User talk:Ian13/Archive7

		The Original Barnstar
		I hereby award you this Barnstar for creating Concordia and taking charge when it was needed. • The Giant Puffin • 16:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) I thought it was a good time - so editors saw we are planning to take action. Looks like I need to archive this page too! Ian13/talk 16:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time why not relax in the Coffee Lounge with me for a little while Ian. Everytime I try to finish the game with someone they leave here's the link, [1] Mahogany

I'm there now thanks. :) Ian13/talk 17:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give up or you thirsty for more (evil grin :) Mahogany

Pwnd. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 21:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I'm slowly moving down! Well done... Ian13/talk 21:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for welcoming me back. I don't feel so lonely anymore! --Jacknstock 13:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another one bites the dust. This cannot go on. I respect your decision, but hope you do return, some time. Good luck. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:43 UTC (2006-05-28)

I hope you return as well, you've done a lot of great work here on Wikipedia--☆TBC☆ 01:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to reservedly return for now, to try and help. Ian13/talk 12:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a pizza for you! Pizzas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others using Template:smile! Happy editing! ~Linuxerist (talk · contribs)

Concordia Newsletter

Community Justice is no more. It has been reformed to Concordia. Membership has been transferred.

Concordia is an organization of editors on Wikipedia that strive to encourage civility and fair treatment among all editors in the Wikipedian community, from the Wikignome to the Wikiholic. The project was designed to have a friendly and helpful environment to support any unfortunate Wikipedians that have become victims of incivility, hostility, or continual disrespect.

We currently need help in getting going, and making the community understand our aims. We work for civility. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you have ideas, let us know at our talk page, or on the IRC channel. We aim to spread civility in every way we can.

Should you wish to unsubscribe to future newsletters, please add your name to Wikipedia:Concordia/Do Not Spam.

Thank you for your time. If you need anything, feel free to comment at WT:CCD or come into our IRC channel [2].

- The Concordia council. Delivered by Ian13 13:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

...for recovering the userbox code. —Ashley Y 18:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sign me up for the Concordia Council because I'll sign up myself. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace ☢✍☎☺) 20:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't signed you up to any council. If you are refering to the CJ -> CCD namechange, as it is still the same project (just with a different name) it is logical you are still a member. May I ask you are a tad more civil too please, the title of this post is rather demanding. Ian13/talk 20:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You added your own name. Ian13/talk 20:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't spam Wikipedia. I recently had to have a go at Esperanza the other day for spamming many hundreds of user talk pages with their quite obscenely large and obtrusive newsletter.

There is no need for this. Please, just ask your members to pop a page onto their watchlists, and when you update the page they'll see the change. --Tony Sidaway 21:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... Our newsletter was fairly small, but I will raise it over at the talk page, and try some other methods. It should be noted that Signpost provide a talk page service too, which leaves it on talk pages every week. Ian13/talk 21:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I can chip in, it should be noted that the Signpost delivery is not automatic (each user adds the delivery template to their own talk page, which is updated every week) and the Esperanza newsletter is, IIRC, an opt-out service. --bainer (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for your information. For reference, Concordia also has an opt-out service. Ian13/talk 10:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just add that I actually prefer this talk-page service over only watchlisting (as I've got a couple thousand articles on my watchlist...) —Nightstallion (?) 14:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! That's one big watchlist. Ian13/talk 16:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and add yourself to a case. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 22:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As the creator of the template {{User Concordia University}} (originally {{User Concordia}}), I would have appreciated a note on my talk page to inform me of the move. Thanks. IronChris | (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Sorry, I meant to notify the creator and all users. I fully appologise. Sorry once again. Ian13/talk 15:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll remove the link. But I don't know how you could think that saying that "EA spam and CJ spam is annoying" is uncivil. First of all, I said that over two weeks ago. Secondly, people sign up for those projects, and it doesn't say anywhere, "Note: When you sign up for this project, you will get spam!". Third, all spam is annoying, so spam that you didn't know you were going to get is really annoying. Fourth, I could get many people who agree with me in the fact that "colorful, badly formatted, spam is annoying". --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 15:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Well, it does say (although, I will say it was a lapce that it wasn't always there) that if you wish to not recieve newsletters... on the members section. Concordia spam (only been one, which I delivered), was lower on formatting and all that, containing mostly only relivent info. Ian13/talk 15:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed that you have interacted with User:Osbus who is currently undergoing an RfA and thought that you might be interested in participating at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Osbus. You have received this message without the endorsement of the candidate involved, and this is not a solicitation of support, it is only an effort to make RfA discussions better (for more information see user:ShortJason/Publicity). Thank you in advance for your participation. ShortJason 22:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you thought I was judging projects. I was judging spam, and I said "EA spam and CJ spam was annoying", because those are the only two projects that you get spammed when you sign up. I never said CJ and EA was bad, I said that spam was annoying. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 22:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry. But I still feel that you could be more constructive in your comments. We have an opt-out list, but would an opt-in one be better? Ian13/talk 09:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to any concerned for writing in capitals.

Frater FiatLux 18:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, its just that it doesn't really help disputes. Ian13/talk 18:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will adhere with rectitude to Wikipedia's protocols in future as I'm a new user.

Well to make a first step: If JMAX555 would agree not to make unannounced, clearly libellous and defamatory changes to the HOGD/A+O article entry, then I would be happy. Furthermore, I wouldn’t instigate any editing war if this were to be agreed. But JMAX555 has changed the HOGD/A+O article entry in a defamatory tone, when he is no part of that organisation and a leader of the opposition that is currently in litigation. This is why I have protested. If he stops and leaves the HOGD/A+O entry alone, as it has nothing to do with him, other than change it in an biased unprincipled manner; then that would be a start for me.

I'm sorry to use these terms, however, I'm afriad that is what JMAX555 is doing. If he just agreed so far to leave the HOGD/A+O article alone. Then that would be a start and there'd be no need for all this. Frater FiatLux 19:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If he just agreed so far to leave the HOGD/A+O article alone.", think of it from his point of view, he probably thinks the same of you. Ian13/talk 19:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this in responce to user "JMAX555" although, this is only a section thereof:

You'll have to wait for my offer a little while, as I will have to find the relevant page, or method in which to submit it, and furthermore, I‘m not on the Internet, permanently, twenty-four hours a day either. I‘ll submit the compromise in due course, very shortly, when I know where and who to make it to. I do not feel this is unreasonable, so there’s no value in being disingenuous towards me taking time to make my submition of the compromise. I can assure the mediator that I will definitely be producing this compromise very shortly.

In the meanwhile, I feel, all messages should be suspended on the GD article talk board, and no more past disputation pages should be pasted to the present disputation, as it will only confuse matters. The mediator will need time to go through the information on this page, it is only now fair to the mediator to leave further pointless disputing and actually put all efforts into compromise and sorting this out with the mediator directly.

Frater FiatLux 01:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I don't think reverting the civility noticeboard was such a great idea. It has proved to be nothing but an attraction for trolls and is on its way out on MfD. With the speedy tag on it a little longer it would have gone away, and Tanuki would have prevented any further venom from Crowley's acolytes. Cheers! Dr Zak 15:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to add a speedy tag. What I object to was the coupled removal of content, and then labling the page as nonsence. It was only nonsence because it had been vandalised in such a way. Anyway, there is an MfD is progress, I don't think it is the time to modify the page so dramatically to a picture of a duck (or whatever it was). Ian13/talk 16:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I trust that who tagged the page as a speedy had enough sense to go through the history and to read the associated MfD. Sorry, the image of the raccoon-dog was perhaps the immediate reason for the page getting tagged a speedy, but the root cause for the speedy tag was that the page is counter-productive. Dr Zak 16:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought I'd bring it to your attention that on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Spamlist in the Mail Digests section, you did not properly put your name in. The link you placed will send an e-mail to User:Ngb instead of you. You'll have to make the line #[[Special:Emailuser/Ian13|Ian13]] for it to work properly. Happy editing! Cowman109^Talk 01:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks! I wondered where they had got to. The problems with copying and pasting... Ian13/talk 08:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping this. I would like to ask, however, if it is not appropriate to ask for citations when an editor makes statements without backing it up? It is my understanding that this is the purpose of ^{[citation needed]} symbol - that is what Midgley expained to me. I would like to renominate this entire article for deletion. IT is no more noteworthy than any other academic.MollyBloom 20:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thats not really what I meant. Of cource you can request citations for facts, I am just saying that looking at the history, it seems reverts are being done because the version at that time isn't cited, but neither is the one it is reverted to, so it goes round, and round... I am trying to show that this isn't a way to move forward. Ian13/talk 21:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping with this. I would like to (re)nominate this entire article for deletion.MollyBloom 20:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is no problem, run through the AfD nomination process as normal, missing out adding the notice to the page, and I will put it in for you. Ian13/talk 21:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will try to do that.... It will be my first time doing so! MollyBloom 21:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am not Gfwesq as Midgley accused me of being. As Gfw pointed out, our writing styles are quite different. I resent Midgely's accusation. Also, I was not even aboard during the first nomination for deletion.MollyBloom 23:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if you misinterpreted what I said, I did NOT accuse you as being the same people. Ian13/talk 08:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misunderstood me, Ian. I know you did not accuse me and Gfw of this - Midgley did. I just wanted you to understand, if you read his comments, that we are NOT the same person. Please don't think I meant you made this accusation.MollyBloom 08:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, I think i've lost track here. Can you post a diff of their comments? (You can go to the histroy, and when you find where the comment was made, click last, and it gives a nice view chowing that was added, paste the url here). Thanks! Ian13/talk 08:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't. I enquired whether they were entirely separate. Wasn't it Ian13 who checked and told us they were on the same IP address because of being husband and wife. Two people, not entirely separate. Thanks for the general broadcast Ian, I had read it... Midgley 18:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I may have misinterpreted it, and they not live together. I also don't have the checkuser rights to see IPs. Anyway, it is an official warning to all. Rather than protection, I think stopping the dispute would be better. Ian13/talk 19:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well. I expect they at least like each other and are quite properly mutually supportive. I hope they will live happily ever after, in tehir separate estates. Midgley 19:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, I've tried labeling the photo with the correct Image Tagging flags. How do you know if you've done it correctlyDroliver 03:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It still lacks a source however, which is needed so everything can be checked, even if it is fair use... Ian13/talk 08:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mind if you close the Afd It is pretty clear to me that the article will be kept. Only those votes that seem to be long term Wikopedians will count , is that it? I would appreciate it if you would remove the tag. I will remove the post. The tag suggests you do not welcome their input. Which it sounds like you do not.MollyBloom 08:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I will not close it anyway, and what is counted will be up to the deciding admin. Basically, everything will, apart from where the first contribution to Wikipedia was to the AfD or something. Ian13/talk 09:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you were wondering where I'd gone to... BD2412 T 20:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday, Ian13/Archive7, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!!! Have a great day!

Good luck on your exams!

Thistheman 04:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday from Esperanza! Good luck on your exams! --TantalumTelluride 04:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's you you on your birthday, Ian13/Archive7! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!!! Have a great day!

Steveo2 10:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a happy Birthday message to you, Ian13/Archive7, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!!! Have a great day!

Many happy returns - and I hope you do really well in your exams! ;) Sergeant Snopake 12:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone! Today kinda sucked though, Maths and Geography exams :( Ian13/talk 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and it's your birthday! That's so unfair. Sergeant Snopake 17:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your multi-coloured banners though, it is definatly cheered me up :) Ian13/talk 17:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry? Here's a little snack for you on your birthday, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!!! Have a great day, Ian13/Archive7!

Mr. Turcotte^talk 00:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friend. I wish you a very happy birthday. BTW, I learnt of the same from Wikipedia:Esperanza. All the best for the coming year! --Bhadani 15:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darn! I missed it! Well, Happy late Birthday anyway and happy editing! :) Misza13 ^{T C} 12:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting on my RfA...it was greatly appreciated! --Osbus 21:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was initially banned (which was later removed) partly for being uncivil by saying, "Let me guess. You are a doctor". Yet Midgely has consistently and unrelentingly abused and insulted me on the Rfd for G. Patrick Maxwell. HE even added a large table with a 'hand count' of all my edits in all the articles. This was to show that I did more edits in 'Breast Implants' than in any other article. Yes, this is true, because there was an edit war there. He used this 'chart' to continue to attack me, instead of dealing wtih the merit of the Rfd. I finally deleted that chart. If the administrators cannot or willnot do something to stop this onslaught of personal attack, I will continue to delete the personal attacks, and encourage others to do so. NO reputable or legitimate organization would tolerate such abuses. I have not been on Wikopedia very long, but I can say from this experience, that I wonder about the professionalism and legitimacy of it - not to mention basic fairness and decency.

This is what I wrote, finally, on the talk page: PERSONAL ATTACKS

SINCE ADMINS CANNOT OR WILL NOT REMOVE PERSONAL ATTACKS OR SANCTION THE OFFENDOR, IT IS INCUMBANT ON THE EDITORS WHO ARE ATTACKED TO DO SO. THIS IS INEXCUSABLE. I REMOVED THE TABLE WHERE MIDGLEY TRIED TO HIGHLIGHT THE NUMBER OF EDITS I HAD IN GIVEN ARTICLES. THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS RFD, IS A CLEAR ATTEMPT TO MALIGN AND INSULT. I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS UNCHECKED WAR AGAINST ME, BECAUSE MIDGELY DOES NOT HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH WHAT I EDITED. IT IS ABOUT TIME THAT SOME ADMINISTRATORS START ACTING FAIRLY, AND EQUITABLY. NO OTHER LEGITIMATE ORGANIZATION WOULD TOLERATE THIS KIND OF ABUSE. IF WIKOPEDIA DOES, THAN THERE IS SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH IT.MollyBloom 01:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that was the personal attack you were banned for. I also ask you do not write in block capitals. Removing personal attacks is not common practice on Wikipedia, however I understand that bainer did try and move things off, for example on the AfD. And I would prefer (as I have asked before) if you would provide a diff, rather than copying and pasting such messages. Ian13/talk 15:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew the Rfd for Maxwell. It has become a free-for- all forum to launch personal attacks, and to discuss everything but the merits of the Rfd. Since no administrator has seen fit to do anything to stop it, I am taking action to protect myself. I have deleted the personal attacks and discussion that has nothing to do with the Rfd. Someone needs to do something to stop it, and nobody will. THis may be the last I ever participate in Wikopedia, because I don't think much of this kind of selective monitoring/administering. This is not personal to you, so please don't take it that way. However, I have received emails from people I don't even know saying that Midgely has a long pattern of bullying and intimidating anyone with whom he disagrees, until people just leave Wikopedia. I do not know if this is true or not, but judging from what I have seen, I would believe it. I am truly astonished that no admininstrator has put a stop to the pages and pages and pages of venom.MollyBloom 02:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure the 3 revert rule is a good one, but I am willing to abide by it. The actual 3rd revert in the bio entry itself on the issue of informed consent would be mine.

==Allegations of Professional Misconduct== In late 1997, Dr. Maxwell was sued by a patient for implanting her with silicone breast implants without her consent. The case was initially dismissed by the trial court on the grounds that that the statue of limitations had run out; however the appellate court reversed the trial court’s ruling and sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. According to the facts of the case, Maxwell had explained the issues of silicone versus saline implants, and his patient was adamant that she did not want silicone. Nonetheless, Dr. Maxwell implanted her with silicone without telling her, an apparent violation of the law of informed consent. Maxwell failed to appeal the adverse appellate ruling.

Notwithstanding that little point, I have not touched it since you put the notice on my talk page. What is currently there is not the 3rd revert. Its also appalling misleading as the case did not set precedent (although it can be cited as precedent) so much as follow it. As such, the current heading "Legal Precedent Set" is misleading. BTW Its not libel under Anglo-American law. First its clearly labeled allegation. 2nd, the facts are from the public record of the case and 3rd, the conclusion is "an apparent violation of the law..."

As for why I don't think the 3 revert rule is such hot idea, it might as well be called "the original edit wins rule". Consider the actual application: 1st edit, I add the entry to the bio, 2nd edit, Droliver, takes it out. 3rd edit, I put it back. Under the 3 revert rule, my edit wins. In this case, my original edit was accurate, carefully worded and added information on the alleged notable that sheds light on his character. No harm, no foul in following the rule.

A blind application of the rule could lead to appalling results elsewhere. Consider this hypothetical. In an entry on the holocaust, a holocaust denier, adds a new entry, stating "evidence shows holocaust did not occur". That is the first edit. A legitimate historian, deletes it. That is the 2nd edit. Then holocaust denier puts it back. That's the 3rd edit and under a blind application of the 3 revert rule... I hope there is some mechanisim in place to prevent such atrocious results of a blind application of the 3 revert rule.

Gfwesq 13:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not 'winning'. Reverting someone who reverted you doesn't assist anything, just as reverting that wouldn't. Ian13/talk 16:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]