User talk:MountRainier

Hi

Talk to me...

My articles at CodeProject.com

I have been doing writing and editing of professional articles about various software development issues and have been awarded MVP for the year of 2013. Here is my profile page, and the list of articles.

Michael.haephrati, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Michael.haephrati! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, MountRainier. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Ushau97 ^talk 09:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

DRN organisers

Hello. I am just letting you know that I've made a proposal to create a rotating DRN organiser-style role that would help with the day-to-day running of DRN. As you are a listed volunteer at DRN, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, and the other open proposals at DRN. You can read more about it here. Thanks! Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

DRN needs your help!

Hi there. I've noticed it's been a while since you've been active at DRN, and we could really use your help! DRN is going to undergo some changes soon, so it'd really be great if our backlog is cleared before the start of August and we have as many people on board to help with the changes (they include a move to subpages and the creation of a rotating "co-ordinator" role to help manage things day-to-day. Hope to see you soon! Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The new face of DRN: MountRainier

Recently the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard underwent some changes in how it operates. Part of the change involved a new list of volunteers with a bit of information about the people behind the names.

You are listed as a volunteer at DRN currently, to update your profile is simple, just click here. Thanks, Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to User Account Control may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• }}</ref> One prominent use of this is [[Internet Explorer 7]]'s "Protected Mode".<ref>{{cite web

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Mmm, I think I found the problem and fixed it. Please let me know if thers is still a problem. --Michael.haephrati (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Michael.haephrati. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not affiliated with any of them. There are historical products mentioned for the technology aspect they have provided in the past. Michael.haephrati (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. MrOllie (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC) My recent contributions were reverted with no actual reason. These are historical products and the mentions are technical and refer to technical articles. Michael.haephrati (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer to point to you the advice at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest — which is not solely about financial aspects — which has good guidance and suggests that the article talk page be used in case of disputes, not continued edit reversions. We protect our encyclopaedia and it is better to hasten slowly. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. MrOllie (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I have brought that matter to the Amiga community one time, and in a single user's page. Following your comment, I made sure my post indeed reflects a neutral point of view. Michael.haephrati (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This statement is certainly not neutral, and 100% qualifies as off-wiki canvassing. http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?p=745685 Gaijin42 (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. Fixed thatMichael.haephrati (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing for AfD

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 36 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I indeed canvased outside of Wikipedia not knowing that it is against the policies. I did not publish a similar request on the deletion page and the user who have done that, have done that on his own (probably copied from my forum message). I have nothing to do with him. In any case, I am sorry for that and apologies. Michael.haephrati (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I've increased the block time and removed email access due to the sending of emails to users after your block to get they to change their mind and try and keep the article. Canterbury Tail talk 13:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Upon consideration I over-reacted and I've set the block back to the original 36 hour block. It is once again due to expire 03:04 on Saturday. Canterbury Tail talk 17:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so. However, I am still appealing against your decision in the first place (even though you have reverted it) and against the block from sending emails, as none of my very few emails can be considered 'canvasing' or are in anyway against any policy.M. H. 18:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MountRainier (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This account was blocked for 36 hours due to a forum message I have posted outside Wikipedia asking fellow Amiga users to vote for keeping an article about Rashumon word processor. That was wrong and I apologized and edited this message to avoid canvasing. Following this post, my account was blocked for editing but not for sending emails. This appeal is against the 2nd and 3rd blocks / changes: I argue that I didn't spam or canvased anyone, but approached to few editors to discuss some matters that I think are important and/or were misunderstood. These editors / users have indicated in their account's settings that they agree to receive emails from other users. Canterbury Tail received from me a very polite message using this feature of Wikiedia, asking him to have a friendly discussion. He responded to this email sent to him and blocked me from sending emails to others, prevent me from expressing my opinion on this debate and on other matters. Today Canterbury Tail extend this block despite the fact that I have not been conducting any activity with my Wikipedia account since the last change. As I am told friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view which is exactly the case of the emails and messages in question. Update: following my appeal, Canterbury Tail has reverted his most recent decision so the block is now set to the original date, but left the block from sending emails during this time-frame. Nevertheless, I kindly ask my appeal to be reviewed due to the wrong decision (in my opinion, and apparently) to extend the block, even though it is now reverted and because of the block from sending emails which I believe was made following a personal and a very friendly email sent to Canterbury Tail. When I sent this message to him, I expected (and I guess, like me, any editor using this nice feature of Wikipedia would expect) just a polite reply from him as opposed to being blocked (twice)... I don't think any editor should ever have the slightest fear or hesitation to send an email to an Administrator about anything! M. H. 08:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)M. H. 18:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This block has expired. Kuru (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your block extension has been rescinded. Your original block will be expiring tomorrow, but you're worried about not being able to send emails via Wikipedia between now and then? How is that a not waste of block reviewers time? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ohnoitsjamie, the purpose of my appeal (or any appeal, for that matter) is to have someone else review 2 decisions, which in my opinion are a result of a very bad judgement. I hope anyone will do the same if he or she encounters a wrong decision taken by an Administrator, here and anywhere. So to answer your question: No. I am not worried about not being able to send emails via Wikipedia between yesterday and this morning... My appeal is about the 2 wrong decisions, and especially because I don't think any editor should ever have the slightest fear or hesitation to send an email to an Administrator about anything! Have a nice day! M. H. 08:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)