I recognize that this user page belongs to the Wikipedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.
This is an archive of User talk:Lar from about 1 January 2010 through about 1 February 2010. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at right for the list and to navigate to others. An index to all my talk page archives, automatically maintained by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot can be found at User:Lar/TalkArchiveIndex. |
|
Am I to take it that you closed Nothughthomas' complaint against me when you blocked him? I ask because he's reopened it. [1] Grateful if you could clarify this. -- ChrisO ( talk) 05:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems obvious to me that User:Nothughthomas is either the most unlucky new user in the history of the encyclopedia or yet another in the unending parade of agenda-driven editors (sock, meat, externally motivated, take your pick) that drive people to distraction on the various articles. I wonder if the discretionary sanctions permit an admin to just topic ban him from global warming for a month. If he's really just so unlucky as to have joined the encyclopedia, made a few edits then got sucked into the mess, wouldn't that topic ban save him from the standard flame-out? If he's just another sock, isn't the one month topic ban the same as the indef ban he'll eat in a few days when someone gets around to jumping through the hoops? If he's a meat puppet or angry blog reader, isn't the one month topic ban the same as the one year topic ban he'll eat as soon as someone figures it out? Hipocrite ( talk) 06:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The
December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
03:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm just tidying up some loose ends and not trying to be pointy here, but please be aware that this means that you are no longer an uninvolved admin with respect to myself and any use of your administrative tools against me would likely be considered an abuse thereof. If you ever have occasion to believe that administrative actions against me are required please seek out an uninvolved administrator to perform them. Have a nice day. -- GoRight ( talk) 05:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Noted that you think you're not being pointy. However, that view doesn't seem to be widely shared. Your notification is spurious, and I've changed the section heading accordingly. You really need to internalize the advice you've been given to "up your game". A lot. ++ Lar: t/ c 05:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
He's been blocked by Viridae. Cue drama cascade. -- TS 06:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lar, since you're a steward, I tghought you'd be able to take this request. Would you be able to delete the cricket article and then restore it minus the first two edits from 2001? I accidentally imported them into the wrong place. The article is *just* over the 5,000-edit limit for deletion, so deleting it won't cause too much disruption. Deleting these edits won't be a good use of the revision deletion tool since it leaves a visible trace of the edits. Thanks. Graham 87 07:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, however this works out, thanks. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 19:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it is fairly easy to see why the header I've used above would be objectionable. But I find it harder to see what you're objecting to on my side. If you'd care to point it out, I'll give careful consideration to striking the objectionable parts William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
It seems the issue might get closed any moment, and since I added my comment in the middle of everything I'm worried no one might've read it. Did I go out on a limb or is my comment with regards to one of the editors in question seemingly relevant? I'm not an admin here and I feel I have too little knowledge on how everything works sometimes, but I've admined more Internet-activities since the early 90's than I'd really want to admit to and the appearance in question struck me as really odd. Troed ( talk) 20:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is what Connolley does called "sharp elbows", while when others make similar troll remarks, it's called "incivility" or "trolling", and they're warned and/or blocked for it? Unit Anode 20:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed above that you said you have over 300 TPWs. How does one go about figuring that type of thing out? I've had some ... "interesting" posts to my talkpage (and "other" places as well), and I have been growing quite curious as to how many people actually are watching my talkpage. Unit Anode 21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Bloody Norah, I've got 377, and I'm hardly a tenth as active as I used to be. -- TS 22:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
OK all you BSDs, go boast somewhere else. :) I expect the lot of us put together don't have as many as Jimbo. ++ Lar: t/ c 01:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Now that I can make this statement freely and not under the threat of indefinite block I wish to say that this was wrong-headed, I should not have done it, and I apologize for having done so. Let us both endeavor to put this matter behind us and speak of it no more. -- GoRight ( talk) 22:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
User:MisterSoup has returned and is vandalizing my user page as of this evening. I thought he was blocked...? - SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 04:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is reportable or not, but these [11] [12] appear to be baiting. Should this type of comment be reported to the enforcement board? I'm going to let Guettarda know that we're talking about him. Cla68 ( talk) 05:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I've don't think the "tag team" essay translates well to a mainstream science topic like global warming, even if it may be useful in cases such as, say, articles about religious sects and the like where meat puppetry is well known phenomenon.
If a lot of editors tend to hold similar views on a subject, particularly one where those views are backed by a very strong scientific consensus on a matter, surely those editors will tend to be viewed as a "tag team" by those whose views differ with the consensus view. To those whose views differ from the scientific consensus, they will appear to be acting in concert according to some mysterious outside direction, but this is an illusion.
Conversely there may be a tendency to view those who consistently edit against the consensus as pushing a non-neutral point of view. It may simply be, and in practice probably nearly always is, that they are misinformed.
I think that way of looking at things--both in terms of POV puchers as well as tag teams---has proven sterile because it encourages a battleground mentality. We should all recognise that we're trying to represent the facts in accord with the neutral point of view, and discuss any differences we may have with a view to achieving consensus. -- TS 13:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, could you please help with this biography of a living person? It's under attack by anon IP's putting false information in like she was wrongly accused.] It's been brought to the IP's attention that BLP's need to follow reliable sources but they are ignoring saying it's the truth. I don't want the hassles of ANI for an IP like this. They have been reverted by multiple editors and take it to 3r before starting it all over again. The IP has been warned. We could use your help in stopping this by blocking the IP, if that's not possible then protecting the article from this user. Thanks for any help you can give, -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lar, hope all's well with you. If you have a moment could take a look at this thread: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Username changes and accounts on other wikis? I think it could use input from someone with a slightly more "global" perspective. Cheers, WJBscribe (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lar. I need help right away from someone before I blow my stack. Una is back, causing problems with an article I just created and she needs to butt out now and not later. Feel free to toss this to a non-involved neutral admin if you'd like. See Colitis-X, which I created just a few days ago, sourced up the wazoo. I am open to knowledgable editors improving it, but I got Una. Now I have tenditious arguments to deal with, She's creating a problem with my DYK nom, and her usual problem with OR edits (Just for starters, one never calls signs of disease in animals "symptoms" because animals can't talk-- they are "clinical signs" in veterinary medicine). I don't want this to escalate, and it's the annual time when it does. Thanks to Una, I have not created a new wikipedia article since the Sockpuppet debacle last year, and I have been terrified to take any article I personally care about to GA or FA because of her past involvement. Help! Help! Montanabw (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
You did a good job here. Well done! -- Furniture 1Z ( talk) 18:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lar. The bigoted harassment of SRQ continues with a new soupy sock [13] . I blocked on sight; happily I was online at the time and caught it within a few minutes. I am wondering whether a CU is in order to identify the underlying IP and see if a block is feasible. Nancy talk 11:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Believe it or not, after I finished with the above, I had another vandalizing message on my talk page. You can see it here [15] <heavy sigh> Seems my suspicion of there being more than one person here may be accurate. -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 21:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Since I noticed you blocked my "friend" Orderly Conductor ( talk · contribs) I thought you might want to block his canary bird aka Lowell don't get lunch we'll order pizza ( talk · contribs) as well. Cheers, Vyvyan Basterd ( talk) 21:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
What precipitated *that*? - Alison ❤ 22:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Whaddya know - I'm back on Hivemind, too. There's a shocker!! - Alison ❤ 04:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, first let me say I don't think you did anything at all wrong. I appreciate you explaining more at her talk page. I just find that she is kind of in a catch-22 because it's impossible to prove or disprove a negative. I expected your reasons for the block there because of the use of two accounts when the explanation came. User:LaVidaLoca used the two accounts for the explanation on their page I expected the results and reasoning to be because of this. I do believe though that they are good friends who at times share Wildhartlivie's computer. I have been trying to check for overlapping times between them but this is very tedious to do and I'm tired to boot so for now I've stopped looking. I just like things to be fair. I think you did do a fair look at things. I just thought there might be something specific that could show that there are more than one editor here. I am going to let the rest for now though. Thank you for more of your time. I am sure you get tired of having to explain things. If I should come across something, I'll make contact, if I don't I won't bother you. Thanks again for your kind explanations. -- CrohnieGal Talk 19:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
You may want to have a look at this new user: Special:Contributions/SkagRiverKing. Equazcion (talk) 20:23, 16 Jan 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lar - is it possible to have my user and talk pages locked for a period of time due to continued vandalism (probably executed by you-know-who)? -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 20:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer you guys not feud here, please. SRQ, if you want your user or user talk page semiprotected I'm happy to oblige you. How long do you want it for, and do you want your user full or semi (we never full protect talk pages though...) ++ Lar: t/ c 22:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
you have mail. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 23:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
You have mail. I hope it is alright to email you. I'm sorry for not asking first which would have been the proper thing for me to do but I just didn't think of it until now. You'll understand I think, thanks in advance, -- CrohnieGal Talk 19:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lar, when you are feeling up to it would you please check out my talk page at the Zodiac Killer section. I mean it, I have had enough of the hounding, following and assumptions of bad faith to last me a life time. Please make it stop. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 23:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
You are recieving this notice as you have participated in the Admin Recall discussion pages.
A poll was held on fourteen proposals, and closed on 16th November 2009. Only one proposal gained majority support - community de-adminship - and this proposal is now being finessed into a draft RFC Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC, which, if adopted, will create a new process.
After tolling up the votes within the revision proposals for CDA, it emerged that proposal 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
Hi Lar. I asked you a question here [16] in relation to Wildhartlivie but it then got moved so I’ve no idea whether you have it on your watch list. Leaky Caldron 19:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Lar, it seems that you have saying at several pages that BLP allows you to delete any unsourced BLP article. Please notice that BLP talks about removal of contentious unsourced material, not removal of all unsourced material.
In particular, I was looking at the history of the BLP, and I found this diff [17]. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 01:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
tb|DESiegel}}
... not needed, I watch. ++
Lar:
t/
c
03:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi: I noticed you indefinitely full protected WP:BLP, giving as your reason the ongoing edit war. I don't believe short-term edit wars are a good reason for indefinite protection. Would you care to pare it down to some reasonable period (like, say, a week)? Thanks, Ray Talk 03:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This behavior is up for an Arbcom case, and there is significant objection to the activity. Please stop the BLP deletions until a consensus emerges that supports the activity.
I issued Scott MacDonald a warning that I'd block him for disruption if he kept it up. I believe that you're doing so from an equivalent starting point and in equal disregard for the community dispute and lack of consensus, which is equally disruptive. Please let the community decide where we want to go as a project on this. The issue is not up for individual admin fiat.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 03:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Lar...... at this pace you are going to get yourself blocked......... -- Enric Naval ( talk) 04:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Unsourced BLPs are problematic by definition, and every day is one day too many. GWH: How many did you want userified so you can fix them? ++ Lar: t/ c 04:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
You are now making PRODs that are not supported by BLP policy since they don't contain contentious BLP material. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 04:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Enric, how many did you want userified? Time's awastin, lots of referencing to do. ++ Lar: t/ c 04:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't usually commend people for their edits, but this task is worthy of a big thanks. 98.248.32.44 ( talk) 04:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that you are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration, hence this notice. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#BLP deletions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— * Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for Arbitration. Dougweller ( talk) 13:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Lar. Since it looks like you are going through old, unsourced BLPs, I just wanted to request that you at least consider using AfD instead of PROD for some of them. I'm specifically talking about ones where the claim to notability is particularly strong, or where it is clear that another user disagrees with you that the article should be deleted ( Hasan Muratović is the case that I have in mind, but I'm sure there will be others). I skim through the entire list of AfD discussions on most days, and I've actually seen many articles that were unsourced for years but quickly had sources found when taken to AfD. Since AfD and PROD both delete things after the same amount of time, taking something to AfD won't keep bad content around any longer than using PROD, and I think AfD has a better chance of finding sources when they are out there. I'm certainly not suggesting that you use AfD for all the unsourced BLPs, only the ones that sound notable enough that it would be likely sources are out there. Anyway, if you would at least consider it, I would appreciate it. Calathan ( talk) 15:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
What in the blue blazes is that? -- Gwern (contribs) 16:05 21 January 2010 (GMT)
Please make sure that the unsourced-BLP tags on these articles are correct before you delete. For example, BJ McKie had a perfectly good source -- it was just listed as an external link rather than a reference. Deleting articles because you don't think the sources are good enough, or aren't in proper format, is a whole different can of worms. Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 17:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
JoshuaZ: Done. See User:JoshuaZ/Christopher Maher. Note that you are incorrect about the article being sourced. IMDB is not a WP:RS. You'll have to find another source than that or the article is subject to redeletion. How much time do you need? ++ Lar: t/ c 22:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I am still receiving harassing messages, although, since my talk page is locked and inaccessible to new IP accounts, the harassment is being placed on articles I am currently editing. The most common place right now is the Charles Manson talk page. I would like my userspaces to be protected at least another two weeks (or more), if you can do it as I fear that as soon as the lock is removed, the harassment will just continue there. Needless to say, it's beyond annoying to have to continually revert vandalism until a determined vandal (IP or otherwise) can be blocked. Thanks. -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 22:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
According to the AUSC, in a communication with Versageek, you wrote that you suspected my account was an alternate account purely to participate in contentious discussions, and do so aggressively and disruptively.
Since a quick check of the contributions history of my account up to that time fit into a single 500-count contributions history page, which easily would have shown that most of my edits were not to discussions, and just a little further looking would have easily found that contributions even to those discussions were mostly not contentious, and barely any of even the contributions to contentious discussions were "aggressive" and none disruptive, why don't you tell me why I shouldn't consider this statement of yours a lie? Why don't you take it back and apologize? -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 00:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Should I keep some kind of a list of the articles I've PRODed so far, so that when and if they are deleted, it will be easier to userify them? Unit Anode 02:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I randomly picked 5 BLPs you deleted recently ( Chris McDevitt, Almanbet Matubraimov, George A. McCarthy, Jing Jing Luo & Vaughan Lowe). For four I found a source, so restored the article and added the source. The other one is a comedian for sure but would probably fail an AfD so I didn't bother. Ideally I would have asked first before restoring, but it was far easier for me to edit the articles once open because my source, Factiva, has tiny browser sessions.-- Commander Keane ( talk) 08:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Krynauw Otto, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!
Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with
sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of
disruptive edits, which earn
warnings and
blocks.
Lar, you should not have prodded that in the first place. Did you even check the external link in the version you prodded? It's a reliable source: the official site of South African Rugby Union, and it was wikilined as such! Your action was no better than that of the random tag spammer. A similar commentary applies to Mkativerata action to remove most of the info: similar to that of the random vandal that deletes info instead of tagging with {{ fact}}. Not everything needs an inline citation. Please read Wikipedia:CITE#General reference. Pcap ping 17:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
He's now opened up an ANI on my work. I really don't understand how people can't see that I'm working to solve a big problem. Unit Anode 01:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Well now that I learned the reason for the alternate account I have to say I think it's a perfectly valid use (to make list generation much easier) and since it's disclosed, it's not an issue at all. I was thinking of using User:Larbot the same way. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi again everyone... I think actually since U is making this list: User:Unitanode/Unsourced_BLP_work the API may or may not be of help... basically he is just taking ALL the edits of his sock and using that as the starting point if I'm not mistaken. ++ Lar: t/ c 00:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Try this. It's in htmlized XML so you'll still have some pain unless you're scripting, but at least it include only namespace 0 edits (articles). -- TS 01:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Say, I wonder if we should be trying to (in general) get better tools to help with this? Get the Twinkle/huggle/AWB guys thinking about this, get Magnus and the other toolsmiths thinking? IF we are going to be doing a lot of big improvement drives soon, making the tracking of who did what and where things stand easier to do will help a lot. Where to discuss? ++ Lar: t/ c 02:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
He has informed me at Chillum's drama-stirring ANI thread, that if I'm asked to stop PRODing, that I will stop PRODing, which I interpreted (reasonably, I think) as a threat to block. What can be done to stop this harassment? Prodego himself has been involved in mass-deprodding without bothering to add sources. Unit Anode 22:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Policy is formed from consensus. No policy overrides consensus. The WMF can override consensus, but in practice, almost never does. Prodego talk 00:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
This is getting really tiresome. I really think that some of them are of the opinion that if they threaten me enough, and harass me at ANI enough, that I'm going to stop trying to fix this problem. Unit Anode 02:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm? Accusations of a cabal behaviour or "patterns" is OK, because they are done by "good faith editors". But making the general observation that both sides are mudslinging at each other is .... ? What does that make the other "side"? -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 03:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Outside dispute resolution it's mere mud-slinging. The most egregious mud-slingers can be sanctioned if they show no serious interest in WP:DR. -- Tasty monster —Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC).
I hate celebutantes but I've found sufficient citations to justify removing your prod. Send her to AfD if you must. I'm grumpier than you, LOL. Bearian ( talk) 03:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you User Greg Landau to Usefy:Hell in a Bucket. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 16:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Would you (or any talk page watcher) consider undeleting the following articles and I will add the sourced provided:
-- Apoc2400 ( talk) 17:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this has degraded enough. [31] Want to test the new template we're discussing dealing with inappropriate comments? ChyranandChloe ( talk) 00:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lar. Could you semi-protect Zach Randolph? This was up for over 15 hours, and is now visible in the Google results: [32] Thanks, Zagalejo ^^^ 01:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Is this kind of battleground mentality acceptable. His obstructionism on the BLP issue aside, his attacking tone there just seems, I don't know, kind of unhinged. Unit Anode 02:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
"Repeatedly restoring warnings does nothing but antagonize users, and can encourage further disruption..." [33] Ikip 03:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) I must apologize for two unintentional (and unrelated) matters: my earlier post did not carry my signature and it came across as more snarky than intended. I respect the work you do. However, my mild frustration with the BLP deletions has caused me to post in more direct terms than is deserved. All I meant to communicate was that:
I suspect that most people believe you are still very qualified to serve in all your capacities. I really do not mean to belittle your long and vast contributions. I truly wish you the best in your productive encyclopedia-building work, and again ask you accept my apologies for any offense with my snarky comment. Your colleague, — James Kalmar 06:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking for suggestions on how to track improvements to the articles that have been prodded. Ray has been kind enough to source every single article he's deprodded, and to notify me that he's done so. Others have simply mass-deprodded dozens of articles, without fixing the problem. Any ideas how to track what progress is being made? I'm thinking of simply clicking each article, and creating a separate "results list" that shows what improvements are being made. Unit Anode 03:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
You will find several more references to Graham Jones at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&cf=all&ned=ca&hl=en&q=%22Graham+Jones%22+Hyndburn&cf=all
I suspect that once you go through them all, you will be able to restore some of the text that was removed as unreferenced. - Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
For your note. I'll watch my email. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 09:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you added the PROD tag to this BLP aticle. I've found four references for it so far and was wondering if it's okay to remove the tag? - JuneGloom07 Talk? 14:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Pamela Paulshock, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Paulshock. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Enric Naval ( talk) 01:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, firstly feel free to delete this after reading. I saw you comment that I was only complaining and doing nothing to help and wanted comment about that, I assure you I am here to help the wikipedia, I also know there is an issue with this just I disagree with what is being implemented. I have done work to save articles since this started and will also do more to help in the coming times once it is clear there is agreement on action. I am not an inclusionist, my position is that I do not want to see decent content lost, it should be cited, I agree, myself I would have put some energy into collecting a hit squad to cite the uncited, so to speak and there may be after this cage rattling more people willing to join a task squad to do that, but the community is imo still working out what is best and when it clearly does I will be part of the team available to help implement that decision.
Here are some of the prods I removed, it is not comprehensive, just a cut and copy of some to show you I have also helped with this and not only complained.. I have also saved an article from the mass deleted articles from the Google archives and cited and replaced it, I also have cited and replaced two articles from the incubator collection and here are some that I have simply added a citation and removed the prod.
?
)
Regards. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
how does one ask for a check user search? Is that something only admins ask for? Thanks. Malke 2010 05:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we are in agreement at the talkpage there, and someone else added a comment to that effect to the WMC thread. He has asked at my talkpage that the external links be removed from the evidence. I replied here that I did not consider those links when formulating the close, but would defer to others regarding their removal. - 2/0 ( cont.) 17:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
...because I'm increasingly frustrated that an editor with a grand total of 106 main space edits, nearly all of them political POV pushing, keeps distracting and baiting valuable expert editors with thousands of constructive main space edits. I think this aspect needs to be highlighted. If we want to build an encyclopedia, we need to protect our most valuable assets better. And that value is, in the end, the ability to contribute actual content. I believe in WP:SPADE. Civility is useful, but it's not a goal in itself. Establishing a pleasant climate of cooperation between 150 undereducated morons by driving away everybody who has an actually qualified opionon cannot be our primary mission. As for the mu (negative): It's about the only useful answer to the "have you stopped beating your wife" type of questions. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 14:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Hipocrite: that confused me. Could you clarify? ++ Lar: t/ c 18:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Stephan Schulz: Septic is not a "harmless play on words", sorry. WMC has issues that need addressing. Are you sure you're here in good faith? ++ Lar: t/ c 18:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) I speak of the topic area as a whole, not the specific article. As with many contentious areas, all the factions involved are wrong in some ways and all share blame for how things are now. But in this particular contentious area, there is a perception among "many" editors that one side is controlling the topic quite effectively. "Many" is not a majority of the 11.5 million editors who have edited here, to be sure. It may not even be a majority of the active editors (most active editors I suspect are oblivious to this). Or even a majority of the editors who are involved in this topic area. But there is such a perception, and it is held by more than a "few"(2) editors. I'm not so sure that this control is as blatant as it is in some other areas. Or even there at all. But I can see characteristics in the behavior of one "side" that make it look like that control is there ++ Lar: t/ c 21:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Regarding "septic," I would prefer that WMC not use that term. I also would prefer that Lar show the same high level of concern about derogatory terms being used against those editing from the consensus perspective. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 03:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what Boris had in mind. Perhaps he meant that if Wikipedia is to honor its basic principles, then whatever one's personal beliefs about Climategate or urban heat islands or what-have-you, our coverage of the science of climate change should reflect mainstream scientific thought and consensus, which is fairly easily demonstrable (coverage of the politics of climate change is, of course, a separate matter). I think that when Boris talked about "editing from the consensus position", he meant editing that is brings our scientific coverage in line with mainstream scientific thought. Editing that systematically seeks to obscure, minimize, or downplay the existing state of scientific knowledge on the topic is harmful to this project's goal of creating a serious, respectable reference work.
It's not really useful to talk about "pro-AGW" and "anti-AGW" editors, because that takes for granted that we're on a WP:BATTLEfield. It's more useful to talk about editing which moves Wikipedia closer to its project goals, and editing which moves it farther away from them. I think that might move some focus away from a toxic fixation on the personalities involved, and toward a focus on the content, which is sort of the point. MastCell Talk 04:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Scientific consensus allows that a minority of scientists may disagree - it does not imply unanimity (have you looked at our article on scientific consensus? It's not bad). I agree that our articles should not denigrate any position, though they should note its level of acceptance among knowledgeable people in the field. I agree that a notable minority of scientists disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change. We should cover that viewpoint. And we do. And as with most minoritarian viewpoints, Wikipedia gives it far more prominence and visibility than does any other serious, respectable reference work, due to its overrepresentation among Wikipedia editors as compared to experts in the field. I don't think I've ever compared climate change skepticism to the beliefs of Truthers or Birthers, and I agree that is an inappropriate comparison. MastCell Talk 05:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
A journalist once crystallized the Israeli/Palestinian issue by saying that each side viewed itself as the victim, and the other as the perpetrator. In truth, both sides are victims and perpetrators. Same sort of dynamic here, I think. Hopefully it will turn out better. MastCell Talk 18:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Since Boris declined to answer your question, instead dropping a non sequitur, I'll have a go. In your hypothetical, you would be considered as not part of the "scientific consensus." As far as I can tell, anyone who believes anything other than the "company line" is outside of the "scientific consensus." Unit Anode 03:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
A few points.
That Boris chose not to answer my question was interesting... I still haven't got a grip on what it means. Perhaps I should ping him? ++ Lar: t/ c 17:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I know there's some dispute about best talk page practices around global warming. What should be done about this. Was my intitial collapse wrong? Hipocrite ( talk) 21:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from such behaviour in the future. This edit summary was the offending article. At least until I had read the actual comment. Viridae Talk 13:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to remove backlinks to deleted pages at User:AeronPeryton/Articles/Mutsuhiko Izumi, which is a userfied WP:BLP... I am really not sure what the rules are pertaining to this so I'm asking you, as you know better and are the admin who moved it upon request. I'll leave it alone for now. JBsupreme ( talk) 16:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Wikidemon is edit-warring to reclose AFDs that were inappropriately closed early, as well as attempting to readd unsourced information to articles, without providing a source. I'm unsure what to do here, as he's making it clear that he's on some kind of crusade to undo my BLP work. Unit Anode 16:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I have not checked extensively, just checked the samples given above. A few points:
Arbcom has spoken on this matter. Disregard that at your peril, Wikidemon. I would like to see an acknowledgement that unacceptable behaviors are going to stop, or I may act further. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict - addressed to Lar) Please get off your horse here and stop making threats. I have every right to deprod bad prods. I am not edit warring over that, I have exercised my discretion on a case by case basis, after carefully reviewing each case. What behavioral policy do you claim I have violated? Please point me to one - I don't see one. I assume you followed the ArbCom case and the AN/I threads. If so you must know you are not on the side of consensus here. UnitAnode, and you apparently, have a minority content position that material must be sourced and not just verifiable. That content position, if taken to its logical conclusion, would gut 90% or more of the content on the encyclopedia. It's absurd. Yes, ideally the fact that an author wrote a book or that a news reporter had a byline should be cited in proper format to a third party source. But it's as easy as finding google to do, and if you look at it, the claim that an author wrote a book is sourced because the source is the book itself, if anyone cares to check. The vast majority of claims in Wikipedia that a person wrote a book, or acted in a film, or sang a song, simply do not have citations. If you and UnitAnode wish to change that you have a long road ahead of you, and taking potshots at random articles is not a good way to get there. Making block threats and calling things vandalism only makes it worse. Threatening to use tools against me to advance your position is abusive, and actually doing so would be an abuse of tools. Regarding the AfD, the article certainly is a snow close. Undoing a reasonable snow close without consensus, particularly when done by the nominator, is clearly disruptive. UnitAnode was engaging in a campaign to delete verifiable BLP articles for lack of sourcing, which is disruption given the RfC on the matter. ArbCom has opined as much that mass deletions at this point would be a problem. - Wikidemon ( talk) 18:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it's pretty safe to say that it can be snow-closed now. Two more supports since the re-opening of this pretty much seals the deal per se. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 18:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I am pleased by your willingness to join the conversation. Welcome. Ikip 17:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I recognize that this user page belongs to the Wikipedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.
This is an archive of User talk:Lar from about 1 January 2010 through about 1 February 2010. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at right for the list and to navigate to others. An index to all my talk page archives, automatically maintained by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot can be found at User:Lar/TalkArchiveIndex. |
|
Am I to take it that you closed Nothughthomas' complaint against me when you blocked him? I ask because he's reopened it. [1] Grateful if you could clarify this. -- ChrisO ( talk) 05:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems obvious to me that User:Nothughthomas is either the most unlucky new user in the history of the encyclopedia or yet another in the unending parade of agenda-driven editors (sock, meat, externally motivated, take your pick) that drive people to distraction on the various articles. I wonder if the discretionary sanctions permit an admin to just topic ban him from global warming for a month. If he's really just so unlucky as to have joined the encyclopedia, made a few edits then got sucked into the mess, wouldn't that topic ban save him from the standard flame-out? If he's just another sock, isn't the one month topic ban the same as the indef ban he'll eat in a few days when someone gets around to jumping through the hoops? If he's a meat puppet or angry blog reader, isn't the one month topic ban the same as the one year topic ban he'll eat as soon as someone figures it out? Hipocrite ( talk) 06:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The
December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
03:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm just tidying up some loose ends and not trying to be pointy here, but please be aware that this means that you are no longer an uninvolved admin with respect to myself and any use of your administrative tools against me would likely be considered an abuse thereof. If you ever have occasion to believe that administrative actions against me are required please seek out an uninvolved administrator to perform them. Have a nice day. -- GoRight ( talk) 05:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Noted that you think you're not being pointy. However, that view doesn't seem to be widely shared. Your notification is spurious, and I've changed the section heading accordingly. You really need to internalize the advice you've been given to "up your game". A lot. ++ Lar: t/ c 05:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
He's been blocked by Viridae. Cue drama cascade. -- TS 06:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lar, since you're a steward, I tghought you'd be able to take this request. Would you be able to delete the cricket article and then restore it minus the first two edits from 2001? I accidentally imported them into the wrong place. The article is *just* over the 5,000-edit limit for deletion, so deleting it won't cause too much disruption. Deleting these edits won't be a good use of the revision deletion tool since it leaves a visible trace of the edits. Thanks. Graham 87 07:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, however this works out, thanks. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 19:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it is fairly easy to see why the header I've used above would be objectionable. But I find it harder to see what you're objecting to on my side. If you'd care to point it out, I'll give careful consideration to striking the objectionable parts William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
It seems the issue might get closed any moment, and since I added my comment in the middle of everything I'm worried no one might've read it. Did I go out on a limb or is my comment with regards to one of the editors in question seemingly relevant? I'm not an admin here and I feel I have too little knowledge on how everything works sometimes, but I've admined more Internet-activities since the early 90's than I'd really want to admit to and the appearance in question struck me as really odd. Troed ( talk) 20:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is what Connolley does called "sharp elbows", while when others make similar troll remarks, it's called "incivility" or "trolling", and they're warned and/or blocked for it? Unit Anode 20:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed above that you said you have over 300 TPWs. How does one go about figuring that type of thing out? I've had some ... "interesting" posts to my talkpage (and "other" places as well), and I have been growing quite curious as to how many people actually are watching my talkpage. Unit Anode 21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Bloody Norah, I've got 377, and I'm hardly a tenth as active as I used to be. -- TS 22:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
OK all you BSDs, go boast somewhere else. :) I expect the lot of us put together don't have as many as Jimbo. ++ Lar: t/ c 01:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Now that I can make this statement freely and not under the threat of indefinite block I wish to say that this was wrong-headed, I should not have done it, and I apologize for having done so. Let us both endeavor to put this matter behind us and speak of it no more. -- GoRight ( talk) 22:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
User:MisterSoup has returned and is vandalizing my user page as of this evening. I thought he was blocked...? - SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 04:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is reportable or not, but these [11] [12] appear to be baiting. Should this type of comment be reported to the enforcement board? I'm going to let Guettarda know that we're talking about him. Cla68 ( talk) 05:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I've don't think the "tag team" essay translates well to a mainstream science topic like global warming, even if it may be useful in cases such as, say, articles about religious sects and the like where meat puppetry is well known phenomenon.
If a lot of editors tend to hold similar views on a subject, particularly one where those views are backed by a very strong scientific consensus on a matter, surely those editors will tend to be viewed as a "tag team" by those whose views differ with the consensus view. To those whose views differ from the scientific consensus, they will appear to be acting in concert according to some mysterious outside direction, but this is an illusion.
Conversely there may be a tendency to view those who consistently edit against the consensus as pushing a non-neutral point of view. It may simply be, and in practice probably nearly always is, that they are misinformed.
I think that way of looking at things--both in terms of POV puchers as well as tag teams---has proven sterile because it encourages a battleground mentality. We should all recognise that we're trying to represent the facts in accord with the neutral point of view, and discuss any differences we may have with a view to achieving consensus. -- TS 13:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, could you please help with this biography of a living person? It's under attack by anon IP's putting false information in like she was wrongly accused.] It's been brought to the IP's attention that BLP's need to follow reliable sources but they are ignoring saying it's the truth. I don't want the hassles of ANI for an IP like this. They have been reverted by multiple editors and take it to 3r before starting it all over again. The IP has been warned. We could use your help in stopping this by blocking the IP, if that's not possible then protecting the article from this user. Thanks for any help you can give, -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lar, hope all's well with you. If you have a moment could take a look at this thread: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Username changes and accounts on other wikis? I think it could use input from someone with a slightly more "global" perspective. Cheers, WJBscribe (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lar. I need help right away from someone before I blow my stack. Una is back, causing problems with an article I just created and she needs to butt out now and not later. Feel free to toss this to a non-involved neutral admin if you'd like. See Colitis-X, which I created just a few days ago, sourced up the wazoo. I am open to knowledgable editors improving it, but I got Una. Now I have tenditious arguments to deal with, She's creating a problem with my DYK nom, and her usual problem with OR edits (Just for starters, one never calls signs of disease in animals "symptoms" because animals can't talk-- they are "clinical signs" in veterinary medicine). I don't want this to escalate, and it's the annual time when it does. Thanks to Una, I have not created a new wikipedia article since the Sockpuppet debacle last year, and I have been terrified to take any article I personally care about to GA or FA because of her past involvement. Help! Help! Montanabw (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
You did a good job here. Well done! -- Furniture 1Z ( talk) 18:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lar. The bigoted harassment of SRQ continues with a new soupy sock [13] . I blocked on sight; happily I was online at the time and caught it within a few minutes. I am wondering whether a CU is in order to identify the underlying IP and see if a block is feasible. Nancy talk 11:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Believe it or not, after I finished with the above, I had another vandalizing message on my talk page. You can see it here [15] <heavy sigh> Seems my suspicion of there being more than one person here may be accurate. -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 21:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Since I noticed you blocked my "friend" Orderly Conductor ( talk · contribs) I thought you might want to block his canary bird aka Lowell don't get lunch we'll order pizza ( talk · contribs) as well. Cheers, Vyvyan Basterd ( talk) 21:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
What precipitated *that*? - Alison ❤ 22:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Whaddya know - I'm back on Hivemind, too. There's a shocker!! - Alison ❤ 04:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, first let me say I don't think you did anything at all wrong. I appreciate you explaining more at her talk page. I just find that she is kind of in a catch-22 because it's impossible to prove or disprove a negative. I expected your reasons for the block there because of the use of two accounts when the explanation came. User:LaVidaLoca used the two accounts for the explanation on their page I expected the results and reasoning to be because of this. I do believe though that they are good friends who at times share Wildhartlivie's computer. I have been trying to check for overlapping times between them but this is very tedious to do and I'm tired to boot so for now I've stopped looking. I just like things to be fair. I think you did do a fair look at things. I just thought there might be something specific that could show that there are more than one editor here. I am going to let the rest for now though. Thank you for more of your time. I am sure you get tired of having to explain things. If I should come across something, I'll make contact, if I don't I won't bother you. Thanks again for your kind explanations. -- CrohnieGal Talk 19:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
You may want to have a look at this new user: Special:Contributions/SkagRiverKing. Equazcion (talk) 20:23, 16 Jan 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lar - is it possible to have my user and talk pages locked for a period of time due to continued vandalism (probably executed by you-know-who)? -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 20:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer you guys not feud here, please. SRQ, if you want your user or user talk page semiprotected I'm happy to oblige you. How long do you want it for, and do you want your user full or semi (we never full protect talk pages though...) ++ Lar: t/ c 22:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
you have mail. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 23:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
You have mail. I hope it is alright to email you. I'm sorry for not asking first which would have been the proper thing for me to do but I just didn't think of it until now. You'll understand I think, thanks in advance, -- CrohnieGal Talk 19:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lar, when you are feeling up to it would you please check out my talk page at the Zodiac Killer section. I mean it, I have had enough of the hounding, following and assumptions of bad faith to last me a life time. Please make it stop. Thanks, -- CrohnieGal Talk 23:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
You are recieving this notice as you have participated in the Admin Recall discussion pages.
A poll was held on fourteen proposals, and closed on 16th November 2009. Only one proposal gained majority support - community de-adminship - and this proposal is now being finessed into a draft RFC Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC, which, if adopted, will create a new process.
After tolling up the votes within the revision proposals for CDA, it emerged that proposal 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
Hi Lar. I asked you a question here [16] in relation to Wildhartlivie but it then got moved so I’ve no idea whether you have it on your watch list. Leaky Caldron 19:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Lar, it seems that you have saying at several pages that BLP allows you to delete any unsourced BLP article. Please notice that BLP talks about removal of contentious unsourced material, not removal of all unsourced material.
In particular, I was looking at the history of the BLP, and I found this diff [17]. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 01:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
tb|DESiegel}}
... not needed, I watch. ++
Lar:
t/
c
03:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi: I noticed you indefinitely full protected WP:BLP, giving as your reason the ongoing edit war. I don't believe short-term edit wars are a good reason for indefinite protection. Would you care to pare it down to some reasonable period (like, say, a week)? Thanks, Ray Talk 03:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This behavior is up for an Arbcom case, and there is significant objection to the activity. Please stop the BLP deletions until a consensus emerges that supports the activity.
I issued Scott MacDonald a warning that I'd block him for disruption if he kept it up. I believe that you're doing so from an equivalent starting point and in equal disregard for the community dispute and lack of consensus, which is equally disruptive. Please let the community decide where we want to go as a project on this. The issue is not up for individual admin fiat.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 03:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Lar...... at this pace you are going to get yourself blocked......... -- Enric Naval ( talk) 04:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Unsourced BLPs are problematic by definition, and every day is one day too many. GWH: How many did you want userified so you can fix them? ++ Lar: t/ c 04:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
You are now making PRODs that are not supported by BLP policy since they don't contain contentious BLP material. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 04:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Enric, how many did you want userified? Time's awastin, lots of referencing to do. ++ Lar: t/ c 04:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't usually commend people for their edits, but this task is worthy of a big thanks. 98.248.32.44 ( talk) 04:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that you are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration, hence this notice. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#BLP deletions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— * Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for Arbitration. Dougweller ( talk) 13:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Lar. Since it looks like you are going through old, unsourced BLPs, I just wanted to request that you at least consider using AfD instead of PROD for some of them. I'm specifically talking about ones where the claim to notability is particularly strong, or where it is clear that another user disagrees with you that the article should be deleted ( Hasan Muratović is the case that I have in mind, but I'm sure there will be others). I skim through the entire list of AfD discussions on most days, and I've actually seen many articles that were unsourced for years but quickly had sources found when taken to AfD. Since AfD and PROD both delete things after the same amount of time, taking something to AfD won't keep bad content around any longer than using PROD, and I think AfD has a better chance of finding sources when they are out there. I'm certainly not suggesting that you use AfD for all the unsourced BLPs, only the ones that sound notable enough that it would be likely sources are out there. Anyway, if you would at least consider it, I would appreciate it. Calathan ( talk) 15:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
What in the blue blazes is that? -- Gwern (contribs) 16:05 21 January 2010 (GMT)
Please make sure that the unsourced-BLP tags on these articles are correct before you delete. For example, BJ McKie had a perfectly good source -- it was just listed as an external link rather than a reference. Deleting articles because you don't think the sources are good enough, or aren't in proper format, is a whole different can of worms. Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 17:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
JoshuaZ: Done. See User:JoshuaZ/Christopher Maher. Note that you are incorrect about the article being sourced. IMDB is not a WP:RS. You'll have to find another source than that or the article is subject to redeletion. How much time do you need? ++ Lar: t/ c 22:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I am still receiving harassing messages, although, since my talk page is locked and inaccessible to new IP accounts, the harassment is being placed on articles I am currently editing. The most common place right now is the Charles Manson talk page. I would like my userspaces to be protected at least another two weeks (or more), if you can do it as I fear that as soon as the lock is removed, the harassment will just continue there. Needless to say, it's beyond annoying to have to continually revert vandalism until a determined vandal (IP or otherwise) can be blocked. Thanks. -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 22:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
According to the AUSC, in a communication with Versageek, you wrote that you suspected my account was an alternate account purely to participate in contentious discussions, and do so aggressively and disruptively.
Since a quick check of the contributions history of my account up to that time fit into a single 500-count contributions history page, which easily would have shown that most of my edits were not to discussions, and just a little further looking would have easily found that contributions even to those discussions were mostly not contentious, and barely any of even the contributions to contentious discussions were "aggressive" and none disruptive, why don't you tell me why I shouldn't consider this statement of yours a lie? Why don't you take it back and apologize? -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 00:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Should I keep some kind of a list of the articles I've PRODed so far, so that when and if they are deleted, it will be easier to userify them? Unit Anode 02:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I randomly picked 5 BLPs you deleted recently ( Chris McDevitt, Almanbet Matubraimov, George A. McCarthy, Jing Jing Luo & Vaughan Lowe). For four I found a source, so restored the article and added the source. The other one is a comedian for sure but would probably fail an AfD so I didn't bother. Ideally I would have asked first before restoring, but it was far easier for me to edit the articles once open because my source, Factiva, has tiny browser sessions.-- Commander Keane ( talk) 08:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Krynauw Otto, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!
Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with
sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of
disruptive edits, which earn
warnings and
blocks.
Lar, you should not have prodded that in the first place. Did you even check the external link in the version you prodded? It's a reliable source: the official site of South African Rugby Union, and it was wikilined as such! Your action was no better than that of the random tag spammer. A similar commentary applies to Mkativerata action to remove most of the info: similar to that of the random vandal that deletes info instead of tagging with {{ fact}}. Not everything needs an inline citation. Please read Wikipedia:CITE#General reference. Pcap ping 17:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
He's now opened up an ANI on my work. I really don't understand how people can't see that I'm working to solve a big problem. Unit Anode 01:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Well now that I learned the reason for the alternate account I have to say I think it's a perfectly valid use (to make list generation much easier) and since it's disclosed, it's not an issue at all. I was thinking of using User:Larbot the same way. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi again everyone... I think actually since U is making this list: User:Unitanode/Unsourced_BLP_work the API may or may not be of help... basically he is just taking ALL the edits of his sock and using that as the starting point if I'm not mistaken. ++ Lar: t/ c 00:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Try this. It's in htmlized XML so you'll still have some pain unless you're scripting, but at least it include only namespace 0 edits (articles). -- TS 01:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Say, I wonder if we should be trying to (in general) get better tools to help with this? Get the Twinkle/huggle/AWB guys thinking about this, get Magnus and the other toolsmiths thinking? IF we are going to be doing a lot of big improvement drives soon, making the tracking of who did what and where things stand easier to do will help a lot. Where to discuss? ++ Lar: t/ c 02:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
He has informed me at Chillum's drama-stirring ANI thread, that if I'm asked to stop PRODing, that I will stop PRODing, which I interpreted (reasonably, I think) as a threat to block. What can be done to stop this harassment? Prodego himself has been involved in mass-deprodding without bothering to add sources. Unit Anode 22:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Policy is formed from consensus. No policy overrides consensus. The WMF can override consensus, but in practice, almost never does. Prodego talk 00:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
This is getting really tiresome. I really think that some of them are of the opinion that if they threaten me enough, and harass me at ANI enough, that I'm going to stop trying to fix this problem. Unit Anode 02:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm? Accusations of a cabal behaviour or "patterns" is OK, because they are done by "good faith editors". But making the general observation that both sides are mudslinging at each other is .... ? What does that make the other "side"? -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 03:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Outside dispute resolution it's mere mud-slinging. The most egregious mud-slingers can be sanctioned if they show no serious interest in WP:DR. -- Tasty monster —Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC).
I hate celebutantes but I've found sufficient citations to justify removing your prod. Send her to AfD if you must. I'm grumpier than you, LOL. Bearian ( talk) 03:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you User Greg Landau to Usefy:Hell in a Bucket. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 16:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Would you (or any talk page watcher) consider undeleting the following articles and I will add the sourced provided:
-- Apoc2400 ( talk) 17:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this has degraded enough. [31] Want to test the new template we're discussing dealing with inappropriate comments? ChyranandChloe ( talk) 00:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lar. Could you semi-protect Zach Randolph? This was up for over 15 hours, and is now visible in the Google results: [32] Thanks, Zagalejo ^^^ 01:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Is this kind of battleground mentality acceptable. His obstructionism on the BLP issue aside, his attacking tone there just seems, I don't know, kind of unhinged. Unit Anode 02:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
"Repeatedly restoring warnings does nothing but antagonize users, and can encourage further disruption..." [33] Ikip 03:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) I must apologize for two unintentional (and unrelated) matters: my earlier post did not carry my signature and it came across as more snarky than intended. I respect the work you do. However, my mild frustration with the BLP deletions has caused me to post in more direct terms than is deserved. All I meant to communicate was that:
I suspect that most people believe you are still very qualified to serve in all your capacities. I really do not mean to belittle your long and vast contributions. I truly wish you the best in your productive encyclopedia-building work, and again ask you accept my apologies for any offense with my snarky comment. Your colleague, — James Kalmar 06:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking for suggestions on how to track improvements to the articles that have been prodded. Ray has been kind enough to source every single article he's deprodded, and to notify me that he's done so. Others have simply mass-deprodded dozens of articles, without fixing the problem. Any ideas how to track what progress is being made? I'm thinking of simply clicking each article, and creating a separate "results list" that shows what improvements are being made. Unit Anode 03:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
You will find several more references to Graham Jones at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&cf=all&ned=ca&hl=en&q=%22Graham+Jones%22+Hyndburn&cf=all
I suspect that once you go through them all, you will be able to restore some of the text that was removed as unreferenced. - Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
For your note. I'll watch my email. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 09:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you added the PROD tag to this BLP aticle. I've found four references for it so far and was wondering if it's okay to remove the tag? - JuneGloom07 Talk? 14:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Pamela Paulshock, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Paulshock. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Enric Naval ( talk) 01:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, firstly feel free to delete this after reading. I saw you comment that I was only complaining and doing nothing to help and wanted comment about that, I assure you I am here to help the wikipedia, I also know there is an issue with this just I disagree with what is being implemented. I have done work to save articles since this started and will also do more to help in the coming times once it is clear there is agreement on action. I am not an inclusionist, my position is that I do not want to see decent content lost, it should be cited, I agree, myself I would have put some energy into collecting a hit squad to cite the uncited, so to speak and there may be after this cage rattling more people willing to join a task squad to do that, but the community is imo still working out what is best and when it clearly does I will be part of the team available to help implement that decision.
Here are some of the prods I removed, it is not comprehensive, just a cut and copy of some to show you I have also helped with this and not only complained.. I have also saved an article from the mass deleted articles from the Google archives and cited and replaced it, I also have cited and replaced two articles from the incubator collection and here are some that I have simply added a citation and removed the prod.
?
)
Regards. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
how does one ask for a check user search? Is that something only admins ask for? Thanks. Malke 2010 05:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we are in agreement at the talkpage there, and someone else added a comment to that effect to the WMC thread. He has asked at my talkpage that the external links be removed from the evidence. I replied here that I did not consider those links when formulating the close, but would defer to others regarding their removal. - 2/0 ( cont.) 17:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
...because I'm increasingly frustrated that an editor with a grand total of 106 main space edits, nearly all of them political POV pushing, keeps distracting and baiting valuable expert editors with thousands of constructive main space edits. I think this aspect needs to be highlighted. If we want to build an encyclopedia, we need to protect our most valuable assets better. And that value is, in the end, the ability to contribute actual content. I believe in WP:SPADE. Civility is useful, but it's not a goal in itself. Establishing a pleasant climate of cooperation between 150 undereducated morons by driving away everybody who has an actually qualified opionon cannot be our primary mission. As for the mu (negative): It's about the only useful answer to the "have you stopped beating your wife" type of questions. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 14:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Hipocrite: that confused me. Could you clarify? ++ Lar: t/ c 18:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Stephan Schulz: Septic is not a "harmless play on words", sorry. WMC has issues that need addressing. Are you sure you're here in good faith? ++ Lar: t/ c 18:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) I speak of the topic area as a whole, not the specific article. As with many contentious areas, all the factions involved are wrong in some ways and all share blame for how things are now. But in this particular contentious area, there is a perception among "many" editors that one side is controlling the topic quite effectively. "Many" is not a majority of the 11.5 million editors who have edited here, to be sure. It may not even be a majority of the active editors (most active editors I suspect are oblivious to this). Or even a majority of the editors who are involved in this topic area. But there is such a perception, and it is held by more than a "few"(2) editors. I'm not so sure that this control is as blatant as it is in some other areas. Or even there at all. But I can see characteristics in the behavior of one "side" that make it look like that control is there ++ Lar: t/ c 21:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Regarding "septic," I would prefer that WMC not use that term. I also would prefer that Lar show the same high level of concern about derogatory terms being used against those editing from the consensus perspective. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 03:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what Boris had in mind. Perhaps he meant that if Wikipedia is to honor its basic principles, then whatever one's personal beliefs about Climategate or urban heat islands or what-have-you, our coverage of the science of climate change should reflect mainstream scientific thought and consensus, which is fairly easily demonstrable (coverage of the politics of climate change is, of course, a separate matter). I think that when Boris talked about "editing from the consensus position", he meant editing that is brings our scientific coverage in line with mainstream scientific thought. Editing that systematically seeks to obscure, minimize, or downplay the existing state of scientific knowledge on the topic is harmful to this project's goal of creating a serious, respectable reference work.
It's not really useful to talk about "pro-AGW" and "anti-AGW" editors, because that takes for granted that we're on a WP:BATTLEfield. It's more useful to talk about editing which moves Wikipedia closer to its project goals, and editing which moves it farther away from them. I think that might move some focus away from a toxic fixation on the personalities involved, and toward a focus on the content, which is sort of the point. MastCell Talk 04:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Scientific consensus allows that a minority of scientists may disagree - it does not imply unanimity (have you looked at our article on scientific consensus? It's not bad). I agree that our articles should not denigrate any position, though they should note its level of acceptance among knowledgeable people in the field. I agree that a notable minority of scientists disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change. We should cover that viewpoint. And we do. And as with most minoritarian viewpoints, Wikipedia gives it far more prominence and visibility than does any other serious, respectable reference work, due to its overrepresentation among Wikipedia editors as compared to experts in the field. I don't think I've ever compared climate change skepticism to the beliefs of Truthers or Birthers, and I agree that is an inappropriate comparison. MastCell Talk 05:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
A journalist once crystallized the Israeli/Palestinian issue by saying that each side viewed itself as the victim, and the other as the perpetrator. In truth, both sides are victims and perpetrators. Same sort of dynamic here, I think. Hopefully it will turn out better. MastCell Talk 18:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Since Boris declined to answer your question, instead dropping a non sequitur, I'll have a go. In your hypothetical, you would be considered as not part of the "scientific consensus." As far as I can tell, anyone who believes anything other than the "company line" is outside of the "scientific consensus." Unit Anode 03:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
A few points.
That Boris chose not to answer my question was interesting... I still haven't got a grip on what it means. Perhaps I should ping him? ++ Lar: t/ c 17:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I know there's some dispute about best talk page practices around global warming. What should be done about this. Was my intitial collapse wrong? Hipocrite ( talk) 21:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from such behaviour in the future. This edit summary was the offending article. At least until I had read the actual comment. Viridae Talk 13:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to remove backlinks to deleted pages at User:AeronPeryton/Articles/Mutsuhiko Izumi, which is a userfied WP:BLP... I am really not sure what the rules are pertaining to this so I'm asking you, as you know better and are the admin who moved it upon request. I'll leave it alone for now. JBsupreme ( talk) 16:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Wikidemon is edit-warring to reclose AFDs that were inappropriately closed early, as well as attempting to readd unsourced information to articles, without providing a source. I'm unsure what to do here, as he's making it clear that he's on some kind of crusade to undo my BLP work. Unit Anode 16:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I have not checked extensively, just checked the samples given above. A few points:
Arbcom has spoken on this matter. Disregard that at your peril, Wikidemon. I would like to see an acknowledgement that unacceptable behaviors are going to stop, or I may act further. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict - addressed to Lar) Please get off your horse here and stop making threats. I have every right to deprod bad prods. I am not edit warring over that, I have exercised my discretion on a case by case basis, after carefully reviewing each case. What behavioral policy do you claim I have violated? Please point me to one - I don't see one. I assume you followed the ArbCom case and the AN/I threads. If so you must know you are not on the side of consensus here. UnitAnode, and you apparently, have a minority content position that material must be sourced and not just verifiable. That content position, if taken to its logical conclusion, would gut 90% or more of the content on the encyclopedia. It's absurd. Yes, ideally the fact that an author wrote a book or that a news reporter had a byline should be cited in proper format to a third party source. But it's as easy as finding google to do, and if you look at it, the claim that an author wrote a book is sourced because the source is the book itself, if anyone cares to check. The vast majority of claims in Wikipedia that a person wrote a book, or acted in a film, or sang a song, simply do not have citations. If you and UnitAnode wish to change that you have a long road ahead of you, and taking potshots at random articles is not a good way to get there. Making block threats and calling things vandalism only makes it worse. Threatening to use tools against me to advance your position is abusive, and actually doing so would be an abuse of tools. Regarding the AfD, the article certainly is a snow close. Undoing a reasonable snow close without consensus, particularly when done by the nominator, is clearly disruptive. UnitAnode was engaging in a campaign to delete verifiable BLP articles for lack of sourcing, which is disruption given the RfC on the matter. ArbCom has opined as much that mass deletions at this point would be a problem. - Wikidemon ( talk) 18:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it's pretty safe to say that it can be snow-closed now. Two more supports since the re-opening of this pretty much seals the deal per se. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 18:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I am pleased by your willingness to join the conversation. Welcome. Ikip 17:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)