User talk:Sleddog116/Archives/2012/March

Baywatch

Hi... in response to Feedback from the editor SLMnovelli, I noticed that you reverted edits here [1] and gave the editor a 3rd Vandalism warning. Looking over the edits and comparing with episode information, they look like good faith edits to me and they were the first edits the user had made in over a month. Was there something about the edits that caused you to give such a warning? Wikipelli ^Talk 03:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there was - though stepping back now, it looks like I may have made a mistake. I noticed, in particular, the phrase that was added: "who then dumps her for a rich widow old enough to be his grandmother". That seemed to me like vandalism, but I probably should have simply re-worded that (it sounds very subjective) instead of labelling it as vandalism. It seems I have breached AGF and probably deserve to be troutwhacked. My apologies. I should probably leave a message on his talk page. Sleddog116 (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries... I've jumped the gun a few times. It's always tough when dealing with tv shows.. Sometimes I revert thinking that there's no way the addition could be real - and then it turns out that it is!  :) Anyhow, I got involved because the editor is new and left feedback at the feedback dashboard so I took a glance at the edits. A note on their talk page would be encouraging.  :) Always trying to promote new editors! Thanks! Wikipelli ^Talk 14:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Tagging pages for deletion

Please note that when you tag a page for speedy deletion (or any type of deletion), the deletion tag goes on top of the article, not in place of it, as you did at Amazon Web Services. The main exception to this rule is if the page in question is an attack page. Cheers! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - I've never tagged for deletion before. Thanks for letting me know. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries. We've all screwed up something before. Happy editing. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

use of talk page

Please remember to post messages to user Talk pages. You mistakenly posted to User:Ramcomputersystems instead. Cheers. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you for letting me know. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Cat whiskers closeup.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Cat whiskers closeup.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 01:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I am new to uploading images and have not had to deal with the permissions process before. Rest assured that I am the owner of the copyrights, and I have updated the original online permissions ([2]]) and have sent the appropriate e-mail to the OTRS. Thanks again. Sleddog116 (talk) 01:54, 9 M

Whoops, please disregard. On closer look I saw that you were the image creator. Kelly ^hi! 01:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. We all make mistakes. Should I remove the OTRS-pending tag? Sleddog116 (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Hi. Unfortunately, when you nominate a page for deletion, it is not a simple as just adding it to the top of the page. Full instructions on how to list a page are here, however the general idea is that you have to create an MfD subpage, and then add that to the top of the page. Although this may seem unnecessarily complex at first, the use of subpages makes the page easier to manage, and also makes archiving easier.

As well as this, because you did not create a subpage User:One bot (which I run), got confused and removed your MfD nomination. If you need help nominating the MfD correctly, I am happy to help. However, I would suggest that you read "Before nominating a page for deletion" first (specifically "Deleting pages in other people's userspace"), and perhaps try to talk to the user before hand.

--Chris 13:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

It might help to read carefully the rules at WP:CSD. The criteria are applied narrowly, and every word in the rules is significant, having in most cases been arrived at through extensive discussions, all of which are in the very long archives at WT:CSD. In particular, A7 applies only to real people , companies, etc., not ones in fiction. For fictional characters, such as Ivy Vega, it is necessary to use either WP:PROD or WP:AFD, or, more reasonably in most cases, consider a merge or a redirect if the underlying work has an article. A7 also requires only an indication of importance or significance. for a band to have released multiple studio albums, as is asserted for Faktychno Sami is such an assertion. Whether they are actually notable depends on the rules at WP:MUSIC, and in any case better sourcing is needed, but it does indicate plausible importance.

Please don't be over-concerned; it takes time to learn all the details, but while you are learning, check the wording every time. If I can help you with any particular problem, ask me on my talk page. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. As you said, I am still learning. I realized after nominating "Ivy Vega" that I probably should have used PROD, but I wasn't quite sure what to do about it, and since the editor who created the page seemed to take the advice I left on her talk page, I didn't think the matter was pressing. (I'm not really sure about removing CSD templates, even when I've put them there myself.) For the other, I did not realize that studio album releases constituted notability; I must have missed that when reading about it. I will try to be more careful in the future - thank you for bringing it to my attention. Sleddog116 (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

no, it's not that they necessarily show notability , it's that the criterion for passing speedy is much less than notability. Speedy is just for the absolutely impossible articles that nobody who understands the nature of wikipedia could possibly dispute in good faith. It's deliberately weak: the sort of bands that get deleted in speedy are the ones that have not yet made a demo tape, or perhaps made one but not gotten anywhere with it, or played only in a neighborhood club. Anything significantly more than that, and people need a chance to see the article--which they will do, if it's on Prod--you'd then give the reason, does not meet the criterion at WP:Music. Remember that it is critically important for us to keep recruiting new editors, and that most people who get their first article rejected never come back. If the person really seems to be trying, but misunderstands, I will delete the article, but try to leave as encouraging a note as I possibly can, in addition to the standard template. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Maple syrup

I don't want to clutter up DRN even more so I thought I'd check here - you say that the fact it's at DRN means there isn't consensus, but I brought the issue to DRN because I thought there was consensus but that one editor was still reinstating it whenever it was removed. The issue in my mind is whether, especially when there are no policy issues, one editor can block 5 (and now 7). Sadly, it appears that the answer at DRN by one clerk (but not by another) is yes. So did you really mean that the fact I took it to DRN proved lack of consenus? Dougweller (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. In fact, I'm inclined to agree with your side of the argument on DRN. However, the fact that we have one editor who is not willing to accept that obviously demonstrates that she's not willing to go along with that. Simply saying, "There is consensus, so don't do it" isn't going to stop her from doing what she wants to do - which is why it's on DRN. Perhaps I put that badly on DRN. Do you see my point, though? I'm not sure how this moves forward from here, but I would prefer it to stay on DRN (instead of here on my talk page) so that everyone involved can see the conversation. Part of what makes DRN work is transparency. I do appreciate your coming to me for explanation, though. I apologize if you took my earlier statements the wrong way. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I just wasn't sure what you meant. The DRN is closed, but I am not at all happy. What seems to have been decided there is that consensus can't be settled on a talk page, you have to go to DRN and then somehow get an outside uninvolved statement that there is consensus - ideally without that person having ever discussed it on the talk page. And even now the lone editor is unhappy, and would clearly not have conceded if I hadn't gone to DRN. I've never seen one editor being allowed to block other editors for so long, especially on a non-policy issue. I'm not sure if I should just drop this now (the principle) or pursue it. And it looks to me that if the other clerk had seen this first things would have gone differently. Thanks for replying. Dougweller (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Spoke too soon, it's been reopened. Dougweller (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Doug, to me it was a matter of AGF. Once Nikki had made the claim that the consensus arguments against her weren't sufficient, then that claim was entitled to AGF until it was evaluated under Wikipedia:CONS#Determining_consensus. It didn't have to come to DRN or other DR to be evaluated, somebody uninvolved just had to weigh in and make the determination. (BTW, that section of CONS has only been there since December: Discussed here, added here, modified here to remove the suggestion that the determination ought to usually be made by an admin.) If she had not made that claim (or if that policy change had not been made), then consensus would either have existed or not and the proper forum to judge it would have been ANI if she had replaced the category after it was removed (as is, indeed, the situation right now if she does so). Please understand that in saying what I am here, I'm (still) not passing judgment on who did or did not have the better argument, just commenting on process. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 16:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's the process issue I'm concerned about. I actually expected that to be settled at DRN by a clerk. I was a bit bothered that because someone had posted to the talk page first they were considered involved. I think that Wikipedia:CONS#Determining_consensus may still need some tweaking and have been wondering whether to ask there or not, but I don't want to dump you into it. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Persian Gulf DRN

Sled, You beat me to the punch on the Persian Gulf dispute. I was going to close it with the following closing comment which you should feel free to use or lose as you may wish:

Closing notes: I am a regular mediator/clerk at this noticeboard. I am going to close this discussion for inadequate discussion in this instance but would note that all four of these articles have used "Persian Gulf" for a substantial period of time until the recent introduction of "Arabian Gulf" or "The Gulf". As noted on the talk page of the Persian Gulf article, the change from Persian Gulf to Arabian Gulf has been a perennial request which has always been soundly refused by the consensus of the community. In these particular articles, the established use of Persian Gulf followed by a prompt objection to the change to Arabian Gulf means that in accordance with the consensus policy a consensus for the change must be established. No such consensus exists, so Persian Gulf must remain in the articles until a consensus in favor of the change to Arabian Gulf is established. Consensus can, of course, change. If Uishaki wishes to obtain such a change in consensus, then a far better way of going about it, rather than making usage changes in individual articles, would be to propose that the Persian Gulf article be renamed. If successful there, then changes in usage in other articles could follow. Alternatively, it might be done through proposing an amendment to the Manual of Style. TransporterMan (TALK) 16:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: The above was originally sent in an e-mail; some personal information was removed, and the signature added by me (Sleddog116).

Reply: Thanks for the e-mail. I was thinking about closing that dispute, as well, but I have a feeling that's not really going to help matters in this case. It may seem a little beyond the scope of DRN on the surface, but I really don't think it is, and closing it right now might be a little premature, I think. I'm hoping my comment (I worded it rather strongly, but that was intentional - I'd have trouted everyone involved if I thought it would have done any good) will calm things down a bit and get everyone to step back. Call me a starry-eyed optimist, but I think a candid discussion on this topic would probably help matters. I will likely refer the editors to the MOS, as well, so we'll see what happens from there. I just need a little time (maybe a day or so) to study the situation a little. Thanks for the help, though. I haven't been on DRN nearly as long as you have, and it's always nice to know that someone more experienced is keeping an eye on things. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Nah, not keeping an eye so much as just an edit conflict with me being too vainglorious to let my purple prose go to waste if you could maybe use some of it. Keep up the good work! Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 17:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I probably will use some of it. As I said - I was probably going to make references to the MOS anyway. Sorry for stealing your thunder.  ;) Sleddog116 (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Biblical canon

You recently undid one of my edits to the Wiki-article Biblical canon#Marcion's canon, for which there was no opposition against either of our edits. I wish more people held this site to a higher standard. It is difficult to find non-Internet sources in my current position, and worse yet, I find it even harder to put-up with incomplete or incorrect information within these articles. Knowing the truth sometimes supersededs my ability to support that truth with a source! — Preceding unsignedJoeymanderson (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 22:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for saying so! Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Nozette Dispute Comment

Thanks for your input Sleddog. I referred to the "reliable source" only because Scapler called it that. And yes, you would think a Department of Justice link would be reliable. In this case it wasn't. Ah well, I'm not going to try to push this any further. Just tried to right a wrong. Again, thanks for your attention. Whysosirius (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, Thanks for the welcome message. I have one question. I have put citations on the Andre Heller page I have been editing and there is still the header message that says that this article needs citation. Can you tell me how I would get rid of this? (Jtamsin (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC))

Normally, the best practice is to first open a discussion about removing the tag on the article's talk page. However, as this seems to be a somewhat low-traffic article (with no discussion at all on the talk page), this is one case where you can most likely be bold and just remove the tag (if you've appropriately sourced the article, as you say). Just look at the top of the source text (i.e. the edit window) for "{{BLP IMDB refimprove|date=April 2008}}" and simply delete it. That should remove the tag. (You might want to preview your edit before saving the page.) If you have any trouble, let me know. Sleddog116 (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

DRN issue

Clerk, may I call to your attention the interpolation[3] of later posts into an existing thread by both Hasteur and JaGa. I have asked them each, on their talk pages, not to do this. They ought to know better than to do that, and should place remarks at the end of a thread - not willy-nilly in the middle of a thread. I see this as a deliberate act because I see it done a lot by people who do not respect these threads or the rules for posting. I'd appreciate it if you would address this. I didn't do it there because I post enough as it is.—Djathinkimacowboy 15:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Sleddog116 (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Things are out of hand. It may have been my fault. Look: 'I ask your pardon and offer full apologies. I am apologising to all editors who were offended.' With that, I have posted to pertinent editors on their talk pages, and now post it here. I've apologised at the DRN and have moved that the discussion be closed.—Djathinkimacowboy 19:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It's okay; we all make missteps. That's how you learn how Wikipedia works. If it makes you feel better, the whole reason I got started in DRN because of a dispute over something I (perhaps hastily) deleted. I'll write a more full comment on your talk page when I have a few minutes. ;) Sleddog116 (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of interest:

Having read your user page, aside from what we have in common, I notice your interest in Spanish. Spanish is my native tongue but I was well taught in English (and a few other languages). My mother used to tell me I was multi-lingual as soon as I began speaking, but in school they eradicated my accent. Anytime you want to know something Spanish from a native speaker, please ask!—Djathinkimacowboy 21:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Gracias por la oferta. I don't really contribute much in Spanish because my Spanish is mostly of a conversational nature with hispanohablantes that I know. English is my passion, and it's what I do for a living. (Nothing against Spanish, though.) Thanks again for the offer. Sleddog116 (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No hay de que, or as we say at home, No hay de queso, nomas de papa.—Djathinkimacowboy 13:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at Djathinkimacowboy's talk page.

Andre Heller

Reference to Andre Heller

I am writing to you because of the notices that keep appearing on the Andre Heller Page that I wrote. Firstly I would like to disagree with the notice that I am promoting this person. This is not the case. I translated everything from the German and I have also removed the quotes from the living person himself as I was told on wikipedia help that this was not allowed with the English version of Wikipedia. Can you please tell me why this keeps coming up?

The other issues at the top of the page I don`t understand either because I have checked the link and they all work. I translated and copied everything from the German version and all is correct. (Jtamsin (talk) 10:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC))

I also want to add that I didn`t invent or make anything up. All of it is true and from the german version that has been verified. I don`t know what more I can do. Could whoever put those notices there specify exactly which words are seemed to be promoting and which links are wrong. Thanks. (Jtamsin (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)).

Okay, I've looked at the tags on the article, and I see what some of the issues are. I'm not 100% certain of the promotional tag; I'll talk to the editor who originally added it and see why he added it. As to the other two tags (citations and bare URLS), they are correct. It's nothing to be upset about - since you don't own the article, there's no need to take it personally if there are some problems with it. The best way to fix it is to read the information in the tags that were added and improve the article. Don't keep removing the tags, though - that's edit warring, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. If the other editor has added them, he presumably had a reason for doing so. This is when some discussion needs to take place. About the Citation Tag: You said, All of it is true and I didn't invent or make anything up. No one is saying that you did; however, the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We don't include things on Wikipedia for being true - if everyone could insert material simply by saying "it's true", imagine what all of our religion-related pages would look like. (Incidentally, the words above that are highlighted in blue are links to policy and guidelines - read them; they will help you understand.) About the "Bare URLs" tag: The links you provided work right now, but the Internet is very transient. A page might be there one day then gone the next. If you provide more information than just a Web address (like the name of an author, a publisher, some date information, etc.), it's more possible to find another version of the same source if the Web site you provided ever goes offline. About all of it: Hey, you're new to editing here. It's okay - don't take it personally when someone tags an article; it doesn't mean that anyone's attacking you - it just means that an editor saw a problem with it and didn't have the time or ability to improve it himself. Wikipedia has quite a learning curve, and it takes awhile to get there - but be diligent, and you will. Sleddog116 (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Food for thought

Something struck me that I wanted to 'rehash', in light of comments I've read. After all, I am not such a green editor here, it's just I have so little time to work on here. I think I listen fairly well to editors' input, or at least try to dialogue with them. Well, one reason I brought my issue to the DRN was that no one was communicating on the talk page - flat refusal, you see - and we are NOT supposed to communicate through edit summaries. Perhaps sometimes editors do not listen to my input? I feel a bit awkward getting lectured, by people who themselves do not listen, communicate or cooperate very well. On the other hand, that is probably more successful here than my foghorn approach. An admin and I often discuss the trouble with editors being generally mistreated and then storming off WP. I think it is a real problem, and we are losing editors and even admins.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Any time you get such a large group of people working together, you're going to have disagreements - many of which will inevitably turn ugly and cause people to leave. There's no avoiding that. I don't think you're being "mistreated" per se, though other editors could admittedly do with friendly reminders that they're not perfect themselves (the reason I gave Hasteur the trout). You suggested that "perhaps sometimes editors do not listen to [your] input." I don't think that's the case. I think, frankly but without any intention to "lecture", you take a lot of things personally that shouldn't be taken personally. If you're in a dispute in which no one agrees with your viewpoint, don't be a crusader about it (or take the "foghorn" approach, as you so excellently put it). It's not that editors aren't listening to your input; it's that they are rejecting the idea. Even if you know you're right, it's usually better to not be too insistent. You will be wrong (even blatantly wrong) sometimes (because everyone is at some point), but even when you're right and you know you're right, it's usually better to "go with the flow". If the community has decided to reject your proposed consensus, don't take it as a value judgment of yourself or your editing skills. Form discussion to try to change the consensus, but don't push it - and don't be indignant when consensus doesn't go in your favor. If you start a discussion on the talk page, give it time to get responses; not everything on Wikipedia is immediate, and there's no rush - and there's no need to go straight to the top looking for "administrative ruling". If you wait for several days and there is still no response, consider leaving a friendly message on the involved users' talk pages asking for comments - it can be very simple. You don't usually have to do anything except something like this: "Hello. Could you please comment on the discussion [[Talk:Foo#A discussion on Foo|here]]? ~~~~". If that doesn't work after a few days or so, try making your edit again. If it gets reverted again, do not change it back but ask the editor (not in a demanding way; politely) why your edit was reverted without discussion. This is all part of the Bold, Revert, Discuss Cycle (which I would highly suggest that every editor take a look at. If, even after all of that, the editor(s) still don't respond, it might be time to solicit a community-wide request for comments or (if only one other editor is involved) a request for a third opinion on the article's talk page; if none of that works, that is the appropriate time for DRN. Hope this didn't come across as a "sermon"; I was just trying to give a frank evaluation of what I can see. Sleddog116 (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course I see the point about my not being infallible or even close to the ballpark; that was not what I meant. What I meant is when editors refuse to discuss things, when they adamantly and clearly refuse to participate in any exchange other than snarky edit summaries. I used to do that edit summary thing years ago and I did not waste a minute on talk pages. I've changed a lot. These editors I reference can't seem to change one iota. Obviously, then, I have no issue with a consensus even if I should happen to hate the idea - and I've never dipped in to fight a consensus, though I may register a one-line dissent. I want to quote you plain-text:

If you wait for several days and there is still no response, consider leaving a friendly message on the involved users' talk pages asking for comments - it can be very simple. You don't usually have to do anything except something like this: "Hello. Could you please comment on the discussion here? —Djathinkimacowboy 03:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)". If that doesn't work after a few days or so, try making your edit again. If it gets reverted again, do not change it back but ask the editor (not in a demanding way; politely) why your edit was reverted without discussion. This is all part of the Bold, Revert, Discuss Cycle (which I would highly suggest that every editor take a look at. If, even after all of that, the editor(s) still don't respond, it might be time to solicit a community-wide request for comments or (if only one other editor is involved) a request for a third opinion on the article's talk page; if none of that works, that is the appropriate time for DRN.

--see, all of that is precisely what does not work. It's sad, but I've found that a DRN is the only thing that works. The rest is beating about the bush and these editors I reference are not going to pay that any mind. So I appreciate all you've said, it's straight from the playbook. What I am saying is that the playbook does not work. Sometimes I think even wonderful editors like you simply don't have the experience I have with the absolute failure of that playbook. Nor do I accept that if it fails, it is necessarily my fault. I could show you hundreds of diffs that follow that exact playbook, trying to keep myself polite and out of trouble. Does not work. A DRN, though it brings painful lumps, does work at least in a limited capacity.—Djathinkimacowboy 03:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: Perhaps the ring article is the best example, and you already know a bit about it. Yes, I was getting fanatical about the Brass Rat ring. Being a ring historian and something of a connoisseur, I love it and think it's beautiful. I did not originally put it into that list and wonder how it stayed there so long with not a word being said. Somehow, several editors suddenly started their drive-by editing. They had a valid point about the ring. They did not stop to better the article. They absolutely refused to address anything on the talk page, and I've counted about a dozen excuses why they didn't discuss it. I politely asked on the talk page - months ago - for editors to discuss changes they've made. I politely ask editors to refrain from communicating solely through edit summaries, and am on a crusade about that. It is always my habit to visit their talk pages, politely - and what do I get? Accusations of trolling, personal attacks, and even more foul things. Does any of this sound right to you?—Djathinkimacowboy 03:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, what I gave you is a bit of a stock answer - but it's a stock answer for pretty good reason. No, it doesn't always work. Yes, there are a plethora of a few editors on WP who are going to be complete jerks no matter how nice you are to them. It doesn't mean you always have to go straight to the top. I hate seeing people frustrated with the process, so I was looking through your edit log to see if anything in particular has caused this lack of faith in WP's "playbook", and I couldn't see any instance where you tried to request comments from uninvolved editors or even give notices (like what I suggested above) on other users' talk pages - now, admittedly, I didn't have much time to investigate each and every entry in your log, so if I missed something, then please show me the diff. I'm not accusing you of anything - please keep that in mind; my ultimate goal is the improvement of the encyclopedia (preferably not at the expense of valuable contributors like yourself). Also, as a gesture of explanation, I should point out to you that I have been involved in disputes before, as well - if you'd care to look here (that dispute eventually ended up here, on DRN). Back then (which wasn't as terribly long ago as it might seem), I was woefully ignorant of the WP policies - I didn't know about BRD, Request for Comments, Third Opinion, or even really the editing process in general.

DRN certainly has its place in the spectrum of the WP dispute resolution process - I'd, of course, be the last to deny that. But my mantra is that things should always be de-escalated as much as possible, even if that means sacrificing a few of my preferences. There are plenty of articles on WP that are not worded the way I'd like them to be worded, but just because other editors don't like my way doesn't mean they're out to get me. You said you don't like "beating around the bush" by taking the extra time to go through the other processes - my only question in response to that is, again, what's your hurry? As I said to Hasteur - "more flies with honey than vinegar". If another editor gets loud, you get softer instead of louder. If someone tailgates you, slow down instead of speeding up. Or, to shamelessly quote the Bible: "Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." You yourself admitted on Hasteur's talk page that you "get 'overheated' about issues that make little difference." I think the simple solution to all of the problems that we've been discussing is simple: Just don't. Don't let yourself get 'overheated' - in the end, editing Wikipedia should be fun! I think you're a passionate, focused editor - and I mean that in a good way - I just think you let your passion get the better of you sometimes (which you admitted yourself).

What all of this boils down to is that you shouldn't worry about "them" because you can't change "them". The only editor whose action you can control is yourself. (Cliché, but true nonetheless.) Just "sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride". At the end of the day, Wikipedia is just not that big of a deal (and, for that matter, neither is anything else on the Internet). Sleddog116 (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

All good advice, of course. It is useful. To reply briefly, I am in no hurry, I can't figure out enough ways to tell you the problem over and over, since you don't seem to quite get it. I am tired of this back-and-forth. As for me, this subject is exhausted now. This is not the time for me to begin playing wikilawyer in my own defense. And, please,don't see this as overheating. See it as overtiredness. Sorry.—Djathinkimacowboy 16:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That's okay. Apparently I'm missing the problem, like you said. All I'm suggesting is that when you get into stuff like that, you should come to someone for outside opinions (you could even ask me here, if you like) before going straight to DRN. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, naturally I appreciate the offer - truly. But I have had quite enough with admins and even editors saying, "I'll be your wiki friend," then one question too many and I'm being asked never to post on their talk page again. Sorry, I just like to be more independent than that. And as you've seen, I get much more than my fill of advice (not meaning you, you are a good egg). (See User:Alpha Quadrant or User:Salvio giuliano as examples.)—Djathinkimacowboy 17:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel bad that you feel that way about it. I'd never ask anyone to "never post on my talk page again" unless said editor was repeatedly making viscious personal attacks - which I just don't see you doing. Sorry that my advice doesn't seem to have been particularly helpful. Sleddog116 (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It is OK. As I always say, I think I stand up and accept what I deserve - just as I stand and speak my mind, call a spade a spade. Some editors here (too many) just don't like that, or, they are frightened by the prospect. I'd been editing on WP for over 10 years under various IPs. No deception: everyone knew it was I, and I always announced myself whenever my IP fluctuated ('dynamic' IP). Back in Nov., against better judgment, I 'signed up' - knowing that ever after they'd be on me like ducks on June bugs. It came true, naturally. So here I am with (in my past) a 24-hour block, a week-long block for 'being me', and am now on WP:0RR because I am being accused of blind reversions. See what it got me to register? At least as an IP, I was not being hounded quite in the way I feel is happening these days.—Djathinkimacowboy 17:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it's funny: you have looked and do not see me personally attacking anyone. In my younger days I did personally attack people, but only if they did it first. The childish ouroubouris. It is funny because that - the personal attack - is the first thing editors will say about me. Just the other day I politely asked an editor to post on the article talk page; he immediately accused me of "personal attack". I can't fathom it, but most editors always do that to me. Our time/discussion here, has it included any personal attack that you can perceive?—Djathinkimacowboy 17:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

A humble plea for assistance

There is a favour I would ask of you, Sled. If it is too much or inappropriate, please say 'no' and I will understand. We're having problems in mediation[4] - not the participating three editors, but with the mediator. I have left comments to her, and I also officially left the mediation because I feel we were abandoned. She has simply proved it further by not even bothering to see how the mediation is going. She has already done this to another case in mediation. We now have a disruptive editor who is a known troublemaker trying to dip in comments[5]. (Please go to the very bottom of the thread to see the trouble.) This is because he sees no one is mediating the thing. Will you look and comment to me? I want you to understand I am not seeking words against the mediator, just an outside opinion of the mediation. I think it is a joke and it has begun to break down. The mediator is an editor User:Lord Roem.—Djathinkimacowboy 16:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help in any way I can, but the issue is a little confusing at the moment. I've been reading over the entire case, and I have a few questions that I need answered in order to fully understand the issue. Who is this "known troublemaker" (from what I can see, the only other editors who have commented are Rangoon and LR) to whom you are referring, and how is he/she making trouble? I saw that bit about your post being removed, but you seem to have restored it without issue, and the discussion moved on from there without any problems (at least as far as I could tell) Did I miss something there? As far as your conduct is concerned, you seem to have conducted yourself with the appropriate decorum, for the most part. You seem willing to work with the mediation, and I don't see (except in a few places) where things between you and Rangoon got particularly heated, which is good. You ended on a fairly positive note and that the mediation seemed to accomplish what it was supposed to accomplish. I understand your frustrations with Lord Roem, but I think in a way you were both right. Yes, she should probably have come back and checked on the case from time to time, but as she said, it looked like the issues were being resolved without her help. The main purpose of an informal mediator (anywhere - not just on Wikipedia) is to get dialogue going between the involved parties - while the mediator stays out of it as much as possible. The mediator should only weigh in when there is a point of order (admittedly, Lord Roem probably should have commented on your response being removed/re-added) or when the two parties are so completely deadlocked that dialogue has broken down (which I really didn't see happening). Does any of this help? Sleddog116 (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sleddog, very helpful. The editor in question has contributed so little there that I failed to even tell you it is User:B3430715, who has a slight history of disruption - but then it looks like this editor is a newbie. From the sound of some of his posts, I'd say English is not his native tongue. He is usually abrasive and very dismissive so we ignore him whenever possible. Deeply grateful for your words about mediation, because that defense helps me to cope better with LR. I have been giving her a terrible time. Cheers again .... —Djathinkimacowboy 21:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to help, as always. Sleddog116 (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Andre Heller

Reference: André Heller

Hi Sleddog116, Did you get a reply about the promotional issue. I am working on the other issues, but would really like the promoting tag to be removed as I don`T see justification for it. Thanks.

The other issues I am working on. Thanks for your reply.

Also, I want to say that when I spoke to your colleagues through the live chat they told me to remove the tag about the promotional issue and ask why it was there. So that is exactly what I did, but then you told me that I shouldn`t do this. So I am a bit confused. About the comment that I said that all of it was true and nothing was made up, I was told to say that by a colleague. So in effect these weren`t my words. I don`t feel in anyway that I am being attacked. I merely want to resolve the issue, so I can continue. If there is a problem, I try and resolve it in the quickest and most effective way. Your reply is appreciated. Thanks (Jtamsin (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC))

I did discuss the issue with the editor who added the tags, and he gave this explanation. You can read that for the full list of issues, as he was able to explain it better than I could. I'm happy to help in any way I can, of course, but since he's the one who added the tags, you really ought to be talking to User:Michael Bednarek about it. If it becomes a dispute (which I see no reason why it should), I would, of course, be happy to mediate. Sleddog116 (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I am a "she" not a "he" :-) I read the discussion. You didn`t scare me off, I just had to wait for the go ahead for someone that works for Andre Heller to tell me to continue editing. Unfortunately though, I do not have access to him directly and so I have no other way of accessing except using google, which as you said, is not very helpful. Yes, I am new to wikipedia and so I wasn`t to know that a translation from the German version was not enough or verifiable or that there were two different editorial policies. The German one seems fine with using promotional language which is where I directly translated it from. Just a question: do you think I should stop editing now as it seems that I do not have any more references except from Google? I do not have any other access and so I do not think I can contribute really further and probably needs someone who knows more about him? (Jtamsin (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC))

The editorial language is not permitted on the English Wikipedia. I would highly suggest that you read WP:PEACOCK - this is a section of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style that explains avoiding words that "may introduce bias." Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, so using language that directly promotes the subject breaches the neutral tone that Wikipedia is supposed to use. On another note (just a housekeeping thing) - please keep future discussion all under this section (instead of starting a new section every time). You can thread comments by indenting them (using colons ":" at the beginning of the line) Sleddog116 (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

your comment at Rinat Akhmetov issue at dispute resolution board

Hello, Sled, thank you very much for your comprehensive comment at dispute resolution noticeboard on the mentioned issue. Could you raise the issue at Mediation Cabal, as I'm not sure I may do this myself, and, second reason - I tried RfC but this led to nothing...--Orekhova (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help, but you would probably be better off filing the case yourself at the Mediation Cabal's page. (All you have to do is click on the button, and it will take you to a form you fill out to file the case.) Before you do that, however, I would highly recommend that you read this page. You should probably also take a look at this. Anyone can file a request for mediation at MedCab - so yes, you may do this yourself. I might look in on the case, but I'd feel more comfortable if a more experienced mediator took the case (this has nothing to do with your case specifically; although I do a lot on DRN, I've never worked a case on MedCab, so I'd need to observe the process a little before taking a case). If you file the case and no one takes it, I will, of course, be happy to mediate as well as I possibly can. Best regards. Sleddog116 (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Formal welcome!

		The Dispute Resolution Barnstar
		Hi Sleddog116. I don't know if you've got a welcome from the others and my close friends in dispute resolution (Steven Zhang, Mr. Stradivarius, TransporterMan), but I'd like to formally welcome you to dispute resolution! (A little late, though). I've seen some of your work on the dispute resolution noticeboard and just wanted to tell you to keep up the good work! :) Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thanks very much! I've begun to consider myself just "part of the team" on DRN, but I appreciate the formal welcome. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If you find yourself wanting to expand at any time, check out third opinion or informal mediation. You don't have to limit yourself to DRN ;) I'll be happy to show you those avenues of dispute resolution so that you can be accustomed to that, or if you have any other questions, feel free to leave me a note on my talk page at any time. Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at MedCab and considered it for a bit. I'd like to get involved in MedCab, but I think I'm going to just watch from the sidelines for a little while before jumping onto the field. The MedCab process looks a little bit more involved than DRN, and over the last week or so, I've misstepped several times on other processes - I think I'm going to look before leaping this time, but I probably will become involved in MedCab eventually. I have to go for now, but thanks for everything! Sleddog116 (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It's okay to look from the sidelines at first. Ok, no problem. Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)