an admin can't directly help out, but I'll be glad to make some suggestions considering what you've asked here. My advice is, if possible, get more people involved. If there's a particular dispute that's currently active, you can always ask for involvement of members from various WikiProjects. But if the main concern is correcting disruptive behavior, it's not easy. RFC/U, as I've unfortunately seen, doesn't work out well very often, and requires all parties to have an open mind... and if that were the case, would there be a dispute? Not likely.

Anyhow, if you're concerned about behavior, but the editor has done nothing expressly or blatantly against policy, WP:WQA might be a good venue to begin if the editor's attitude or approach to civility is problematic. My thoughts are that if an editor is behaving incivilly or excessively argumentatively, said editor may well be driving away inexperienced editors unintentionally, and consequently such behavior should be corrected for the "greater good". Like I said though, without blatant policy violations, particularly bad incivility or obvious disruption (i.e., you can see it with fewer than five diffs), it's tough to make something stick.

As I suggested above, while involving members of related WikiProjects may only solve an acute dispute, once there's that involvement, you have significantly more interest in an RfC/U if said user does continue to behave disruptively. I don't mean this as advice to bait or goad any editor into becoming disruptive, of course, but rather that if said user will be disruptive on a small stage, either he/she will continue it on a larger stage (and everyone will see) or the disruption will suddenly stop (and it won't matter). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Mendaliv, i am sorry that i reply on your talk page but the user is me. I am "tendentious" bc i want medrs at medical articles, and i do oppose when people try to censor medical consensus or say there is a cause for a disease when there is not known, or say a possible cause is not. You can see the difference in Chronic fatigue syndrome and a year ago before i edited, [1]. A group of editors, same group taht is trying to silence me, they had one sentence on psychological factors, did not say even some people think it is a possible cause. They had one sentence dismissing the only known effective therapies, CBT and GET w/ a nonmedrs source, a patient activist group. The article was rambling mess, primary sources, alot of OR, i think it is better now and it has the different view from MEDRS and good second, third sources, bc me and some other editors were "tendentious" no i am not perfect but i try to improve the encyclopedia also when people with strong POV and patient POV try and knock me away.

Also I am "tendentious" bc i think biographies are for notable people. Some medically unexplained symptoms, there are networks from people that believe there is a cause known, so they have doctors that will "treat" these people w/ unproved medicines and they will indulge, and make alot of money. I do not think people should use Wikipedia promoting unknown obscure doctors and other people like this, with no good sources and alot of personal web sites, commercial web sites.

I am "disruptive" bc i take it personal when people have "digs" at me like "obviously her English is not good" that is Rob that said it, or they call me "this" and "it" to get a reaction, or they make threats and order me around. When "there is no one major dispute that you can point to" and never did any one from these editors like Rob put a template message on my talk page, i think that is saying, these editors do not like me, so they want to silence me bc i am the only person in there way, sorry Wiki does not have a way to do it. RetroS1mone talk 11:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, now... don't take this personally. I figured you might have been the user to which Rob referred, but even so I just based my suggestions on Rob's general request for advice; it wasn't meant to refer to particular actions anybody should be taking in this particular case. I'm sure the reason Rob only asked in generalities was simply because he wanted a general opinion for hypothetical situations, rather than a specific recommendation that would require an in-depth analysis of the dispute.

If you feel you're being treated unfairly or the other editors involved are violating Wikipedia policy, I encourage you to take a look at the dispute resolution procedure, and use it to escalate the dispute to include more interested parties. And I promise you if there's any medical quackery being promoted, you'll have lots of editors falling in line to oppose its inclusion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, Mendaliv. I appreciate the suggestions. And you're right, it was at WP:RSN#Medical review in the Lancet. --Rob (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You've probably already noticed it, but it occurred to me last night that I should have followed up to inform you that I did indeed start with a WQA notice. It can be found here if you're interested. Thanks again for the suggestion. --Rob (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Riedel-de Haën logo.svg)

Thanks for uploading File:Riedel-de Haën logo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Image restored- was removed by IP making a bunch of odd edits without edit summaries to Sigma-Aldrich, which I've reverted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Kiki's Delivery Service Screenshot 02 Kiki and Jiji flying to a delivery request.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Kiki's Delivery Service Screenshot 02 Kiki and Jiji flying to a delivery request.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Image restored- removed by an IP which changed a file link in Hayao Miyazaki. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for help

Having seen your contributions to to WP:RS/N and elsewhere, I wondered if you could provide me with advice or assistance? In the scuba article Doing It Right, there is a dispute about whether a large section ("DIW") should be included or not. A new editor, User:Georgekwatson, has removed the section three times and a long-time editor, User:Anthony Appleyard, has replaced it three times. I actually agree with the removal, since the section relies on a dutch website (http://www.frogkick.nl/) which in my opinion is not a WP:RS. All three of us have discussed this on Talk:Doing It Right, and I have advised Georgekwatson not to remove again for the moment as this has become an edit-war. Obviously, we need an outside opinion to resolve this, but since there are three of us, I can't request WP:3O. Do you have any suggestions on where I could find a suitable dispute mechanism, or would you be able to provide an outside opinion to help us, please? Thanks in advance for any assistance you can give. --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Typically, if you think it's not an RS, WP:RSN would be the next step... otherwise I'd typically suggest WP:EAR, but since the problem seems pretty specific to RSN, I'd really suggest there as your next step. I'll take a quick look at the situation and opine on it though, hopefully I can add a new viewpoint to the mix. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, I've dumped a reply into there. I hope it helps out. To summarize what I posted, I'm of the opinion that with the sources at present, neither the DIW nor the controversy sections are appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to help. We've all recognised the difficulty in properly sourcing the Controversy section and it may be that we'll have to remove it (and perhaps add a sentence to History) unless we can find a good third party report that discusses it. Your assistance there is much appreciated. If there's ever anything I can do to return the favour, please let me know! Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Always a pleasure to help out! Feel free to tap me again if you want a follow-up view. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your post in Editor assistance

Mendaliv, I read your post, and no you didn't come off harsh. In fact, it looks like you and I both agree that MOS / MOSBIO doesn't actually state where the TOC should be, but rather that it should be a matter of common sense. Either at the top or below the lede are the two places that strike me as the most common sense place for such a thing. Regardint the //* I use for comments when I'm editing, I've been here about 2 1/2 years and you're actually the first person to say anything about it. (Understand, I'm not using that as an excuse, nor a rational that I'm right) I don't see that as being any problem on the article - AND - to put my money where my mouth is, I'll stop using //* in edit summaries from now on! About the line breaks, most of the time I'm happy to let the article wordwrap, but I admitt to using line breaks around subject headers, <ie>

<br> <br> == Sometitle == <br> <br>
It seperates the text from the title -- pretty standard format from what I've seen. As far as I know, the wiki software will not insert a line break otherwise and without it the title and the text might actually become tangled together (IE text =SOMETITLE= more text). I'll check on that in MOSBIO and MOS.

Thanks ! _{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris}11:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No prob. I just mentioned that particular stuff as it seemed relevant to the discussion. The /* */ in edit summaries isn't a big deal, but like I said it creates a section link unintentionally. :-)

As to the TOC, etc, I think a discussion at WT:LEDE to codify a specific place, or at least a group of places, where the TOC belongs in articlespace would be appropriate. I'd certainly participate in such a discussion.

Thing about using linebreaks after a section header, you can just insert a physical newline (i.e., hitting enter twice) and it should have the same effect. A third or fourth return would make yet another newline. The use of manual linebreaks is just something I don't see often. My personal rule of thumb is, if you see it in a featured article on a similar subject, it's kosher. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Acronis's inability to backup Windows running on a MacBook Pro

I added a statement to an Acronis article. The statement being that Acronis could not backup a Windows partition running on a MacBook Pro and to do that one can use Paragon. It was not a promotion of Paragon as you have stated in your "undo" ... it was simply to allow those who are looking for a method of backing up Windows on a MAC to have a link to an alternative.

If I should have added some reference then please let me know what you would like.

Eddyq Eddyq (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Paragon is irrelevant to an article discussing Acronis. Wikipedia isn't a guide; its purpose is not to instruct people in how to do anything. And your stated purpose, of directing people to an alternative product which does something that the one which is under focus cannot do, is in itself promotion. While your intent may not have been to promote Paragon, the effect is the same.

Basically, I think the best option would be to find a reliable source (by Wikipedia's definitions; see WP:RS) which states Acronis can't back up a Windows partition running on a MacBook Pro. It's likely not appropriate to mention Paragon.

If you disagree with this, I suggest trying to start a wider discussion at Talk:Acronis, inviting a third opinion at WP:3O, or otherwise following the dispute resolution process (WP:DR) so we can get more eyes on the situation and reach a consensus. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Greek Love

Hi Mendaliv! There is a message for you here: Talk: Greek love#Committee for keeping Greek Love. Thanks. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed that trolling "message" which is from this user that !voted to delete the related article. If you need, you can view it in the edit history but it's nonconstructive and quite uncivil. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately someone else he trolled actually restored it so feel free to go there and comment. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 14:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest seems to have misunderstood WP:VOLUNTEER, as well as how AfD actually works. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful comments, much appreciated --Dominique (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on my talk page

Hello Mendaliv,

You pasted a copied response on my talk page stipulating that I had made edits to Wikipedia without providing a valid citation. Since this is an IP address, there is a chance that it was not I but someone else using this IP address. However, I would like to know the page and section in question, so I can determine if it was myself or not.

Thanks, Rich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.198.87 (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Rich. The edit in question is actually the only other edit made by your IP address, and it appears to be 11 months old. You can see it by clicking this link. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Cognex

Sorry for posting a reply when you had already dealt with this one. I did not realise I had edit-conflicted until after I posted. Do we need a flag on the questions? SpinningSpark 21:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no prob... sometimes a different wording of the same point can get it across better. As to flagging that particular one, if we were to flag it now I'd suggest marking it "answered". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I meant a Helper Is Already Working On This And You Would Be Wasting Your Time To Research It As It Will Probably Already Be Answered By The Time You Come Back Flag kind of flag. But I was not really being serious. SpinningSpark 08:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I understand; yeah it sucks hitting an EC when it's a simply-answered problem.

As to preemptive flagging/"staking your claim" to answer a question, I think it's worth at least considering it. My thought is that it might be helpful when it's a simple question, but I still see edit collisions happening with ppl who are unfamiliar with the flag. As to complex problems... I'd definitely say multiple answers are merited. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Vim-LaTeX

Hey! Why are external links removed from navigation templates? Maybe there's a rule which I haven't dug out in Wikipedia? I will create an article and add a Vim-LaTeX back to the template, if needed... Thanks for info in advance. Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically, it comes off as linkspam under WP:NOT. If Vim-LaTeX isn't notable enough to have an article about it, or at least be mentioned in the context of a larger list article, it really shouldn't be in a navigation template. WP:NAV is an essay on nav templates, which suggests that nav templates should only link to existing articles (or redlinks if they're extremely likely to be created very soon).

If you do create an article, I'd wholly support adding a link to it to the nav template of course! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You have just vandalized a page

I will figure out how to appeal this tommorow. If you claim that a court ruling creating a precedent changing the legal deffinition of abuse itsel violates the WP:WEIGHT, condition in this case you have no business here. Futher this case involed Cognex senior mangement. You also dont seem to understand the intention of the primary source rule. It is not acceptable to have to deal with you in order to get documented truths posted on this site. This ruling is more important than Cognex itself.

Look I am trying really hard not to get angry but you can not make a coherant argument that justify why lemelson passes wp:weight but the harassment precident doesnt. Please send this to an proper abrbitor or this is just a pissing contest. I am trying really hard to be sensitve to possibility that you may be struggling with a head injury. I have effectively addressed WP:weight .

and piss me off! you are the one who is avoiding the truth in this. You have been obfuscating all along. you have not made one coherant argument not one. You have typed "primary source" when there was secondary sources cited and I still think that the "primary source" rule cannot be applied to this court ruling. The ruling is a fact and public record, but it doesnt matter becaue i cited cases that referenced this ruling proving its importance and meeting the guidline. You have written WP:Weight here and there but have no interest in the consistant application of this rule. insulting me with your clever little "desultory prevarication" only makes it clear that you driving someone else nuts and were told this about your editing. --Cogvoid (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)(talk)

As stated before and since, the issue is you haven't provided secondary sources to establish significance. In no instance has the case been shown to be significant except by your own unsubstantiated posturing.

As an added note, I resent your personal attacks in this matter. Wikipedia's vandalism policy clearly defines vandalism, and my edits are not in any way this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

what the hell are you talking about? unsubstantiated posturing?? just read the cases that cite this precedent. I have linked to them and they are all over the internet. why should anyone have to deal with this kind of arrogance. you having fun ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogvoid (talk • contribs) 19:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read every single link you've provided, and have seen no indication that the case is significant to Cognex' history. Setting trial precedent is not at all uncommon, and is not prima facie evidence of relevance by any standard. You've been asked repeatedly to provide some third party verification of this significance per WP:RS (which, considering your post to WT:RS, it would appear you've read). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of the work environment of a comapany is plain as day. In this rebutal comments and actions Cognex senior management(who are still there) made were what triggered the change in the legal defintion of abuse. In fact this has been a precident in causes involving abuse of any kind. Shit I have made the point repeatedly. This precedent is now used as an example by the university source I cited of how not to deal with a sexual harrasment case in the workplace. This case change law and the way Cognex and every other company in massatchusets has handle worplace disputes of this nature. The Cognex case caused this.The incedent that happaned there was the cause.Is the not clear ? This third party requirement is new to me, if you have raised it before please show me where. If this has not been raised yet I think it provides annother instance in the pattern of obfuscation and general ill will myself. I will meet this requirement. --Cogvoid

Ok I see the definition of "third party" source but I dont see where it sais that it is a requirement. Can you please explain why more proof is necessary. Anyway just check the university site there are links to pdf's that contain summaries of briefs. Are these not acceptable if they are not why? Describe clearly the form you want the information in. You have been shifting the requirements on me all day- what happened to the weight issue you claimed ? what happened to the claim that a case cited by a university to educate was "first party" information. This has all been addresses and you know it.

Now why dont you go through and apply this standard to every wiki entry, or shall I. This site would vanish. Why have I been singled out and harrassed by you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogvoid (talk • contribs) 23:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

--Cogvoid