User talk:Labyrinth13/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Help discussion 2 Zodiac Killer 3 Mediation 4 Zodiac killer request for comment thread 5 Voigt vandalism & abuse 6 Your last post on the zodiac talk page 7 Protected 8 External Links 9 Mediation 10 WashingtonPost.com 11 Archiving 12 Poe toaster 13 Cassie Bernall 14 My email 15 Request for Mediation

[edit] Help discussion

[edit] Zodiac Killer

Hi Labyrinth, I have just left a comment regarding a reversion of the Zodiak Killer page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeffpw#Semi-protect_Zodiac_page.3F 24.44.44.70 07:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

I have volunteered to mediate in Talk:Zodiac killer#Mediation. Yuser31415 20:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zodiac killer request for comment thread

I am looking to have moderator or qualified third party visit Talk:Zodiac killer#Request_for_Comment:_Link_placement_in_Zodic_killer_entry to specifically address this dispute. Please only respond to this helpme request if you have specific knowledge of how to get someone to help. (I have read the entire FAQ of the procedures and know the process well, but haven't had any luck getting an actual moderator to help). Thanks. Labyrinth13 01:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'm an experienced user and would be glad to help. Yuser31415 02:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The closest thing to a "moderator" here is an admin; go to WP:AN and ask for one to assist you. Be bold; they are quite friendly and don't bite :).

Also, have you considered that the Mediation Cabal help you in this dispute? Yuser31415 02:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Yuser31415: Thanks for your reply and offer to help. Yes, I have made a request to have the Mediation Cabal step in several days ago, but have not had anyone contact me or respond to my request. (I made the request on Friday and have no idea how long they usually take to get back to a person, so maybe I just need to wait until the weekend is over). I have also previously posted this on the ADMIN page (last Saturday) and just posted there again. Any further advice? Thanks again. Labyrinth13 02:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. The MEDCAB seems to be rather busy at present. I'll certainly keep an eye on the dispute (I am "suitably qualified", but rather busy at this time as well :). Some admin will drop by reasonably soon (by "reasonably soon" I'm meaning probably around 1-3 hours). If you need any help please post a message on my talk page, and if no admin comes to your rescue I'll mediate the dispute myself :). Cheers, Yuser31415 03:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Yuser, I really appreciate that and will just sit tight for the time being. Labyrinth13 03:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to help out. I live in New Zealand and will probably be offline within an hour or so. If someone hasn't volunteered the mediation by the time I get up in the morning, I'll step in to help :). Yuser31415 05:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. I'll accept the mediation request. Back in a minute. Yuser31415 19:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuser31415: Would it be acceptable for me to add a few comments of my own? Probably not right now, but maybe later. More of a third/fourth/... outside opinion than anything else. I have no involvement with the article but having followed the conversations on the article's talk page, I do have a few thoughts that I hope might be constructive. I'll leave the "official" ("unofficial" - whatever) MedCab process to you—the way more experienced user. Labyrinth13? If so, should this be placed below Comments under "Request for comment: Link placement in Zodic killer entry", or under "Mediation"? Does it matter? —Xhantar^Talk 01:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Xhantar: I personally would welcome your comments, but will give final say to that idea to Yuser3145, since he is the "official mediator" here. (As well, I will give him final say as to which entry - RFC or Mediation - he would want your response in, if he does gives you the go ahead). Thanks for your continued interest in helping out on this one, by the way. Labyrinth13 02:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voigt vandalism & abuse

{{helpme}}

A Wikipedia user has posted what I consider to be abusive comments and personal attacks against myself and other editors at Talk: Zodiac killer. The user in question is User:Tom Voigt. The section where the abusive comments appear can be found here: 20 A letter to 24.21.173.33, the individual adding links to zodiackiller.comCan someone advise me on how to proceed in getting this person to cease and desist? Thanks. Labyrinth13 16:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the administrator's incident noticeboard would be a good place to discuss and/or report this (it will bring the matter to the attention of administrators, who will decide what needs to be done, if anything); however, you might want to try talking to the user concerned on their Talk page some more if you think it would be constructive (it might not be, I don't know the details of the situation). --ais523 16:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. (ais523 - you always seem to beat me at replying :) I'm not sure whether me adding some additional info might be considered inappropriate, in such cases, but if you feel this is so, please feel free to let me know).

In this case, the material at Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes seems relevant. To summarize:

• First step: Talk to the other parties involved
• Second step: Disengage for a while
• Further dispute resolution
  • Informal mediation: Request a mediator at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal
  • Discuss with third parties and reach a consensus by looking at:
    • Wikipedia:Requests for comment - the main avenue for general disputes
    • Wikipedia:Third opinion - for disputes involving only two editors
    • Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts - for problems with uncivil editors
    • Asking at subject-specific Wikipedia:WikiProjects or policy pages relevant to the issue
  • Conduct a survey: Clarify the issues in the discussion
  • Mediation: Request mediation
• LAST resort: Request for Arbitration

ais523: Thanks for your input again. I have requested assistance by posting here: Tom Voigt using abusive language, etc.. So far, no moderator has responded. Could you check the entry to see if it has been posted correctly? Or advise how to proceed further? Labyrinth13 22:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Also important: All parties should be aware of the three-revert rule. If ignored, they could be reported at the relevant administrator noticeboard and might be blocked from further editing.

Hope this helps! —Xhantar^Talk 21:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Xhantar: Thanks, I took your advice and also posted a "Three revert rule" notice on Voigt's talk/discussion page. Labyrinth13 22:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Just a quick note: It's not necessary to add {{helpme}} again when replying. I'm watching this page, as I'm sure ais523 is, so we'll be aware of any replies you post. You can, of course, add {{helpme}} again at any time, to request help with a different matter. Good luck! —Xhantar^Talk 22:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer it when people re-add {{helpme}}; I can't be online all the time, and when I'm not online I'm much slower than a helpme in answering questions! --ais523 08:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that makes perfect sense. It wasn't my intention to speak for you and I hope you didn't see it that way. —Xhantar^Talk 08:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

ais523: Thanks for your reply and suggestion. I have posted a request for review/mediation on the administrator's incident noticeboard (see entry titled, "User: Tom Voigt using abusive language/making personal attacks"). Any idea how long it usually takes to get a response? Labyrinth13 19:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry, I wasn't online, I only just read your query) Normally, the response happens quickly (within an hour), but in this case it seems that nobody wanted to look into the situation (it was possibly bad timing; there were some hotly debated issues coming up on the 9th). Wikipedia uses volunteer administrators, so this sort of thing can happen. In this case, I recommend that you continue with the dispute resolution process; you might want to consider filing a request for comment about the article, inviting more external input. (It's an unusual situation; I don't know too much about the subject, so I can't really contribute, but on the policy side of things, WP:CITE (a guideline, based on the policy WP:V) makes it clear that the sources used to write an article should be placed in the article (supporting Tom Voigt's point of view), but WP:OR#Citing oneself would support your point of view on this.) This seems to be one of those situations where the rules weren't designed with this situation in mind (it happens), so inviting external input is possibly a good solution here. The other piece of advice that I'd give to you is that boilerplate warnings, whether justified or not, tend to inflame the situation further in cases such as this rather than calming them down, so I'd suggest easing off on them for the time being. Hope that helps! --ais523 08:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

ais523: Thanks for checking back. I have already put in a request for comment section on the Talk: Zodiac killer page. To date, I haven't had an outside entity respond, but hope that will change shortly. I appreciate your observations re whose arguments are valid, i.e., User: Tom Voigt or that of my own and the other editor involved, User: Jimbonator. About the only thing that I think you are missing there is covered in great detail in the "Request for comment" section and other areas of the talk page. Both Voigt's and my own website have been used to cite factual information in the body of the main article. That does not seem to be what is the heart of the dispute here, however, Rather, the dispute is over whether or not Voigt should be allowed to make his website links the prominent ones, both by linking them to key words in the main body of the article and by insisting that his links appear at the top of the list in the "External links" sections and/or in the "Reference" section. (The latter section is one that I agree needs to be vastly overhauled in order to make the section comply with Wikipedia standards, something that I and the rest of the editors can start working on once this dispute reaches a conclusion. Labyrinth13 19:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your last post on the zodiac talk page

Thanks a lot for that clear explanation of how things need to be done there. I thought I had done that already, but some people need it repeated a few times in increasingly simple terms.

So you know, you can pull up any older version of the article you want by going into the history tab at the top of the article. You can even compare different versions that way. In so doing, you don't really need to save any material that you enter here. It's all saved automatically by the system. Nothing gets permanently deleted here except through direct intervention of administrators, and even then it can be restored. :-)

Also, I have no idea how that Carl person came up with the idea I am involved in the Zodiac investigation. I'm just a Wikipedia editor who works on a wide variety of articles. Zodiac fascinates me, so I check in occasionally to see how the article is going. I only intervened on this occasion because it was getting way off track. Now that things are straightened out, I probably won't be adding a lot more there. I will be watching it daily, though, and please feel free to message me if you need any support, or have any questions. Jeffpw 22:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I figured that it was best to try to steer Carl in the proper direction and away from using the forum as a means to attack his nemesis, Ed. N. (I suspect that Carl has been booted off the zodiackiller message board for similar behavior and has been ignored by those folks over there ever since; he now appears to simply be using Wikipedia as platform to continue his campaign).

Carl seems to think that everyone who writes about the Zodiac case is an “investigator,” apparently even including himself in that category. I, like you, am just a regular guy who finds it all very fascinating and make no claims to fame in that regard.

Thanks for all the help you have provided so far. You really went above and beyond the call of duty in straightening out the entry and I’m very happy with the way things are going right now. And let me thank you in advance for volunteering to keep an eye on things there over the course of time. I suspect that a person of your knowledge and expertise will be needed around there again in the coming days, but I’m a pessimist about certain things! Cheers.

-- Labyrinth13 22:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that, too. It's only going to get worse when the movie officially opens, and I bet there are previews in all the cinemas now. I would go for a semi-protect. They will probably deny it at first, but if you, me and others ask it might work. Alternatively, you can message Isotope directly (you can find hiw entire user name on the talk page of Zodiac). He's an administrator, so he could probably do it without you having to make a formal request.

I'm going to bed now--after midnight here. I'll check tomorrow to see the status. Cheers, Jeffpw 23:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

That should certainly make editing easier. It was declined at first this morning, and they just re-looked and protected. Jeffpw 13:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for following up and making the second request. I'm glad to see the page has some protection now. I will keep an eye on things over the weekend. Have a good one, yourself!

-- Labyrinth13 15:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

According to the External links page, if it is used in a reference, it should not be double linked in external links. Of course that is just a guideline, but articles up for feature review are always told to lose the link from the external section. Jeffpw 18:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read the entry above, as well as the one that I linked on your talk page. While I am in full agreement with your edits on this one, I must admit that I found it all a bit confusing and a tad bit contradictory. As always, thanks for following up on this. Labyrinth13 18:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

If you don't want to mediate (and I could understand that, since the issue has existed for less than a day), don't sign the form. If you don't sign, it is automatically thrown out. Jeffpw 19:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I will sign agree only if you will join in as I don't feel that I am the only party directly involved here. I have added you as a party to the mediation. What say you?

-- Labyrinth13 19:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I won't agree to this, as I think it's bullshit. Like I said above, this has gone on less than 24 hours. Either Heath A) doesn't understand how things work here, or B) this is an exercise in intimidation. My personal feeling is that this is tit for tat because he didn't get his link entered, and that cryptogram got removed, too.Jeffpw 19:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Then I won't agree to it either as I feel that I am not the sole person involved in that dispute. Should I sign as "disagree" then, or just let it stay as is? Please advise. Labyrinth13 19:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just ignore it and it will disappear all by itself. All parties have to sign before mediation can go forward. Jeffpw 19:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WashingtonPost.com

Robert Graysmith, author of "Zodiac" and "Zodiac Unmasked," as well as five other true crime books, will be online Friday, March 9, at 2 p.m. ET to discuss "Zodiac," a Warner Bros., Phoenix Pictures and Paramount film about a serial killer who terrorized San Francisco........ Jeffpw 20:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice! I'll check it out. Labyrinth13 23:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

I have created archives for you, but the bot that archived my pages has either gone on strike or died in the last week. I have put in a request for a replacement bot at MiszaBot. You can do this, too, and it will automatically archive for you after the request is processed. I am also waiting for the new bot. Hope this helps. Jeffpw 15:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeff. You are a gentleman and a scholar. Labyrinth13 15:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I just made the request on your behalf. Jeffpw 19:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, again. Did you make the request at MiszaBot? Because I made one there myself before I got this message. Should I remove my earlier request? Labyrinth13 15:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poe toaster

Thanks for the help, Labyrinth13. The Poe Toaster definitely visits Poe's original grave, so I added that image. Thanks for the quick response! Midnightdreary 18:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cassie Bernall

I noticed you have commented on the above articles talk page. I have come to you in regards of helping clear up a matter on the above article per WP:DR. There is an annon trying to push his/her POV regarding "Unsourced reports from Christian sources alleging that Cassie said "yes" persist" and "and presents the reports as fact". I have added to the talk page that unsourced reports should be deleted. Could you please help us in this dispute. Thank you. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 23:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My email

In the toolbox area of my talk page (left side, under the search function) you'll see "E-mail this user". My email is enabled. Jeffpw 00:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/ZodiacKillerExternalLinks. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.