This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Haha, I was looking at recent changes, with my finger on the rollback button. Here's a houseplant to liven the place up some. Drmies ( talk) 05:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
<outdent> If you think saying we are not censored or that we shouldn't act as censors is a personal attack, you are welcome to take the issue to an admin board and seek out a consensus that certain words are verboten. Your position in and of itself is a form of censorship. You're saying that certain words aren't okay even when used generally to discuss article contents. I think your position is outrageous and wrong. When censorship is going on I refuse to be compelled to use another word for it than the one that has a defined meaning that describes it. You continue to assume bad faith on me when all I've done is repeatedly point out policy and suggest ways to abide by it and asked very reasonable questions about where notable criticisms about Obama policies should be included in the encyclopedia, a question you've never answered. You've also assumed bad faith and made attacks on another editor you disagree with. This is unacceptable.
If you wish to put yourself in league with censorship that's on you. I don't share your personal interpretation of policies based on logical extensions and some kind of allusion. The policies are clear. I expect you to abide them. Do not attack and threaten good faith editors who don't happen to share your personal interpretations and perspectives. I've gone over this with you repeatedly and I want to return my focus to editing articles and improving the encyclopedia. You've refused to help address the censorship problem and I think I've been more than patient enough with your verbiage. Wikipedia is NOT censored. We don't omit notable content and notable controversies and notabile criticisms because some people find them personally objectionable. End of story. STOP YOUR THREATS. Thanks. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 15:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
For building a great wall. There's a socialism pun in there somewhere. I hear you on the length issue. Grundle has complained that he/his contributions are not taken seriously. He and other editors have complained that Wiki policy is wielded as a fallback by a clique who can't deal with "the facts". I'm addressing the facts. Presumably Grundle is invested enough in this issue to read what I wrote; I didn't write this for anybody who is uninterested in the topic or in the outcome of this discussion. He needs to have the patience to read and understand and process more than a few headlines. As to blog, I suppose I didn't need to disclose the heritage of the cars I've owned, but people wonder what one another's personal relationship to the topic is. Every paragraph is in service of facts that are germane to the three issues at hand, the first being a look forward at Obama's CAFE standards and vehicular deaths from 2011 through 2016 (as 2010 models are already just around the corner...); the second being Grundle's contradiction in damning Obama for seizing the moment and taking the very steps necessary to rectify the historical failures and recalcitrance of the U.S. automotive industry Grundle also damns, at precisely the moment he has the greatest influence on them with the public investment in them, which is yet another thing Grundle damns; and the third being Grundle's propensity in the vast majority of his edits to gravitate towards the most damning quotes of others, surely in part because of a shared personal bias but perhaps oblivious to their poor relationship to facts. Quite honestly, it would take me longer to write a briefer piece than it does to write a longer one. Quite a bit longer than it takes five people to read it.
Speaking of the Chinese, did you know the most popular and prestigious foreign car there is the Buick? Abrazame ( talk) 06:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Bigtimepeace, I'm fairly certain we've never interacted before. I'm a new admin (as of last week, but I have hung out around the NewPage Patrol and some WikiProjects for a few years now.
I hate drama in all its forms. I make this clear to those I know in real life, to the point of belittling those who contribute to it (which I have civilly not done on Wikipedia), and I have been trying to make it clear here. Far too many man hours are wasted bickering over pointless, trivial, or petty things, and the fact that many Administrators do this is almost tragic, given that this category is chronically populated from what I have seen.
Your handling of this incident was refreshing. You made it clear from the get-go what your intentions were, despite the fact that your position could be twisted to depict you in a negative light. You (seemingly) carefully phrased your comments to make it clear that you were not necessarily "with" this or that group or "against" some other group. When badgered, you asserted your position but did not attack. When you wanted to specifically address the user in question, you posted a well-thought-out message on the user's talk page. When you made an incorrect assumption, you apologized. (forgive me for not digging out the difs :-D)
While I may not necessarily agreed with everything you had to say, I'm glad to see that there are admins like you on Wikipedia. Unfortunately there's no "AntiDrama" barnstar (yet :-D) but consider this one well-deserved:
Civility Award | ||
For dealing with a potentially ugly debate in a most professional and admirable manner. RunningOnBrains( talk page) 03:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
Thank you for participating in my
"RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (
Ceoil,
Noroton and
Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read
Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ace of Spades HQ. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace of Spades HQ (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.
If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here
Please put all discussion here. Peter Damian ( talk) 10:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could reconsider your decline of speedy on For the Love of Ray J (season 2). The single reference is an advertisement for a casting call. If you still feel the same, no big deal, as I can take it to AFD. Thanks! Plastikspork ( talk) 14:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations! You've won first prize in the "A sock puppet, meat puppet and Jimbo walk into a bar ..." sweepstakes! See here for details. Paul August ☎ 16:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads-up. I have submitted a statement. -- Scjessey ( talk) 21:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The close of this discussion seems unsatisfactory as your comments are quite tentative - "bit of a tough call ... not really ... not sure". Please note the emphatic guidance of WP:DGFA, "When in doubt, don't delete" and reconsider your close. Colonel Warden ( talk) 07:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I get very tired of being lumped into the "liberal bias" chant. Back in September, I was helping to defend the Palin article against POV-pushing marauders, just as I did for the Obama article that wretched night of March 8/9 of this year, against editors whose complaint basically was (and still is) that "there's not enough criticism" of the subject, that being their personal definition of "NPOV". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I should point out that I actually got mostly compliments for helping defend Palin, and mostly criticism for helping to defend Obama. So much for "liberal bias" here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the main problem is that the editor has become burned out and sees conflicts everywhere. To the point, the editor sees everyone who does not agree with his edits on political articles as liberal/POV pushers/etc. More then one person has suggested to them that they take some time off and step away from the project. I feel that this is the only way for the editor to be able to see what other editors have been saying and come back with a clear head and a willing attitude to work with others. What are your thoughts? Brothejr ( talk) 23:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to type up such a detailed rationale. Though it's not my preferred result, I'm appreciative for the thought you put into your decision. Cheers, – Juliancolton | Talk 05:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
For those of you who signed up early, Wiki-Conference New York has been confirmed for the weekend of July 25-26 at New York University, and we have Jimmy Wales signed on as a keynote speaker.
There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session.
Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up
here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 03:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
In fact I had no idea about a request at WP:ANI when I left the remark. I had seen CoM's request on User:A.K.Nole's talk page and was aware of CoM's mathematical trolling (it cannot be described in any other way) on Talk:Butcher group here [4]. The article has been edited by other mathematical editors who have not borne out in any way CoM's insulting remarks there. I have been sleeping here in France. Mathsci ( talk) 04:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
You've been making a variety of anti-me comments on ANI, with (as far as I can tell) declaring our past history. I can't recall the details, but I think I remember it wasn't pleasant. Persons reading your comments without knowing that might feel they weren't getting the full picture. If you can't dig it uip, I'll have to William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Your use of "inscrutable" when closing a thread on the Obama talk page is unfortunate, as it appears to my eye that the user whose rant you rolled up was likely Asian. As you may know, the stereotype of the inscruable Oriental has a long history and might even be considered racist. I am not casting aspersions on your motives for using the word, but perhaps you might consider another jab at the thesaurus to come up with a word that doesn´t have so much baggage.-- 98.230.0.33 ( talk) 16:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Bigtimepeace. I don't think there's anything to be done, but I just wanted to let you know that this AfD was likely the result of a banned user evading their ban. See my comment at Talk:List of NME covers#Sock puppetry. Best, Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Would also appreciate rationale for speedy deletion. Thanks! Soniclude ( talk) 00:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! -- Jayron32. talk. say no to drama 21:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary states indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:
Again, thank you for making this event a success! -- Jayron32. talk. say no to drama 02:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The Anti-Drama Barnstar | ||
Thank you for participating in The Great Wikipedia Dramaout 2009, avoiding drama for a full 5 days!-- The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC) |
I have responded on both the Talk:Glenn Beck and Talk:Cleon Skousen pages. I may not be able to put forth anything more until next week, though. -- Hardindr ( talk) 03:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
:) 86.44.31.124 ( talk) 04:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note, as my responses on my talk page are already hideously oversized. I'm not putting you on that I disagree with people all the time. LadyofShalott and I had a vigorous disagreement over my making two good faith copy-edits on an article talk page, and I remain 100% convinced to this day that on a collaborative wiki that type of corrective fix is helpful and important. GTBacchus and I remain totally at odds over the handling of a difficult but immensely valuable and prolific editor, and over whether the use of extensive discussion is conducive to encyclopedia building. Drmies is a communist. And DGG and I disagree on many aspects of notability as well as political perspectives, but he's the admin I respect the most for his diligence and inexhaustable efforts, even though he's a bit curmudgeonly for my liking. :) So there you go. I'm not one for going along to get along or cabal building. I think frank discussion, respect, and courtesy are core values of encyclopedia building. And I don't hold grudges against those who disagree with me as long as they do so respectfully. Thanks again for your help. Take care and have fun. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 05:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, have to say that is quite a shame. I would think that such a clear pattern of prodding the edges of the topic ban, and 2 similar "watch it, you're breaking your restrictions here" warnings within the last month have gone unheeded would be sufficient to warrant at least paltry 24h timeout. It is never about what was done, never an acceptance of responsibility, it is always the others that are the big and nasty oppressive Cabal of Doom. Note the coda on both your talk page and on the AN/I, calling for a block of myself, Aitias, Arcayne and Baseball Bugs for "disruption and policy violating behaviors", because we dare to voice support of an ArbCom restriction. The horror! This is the same road that the likes of Betacommand and ScienceApologist go down; good editing is allowed to excuse bad behavior. I have little doubt we'll be reinventing this wheel again when CoM has another oops! did I do that? moment in yet another article within the topic area. Cheers. Tarc ( talk) 13:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Geoff - could you have a look at Ann Dunham please? Cladeal832 has made a change in her place of birth and removed material about her father without discussion, making the change 3 times yesterday on that page alone and also in several other articles. I asked that he wait for discussion and consensus, but he just repeated his argument and then unilaterally made the change. I don't know where she was born, but I know that webofdeception.com is not a reliable source. And his argument seems to me to verge on OR. I have to look back, but I think we had the wording for a while stating that sources give different places of birth for her - and that's ok with me if indeed reliable sources do - but it seems to me that it's not ok for one editor to unilaterally make changes when they are questioned, especially in an article that's part of the article probation arrangement. So, a word from you might be helpful. I left a note on his page here (also see his history on that page) and the relevant non-discussion is at Talk:Ann Dunham#Birthplace; the changes he made are here, here, nd here in this article. Thanks Tvoz/ talk 08:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your constructive comments on the David Fuchs related ANI thread. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 22:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Another edit to Gerald Walpin?. I have one foot out the door...an extra-long weekend getaway...not alot of time to dig, but I am fairly certain that our buddy's ArbCom restriction on Obama-related topics is still in effect. If you have a moment, can you take a peek? Tarc ( talk) 19:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know about the ArbCom clarification. It has completely taken me by surprise, as I had assumed (and I believe quite rightly) that the sanctions were meant to run concurrently. If it is confirmed that they are supposed to run successively, I will absolutely be appealing. It was already an excessive punishment that did not seem to have anything to do with the facts, but this new issue is shocking. -- Scjessey ( talk) 00:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
You have been involved in Arbcom enforcement discussions on my talk page, in ANI discussions, and on the Arbcom page. Saying you aren't involved in enforcing the remedies is silliness.
You say you've "refrained from responding" to "accusations" against you, even as you make accusations and attacks against me. You've been relentlessly on the attack with me on various boards for a long time now. You make comments like "I think what you are saying is nonsense."
Statements like "Whatever it is you're talking about (or possibly misremembering)" are also antagonistic. If you want to know what I'm talking about just ask.
You say I'm "ignoring" your point and "unwilling to engage" (borderline personal attacks according to your standards) even though I responded quite clearly to your point saying: "Suggesting that editors are not allowed to comment on censorship, harassment and NPOV violations at a noticeboard is ridiculous." I didn't make any personal attacks at ANI, but I provided numerous diffs of personal attacks against me. I haven't seen any actions taken yet based on them and I'm not holding my breath. That editor has been warned repeatedly.
I noted that I think you act in good faith, but acting improperly and inappropriately is still a problem when it's done in good faith. "So what exactly is the issue?" That is the issue.
You also say, "There is still confusion about the ArbCom remedies," yet even when they are clarified and you can see you made a mistake in interpreting them you don't adjust your behavior or take any corrective action. Why is it so hard for you to apologize for mistakes you've made? Instead you simply move on to new arguments and attacks.
You say I "have admittedly violated them" after I acknowledged that I ONCE made an edit I shouldn't have, adding a link. Instead of respecting my willingness to recognize where I made a mistake, you use it to attack me. Compare my actions to how you've behaved even after an Arbcom points out that you've been in the wrong on the remedies. Instead of acknowledging your mistake, you continue going on the attack with new arguments. I suggest to you that making an effort to correct your mistakes, apologizing would be a good start, would be a better approach. When a bad block is made, don't try and work out a new rationale for it, correct it.
You are not fair or impartial, and your insistence on seeing things your way is unfortunate. You did the same thing with Grundle, and are obviously so passionate about your personal opinions and politics that you are unable to accept other people's viewpoints as having merit and validity.
As I indicated previously, I'd like to return to article contributions now. That's what I'm here for. That's why I generally avoid reporting stuff I see, like Sarek's abusive behavior on his talk page, unless it's particularly egregious. Your behavior is pretty egregious, so I'm pointing it out to you. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
There are more than a few inaccuracies in your statement:
Perhaps it would be best for you to let this alone for awhile and wait to hear from the Arbs. That's my plan, and I don't really have anything else to say to you at the moment. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Bongo matic 23:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
He IS a Bigot. He first engages in blatantly anti-Atheist commentary, then expands it to Anti-semitic commentary. ThuranX ( talk) 05:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Please note that the restriction you imposed does not fall under Obama probation, so any appeals may not be granted by you - they'd require a community consensus or ArbCom intervention. I've explained the reasons of principle further at the ANI. In line with good faith, I believe this was a mistake rather than something more deliberate, and have reversed your logging accordingly. If you would like me to explain this further, please let me know. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 08:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I have a request for clarification with regard to Obama article probation and the Gatesgate/" beer summit" article (more properly the Henry Louis Gates arrest incident); for example, specifically, Are discussions about the White House get together with officer Gates, Obama's friend Professor Gates and the president subject to its strictures? We are discussing this matter here ( Talk:Henry Louis Gates arrest incident#Note: Features of "Obama article probation" that pertain to this page); and, since you're no doubt the premier admin involved with Obama article probation issues, if you'd be able to chime in on our discussion I think your input would be greatly valued and appreciated. ↜Just M E here , now 14:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I have read your comment, but as I am interested to see if other people know or care about this (to me) puzzeling issue I rather not write anything on the BPP discussion page right now. And perhaps your scepticism about her importance for the party goes too far. At least in France and Germany she was incredibly popular, Eldridge Cleaver and Kathleen Cleaver were heroes here for a hard hard-core of leftists, like the later RZ founders, but Davis put the black liberation struggle and the BPP on the map, Which may have saved her but also Abu Jamal.-- Radh ( talk) 14:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I had previously posted this info on User talk:Versageek and User talk:Jpgordon, whom I think are checkusers. This is FYI in case you didn't already know:
The account Childof12AM ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious impostor of User:ChildofMidnight. He shows no contribs [9] because his attempts to edit my page (and presumably to stir something up) were blocked. I just wonder if this is part of the Liebman family of socks, or if its coming from somewhere else, like maybe the Pioneercourthouse sockfarm? Those are the most obvious possibilities that come to mind. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
And another impostor, calling himself BBBfan ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) turned up, also trying to foment trouble, i.e. to interfere with the contact ban between me and User:ChildofMidnight. I'm suspicious of Pioneercourthouse, just because he's also been active in the last couple of days. However, PCH is jumping from one country to another with his IP's, so there's probably not much that can be done there except to whack the moles as they pop up. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I accidentally set my big timepiece down on orange peelings the other day. I took it to the repair shop. The guy asked me what happened. I told him it was a watch on the rind. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for taking a look into WP:WQA#William S. Saturn and his tendentious editing. I would have commented there that the filing seems to be redundant and in the wrong venue, but the presence of another editor who I'm not supposed to interact with, and your request to hold back, probably mean that I'll stay away. I want to point out a little background, in case you haven't made the connection. That the editor has been uncivil is pretty obvious. But that's the tip of the iceberg. The bigger issue is repeated edit warring, fringe-y content additions, and messy meta-discussions. They've been to AN/I a few times, with the Obama arbitration parties squaring off on either side, which resulted in blocks, which in turn relates to the (uncharacteristically hasty, in my opinion) stay-away order you recently brokered. Perhaps the parties who just came out of Arbcom have nobody to blame but themselves when they continue to get into arguments. However, I think this poor editor is a victim of someone else's editing disputes. Sure, they are a long-time editor engaging in behavioral violations. But in the chaos, nobody has taken the time to patiently counsel this editor, set some expectations about the limits of civility, and so on. So I don't think they've had a proper chance to acclimate to the Obama pages. This reminds me of the early days with User:Grundle2600, who was capable of causing real trouble but also a very decent chap capable of listening and being friendly and collegial. I sense that this editor too is sincere and well-meaning. If people can get past his content position, which is apparent approval of some fringe political theories, I think he has a chance and shouldn't be written off. You'll see that when he actually explained his specific objections on the Birther page, I personally agreed with about half of them. However, I also observe that he's being coached and incited to be combative. I brought all this up in my request for clarification. [10] Hope this helps. Wikidemon ( talk) 18:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for notifying my about the discussion!
I'd like to get the text of 8 articles that were recently deleted, just for personal use. I was told I should ask the admin who deleted them This was for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Grantville_Gazette_IV I will watch here for a reply. Hope you can help. Tkech ( talk) 22:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
RE: [11] Thank you for your comments. They were timely and spot on. As you know, I was one of those editors that Connolley blocked. I was appalled at how flippant he was with the rules. It really made me think there were two classes of editors. Thanks again. Ikip ( talk) 20:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC) I've held off commenting on that case (mainly because I did not care to be involved), but I quite dislike the notion that "difficult articles" (nationalist disputes, conspiracy theory-related topics, etc.) require the kind of admin behavior that WMC regularly exhibits. I was just dropping by to check on the status of the proposed decision and felt obligated to leave a note on that particular talk page thread, though I doubt it will have much of an effect on anyone. The Arbs seem extremely split (to an abnormal degree) on what to do about Connolley, so the ultimate remedy might well end up being less restrictive than I would like (I'd be fine with even a temporary desysopping, though I understand the view that those are bad ideas in general). Even if WMC gets off relatively easy in this case, I think the problem with his approach to adminship is now abundantly clear. Either he adjusts course and stops the cowboy adminship (that's my preferred option—I know he has a lot to contribute to the project), or we'll be back at ArbCom at some point in the future due to another bad block (or whatever), at which point a desysop will be inevitable.
Incidentally I noticed in your evidence (somewhere) you listed BernardL as an admin. I'm 99% sure he isn't one. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, an editor, Jayen466, is insisting with have three references to the same press release including mention in the lead, a large quotebox, and now this [12]. While he brought up the topic on the talk page here, instead of waiting, he just put in the information that's disputed. Perhaps a polite warning is due given his single minded focus on reintroducing the same fact over and over. Nobody is saying it should not be in the article, but there's an issue of weight and process here. He's spoiling for an edit war and if you read the comment from other editors in that section, there really is disagreement about his POV. Mattnad ( talk) 21:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, if there's anything redeemable in Ultraviolence (band), could you dump it into User:Tarc/tmp? Came across some of my old gabber tapes the other day, might take a stab at getting it up to passable notability standards. Tarc ( talk) 20:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it has become clear that the environment on the Glenn Beck isn't suitable for collaborative, consensus editing or for that matter civil editing. As the admin in charge, do you think that the time has come for user conduct RFCs or Arbitration (as the RFC failed). Soxwon ( talk) 19:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
What vandalism? Gwen Gale ( talk) 19:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Meanwhile he's on his 4th unblock request. Gwen Gale ( talk) 21:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'm being paranoid, but isn't it weird that 4 new editors sign up within 2 hours of each other and all of them basically limit their commentary to the Glenn Beck talk page? Soxwon ( talk) 05:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Would you be interested in helping (or at least giving me pointers, online or by email) how to deal with Aaron Klein, famously the World Net Daily writer whose Jerusalem21 account was the focus of the whole Obama debacle? It seems pretty obvious that someone from his office continues to sock as an IP editor, and there is some bad blood. On the other hand, whatever his views on life he seems like a decent chap who just happens to have a lot of chutzpa and wants a name for himself, and if he really wants to be around on Wikipedia we could maybe bring him into the fold, lift the indefinite block, let bygones be bygones, and ask him to work with us in good spirits to get his article in good shape... If having a good article on Wikipedia indirectly leads to self-promotion, so be it. All articles should have that problem. As a model I've got a pretty good working relationship with the real-life Ted Frank (I saved his article from deletion and there had been some bad blood there in the past) when he notices a problem with his article. - Wikidemon ( talk) 06:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
As you participated at the above discussion, this is to let you know I've proposed an alternate wording (for reasons stated there). However, it is essentially the same proposal. If you have any objections to it, please note them down. Thank you, Ncmvocalist ( talk) 09:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Re, Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States, PROD removal,
Fair enough, I appreciate your reasoning; my worry is that it is such a vague title, and thus a magnet for original research. I'll have a think about it. Cheers, Chzz ► 23:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to say that I actully support and want the title "Supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States" back for the article I made. Orginally all this info was on the Same-sex Marriage in the United States article which caused undue weight so in result I made this topic (Which now has problems sadly wit hthe title and such). Anyways here is the talk: Talk:Supporters of marriage equality in the United States#Title renaming I would thank any help or input you could offer =). Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:56, 29 August 2009 (AT)
I sent you one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I take the degradation of the world's largest encyclopedia very seriously. Book burning, censorship, and bias promote ignorance and do real damage. I'm well aware of the history of the Nazis and it disgusts me that Wikipedia's admins, including yourself, and aribtration committee have chosen to follow a course of actions that is chilling to open discourse and does real harm to our cause. Undermining the good faith efforts of those who want to build a free, fair and open information source is obscene. That it is achieved with a campaign of harassment and intimidation is an outrage. Maybe you feel as though you weren't the one who lit the fire in this recent round, but you certainly helped in the round up and build up of the pile. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
As an admin, can you perhaps inform the discussion? Do you think a press release by his publisher/publicist touting his"candor" is a reliable source? I do not. Thanks Jimintheatl ( talk) 23:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on Talk:Glenn_Beck#Anti-Beck_spoof_website? We are getting more sources for this, and some are reliable. I'm very cautious on this material due to its defamatory nature. Seems one thing to put it in a news story, and another to put it in an encyclopedia. The intent of the meme is to spread it.. "do no harm" makes me pause. The legal aspects seem to be unique, though not sure if such would justify it in Beck's biography or in some ancillary article on trademark or domain name law. I did make a suggestion for an inclusion once we received better sources. Thanks for any guidance you could provide. Morphh (talk) 12:41, 03 October 2009 (UTC)
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 01:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why you have to be rude and leave message on my talk page when you could have simply left them in the discussion page. I didn't read your message I simply deleted it. If you want to talk met me in the discussion page in his article. Dumaka ( talk) 17:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.
You are receiving this notification as you participated in the administrators' noticeboard thread on the issue.
The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.
Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (
talk) 01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey BTP. I wasn't surprised by your comments supporting a dubious block against me. But I really must object to your smear that "ChildofMidnight writes a bunch of articles about strange food items and other off-beat topics and that's great..." Misrepresenting, demeaning and diminshing my contributions has been a regular meme from those going after me and I don't appreciate it coming from you.
I have made very substantial contributions on new page patrol, AfD, RfA, the noticeboards, and across a huge swath of articles on subjects great and small, often in collegial collaboration on difficult and disputed subjects. I deal with difficult editors all the time and have only had a recurring problem with one editor in particular and a small group of editors who share the same political ideology and disruptive approach to editing where they go after anyone who disagrees with them. They regularly engage in ad hominem attacks rather then focusing on the article content and sourcing issues and use policy and guidelines as a cudgel to harass other editors instead of working through disputes to resolve them accordign to our rules.
You have a different perspective, fine. But I am offended by your smear and minimization of my devoted article work. Take care. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 16:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from but I did see that the last warning the user was issued was a level four which led me to believe that I should then report him.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaelen S. ( talk • contribs)
I was just wondering what you think I should do to prepare if you don't think I am ready? Anything you can provide would be helpful.
P.S. I do believe that you as an administrator can delete my administrator request if I request that you do so, and since you think I am not prepared enough I would be fine with you removing it.
Regards, Gaelen S. Talk • Contribs 06:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I came across your remarks in reference to Cleon Skousen on the Glenn Beck talk page and agree with your rationale. In the coming days I am going to try to improve and expand Skousen's article and introduce a section on Beck's article in reference to his influence. Your collaboration, assistance, suggestions, and feedback is of course welcome and appreciated if you have the time. Nice to meet you. Redthoreau ( talk)RT 08:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Big, I am wondering if you'd like to help us redesign our discussion group to make it more compatible with the traditional wiki decision making processes? I was thinking that since most concerns are related to possible problems with WP:CANVASS you could help us design a wiki page, perhaps at Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Europe, which would eliminate the need to announce Wikipedia content discussions off wiki? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
So twice now you have warned me about making 2 reverts on the article. The 1st time I thought you were a little too quick with the warning and was a slightly peeved but this time I want to thank you. Your work on the article and (IMO more importantly) the talk page has been invaluable and is most appreciated. Moreover, in retrospect, your note on my talk page was exactly what I needed to push me to take a break and have a nice cup of Earl Grey. Thank you for being the voice of reason. Cheers. L0b0t ( talk) 15:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Some political stats from New Jersey (the state where I live)! ;^) ↜Just M E here , now 00:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I've read some of the exchanges you have had with Cptnono and the Glenn Beck article. As far as him editing to "make a point", read the most recent edits he has made and the corresponding edits on the talk page to get a feel for whether or not you think he is doing more of the same today. Let's just say that I'm not a fan of his ways of "communication". Thanks for looking into this. SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 03:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Because you did such a bang-up job with stepping in last week over what was happening in the Glenn Beck article, may I impose upon you to try and do more of the same in the same article - this time concerning reversion actions being taken by ObserverNY? The heavy-handedness of some editors of this article is starting to become more than annoying and ridiculous (IMO). For the most recent examples, please see the article's talk section entitled, "Break" (at the end of the section). Thanks. SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 20:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I am seeking your honest and frank opinion. Over three months have passed since I was given a topic ban on Obama-related articles for 6 months (although I voluntarily began avoiding these articles on June 1). Since then, I have tried to keep my nose clean, avoid drama, and remain a productive Wikipedian. I did get involved in a bit of argy-bargy at DreamHost (which involved another brief flirtation with ArbCom), but other than that it's been a relatively peaceful four months. I was wondering if you thought it would be worth my while appealing to ArbCom to have my topic ban either partially or fully lifted, on the basis of good behavior? I would still remain under the one-revert-per-week-per-page limitation, of course. What do you think? -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikis Take Manhattan
|
WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.
LAST YEAR'S EVENT
WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.
WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.
WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!
REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.
WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:
FOR UPDATES
Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.
Thanks,
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at
Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 20:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
Nice job of popping that balloon. Colonel Warden ( talk) 07:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC) |
While I supported deletion, that was an admirable closure, and the only proper one that an uninvolved administrator could make. As the cherry on top, it was well written. Happy editing to you. Keegan ( talk) 08:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Colorado balloon incident. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Prodego talk 16:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
This is to let you know of the above ANI - it is directly relevant (and refers) to this discussion where you participated. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 07:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you deleted Oshkosh Area United Way as "unambiguous advertising or promotion". When I encounter an article that seems to be advertising but which has a possibly notable subject, I prefer to cut it back to a neutral stub rather than tag it for neutral deletion. Some evidence of notability can be found in [ http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Oshkosh+Area+United+Way%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Search+Archives this Google News archive search[. -- Eastmain ( talk) 21:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
this [15] and this [16] at User talk:Jake Wartenberg#Request for examples of no-consensus deletions. I'd appreciate it. I posted responses on the Shankbone DRV talk page and at AFD. If you think I haven't done everything I could to answer any remaining concerns, feel free to tell me. JohnWBarber ( talk) 03:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
New York City Meetup |
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Wikipedia Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Wikipedia articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 03:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
You have a funny way of keeping your word Bigtimepeace. I could have sworn you promised to cease your abusive attacks, threats, and intimidation against me. I have done my best to avoid conversing and interacting with you because of your past behavior and per your request, but if you are going to launch slanderous attacks and distortions against me then I will, of course, have to respond. Do you want me to produce the diff where you noted your politics (therby disproving false claims at ANI)? Or the ones of your talk page history where you promised to stop coming after me? I think it would be better if we went our separate ways and focused on improving the encyclopedia. You do make article contributions don't you? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 04:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I asked you to refactor in the section above (titled "Please refactor"). Would you please do so? Would you please reply? JohnWBarber ( talk) 00:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've been having a conversation (via the article talk page and our own pages) with 220.101.28.25 over a source which he raised on the talk page. Essentially, this source (I think it's the Wall St Journal) gives an earlier time for the events than the WP article and (frankly, every) other news source I've seen. Obviously, with so much information coming out so quickly and the various corrections we've had to make (number of victims, number of shooters etc) it's important to make sure the source is accurate and the WP article is up to date. I wondered if you had an opinion? I'll put it here for your convenience HJMitchell You rang? 06:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
In the absence of anything else to support it and the overwhelming contradiction by every other news agency I've seen, I'm inclined to agree. Just thought it was worth raising. Thanks, HJMitchell You rang? 06:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The Socratic Barnstar | ||
For keeping your cool on this and other pages. Your level-headedness and civility is greatly appreciated. Happy Trails! Dr. Entropy ( talk) 00:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC) |
There's a request for comments on whether Wikipedia:Notability (news events) should be a guideline. As you've commented on AfD debates on articles that might be covered by this proposal, you might wish to comment here. Thanks. Fences& Windows 23:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't recall you being active in Waterboarding (at least recently), so perhaps you could be an uninvolved administrator here. Thanks, -- 4wajzkd02 ( talk) 19:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for a very eloquent comment. Very much a pleasant surprise that it came from you. Best regards, Durova 366 18:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
You managed to come up with the explanation for the situation I think I wish I could have thought up, and I do see the need to run them through RfD in bulk if needbe. In hindsight, I misinterpreted the purpose of the ANI as a "well should we not allow this (to avoid precedent)?" and that deletion would have been a aftereffect of making a statement quazi-officially adding to apparently growing desires to include every street for anywhere whatsoever. It's true there's nothing wrong with the redirects-- they're just incredibly superfluous and not a one will probably ever see a hit. I don't have any intention on requesting deletes out of semantics-- waste of everyone's time.... If I ever see a new article on NPP using the street name wikified under suggestion a place it notable because it's on that street? Different story. I'm just oddly particular about precedence and wish we had a database for it, since it would spare troubles in later conflicts. Consensus can change of course, but a starting point is always good where possible Anyway, thanks for your consideration on the matter and helping me hit myself over the head with a hammer to remind myself that I've done enough RfD for one day. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Looking at my dynamic list of Many administrators. And noticed your name. then I saw your last edit, to see if you were still active and noticed you closed the ANI I was in. Good call.
I was interested in getting a copy of User:KPS4Parents transferred to User:Ikip/User:KPS4Parents or emailed to me. I know this is a user page, but it was not deleted by the user, it is a topic which was brought up to me by Collect discussed at User_talk:Collect#Odd_Mfd.3F. Ikip ( talk) 01:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
For confirming my opinion of the article which was so quickly deleted and my concern that those who deleted it were not acting in accord with reasonable courtesy to new editors! Collect ( talk) 12:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the good questions at my RfA, and for the words of support. I'll take it slowly, it'll be a while until I get to Colorado balloon incident levels of boldness in my admin actions. Fences& Windows 22:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Bravo. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 07:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could possibly userfy User:GVK BIO to User:Marcusmax/Sandbox 2. Thanks - Marcusmax( speak) 20:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
With regard to this edit of a protected page, could you please undo it? "Judgement" is the British English spelling and the article is written in British English; the spellings shouldn't be altered to the American versions per WP:ENGVAR. -- ChrisO ( talk) 01:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
[17] The article has been claimed as a British subject, with the Union Jack planted somewhere on the talk page, so Queen's English and Her spelling rule: therefore "judgement" the way they spell it. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 03:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for showing good judgment in restoring the proper spelling of judgement. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 05:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, do you think that this would technically prevent me from possibly participating in this, if it ever happened? I feel, for example, that I have been prevented from requesting enforcement of certain ArbCom sanctions because of that body's failure to clarify whether or not that would violate an interaction restriction. This would seem to be a related issue. -- Scjessey ( talk) 20:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Okay, twelve days later still waiting and seeing. And freshly accused yet again of the above being an Arbcom sanctions violation, both on this page [18] and on another administrator's page [19] where I am also called a "POV pusher" with a "leftist agenda". The stay-away order would seem to preclude me from responding directly even when personally accused. Would you consider contacting Arbcom about this, either informally or to file a request for clarification or enforcement? Also, it would be helpful to let John Carter know that this accusation is without reasonable basis. This is most unfortunate, and I hope it can stop. - Wikidemon ( talk) 10:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Bigtimepeace, it recently came to my attention that a page I have submitted about hBar Lab has been remove by you. The reason being that "Article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject".
I agree that the page under discussion is about hBar Lab, a commercial web service and maybe that the importance of such a web service has not been underlined properly. However, I can easily find in wikipedia, similar pages of commercial companies/products. For example, why the following pages are still visible, if hBar Lab has been removed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomistix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelrys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_(software) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAGUAR
I would like to underline, that hBar Lab is probably first web service in the world for the calculation of molecular properties. It's concept is disruptive and innovative and the software would allow universities and companies to speed up their research and reduce R&D costs. Which by the end, it will end in shorter time to market for new drugs which could safe the life of people. For this reason it would be nice if you could re-consider your decision.
Hope you could re-consider your decision.
Kind Regards
hbarlab —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbarlab ( talk • contribs) 10:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Unable to resist bacon's temptations, rogue editors have kicked off the Bacon Challenge 2010 before the New Year even starts! This is a fun and collegial event and all are welcome. There are many non-pork articles for editors who enjoy some sizzle, but object to or don't like messing with pig products. This year's event also includes a Bacon WikiCup 2010 for those who may want to keep score and enjoy engaging in friendly competition. Given the critical importance of this subject matter, I know you will want to participate, so remember to sign up today and get started A.S.A.P.
Also, if there are any editors that I am unable to notify about this event, please let them know that they are most welcome to participate. It is located in my userspace only as a convenience, and if I need to move it somewhere else for their benefit I would be more than happy to do so. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Bigtimepeace: Thanks for your comment on the Dawood article. While I understand that some of the new information is portions of news/other articles but please also I've mentioned them as quotes from newspapers (which are copied as it is) and have also refernced the source appropriately, in which case, they can't be termed as copyright violations. If you think that there is any copyvio, please correct that portion of the article and/or reword it and/or summarize it but please don't delete information because information regarding Don Dawood's early years and criminal-career is scarce and is very difficult to find. However, I've worked hard and collected information from many, many different sources and referenced them appropriately so that any Wikipedian is able to get any/all info. regarding Dawood very easily. As such, I'm reverting your edit. I hope you will understand. Thanks. -- Bugnot ( talk) 22:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, I will try to do my best to reword the article as you have mentioned but please don't delete the info completely due to the reasons mentioned above. Thanks -- Bugnot ( talk) 22:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Would you object if I either prodded or re-start the AFD. Maybe if there is strong anti-merge sentiment, keep is the decision. Or it may be delete. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 00:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Is 10 months sufficient time to relist a AFD? Not too soon, correct? Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 00:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Bigtimepeace, I have to go to bed. Please don't think that I am fighting you. I just wanted to clarify the process, that's all. In all likelihood, your West Baltimore article will remain nice and neat, just like you want it! And the process question will probably be resolved in 2-3 hours, certainly not more than a day! Don't worry! Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 01:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The Discussion Barnstar | ||
Awarded to Bigtimepeace for calm discussion to try to resolve a policy and practical matter without resorting to name calling or unrelated accusations Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 02:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC) |
I received your message. Calling someone borderline disruptive can hurt people's feelings. Some editors might feel that it is accusatory, not borderline.
While you seem opposed to contacting other editors, this has been useful. An editor that I contacted did not fight on AN but did point out that the editors who edit the target of a merge may be unhappy if merged contents are added. Both editors that I contacted were reasonable editors, not POV pushers.
Another unaddressed point is the whole question of the AN discussion. If an AFD is decided as merge, the decision should be followed. The instructions say to use deletion review if one disagrees. The instructions do not say to ignore the results or to allow a 2nd AFD. Allowing a revote occasionally happens in life so having it as a policy proposal would not be unheard of.
The West Baltimore article is essentially unchanged since February so one may think that the merge decision still stands. Only if there are changes, could deletion/reversion of the merge material be considered.
There is the danger that AFD could be decided as merged as a ploy for deletion. For example, the Balloon Boy incident was hotly debated. It was decided as keep. A manipulative person wanting deletion but thinking that a delete decision could be challenged could make the decision of merge to Colorado, knowing very well that the Colorado editors could try to delete it. Maybe the target article editors should have the right to send the merge back to AFD to decide whether to keep or delete and reject merge. That would be reasonable and would happen to probably only 0.5% to 1% of AFD, so it wouldn't increase workload much.
So the conclusion of the AN section/post was that I want to let the West Baltimore matter rest and go either way but that the correct procedure remains unresolved. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 16:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Solution!
After thinking it over, I think the best way is for the adminstrator to "ask" the object/target of the proposed merged if they are willing to take it, particularly if there is some doubt. If they take some of it, then merge is ok. If they don't want any of it, then the administrator can take that into account about whether to keep or delete. The administrator can "ask" the receiving talk page maybe 2 days before closing. This doesn't have to be policy but just common courtesy that is optional for the administrator. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 20:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes sir, I was wondering if you could email me the old log of the article that is mentioned in this URL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Curtis_Loftis
Thank you -- ForrrestMaster ( talk) 18:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
My post on Presidency of Barack Obama is not vandalism. The awarding to him of the Nobel Peace Prize is highly controversial, so I mentioned that fact in the article. I put a reference to a reputable website ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html), so this information is obviously true. Stating true information is not vandalism. 173.60.201.35 ( talk) 07:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
You're right about the redirect and lack of need for speedy deletion, I should have thought of that and will try to remember it for the future. Thanks -- Glenfarclas ( talk) 23:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. 198.168.103.254 needs to be blocked for persistent vandalism. Thanks for your time.-- Freshfighter9 ( talk) 17:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Bigtimepeace; Is there any way you have the time and would be willing to spend some of it on this article in a no ANI, no RFC/RFC/U, or other dramatized way? I know it is quite something I'm asking you for but my post on ANI where I tried to just get one single admin's attention to do so before it would escalate into a big drama (and as I expected it is happening by now). Your that kind of admin who IMO always tried to calm things down before they escalated and that's the reason I'm asking you now (also I know by now I should've done it this way in the first place). I don't want to give you cherry-picked diffs but sure I should give you some (diffs) to threads and pages that are by now part of the whole mess. The article's and talk page's history are of course a given so here are some others: At ANI: [[ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#PilgrimRose and Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher: Some admin with time on hand out there before it's getting out of hand?; PilgrimRose's talk page history; Rturus's talk page history; AniMate's talkpage where you find some ANI related thread (please forgive my huge mistakes in spelling and grammar over there) and at LeadSongDog, a seemly nice fellow where you can also find some diffs. (List might be not up to date as I didn't have the time to check on today's changes). So anyways, if you're up to it great, if not I'll understand. thanks for reading and Happy Holydays, The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 20:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I am rather disappointed by your resolution to this ANI. It seems to me that you have totally failed to recognise my attempts to placate PilgrimRose and paid no attention to her persistent character assassination of me. I have posted something here on my talk page and I would be grateful if you could spare the time to review what I have written and I would appreciate any comments. I really don't want to be seen as some pedant who drags things on and on but I also don't see why PilgrimRose should be allowed to indulge in character assassination of me with no rebuke, restitution or even a comment. Obviously I wouldn't really want to start a RfC/U but I am at a loss - should I just "suck it up" and "take one for the team"? When an editor uses a "refactoring" to misquote another editor and make a character attack, surely that is "rude, manipulative and disingenuous"? Am I wrong to ask an editor to retract a deliberate falsehood? How can my objection to her character assassination be an insult or attack? Are there other words for "rude, manipulative and disingenuous" that they wouldn't take as an insult? I really would value your opinion here if you can spare the time to fully read my post on my talk page and the diffs that I have referenced, thanks. rturus ( talk) 16:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
hello,
you delated the text on O B. But it's a very important case in Europe, involving France and Hungary
http://www.sarkozynicolas.com/ophelie-bretnacher/ Raymondnivet (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC) I wrote it again
Best regards -- Raymondnivet ( talk) 10:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for you answer : . In addition I would like to come back on the sentence of Hell In a bucket: “One day your article might get there, that time is not now” and make additional comments: Without wiki, the only information which are provided today are via journalists without double-checking who can often report bias or wrong information : WIKI is the only universal place where the information can be challenged, crossed-checked, summarized, stabilised and updated on a reliable manner. In Hungary the main source of information on the case are tabloids like Blikk and Bors. They are totally unreliable, only interested in selling paper rather than to report facts and truth, keeping Hungarian people totally away from the truth (Hungarian newspapers launched crazy accusations on Italian students pretending to be in close relation with the Hungarian police. These crazy accusations were translated by google and spread also in France). And this is just an example of the fact that once such a bi-national case is only reported by journalists, some stabilisation (certification) has to be done somewhere reachable from everybody : WIKIPEDIA is this only place, and the current exchange between us is the proof of that. And this “authentic information safeguarding” has to be done now, not in five years. This is not a Franco-French case, but a French-Hungarian case and de facto an European case. Given the constraint of Hungarian language, the article in English language (the only single vector of communication within Europe, where French is maybe better than Hungarian but totally surpassed by English) is essential to keep quality of information at the same level in Hungary and France and reachable to the community of ERASMUS, for whom it is a notable case. It was asked to the members of European parliament to make a minute of silence when the death of Ophélie was announced. European promoters are uncomfortable with this case because it is a symbol of collateral damages of European construction : ERASMUS has been implemented to facilitate the student mobility within Europe but when a problem appears (such as Ophélie case), the former way of doing “business” in Europe is going on : no justice cooperation between countries, administrative nightmare for the victims, predominance of diplomatic agenda over the human rights and for the European new entrants of the EU, going on with communist way of doing justice and human rights. That is why this case is notable at European level, because it is collateral damage of European construction. My last point will be regarding the free encyclopaedia principle of WIKI. As seen in “1984” of Georges Ornwel or in the movie “Brazil”, you know how information control is important for countries in deficit of democracy. You know that even our own countries (USA and France) are able to use information as a tool to do borderline things in term of democracy. You know that former communist countries are still in a process of learning democracy, even those which are already part of the EU. Former communist countries are marketing themselves as safe and modern places to get the money from rich Western countries through tourism, investment and any other business. The case Ophélie is part of that, it is also notable for that reason. It is not one of the numerous disappearance case, but it is a similar case to the one in Croatia with the Australian girl Britt Lapthorne whose story was very similar and close to a diplomatic incident between Australia and Croatia (For Ophélie it was also close to the diplomatic incident and the family had to visit the Hungarian embassy in Paris on January 11, 2009 at the end of its March for Ophélie” in order to show that the actions were was not against Hungary but simply for Ophélie). Here Wikipedia is providing what democracy has been waiting for decades, a way to guaranty that information is not manipulated but simply made reachable and reliable for anybody. Regarding the figures when you compare to other cases in Anglo-Saxon countries, don’t forget that France and Hungary lag behind these countries in term of internet usage, and the case Ophélie was forecast in prime time on all the national TV in Hungary and in France during the winter 08-09. You are probably right, maybe the article need to be re-worked to emphasised better the reason why it is notable. And anyway, the exchange we had are the proof that the quality of the information will be permanently challenged on Wikipedia Raymondnivet ( talk) 21:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot ( talk) 04:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Do not worry about having bothered me about this. The one obstacle I can see, potentially, is finding the two people who have attempted to resolve a single dispute with CoM, as is part of the minimum requirements of an RfCU. The best thing I can propose is to basically watch the various noticeboads (which I already do) and see when and if problematic behavior appears again. At that point, just request that one or two (depending on whehter you want to be involved or not) admins or mediators try to step in and resolve the issue, or maybe file a Wikiquette Alert. At this point, it probably would be somewhat unfair to just bring up a laundry list of prior actions, without having a current situation to specifically point to which meets the minimum requirements. If that is what you choose to do, you may well find that the draft page gets nominated for deletion at some point, if no incident occurs quickly, perhaps as some form of lingering threat should CoM ever misbehave again. Should that happen, I'm not sure what to say, other than maybe it might be possible to copy onto disk or into e-mail for future use. John Carter ( talk) 14:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
RE: [20] (Your comments above)
Bigtimepeace, I really enjoyed your comments. Although I agree with your asessment that scholars will be studying the "giano" case for years to come, and thought this was extremely insightful, I don't think you needed to inflate Giano's ego anymore that it may already be by saying this. I maybe completely wrong, but I suspect editors like Giano and ChildofMidnight actively seek out conflicts and attention, and enjoy being in the central issue in an argument.
That said, here you go:
The Socratic Barnstar | ||
This Socratic Barnstar is awared to Bigtimepeace for his extremely skilled and eloquent arguments. Ikip 22:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC) |
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Best Wishes for the Holidays, Jusdafax 06:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Bigtimepeace. LeadSongDog believes you may still be watching the dispute on the Kercher article. If you do, maybe you could take a look at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikid77 to see what sanctions you can recommend. (The checkuser findings are in, and only the blocking decision remains). EdJohnston ( talk) 21:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Responded. Please don't say things like that in an ArbCom case unless you are going to back it up with concrete evidence. It's basically reinforcing the misrepresentations made by That Guy, who has again forced me to defend myself unnecessarily. -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Just to comment here, I've noticed the request to amend but I'm avoiding it. I am unhappy being accused of bad faith there, and more before a more relevant audience elsewhere. [22] This seems to be getting worse, without any action from me, but I don't see what good can come out of my participation. Without getting into the details I think lifting the 1RR restriction would be a bad idea in Sceptre's case and Stevertigo's. Because Scjessey has not asked for relief I won't comment there. He could possibly avoid further criticism by asking his name to be withdrawn. In fact, the most graceful thing to do would be for Sceptre to withdraw the entire request because I don't think a good case has been made. - Wikidemon ( talk) 22:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I notice another ArbCom filing in which I am indirectly mentioned. [23] I want to avoid participating in or commenting on this one in particular, if that is all possible. I cannot foresee any good coming of it, and I wonder if Sceptre might be encouraged to withdraw it lest things get out of hand. There are a couple mistaken assumptions that seem to have crept in but are not really there in the standing interaction bans. First, the parties have not been enjoined from mentioning each other, even by name. The subject of most of my earlier requests for clarification and enforcement was some rather distressing name-calling, and to my chagrin Arbcom has not come out with a clear statement on this. Second, there is no prohibition on commenting and interacting before Arbcom itself. Again, the subject was raised, opinions differed, and Arbcom did not clarify. On both fronts Arbcom ought to issue a clarification before it enforces an as-yet unstated interpretation of the policy that it has had ample opportunity to address. Better yet, this should not be an issue at all because I don't see why the parties need to be concerned with each other at all. Anyway, if it comes to it and my participation gets brought up again, I'm wondering if you could convey for the record that I have declined to become involved, and perhaps try to encourage the parties not to drag me into it? Thanks, - Wikidemon ( talk) 01:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Haha, I was looking at recent changes, with my finger on the rollback button. Here's a houseplant to liven the place up some. Drmies ( talk) 05:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
<outdent> If you think saying we are not censored or that we shouldn't act as censors is a personal attack, you are welcome to take the issue to an admin board and seek out a consensus that certain words are verboten. Your position in and of itself is a form of censorship. You're saying that certain words aren't okay even when used generally to discuss article contents. I think your position is outrageous and wrong. When censorship is going on I refuse to be compelled to use another word for it than the one that has a defined meaning that describes it. You continue to assume bad faith on me when all I've done is repeatedly point out policy and suggest ways to abide by it and asked very reasonable questions about where notable criticisms about Obama policies should be included in the encyclopedia, a question you've never answered. You've also assumed bad faith and made attacks on another editor you disagree with. This is unacceptable.
If you wish to put yourself in league with censorship that's on you. I don't share your personal interpretation of policies based on logical extensions and some kind of allusion. The policies are clear. I expect you to abide them. Do not attack and threaten good faith editors who don't happen to share your personal interpretations and perspectives. I've gone over this with you repeatedly and I want to return my focus to editing articles and improving the encyclopedia. You've refused to help address the censorship problem and I think I've been more than patient enough with your verbiage. Wikipedia is NOT censored. We don't omit notable content and notable controversies and notabile criticisms because some people find them personally objectionable. End of story. STOP YOUR THREATS. Thanks. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 15:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
For building a great wall. There's a socialism pun in there somewhere. I hear you on the length issue. Grundle has complained that he/his contributions are not taken seriously. He and other editors have complained that Wiki policy is wielded as a fallback by a clique who can't deal with "the facts". I'm addressing the facts. Presumably Grundle is invested enough in this issue to read what I wrote; I didn't write this for anybody who is uninterested in the topic or in the outcome of this discussion. He needs to have the patience to read and understand and process more than a few headlines. As to blog, I suppose I didn't need to disclose the heritage of the cars I've owned, but people wonder what one another's personal relationship to the topic is. Every paragraph is in service of facts that are germane to the three issues at hand, the first being a look forward at Obama's CAFE standards and vehicular deaths from 2011 through 2016 (as 2010 models are already just around the corner...); the second being Grundle's contradiction in damning Obama for seizing the moment and taking the very steps necessary to rectify the historical failures and recalcitrance of the U.S. automotive industry Grundle also damns, at precisely the moment he has the greatest influence on them with the public investment in them, which is yet another thing Grundle damns; and the third being Grundle's propensity in the vast majority of his edits to gravitate towards the most damning quotes of others, surely in part because of a shared personal bias but perhaps oblivious to their poor relationship to facts. Quite honestly, it would take me longer to write a briefer piece than it does to write a longer one. Quite a bit longer than it takes five people to read it.
Speaking of the Chinese, did you know the most popular and prestigious foreign car there is the Buick? Abrazame ( talk) 06:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Bigtimepeace, I'm fairly certain we've never interacted before. I'm a new admin (as of last week, but I have hung out around the NewPage Patrol and some WikiProjects for a few years now.
I hate drama in all its forms. I make this clear to those I know in real life, to the point of belittling those who contribute to it (which I have civilly not done on Wikipedia), and I have been trying to make it clear here. Far too many man hours are wasted bickering over pointless, trivial, or petty things, and the fact that many Administrators do this is almost tragic, given that this category is chronically populated from what I have seen.
Your handling of this incident was refreshing. You made it clear from the get-go what your intentions were, despite the fact that your position could be twisted to depict you in a negative light. You (seemingly) carefully phrased your comments to make it clear that you were not necessarily "with" this or that group or "against" some other group. When badgered, you asserted your position but did not attack. When you wanted to specifically address the user in question, you posted a well-thought-out message on the user's talk page. When you made an incorrect assumption, you apologized. (forgive me for not digging out the difs :-D)
While I may not necessarily agreed with everything you had to say, I'm glad to see that there are admins like you on Wikipedia. Unfortunately there's no "AntiDrama" barnstar (yet :-D) but consider this one well-deserved:
Civility Award | ||
For dealing with a potentially ugly debate in a most professional and admirable manner. RunningOnBrains( talk page) 03:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
Thank you for participating in my
"RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (
Ceoil,
Noroton and
Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read
Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ace of Spades HQ. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace of Spades HQ (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.
If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here
Please put all discussion here. Peter Damian ( talk) 10:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could reconsider your decline of speedy on For the Love of Ray J (season 2). The single reference is an advertisement for a casting call. If you still feel the same, no big deal, as I can take it to AFD. Thanks! Plastikspork ( talk) 14:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations! You've won first prize in the "A sock puppet, meat puppet and Jimbo walk into a bar ..." sweepstakes! See here for details. Paul August ☎ 16:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads-up. I have submitted a statement. -- Scjessey ( talk) 21:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The close of this discussion seems unsatisfactory as your comments are quite tentative - "bit of a tough call ... not really ... not sure". Please note the emphatic guidance of WP:DGFA, "When in doubt, don't delete" and reconsider your close. Colonel Warden ( talk) 07:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I get very tired of being lumped into the "liberal bias" chant. Back in September, I was helping to defend the Palin article against POV-pushing marauders, just as I did for the Obama article that wretched night of March 8/9 of this year, against editors whose complaint basically was (and still is) that "there's not enough criticism" of the subject, that being their personal definition of "NPOV". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I should point out that I actually got mostly compliments for helping defend Palin, and mostly criticism for helping to defend Obama. So much for "liberal bias" here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the main problem is that the editor has become burned out and sees conflicts everywhere. To the point, the editor sees everyone who does not agree with his edits on political articles as liberal/POV pushers/etc. More then one person has suggested to them that they take some time off and step away from the project. I feel that this is the only way for the editor to be able to see what other editors have been saying and come back with a clear head and a willing attitude to work with others. What are your thoughts? Brothejr ( talk) 23:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to type up such a detailed rationale. Though it's not my preferred result, I'm appreciative for the thought you put into your decision. Cheers, – Juliancolton | Talk 05:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
For those of you who signed up early, Wiki-Conference New York has been confirmed for the weekend of July 25-26 at New York University, and we have Jimmy Wales signed on as a keynote speaker.
There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session.
Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up
here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 03:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
In fact I had no idea about a request at WP:ANI when I left the remark. I had seen CoM's request on User:A.K.Nole's talk page and was aware of CoM's mathematical trolling (it cannot be described in any other way) on Talk:Butcher group here [4]. The article has been edited by other mathematical editors who have not borne out in any way CoM's insulting remarks there. I have been sleeping here in France. Mathsci ( talk) 04:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
You've been making a variety of anti-me comments on ANI, with (as far as I can tell) declaring our past history. I can't recall the details, but I think I remember it wasn't pleasant. Persons reading your comments without knowing that might feel they weren't getting the full picture. If you can't dig it uip, I'll have to William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Your use of "inscrutable" when closing a thread on the Obama talk page is unfortunate, as it appears to my eye that the user whose rant you rolled up was likely Asian. As you may know, the stereotype of the inscruable Oriental has a long history and might even be considered racist. I am not casting aspersions on your motives for using the word, but perhaps you might consider another jab at the thesaurus to come up with a word that doesn´t have so much baggage.-- 98.230.0.33 ( talk) 16:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Bigtimepeace. I don't think there's anything to be done, but I just wanted to let you know that this AfD was likely the result of a banned user evading their ban. See my comment at Talk:List of NME covers#Sock puppetry. Best, Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Would also appreciate rationale for speedy deletion. Thanks! Soniclude ( talk) 00:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! -- Jayron32. talk. say no to drama 21:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary states indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:
Again, thank you for making this event a success! -- Jayron32. talk. say no to drama 02:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The Anti-Drama Barnstar | ||
Thank you for participating in The Great Wikipedia Dramaout 2009, avoiding drama for a full 5 days!-- The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC) |
I have responded on both the Talk:Glenn Beck and Talk:Cleon Skousen pages. I may not be able to put forth anything more until next week, though. -- Hardindr ( talk) 03:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
:) 86.44.31.124 ( talk) 04:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note, as my responses on my talk page are already hideously oversized. I'm not putting you on that I disagree with people all the time. LadyofShalott and I had a vigorous disagreement over my making two good faith copy-edits on an article talk page, and I remain 100% convinced to this day that on a collaborative wiki that type of corrective fix is helpful and important. GTBacchus and I remain totally at odds over the handling of a difficult but immensely valuable and prolific editor, and over whether the use of extensive discussion is conducive to encyclopedia building. Drmies is a communist. And DGG and I disagree on many aspects of notability as well as political perspectives, but he's the admin I respect the most for his diligence and inexhaustable efforts, even though he's a bit curmudgeonly for my liking. :) So there you go. I'm not one for going along to get along or cabal building. I think frank discussion, respect, and courtesy are core values of encyclopedia building. And I don't hold grudges against those who disagree with me as long as they do so respectfully. Thanks again for your help. Take care and have fun. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 05:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, have to say that is quite a shame. I would think that such a clear pattern of prodding the edges of the topic ban, and 2 similar "watch it, you're breaking your restrictions here" warnings within the last month have gone unheeded would be sufficient to warrant at least paltry 24h timeout. It is never about what was done, never an acceptance of responsibility, it is always the others that are the big and nasty oppressive Cabal of Doom. Note the coda on both your talk page and on the AN/I, calling for a block of myself, Aitias, Arcayne and Baseball Bugs for "disruption and policy violating behaviors", because we dare to voice support of an ArbCom restriction. The horror! This is the same road that the likes of Betacommand and ScienceApologist go down; good editing is allowed to excuse bad behavior. I have little doubt we'll be reinventing this wheel again when CoM has another oops! did I do that? moment in yet another article within the topic area. Cheers. Tarc ( talk) 13:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Geoff - could you have a look at Ann Dunham please? Cladeal832 has made a change in her place of birth and removed material about her father without discussion, making the change 3 times yesterday on that page alone and also in several other articles. I asked that he wait for discussion and consensus, but he just repeated his argument and then unilaterally made the change. I don't know where she was born, but I know that webofdeception.com is not a reliable source. And his argument seems to me to verge on OR. I have to look back, but I think we had the wording for a while stating that sources give different places of birth for her - and that's ok with me if indeed reliable sources do - but it seems to me that it's not ok for one editor to unilaterally make changes when they are questioned, especially in an article that's part of the article probation arrangement. So, a word from you might be helpful. I left a note on his page here (also see his history on that page) and the relevant non-discussion is at Talk:Ann Dunham#Birthplace; the changes he made are here, here, nd here in this article. Thanks Tvoz/ talk 08:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your constructive comments on the David Fuchs related ANI thread. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 22:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Another edit to Gerald Walpin?. I have one foot out the door...an extra-long weekend getaway...not alot of time to dig, but I am fairly certain that our buddy's ArbCom restriction on Obama-related topics is still in effect. If you have a moment, can you take a peek? Tarc ( talk) 19:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know about the ArbCom clarification. It has completely taken me by surprise, as I had assumed (and I believe quite rightly) that the sanctions were meant to run concurrently. If it is confirmed that they are supposed to run successively, I will absolutely be appealing. It was already an excessive punishment that did not seem to have anything to do with the facts, but this new issue is shocking. -- Scjessey ( talk) 00:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
You have been involved in Arbcom enforcement discussions on my talk page, in ANI discussions, and on the Arbcom page. Saying you aren't involved in enforcing the remedies is silliness.
You say you've "refrained from responding" to "accusations" against you, even as you make accusations and attacks against me. You've been relentlessly on the attack with me on various boards for a long time now. You make comments like "I think what you are saying is nonsense."
Statements like "Whatever it is you're talking about (or possibly misremembering)" are also antagonistic. If you want to know what I'm talking about just ask.
You say I'm "ignoring" your point and "unwilling to engage" (borderline personal attacks according to your standards) even though I responded quite clearly to your point saying: "Suggesting that editors are not allowed to comment on censorship, harassment and NPOV violations at a noticeboard is ridiculous." I didn't make any personal attacks at ANI, but I provided numerous diffs of personal attacks against me. I haven't seen any actions taken yet based on them and I'm not holding my breath. That editor has been warned repeatedly.
I noted that I think you act in good faith, but acting improperly and inappropriately is still a problem when it's done in good faith. "So what exactly is the issue?" That is the issue.
You also say, "There is still confusion about the ArbCom remedies," yet even when they are clarified and you can see you made a mistake in interpreting them you don't adjust your behavior or take any corrective action. Why is it so hard for you to apologize for mistakes you've made? Instead you simply move on to new arguments and attacks.
You say I "have admittedly violated them" after I acknowledged that I ONCE made an edit I shouldn't have, adding a link. Instead of respecting my willingness to recognize where I made a mistake, you use it to attack me. Compare my actions to how you've behaved even after an Arbcom points out that you've been in the wrong on the remedies. Instead of acknowledging your mistake, you continue going on the attack with new arguments. I suggest to you that making an effort to correct your mistakes, apologizing would be a good start, would be a better approach. When a bad block is made, don't try and work out a new rationale for it, correct it.
You are not fair or impartial, and your insistence on seeing things your way is unfortunate. You did the same thing with Grundle, and are obviously so passionate about your personal opinions and politics that you are unable to accept other people's viewpoints as having merit and validity.
As I indicated previously, I'd like to return to article contributions now. That's what I'm here for. That's why I generally avoid reporting stuff I see, like Sarek's abusive behavior on his talk page, unless it's particularly egregious. Your behavior is pretty egregious, so I'm pointing it out to you. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
There are more than a few inaccuracies in your statement:
Perhaps it would be best for you to let this alone for awhile and wait to hear from the Arbs. That's my plan, and I don't really have anything else to say to you at the moment. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Bongo matic 23:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
He IS a Bigot. He first engages in blatantly anti-Atheist commentary, then expands it to Anti-semitic commentary. ThuranX ( talk) 05:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Please note that the restriction you imposed does not fall under Obama probation, so any appeals may not be granted by you - they'd require a community consensus or ArbCom intervention. I've explained the reasons of principle further at the ANI. In line with good faith, I believe this was a mistake rather than something more deliberate, and have reversed your logging accordingly. If you would like me to explain this further, please let me know. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 08:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I have a request for clarification with regard to Obama article probation and the Gatesgate/" beer summit" article (more properly the Henry Louis Gates arrest incident); for example, specifically, Are discussions about the White House get together with officer Gates, Obama's friend Professor Gates and the president subject to its strictures? We are discussing this matter here ( Talk:Henry Louis Gates arrest incident#Note: Features of "Obama article probation" that pertain to this page); and, since you're no doubt the premier admin involved with Obama article probation issues, if you'd be able to chime in on our discussion I think your input would be greatly valued and appreciated. ↜Just M E here , now 14:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I have read your comment, but as I am interested to see if other people know or care about this (to me) puzzeling issue I rather not write anything on the BPP discussion page right now. And perhaps your scepticism about her importance for the party goes too far. At least in France and Germany she was incredibly popular, Eldridge Cleaver and Kathleen Cleaver were heroes here for a hard hard-core of leftists, like the later RZ founders, but Davis put the black liberation struggle and the BPP on the map, Which may have saved her but also Abu Jamal.-- Radh ( talk) 14:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I had previously posted this info on User talk:Versageek and User talk:Jpgordon, whom I think are checkusers. This is FYI in case you didn't already know:
The account Childof12AM ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious impostor of User:ChildofMidnight. He shows no contribs [9] because his attempts to edit my page (and presumably to stir something up) were blocked. I just wonder if this is part of the Liebman family of socks, or if its coming from somewhere else, like maybe the Pioneercourthouse sockfarm? Those are the most obvious possibilities that come to mind. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
And another impostor, calling himself BBBfan ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) turned up, also trying to foment trouble, i.e. to interfere with the contact ban between me and User:ChildofMidnight. I'm suspicious of Pioneercourthouse, just because he's also been active in the last couple of days. However, PCH is jumping from one country to another with his IP's, so there's probably not much that can be done there except to whack the moles as they pop up. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I accidentally set my big timepiece down on orange peelings the other day. I took it to the repair shop. The guy asked me what happened. I told him it was a watch on the rind. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for taking a look into WP:WQA#William S. Saturn and his tendentious editing. I would have commented there that the filing seems to be redundant and in the wrong venue, but the presence of another editor who I'm not supposed to interact with, and your request to hold back, probably mean that I'll stay away. I want to point out a little background, in case you haven't made the connection. That the editor has been uncivil is pretty obvious. But that's the tip of the iceberg. The bigger issue is repeated edit warring, fringe-y content additions, and messy meta-discussions. They've been to AN/I a few times, with the Obama arbitration parties squaring off on either side, which resulted in blocks, which in turn relates to the (uncharacteristically hasty, in my opinion) stay-away order you recently brokered. Perhaps the parties who just came out of Arbcom have nobody to blame but themselves when they continue to get into arguments. However, I think this poor editor is a victim of someone else's editing disputes. Sure, they are a long-time editor engaging in behavioral violations. But in the chaos, nobody has taken the time to patiently counsel this editor, set some expectations about the limits of civility, and so on. So I don't think they've had a proper chance to acclimate to the Obama pages. This reminds me of the early days with User:Grundle2600, who was capable of causing real trouble but also a very decent chap capable of listening and being friendly and collegial. I sense that this editor too is sincere and well-meaning. If people can get past his content position, which is apparent approval of some fringe political theories, I think he has a chance and shouldn't be written off. You'll see that when he actually explained his specific objections on the Birther page, I personally agreed with about half of them. However, I also observe that he's being coached and incited to be combative. I brought all this up in my request for clarification. [10] Hope this helps. Wikidemon ( talk) 18:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for notifying my about the discussion!
I'd like to get the text of 8 articles that were recently deleted, just for personal use. I was told I should ask the admin who deleted them This was for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Grantville_Gazette_IV I will watch here for a reply. Hope you can help. Tkech ( talk) 22:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
RE: [11] Thank you for your comments. They were timely and spot on. As you know, I was one of those editors that Connolley blocked. I was appalled at how flippant he was with the rules. It really made me think there were two classes of editors. Thanks again. Ikip ( talk) 20:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC) I've held off commenting on that case (mainly because I did not care to be involved), but I quite dislike the notion that "difficult articles" (nationalist disputes, conspiracy theory-related topics, etc.) require the kind of admin behavior that WMC regularly exhibits. I was just dropping by to check on the status of the proposed decision and felt obligated to leave a note on that particular talk page thread, though I doubt it will have much of an effect on anyone. The Arbs seem extremely split (to an abnormal degree) on what to do about Connolley, so the ultimate remedy might well end up being less restrictive than I would like (I'd be fine with even a temporary desysopping, though I understand the view that those are bad ideas in general). Even if WMC gets off relatively easy in this case, I think the problem with his approach to adminship is now abundantly clear. Either he adjusts course and stops the cowboy adminship (that's my preferred option—I know he has a lot to contribute to the project), or we'll be back at ArbCom at some point in the future due to another bad block (or whatever), at which point a desysop will be inevitable.
Incidentally I noticed in your evidence (somewhere) you listed BernardL as an admin. I'm 99% sure he isn't one. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, an editor, Jayen466, is insisting with have three references to the same press release including mention in the lead, a large quotebox, and now this [12]. While he brought up the topic on the talk page here, instead of waiting, he just put in the information that's disputed. Perhaps a polite warning is due given his single minded focus on reintroducing the same fact over and over. Nobody is saying it should not be in the article, but there's an issue of weight and process here. He's spoiling for an edit war and if you read the comment from other editors in that section, there really is disagreement about his POV. Mattnad ( talk) 21:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, if there's anything redeemable in Ultraviolence (band), could you dump it into User:Tarc/tmp? Came across some of my old gabber tapes the other day, might take a stab at getting it up to passable notability standards. Tarc ( talk) 20:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it has become clear that the environment on the Glenn Beck isn't suitable for collaborative, consensus editing or for that matter civil editing. As the admin in charge, do you think that the time has come for user conduct RFCs or Arbitration (as the RFC failed). Soxwon ( talk) 19:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
What vandalism? Gwen Gale ( talk) 19:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Meanwhile he's on his 4th unblock request. Gwen Gale ( talk) 21:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'm being paranoid, but isn't it weird that 4 new editors sign up within 2 hours of each other and all of them basically limit their commentary to the Glenn Beck talk page? Soxwon ( talk) 05:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Would you be interested in helping (or at least giving me pointers, online or by email) how to deal with Aaron Klein, famously the World Net Daily writer whose Jerusalem21 account was the focus of the whole Obama debacle? It seems pretty obvious that someone from his office continues to sock as an IP editor, and there is some bad blood. On the other hand, whatever his views on life he seems like a decent chap who just happens to have a lot of chutzpa and wants a name for himself, and if he really wants to be around on Wikipedia we could maybe bring him into the fold, lift the indefinite block, let bygones be bygones, and ask him to work with us in good spirits to get his article in good shape... If having a good article on Wikipedia indirectly leads to self-promotion, so be it. All articles should have that problem. As a model I've got a pretty good working relationship with the real-life Ted Frank (I saved his article from deletion and there had been some bad blood there in the past) when he notices a problem with his article. - Wikidemon ( talk) 06:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
As you participated at the above discussion, this is to let you know I've proposed an alternate wording (for reasons stated there). However, it is essentially the same proposal. If you have any objections to it, please note them down. Thank you, Ncmvocalist ( talk) 09:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Re, Supporters of traditional marriage in the United States, PROD removal,
Fair enough, I appreciate your reasoning; my worry is that it is such a vague title, and thus a magnet for original research. I'll have a think about it. Cheers, Chzz ► 23:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to say that I actully support and want the title "Supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States" back for the article I made. Orginally all this info was on the Same-sex Marriage in the United States article which caused undue weight so in result I made this topic (Which now has problems sadly wit hthe title and such). Anyways here is the talk: Talk:Supporters of marriage equality in the United States#Title renaming I would thank any help or input you could offer =). Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:56, 29 August 2009 (AT)
I sent you one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I take the degradation of the world's largest encyclopedia very seriously. Book burning, censorship, and bias promote ignorance and do real damage. I'm well aware of the history of the Nazis and it disgusts me that Wikipedia's admins, including yourself, and aribtration committee have chosen to follow a course of actions that is chilling to open discourse and does real harm to our cause. Undermining the good faith efforts of those who want to build a free, fair and open information source is obscene. That it is achieved with a campaign of harassment and intimidation is an outrage. Maybe you feel as though you weren't the one who lit the fire in this recent round, but you certainly helped in the round up and build up of the pile. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
As an admin, can you perhaps inform the discussion? Do you think a press release by his publisher/publicist touting his"candor" is a reliable source? I do not. Thanks Jimintheatl ( talk) 23:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on Talk:Glenn_Beck#Anti-Beck_spoof_website? We are getting more sources for this, and some are reliable. I'm very cautious on this material due to its defamatory nature. Seems one thing to put it in a news story, and another to put it in an encyclopedia. The intent of the meme is to spread it.. "do no harm" makes me pause. The legal aspects seem to be unique, though not sure if such would justify it in Beck's biography or in some ancillary article on trademark or domain name law. I did make a suggestion for an inclusion once we received better sources. Thanks for any guidance you could provide. Morphh (talk) 12:41, 03 October 2009 (UTC)
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 01:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why you have to be rude and leave message on my talk page when you could have simply left them in the discussion page. I didn't read your message I simply deleted it. If you want to talk met me in the discussion page in his article. Dumaka ( talk) 17:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.
You are receiving this notification as you participated in the administrators' noticeboard thread on the issue.
The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.
Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (
talk) 01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey BTP. I wasn't surprised by your comments supporting a dubious block against me. But I really must object to your smear that "ChildofMidnight writes a bunch of articles about strange food items and other off-beat topics and that's great..." Misrepresenting, demeaning and diminshing my contributions has been a regular meme from those going after me and I don't appreciate it coming from you.
I have made very substantial contributions on new page patrol, AfD, RfA, the noticeboards, and across a huge swath of articles on subjects great and small, often in collegial collaboration on difficult and disputed subjects. I deal with difficult editors all the time and have only had a recurring problem with one editor in particular and a small group of editors who share the same political ideology and disruptive approach to editing where they go after anyone who disagrees with them. They regularly engage in ad hominem attacks rather then focusing on the article content and sourcing issues and use policy and guidelines as a cudgel to harass other editors instead of working through disputes to resolve them accordign to our rules.
You have a different perspective, fine. But I am offended by your smear and minimization of my devoted article work. Take care. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 16:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from but I did see that the last warning the user was issued was a level four which led me to believe that I should then report him.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaelen S. ( talk • contribs)
I was just wondering what you think I should do to prepare if you don't think I am ready? Anything you can provide would be helpful.
P.S. I do believe that you as an administrator can delete my administrator request if I request that you do so, and since you think I am not prepared enough I would be fine with you removing it.
Regards, Gaelen S. Talk • Contribs 06:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I came across your remarks in reference to Cleon Skousen on the Glenn Beck talk page and agree with your rationale. In the coming days I am going to try to improve and expand Skousen's article and introduce a section on Beck's article in reference to his influence. Your collaboration, assistance, suggestions, and feedback is of course welcome and appreciated if you have the time. Nice to meet you. Redthoreau ( talk)RT 08:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Big, I am wondering if you'd like to help us redesign our discussion group to make it more compatible with the traditional wiki decision making processes? I was thinking that since most concerns are related to possible problems with WP:CANVASS you could help us design a wiki page, perhaps at Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Europe, which would eliminate the need to announce Wikipedia content discussions off wiki? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
So twice now you have warned me about making 2 reverts on the article. The 1st time I thought you were a little too quick with the warning and was a slightly peeved but this time I want to thank you. Your work on the article and (IMO more importantly) the talk page has been invaluable and is most appreciated. Moreover, in retrospect, your note on my talk page was exactly what I needed to push me to take a break and have a nice cup of Earl Grey. Thank you for being the voice of reason. Cheers. L0b0t ( talk) 15:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Some political stats from New Jersey (the state where I live)! ;^) ↜Just M E here , now 00:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I've read some of the exchanges you have had with Cptnono and the Glenn Beck article. As far as him editing to "make a point", read the most recent edits he has made and the corresponding edits on the talk page to get a feel for whether or not you think he is doing more of the same today. Let's just say that I'm not a fan of his ways of "communication". Thanks for looking into this. SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 03:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Because you did such a bang-up job with stepping in last week over what was happening in the Glenn Beck article, may I impose upon you to try and do more of the same in the same article - this time concerning reversion actions being taken by ObserverNY? The heavy-handedness of some editors of this article is starting to become more than annoying and ridiculous (IMO). For the most recent examples, please see the article's talk section entitled, "Break" (at the end of the section). Thanks. SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 20:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I am seeking your honest and frank opinion. Over three months have passed since I was given a topic ban on Obama-related articles for 6 months (although I voluntarily began avoiding these articles on June 1). Since then, I have tried to keep my nose clean, avoid drama, and remain a productive Wikipedian. I did get involved in a bit of argy-bargy at DreamHost (which involved another brief flirtation with ArbCom), but other than that it's been a relatively peaceful four months. I was wondering if you thought it would be worth my while appealing to ArbCom to have my topic ban either partially or fully lifted, on the basis of good behavior? I would still remain under the one-revert-per-week-per-page limitation, of course. What do you think? -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikis Take Manhattan
|
WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.
LAST YEAR'S EVENT
WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.
WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.
WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!
REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.
WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:
FOR UPDATES
Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.
Thanks,
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at
Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 20:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
Nice job of popping that balloon. Colonel Warden ( talk) 07:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC) |
While I supported deletion, that was an admirable closure, and the only proper one that an uninvolved administrator could make. As the cherry on top, it was well written. Happy editing to you. Keegan ( talk) 08:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Colorado balloon incident. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Prodego talk 16:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
This is to let you know of the above ANI - it is directly relevant (and refers) to this discussion where you participated. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 07:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you deleted Oshkosh Area United Way as "unambiguous advertising or promotion". When I encounter an article that seems to be advertising but which has a possibly notable subject, I prefer to cut it back to a neutral stub rather than tag it for neutral deletion. Some evidence of notability can be found in [ http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Oshkosh+Area+United+Way%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Search+Archives this Google News archive search[. -- Eastmain ( talk) 21:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
this [15] and this [16] at User talk:Jake Wartenberg#Request for examples of no-consensus deletions. I'd appreciate it. I posted responses on the Shankbone DRV talk page and at AFD. If you think I haven't done everything I could to answer any remaining concerns, feel free to tell me. JohnWBarber ( talk) 03:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
New York City Meetup |
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Wikipedia Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Wikipedia articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our
mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 03:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
You have a funny way of keeping your word Bigtimepeace. I could have sworn you promised to cease your abusive attacks, threats, and intimidation against me. I have done my best to avoid conversing and interacting with you because of your past behavior and per your request, but if you are going to launch slanderous attacks and distortions against me then I will, of course, have to respond. Do you want me to produce the diff where you noted your politics (therby disproving false claims at ANI)? Or the ones of your talk page history where you promised to stop coming after me? I think it would be better if we went our separate ways and focused on improving the encyclopedia. You do make article contributions don't you? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 04:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I asked you to refactor in the section above (titled "Please refactor"). Would you please do so? Would you please reply? JohnWBarber ( talk) 00:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've been having a conversation (via the article talk page and our own pages) with 220.101.28.25 over a source which he raised on the talk page. Essentially, this source (I think it's the Wall St Journal) gives an earlier time for the events than the WP article and (frankly, every) other news source I've seen. Obviously, with so much information coming out so quickly and the various corrections we've had to make (number of victims, number of shooters etc) it's important to make sure the source is accurate and the WP article is up to date. I wondered if you had an opinion? I'll put it here for your convenience HJMitchell You rang? 06:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
In the absence of anything else to support it and the overwhelming contradiction by every other news agency I've seen, I'm inclined to agree. Just thought it was worth raising. Thanks, HJMitchell You rang? 06:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The Socratic Barnstar | ||
For keeping your cool on this and other pages. Your level-headedness and civility is greatly appreciated. Happy Trails! Dr. Entropy ( talk) 00:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC) |
There's a request for comments on whether Wikipedia:Notability (news events) should be a guideline. As you've commented on AfD debates on articles that might be covered by this proposal, you might wish to comment here. Thanks. Fences& Windows 23:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't recall you being active in Waterboarding (at least recently), so perhaps you could be an uninvolved administrator here. Thanks, -- 4wajzkd02 ( talk) 19:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for a very eloquent comment. Very much a pleasant surprise that it came from you. Best regards, Durova 366 18:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
You managed to come up with the explanation for the situation I think I wish I could have thought up, and I do see the need to run them through RfD in bulk if needbe. In hindsight, I misinterpreted the purpose of the ANI as a "well should we not allow this (to avoid precedent)?" and that deletion would have been a aftereffect of making a statement quazi-officially adding to apparently growing desires to include every street for anywhere whatsoever. It's true there's nothing wrong with the redirects-- they're just incredibly superfluous and not a one will probably ever see a hit. I don't have any intention on requesting deletes out of semantics-- waste of everyone's time.... If I ever see a new article on NPP using the street name wikified under suggestion a place it notable because it's on that street? Different story. I'm just oddly particular about precedence and wish we had a database for it, since it would spare troubles in later conflicts. Consensus can change of course, but a starting point is always good where possible Anyway, thanks for your consideration on the matter and helping me hit myself over the head with a hammer to remind myself that I've done enough RfD for one day. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Looking at my dynamic list of Many administrators. And noticed your name. then I saw your last edit, to see if you were still active and noticed you closed the ANI I was in. Good call.
I was interested in getting a copy of User:KPS4Parents transferred to User:Ikip/User:KPS4Parents or emailed to me. I know this is a user page, but it was not deleted by the user, it is a topic which was brought up to me by Collect discussed at User_talk:Collect#Odd_Mfd.3F. Ikip ( talk) 01:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
For confirming my opinion of the article which was so quickly deleted and my concern that those who deleted it were not acting in accord with reasonable courtesy to new editors! Collect ( talk) 12:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the good questions at my RfA, and for the words of support. I'll take it slowly, it'll be a while until I get to Colorado balloon incident levels of boldness in my admin actions. Fences& Windows 22:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Bravo. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 07:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could possibly userfy User:GVK BIO to User:Marcusmax/Sandbox 2. Thanks - Marcusmax( speak) 20:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
With regard to this edit of a protected page, could you please undo it? "Judgement" is the British English spelling and the article is written in British English; the spellings shouldn't be altered to the American versions per WP:ENGVAR. -- ChrisO ( talk) 01:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
[17] The article has been claimed as a British subject, with the Union Jack planted somewhere on the talk page, so Queen's English and Her spelling rule: therefore "judgement" the way they spell it. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 03:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for showing good judgment in restoring the proper spelling of judgement. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 05:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, do you think that this would technically prevent me from possibly participating in this, if it ever happened? I feel, for example, that I have been prevented from requesting enforcement of certain ArbCom sanctions because of that body's failure to clarify whether or not that would violate an interaction restriction. This would seem to be a related issue. -- Scjessey ( talk) 20:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Okay, twelve days later still waiting and seeing. And freshly accused yet again of the above being an Arbcom sanctions violation, both on this page [18] and on another administrator's page [19] where I am also called a "POV pusher" with a "leftist agenda". The stay-away order would seem to preclude me from responding directly even when personally accused. Would you consider contacting Arbcom about this, either informally or to file a request for clarification or enforcement? Also, it would be helpful to let John Carter know that this accusation is without reasonable basis. This is most unfortunate, and I hope it can stop. - Wikidemon ( talk) 10:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Bigtimepeace, it recently came to my attention that a page I have submitted about hBar Lab has been remove by you. The reason being that "Article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject".
I agree that the page under discussion is about hBar Lab, a commercial web service and maybe that the importance of such a web service has not been underlined properly. However, I can easily find in wikipedia, similar pages of commercial companies/products. For example, why the following pages are still visible, if hBar Lab has been removed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomistix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelrys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_(software) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAGUAR
I would like to underline, that hBar Lab is probably first web service in the world for the calculation of molecular properties. It's concept is disruptive and innovative and the software would allow universities and companies to speed up their research and reduce R&D costs. Which by the end, it will end in shorter time to market for new drugs which could safe the life of people. For this reason it would be nice if you could re-consider your decision.
Hope you could re-consider your decision.
Kind Regards
hbarlab —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbarlab ( talk • contribs) 10:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Unable to resist bacon's temptations, rogue editors have kicked off the Bacon Challenge 2010 before the New Year even starts! This is a fun and collegial event and all are welcome. There are many non-pork articles for editors who enjoy some sizzle, but object to or don't like messing with pig products. This year's event also includes a Bacon WikiCup 2010 for those who may want to keep score and enjoy engaging in friendly competition. Given the critical importance of this subject matter, I know you will want to participate, so remember to sign up today and get started A.S.A.P.
Also, if there are any editors that I am unable to notify about this event, please let them know that they are most welcome to participate. It is located in my userspace only as a convenience, and if I need to move it somewhere else for their benefit I would be more than happy to do so. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Bigtimepeace: Thanks for your comment on the Dawood article. While I understand that some of the new information is portions of news/other articles but please also I've mentioned them as quotes from newspapers (which are copied as it is) and have also refernced the source appropriately, in which case, they can't be termed as copyright violations. If you think that there is any copyvio, please correct that portion of the article and/or reword it and/or summarize it but please don't delete information because information regarding Don Dawood's early years and criminal-career is scarce and is very difficult to find. However, I've worked hard and collected information from many, many different sources and referenced them appropriately so that any Wikipedian is able to get any/all info. regarding Dawood very easily. As such, I'm reverting your edit. I hope you will understand. Thanks. -- Bugnot ( talk) 22:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, I will try to do my best to reword the article as you have mentioned but please don't delete the info completely due to the reasons mentioned above. Thanks -- Bugnot ( talk) 22:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Would you object if I either prodded or re-start the AFD. Maybe if there is strong anti-merge sentiment, keep is the decision. Or it may be delete. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 00:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Is 10 months sufficient time to relist a AFD? Not too soon, correct? Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 00:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Bigtimepeace, I have to go to bed. Please don't think that I am fighting you. I just wanted to clarify the process, that's all. In all likelihood, your West Baltimore article will remain nice and neat, just like you want it! And the process question will probably be resolved in 2-3 hours, certainly not more than a day! Don't worry! Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 01:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The Discussion Barnstar | ||
Awarded to Bigtimepeace for calm discussion to try to resolve a policy and practical matter without resorting to name calling or unrelated accusations Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 02:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC) |
I received your message. Calling someone borderline disruptive can hurt people's feelings. Some editors might feel that it is accusatory, not borderline.
While you seem opposed to contacting other editors, this has been useful. An editor that I contacted did not fight on AN but did point out that the editors who edit the target of a merge may be unhappy if merged contents are added. Both editors that I contacted were reasonable editors, not POV pushers.
Another unaddressed point is the whole question of the AN discussion. If an AFD is decided as merge, the decision should be followed. The instructions say to use deletion review if one disagrees. The instructions do not say to ignore the results or to allow a 2nd AFD. Allowing a revote occasionally happens in life so having it as a policy proposal would not be unheard of.
The West Baltimore article is essentially unchanged since February so one may think that the merge decision still stands. Only if there are changes, could deletion/reversion of the merge material be considered.
There is the danger that AFD could be decided as merged as a ploy for deletion. For example, the Balloon Boy incident was hotly debated. It was decided as keep. A manipulative person wanting deletion but thinking that a delete decision could be challenged could make the decision of merge to Colorado, knowing very well that the Colorado editors could try to delete it. Maybe the target article editors should have the right to send the merge back to AFD to decide whether to keep or delete and reject merge. That would be reasonable and would happen to probably only 0.5% to 1% of AFD, so it wouldn't increase workload much.
So the conclusion of the AN section/post was that I want to let the West Baltimore matter rest and go either way but that the correct procedure remains unresolved. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 16:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Solution!
After thinking it over, I think the best way is for the adminstrator to "ask" the object/target of the proposed merged if they are willing to take it, particularly if there is some doubt. If they take some of it, then merge is ok. If they don't want any of it, then the administrator can take that into account about whether to keep or delete. The administrator can "ask" the receiving talk page maybe 2 days before closing. This doesn't have to be policy but just common courtesy that is optional for the administrator. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 20:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes sir, I was wondering if you could email me the old log of the article that is mentioned in this URL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Curtis_Loftis
Thank you -- ForrrestMaster ( talk) 18:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
My post on Presidency of Barack Obama is not vandalism. The awarding to him of the Nobel Peace Prize is highly controversial, so I mentioned that fact in the article. I put a reference to a reputable website ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html), so this information is obviously true. Stating true information is not vandalism. 173.60.201.35 ( talk) 07:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
You're right about the redirect and lack of need for speedy deletion, I should have thought of that and will try to remember it for the future. Thanks -- Glenfarclas ( talk) 23:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. 198.168.103.254 needs to be blocked for persistent vandalism. Thanks for your time.-- Freshfighter9 ( talk) 17:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Bigtimepeace; Is there any way you have the time and would be willing to spend some of it on this article in a no ANI, no RFC/RFC/U, or other dramatized way? I know it is quite something I'm asking you for but my post on ANI where I tried to just get one single admin's attention to do so before it would escalate into a big drama (and as I expected it is happening by now). Your that kind of admin who IMO always tried to calm things down before they escalated and that's the reason I'm asking you now (also I know by now I should've done it this way in the first place). I don't want to give you cherry-picked diffs but sure I should give you some (diffs) to threads and pages that are by now part of the whole mess. The article's and talk page's history are of course a given so here are some others: At ANI: [[ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#PilgrimRose and Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher: Some admin with time on hand out there before it's getting out of hand?; PilgrimRose's talk page history; Rturus's talk page history; AniMate's talkpage where you find some ANI related thread (please forgive my huge mistakes in spelling and grammar over there) and at LeadSongDog, a seemly nice fellow where you can also find some diffs. (List might be not up to date as I didn't have the time to check on today's changes). So anyways, if you're up to it great, if not I'll understand. thanks for reading and Happy Holydays, The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 20:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I am rather disappointed by your resolution to this ANI. It seems to me that you have totally failed to recognise my attempts to placate PilgrimRose and paid no attention to her persistent character assassination of me. I have posted something here on my talk page and I would be grateful if you could spare the time to review what I have written and I would appreciate any comments. I really don't want to be seen as some pedant who drags things on and on but I also don't see why PilgrimRose should be allowed to indulge in character assassination of me with no rebuke, restitution or even a comment. Obviously I wouldn't really want to start a RfC/U but I am at a loss - should I just "suck it up" and "take one for the team"? When an editor uses a "refactoring" to misquote another editor and make a character attack, surely that is "rude, manipulative and disingenuous"? Am I wrong to ask an editor to retract a deliberate falsehood? How can my objection to her character assassination be an insult or attack? Are there other words for "rude, manipulative and disingenuous" that they wouldn't take as an insult? I really would value your opinion here if you can spare the time to fully read my post on my talk page and the diffs that I have referenced, thanks. rturus ( talk) 16:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
hello,
you delated the text on O B. But it's a very important case in Europe, involving France and Hungary
http://www.sarkozynicolas.com/ophelie-bretnacher/ Raymondnivet (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC) I wrote it again
Best regards -- Raymondnivet ( talk) 10:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for you answer : . In addition I would like to come back on the sentence of Hell In a bucket: “One day your article might get there, that time is not now” and make additional comments: Without wiki, the only information which are provided today are via journalists without double-checking who can often report bias or wrong information : WIKI is the only universal place where the information can be challenged, crossed-checked, summarized, stabilised and updated on a reliable manner. In Hungary the main source of information on the case are tabloids like Blikk and Bors. They are totally unreliable, only interested in selling paper rather than to report facts and truth, keeping Hungarian people totally away from the truth (Hungarian newspapers launched crazy accusations on Italian students pretending to be in close relation with the Hungarian police. These crazy accusations were translated by google and spread also in France). And this is just an example of the fact that once such a bi-national case is only reported by journalists, some stabilisation (certification) has to be done somewhere reachable from everybody : WIKIPEDIA is this only place, and the current exchange between us is the proof of that. And this “authentic information safeguarding” has to be done now, not in five years. This is not a Franco-French case, but a French-Hungarian case and de facto an European case. Given the constraint of Hungarian language, the article in English language (the only single vector of communication within Europe, where French is maybe better than Hungarian but totally surpassed by English) is essential to keep quality of information at the same level in Hungary and France and reachable to the community of ERASMUS, for whom it is a notable case. It was asked to the members of European parliament to make a minute of silence when the death of Ophélie was announced. European promoters are uncomfortable with this case because it is a symbol of collateral damages of European construction : ERASMUS has been implemented to facilitate the student mobility within Europe but when a problem appears (such as Ophélie case), the former way of doing “business” in Europe is going on : no justice cooperation between countries, administrative nightmare for the victims, predominance of diplomatic agenda over the human rights and for the European new entrants of the EU, going on with communist way of doing justice and human rights. That is why this case is notable at European level, because it is collateral damage of European construction. My last point will be regarding the free encyclopaedia principle of WIKI. As seen in “1984” of Georges Ornwel or in the movie “Brazil”, you know how information control is important for countries in deficit of democracy. You know that even our own countries (USA and France) are able to use information as a tool to do borderline things in term of democracy. You know that former communist countries are still in a process of learning democracy, even those which are already part of the EU. Former communist countries are marketing themselves as safe and modern places to get the money from rich Western countries through tourism, investment and any other business. The case Ophélie is part of that, it is also notable for that reason. It is not one of the numerous disappearance case, but it is a similar case to the one in Croatia with the Australian girl Britt Lapthorne whose story was very similar and close to a diplomatic incident between Australia and Croatia (For Ophélie it was also close to the diplomatic incident and the family had to visit the Hungarian embassy in Paris on January 11, 2009 at the end of its March for Ophélie” in order to show that the actions were was not against Hungary but simply for Ophélie). Here Wikipedia is providing what democracy has been waiting for decades, a way to guaranty that information is not manipulated but simply made reachable and reliable for anybody. Regarding the figures when you compare to other cases in Anglo-Saxon countries, don’t forget that France and Hungary lag behind these countries in term of internet usage, and the case Ophélie was forecast in prime time on all the national TV in Hungary and in France during the winter 08-09. You are probably right, maybe the article need to be re-worked to emphasised better the reason why it is notable. And anyway, the exchange we had are the proof that the quality of the information will be permanently challenged on Wikipedia Raymondnivet ( talk) 21:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot ( talk) 04:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Do not worry about having bothered me about this. The one obstacle I can see, potentially, is finding the two people who have attempted to resolve a single dispute with CoM, as is part of the minimum requirements of an RfCU. The best thing I can propose is to basically watch the various noticeboads (which I already do) and see when and if problematic behavior appears again. At that point, just request that one or two (depending on whehter you want to be involved or not) admins or mediators try to step in and resolve the issue, or maybe file a Wikiquette Alert. At this point, it probably would be somewhat unfair to just bring up a laundry list of prior actions, without having a current situation to specifically point to which meets the minimum requirements. If that is what you choose to do, you may well find that the draft page gets nominated for deletion at some point, if no incident occurs quickly, perhaps as some form of lingering threat should CoM ever misbehave again. Should that happen, I'm not sure what to say, other than maybe it might be possible to copy onto disk or into e-mail for future use. John Carter ( talk) 14:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
RE: [20] (Your comments above)
Bigtimepeace, I really enjoyed your comments. Although I agree with your asessment that scholars will be studying the "giano" case for years to come, and thought this was extremely insightful, I don't think you needed to inflate Giano's ego anymore that it may already be by saying this. I maybe completely wrong, but I suspect editors like Giano and ChildofMidnight actively seek out conflicts and attention, and enjoy being in the central issue in an argument.
That said, here you go:
The Socratic Barnstar | ||
This Socratic Barnstar is awared to Bigtimepeace for his extremely skilled and eloquent arguments. Ikip 22:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC) |
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Best Wishes for the Holidays, Jusdafax 06:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Bigtimepeace. LeadSongDog believes you may still be watching the dispute on the Kercher article. If you do, maybe you could take a look at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikid77 to see what sanctions you can recommend. (The checkuser findings are in, and only the blocking decision remains). EdJohnston ( talk) 21:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Responded. Please don't say things like that in an ArbCom case unless you are going to back it up with concrete evidence. It's basically reinforcing the misrepresentations made by That Guy, who has again forced me to defend myself unnecessarily. -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Just to comment here, I've noticed the request to amend but I'm avoiding it. I am unhappy being accused of bad faith there, and more before a more relevant audience elsewhere. [22] This seems to be getting worse, without any action from me, but I don't see what good can come out of my participation. Without getting into the details I think lifting the 1RR restriction would be a bad idea in Sceptre's case and Stevertigo's. Because Scjessey has not asked for relief I won't comment there. He could possibly avoid further criticism by asking his name to be withdrawn. In fact, the most graceful thing to do would be for Sceptre to withdraw the entire request because I don't think a good case has been made. - Wikidemon ( talk) 22:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I notice another ArbCom filing in which I am indirectly mentioned. [23] I want to avoid participating in or commenting on this one in particular, if that is all possible. I cannot foresee any good coming of it, and I wonder if Sceptre might be encouraged to withdraw it lest things get out of hand. There are a couple mistaken assumptions that seem to have crept in but are not really there in the standing interaction bans. First, the parties have not been enjoined from mentioning each other, even by name. The subject of most of my earlier requests for clarification and enforcement was some rather distressing name-calling, and to my chagrin Arbcom has not come out with a clear statement on this. Second, there is no prohibition on commenting and interacting before Arbcom itself. Again, the subject was raised, opinions differed, and Arbcom did not clarify. On both fronts Arbcom ought to issue a clarification before it enforces an as-yet unstated interpretation of the policy that it has had ample opportunity to address. Better yet, this should not be an issue at all because I don't see why the parties need to be concerned with each other at all. Anyway, if it comes to it and my participation gets brought up again, I'm wondering if you could convey for the record that I have declined to become involved, and perhaps try to encourage the parties not to drag me into it? Thanks, - Wikidemon ( talk) 01:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)