User talk:Mackensen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No
Solicitation

Mackensenarchiv

The Eye

Spammers: I would like for this page to stay reasonably clean. If you have business with me, feel free to leave a comment, else please move on. Please ignore the gigantic eye in the corner with the pump-action shotgun.

Unsigned messages will be ignored. You can sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). I reserve the right to disruptively eliminate gigantic blobs of wiki-markup from signatures on a whim if I think they're cluttering up my talk page.

[edit] Arbitration matters

[edit] Arbitration clerk

Has there been any discussion on the AC mailing list about appointing Cowman109 and Newyorkbrad as clerks (my request of last week?) Thatcher131 01:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been discussion, yes. Mackensen (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom - Participation in pending cases

When the new arbitrators took office at the beginning of the year, the decision was made that they would be considered as recused/non-participating in cases that had been accepted before they came in, but could elect to participate in any such case either by noting that they would be participating or by voting. At that point the Clerks adjusted the list of active arbitrators for that case and the majority accordingly. Would you like to proceed on the same basis for the cases that were pending as of this morning? This is significant because we have some cases nearing closing and have to make sure whom to include in calculating the majority. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 02:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we're recused from all active cases. Mackensen (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- So noted in the lists of arbitrators in the pending cases. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 02:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Workshop

Hi. There seem to be some problems with the software today. In this edit to the above, in adding your proposals your edit seems also to have removed some comments by Fred Bauder and others. I assume this was not intentional. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've had that happen already and I've restored others. Might be best just to stop editing altogether until it gets fixed. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Supposed to be fixed now. You might want to send a note to the mailing list urging arbitrators to check that any votes they cast today are correctly recorded. Newyorkbrad 19:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a few parties that want to name more editors as parties to the article; I've proposed a motion-- please take a look at it and let me know what you think? - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 06:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] InShaneee evidence

Hi. You and Morven state on the RFAr/InShaneee evidence talkpage that "no evidence has been brought forward of a blocking pattern", but only of two separate incidents (the block of A Link to the Past, the block of Worldtraveller). I've given evidence of a pattern of blocking threats, which can IMO be as serious, and tend as much to subduing adversaries in content conflicts, as actual blocks. Please see the top of my evidence section. Right now I don't know if there would be any point in adding more examples of the same thing, since neither of you has replied to my question about it. I know there are more diffs out there, but it's very time-consuming to track down this kind of evidence, and if arbitrators aren't interested in it in any case, I guess I won't bother. Bishonen | talk 08:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

I will read this. As an aside, arbitrators can only be bothered to read what's in front of them. Mackensen (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Er... they don't read the evidence secions before stating that no such evidence has been offered? Isn't that a little extreme?? Bishonen | talk 15:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
  - Not at all. We read the evidence section. I re-read to be sure I hadn't missed anything. Mackensen (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armenia-Azerbaijan Arbitration Workshop Page

I would like to draw your and ARbcom members attention to a bulk of personal attacks and accusation with which user:Fadix flooded workshop page. He openly admits that he will continue his attacks. It is absolutely unacceptable. Workshop page is destroyed. It is very bizzare that almost no other Armenian users participate in the discussion despite there are several involved. I have feeling that they communicated with each other and this is a strategy: Fadix bombs and tarnishes all Azeri editors involved (me, Adil, Atabek and Grandmaster). We have to response to all these allegations. And here is clear picture - Fadix vs. 4 bad Azeri editors. We can not keep silence because he constantly accuses us in sock- and meat pupetting, harassing, saying that we are government representatives, and so on. Maybe he wants that someone from us will lose his temper and make personal attacks. That will equal the situation because now several Armenian editors are listed in workshop for personal attacks. How long it will be allowed to harrass us - he repeats over and over again that we are oficial reps, etc. I kindly and urgently request temporary injection - no more personal attacks and harrasment on workshop page. --Dacy69 21:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Starwood RfAr case

User:Kathryn NicDhàna has given another statement (I think it's semi-evidence, but it's placed on the main case page) at here. Please advise action. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

And Rosencomet has written a rebuttal at Kathryn's comment. Here's the original, which I've subsequently moved it back into his/her section here. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Arb case

The only issue to my knowledge that is still current and unresolved is the issue over Pallywood, where I made a mistake on trying to intervene in a content dispute (see my satement) Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Everything else

[edit] WMATA station templates

When you convert the old WMATA station templates to the new format, could you put the succession boxes inside the infobox? We've expressed a slight preference for that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington Metro#New station infobox? and having it done that way up front would save the trouble of converting later. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. It's a simple matter of taking the succession boxes, stripping out s-start and end, and adding them to the services parameter. I've done that elsewhere, I just thought that the MARC section was a bit scrunched inside the box. I think that's the last interchange between Amtrak and the WMATA in any case. Mackensen (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Mackensen (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yet more Kate McAuliffe accounts

The two ips which were creating these accounts were blocked. Yet it is still going on. I have found two more today.

I am tired of being the Kate McAuliffe vandal and sockpuppet (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Apologies to whoever got affected by a Kate McAuliffe vandal (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser). Just to inform you. Already been blocked. Retiono Virginian 15:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance wanted

You seem to be the one who has worked on the templates for the succession boxes in articles on rail stations, so I hope you can help me. I'm doing a Wikia on transit, and many of the articles are direct copies from Wikipedia (with some minor changes that are irrelevant to this discussion). When I copy the articles with succession boxes, I can make them work OK, though I had to figure out the added template names I needed to copy. However, when I try to use parallel logic to create succession boxes on systems that have not been treated that way on Wikipedia, sometimes they work and sometimes they don't. I can't figure out what I'm doing differently on wikia:metro:Old Mill (TTC) (which works just fine) and on wikia:metro:Milford Mill (Baltimore MTA station) (which fails to pick up the previous and next stations and the termini from the appropriate places).

I'd appreciate any help you can give me. You can reply to me at User talk:BRG or at wikia:metro:User talk:BRG. -- BRG 17:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! That really helped. -- BRG 14:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Mackensen (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRC RFCU channel

Good morning (GMT time); is there a quick way of being able to access the IRC CheckUser (clerk) channel, to monitor the bot feed? It would be extremely useful in clerking, as well as to ask for guidance during these early days of my clerking duties.

Kind regards,
anthonycfc ^[talk] 03:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richthofen

As you expressed your interest in the matter on Clawson's RfA, you may want to take a look at the discussion and my proposal. Regards, —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ban

hello, can you please ban me? Wikiholic888 01:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean block, not ban. And no, requested blocks are not preformed. Prodego ^talk 01:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, given that "please ban me" requests were two of the user's three contributions, and the third was an image uploaded with the summary "this image is copyrighted, who cares?", I indefed for trolling. I didn't want to give this guy what he wanted, but the alternative seemed worse.... Newyorkbrad 01:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Should be fine since you set 'noautoblock' (Wernda still hasn't fixed that :(). Prodego ^talk 01:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Prussiaflag small.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Prussiaflag small.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Yaanch^Speak! 00:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richthofen (again)

An IP made this edit to the article talk. As you have the volume, is there anything to that or is it only rubbish? Does the book quote an historian Adolf Caspary or such? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Betacommand arbitration clarification

I have left a clarification why I feel arbitration is still necessary in regards to betacommand under my statement. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFAR#Betacommand flip-flopping question

I'm not sure where to put this, since Thatcher and NYBrad on User talk:Newyorkbrad discouraged me from lengthening my statement, or continuously replying to other comments. It's really as per "Response to ChrisO", and "Chrislk02's clarification why arbitration is still necessary", and "Comment by Chacor" sections. Yes, Bc does clean up after himself, then does it again. Note the 3 incidents that I detailed in my comment happened in 6 days. I don't really understand the fine details of bot policy, but reading that discussion, he seems to have a history of problems there. As Doc Glasgow writes, the Irpen block was back in December, so is spilled milk. However the other block issue in Bishonen's statement was less than 1 month ago. In response to it, Betacommand wrote:

“

Like I said above I am stopping blocking users until there is an agreement on this issue, it might be a month, it might be six months, it might be a year. Also I think you misunderstood my last post I said that I was sorry for not being able to respond to further questions for several hours I had personal matters to attend to. I think this issue needs to be settled too. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

”

Didn't help.

I'm not looking to get Bc completely banned, he is a well intentioned user, but he's a bull in a china shop, every time he turns around there is a crash and something expensive gets broken. I don't even know what remedy exactly I want to come from this, but there needs to be something. Maybe full desysopping, maybe some kind of probation, even a formal reprimand? Otherwise it just keeps going and going. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously if an arbitrator asks for clarification (such as, "are there other outstanding issues") then it is appropriate to add to your statement. Thatcher131 18:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Newyorkbrad 18:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you, the 1st edit is my birthday

Wow, how amazing! Your first edit is the same as my birthday on the 23rd of August. Khairul hazim 13:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/c/User_talk%7EMackensen_e910.html"