User talk:Pax:Vobiscum/Archive 3

Rorschach article protection

Please remove the protection of the article on the Rorschach inkblot test. It seems to have been done at the request of a rather disruptive contributor who has based his edits on his own unorthodox opinions such as, in his words[1], "I should add that psychology is NOT A SCIENCE!!!! Psychology is much more similar to a religion or philosophy. In psychology there are nothing of scientific, psychology don't follow the scientific method at all...the scientific method don't allow to use any statistics results to prove a science". Please let others fix the mess he has made.Faustian 19:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I agree that Drugonot should be more civil, but there are several other editors that agree with him (check the history of the article). Since there are several editors on each side of the revert war, I'm not going to unprotect the article until consensus has been reached or things have cooled down. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum 19:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The issue is controversial and for some people unresolveable. The two "extreme" positions is to have no image at all (or a fake image), or the actual image from the test. I think that it would be reasonable for the article to be frozen with a compromise version such as the one with the black outline, or this one [2] in which the image requires a click to be seen (thus preventing it from spoiling the test for those who may take it), rather than one of the radical alternatives (no image at all, or the full image at the top of the page as it is now). Indeed, looking at the article's history, the image controversy was resolved with the just such a compromise. The black outline version stayed posted on the page for a rather long time, from June 7th until July 27th. Following this period of stability or resolution, an extreme version was put up despite several reasons for it not to be, and now that more controversial full inkblot image is protected. This just doesn't seem right. regards Faustian 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point, but I'm in no position to edit the article. WP:PROTECT makes it very clear that admins should not make any edits to a protected page unless it is obvious vandalism or there is consensus. Pax:Vobiscum 21:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for putting the pp-semi on Josh Hutcherson. I was about to do the same if there was one more vandalisim. It was getting really ridiculous. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 20:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete declined at User:Selfworm/VandalizeMe

I see you have declined the nomination. According to you, "no valid reason was given".
Please consider what I wrote and check the page history.
The subpage has been created by Danielspencer91 as an apparent test edit, thereby falling under WP:SD criterion 2. Furthermore, as Danielspencer91 is not Selfworm, he should not have created that page in the first place.
While I am not aware of any prior precedent, since modifying the content of anyone's userpage and its subpages may be considered vandalism, doesn't creation of new subpages under someones' userpage without their consent qualify as vandalism also? --The Fifth Horseman 14:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is strange, but Selfworm seem to have no problem with the page (he even has it transcluded on his userpage) and it doesn't fit any of the criteria for speedy deletion (at least from what I can see). Modifying the content of anyone's userpage and its subpages is not considered vandalism automatically. The easiest way to solve it would be if Selfworm requested speedy-deletion himself. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum 17:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Pax:vobisucm,
First off, I would like to thank you for taking interest with this page. The story of this page is more complicated than Danielspencer91's creation of it.

I originally had the VadalizeMe page set up so that users could have fun adding "vandalism" to the VadalizeMe page and leave my front page alone, in addition to helping to lighten up their day. I added a show/hide feature to the VadalizeMe page so that the vandalism would be hidden by default, and then I inserted the VadalizeMe page into my front by using brackets {{ }}. After having this page up for many months, the administrator User_talk:Ryulong deleted the page giving the reason that the userpage "doesn't really do much for the encyclopedia". Since you are an administrator and consequently have the ability to view deleted userpages, you can view the deleted User:Selfworm/VandalizeMe page so as to get a better sense of what what its content was.

I left the broken link User:Selfworm/VandalizeMe on the bottom of my front page, a broken link that Danielspencer91 saw and decided to recreated.

I left a message on Ryulong's talk page with the hope that he would change his mind about the deletion, but his mind is set. You can view the discussion here. Since you are a third party in this discussion, I would hope that you would be willing to enter into my discussion with Ryulong concerning whether or not the page should have been deleted. Your opinion would be greatly valued in helping to bring this discussion with Ryulong to an end. Thank you for your time. selfworm^Talk) 19:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to inform you that I've left you a response on my talk page. This conversation is distributed over several talk pages; we should really pick a talk page and stick with it. selfworm^Talk) 20:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect Political correctness please

You seem to have mistakenly fully protected this page in response to a request from user:Cberlet to semi-protect. Will you please unprotect it? I do not consider the request for protection to have been valid in any case, as there was no vandalism, only an attempt to shut up a very well behaved anonymous editor who was using well-reasoned argument. You can see some discussion of this on the talk page. --Memestream 18:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The protection was no mistake, but I've now unprotected the page since things might have cooled down. Pax:Vobiscum 20:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. I've reverted to your last, and I think the page needs to be protected again.JQ 10:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 06:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Selfworm/VandalizeMe

Hello,
Since you were part of the discussion on the deletion of the page User:Selfworm/VandalizeMe, I am writing to inform you that the page is up for deletion review. Thank you for your time. selfworm^Talk) 08:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Thank you for taking the time to comment on my request for protection on List of Czech Jews, but the reverts on that page are purposely made to appear like a content dispute when they are actually just trolling. I looked at the talk page of the former IP address this person was using (User talk:20.138.246.89) and it appears from their second request for unblock that they are, in fact, an indefinitely banned user who started the redirects and are now maintaining them post-ban using various IP addresses. I also don't see any reason for the constant reverting aside from just wanting their badly defined version in existence. So I still very much believe semi-protection is the only way to control this as going to either of the wikiprojects you suggested really has nothing to do with what is going on here. Please reconsider. Thank you very much again. Kazakhstan rocks 04:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Since you know about this, there is a anon again adding POV the same since you know about this what can be done? he won't stop. [3] --Vonones 17:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked him and protected the page. Pax:Vobiscum 20:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Night of the Long Knives

Today' featured article, Night of the Long Knives, has been vandalized by IP vandals several times today. Won't somebody please semi-protect it?--Mcattell 16:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace, so that is what I will do. I will go for another RfA in two month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been two months. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 01:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Raphael

Thank you for the semi-protection to Raphael. Cheers, JNW 02:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

AFD

In case you have not been checking and if you have time, could you please have a follow up look at [4]? Meganslaw 16:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

semi-protection

Please unprotect the Adam Morrison page or at least take the time to update it kthx --216.97.170.172 19:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is now unprotected. Pax:Vobiscum 20:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Greenock Morton

Thanks for semiprotecting Greenock Morton F.C. ! Nach0king 14:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Race of ancient Egyptians

Please take a look at this proposal for the article. Protection never helps and edit warring always continues after it is unprotected. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I read through your proposal before making the protection. Even though the intent is good I don't think it's a good idea to have article specific rules, and (as far as I know) there is no policy-support or precedent for implementing that kind of rules. Pax:Vobiscum 15:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be a policy. Just have everyone agree on the ANI board and implement it. I think it's a lot better to have specific rules to it for a specific amount of time than to fully protect it which totally stifles any further attempts to improve it by non edit warring editors. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, we do need either policy-support or a clear consensus to implement such new rules, and I don't really see any of those right now. Full protection is the standard way of cooling down edit wars. I see you already have a draft page setup (User:Wikidudeman/RaceEgyptdraft), why not continue to work with that? Pax:Vobiscum 15:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That was the draft that was implemented. I got several people together a few weeks ago and got consensus that rewrite and then we implemented it. The page that you see now on Race of ancient Egyptians is actually the draft but has since been dramatically changed due to edit warring over the previous 2 weeks. This is what it used to look like before I rewrote it. I had deleted User:Wikidudeman/RaceEgyptdraft but I recently restored it because of a request to do so for reference. As far as protecting it goes, The page has been protected at least a dozen times under various names and none of the protection of it has made any difference in edit warring as it continues immediately after it's unprotected. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If you had consensus for the draft you should report the users breaking it for disruptive editing. I understand that you have put a LOT of work and effort into this and I'm honestly sorry that there isn't a better way of solving the situation. Pax:Vobiscum 17:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have brought it to ANI a few times but nothing was ever resolved. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Race of ancient Egyptians

Peace be with you, how long is the article protected for. Muntuwandi 18:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection will be lifted when there is reason to believe that the edit-warring won't continue. The fastest way to get it unprotected is to work out a compromise, for example using the draft page that Wikidudeman has setup. Pax:Vobiscum 23:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately there has been almost no activity on the talk page or the draft. Hopefully the edit warriors have cooled down now. I suggest lifting protection because it would stimulate interest in the article again. Muntuwandi 22:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's too soon. You might want to request unprotection at WP:RFPP to get another admin's opinion. Pax:Vobiscum 22:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you restore

I was trying to undue a move that was not discussed. The original redirect Jewish state to Homeland of the Jewish People was explained some time ago. In a nut shell the term "Jewish state" is misleading as it sound to some as a state of the Jewish religion and to others as a state for the Jewish people. This is actually discussed in the article itself.

So the best term is homeland of the Jewish people - such a name is clear, no confusion between religion and national identity. Thanks. Zeq 21:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think moving it again without discussion is a good idea. Both names have problems, but "homeland" is perhaps an even more confusing term and it could be argued that the use of it would be problematic from a NPOV standpoint. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be moved, but I'm not ready to move it before there has been a discussion on the talk-page. Pax:Vobiscum 02:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have started the discussion. I don't undersatnd how the previous move was done. The article was Homeland of the Jewish People and the move of the article to Jewish state was over a re-direct (from Jewish state to "Homeland of..") that move was done w/o any discussion. Zeq 08:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles can be moved over redirects (when there is only 1 edit in the history). Pax:Vobiscum 14:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

it is on talk for two days. I don't see any objection now to the "homeland of.." name which maybe the best compromise given that bith Jewish state and State of the Jewish people have some misleading tone in both. Thanks. Zeq 16:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It is now over a week. Please restore. Zeq (talk) 09:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to reply. Personally I'm not sure it is a good idea to use "homeland" in the article name, so I'm hesitant to make the move. You can always request the move (Wikipedia:Requested moves). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sacagawea

A month and a half of page protection ought to be enough to scare of the IP vandal for Sacagawea, don't you think? Time to unprotect? :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, let's see how it goes. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Campanological greetings

Sorry to get in touch with you in this ridiculous way. I suppose I know who you are, and it is obvious to you who I am, but it is funny that we have both been on Wikipedia (you obviously far more active and influential than me) without knowing of the other's presence, despite being in the same department. That's how it seems to be around here. Nice to run into you electronically. Best wishes! Carillonista (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)