Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Essjay

MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Sunday February 25, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to search

=========================== 13 February 2006

My Birthday

Thank you very much! —Kirill Lokshin 06:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


You say you teach on the US East Coast. If you happen to be in the Maryland/Delware/New Jersey/Pennsylvania/Virginia area, you should know that we're having a meetup in Newark, Delaware and you're welcome to join us. I know you have said don't want people to know where you teach, but that doesn't preclude you from attending. Raul654 06:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I promise I will consider it strongly. Essjay TalkContact 06:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation of the Dianetics article

Essjay, I am not really a part of the dispute, but what I have gotten from studying it so far is that ChrisO wants to cite unverifiable documents, Terry points this out. Instead of addressing this dispute about verifiability, it seems Antaeus, Wikipediatrix and Modemac would rather direct the attention on Terry. In my opinion their action is bordering on personal attack and indicates poor faith. Just my opinion to help sort out this dispute. Also see my comments about one of the documents they cite: the Fishman affidavit. It is not a reliable source and has contained reference to forgeries or fabricated "evidence." --JimmyT 11:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba Mediation

Essjay, thank you for your welcome on my my talk page. Two of the parties readily agreed to have me as a mediator, despite my unofficial status. The third was a bit cautious at first, but agreed to a two week trial mediation. Medation has already started, and a great deal of discussion has taken place at User:BostonMA/Mediation. You have asked for regular reports, however, I'm not sure where they ought to be placed. I'll give a quick summary of where things stand here.

The two sides in the dispute consist of current and former followers of SSB. The current article is heavily weighted with criticism of SSB. All parties have agreed that the weight in the current article needs to be shifted. The "critical" party has agreed, (with some caveats) to add no further critical material until the percentage of critical material falls below 40%. Although the parties agree on the direction toward which the article should move, only very small beginnings have been taken to make these corrections. I have been encouraging the parties to take a two pronged approach of both discussing the issues which separate them, and adding material which might improve the balance. There is a tendency to focus on points of difference to the neglect of taking steps to give the article more balance, although there have been very modest steps. At this point, I am contemplating what ought my next step to be.

I am very honored that you have "deputising" me. That in some ways makes the mediation committee responsible for my actions. I should therefore, probably tell you something of the style of my mediation. My goal is to help the editors to become valuable contributors. I do not see myself as an "arbitrator" -- not in the sense of arbcom, but in the sense that I do not see my job as listening to both sides and then giving my verdict, expecting the parties to agree with me. Rather, I hope to point out to the parties aspects of their situation that they may not have noticed or considered. This may take longer than some on the mediation committee might expect. I also cannot guarrantee that my approach is more likely than others to keep the matter from going to arbcom. I certainly hope that I can help resolve the matter without it going to arbitration, but other mediation committee members might have different opinions than myself regarding what style is effective. I guess I'm warning you in advance that some might find me erring on the side of being insufficiently authoritative. Please consider this if you want the mediation committee to continue to bear some responsibility for my mediation efforts. Thank you. --BostonMA 16:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you're on exactly the right path; Wikipedia mediation is intended to be true mediation (faciliation of agreement between willing parties) rather than traditional arbitration. Each mediator has his or her own style, and it is the mix of "flavors" that everyone brings to the table that makes the Committee dynamic. I'm sure you'll do an excellent job!
On the subject of reports, all I ask is that you occasionaly update us on the status of the case; it's more of a housekeeping matter than anything else: We like to know how cases are progressing, so we know what we have before us. The occasional note here, or on the mediation subpage, will do fine.
If we can be of any help, let us know. Essjay TalkContact 16:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Please help design userpage

Hi Essjay, it's RichardHarrold again. Nothing to do with the blocking thing, but user KHM03 (who, like me, is a big U2 fan) told me this after I asked him if he could copy a userbox he had designed saying 'This User Is A U2 Fan':

Hello...I don't have a regular "U2 fan" template...the one on my userpage is homemade pretty much just for my own page. To tell the truth, I'm not even sure how to go about making it accessible - - I steal often from User:Essjay. Ask him, and he'll point you in the right direction; he's master of all things wiki and an all around good egg. Sorry I couldn't help; I would if I could!
Yeah, a lot of people do that. :-) I'll see if I can't whip you up something before too long. Oh, and don't forget to sign your posts with ~~~~; the software converts it automatically into your username and the date, just like this: Essjay TalkContact 18:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, it's RichardHarrold yet again...

Hi Essjay, Could something be done about dividing up Wikipedia:Babel? In my little 1024x768 monitor, it goes on for dozens of screenfuls.

You mean the actual page? I'll look into it. (Don't forget to sign: ~~~~) Essjay TalkContact 18:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Bloody hell, not him AGAIN!

Sorry for making such a pain in the backside of myself, but I wondered if you know anyone who could take the rock album infobox design and create a template User Infobox. Oh, and I can't get that 4 tildas thing to work, either. User:RichardHarrold

I'll check on that too, as for the tildes, you insert them without the < nowiki > tags; I have to use those tags to get the tildes to show up on the page, because if I didn't, the software would think I was signing! Essjay TalkContact 18:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


Any cases? -Ste|vertigo 21:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Just Need some Help

I have contacted the Administration at Cloverleaf Local Schools and I have a Executive Hunting license I would like A admin to place a tag in that talk page so that they can report it to me so that I can have that person properly corrected. Betacommand 20:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't for the life of me figure out what you're talking about; could you be a bit more clear about what pages you're talking about and what exactly you want me to do? Essjay TalkContact 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The new Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide

I am trying to follow the new RfM format described in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide. I had already submitted an RfM request under the title East Sea (disambiguation) and related pages before this took effect, but will conform to your standards as much as I can.

However, I noticed a few things, which I'm afraid may need to be fixed/clarified:

  1. The {{RFM-Filed|Case name}} tag doesn't seem to be working, and shows up as {{tl|RFM-Filed|Case name}} (a red link).
  2. I would like you to manually show me my instructions because adding the {{subst:RFM}} tag gives me no instructions.
  3. The linked example is confusing and doesn't show a relevant example where it says "Be sure to provide diff links (like this) to demonstrate that the templates have been added to the relevant article's talk pages and user's talk pages."

Please clarify the 3 issues above, so that I can conform to these new standards.

Other than that, I have understood the need to "add the exact issues that need to be mediated as bullet points." I will add these in after a few hours. Thank you in advance for your assistance.--Endroit 20:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, first one fixed: I had made it Template:RFM-Request instead of -Filed; guess that's what happens when you are working on a dozen pages at once. I linked the two, so now either should work.
As for the second, if you will look at the edit view (the box where you actually edit the text) you will see there are instructions hidden inside tags that look like <!-- -->. Those are the instructions for filling out the template. They don't appear in the regular view, but are there when you look at the edit view. (That allows them to be directly on the template, rather than on a separate page.)
For the third: I didn't want to link to an actual dispute, what I was trying to show was that we want to see a view like that. If you'll go to the talk page where you pasted the tag and click the history tab, you'll see links along the left that say "last"; click the one beside the revision where you entered the tag, and it will show you a view with your additions in the right hand column at the top. Copy the link in the address bar, and paste that to RFM. That will allow us to simply click on that link and see where you added the tag; no need to search through the talk page, or be confused if the person removed the tag.
Hope this helps, if not, let me know and I'll try to explain better. Essjay TalkContact 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

New RfM format

Hi Essjay. I did notice you churning very progressively through the large list of mediation requests. I appreciate the effort and time you and the mediation committee take on these issues. I would be happy to reformat and will do so in a couple of days if that is okay as I am away for that time and will have hardly any time to get to wiki. I will pass this message on to my co-protagonist also. On that basis can you give me a week say to finalise the new process? Thank you in advance. VirtualSteve 22:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem! Essjay TalkContact 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

HD 123321

Howdy, I noticed you were the admin who banned {{User|HD 123321}} a few weeks ago, and I wanted to seek your advise. An anon IP, {{User|}} (possibly the same person as HD 123321 discussed below) and I have been trying to work out a disagreement about the use of the term "Indian" versus "First Nation" in the Squamish, British Columbia article. Although we both discuss it on the talk page, the reverts are pushing the 3 revert rule (at least in intent) and my patience.

The evidence I have for sockpuppetry to me seems less than solid. It is the similarity in interests (Canadian Politics) and at least one revert to an edit which was nearly identical to an edit by HD 123321 (the edit comparison of edits). I reverted that edit, since it did seem to degrade the quality of the article (removing an image and a template). Aside from that, he also took HD 123321's position in the Squamish discussion, which is how he came to my attention. He has not, however, edited some of the pages HD 123321 was so keen to keep as his version before being banned.

So my question is how to approach this. I am happy to go though a RfC or third opinion, but would like to hear your suggestion, since if is is HD 123321, I suspect that will be a great deal of energy for naught. Thanks for any help you might have, --Hansnesse 23:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, it's a tricky one. Generally, when we suspect sockpuppetry, we run an IP check via Checkuser. However, this is reserved for very serious cases. In this instance, I'd suggest continuing to discuss on the talk page, and if it is only this IP who defies the consensus, then report it on the Administrator's Noticeboard (WP:ANI) and ask for an admin to look into it. If it is a matter of several people on either side, then an RfC might help, but I wouldn't reccommend RfC if it is just one IP causing problems. Essjay TalkContact 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks, I will continue trying to discuss the matter on the talk page. Perhaps the difficulty is as much that there have onle ever been four people to discuss the matter on the talk page - the aforementioned anon IP, HD123321, myself and another user, so no clear consensus has emerged (the talk page was signed with several more names, but the posts were added by HD 123321 according to the history). In any event, thanks for the assistance and perhaps with a bit of time it will be resolved. If not I will do as you suggest and post a note on the AN. --Hansnesse 01:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Christianity Portal Invitation

Dear Essjay,

Late last year, I started up a wikiportal on Christianity, and it has really grown and matured since its beginning. As one of Wikipedia's most knowledgable authorities on Christianity, I would love you to become a member of the portal, which you can do here. As a member, you would not be obliged to do anything, but would be welcome to suggest any improvements and additions to the portal, as well as nominate interesting or well-written Christianity articles, biographies, pictures or DYK items to showcase. You can also suggest favourite scripture passages to be shown! Having you as a member would be a great honour and privilege. What do you think? Brisvegas 00:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look, and consider joining! Essjay TalkContact 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Since you are an experienced mediator. What is the best solution.

I am seeing something really ugly developing and somebody else sees it as well, but I have no knowledge of the subject whatsoever. Maybe you can advice what the best way is to handle it.

Just a timeline:

20:04, 10 February 2006: I welcomed User:Amodha

He is a newbie and his edits got reverted. He thought that I reverted it, so he asked me a question.

09:50, 11 February 2006 User_talk:Dr_Debug#edits_been_reverted

I looked at his contributions and saw that a large section of Sri Lanka had been deleted and that User: reverted the changes, so I adviced to edit by paragraph.

I just got a message from another user and he says it is a serious flame war and I see the same anonymous user being very uncivil both on the talk page of the newbie and on the Sri Lanka talk page. The problem is that nobody signs anything and I have no idea what it is all about, but it is very uncivil, but I have no idea how to handle it and somehow warning the anonymous user doesn't seem to be a solution either given his temper and his dynamic IP address. What do you suggest? Dr Debug (Talk) 01:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say bring it to the attention of the admins via the Administrator's Noticeboard (WP:ANI). Other admins will look in on it and comment, and a plan of action will emerge. Essjay TalkContact 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Dr Debug (Talk) 00:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Holy Moley

Master Essjay, I am always with you. Sometimes I'm more with you than other times. Acetic Acid 02:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear; check in more often! ;-) Essjay TalkContact 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


I left a similar message on another of your talk pages, but I thought I would let you know here, also.

I am an administrator at Recently, I added a hidden (in order to maintain NPOV) information and reference to iTunes article on WP linking to an article recently published on I then left a message for Mushroom to check it out and unhide it if he found it worthy. He said he was unable to do so because "OmniNerd" was listed on a "blacklist." Having checked this out, I found that you added "" to the blacklist. Do you mind if I inquire as to why? uriah923(talk) 06:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I responded on my Meta talk. Essjay TalkContact 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

CVU IRC admision

I would like to reaply for admision to #wikipedia-en-vandalism the original reason that i was not alowed was because i was too new I currently have 409 Edits most are CVU Please let me Know what you decide thanks Betacommand 08:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Relist yourself at User:Essjay/CVU/IRC/Verifications and ask for confirmation in the request channel; when you do, give them a link to here where I said it was okay to admit you. Essjay TalkContact 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad, the Greate

I don't know what the reason was to create and publish such an unwise cartoon, but I can guess and imagine the oncoming events in creator's mind when he/she decided to. It was from an ill-minded person who wanted to upraise a new religion conflict that was welcomed by unti-islamic groups and politicians. The conflict may provide the belief in Europeans' mind that the Europeans need to fight the Moslems undoubtedly. The creator of the cartoons, the same as Rushdie, could claim that he/she was abused by politicians for many things other than religion opposing. I am surprised why such a simple and clear result, represented by the world wide riot against the cartoons (which were similar to those against Rushdie, who was called by the Australian TV reporter in the 1995 as "the most hated man in the world") was not obvious for the cartoon creator. The other probability is that the creator was clearly crazy and now needs psychiatrists. This is a famous Asian example that "sometimes a crazy man throws a big stone in a well that is much difficult for many wise people to pull it out". However, it was expected that the press society to be much wiser than doing something which puts a big question mark on press workings and papers. I ask the press society honestly to proceed with a claim against those who requested the cartoon publisher for issuing such an unbelievable idea against human beings and against human rights. Every person is free to accept his own religion, his own language and his own nationality. It is not fair to insult some one because of his/her nationality (for being born in a poor country) or his/her religion or language. The press societies in Europe as well as in the US and in the other rich and poor countries need to re-establish their own credibility by opposing such a press abuse in the world. It is their right to claim against those who ask them for insulting the others for their believes, regarding political or other unti-human purposes. This is written to ask press societies and thinking people in the world to proceed some ideas against abusing the press issues and against what may ruin the press position in human minds.

Um, what does this have to do with me? Essjay TalkContact 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

100px |Thank you
Hello Essjay, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 63/4/3. I am honoured by the community support and pledge to serve the project as best as I can. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 17:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC) |}

Congratualtions! Now, get to work! Essjay TalkContact 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation concerning Fethullah Gulen.

Dear Wikipedian, I suppose this could be a mistake, because I never filed such a request. See User talk:Jvb. Friendly greetings.

--Jvb – February 12, 2006

Looks like the notice should have been about Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Vlaams Belang. I'll have to discipline my secretary for carelessness! (User:Celestianpower was nice enough to send out those notes on my behalf, and must have gotten his links confused.) Have a look at the Vlaams Belang mediation page. Essjay TalkContact 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


Since you're a mediator, could you help solve the dispute between me and user:Elephantus on Talk:Lika about the Lika article? Thanks in advance! --HolyRomanEmperor 22:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't generally involve myself in edit conflicts unless a formal mediation has been requested. Have you tried RfC or filing a mediation request at WP:RFM? Essjay TalkContact 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

===================== 17 January 2006

My statements on why I have decided not to vote in the ArbCom elections can be found here.

Therefore, we shall not fear, for God is our Refuge and our Strength Psalm 46