User talk:Samsara/Archive08

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Samsara. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Science Collaboration of the month

You voted for Antioxidant and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Month! Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

NCurse _work 07:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

In two articles, there are ORAC entries that both need better formatting and verification. You're more into biology and science on WP, and I hoped you would look into both:

• Antioxidant#Other_organic_antioxidants some of the names on the ORAC list at the end of this sub-section, and the preceeding sentence, look phony to me. This ORAC list could be moved to Antioxidant#Measurement or Oxygen radical absorbance capacity.
• Oxygen radical absorbance capacity (aka ORAC) has this "The highest ORAC value mesured is on Momontrency tart cherry concentrate at 16,500 TE per 100 grams." which looks phony to me. boththe substance and the claim to highest.

If an answer is needed, I prefer you answer here, rather then my User talk page. - Lentower 09:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Twin lantana camara edit.jpg

A new section has been oppened in Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates to clarify the consensus on the picture Image:Twin lantana camara edit.jpg. Since your vote was given before Edit1 was published, would you please like to participate in the discussion? regards, - Alvesgaspar 11:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Ulritz and Rex Germanus are placed on revert parole. They are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, they are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Ulritz and Rex Germanus are placed on probation for one year. They may be banned from any page or set of pages for disruptive edits, such as edit warring or incivility. All blocks and bans and are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit ^(Talk | Email) 06:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Pet peeves

Hi. I like your "Pet peeves" section! It reminded me of my "My stylistic hates (aka "Wikipedia shoot-on-sight")" section, which currently reads (in part):

• 'absent' as shorthand for 'in the absence of'; I always prefer 'without', 'before', 'prior to' etc.
• Chemical elements wrongly capitalised; it's "iron", "oxygen" and "boron", not "Iron", "Oxygen" and "Boron". Simple.
• Stuff like "It should be noted that" and even the word "notable". If it isn't notable, it doesn't belong here.
• Overlinking in general
• 'Ironically'; who found it ironic?
• 'actually'; 'in fact'; these are the equivalent of saying 'honestly' and may make a statement less believable, not more.
• Disambig pages with loads of extra and/or piped links (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages))
• Incomplete dates wrongly linked (there's hardly ever any point in linking years, months or days of the week). Confusingly, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) has changed to allow some ambiguity here, but I still go with the common-sense: Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context

I think I will include the deletionist one in mine, and wondered if you wanted to comment on any of the ones I have. Obviously the last one is potentially controversial (although I have had it there from a very early stage in my history here). The "ironically" one is one I seem to see (and remove) at least once a day. Do you think there is a way we could make these more widely-known, perhaps especially for newer contributors? Best wishes, --Guinnog 10:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Catagenesis (biology) Cyclone Pony Light-independent reaction Fresh water Cladogenesis Evolutionary programming Language-independent specification JACK Audio Connection Kit Supercollider Mountain Language WJAN-CA Random access memory Third-generation programming language Rasmus Lerdorf Interface inheritance Linux Terminal Server Project Anagenesis Metabolism

Cleanup Code (computer programming) GNU GRUB The Collection (play) Merge Java compiler Establishment Clause of the First Amendment Interactive evolutionary computation Add Sources Curtain (how do I deserve this?) Upcoming.org Digestion Wikify Class (file format) Linden Scripting Language Representation (arts) Expand ThinkFree Office Judith DeLozier Message Passing Interface

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Motion passed for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz

A motion has been passed for the case linked above.

The anonymous editor who edits from the 194.9.5.0/24 range and was also a part to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ulritz shall be subject to the same restrictions as Ulritz and Rex Germanus for edit warring at involved articles. See #Ulritz_placed_on_Probation and #Ulritz_placed_on_revert parole for the applicable restrictions.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 21:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

etc

Hi, I couldnt help noticing that your number one pet hate is etc and yet it is the third word on your user page ... I hope you enjoy the irony of that small observation.Abtract 17:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I presume this is you being annoyed with me? If it is, I apologise; I was making a very small joke but it obviously misfired. Incidentally my name is deliberately spelled that way; it means something to me and, judging by others I see on here, it isn't out of place. Anyway, sorry if you've had a bad day, I won't bother you again. Abtract 17:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, sorry. You caught me on my way out of a heated argument with User:Ideogram at WP:FAC#Natural_selection. So back into friendly administrator mode. If you need advice on anything, let me know. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem ... it was a pretty feeble joke anyway :) Abtract 18:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

On how not to crash

Bear in mind you're coming in from orbit - there's the possibility (which we can probably rule out in this case) that the deorbit burn went wrong and she skipped off the atmosphere, or the possibility that the heatshield was faulty (or just aligned wrong) and she burned up. The atmosphere of Mars is fairly thin, but even so I wouldn't guarantee that something small like Beagle II couldn't be completely destroyed if the heatshield came off before entry interface. And, unfortunately, we had no entry telemetry, and only limited testing... we've nothing after that photograph from inside the orbiter confirming seperation, and all that does is confirm it was mostly going in the right direction.

Crash is the most likely solution, I agree, but there's a slim possibility she never got that far - and a decent possibility that she didn't "crash", she landed successfully and then couldn't call back, for one or another reason. We just don't have enough data to say either way, though hopefully MRO will tell us something... Shimgray | talk | 21:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Rugby in Cork

Apologies for not explaining the deletion, I had explained it a number of times previously.

The user has previously added this relatively small rugby club as notable. All the other clubs listed are playing in the professional/semi-professional leagues in Ireland, but Old Christians is an amateur club for former students of one particular school. Furthermore, the club is based just outside Cork City, so does not qualify for inclusion using the criteria previously used in the article. I assume this is part of some attempt to promote the club.

I had requested that the user open discussion in Cork's talk page, but he/she seems happier to engage in a revert war.

Instead of explaining the deletion, I placed the following into the user's talk page.

"Please use the discussion page to achieve consensus about whether Old Christians should be included rather than indulging in a revert war.

For the record

Old Christians are not an AIL club Old Christians are based in Glanmire, not Cork City, the article relates to the city only."

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/NeXT

I believe I have fixed the lack of references in the last two sections. Please check NeXT now, and my reply on the FAC page. Thanks! — Wackymacs 17:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary disambiguation

Please stop using unnecessary disambiguation. For now, the article for the city named Cork is at Cork. Your disambiguation, apart from anything else, makes an assumption that Cork (city) would be the disambiguation location. This is not necessarily the case.

There is a discussion underway at Talk:Cork, please don't pre-empt it.

zoney ♣ talk 15:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have as much right as anyone else to comment. You are acting in the face of no consensus to change the status quo. Please desist your arrogant and unmannered actions. You could use some politeness in your talk page responses too. zoney ♣ talk 15:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. I have changed one redirect to another, because there was consensus to change the first redirect. Cork (city) already redirects to Cork, so this is a perfectly acceptable move. Without your interruption, I could have completed the job, but I've got some DIY to do now, so enjoy the work! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

TS revert

Thanks for keeping such a close eye on Tourette syndrome - you often beat me to the needed reverts. Yes, I think you were correct to remove that External link - I've kept the External links very trim, and try to keep it from becoming a link farm. Anything needed is already available on the DMOZ link, or listed as a reference. Thanks ! Sandy (Talk) 23:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Message of support from your adoptee

I can't believe you actually wanted to be an admin! I hope it doesn't all burn you out! Anyhow, I saw your admirable use of references links and found them intimidating, but inspiring. I will strive to become a better wikipedian without a ton of hand-holding while you are otherwise distracted. Caroldermoid (talk • contribs) 20:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Darwin references

The first couple of references at Charles Darwin are to his books, and you've added commented out remarks questioning if they're needed. The original publications are all listed in the Published works section (good news), many of the links on that list don't work now as the british library has revised its system while putting all the works online, at the main link given above that list. Some are Gutenberg texts: it may be worth keeping a link to Gutenberg, but in a way there's no longer a need to link each book, so putting the publisher and date in instead may be more appropriate. The Voyage of the Beagle abridged edition on Penguin Classics was cited because I've a copy which has a useful intro and appendices giving the Admiralty instructions and Fitzroy's Remarks with reference to the Deluge. Haven't tried looking for the former online, tried but couldn't find the latter: see the references sections to Second voyage of HMS Beagle and Robert FitzRoy for these being cited. Not sure what you think should be in the Charles Darwin references list. .. dave souza, talk 21:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

your SCOTM summary

It's not so crucial now to keep track of the expiry dates as we have only 3 nominees. The rule says "When there are more than five articles (5) articles...", I take care of the project, but I don't want to remove all nominees due to expiring of the dates. NCurse _work 14:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Group Office

I totally understand your frustation, I don't think that DRV is making much sense at all. Please, though, don't let one sour DRV sour you on the whole project... your contributions are too valuable, and this project is too important to the world... Think of the little girl in the congo on her hand cranked laptop, she needs the expertise you can bring. ++Lar: t/c 02:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright. You get ten points for making me laugh. :) Does wikimoney still exist? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll just take the points. Mabye I can exchange them for a favour some time when I need some kind words. ++Lar: t/c 10:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what a group office is or why it should be deleted.--Filll 18:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a web-based office suite. Basically, Microsoft Office through your browser (and internally, it's all based on markup language, but you need not ever know that...) It is open source and was deleted for not being notable. The link to the undeletion page is on my user page. The undeletion debate also contains links to verifiable information about the software. The website is http://www.group-office.com

Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That is ludicrous. How can that not be notable? This is the kind of thing that a Wikipedia reader wants to learn about. I often look up software on Wikipedia to get a quick understanding of it. So Group Office is something like Open Office, I take it.--Filll 19:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Except it all happens through your browser (Firefox, Internet Explorer, or whatever you may have): you connect to a server (could be local on your machine, but typically remote) and edit contents on the server. No files on your desktop. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

I was just debating whether a protection request might be approved. It appears that it would. You're my hero : ) --Doc Tropics ^Message in a bottle 03:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I responded to your post, it's on my talkpage. Please read and let me know what's up? --Doc Tropics ^Message in a bottle 06:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Talk:Evolution tonight

Please take some time to cool off. You have thrown around a lot of hostile acusations and may have crossed the line into blockable personal attacks. Friendly advice: take a few hours, sleep it off, don't edit again until you've had a chance to cool off. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 07:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, my friend, do step back a moment; take some time and breathe deeply. You're stressed right now, and that's no good. If you drink, I'd reccommend a double (at least), and then a good night's sleep. --Doc Tropics ^Message in a bottle 07:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I find creationists very frustrating sometimes myself. Just do not get yourself banned because we need you.--Filll 16:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Cork discussion

Hi. Thanks for helping me there, I appreciated your support. I'm still sorry that some were unhappy with the action I took. It reflected consensus as I saw it and I think we acted with the best interests of the encyclopedia we are writing together at heart. In changing 732 of the links (as I promised), I think I also added much valuable information to it. See Special:Contributions/Spellmaster and Image:Awbtrawlofcorkdone.jpg for details. Best wishes, --Guinnog 04:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. I found a few articles where the links to county and city were confused, and even a few that should have been linking to cork (material), so I'm fully confident that the move was right. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Me too. I found a lot that weren't really meant for the city. pschemp | talk 04:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it bad form for me to point out here that I think people who think Cork means the city first and foremost are being a bit Irish centric? ++Lar: t/c 16:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review of bacteria

Hi there. I'd value your input on this article. Thank you. TimVickers 05:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is now a Featured Article candidate, the nomination page is (here). Thank you. TimVickers 04:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

An editor has made some major changes to this article, could you please return to the FAC and provide some feedback on whether or not these are an improvement? TimVickers 21:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Darwin subsections and text smoothing

Thanks for your note, I'm not sure about the changes but appreciate the need to group things for clarity, and tp review the writing. Unfortunately the "smoothing" introduced what I think were inaccuracies so as an interim measure I've changed those I noticed and left a note on the talk page. Sorry about the D&M debacle, I've changed that back. What's your opinion? .. dave souza, talk 16:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Kanab Ambersnail

This article is the 1.5 millionth on Wikipedia. As you are a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods, would you mind collaborating on the article's improvement? Thanks. -- Zanimum 19:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scottish Parliament

You commented on this article earlier this month, raising concerns about some of the images. I have replaced them both. I'd be very greatful if you could give your comments on this. Thanks Globaltraveller 20:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sexual selection

Hey Samsara, the new lead emphasizes the distinction between mate choice & male coercion, I'd suggest that the distinction between inter- and -intra sexual selection is more fundamental & important. Pete.Hurd 21:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ubuntu

I don't understand how it falls under what Wikipedia is Not. You don't even say which section. The way it's phrase maybe, but not the point as a whole. Why is acceptable to talk "objectively" about the principle of Ubuntu and how Ubuntu Linux uses it, but not point out where it doesn't seem to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.178.115 (talk • contribs)

Soapbox and original research. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Groupoffice.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Groupoffice.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Black people

Thanks for your kind words. I went to the black people article when an editor asked for assistance. So I came. I have done very little editing. I mainly tried to keep the other editors from killing each other. It was amazing to me the very divergent opinions. People who want to classifying as many people as black as possible. People who do not want to be called black. People who believe race does not exist. People who believe it does. People who believe blacks are superior and that science proves it. People who believe blacks are inferior and that science proves it. And on and on. And all angry at each other. The page was frozen and unable to be edited for months on end while they fought. A lot of people were banned. Many people have given up. I have been insulted by people on all sides. And I am still being insulted. And frankly, the article is sort of a mess, and lacking in any indication of what the dominant scientific view is; that race does not really exist, and is a social construct. But this is threatening to the main "owner" of the page at the moment. Any indication that race does not exist is met with hostility, because you are attacking her identity, as you can see on the talk page. Thanks again.--Filll 04:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Charles Darwin

I've copyedited and asked for clarification on the first half of the article. Tell me, are you familiar with Stephen Jay Gould's explanation of the philosophical ideas and books that went into The Origin of Species? I don't have it to hand - I *think* it's in Ever Since Darwin, but I might be wrong - but it's well worth citing. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, but note I did some copyediting too =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Have responded on my talk re my recent edit to the original article – thanks to you and Adam for chasing me to check sources! My local library's short of alternative biographies, and I've my hands full with D&M and Browne just now – an odd error in the latter is that on p 350 she gets glyptodon and scelidotherium mixed up. Any other decent source references will be welcome. At the moment I'm finding Darwinonline useful for book refs. which I'm just putting in the "Cites" at the moment, but would be better in the references section – something else to do. ... dave souza, talk 19:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Calm down!

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 may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. I am referring to your edit summary here - at times it can be hard, but if you feel yourself getting annoyed, step away from the PC and get a drink - do something else to take your mind off it, and come back with a new outlook. Thanks Martinp23 15:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've told this user exactly what needs to be done, with a rational explanation. He has not responded to my argument and instead keeps reverting. If you wish to do something constructive, mediate - on both sides! Civility warnings will not do anything to resolve this case. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've told this user exactly what needs to be done. I like you approach. -- tasc ^words_deeds 15:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I've given yourself and tasc civility warnings, and have protected the template, in an attempt to facilite civil dicussion. Although the two warnings were different, they both convey a similar message and were posted at roughly the same time. I really don't think that my actions are "unilateral mediation" though. :S Martinp23 16:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants to verify that what Martin is saying here is not the case: Special:Contributions/Martinp23. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi - although I didn't leave the messages at exactly the same time, they were left within around 15 minutes of each other (with a bit of WP:RFPP'ing in the middle). Basically, if I remeber correctly, I remembered to warn tasc when I took another look at my watchlist, when I realised I hadn't clicked "Save" in the relevant tab. I hope this clears it up, and that we might be able to get the issue at Template:Apple celeb sorted out, where I will act as mediator if you wish. Thanks Martinp23 17:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Martinp23 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

I hope we can sort this out - from what I can see, there have been WP:AGF violations on all sides (including mine). Hopefully we can move forwards now. Martinp23 17:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OK - my edit was just to protect and add the protect tag, in the hope that it would stop the reversions and encourage dicussion. Thanks Martinp23 17:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the real problem is {{Navigation}} - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree - it needs some tweaking, as you suggested on tasc's user page (if I remember correctly). Martinp23 17:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm doubtful as to how easy that tweaking could be - the problem is some JavaScript built deep into the system without parameters appropriate to switch it off (I tried each of the three parameters listed here, and they did not produce the desired result, of eliminating the "hide" element). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that (I think) you've got it sorted, using a similar but different template :) - about the message about Google I just saw on your userpage - I've noticed random acts of vandalism from a Google IP in the past - I'm not sure whether abuse of socks was involved (which would seem to be the only reason for me to trace the IP) or if it was an autounblock request, but there are definately problems on wikipedia originating from Google. Martinp23 17:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Samsara. What is this agitation I see on your talk page - can I help? The project would be worse without you. Sandy (Talk) 16:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A note of thanks from me as well. Your comment on my talkpage was just a single word, but it carried a lot of weight : ) Doc Tropics 18:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For [1]. --Guinnog 18:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you please read up the matters you write about?

It seems to me you don't know much about problems you wrote about at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Right to vanish. Could you please provide any proofs of your strong statements or remove them? Thanks. -- Zacheus 03:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've exactly stated to what extent I have examined the evidence and made a suggestion. Unless you're going to start being cooperative with people, you will get absolutely nowhere. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am cooperative with people who wish to base their statements with knowledge of the facts, for instance Thatcher131. -- Zacheus 03:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Then show me the facts. It's unreasonable to ask for help and then expect other people to do all the work. Mike is an admin here, so his actions are taken in good faith until good evidence to the contrary is produced and laid out clearly. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I apologize. Since I am involved to the dispute with Mike Rosoft deeply, I have assumed that everybody has the same sum of information as I do, which was obviously incorrect:

1. I asked for a username change and I obtained it.
2. I tried to replace old username links into new ones, but Mike Rosoft prevented me to do that.
3. I explained him all the situation, although this was unnecessary, since he has already known the situation well, because he apologized me for his former actions and I accepted.
4. By doing this he misled other users, such as you.
5. I seek a prevention against Mike Rosoft's determination to prohibit me to execute Right to Vanish. -- Zacheus 04:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Christine Maggiore

Hello Samsara. In the case of this article (and really any other article), if there is a statement made in the article that is unsourced, please tag it with the {{fact}} tag instead of just deleting it. This will help bring the statement to attention for editors to go out and find a source. If no source is found and the tag still sits after generally 7 days, please feel free to remove the statement. Pure deletion of a statement without this tag and without the time needed to find a source will most likely get reverted. Thanks. Roguegeek (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing was deleted. Please also read WP:BIO. Controversial unsourced statements in articles about living people must be deleted on sight. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert war

Using "if you're not communicating, I'm not either" in your edit summaries isn't going to stop an administrator from blocking you if you violate 3RR. Please discuss the problem; if the other person doesn't want to discuss it, they will be blocked for violating 3RR if they are reverted by somebody else and still don't discuss. _JD^talk 12:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Who is violating 3RR anyway? *sigh* - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that anybody was. _JD^talk 12:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This edit war has now been going on for so long that it's fairly clear that both sides know to abuse more efficient means than 3RR violations. Any careful reviewer will see that one side is simply reverting to their new version of the template, whereas the other side has been making constructive changes. Tasc has not been communicating from the beginning, see his talk and take care of the time stamps. In fact, two other administrators are already aware of the situation. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I know other administrators are aware of the problem, as I found out about this from one of them. I can see that you have tried to discuss the problem, but by reverting edits back with no discussion whatsoever does not make you any better than the other person. Start a new topic on the template's talk page, and if tasc continues to revert your edits without discussion, I'll warn him. _JD^talk 12:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, you're warning me because I reverted but you're not warning him? Where does this double standard come from, J Di? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no double standard. I haven't seen how the two of you interact with each other, and I also haven't seen any discussion on the template's talk page. I am willing to help, but only if you can can do something for me first. I am not prepared to take any action against anybody without first having enough information. If you can say on the talk page why the template shouldn't use {{navigation}}, I'll ask him to comment on the talk page. If he ignores me, I'll do something. If you're not happy with that, I won't get involved. _JD^talk 12:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Thank you, of course, for your note on 3RR. It would help if you were a bit more specific about which article(s) you are monitoring. Also, I note that the 3RR does not apply to vandalism. Hu 18:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please reconsider your warning

ANI is a fast-moving page, and sections often get overlooked. Moving them down is a fairly oncontroversial move, barring that P. is hell-bent on not having reasonable discussion of her blocking strategy. This has been (from my part) a civil discourse, so how exactly is it that refreshing a section causes a problem? - 152.91.9.144 23:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing people by not following tradition; you are also introducing extra edit conflicts, exactly because it is a fast-moving page. Please stop or I will block you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(The second warning was uncalled for, I replaced it exactly once.) It doesn't cause edit conflicts, section editing takes care of that. Even the initial edit in moving the section will not cause an edit conflict as I used the + key. As to confusion, the note at the top of the section and the dialog between P and I makes it pretty clear what happened.
152.91.9.144 23:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not a second warning. That's trying to get you to understand exactly what the position is, because otherwise you might complain it wasn't explained to you what would happen. If it's not a big deal, just stop, and everybody's happy. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, hardly "everybody" is happy since I still haven't been given much of a reason for the hammer being put on me. If we agree that moving a section down won't increase edit conflicts, and if we agree that the text of the comments makes it unlikely that people will be confused, please tell me why it's such a big deal for me to move the section down to "refresh" the discussion? - 152.91.9.144 23:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not done. Everybody has their place in the queue, and you're just making it more difficult for people to find the correct discussion. Please adhere to the convention. Thank you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Bignig69

Your actions were a lot more effective than mine; I really gotta get me a mop-and-bucket one of these days. In the meantime, it's nice to know that you are on the job : ) Doc Tropics 18:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Usually these get picked up by people watching new user registrations, but once in a while, one slips through. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)