User talk:Phr/Archive-2006-04-03

User_talk:Phr/Archive-2006-02-20

Three-Revert Rule

Engaging in an edit war is not the correct way to resolve a dispute. Your fervent reverts in the Edward G. Winter violate the three-revert rule. Instead of reverting the page, post your comment on the appropriate talk page. Continuing to engage in the acts prescribed could result in a block. joturner 22:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I did a 3RR vio. I reverted twice [1] [2]. I also did a large edit where I removed a bunch of nonsense [3], but that's not a revert, and even if it is, that's still a total of 3. Did I count incorrectly? Thanks. Phr 22:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct; my mistake. joturner 22:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sloan at it again

I am sorry to bother you, but I figured that, this time, I would turn to someone other than Howcheng with my complaints. There are a number of problems with the new Julian Simpole entry (See the discussion page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Simpole), but I particularly wanted to ask someone else about the issue of an entry becoming, in large part, a commercial. Is there a policy with regard to this? Also, I tried to make a contribution to the discussion page for Eric Schiller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schiller), but it was not accepted. Could you try and see if their is some technical problem? Here is the contribution that I wanted to make: What source is there for the claim that "Barnes & Noble bookstores have sold more than one hundred thousand books written by Eric Schiller"? - Louis (5 March 2006)

I'll take a look at the Simpole page. Yes there is policy against commercials on wikipedia but the basic remedy is to edit the article to tone down the sales pitch. See WP:SPAM for info. You should be able to edit Talk:Eric Schiller. Maybe there was some temporary problem; you might try again. Phr 12:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried it again. I keep getting this message about a spam protection filter. This does not happen when I have tried to make contributions elsewhere. It seems to be a problem specifically with the Eric Schiller discussion page. Could you take a look at it? - Louis Blair (6 March 2006)

I was able to make an edit just now. What exactly did you try, and exactly what happened? Were you able to bring up the edit window with the right contents, and unable to save the edit? Or what? Phr 21:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I think that I may have found a way to cope with the problem. The system seemed to have an objection to a link tinyurlsomethingorother. It was ALREADY on the page, but, for some reason, the system seemed to hold me responsible and would not let me save any additions unless I removed the tiny thing. It did not seem very important to the discussion, so I hope that nobody minds my removing it. I also removed your test message. I hope that was okay. I don't know why the system did not pester you about tiny.

The server software may be filtering tinyurl links from non-logged-in users because they are a favorite trick of spammers. It might help if you made a wikipedia account and logged in. You also don't really need to use tinyurl since you can inline links, like Yahoo (use "edit" to see what I typed to get that). Phr 22:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Observatory (band)

I've addressed your input on the talk page of the subject band. Please consider replying there if you still think there's an issue. Happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 01:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your msg. on my talkpage wrt The Observatory (band)

Hi, at the first glance, the article meets WP:MUSIC. Please understand that it would be difficult for me or anyone, for that matter, to decide about the value of the article and its subject a priori. Which is precisely the reason why these suggestions are first listed on Template talk:Did you know so that other editors can comment on the suggestions before these make it to the main page. You may want to keep an eye on that page in future, and thanks for your concerns. --Gurubrahma 02:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the history carefully - the suggestion added and the template updated. Around 80 hours of time should be good enough for anyone to comment on. If you have an issue with WP:MUSIC, it should be taken up on the talkpage there. Opinions about notability differ and hence, the suggestions are displayed for comment. Sometimes, I also raise a question about the notability of the entries and the other editors comment on the template talk page about the notability or the lack of it, thus enabling me to take a decision. Also, keep in mind that unlike FAs which are very polished, DYKs are all from articles under 120 hours of age and thus, raw. The objective of FAs is to display the best work of the community; that of DYKs is to invite others to improve the articles. --Gurubrahma 03:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cy vs ci

Your recent edits at crytography talk suggest that you might want to look at the Teapot Tempest, cypher vs cipher on the wikiproject:Cryptography page. English spelling causes the oddest controversies.

On another point, I agree that there is little reason to be strictly prescriptive as to the definition and usage of crypto terms (whether in an ISO document or not), but to rely instead on common usage. It's a long standing tussle. ww 00:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sloan at it yet again

You are mentioned in a complaint by Sam Sloan at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration . I am not sure what his charge is against you, but I thought that you should know that you are listed as an "involved" party. Perhaps now is a good time to think about applying the "Users who exhaust the community's patience" clause in the blocking policy. - Louis Blair (March 19, 2006)

Louis, why don't you add a statement. I think you added one and someone deleted it, maybe because it was in the wrong part of the template or something. Phr 01:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I deleted my own comment. I decided that it was better to make the comment to you and Rook wave. I am not sure if opinions from uninvolved parties are welcome. (I did just post a note comparing Sam Sloan's sources to what he wrote. Since that information is purely factual, I thought that there was less chance of my offending anyone by contributing it.) I took a look at your contribution and it seems to me that it would be natural for you to add a reference to the exhausting-patience clause. If you would prefer that I make the comment at the arbitration, I will reinstate my comment there, but it seems to me that it would have more force, coming from you and/or Rook wave as actual users who have had quite a bit of involvement in Sam Sloan's contributions. - Louis Blair (March 19, 2006)

Sloan RFAr

I wouldn't worry about it. ArbCom is made up of smart individuals who can pretty much see right through Sloan's efforts. One of these days, we are going to have to RFC or RFAr him, I fear. howch e ng {chat} 22:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]