Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Stack Exchange Network".
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk 09:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that there hasn't been a conclusion yet, but the two users who have commented both agree that the current sources aren't good enough, and as a result the section should be taken out. Since you feel so strongly about having it, please write it up in a sandbox, add some reliable sources and ask for feedback before adding it. You have been reverted multiple times by multiple other editors, all due to the sources you have used. Re-adding the section over and over without improving the sources violates a number of policies and guidelines, most importantly the ones on verifiability and neutral point-of-view. Also, please participate in the discussion on WP:DRN by adding a statement and if needed comment on the discussion. Bjelleklang - talk 12:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you are the one who seems to feel strongly for the section, as you have been the only one defending it, despite multiple users questioning the sources you base it on. It's up to you to defend the sources or find new ones that support the section. If sources can't be found, and you can't show that the existing sources is in line with WP:RS, the section needs to go, as it's to be considered unverifiable. Bjelleklang - talk 13:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why you cannot wait to hear other people's opinion. Didn't you claim that you are going to ask for admin intervention? didn't you say that you are going to go to WP:DRN? shouldn't you wait for the WP:DRN to conclude? Yparjis (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He did ask for admin intervention, that's how I landed in this matter xD SnowolfHow can I help? 10:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stack Exchange Network. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.SnowolfHow can I help? 06:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "(Deleted; replaced with "Yparjis")", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because Wikipedia:Signatures#Dealing with signatures' behaviour issues says "Signatures which include no reference to the user's username are strongly discouraged, as it can be confusing for editors (particularly newcomers). The actual username always appears in the page history, so using just the nickname on the relevant talk page can make it appear to be a different person." Please change your signature so that it matches your username.. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Thread moved here from my talk page. If I ask a question on your talk page, answer on your talk page, not mine. That way the conversation stays in one place.) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should be able to see that I already have a pending request for a username change. Maybe you would like to take the time and look into it. Yparjis (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't have a pending request for a username change. Your request was rejected because you failed to respond to a question. See Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple/Unfulfilled/2012/December#(Deleted; replaced with "Yparjis"). You need to resubmit it and answer any questions the clerks have if you want it done. I did check for any pending requests, but not for rejected requests in the archives. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you asked for this talk page to be deleted, presumably because of the same issue you raised in your failed request for a username change. Again, I encourage you to resubmit your request and answer any question that get asked. There is no reason why the request would be rejected, and if it is accepted it will result in this talk page being moved to your new username. Then a 'bot will go though your posting history and correct all the names on all of your posts. I did this when I changed my username from Guymacon to Guy Macon, and it worked great. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi , thanks for the advice and I realize that there is a way to resolve this. However, it seems that I cannot be aligned with the way of doing things in wikipedia nor with the way of thinking. I don't think I have nor the time or the need for this amount of bureaucracy and confrontation in my life.I have been confronted with hostility and belittlement. Maybe I was wrong, that's not the issue here, but what remains is that I am not aligned with the way people on wikipedia cooperate. Maybe that works for you and the people that participate in wikipedia. However, it does not work for me, and I think it would be for the best not to contribute. Yparjis (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice, I have already considered that. There are privacy issues as well, that is why I have requested user deletion. Yparjis (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. In case you missed it, Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing explains how to do that. If you have any problems with the process, feel free to ask for my help, either on my talk page or by email. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page won't be deleted though, requesting deletion is pointless.--Atlan (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, but he should be able to achieve his stated goal, which is to replace all copies of a ill-chosen username that he says reveals personal information. The talk page comments will still exist, but his comments will be signed with a new username. Of course he could accomplish the same thing by simply putting in a request for a username change, but it's not my place to question his decision if he prefers to request a courtesy vanishing. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
just to let you know that request for vanishing has been denied. This is the mail i received from Fumitaka Joe :
"Due to the recent issues you have had with edit warring, etc., we are unable to grant your request for courtesy vanishing. Joe -- Mac OS X. Because making Unix user-friendly is easier than debugging Windows."
ofcourse i fail to understand why when wikipedia says that respects my privacy this guy has access to my email account and can send me emails directly. I expect a username change is doomed to fail as well. Yparjis (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for the email/privacy issue, you sent him and email (courtesy vanishing must be requested by email) and the form you used to send the email has "Your email address WILL be disclosed to the recipient." highlighted in red. Wikipedia was protecting your privacy by making it so that ordinary users like me cannot see your request or the reply. The person who got your email is a Wikipedia Bureaucrat -- someone who we trust with information that even an administrator cannot access. I just checked, and you do have the "This user has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users." option set, so nobody can email you unless you email them first.
As for your expectation that a username change is doomed to fail as well, there is no rational reason to believe that and no reason why you refuse to ask again (the first rejection was your own fault for not responding when asked a question).
Bottom line: your present sig Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Signatures#Dealing with signatures' behaviour issues: " "Signatures which include no reference to the user's username are strongly discouraged ... using just the nickname on the relevant talk page can make it appear to be a different person.". Either change your sig to match your username or resend your request that your username be changed to match your sig. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. does strongly discouraged imply as well that it is not allowed? . 2. Does this person whom wikipedia has chosen to trust signed in physical form any kind of legal document that binds him? Wikipedia says that email is private yet it is disclosed without my consent to third parties that have not been bound in any form of legal agreement with wikipedia foundation or any other legal entity related to wikipedia. i find this a bit alarming. Thanks for the help. Yparjis (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to refer you to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard to get answers to your questions about email. All I can add is what I wrote before: don't email people if you don't want them to get your email address, and don't give your email address to any web site if you don't want the people who run that web site to know what your email address is.
hi, but i dit not email him directly. i made a request through the related form for a right to vanish. Thus wikipedia has revealed this information to a third party violating its privacy policy. Isn't this correct?
I am going to refer you to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names to get answers to your questions about usernames and signatures. All I can add is that I find your sig to be confusing.
thanks , i am going to request a username change. Although the whole thing seems to be rather complicated.
Sorry I could not be of more help. Here is the standard notice template telling you where the discussion is:
It seems wikipedia processes are confusing.
Hello, Yparjis. Concerns have been raised that your username may be incompatible with policy. You can contribute to the discussion about it at the page for requests for comment on usernames. Alternatively, if you agree that your username may be problematic and are willing to change it, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name. Simply request a new name at Wikipedia:Changing username following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC) --Guy Macon (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your username has now been changed. Our robot updated 129 places where your old username appeared to the new name, then I updated the 15 pages where the robot couldn't figure out what to do.
If you still wish to retire, I suggest erasing everything on this talk page (you are allowed to do that on your own talk page) and replacing it with this:
{{retired}}
Which will display this:
Retired
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.
Again, if there is anything I can do to assist you, feel free to ask for help. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
