User talk:Geo.plrd/Archives2006-7

I shall leave Wikipedia now to satisfy others

It is not fun any longer.

Here is what I wrote to a particular editor who has been harassing me, along with others:

You Win Chris, I Give UP

I shall leave Wikipedia ASAP. Nowhere on the discussion page to which you refer and on which you put a template (see below) do I see where I have disparaged people; I do not curse, as some editors do, I do not delete, I tried my best, and it was not fun, but so contentious. OK, you win. I will disappear, although I wanted to contribute on mathematics, statistics, and biographies of living mathematicians. Why you have so much to write to me is a mystery to me. Bye. and Bye Wikipedia.

Posted on User Talk: MathStatWoman

MathStatWoman: Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.This discussion is becoming heated; users are reminded to remain civil, assume good faith, and avoid personal attacks while working towards consensus.

I hope this eases your mind and makes you happy. MathStatWoman 18:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contacting me.

(a) I am being unjustly accused of "sockpuppetry". I use a computer that is shared by many people, a computer lab that has hundreds of users, a computer network with many people using it, and wifi shared by scores, maybe hundreds of others. So we all have the same IP address! So we are all the same person? I tracked down one of the people, a student, and she and I pleaded our case to one of the Wikipedians who are giving me a hard time, acting like a bully, or an Inquisitor, (b) My colleagues and I have noticed that female mathematicians' bios are shorter, or deleted, or scheduled for deletion, while men who have similar achievements and whose bios are not better, are judged by a different standard. (c) Many editors on Wikipedia have been harassing me, and posting nonsense on the deletion sites for female mathematicians/statisticians. Elaine Louise Zanutto's bio was deleted rapidly, then re-instated b/c of protests, Marion Cohen's bio had the same fate, I think, a fight is raging over a bio of Roberta Wenocur; Fan Chung is accomplished, but her entry primarily links her to her husband; anyone who votes "keep" or "strong keep" is ignored on the Roberta Wenocur bio, and others, too, about female mathematicians. (d) What is the problem with the article on Daniel H. Wagner, Associates? It seems unreasonable. (e) So many Wiki-editors are unkind to me, bully me, and act as if it is the Inquisition. (f) Compare for example the bios of Dennis DeTurck or Richard M. Dudley or Herbert Wilf to those of Elaine Louise Zanutto, Fan Chung, Roberta Wenocur, Elaine Louise Zanutto, Marion Cohen. Why delete the women's bios and keep the men's? I claim: keep and improve them all.

I thought it would be fun to contribute, and I thought it was a good deed. But is is very unpleasant. MathStatWoman 20:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heck if I know

But I think one of them has moved heavily to pseudo-civility, and admin-fishing, and both to making distance between each other, encouraging others to do their battles, and maybe even fresh start sock-puppetry for now. As long as they're civil, there's not much to do. I'm sure it will flair up again. Until then? Closure sounds good.

Extreme bias on your part as mediator

You just left this message on one of the interested parties pages that you were theoretically mediating. I quote:

hi Rosencomet, if you give me a list of the folks you want to create articles on, I will help with finding external sources. Geo. 02:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You do not appear to have been acting in good faith as mediator. Sincerely, Mattisse (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signature Fix needed

Geo.plrd, currently when users click on your signature in discussions they have to go through an Esperanza page to reach you. This is especially confusing to new users and has resulted in missed comments. Could you please repair your signature so via one click other editors may reach your user page (and if you choose, also your talk page) directly, as is the norm with signatures that have not been customized. Thank you. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hows this G e o. 16:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to AGF when you sabatoged the mediation removed the redirect

Removing the redirect means once again no one can reach you. No, I cannot AGF when for a month you did nothing while we exhausted ourselves. And now you join one side. It is very hard to believe you were impartial. Sincerely, Mattisse (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starwood mediation

Hi Geo.plrd. Thank you for the time and effort that you spent on the starwood mediation. I'm sorry that things did not work out. I think your offer to help Rosencomet with WP:Reliable Sources is motivated by a desire to do good and help the encyclopedia. However, I think that the appearance presented by your offer, while the mediation has not been resolved, could reflect negatively on yourself, and upon the mediation cabal. There are many areas of Wikipedia where I think you could be just as helpful, where there would be no negative reflection. You may wish to consider these as an alternative. If you choose to assist in the editting of the Starwood articles, perhaps it would be appropriate for you to be a party to the mediation. Please think about it. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 15:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

doni't edit my talk page so that I can't tell what is happening.

I looked at the history and realized that 8 out of the last 10 edits of my talk page were you. Would never have known without looking at the history. Looking at my page, there were a bunch from that other guy but not so in the history. I almost went insane yesterday. Sincerely, Mattisse (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you sign as user Kylu (u|t) if you are not user Kylu -- or are you:

This is what you just left on your Esperanza page: If you want to leave a message for Geo, please leave it on his talk page here: User talk:Geo.plrd. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. Sincerely, Mattisse (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse

I don't really need to look at your archives. Mattisse is emotionally invested in a vendetta against Rosencomet and apparently any article which Rosencomet has ever touched. IMO, she is not rational about this. -999 (Talk) 18:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at your talk archives, I'd say that she has definitely violated WP:CIVIL with her insistent, repetitive and uncivilly toned comments. But you'd better confer with another admin about it. But be aware that there has been some sort of coordination between certain admins to "save" Mattisse despite her previous deceptive and abusive use of sockpuppet and continuing disruption. The problem is that she makes many useful contributions to WP, but whenever she get into a conflict she intentionally escalates it rather than trying to find a compromise. She insists that only her interpretation of policies and guidelines is correct and won't quit until she gets her way, no matter how many editors disagree with her or explain their understanding of how policies and guidelines could be used and interpreted in ways different from hers. -999 (Talk) 20:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Arbcab.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Arbcab.jpeg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocking Mattisse

IMO, yes, she needs to be blocked. She has just stalked either Hanuman Das and/or Ekajati, both users she has had conflicts with, to Andrew Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where she is now starting up with harassing edits and reverts. I'd block her if I was an admin. She is very clever at playing the victim, but she is actually going out of her way to antagonize certain other editors, and has been doing so since August. I'll take a look at your archives in a minute. -999 (Talk) 20:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geo - I've monitored this mediation for the past few days, and have some concerns. I'm not at all clear what your role is in this issue at this point. I understand that you were the former mediator for this matter, but were asked to recuse. Thank you for your service on that - and for agreeing to step away when it was clear that you wouldn't be able to help. Having stepped away, though, I'd suggest to you that it's not a good idea for you to continue to communicate with the parties regarding the dispute. In particular, it's very bad form for you to contact one of the parties and request their comment on whether another party should be blocked. At this point, if you believe that further action should be taken, it would be my suggestion that you reach out to an administrator or WP:AN/I, request that they review the situation independently, and then step out of it. In any case, the participants in the mediation are emphatically not the appropriate people to ask to review each others' actions. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me - and thanks again for your service. Thanks. --TheOtherBob 20:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate

Geo, I am concerned about this comment you left on 999's talk page:

-- Matisse --

Would you be kind enough to look in my talk archives, 6 and 7, and tell me if Matisse's comments (to me)are rational? Geo. 18:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to determine if the comments to me show that this person needs to be blocked Geo. 18:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC) (Original here)

I think this is inappropriate. I realize you are no longer involved in the mediation between these two individuals, but to so blatantly side with one of them immediately after your inaction on the mediation is causing stress and disruption on the Wiki. Please back off from this, I do not think you are helping. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I see you have now signed on as a party in another dispute involving the same individuals: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse. Again, this sort of siding and continued interaction is inappropriate and I strongly suggest that you withdraw. Thanks. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I rather think that Mattisse proved to Geo.plrd the hostility behind her actions, which is the actual subject of the RfC and not the links in question as everyone would like to conveniently mischaracterize it... -999 (Talk) 23:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First I am tired of Matisse failing to AGF. Then she has accused me of falsifying another's signature, which anyone can tell by the diffs I did not do. Please note that I consider making false accusations a personal attack.

I am not siding with Rosencomet, I am just trying to make sure he submits encyclopedic articles. If you look on the RfC, I am certifying that this dispute exists. I will continue to monitor this dispute, if Matisse can not be WP:CIVIL, I WILL request that she be blocked. And if anyone else can't behave themself, then I will request that they be blocked. G e o. 21:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given your response, Geo, I would suggest that you may want to seriously reconsider continuing to involve yourself in this matter. I further think you should reconsider whether mediation is something that you really want to be involved with in the future. A mediator cannot be the sort of person that easily tires of peoples' foibles, must assume a ton of good faith, and must be as impartial as possible. I would humbly suggest that you're not doing those things here.

On the "personal attack" point, you say that anyone can tell that you didn't falsify another's signature. Call it Hanlon's Razor or something else, but Mattisse didn't seem to understand what you were doing. Assuming good faith, I'd suggest that she was confused - not making a personal attack against you. In any event, she has apologized here in case you took it as a personal attack. Therefore further "block threats" are entirely inappropriate.

Even if you did feel personally attacked, speaking ex parte with one party of the mediation about blocking another party, signing an RfC against a party in the mediation (in any manner, including certifying the dispute), and threatening blocks against one of the parties - all of these things are highly inappropriate for a mediator or former mediator. These types of actions present the appearance of partiality and impropriety. Even if there is no actual impropriety, that appearance damages the mediation process and the mediation cabal.

I strongly suggest that you not "continue to monitor" this situation, not seek or make any judgments on the participants' behavior or civility, and not request blocks for anyone involved. You're no longer properly involved with the mediation, and should now quietly disengage rather than aggrevating the situation. I do believe that any other course of action is, as others have said above, inappropriate. Again, if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me - and thank you again for your service up to this point. Thanks.--TheOther Bob 21:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob, just so you know, Geo has resigned from MedCab. Hi Geo, could I suggest you remove the MedCab userbox from your user page, to avoid confusion in the future. Thanks, Addhoc 00:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - thanks for letting me know, Addhoc. I had thought he was resigning just from this one particular mediation. Sorry about that, Geo - I'd have structured my comment differently if I realized that. Nonetheless, I think it's a good idea to disengage from this dispute, and would encourage that. Thanks. --TheOther Bob 00:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

I wonder if you would consider changing your signature so it is more clear to novice users how to contact you, etc? At least one user has expressed that they thought you were obscuring your user name, which obviously isn't the case, but it still illustrates a potential for confusion in our users who might not be as savvy. --Ars Scriptor 21:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Geo. You wrote in your response above, about the confusion over your signature, "which anyone can tell by the diffs I did not do." New users do not know to look at diffs. I am not a new user, and I found your signature confusing. It made you difficult to identify and contact, and I asked you to change it. From what I can see on your talk pages, you've been asked four times now to change your signature, by four different editors. I suggest you take this into consideration. Thanks. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Keep your sig as it is if you wish. It is fine with me. -999 (Talk) 00:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified my sig. What do you think G e o. 22:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks the same. --Ars Scriptor 02:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently I am working on a talk link. G e o. 05:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Mattisse

Thanks for signing the RfC. However, you need to add a few links to your attempts to resolve the issue just above where you signed. —Hanuman Das 01:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deeply sorry if I over-reacted

I apologize. I did not understand at all what was going on. People like me, who are not at all technical, don't understand things like signatures that don't go to where they say. That had never happened to me before and I was completely confused. Also, only today did I learn about "diffs". So you can see how hopelessly uninformed I am. If I made your life harder, I apologise deeply. Sincerely, Mattisse (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse

Hi Geo,

Firstly, I have accepted to advocate on behalf of Mattisse.
Secondly, I request clarification, are you currently advocating for anyone?
Thirdly, I would suggest in the context of the RfC demonstrating consensus that Mattisse has not violated policy, proposing he should be blocked is completely inappropriate.
Lastly, I understand that in due course you are interested in being an administrator. In this context, I would suggest this is an excellent opportunity for you to demonstrate your ability to diffuse this situation.

Thanks, Addhoc 11:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Arbcab.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Arbcab.jpeg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. cohesion 07:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:Arbcab.jpeg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Arbcab.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

BostonMA ^talk 13:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

thank you. this person is stalking me or something.

FYI, all i did was laugh at the article and add wikilinks to it. some people have a sense of humor. as you can see i have plenty of useful contributions.

- p

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pauly0 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]