User talk:Coldmachine/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Coldmachine. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

- Archives -

Please do not modify the contents of these pages
July, 2007 - January, 2008
February, 2008 - July, 2008
August, 2008 - November, 2008

Current talk page

Recent attacks by other editors

Coldmachine, I wonder if you had a look at the talk page of one of the editors who recently made an accusation against you that amounted to "failing to assume good faith". I'm referring to Pete St.John - and if you have a look here you will see that he appears to have a long history of this sort of thing and is currently blocked from editing. I think most people will see his words as more a reflection on him than on you.

I hope this message doesn't go against your wishes about being contacted - my sincere apologies if it does. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, no, don't worry about it. I did take a look at that editor's contribution history and it's less than polite to say the least. Still, the AfD process has drawn the situation back into partisan lines and that has essentially ruined the progress which I, Tony, and other editors, had managed to accomplish in terms of drawing people back from an edit war and into dialogue over changes to article content. It's a shame, but when one entry on Wikipedia is taking up so much time and energy it isn't worth the long-term trouble which will eventually boil up. I've seen this before with other articles; first it start with edit wars, then an AfD, then it'll go to review, then there'll be accusations about sockpuppetry and RfC's against one another, and then there'll be blocks handed out by admins - whether they affect the innocent or not. Better to, as they say, duck and dive. Coldmachine^Talk 17:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As it works out, your prediction was slightly inaccurate - someone called "Guy" jumped straight to indefinite blocks! Obviously I have now been unblocked, and there is a huge brouhaha on AN/I about this. It seems this place can be quite a snake-pit (present company excepted) - but I'm not giving up on it just yet. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Def. or indef blocks, either way, it was going to end badly. I'm glad I bowed out when I did. This situation occurred once before and I learned the lesson the hard way. The minute there's a wikidrama like this it's better to find something else to edit on the 'pedia. You can guarantee that the admin mop, wielded by fallible human beings, will be dirty by the end of it all. Coldmachine^Talk 18:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oxford round table AfD

I made another comment. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Invite

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Jccort (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue VI (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Delivered on 19:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

I really apologize for not understanding the protocol

Thanks for your message Coldmachine. I did not mean to violate your protocols or that of Wikipedia in general; I was just ignorant of those protocaIs at the time. I am not affiliated with the entries I was trying insert – just thought they would be helpful. Though interesting, the info is not critical so no harm done by removing it; hope you feel the same way. I apologize for the inconvenience; I know you're just trying to keep your page and Wikidepdia honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifdf (talk • contribs) 13:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, not to worry: there's just so many new accounts or IPs trying to insert advertising/cruft/spam that sometimes its an ongoing struggle where we lose track of the fact some are inserting content in good faith. No harm done! Welcome to Wikipedia too, I should add! Coldmachine^Talk 14:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A new Oxbridge user box

Coldmachine...I am currently in the process of writing a user box for all of the colleges that are part of Oxbridge. This template is meant to replace your current college template. Please take a look at the work in progress and comment on it. My main concerns are college abbreviations and color choice. I am using scarf colors for the colleges. Thank you. - LA @ 16:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

jza84

Hi I noticed your effort in removing vandalism in Liverpool. I am trying to deal with someone above who is effectively vandalising my edits. Can you help? I have never been given a polite invite to discuss. The user has ignored my knowledge. This is in respect of suburbs of Liverpool, eg Seaforth, Huyton etc. If you want to give advice I would welcome it. Dmcm2008 (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry but this looks like a Wikidrama to me so I've no interest in getting involved in that. You received some useful advice from User:Snowy 1973 and I think if I were in your place I would be making my edits based around that. Your best bet is to concentrate on the talk pages first, to try to obtain a consensus for the changes you are proposing. Reinserting content which has been reverted by another user constitutes edit warring and you're likely to receive a temp or indef. block for that or for a violation of WP:3RR. I hope you can work it out. This isn't something I'm prepared to get myself involved with, thanks. All the best. Coldmachine^Talk 12:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above, it looks to me like User:Kitchen Knife is the latest incarnation of the infamous, permanently-banned, Liverpool-based User:Irate (which is another reason to not touch this drama with a bargepole!)..... I'll keep an eye on his behaviour. --RFBailey (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue VII (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Delivered on 17:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

Wuggins

Thx for the latest revert. It's getting really tedious, and I'm about to call out the 3RR police. Whois says that the IP address is Emirates Telecommunications Corporation, Dubai. Best. Andrew Cooper (1964), aka GuillaumeTell 20:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem; I was thinking about doing the same myself. If you do post on the 3RR noticeboard let me know and I will pop along there and add my $0.02. This has been going on for weeks, I notice. WP:ABUSE may also be a good idea: if I had a moment free I'll post there. Coldmachine^Talk 21:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"Ave Satan!"

Yay thanks, I should've thought to ask you.:) Merkin's mum 10:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Different standards

I don't get it, when I added a phrase about Warwick's reputation to the University of Warwick's page it's removed for being boosterism but removing phrase on _exactly_ the same context on the University of Oxford's page is considered vandalism?

Is there a consistent policy here or are people just making things up to suit their whims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.181.235 (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all please comment on content, not contributor. Second; you were directed to the talk page. You'll see a lengthy discussion on there about the lead in and that sentence, and a consensus to keep that sentence provided it links to a section of the article which justifies the statement. Which it does. By all means feel free to try to raise consensus for the same approach at the University of Warwick article; nobody is preventing you from doing so. However, removing content at the University of Oxford article, in the face of established consensus, is tantamount to edit warring particularly when you have been reverted on several occasions for having done so. Since this article is also recognised as a good article then removing content is likely to prove more controversial because you inadvertently damage the article's standing as a result. I'd suggest you always raise discussion on a talk page before making a potentially controversial edit. I hope this helps explain why you are being reverted. Coldmachine^Talk 14:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's odd. It's the first time i've actually edited the University of Oxford's page, so i'm not sure how that amounts to 'several occasions' but i'm not trying to kick off anything. It just seems odd that standards seem to be applied so differently depending on people's relative affiliations. I'll continue this on the University of Warwick's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.181.235 (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well in that case my apologies: this same lead in content has been removed by a number of anon IPs (of which you're one) and so I mistakenly assumed you were the same; hence my decision to finally issue a warning on a talk page. Feel free to remove that. Also, why not sign up for an account? That way you'll be able to get more out of contributing on Wikipedia and also you won't have people assuming the worst. Best of luck on the Warwick page. If you have difficulties, cite the Oxford and Cambridge articles as examples since a 'precendent' has been set. You could also ask over at WP:UNI. Coldmachine^Talk 14:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry, if I came over a bit argumentative, I was just a little confused. Thanks for the heads up on creating an account. I'm a bit new to all this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.104.198 (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Latin

Could you possibly leave a quick word on Talk:Black_Mass#Latin? They won't be too much trouble, I think they're just kids, but they think they know the truth and reverted me.:) I don't think it will be drama, we just need to explain to them a mo. It's not likely anyone without their POV will back them up.:)Merkin's mum 02:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I replied. It's obvious that there's a misunderstanding over the use of Satanas in terms of the word meaning 'a deceiver' as opposed to the name of the Satan; as a Hebrew name it's not declined. Coldmachine^Talk 17:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaaah, thanks. That Latin bloke said "Yes, both forms exist in the Vulgate. The reported text from Matthew may be a misprint, or simply a translator's error; the Greek is ὕπαγε σατανᾶ (hypage Satana), in the expected vocative case. Bear in mind that the Greek declension was somewhat alien in Latin, like classical plurals are in English, so they may have simply gotten it wrong. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)." Lol in this case, the ancients are wrong. So it's a bit harder to defend our argument from authority. :):) I may have to use as a reference a Latin textbook online or something. First I need to check the current state of play on the article... Merkin's mum 10:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense! I knew that the Vulgate did use this bizarre declension, along with the more standard form of Satan. There are tons of examples of this website. I'm not disputing whether the Vulgate uses Satanas et al. or not, but am disputing both the validity of the Ave Satanas article and the content of Black Mass in which typographical/grammatical errors are mentioned but any attempt to give examples (e.g. with use of the Vulgate declensions for Ave Satanas) are reverted. I think I'll stick to Greek from now on ;-) Coldmachine^Talk 17:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

lol, I just hate that they are lying and saying LaVey is so intellectuelle and his grammar etc. perfect. Not that I am hugely anti-LaVey but articles shouldn't push a POV. And I still think the most likely explanation is he got it wrong unintentionally by the equivalent of not even bothering to google.:) I mean, who wouldn't choose to use the by far most common forms, and for why? And why not include info? It was a big case of WP:OWN.Merkin's mum 00:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Award

Surely that's not the only award you have babs? You must have more somewhere in archives etc. you could put there to show off:) Merkin's mum 16:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it's on its lonesome! Don't worry, I don't feel neglected or anything! I'm not even sure my edit count is sufficient for some of the 'default' awards... :( Coldmachine^Talk 18:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought you'd have more "bling" than that:) User:Merzul and I were having a good discussion about the barnstars, we decided not only barnstars, but also most of our wikifriends/allies we had won through being on the same side of a war. You and I of course are lovely editors- we just don't get the bling because we don't enjoy rows enough to get the barnstars. Of course the answer to life, the universe and everything is WP:DGAF. But it's nice to get trinkets sometimes too:) Oh and I'm sure you'll be eligible for one of the default ones. But a lot of them look shite lol:)Merkin's mum 15:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hilbre High School

That's OK: I happened across it by accident, and thought it looked uncontroversial enough to just merge them straight away! --RFBailey (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue VIII (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Delivered on 21:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

RE: Thanks

No problem. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

prod pass

OMS! (lol) That's a surprise. Maybe that Jim bloke didn't know how to remove it- or didn't he voice any opposition on talk? Did you see on Black Mass that I actually had a look at LaVey's mass (yawn) just to look at the word, and he doesn't actually decline 'Satanas' but uses the same ending all the way through? It's just his word for Satan in it. So we were all a bit wrong lol as no-one had read it. I'm actually learning new info from that article. That Jim bloke does actually know a bit- so it can'tve been him who wrote the "LaVey never made a mistake evar" version of that section it was at when I came across it. I honestly thought a teenage boy must've written that bit. Merkin's mum 16:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

plus- well done- come to remember the article and look at your prod reason, you were probably right that it was a lot of WP:OR. It's the luck of the draw with occult fan-type articles sometimes, as to whether they get deleted. Depending on how many other fans they can recruit in an AfD to claim that it's notable. Merkin's mum 16:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think he removed the prod tag because doing so implies an acceptance of having to improve the article substantially and I think it was evident that this would be extremely difficult in this instance: the article was clearly WP:OR. No citations, no WP:V, etc. You know, I looked at my contribution history the other day and realised a scary thing: I think I may be turning into some kind of deletionist...I guess it comes from seeing so much material lacking scholarly rigour, so much POV pushing, and a whole heap of WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL. Argghhhh! Coldmachine^Talk 17:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not deletionism, or at least not in a bad way. I call it "deleting bollox from the wiki". I join in AfDs quite often, and also I must admit hit "random article" to flick through looking for hopeless articles. My doubt as to whether the Ave Satanas article would be deleted, was due to its notability in the occult world and its no doubt being mentioned in lots of books. But I should've thought that sometimes that doesn't count for much on wiki as it's not notable in WP:RS, or people think it's spam or something. I should've learn this from the death of my first article, Joy of Satan lol (I have an excuse for writing that article, as the JoS led to scandal in a Nazi organisation, when it led to several resignations when a leader was found to be involved with it. [1] As to reliable sources, it was in the Roanoke Times, no less!:) Merkin's mum 17:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You RAOK!

{...}I'm not getting involved; seems a perfect example of Wikidrama to me."

-I undertand your feelings about wikidrama completely.

"The only thing I don't get is that there appears to be several 'get out of jail free' passes when it comes to WP:CIV with this individual...how utterly bizarre."

Not bizarre at all inasmuch as it happens frequently if people have a lot of contribs etc, those edits count for them to be given a bit more leeway- rightly or wrongly.

"for instance, an egregious personal attack, a threat against another person, or severe profanity directed against another contributor"

I don't mind the swearing so much as other comments on the talk page of the person concerned.

" So, I guess if you contribute a plethora of valuable material to Wikipedia it gives you a free pass to act like a WP:DICK later on. Must bear that in mind in the lead up to me throwing a tantrum if I ever feel the need, like some apparently do."

-Remember you would have to amass enough what they view as more valuable edits before you were "allowed." :) Merkin's mum 12:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

OMFS!

A barnstar, thanks! Now I'll have to tinker again with my jazzy userpage.:) Sticky Parkin 15:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Theistic Satanism

There are not many rows over this at the mo except spam links, people occasionally wanting to include their fave groups etc. I've worked hard on it so would appreciate your opinion, as I value it.:) If you don't want to join in any fray there may be, you're welcome to just leave a msg on my talk page. Sticky Parkin 18:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it looks as if you got this one pretty much covered! It's not really my area; I wouldn't know where to find reliable sources for improving the content. I could go through and tag it, but I think you already went ahead and made a heap of improvements! If you still need my input let me know, even if it's for some mundane gnome-esque treatment. Coldmachine^Talk 19:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It has pics now.:) I have to go through and add another dozen refs of something and remove any WP:OR. When I've done that I will nag you to tag it like a sl*g and do whatever else you see fit to it, you might let us see any weaknesses in it after that (they're quite glaring to me at the mo lol) and I can spend a while fixing them. User:The Haunted Angel thinks it can be brought to WP:GA status, and it will be the first article I've helped on its way there.:) :) :) Sticky Parkin 18:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Literapedia Links

First of all, I would like to thank you for the post on my talk page. I appreciate the time you took to provide me with links to different policies, but more importantly, I am grateful for the civil and helpful tone with which you posted. You could have made a rude, self-righteous comment, but you instead chose to be informative and even friendly. That has not gone unnoticed -- thank you very much.

Second of all, you're right. I admit it -- I participated in a campaign to promote Literapedia, a fellow wiki project that I hoped would be welcomed into the Wikipedia family. This campaign does in fact violate the policies of which you informed me. In my own defense, this was done in good faith. While Literapedia may not meet the requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia, any casual observer will notice that it does include important, helpful, and relevant information. My English teacher, my classmates, and I only hoped that we could make that information more widespread, providing an alternative to SparkNotes.

We will consider this not a failure, but merely a detour. We will attain our goal through other means -- promotion on other sites, and a gradual takeover of the Internet as pervasive as the growth of Wikipedia itself! Once that has occurred, no one will question us on "Notability." :) Until that time, I will continue to edit with only a neutral POV, and will avoid such COIs in the future.

Again, thank you for your guidance and vigilance in maintaining the standards of Wikipedia. --Docmcconl (talk) 02:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That's ok, really, I'm just sorry that your first ventures into contributing to the project have proven a little frustrating perhaps, but please stick around and try your hand at editing some of the articles here to introduce improvements. While external links to Literapedia may not be appropriate there's still plenty of contributions you could make! Coldmachine^Talk 08:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Theistic Satanism

This article which we contributors want to get to WP:GA status is now ready for you to make us all cry.:) So feel free to tag etc, and share your opinion of how the article could be improved, on the talk page. Sticky Parkin 16:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you convinced me: I'll take a look. I'm up to here so far and will continue working through the article later, or tomorrow, with some additional tidy up. I think it's reasonably well sourced and written: there are a few things which need to be ironed out though before GA nomination in my opinion and then a reviewer would also have some feedback to give for improving things further still. Coldmachine^Talk 20:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. All suggestions etc are much appreciated.:) Sticky Parkin 11:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've gone upto as far as you've got.:) I wasn't sure about sources in a lead but since then have seen that some other articles considered controversial have them, such as Chiropractic, although that has the longest lead section I've seen lol:) Sticky Parkin 19:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Help on lending library.

Thank you for editing my errors, I was on a time line and wasted alot of time trying to figure out what I thought would be a simple editing system, wrong! I want to add pictures, and I somehow missed a citation or two, plus I need a block quote. So be patient, thanks again, 'caped one' (you know, like superheroes).N.E.Knight (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on Liverpool

IT was not disruptive, I meant what I said. Have you any citations to disprove these things which are commonly known by all of us who opnce stuidied at the uni up there? Autobush (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the content you added is disruptive. Adding unsourced, unverified, personal opinions to articles is unhelpful. It is evident that this was vandalism to the article, and if you continue to vandalise articles in this way you'll likely be blocked from editing eventually, as the message template I applied to your talk page makes clear. Take it up on Talk:Liverpool if you want to try to build consensus for the content you want to add (provided it's sourced, and written from a WP:NPOV). Coldmachine^Talk 15:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Library association (disambiguation)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Library association (disambiguation), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? llamadog903 (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Liverpool Urban Area 'greater Liverpool

I am not sure how this works, but I am seeking additional opinions on the discussion on this page, I will abide by the general consensus. User JZA continues to undermine my edits and has done over a period. However I am only looking at opinions on the discussion page on Liverpool Urban Area if you are interested please leave your thoughts. Thank you. Dmcm2008 (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on Liverpool

Do not threaten me. I am not a vandal and here is proof-[2] . Autobush (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all one diff on one article does not prove that you have not been disruptive elsewhere. Your contribution history makes your disruptive attitude to editing perfectly clear:

[3] on Liverpool
[4], which you then reinserted after a revert here on Liverpool
[5] on Davina McCall, which you then reinserted after a revert here
[6] on Matthew Robertson
[7] on Zimbabwe
[8] on Italian Social Republic
[9] on Croatia
[10] on Slobodan Milošević
[11] on Surrey
[12] on Tsugumi Ohba

And the fact you now also have an ongoing accusation of sockpuppetry against your account here is by no means helpful. If this were me I would be editing with far more caution under the circumstances and far more attention to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CON. Coldmachine^Talk 15:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your response. Although I don't think it's entirely for the best for Wikipedia, I think it's best if I leave Merseyside content alone altogether, at least for some time. I had hoped to help get a WikiProject:Merseyside off the ground at somepoint down the line, but I don't think I could be involved in this area at the moment.

Thanks again, --Jza84 | Talk 18:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely wouldn't hold off making the valuable contributions you've been providing to date; this is just an ongoing content dispute with an editor who is (relatively) new to the process: don't let it get to you or feel that you have to hold off making contributions. There have been consensus building responses to the controversial edits, and the other editor has nearly always accepted the prevailing view of the community. Likewise; you're under no obligation to expend energy or effort in trying to educate: if you feel exhausted from your previous attempts (which are commendable) then why not just take a break from interacting with that editor? I hope you change your mind, because personally I think you've been a valuable contributor and it would be a shame to lose your input to the Merseyside related articles. I tell you what: I may check in with another user who was recently handed the mop; he is a leading contributor in the Cheshire project and may be able to offer some further guidance to Dmcm2008 as well as on the content issues. Coldmachine^Talk 22:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, you've won me over. I will certainly avoid this gentleman for the time being. I've been told (asked rather) privately to block him, but I'm with you - I think Dmcm2008 has alot of passion about the region which could be harnessed very productively.

I still think a WP:MERSEY is the right way forwards here - the region is in need of a WikiProject so badly, which is a shame. Thanks again though, I'll see what happens from here. :) --Jza84 | Talk 23:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It is all very well having these cosy chats, I feel somewhat dismayed by userJZA and sometimes UserKitchenKnife attitude towards me, yet they would be the ones telling me I am the awkward one. Your sentiments "don't let it get to you or feel that you have to hold off making contributions" to JZA are exactly how I have been for sometime with these users. Regardless of me being a new editor unable to be sure that an edit is not going to be analysed by Jza, because frankly I do feel my edits are being analysed to a point that every sentence is to be 'verified' and you can bet not every editor or article out there gets this as much as I do, regardless of this I am here to make a positive contribution and build articles or correct artcles. This for me is as a hobby I am not looking to be as authoratitively involved as JZA I really despise this editors attitude---although he would have you believe he has tried to help me! What a load of garbage.

I have seeked help from others in a civil way and Jza is in no way helpful toward me. If I am to be civil this editor should also take note of Civility.

Try my VAUXHALL,Liverpool page (or Vauxhall, Merseyside due to JZA interference despite it being in the city of Liverpool). I have positively added to this infact the article was started by me. I feel sick to the back teeth Jza AND Kitchen Knife are insulting me every time I edit yet no one picks up on it because i may have made an honest mistake and they turn it in to somekind of game to disrupt and insult me; I tell you this I aint going away and I dont like being treated as if I am a troublesome or vandal either. I aim that to JZA84 and Kitchen Knife.Dmcm2008 (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that User:Autobrush be banned

I see that you have noticed User:Autobrush's negative editing. Autobrush is doing the same thing on the article Kosovo, I have given him a final warning to stop, but I see that you have given him one too which he appears to have ignored. I will support you if you intend to propose to have Autobrush banned from Wikipedia.--R-41 (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your message on my talk page

Thanks for the message. I've replied on User talk:Ddstretch#Cheshire project experience with Merseyside articles?. Best wishes. DDStretch (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

mail

Not nagging, just checking you got my last mail a week or two ago. I got yours about the TS article etc. and replied, since then your mails seem to have vanished out of my gmail, there must've been some sort of glitch in the matrix, so just checking it turned up. Sticky Parkin 03:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did get the email: been chaotic lately with lots going on so sorry I've not had a chance to reply yet: I promise I will! Coldmachine^Talk 13:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's ok I was just checking:) Hope all is ok-ish in Coldmachine world.:) Sticky Parkin 23:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

JDS Hyūga

Japanese calligraphy by Satow. The kanji read (from right to left) "敬和" (*Kei-Wa*), literally "Respect and harmony".

Thank you for your seemly contribution. --Tenmei (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to intervene actively

Coldmachine -- Please consider revisiting a very difficult controversy at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. My single sentence edit to the second paragraph of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer has been reverted several times thus far; and I guess it will probably happen again and again and again. The demonstrably futile defense of that single sentence has relied on the in-line citation which accompanies it, but no rebuttal addressed to the gravamen of this edit has yet been proffered. The talk page defense of that modest edit has been marred by claims that I have been uncivil and that I've engaged in personal attacks. See for yourself how WP:AGF WP:Civil are used as threats, as blunt instruments which are intended to thwart any hope that an exchange of views can lead to a constructive outcome.

Coldmachine -- If you choose to intervene in a more active way than you have already done, I would ask that you bear in mind my view that Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation seems worth trying in a situation which is rather more serious than can be easily grasped without a passing familiarity with Japanese history, modern Japanese constitutional law, and the international naval treaties of the 1920s and 1930s. Maybe you will appreciate the issues in an instant; but I wonder if determining the distinctions between "correct" and "not-quite-correct" might become secondary to the ways in which ordinary Wikipedia policies are illuminated by the exchange of views here?

Coldmachine -- In short, without any effort to give too fine a point to my words: "Who's kidding who?"--Tenmei (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on the article talk page. This issue is problematic: your posts on the talk there are dissuading people from actively working with you to achieve a consensus for change; they're not personal attacks as far as I can see but the problem lies in clouding the precise nature of your concerns over wording/content. I'd suggest presenting your arguments more succinctly, to be able to engage with the other editors far more effectively than is currently the case. Coldmachine^Talk 07:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Rhetorical questions?

Coldmachine -- Please take note that nothing to do with the contrived furour having to do with "aircraft carriers" vs. "helicopter destroyers" has been introduced in the following related articles:

Why do you suppose that is? Is likely that this was nothing more than felicitous happenstance? If I were characteristically given to using a sledgehammer when a more delicate instrument is called for, then my one-sentence edit to Hyūga class helicopter destroyer becomes an anomaly worthy of more than passing notice -- especially in the broader contexts which you now notice I didn't selectively edit?

Proposition on which consensus was formed
The participants in the consensus discussion were specifically invited:

The following language was used in that invitation. It effectively summarizes my understanding of the proposition for which consensus was sought:

Several editors (including myself) are currently discussing whether Japan's new Hyūga class helicopter destroyers should be classified as aircraft carriers or not and whether the article's references are adequete. Interested editors are invited to comment on the article's talk page. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As you know, I did nothing to inhibit the process nor the eventual consensus which was formed; nor did I impede or challenge the posting of that consensus-derived text in the "Details and Specifications" section of the article. Doesn't this beg the question, Why should this passive and non-confrontational inaction have aroused such passionate outcry, such shocked indignation? Why is that?

If you haven't asked yourself these kinds of questions, why not? I just didn't think of these questions until today; and I wonder myself why I wasn't able to put it in such crisp terms before today.

Is it helpful to re-visit other postings consistent with the following:

29 July -- non-NPOV fundamentals in this talk page "accident" are set in 2007, not in 2008. In this context, re-framing questions in which the scope of "consensus" is limited by factors implicit in the premise is an impoverished logical strategy.

14 July -- Initially, I sought mediation for a variety of reasons, not least of which was because Nick Dowling persists in framing sham "queries" in which any "answer" becomes irretrievably confined within the terms of narrowing premises -- a pernicious variation on the classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. This sly straw man gambit has rhetorical appeal, but it unfolds with insidious consequences.

Deliberate redundancy for emphasis, yes; but not a sledgehammer.

I post these rhetorical questions on your personal talk page, hoping to avoid being perceived as a heedless trouble-maker. --Tenmei (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Tenmei, I have neither the time nor inclination to involve myself in the content disputes in which you are embroiled to the extent you appear to require. I have at no point claimed perfection in the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia; I have, however, pointed them out as the framework within which you should be editing and resolving your disputes. Instead you choose to lambaste others with hyperbole to drive home your point. Trying to rally others towards the same sort of disruptive approach to dispute resolution not only affirms the view I hold but is also unhelpful to the extreme. Coldmachine^Talk 23:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Then, I have one last questions: Which would you have preferred, striking out the unwelcome text or deleting it? My guess is uninformed. I have no desire to offend; but I only contact you in your official role as a volunteer who has self-identified as a mediator. --Tenmei (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)