User talk:Petemyers

Pete is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

date links, autoformatting

Hi Pete, in response to your inquiry at Lightmouse's talk page, I'm taking the liberty of linking you to and information page on the removal of date autoformatting. It doesn't cover the long long slightly related debate on dropping links to single years, centuries, decades, etc; I can help with that too, if you'd like. You're welcome to pose queries on my talk page. Tony (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Encyclopedia

Re your comments on Gregory Thaumaturgus - in fact the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913 is public domain material, and can be used freely on Wikipedia. There is an ongoing project to do so.

I see you're in Sawston. You might be interested in Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 1, for nine days' time. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

Hello, I've read through the discussion again and my last comments, and I genuinely can't see anything which could be claimed to be mud throwing or personal at all. I'm sorry you interpret it that way. I believe I haven't said anything which is untrue. I did feel that there was a sense in which my comments were not being evaluated in an objective way.

You say that I’m obviously very hurt by what happened in Sawston. I do think that the way in which the move from Shelford to Sawston was done was wrong. I’m also conscious that there has been a fairly strong response also from other local villages. However, what really concerns me more, and the reason I posted on wikipedia was that I genuinely am concerned about harm to vulnerable people, and, rightly or wrongly, I just felt that anyone reading the website should have an accurate portrayal of the church – for example, they should know the theological views and about the Canterbury protest etc. I also felt that the comment ‘currently without a vicar’ was a bit of an insensitive comment. Cuckoosnest (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC) cuckoosnest[reply]

IP vandal

Hi Pete,

Regarding your Q on my talk page, it's semi-complicated.

The short answer is, if you see someone vandalizing, reverting their vandalism is helpful. Leaving them a warning about it isn't necessary, but it's useful, because if they start collecting warnings like baseball cards, they can be blocked. I'm kind of more proactive than some admins, and I'll block someone obviously out to damage an article without warning them first, but many admins won't block someone without giving them a chance to stop on their own first.

There are lots of handy warning templates to pick and choose from at WP:WARN if you want. If you notice someone has received a warning that mentions they can be blocked recently (in the last day or so), and they're actively vandalizing now, and you're willing to go to the trouble, you can report them to WP:AIV for an admin to block them. Instructions for doing so are right at the front of the AIV page.

In your particular case, it kind of looks to me like someone who's experimenting; we tend to cut them more slack than people obviously out to offend or disrupt. If I had run across them while they were active, I would probably have left a {{uw-test1}} note on their talk page. There's no sense doing it now, since IP's can often change (if it had been an account, it would make sense to do it even now).

So that's probably more than you wanted to know. But if this stuff fascinates you, or if you run into the situation again and want some advice, let me know. --barneca (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tried and failed to find the link you provided on my talk page, but the more I think about it, the more I'd be inclined to just let it be. There's a source there, it isn't being disputed, let's not rock the boat, eh? --barneca (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the website to reflect the updated website, I hope this is ok with you.Cuckoosnest (talk) Cuckoosnest 7.50 2nd Feb —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)