DrL's Message Center
Please come by, to say "hi" :)
(Messages are deleted every 24h or when message box is full)
Thanks for stopping by!
Message Box
Please see Wikipedia:Removing_warnings#Vandalism. Removing warnings from your talk page is not the recommended way to do things. Best regards. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. I've replaced the only official warning that I received. I will be sure to retain any recent, non-libelous, relevant and accurate warnings - thx! DrL 16:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome. There's a process, woolly and vague though, for getting rid of them, at the link above. The fact is that lots of people remove warnings, but it's probably best not to court trouble. Enjoy what's left of the weekend ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
User notice: temporary 3RR block
Regarding reversions[1] made on July 17 2006 (UTC) to Cognitive-Theoretic Model_of_the_Universe
![]() |
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. |
Please note that I was reverting mass deletes/vandalism (examine history for further details). It was my understanding that the 3RR rule does not apply in such cases. Please explain your action. Thank you. DrL 17:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please read WP:3RR more carefully. Only blatant vandalism counts, which this wasn't - it appears to be a perfectly sensible argument about what should be on the page William M. Connolley 17:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Completely disagree. DrL 16:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Digging
I asked you not to edit that page but to complain on my user talk page if you had a concern. I don't agree that the material you removed was a copyright vio, but I am also seeking guidance from admins. Please WP:AGF and recognize that this takes place in the context of cruft control at WP. Ironically, you seem to have overlooked the fact that these pages are related to my attempt (still in very early states) to formulate, propose and establish new policies related to digging and cruft control. Specifically, I feel that WP needs a clear policy on "digging" and when it is and is not appropriate, since this is clearly a difficult area to navigate without guidance, and also touches on subjects which many Wikipedians feel very strongly about. Please continue at my user talk page because User:Tim Smith strongly desires not to fragment the discussion. TIA ---CH 22:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- DrL, you may be interested in this discussion, where Hillman's "dig pages" are up for deletion. Just thought it would be fair to let you know. Byrgenwulf 11:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- If the community wants to keep Hillman's Dig pages, they should conform to WP. I've asked you to please stay off my talk page, Byrgenwulf. I would rather not have any interaction with you. Please respect that. DrL 11:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just to clarify some things.
- This isn't *your* talk page. You don't *own* it. Anyone can edit anything here on Wikipedia, including other peoples' talk pages (and userpages, for that matter).
- The comment I left was a genuine attempt to be decent.
- I have never posted your personal details in such a way that they can be conclusively linked to you. I have highlighted edits you have made that show that you know somebody-in-particular, and I have posted publicly accessible information about somebody-in-particular's wife. Never have I conclusively said that you and that person are the same.
- Which is more than can be said Asmodeus' childish posting of my IRL in "revenge", when there was no conceivable reason why it should have arisen.
- I have also never touched Hillman's dig pages, as their edit history will reveal.
- Just to clarify some things.
Can you help me?
- copied from User talk:Jitse Niesen
Jitse, I am wondering if you can help me to set limits with two Wikipedians. Users Hillman and Bergenwulf have adopted a negative focus and have been posting conjecture about my IRL. As I understand it, this is in violation of WP. This started after Hillman tried to run a checkuser on my identity and the admins refused this request because I had not broken WP.
Is there a way to ask an admin (are you an admin?), after reviewing their behavior, to warn these two individuals about breaking the guidelines? I have asked them both to please back off and stop violating WP and posting speculation about my IRL and unsubstantiated accusations (that have already been dismissed by admins) to no avail. DrL 12:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am indeed an admin. However, in my view speculation about your IRL identity is permissible since there is a well-founded suspicion of a conflict of interest. The comments on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig support this view.
- I haven't seen an administrator dismissing the accusations; all they say on the links provided is that (as far as they're away) you didn't violate any of the Wikipedia policies.
- It's not clear to me why you want to contact an administrator. As Wikipedia:Administrators explains, admins are no more than people "who have access to technical features that help with maintenance". Anybody can warn people, that does not require these admin-only technical features.
- If you want to ask for people to review the behaviour of Hillman and Byrgenwulf, you can open a Request for Comment (RfC). If you really want to contact an administrator, you can leave a message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, but this edit shows that you are already away of that page.
- Best wishes, Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)