This page 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. |
Hey TParis, if you have nothing better to do, maybe you can have a look at this article to see if we need this much detail. Happy days, Drmies ( talk) 14:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
All recent edits - since July - have been vandalism, basically posting links to unrelated music videos into the article as "references" ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). For example, adding a Jay-Z music video in the middle of a word of an article and with the summary "bling-ed it a bit" doesn't seem to be good faith. The user's edits that I'd possibly consider competent and good faith were made over a couple years ago (November 2009 and September 2011), so while technically the account may not be vandalism only, everything within the past several months were all vandalism (with a very large break in between...perhaps this is a compromised account). Hm, actually now I see one edit from more recently (October) that may possibly fall under this - [1] - but again it's a disruptive fake reference that has a link unrelated to the article's content, consistent with the addition of youtube videos into the article. While not every single edit made by this account has been obvious vandalism, every single edit made within the past year has fallen into what I would consider vandalism, and I feel blocking under VOA was justified. If you feel differently, go ahead, but just keep an eye on the user's contributions. Spencer T♦ C 19:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
—
cyberpower Online
Merry Christmas is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
— cyberpower Online Merry Christmas 22:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I was gonna smack another Christmas template to your page, but two is enough already. I hope you and yours have a Merry Christmas! Ish dar ian 10:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
BUG report: http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pages/ has the wrong title (has "Top Namespace Edits"). Insert Xmas greetings here. Josh Parris 07:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Apparently, TP, your recent illness (I hope you are fully recovered now) did nothing to interfere with your judgment. Your closure of the Miles topic (and subtopics), which went out of control quite some ago, was a good deed worthy of the holiday season. Regards.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I tried this query and it took several minutes before throwing a 502 Proxy Error:
-- Redrose64 ( talk) 14:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I get something similar for http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pages/index.php?name=Josh+Parris&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects Josh Parris 00:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I have posted the code at Cyberpower678/xtools and added you as a collaborator. Code changes should be made there first before being made live. Bug reports and feature requests should be directed there too. I've already opened a few very vague requests that I plan to undertake in the future.— cyberpower ChatOnline 21:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
—
cyberpower Online
Happy 2014 — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
— cyberpower Online Happy 2014 00:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Barnstar of Awesome | |
You are hereby awarded the Barnstar of Awesome for your much appreciated protection of Wikipedia from language snobbery
[2]. Thank you!
Regards, Safehaven86 ( talk) 16:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC) |
From Latin _Deus_. My mom taught Latin and the spelling yells at me <g> Collect ( talk) 22:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I have seen a statement by User:MilesMoney on his talk page, in response to a request from you. There are a number of issues that I would like to respond to, as a somewhat-involved editor. What is the appropriate forum for doing that? I am reluctant to post directly on Miles' page. Do you anticipate that this statement will be in the RfC/U? St Anselm ( talk) 22:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
This edit garbled a closed discussion. Re the assertion in there saying, "We use what the majority of sources use.", that's not what I read WP:DUE to say. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey Tparis, is there a place to report bugs on the wmflabs site? I've checked Bugzilla and am not completely convinced that's where I need to go, but let me know if I am in error. Thanks, and have a great day! Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 03:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
Your summary of; and patience while working through the recent MM debacle is appreciated. VViking Talk Edits 03:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC) |
I don't know if you are aware, but a gun control ArbCom case has opened, largely spillover from the ANI case that you commented on previously. while I certainly wouldn't consider your comments in the ANi involvement, there have been several uninvolved commenters on the case already,so yo umay wish to drop in $0.02. [ [4]] Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a difference of opinion of the restrictions imposed in the ANI thread you recently closed; please review [5]. Thanks. NE Ent 21:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Please update http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TParis/Recall#Editors – I'm not sure there's 5 of the listed editors still active in order to invoke your Option 3. Thanks. 66.87.145.214 ( talk) 23:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I strongly object to the haste with which you closed User:MilesMoney's recent community ban. If I or any representative sample of the majority of editors who have interacted with him had had the opportunity to comment, there is no doubt in my mind that the outcome would have been far different. Why did you not open an RFC/U for at least thirty days? I ask that you please reverse yourself and do so. If you are unwilling then please tell me the instructions for how to appeal on Miles' behalf and I will gladly do so. I think you screwed up in one of the most abusive ways possible, but I have no desire to paste a trout template to emphasize my sincerity. Thank you. EllenCT ( talk) 05:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance says "What RfC/U CANNOT do is: Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures;" An RFC/U would've had to have been started after the last ANI thread on MilesMoney reached no-consensus, not in the middle of a thread that seems to be leading to a definite sanction. What is also a concern is that Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/MilesMoney is not an RFC/U no matter what it's title says. We have a predetermined and very strict format for RFC/Us that the one here did not follow. It's too late for an RFC/U at that point, only Arbcom could've replaced an ANI thread like that.
However, if you wish to continue in the appeals process, there are two:
1. Convince the Community on WP:AN to overturn the block by consensus. You can do this by convincing them that MilesMoney is ready to come back, was never disruptive in the first place, or that there was something wrong with my close. You can try to convince them on your 30 day idea, I somehow suspect that won't work but, and I mean this full heatedly, be my guest. Or you can try to convince them I was WP:INVOLVED. If you go down that route, please be sure to actually read the policy in full because 99.9% of those accusations get ignored because the accuser failed to note that "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." I've never encountered MilesMoney in anything but an administrative fashion.
2. The second appeal route is Arbcom. They have historically declined cases not opened by the banned party themselves but you could go this route. Same rules as the above apply. Arbcom is not a fun process and you'll be required to back up everything you've said with diffs and policy. Since your 30 day idea isn't backed up by policy, I strongly suggest you do not go this route but its, again, your call. Note that MilesMoney himself was leery of Arbcom for good reason. You might do him more harm than good.
My last bit of advice for you is that you take a while to reflect on this before doing anything to determine if I am really abusive or if you're just upset that your friend got banned. I don't speak for the community, I didn't ban your friend, they did. I don't have a foot in that door, I don't edit the same areas that he does, his leaving the project doesn't affect me at all. Have a good day, Ellen, and I'm available if you have any more questions about process or if you need additional clarification.--v/r - T P 07:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
As the admin who blocked User:MilesMoney, I would like to clarify what the terms of his ban is, since he has mentioned me on his talk page. What sort of talk page usage is appropriate for a banned editor? I am thinking particularly of edits such as this one. WP:BAN talks about a banned user using his or her talk page for appeals - it doesn't seem to anticipate such an editor using it in other ways. I note also that WP:BANBLOCKDIFF says access to one's own talk page is "usually not allowed" if a user is site banned - is there any reason why MilesMoney continues to have access? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StAnselm ( talk • contribs)
In light of the course events have taken, I'm not sure what to do about the MilesMoney RfC that I started. I have copied the bit of evidence that I had submitted into my own userspace, and since there wasn't really any other significant input from other editors before MM was indef'ed (aside from a bit of tussle between MM and a few of his opponents), I don't know if the RfC has much value in continuing to exist. Perhaps the tussle could be referenced as evidence in an arbitration case, but there's plenty of other material that could serve the same purpose. In any case, I don't think it should remain open, so if you have a moment would you mind closing it and either archiving or deleting as you see fit? Thanks, alanyst 17:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
At User talk:ChrisGualtieri#Interaction Ban you had a bit of wording issue, I pinged you, but I don't think you got the message. It reads ".. you may not make any edits related to ChrisGualtieri..." so it says I am interaction banned from myself. Thanks in advance for fixing it. I didn't want to modify your post. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 17:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello TP. I was a bit startled to see your use of "tallying" in reference to the closing of TFD/Miles ANI thread. It sounded like vote-counting, which I presume was not the meaning you intended. SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi TP. I see that in your close of the MM thread you state << SPECIFICO's houding of editors in this dispute hasn't been helpful at all. Attempting to tie nearly every editor to MilesMoney in someway is an ad hominem. It doesn't address their argument in any way and attempts to discredit them based on who they are. That's not good dispute resolution.>>
Hello, TP. It's now been well over 48 hours since my message above concerning the statement you made in the closing of the ANI in RE: MilesMoney. I understand that this is a busy time for you, but these are important concerns, and I would like to resolve this issue and put it to rest. If you do not have the time to research or consider this in detail, you could simply redact your comment about me and we can consider the matter closed. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Name | Position | Involved in Underlying Dispute @Talk:Pamela Geller | Involved with MilesMoney | Comments | Community Ban | Topic ban | BLP ban | Oppose |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The_Four_Deuces | Support | Yes | Yes | X | X | X | ||
Gamaliel | Support/Oppose | No | No | Administrative Capacity Only | X | |||
Nil Einne | Comment | No | No | Left ANI notices that were unmade | ||||
Mangoe | Oppose | No | No | Assisted at BLP/N | X | |||
MONGO | Support | No | Talk:Phil_Robertson | X | ||||
Two kinds of pork | Support | Yes | Yes | X | ||||
Collect | Support | Yes | Yes | X | X | X | ||
Iselilja | Support | Yes | Yes | X | X | X | ||
Safehaven86 | Support | No | Talk:Ocean_Grove,_New_Jersey | X | X | X | ||
Johnuniq | Support | No | No | X | ||||
Cullen | Support | No | No | X | X | X | ||
Roccodrift | Support | Yes | Yes | X | X | |||
StAnselm | Support | Yes | Yes | X | X | X | ||
Sportfan5000 | Oppose | No | No | X | ||||
ViriiK | Support | No | No | X | X | X | ||
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz | Support | No | Talk:Scott Rasmussen | X | 2 | 2 | ||
RL0919 | Support | No | Talk:Ayn Rand | X | ||||
John Reaves | Support | No | No | X | ||||
goethean | Oppose | Yes | Yes | X | ||||
Gaijin42 | Support | No | Talk:Gun control | 2 | X | X | ||
Drmies | Support | Yes | Yes | X | X | |||
Someone not using his real name | Support | No | No | X | X | X | ||
MrX | Support | No | Talk:War on Women | X | ||||
A Quest For Knowledge | Support | No | Ludwig von Mises Institute | X | ||||
Sportsguy17 | Support | No | No | X | ||||
I, JethroBT | Support | No | Talk:Ayn Rand | 2 | X | X | ||
Lukeno94 | Support | No | No | X | X | X | ||
S. Rich | Support | No | Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe | 2 | X | X | ||
Capitalismojo | Support | No | Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers | X | ||||
Epicgenius | Support | No | No | X | ||||
SPECIFICO | No | Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute | ||||||
Georgewilliamherbert | No | No | Acting only as an administrator | |||||
Writegeist | Oppose | No | No | X | ||||
Morphh | Yes | Yes | ||||||
Carolmooredc | Support | No | Talk:Gary North (economist) | X | ||||
Binksternet | Support | Yes | Yes | X | 2 | 2 | ||
Niteshift36 | Support | No | Talk:Phil Robertson | X | X | |||
Beyond My Ken | Support | No | No | X | 2 | 2 | ||
Steeletrap | Oppose | No | Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe | X | ||||
MarnetteD | Support | No | No | X | 2 | 2 | ||
Darkness Shines | Oppose | Yes | Yes | X | ||||
NinjaRobotPirate | Support | No | No | X | X | X | ||
The Devil's Advocate | Support | No | No | X | ||||
QuackGuru | Oppose | Yes | Yes | X | ||||
Itsmejudith | Oppose | No | No | X | ||||
Medeis | Support | No | Talk:Ayn Rand | X | ||||
Adjwilley | No | No | ||||||
Sitush | Support | No | Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute | X | ||||
All !votes | !Votes not in | !Votes never interacted | ||||||
underlying dispute | with MilesMoney | |||||||
34/8 | 26/5 | 12/4 | All !votes | 29 | 23 | 20 | 8 | |
TOTAL SUPPORT | 81% | 84% | 75% | |||||
!Votes not in underlying dispute | 23 | 16 | 13 | 5 | ||||
!Votes never interacted | 12 | 8 | 7 | 4 |
Re: Wikipedia:CBAN#Community_bans_and_restrictions you wrote in close of MilesMoney matter above: A community ban discussion of uninvolved editors means that a group of predominately involved editors in the current dispute cannot determine who gets banned from the project. It does not mean that editors involved in the dispute cannot contribute to the consensus. This interpretation is fairly new and recent.
Obviously it is since I and evidently others never heard of it and then when I looked at WP:CBAN the references were to an inactive community ban noticeboard and an ambiguous reference to uninvolved/involved "comments" which I assumed included support and nonsupport. So before posting to talk-WP:CBAN asking for clarification of policy, I thought I'd see if you wanted to initiate the relevant change at the policy page. Thanks. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 18:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Can you look here to see if I have done it correctly? It seems to be taking a while and I am thinking I muffed it up. Darkness Shines ( talk) 23:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello TParis, Happy New Year. Please can you let us know what it is about the Climate Change Capital page /info/en/?search=Climate_Change_Capital you feel is advertising?
CCC is authorised and regulated by the UK's Financial Conduct Authority and therefore is not allowed to advertise new funds. The information is historical (i.e. funds we have raised and closed and are not open to new business).
By comparison, a commensurate business would be Generation Investment Management /info/en/?search=Generation_Investment_Management who do not mention specific funds but go as far to include a section on funding opportunities (albeit to other networks).
Happy to shorten or make any changes you would recommend. There are some items that need correcting (i.e. James Cameron is now Vice-Chair of the World Economic Forum's Global Agenda Council on Measuring Sustainability and their Advisory Board of the Global Competitiveness Index and he is no longer on Pepsico UK's advisory board). I would also recommend including that CCC is authorised and regulated by the FCA.)
Welcome your feedback. Daniel Danielcremin ( talk) 15:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Doh!. Help!-- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 00:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I am the user Chauahuasachca, who sent an unblocking request. I already unsigned the box "mark every edit as minor" in my settings. Could my account be unblocked, now? I already adhered the site you've sent me.-- 93.134.238.121 ( talk) 10:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Finally got around to starting this here and did quote you. FYI. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 20:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to request userfication of deleted article named "Insurance Hotline" to my userspace User:BiH/Insurance_Hotline for improvements that will establish notability. Thank you. -- BiH ( talk) 17:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable to remove the stale merge tag from both Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell (manga)? It has been there for months and over 250,000 readers have had a chance to see it. My last GAN passed and I want to get both of these to GA by March for the anniversary of Toren's passing. I wish I had more on Toren to. I think it might need to be closed, but I can neither request, interact or do anything which might seem to skirt the line here. It's rather degrading to have one of the most trafficked articles remain like this. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 05:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
...but I think your good faith with regard to unblocking User:Nightskate has been wasted. Their contributions today have been bizarre (to say the least) and there unfortunately appears to be an element of WP:NOTTHERAPY. Your thoughts?-- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 22:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I left this warning about Wikihounding on SPECIFICO's talk page, which includes my previous June warning to him and related WP:ANI when he would not stop. Since you have discussed this kind of behavior with him previously, perhaps you could discourage him from it. This is the kind of badgering that made me angry enough to quit editing in the subject at all twice previously; but I find it difficult to ignore the policy issues in the articles being edited so have managed to return. Also note that all of the articles are regarding libertarians and/or under Austrian economics/General sanctions. Thanks. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 02:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
FYI - I'm about to file an ArbCom request. This has gone on long enough. Let them figure out how best to sort through this mess. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 19:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Tom, I apologize if I've done something wrong. I wasn't trying to imply that you were involved in this dispute. The reason why I used the diff to your talk page is that it demonstrates that the dispute is ongoing. IOW, it's not stale. The fact is that involved editors are using your talk page as part of dispute resolution. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they are. In any case, let's see what the clerks have to say. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
13:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, could you take a look at Myron & E, as the current page is based of a copyvio initial G12 deletion request. Another editor has changed a bit but it still largely resembles the original copyvio. Jarkeld.alt ( Talk) 08:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
As the admin who issued the interaction ban, I have a question of clarification. According to the proposal I agreed and supported stated "Lucia Black and ChrisGualtieri are indefinitely banned from commenting on, at, or mentioning about the other. The normal exceptions apply. Persisting violations will result in escalating blocks up to and including an indefinite block." [9] Two editors said that I did not have to avoid pages that I was working on for GA - I just cannot interact with Lucia, and IBAN says as much. According to IBAN, editors can edit the same pages as long as they do not revert, or undo each other's edits (assuming rollback) as well. Is that correct? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 14:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
The text was taken from the Ghost in the Shell page and copy pasted right onto the manga page. Here is as the page appeared. Diff for dates. Note the distinct sections for Title, Setting, Films, Video game, Stand Alone Complex and Arise sections. Comprising the bulk of the text. In this diff, Lucia Black takes content from the sections for Title, Setting, Films, Video game, Stand Alone Complex and Arise sections and inserts them in verbatim into the manga article. Minor formatting of the section titles and an organizational switch is done. I thought I was removing something I had added and with good reason, the entire contents were duplicated and it was more than 2 months ago that it was done. I was just going to drop the rest of the development in an nominate it for a GAN when Lucia Black reverted claiming I was undoing her edit - but I didn't "undo it" and it was not even her own work. She just took one page and tacked it on to the other without attribution. I was told by two other editors that I would not be prohibited from working on good articles, and I asked if I had to submit it to a 3rd party or something - they both said I could edit the page without issue. Even before Lucia reverted, two admins (Serge and Sal) suggested she not get involved. She reverted anyways making a big red notification and that's how I learned of it. I need clarification because I've had the content ready for months and I've repeatedly stated for months that I want to get that article to at least GA by March for the anniversary of Toren's death. It means a lot to me and that is why I specifically asked and the ANI said clearly it would not impact my work and now it seems like it encompasses every article Lucia ever edited and I have to check every edit history before doing any edit - including copy pasted content that was not her own. Sorry to make a rambling post, but I am so confused, and upset. Lucia got blocked for a week and I feel that I am being punished and that the "Rules" are changing from what was agreed and explicitly told to me. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 15:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC) |
I've just closed a thread at the administrator's noticeboard for incidents concerning your participation in War on Woman. While you were not topic banned, you should be aware that the thread was nearly evenly split with a slight majority in favor of a topic ban. You should take that as a definite sign that, at the very least, editors are seeing your participation there as disruptive. That's not to say that you cannot participate, but that you should make an effort to be make clear and concise arguments that refrain from making comments about others and are supported by strong sourcing. On the other subject of Roscelese, consensus is that you are banned from mentioning, replying to, discussing about or otherwise addressing Roscelese in any way. In addition, you may not revert or undo Roscelese's edits in any way. The usual caveats of dispute resolution on appropriate noticeboards apply.--v/r - T P 14:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC
– Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 04:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Can I edit Monster (manga) without violating my Iban? I have been cautiously scanning the history and it seems that the last activity from Lucia Black was back on 11 November 2010 and not since in the intervening 3 years. Changes would be required to split the extensive and excessively detailed character section and possibly making a list for the detailed manga volumes which will require a fair amount of work. With the splits a fair amount of additional details and a better summary will be required. This particular title is of fairly mid-importance and needs only 4-5 hours of work to be GA-level. If you decline, I'll see if I can get something else from Madhouse's works that I familiar with. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for maintaining X's tools! For a really long time now (a year at least, I don't remember) I have tried to see the list of articles created by me (in Estonian Wikipedia, etwiki), but the tool shows only the first 100 and when I click the link to see more, it gives 502 proxy error (The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server. The proxy server could not handle the request GET /xtools/pages/index.php. Reason: Error reading from remote server.) I am not really so tech savvy to know what to do with it or even if I can do anything at all. Can you say something about it? Is it some "my computer's problem" or is the list too long or there is really a problem with server or what? I apologize if I bother you with silly things, I just thought I'd do sth to get to see the list. Adeliine ( talk) 11:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I saw some edits by User:Pass a Method, and I was wondering if they were in breach of his topic ban for religious articles: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] and the creation of Category:Quranic epics. Some of those may be simply gnomic, but the category at least is possibly controversial. I am mentioning this to you as the admin who notified him of the ban. St Anselm ( talk) 20:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about the accidental rollback, I was trying to scroll down my Watchlist on my smart phone and the page reformatted as I was about to view the diff on another page causing me to hit the rollback link on you talk page. - Nick Thorne talk 21:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 22:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 8, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 01:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. There seems to be a problem at https://tools.wmflabs.org/ with xtools. At https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ all I see is "No input file specified." — Wbm1058 ( talk) 15:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear TParis,
In late September 2011, you were credited with deleting the entire Wikipedia page concerning Dr. Punyamurtula Kishore. In that same timeframe, links to the Wikipedia page were also rapidly purged from various search engines. The web metrics concerning this page have become a point of journalistic interest in the weeks prior to, and following, the deletion.
Having a copy of the original Wikipedia page, and using the parameters you suggested for determining what rationale might have motivated the deletion prior to communicating with you, I find myself unable to get an unequivocal sense of the reasoning behind the deletion. To complicate this matter, the deletion came within a few days of a highly controversial indictment of Dr. Kishore. That this could be entirely coincidental, and the deletion made for completely justifiable reasons independent of any other activity surrounding the subject of that Wikipedia page, is certainly what one would hope would be the case. Therefore, understanding the rationale behind the deletion would go a long ways toward establishing the timing to be coincidental, with the one event not having any causal relation to the other.
I am publishing a series of articles about Dr. Kishore's case and have in passing drawn attention to the Wikipedia deletion in light of its suspicious timing. If the rationale for deletion is legitimate, however, I will need to revise any published statements concerning the deletion that would cast it in an unnecessarily derogatory light. The objective basis for the deletion should trump any subjective perception concerning it on the part of the subject, so long as the former is legitimate.
Thanking you in advance for your insights into this ongoing, and growing, controversy,
207.235.13.82 ( talk) 21:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Martin Selbrede
I translated, duck attack on the German Main page ;) - Thank you for closing threads and "We love you anyway", -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Why have you threatened to block me for marking the lightbreather account as a SPA? That account is the very definition of an SPA. It edits Gun Control Related articles exclusively. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Although I was originally in strong agreement that the SPA label applied to LB, they have begun to branch out now (to a small degree). Although gun control is still certainly their focus, it is not exclusive anymore, and the SPA label is just causing drama at this point. Additionally Sue, your editing has crossed the line into disruptive several times now, so I would be wary of bringing any accusations. LB has some major issues and might end up having a WP:CIR action in the future, but antagonizing them, and interfering with other editors work on articles where she happens to edit is not acceptable either. Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
on: https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ ok links: https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/ https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/User:tparis/Index not ok links: https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ec https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/blame https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ipcalc try to redirect to: http://www.tools-webgrid-01.com:4086 should be: https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ec/ https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/blame/ https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs/ https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ipcalc/
Xb2u7Zjzc32 (
talk)
05:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:
Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt ( talk) 04:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, I seem to remember that I promised Worm to stop talking about that. *shrugs* I dunno, willpower, man. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 23:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Tparis, I just wanted to respond to a comment you made at ANI. Your right, accusing someone of abusing the tools is a serious accusation as it should be. What's even more of a problem though is the general attitude of admins on this site to plead ignorance of the problem. Even in that discussion multiple people commented they didn't have an opinion about the editor. Which means they do, but don't want to get involved because that admin has a history of retalitory actions against users who speak out against them. Like confronting them and threatening them with blocks for "Personal attacks". If they supported them or didn't agree with my statements they would have said that. Instad they decided to stay out if it. That is a huge problem for me and it should be for you as well. Nyttend has already been brough to ANI multiple times and has survived a couple Arbcom decisions where he was a party because the processes in place to deal with Abusive admins and editors don't work here. The only thing I have left to do is to be vocal and raise awareness of the problem in the hopes that it will eventually be identified and fixed. 138.162.8.57 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The thing about admin abuse is that more often than actual real cases, it's an angry editor who refuses to acknowledge guilt or responsibility for themselves. I'm speaking from personal experience here. StillStanding-247 who made a very chilling remark and then claimed it was innocent banter, Joefromrandb who edit warred against an IP and then refused to read the policy when he got blocked, and recently EllenCT who accused me of admin abuse despite a very clear table showing that he definition of WP:CBAN actually hurts her argument instead of helps it. And now this most recent example of Nyttend.
Do you think everyone of us with the sysop bit just wakes up in the morning somehow feeling some sense of 'power' because we've got a bit in a database that says we can have extra functions on a website? Hell, the majority of admins regret ever running for RfA and wish they didn't feel a sense of responsibility for having done it and feel bad about quitting. Have you even seen my edit counts in the last 6 months? If there is admin abuse, it's by folks who are burnt out and made a bad judgement call. And we're so happy to ignore years of excellent contributions to condemn folks for a bad call. Those folks need to be forced to take a break, but that doesn't mean we have to crucify them to do it.
It's much easier to claim admin abuse than to prove it and that's all that happened on ANI yesterday and that's all you're doing here now. You again are claiming admin abuse without proving it. You're part of the abuse of 'abuse'. You devalue the word, you desensitize the rest of us to the real thing, and you legitimize efforts to block any kind of reform that would provide more accountability to admins because of how wildly you use the term.
That's not to say that admin abuse doesn't happen, but it's to say that the ratio of admin abuse and 'abuse' abuse is actually much lower than your words admit. I've seen admin abuse, I've been very vocal about it. I was one of the first few people to challenge User:SchuminWeb on the issue that got his tools revoked before anyone even mentioned bringing it to Arbcom. I was vocal about David Gerrard's tool use to win a move war. I've got 3 admins on my watch list at this very moment that I'm keeping an eye on. The difference is that I'm waiting until I can substantially prove a history of admin abuse, whereas you'll run to ANI to make wild accusations with little supportive evidence. I'm direct and targetted, careful, and patient and you want this thing to be fixed overnight. You're incapable of distinguishing between general pissiness because someone rightly got blocked and actual admin abuse. You don't take into account that admins will naturally receive criticism from those who get blocked. You jump at any chance to jump on the admin abuse bus. By railing against one problem, you're actually working against it. You create (you literally are the reason for) the very 'admin shield' that you are angry about.
You want change? Strengthen your arguments.--v/r - T P 18:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear TParis,
Thank you for directing me to the deletion page for Dr. Punyamurtula Kishore last week.
From what I can gather, there were two rationales stated for deletion. We’ll take them in increasing order of importance.
First, MelanieN made the following assertion to justify deleting the article:
The article contains many exaggerations and outright inaccuracies, as exemplified by this claim: "He began his medical career as a primary care/family practice physician and then moved into a position as the Medical Director of the Washingtonian Center for Addictions, the first organization in the U.S. to recognize addiction as a disease. Their philosophy was an early precursor to the AA or 12-step program movement." A good trick, considering that the AA movement was founded in the 1930s and the Twelve-Step Program was published in 1939. --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Assuming that MelanieN has provided her best example of exaggeration and “outright inaccuracies,” it is easy to show that she is misinformed and providing a false rationale for deletion. In Wikipedia’s own reference to the Washingtonian movement ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washingtonian_movement), the launching of the institution in question is asserted in respect to “the Washingtonian Homes which opened in Boston and Chicago in 1857.” The University of Boston Massachusetts traces back the birth of the Washington Center for Addictions to 1857 ( http://www.lib.umb.edu/node/1646), describing the evolution of the institution from that point forward through to its final dissolution in 1980 (at which point a large portion of its library was bequeathed to its medical director, Dr. Kishore). MelanieN appears to be unaware of the long, involved history of this institution, and accused Dr. Kishore of attempting to put over “a good trick” on the reader. She assumes that the chronology self-evidently disproves the article’s assertion, because in her view the Washington Center for Addictions was founded well after the 1930s, creating an obvious anachronism. In point of fact, the Center was founded 80 years earlier than that. The original statement in the deleted page is accurate. The “good trick” comment is prima facie sarcastic, I might add, but it wasn’t you who made it, so I will pass on that.
Second, the question of notability (which I assume is the more pressing rationale for deletion) deserves attention. Dr. Kishore is the architect of the Massachusetts Model for addiction treatment. Its notability primarily rests on the objectively documented claim that while opiate replacement therapies (Methadone, Suboxone, etc.) yield a 5% success rate after one year of treatment, Dr. Kishore has a 37% success rate after one year of treatment (750% more lives restored to sobriety). The replacement therapy statistics behind the conventional therapies' 5% figure are “soft” statistics because a significant portion of the raw data is based on addicts self-reporting their sobriety, whereas Dr. Kishore’s 37% statistics are based on actual drug tests (which is why several faculty members at Harvard University’s School of Medicine have been providing testimony in support of the clinical objectivity of Dr. Kishore’s achievement). His clinics grew quickly because his addiction treatment method was both revolutionary and record-setting. Kishore’s approach is non-narcotic, using Vivitrol to remove cravings after the second month of treatment. Consequently, the disastrous shuttering of his clinics in September 2011 (as the media noted in alarmist terms) put his many patients at risk, since no other state doctors knew how to treat with Vivitrol (which cannot be administered to anyone who’s not 100% sober due to drug interaction issues). Two years after the shutdown of Dr. Kishore’s clinics, Massachusetts now has the worst heroin problem in the country.
In light of the above, I would appreciate a fuller explanation for the “non-notability” label being applied to Dr. Kishore’s work. If you require more information, I would appreciate a clear explanation of what you would expect in the way of data that would establish notability.
Thank you once again,
207.235.13.82 ( talk) 23:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Martin Selbrede
Hello! I remember the UTRS project wanting to use HTTPS but could not because it required using the User's IP. Having both was not possible with the labs infrastructure at that time, but is possible now! If you have a few minutes to spare at some point, I'd like you to be online at the time I make the transition, to ensure that nothing goes wrong. Do let me know when you can be available? Thanks! YuviPanda ( talk) 19:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I've sent you a response. I almost slapped a {{ ygm}} on your talkpage, but I realized that would be a little disrespectful. My response has the same subject as the original that you sent me. Cheers, -- ТимофейЛее Суда. 22:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear TParis,
I'll respond to the notability issue as it is of more importance. In passing, let me add that Dr. Kishore is male and not female.
Here is a first set of tertiary sources that touch on the question of Dr. Kishore's notability. Let me know if these are adequate to establish notability. If not, do I need to supply further references (which I have) or is the issue the quality of the sources (in which case, please advise on that point as well).
Thank you for your patience on this matter. A preliminary list of sources relevant to Dr. Kishore's notability or lack thereof follows my sign-off.
207.235.13.82 ( talk) 00:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Martin Selbrede
First, note the ASAM Fellow criteria:
http://www.asam.org/membership/asam-fellows
List of 327 physicians world-wide elected as ASAM Fellows since 1996: http://www.asam.org/membership/asam-fellows/current-asam-fellows
Interview chapter in “Drugs Make You Unsmarter” (Winner of Golden Quill Book Award)
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-547735
http://www.amazon.com/Jill-Ammon-Vanderwood/e/B002BMBRGQ
http://www.jillvanderwood.com/dmyu/about.html
http://heavenonearthsystem.blogspot.com/2011/02/fifteen-year-old-teams-up-with.html
http://drugsmakeyouunsmarter.blogspot.com/2011/10/drugs-make-you-un-smarter-wins-golden.html
LANCET article: Kishore is cited 51 times and 6 times respectively:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(83)91130-3/fulltext
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(83)90568-8/abstract
LANCET: 2 articles: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/issue/vol322no8349/PIIS0140-6736(00)X4693-4
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/issue/vol322no8363/PIIS0140-6736(00)X7118-8
Google Scholar Citation List:
Export citation:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(83)90568-8/abstract/exportCitation
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(83)91130-3/fulltext/exportCitation
New York Times considers Dr. Kishore’s research a breakthrough:
http://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/02/us/alcoholism-tests-back-disease-idea.html
MANY ROADS TO RECOVERY article published in JOIN TOGETHER/PARTNERSHIP FOR DRUG FREE AMERICA (2007)
https://www.drugfree.org/join-together/drugs/many-roads-lead-to-recovery
2012 NATIONAL PHYSICIAN CENSUS: 878,194
http://www.fsmb.org/pdf/census.pdf
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/total-active-physicians/
Total Professionally Active Physicians in Massachusetts: 13,561 Primary Care doctors + 16,530 Specialists = 30,091
Total membership of the American Society of Addiction Medicine: 2,700
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=American_Society_of_Addiction_Medicine&action=history
Massachusetts members of ASAM: 66
http://community.asam.org/search/newsearch.asp?txt_state=Massachusetts
Members with ASAM Certification and/or ABAM Diplomate Status: 6 http://community.asam.org/search/newsearch.asp?txt_state=Massachusetts
Of the six doctors on the list:
1. ALFORD: Full time staff at Boston Medical Center (not ASAM certified)
2. BROADHURST: Suboxone/Methadone Doctor (not ASAM certified and not a Fellow)
3. GASTFRIEND: Works full time for drug company Alkermes (not a Fellow; psychiatrist by training)
4. GAVRYCK: Suboxone Doctor (not a Fellow)
5. KISHORE: Developed Massachusetts Model (ASAM Certified, ABAM Diplomate, Fellow)
6. WARTENBERG: Works as expert witness in legal cases (ASAM Certified, ABAM Diplomate, Fellow)
Number of doctors in Massachusetts that are ASAM Certified, ABAM Diplomate, and Elected Fellows of the Society: 2 (Kishore and Wartenberg) Of these two, only one is actually practicing addiction medicine in the state.
AMERICAN BOARD OF ADDICTION MEDICINE:
ABAM is not a member board of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). ABAM's goal is to gain recognition of Addiction Medicine as a medical specialty, and the creation of a certification process through collaboration with the ABMS and its member Boards.
ABAM DIPLOMATES : 1452 in 2009
http://www.addictionpro.com/article/landmark-recognition-addiction-medicine
Five Hundred Thirty-Seven New Diplomates Certified by American Board of Addiction Medicine
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/6/prweb10819492.htm
The American Board of Addiction Medicine (ABAM) was proud to honor and recognize 537 physicians who achieved board certification in addiction medicine during the organization’s recent annual awards luncheon in Chicago, IL. The new ABAM diplomates join 2,557 physicians in the United States who have already been certified and awarded diplomate status by ABAM, an independent medical specialty board.
It seems there is now consensus. How does this come to an official end? Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 04:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
You recently blocked my home IP but you didn't leave a message on the talk page of the IP you blocked giving instructions about how to request an unblock. Is it not still the standard to leave a message on the talk page of the blocked? Or should people be left guessing as to what to do? Of course I know, and didn't bother with it, but it still would be nice to have had that. We shouldn't be making them guess about how to unblock themselves or that they are even blocked. I didn't even know until I went to RFA to respond to the below comment. That my friend is piss poor admining. I always though higher of you than that, don't let the bad habits of bad admins rub off on you too. Oh and its worth noting that there has been an error on the Cannot create account message for months, might be nice for someone who is "trusted" to take a look at that so its not still pointing to the toolserver. 138.162.8.59 ( talk) 17:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
When you have a moment could you pop in to UTRS? The appeals are now coming in with the WMF Labs IP address listed as the main (proxy) address of the appellant. This obviously messes up the tracking of repeated requests. Thanks!-- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 18:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Tom, we let the ANI filing against Ret.Prof peter out under the assumption this dispute is headed to formal mediation. However, despite PiCo's best efforts (and my own and Davidbena's), Ret.Prof has temporarily "stepped back", as he has done so many times before, and now there is no request for formal mediation. Where should we go from here? (Please reply here.) Ignocrates ( talk) 19:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I am contacting you today as one of the users listed at User:Secret/recall. In case you were not aware, Secret has once again resigned his admin status and is once again about to ask for it back. I am concerned that this behavior constitutes the sort of erratic behavior that this recall mechanism was designed to deal with and am asking all other users listed there to add their opinion at the talk page of the recall subpage. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks like, you were closing it while I was adding a comment. I don't know that it matters but technically my comment came several minutes after the close. I think the subject could have done with a more thorough discussion and was really just getting started but I'm not going to make an issue about it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 04:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kamehameha Highway may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 19:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
In
this edit you stated, "Arbcom already heard MilesMoney's appeal and gave a solid rejection back at him."
I would like to read that appeal.
I tried searching
this page for "Milesmoney", which returned three pages, none of which were the appeal.
So I am interested in knowing how to search for something in ArbCom, as my approach failed, and I would be interested to see the appeal, so if you have a link, or a way to find the link, I would appreciate it.--
S Philbrick
(Talk)
03:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Greetings, while browsing
Category:Username_internal_link_templates, I tried out {{
IP_summary}}, and the "count" link went to
http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php which after awhile redirected to
http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/index.php ...
Shouldn't the proper behavior be to go directly to the wmf labs url like the {{
User summary}} template? I didn't check any of the other templates in that category which may have a "count" option. FYI. ...
172.162.77.52 (
talk)
15:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
As you were the closer on the ANI-set editing restrictions [22]) for Lucia Black, I need your opinion if this might be a problem.
Specifically, in long discussion on the MOS:TM talk page, Lucia stated that "You know who you're really calling an idiot Gaijin? the people who are for the MOS". (Note that Gaijin commented before that "It appears that people that pronounce the "five" [in Deadmau5] are generally considered idiots and called out for it widely." - as this was not a comment to goad Lucia in any way). I suggested to them they may want to retract that comment. They replied on my talk page, saying they weren't going to do that and that they were only under an IBAN (which seems wrong), and then proceed to expand on that comment on MOS:TM's talk page. And they did wipe that warning I gave too.
I've not been involved in the larger issues with Lucia so I don't know how serious this, hence why I ask for a check. If you believe this is a problem, I can handle the larger report to ANI if that's needed. If this is nothing to worry about, I'll let it drop. -- MASEM ( t) 17:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi TParis, I know your fairly busy now, but could you take a look at the contributions of user Photon lloyd, Their only edits are to put A Voice for Men up for AFD, and to call it a hate group at the same time. I've got no real comment as to whether the article should be deleted or not, but I'm fairly certain the article falls under the Mens Rights Movement Article Probation. What's more, the group is fairly small, and calling it a hate group can run afoul of WP: BLP. I'm not saying stop the AFD, but this type of AFD posting just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 14:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think there is much point in keeping this up. Assorted shenanigans are now threatening to cause trouble to other editors; I don't want to see people bickering about edit waring, or causing trouble for MONGO, FSP, you or anyone else unlucky enough to get involved in this mess. Let this end here and move on. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to delay responding ... I meant to do so last night but I was up late watching the Beatles tribute with my wife and that turned out to be more tiring than I thought, so after it ended the next thing I really remember is waking up on the couch an hour later.
But enough about me ... I was thinking about your request and what exactly you want to do and how I could help you. What sort of help are you looking for? What are your ultimate goals for the article? Those are the questions we should begin with. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Some more things later. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
Thank you for taking a stance aiming to diffuse the conflict by taking over a certain protection, and helping to close another dramu-fuelling discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apache Continuum didn't. None of the sources listed were reliable. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
As Peridon noted in denying the unblock request, it seemed from the edit history to be likely that there were multiple people behind the account, editing to promote the ostensible account-holder's interests. It is now being asserted that Ballesh himself is behind the account. This would, if true, exempt him from the username block (bit not a block for COI reasons). Daniel Case ( talk) 17:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey TParis,
I'm having a problem responding to your email via the URTS. The error I'm getting is a 550 5.1.1, "Recipient address rejected: User unknown in local recipient table." It looks to me like a server configuration error, any ideas? Nevermind, I just missed the link to respond.
Noformation
Talk
02:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
has asked me on my talk page to help him out on an article that falls within my banned scope. Am i allowed to edit there? Pass a Method talk 04:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
TP, I don't believe that BullRangifer ever tried to resolve his dispute with me. I simply cannot accept his proposal that we should biased sources to promote the WP:TRUTH. You may as well close that discussion because I will not agree to his demands. Arzel ( talk) 18:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Essentially, as others have said in your support in the RFC/U, while biased sources can be used, they need to be balanced with the opposing viewpoint to create appropriate WP:WEIGHT. Biased sources are all over Wikipedia. If you go into WP:LGBT topics, you'll see the argument made going the opposite direction. That Fox News & conservative sources are biased and should not be used. The problem is, bias is subjective. There is no objective measurement of bias at all. And so, we don't exclude sources based on "bias", we exclude them based on " weight". You may be right that there is an over-dependence on left-leaning sources, you may be wrong as well, but your argument should be WP:WEIGHT which supports your view in policy and not biased which policy opposes your view.--v/r - T P 18:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello Tparis. I apologize for bothering you with this but it looks like CensoredScribe is, one again, ignoring the community. Today the editor is adding this [[Category:Fictional weapons of mass destruction]] to several articles. A quick check of CS's edit summaries [23] shows that WP:OR and WP:SYNTH is still part and parcel of their edits. The guidelines regarding "Defining factor" and "Sourced info about the cat must be in the article" are also being ignored. I tried to leave this at AN/I but it is having problems at the moment and I have to go off-wiki in a couple minutes. If you would prefer not to have to deal with this please feel free to remove this message. In any case thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 21:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Admiral Clarey Bridge at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hawkeye7 ( talk) 08:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I've replied to your comment here. Thank you for reviewing me! Corvoe (speak to me) 20:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for loading DYK. I was hoping to save this for a meeting in March (the 30th) is it possible to leave this? I will move it to a safe area. Thanks anyway Victuallers ( talk) 09:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
You've got email from me. Cheers -- ТимофейЛее Суда. 22:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you blocked me, and took a rather rude and hostile tone toward me, as if I've been an unruly and disruptive editor when I've put in a lot of good faith work in to improve Wikipedia and have never received so much as a warning during six years of editing, making me feel rather disvalued as an editor. I'm sorry for whatever I've done to have personally offended you. I reverted edits on United States presidential election, 2012 that were considered disruptive by 75.91.224.24 a grand total of only 3 times, spread out over three different days, then I stopped. I note that the rule on Wikipedia:Edit warring is that editors must not perform more than 3 reverts within a single 24-hour period, so I still don't think I deserve that edit warring block on my permanent record as an editor, so I still hope you will reconsider it. But the only one edit warring was 75.91.224.24. And he is at it again. He has been reverted a total of 9 times now by 5 different editors. Since admins have said what the IP is doing doesn't meet the strict definition of vandalism, then he can't be reported as a vandal, so what exactly can be done? Thanks. Inqvisitor ( talk) 23:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
On 18 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Admiral Clarey Bridge, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the $78 million Admiral Clarey Bridge (pictured) connecting Ford Island to O'ahu was called "the bridge to nowhere"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Admiral Clarey Bridge. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thank you Victuallers ( talk) 16:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Am i allowed to correct a redirection error? Its not technically on a page so. Pass a Method talk 23:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Admiral Clarey Bridge you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden ( talk) 06:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The article Admiral Clarey Bridge you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Admiral Clarey Bridge for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden ( talk) 19:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
User:ТимофейЛееСуда/RFA -- ТимофейЛее Суда. 16:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
23:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you and JamesBWatson are aware, but Pass a Method keeps violating his topic ban, usually in subtle ways, as recently as today. Well, actually, I'm sure that if either of you did know, you would have acted in that regard by now. One recent example of Pass a Method violating his topic ban before today is the Hezbollah article, which is definitely a religious topic; he's been editing that article regularly since his topic ban. I don't think that Pass a Method is editing religious topics in subtle ways because he misunderstands his ban (despite seeming not to understand when he asked you this); I think it's being done in subtle ways so that he is not caught. JamesBWatson already caught him, but when the edit was not so subtle, as noted on Pass a Method's talk page; that example was not the only violation on that day. And when Pass a Method violated his topic ban just a day after he was informed of the ban, I knew that he likely would not take the ban seriously or as seriously as he should. And for the record, I consider Pass a Method a problematic Wikipedia editor for various reasons. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
FYI, he has removed the sanction notice on his talk page again. [24]. 107.15.200.87 ( talk) 16:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
-- TLSuda ( talk) 20:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, TParis. I frequently use the range contributions listing tool which used to be at http://toolserver.org/~tparis/rangecontribs and is now at https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs/index.php. It is a very useful tool, and I should like to thank you for it. However, as far as I know there is no such tool for IPv6 addresses. If you know of one, I would be grateful if you could point me to it, and if there isn't, I wonder whether you would consider providing one? I don't know how your tool works, but it seems likely to me that a few minor tweaks would be enough to get it to work for IPv6. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 11:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
A brand new account ( User:Johnsagarika) just created this: InsuranceHotline. It looked a little odd, and I then spotted Insurance Hotline, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insurance Hotline and User:BiH/Insurance Hotline. Worth a closer look? Blackberry Sorbet ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that the edit count tool you had worked on (at tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/) is currently unavailable. Does that mean it was dropped, or is it being upgraded? Just curious. -- Pereru ( talk) 03:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
TP, before I head off for a much-needed Wiki-break, I want to give you a brief update on the Ret.Prof conflict and ask your opinion on where to go from here. Briefly, Ret.Prof was taken to ANI for repeated disruptive behavior on the Gospel of Matthew article. ANI closed with a recommendation that the content part of this dispute be resolved in formal mediation. Mediation commenced, but Ret.Prof abandoned the mediation midway through the process. In his absence, we were able to negotiate some compromise wording which I incorporated into the article here and here. We have taken the dispute resolution process for content as far as we can, but I don't think any of the remaining parties expect Ret.Prof to accept this compromise wording upon his eventual return. So, where do we go from here? AN? ArbCom? What option or options make the most sense to resolve the behavioral aspects of this dispute? Please advise. Ignocrates ( talk) 15:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, Lucia Black's interaction ban is still in effect and it didn't even take 24 hours from my first re-entry into the topic space for her to already follow my edits and act inappropriately by altering the flow of content in relation to another issue she has with Ryulong and DragonZero and whomever else she constantly has problems with. Every time I do anything, Lucia Black promptly shows up to mess with whatever I am working on and the last time it was taken to ANI as gaming. There is no valid reason for this edit, a mere 4 hours after my first return to A&M space in a long time. [25] The edit itself is actually wrong to begin with - the swap was not even in line with the "primary or original work". Lucia Black has a demonstrated a deliberate willingness to continue involving herself in my pages and I think it is time it be dealt with. I took a break from the area for two months and my first content edit results in Lucia Black showing up within 4 hours and making a controversial changes in relation to other disputes with other users. I want action on this, because she is a real problem and she's going out of her way to involve herself with me - repeatedly. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 15:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive833#Large amount of properly sourced content is being continually deleted from Providence Religious Movement Article. ... Since you previously responded in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive785#Looking for uninvolved admins to watch Jung Myung Seok, I thought your consideration of the case would be of value. Sam Sailor Sing 11:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi there TP. You reverted your comment on my talkpage, but I thought I'll respond anyway. The IP 81.153.161.127 is User:Milneg. [26], [27] & [28] contained threat to report WMF for alleged breach of charity laws, tax laws and whatnot. And then there's the bit about criminal offence etc. The last one came after a warning by Gaijin42. -- KTC ( talk) 17:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Labs is in the middle of a migration to a new datacenter. Part of this migration required active participation on the part of project admins -- I have now shut down and set aside those projects which went unclaimed or unmentioned during the pre-migration period. The UTRS project was among those mothballed projects.
I see now that at least one person was still using it, based on a recent comment on the village pump. If you are still willing to maintain this project and would like it to be revived in the new datacenter, please contact me. Email or #wikimedia-labs will get you the fastest response.
A bit of context about the migration can be found here and here. Andrewbogott ( talk) 02:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
12:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey TP - inbound UTRS tickets are again showing the wmflabs IP instead of the sender's.-- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 20:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi TParis! I'd like to let you know about, and invite you to join the proposed Texas Wikimedians user group. Also, on more of a national scale, perhaps you would like to participate at WikiConference USA.-- Pharos ( talk) 04:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Hey thanks dude! MONGO 21:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC) |
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I've left a message there for you. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 22:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
T P, I'm getting an error message when directed to this link at tools.wmflabs.org and the page says that you monitor it...you might already know about this but just in case, here's notice. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
One of the participants in the Hillary Clinton move discussion has proposed that the move request is disruptive and should be closed early, on the grounds that he can't see any legitimate reason for the move to have been proposed. In full disclosure, I disagree (and I think it is surprising that such a request would come after we are halfway through the discussion, and only after 40+ editors have supported the move), but I think he deserves an answer as to this serious charge that the discussion is disruptive and should be tossed out. Since you are apparently heading up this closing panel, I hope you can address this. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 18:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I haven't been around much lately (what's up with this new font?), but some emailed this to me the other day. What the hell? I don't the full story, but it appears that toddst1 screwed up, and rather than face the music, he has run off (à la bwilkins...). This should be reviewed anyway, and if there's any correction to be meted out, then let it be done (just like with Kafziel).
My 2 cents. - theWOLFchild 04:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC) (btw - howz things?)
... appears to be on the fritz. Help! -- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 23:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
As you were the admin who enacted the topic ban, you may like to comment here: [29]. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:39, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
Hi . can you check plz,why this tool is not working ? thanks -- מלאחווז ( talk) 21:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, TParis! There used to be a very useful piechart at https://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/ , from which URL I assume you created it. Now when I click on it I get a message that it has been moved to wmflabs, but the new link https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/index.php doesn't load for me - just spins and spins. Can you tell me how to reach this tool nowadays? Thanks! -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
What it be possible to have Module:ISO 639 name and its subpages restored? Thanks — lfdder 22:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I knew from the first couple of hours on that week long discussion involving DIREKTOR, USChick and others that it would end with an admin saying "no consensus, that's enough of that." That article was nominated for deletion (I only found out about the article through the AN/I, so I missed that), result, no consensus, there was a deletion review, (I didn't know about that either), result, no consensus. There are some horrifically anti-Semitic themes being pushed in that article, I just have to hope that it is being done through ignorance and not malice, the whole idea that Bolsheviks were Jews and Russia was in the grips of a Jewish plot to take over the world is constantly put forward by many many Russian nationalists,particularly poisonous in that article is the suggestion that Jews killed the Tsar, that is untrue and it is a central theme of extreme anti-Semitic Russian Orthodox nationalists. I have sources that compare that idea to holocaust denial and other central anti-Semitic themes. WP processes have resulted in being told repeatedly "there is no consensus not to become an anti-Semitic website." That isn't good enough, I don't know what to do about it, but it cannot be accepted. Smeat75 ( talk) 12:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
[30] pcount tool is showing some internal error when trying to access, please look in to the matter. thanks in advance Irvin calicut ( talk) 10:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, TP, I think you should have asked me before unblocking Mark. As you know, it's customary to at least consult with the blocking administrator, and in this case, there is still an open report at SPI. I'm not saying Mark is lying, but there are certainly instances of a user admitting to meat puppetry but denying sock puppetry, but a later CU proves they lied.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
http://i.imgur.com/gomp0UJ.png
WP:MEATPUPPET. It's handled in the same section as Sock puppetry. Tutelary ( talk) 22:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, TP, and thanks for taking on the closure of the above article. As you saw, there is confusion about the status of that closure. That's because there is nothing there (at least nothing visible) to explain it. There used to be an explanatory comment from you at the top of the page. But when Adjwilley posted an update, both your comment and his update became invisible; I don't know why. The comment is still there (viewed in edit mode) and looks like this:
{{discussion top|Suspending discussion while the closing admins discuss the consensus.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 01:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC) <small>Status update: we have determined a consensus and are in the process of writing up a final draft to post here. Apologies for the delay. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]] <small>([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</small></span> 06:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)</small>}}
But it doesn't display when looking at the page. Can you figure out why? Thanks! -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
14:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the delay. Seems you got my main account blocked as a sockpuppet of an Irish politician who was reporting himself for some reason? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=prev&diff=601264794 /info/en/?search=User:Selfpublishing
I used to be a wikipedia editor a long time ago. Here is my old account /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Eccentricned A post appeared on reddit that showed an account named after the politician removing controversies which I felt should be reported. I forgot my password to the old one and knew that I needed to be logged in to report so made a new one.
I am not a volunteer or employee of any political groups or organizations. I'm just a programmer who doesn't even have the time to log in to wikipedia more than once a month. :)
I hope that clarifies the situation and this weird accusation that I'm a member of a politician's campaign reporting myself as a vandal can be removed.
Selfpublishing2 ( talk) 10:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shaa. Since you had some involvement with the Shaa redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – Allen4 names ( contributions) 05:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to ask you to consider removing the 1RR restriction you placed on Ayn Rand back in October. The primary provocateur of edit warring on the page was User:MilesMoney, who as you well know was community banned in early January. Since his departure, the primary effect of the 1RR restriction seems to be restraining editors from fixing obviously bad edits when they have recently fixed some unrelated bad edit. It would be better to restore more normal editing conditions (bearing in mind that discretionary sanctions are in place indefinitely). Thanks. -- RL0919 ( talk) 21:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi TP, I read your analysis (with Adjwilley) and I wanted to tell you how much I appreciate the careful thought you put into it. This was a very difficult decision to make in assessing consensus as understood on Wikipedia and the only way to do it correctly was the way you broke the problem down into its various subcomponents and assessing policy together with empirical evidence. I know you are going to catch a lot of heat for this decision, but you made it using a thoughtful rational process, which is all one can ask for. -- I am One of Many ( talk) 17:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I came here to say exactly what IaOoM just said. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
As did I. Thank you. Tvoz/ talk 23:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The Half Barnstar | ||
For your work on a complicated closing on a yet another move request at Hillary Rodham Clinton. The other half goes to Adjwilley. Thanks again for all your hard work! (Mark Miller) Maleko Mela ( talk) 05:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks for asking, I have considered it but not sure I have the stamina right now for the process. Maybe I should do a request for editor feedback and work on some things for a few months or so to build up a better record? I want to focus on more content creation mainly. Also I'm afraid some admins don't like me much... I was heavily slammed by a lot of people for closing HC a year ago and called all sorts of nasty names. What would you suggest?-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 03:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
What are the copyright implications of using UTRS response templates verbatim to respond to on-wiki unblock requests? Is the content of wmflabs covered by Wikipedia's CC BY-SA license, thereby only requiring attribution?-- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 21:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
You know, that's priceless. Thanks again. Drmies ( talk) 17:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I am (unsurprisingly) more than a little disturbed by your abrupt closing of the ANI discussion regarding User:Carriearchdale and the dismissive comment in your closing statement. This is the second time in two months ANI discussions regarding "Carrie's" editing have been concluded without action, despite strong evidence of bad behavior. I have been a target of groundless retaliatory complaints since I filed this ANI report last month, a report that concluded without action even though every experienced editor who commented supported the complaint and almost all called for substantial sanctions. I am hardly the only editor who has expressed concerns about Carriearchdale's behavior and general WP:COMPETENCE, and Fram's points that "Carrie" had actively encouraged an obvious copyright violator and misrepresented the simple facts about an editing dispute in order to denigrate editors she disagreed with should not have been dismissed as a mere personal disagreement. Please modify your closure to reopen the discussion regarding Carriearchdale's conduct. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 22:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
"Carrie may be inexperienced"; not really, she has been here for more than 6 years, and has made more than 2,5OO edits. As for "the way Fram did it seemed retaliatory from an outside perspective."; I have never encountered Carriearchdale, and haven't had much interaction with Hullabaloo either. The only "retaliation" was for someone coming to an unrelated ANI thread not to give useful opinions and perspective, but to get an opponent into trouble, and by making completely incorrect statements to boot. I don't think such behaviour is acceptable. Fram ( talk) 17:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello. The talk page for User talk:Snow Rise has a transclusion of the Signpost in the heading. For some reason, I believe this is preventing users from editing the section headings on the user talk page (as they appear when the transclusion is removed). Is there a tag that should be added to prevent this from happening? Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 03:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry it was me. Chasing a vandal, took all from Dennis Brown s page over to Drmies, so you got alerted, my fault. See at Dennis talk page. AAAh, now he is having dessert. (Drmies). I need an admin. Hafspajen ( talk) 00:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi TParis, thanks again for your recommendations for improving the Climate Change Capital page earlier this year. Please could we now remove the advertisement warning? Kind regards, Dan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielcremin ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
More edit-warring, more personal attacks. Why the heck hasn't he been indeffed? p b p 16:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Your accusations of canvassing and meatpuppetry are just plain burning me up and are distracting me from getting on with my off-wiki life. I really don't have much rational to say but that your behavior strikes me as borderline abusive and certainly unbecoming of this fine community. I can see the basis for a little suspicion, but didn't you learn in WP 101 not to act on every suspicion, let alone to levy such cocksure accusations as "obvious canvassing is obvious?" That sort of nastiness is toxic. Please consider settting a better example, putting down the battleaxe, and AGF.
{{ trout}}
-- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 05:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
" UTRS is sort of a 1-admin ballgame".-- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 05:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I want it noted that your accusation of meatpuppetry aimed at me is unfounded, uncivil, and offensive. It's likely that the only reason you have made this accusation against me is so you can accuse another editor you are currently involved in a dispute with of canvassing. Your conduct in using this to provoke drama at ANI in order to further your personal dispute is unbecoming of an administrator...among many other things. It is a failure on your part to assume good faith. It is a display of ignorance and an apparently inability on your part to engage in logical reasoning. I don't care what your beef is with other people, but let it be known that I want nothing to do with it or with you. Geogene ( talk) 19:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
She seems to have taken it up a notch to 11. [31] Viriditas ( talk) 05:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, at least they fixed it now. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 08:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm actually mildly worried about Malke. Their behavior could also be caused by something in back-channel. (more than just the blog, I mean).
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 20:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Sometimes when someone seems to be reacting illogically to inputs you can see, perhaps they are reacting logically to inputs you cannot see.
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related content on Wikipedia throughout the month of June. On June 21, there will be a multi-national edit-a-thon, if you wish to participate. Here is the project page for Houston: Wikipedia:Meetup/Houston/Wiki Loves Pride 2014. Ways to help? Create or improve LGBT-related articles, host an edit-a-thon at a local coffeeshop, library or other location, or photograph LGBT culture and history in the Houston area. Visit the project page for more information, and if you are interested in contributing, just add your name to the list of supporters or add the results of your work. Thanks for your consideration! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi ... can you pls send me (or create a userfied version) of the article that was the focus of the AfD here ... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Brander? Also -- it was a complex AfD, both in the discussion and in the SPA involvement .. a more detailed close may well be helpful there, so editors know how you weighed both points made and SPA !votes. Tx. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kenneth Brander. 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. Epeefleche ( talk) 07:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
This page 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. |
Hey TParis, if you have nothing better to do, maybe you can have a look at this article to see if we need this much detail. Happy days, Drmies ( talk) 14:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
All recent edits - since July - have been vandalism, basically posting links to unrelated music videos into the article as "references" ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). For example, adding a Jay-Z music video in the middle of a word of an article and with the summary "bling-ed it a bit" doesn't seem to be good faith. The user's edits that I'd possibly consider competent and good faith were made over a couple years ago (November 2009 and September 2011), so while technically the account may not be vandalism only, everything within the past several months were all vandalism (with a very large break in between...perhaps this is a compromised account). Hm, actually now I see one edit from more recently (October) that may possibly fall under this - [1] - but again it's a disruptive fake reference that has a link unrelated to the article's content, consistent with the addition of youtube videos into the article. While not every single edit made by this account has been obvious vandalism, every single edit made within the past year has fallen into what I would consider vandalism, and I feel blocking under VOA was justified. If you feel differently, go ahead, but just keep an eye on the user's contributions. Spencer T♦ C 19:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
—
cyberpower Online
Merry Christmas is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
— cyberpower Online Merry Christmas 22:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I was gonna smack another Christmas template to your page, but two is enough already. I hope you and yours have a Merry Christmas! Ish dar ian 10:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
BUG report: http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pages/ has the wrong title (has "Top Namespace Edits"). Insert Xmas greetings here. Josh Parris 07:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Apparently, TP, your recent illness (I hope you are fully recovered now) did nothing to interfere with your judgment. Your closure of the Miles topic (and subtopics), which went out of control quite some ago, was a good deed worthy of the holiday season. Regards.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I tried this query and it took several minutes before throwing a 502 Proxy Error:
-- Redrose64 ( talk) 14:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I get something similar for http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pages/index.php?name=Josh+Parris&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects Josh Parris 00:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I have posted the code at Cyberpower678/xtools and added you as a collaborator. Code changes should be made there first before being made live. Bug reports and feature requests should be directed there too. I've already opened a few very vague requests that I plan to undertake in the future.— cyberpower ChatOnline 21:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
—
cyberpower Online
Happy 2014 — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
— cyberpower Online Happy 2014 00:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Barnstar of Awesome | |
You are hereby awarded the Barnstar of Awesome for your much appreciated protection of Wikipedia from language snobbery
[2]. Thank you!
Regards, Safehaven86 ( talk) 16:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC) |
From Latin _Deus_. My mom taught Latin and the spelling yells at me <g> Collect ( talk) 22:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I have seen a statement by User:MilesMoney on his talk page, in response to a request from you. There are a number of issues that I would like to respond to, as a somewhat-involved editor. What is the appropriate forum for doing that? I am reluctant to post directly on Miles' page. Do you anticipate that this statement will be in the RfC/U? St Anselm ( talk) 22:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
This edit garbled a closed discussion. Re the assertion in there saying, "We use what the majority of sources use.", that's not what I read WP:DUE to say. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey Tparis, is there a place to report bugs on the wmflabs site? I've checked Bugzilla and am not completely convinced that's where I need to go, but let me know if I am in error. Thanks, and have a great day! Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 03:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
Your summary of; and patience while working through the recent MM debacle is appreciated. VViking Talk Edits 03:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC) |
I don't know if you are aware, but a gun control ArbCom case has opened, largely spillover from the ANI case that you commented on previously. while I certainly wouldn't consider your comments in the ANi involvement, there have been several uninvolved commenters on the case already,so yo umay wish to drop in $0.02. [ [4]] Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a difference of opinion of the restrictions imposed in the ANI thread you recently closed; please review [5]. Thanks. NE Ent 21:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Please update http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TParis/Recall#Editors – I'm not sure there's 5 of the listed editors still active in order to invoke your Option 3. Thanks. 66.87.145.214 ( talk) 23:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I strongly object to the haste with which you closed User:MilesMoney's recent community ban. If I or any representative sample of the majority of editors who have interacted with him had had the opportunity to comment, there is no doubt in my mind that the outcome would have been far different. Why did you not open an RFC/U for at least thirty days? I ask that you please reverse yourself and do so. If you are unwilling then please tell me the instructions for how to appeal on Miles' behalf and I will gladly do so. I think you screwed up in one of the most abusive ways possible, but I have no desire to paste a trout template to emphasize my sincerity. Thank you. EllenCT ( talk) 05:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance says "What RfC/U CANNOT do is: Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures;" An RFC/U would've had to have been started after the last ANI thread on MilesMoney reached no-consensus, not in the middle of a thread that seems to be leading to a definite sanction. What is also a concern is that Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/MilesMoney is not an RFC/U no matter what it's title says. We have a predetermined and very strict format for RFC/Us that the one here did not follow. It's too late for an RFC/U at that point, only Arbcom could've replaced an ANI thread like that.
However, if you wish to continue in the appeals process, there are two:
1. Convince the Community on WP:AN to overturn the block by consensus. You can do this by convincing them that MilesMoney is ready to come back, was never disruptive in the first place, or that there was something wrong with my close. You can try to convince them on your 30 day idea, I somehow suspect that won't work but, and I mean this full heatedly, be my guest. Or you can try to convince them I was WP:INVOLVED. If you go down that route, please be sure to actually read the policy in full because 99.9% of those accusations get ignored because the accuser failed to note that "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." I've never encountered MilesMoney in anything but an administrative fashion.
2. The second appeal route is Arbcom. They have historically declined cases not opened by the banned party themselves but you could go this route. Same rules as the above apply. Arbcom is not a fun process and you'll be required to back up everything you've said with diffs and policy. Since your 30 day idea isn't backed up by policy, I strongly suggest you do not go this route but its, again, your call. Note that MilesMoney himself was leery of Arbcom for good reason. You might do him more harm than good.
My last bit of advice for you is that you take a while to reflect on this before doing anything to determine if I am really abusive or if you're just upset that your friend got banned. I don't speak for the community, I didn't ban your friend, they did. I don't have a foot in that door, I don't edit the same areas that he does, his leaving the project doesn't affect me at all. Have a good day, Ellen, and I'm available if you have any more questions about process or if you need additional clarification.--v/r - T P 07:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
As the admin who blocked User:MilesMoney, I would like to clarify what the terms of his ban is, since he has mentioned me on his talk page. What sort of talk page usage is appropriate for a banned editor? I am thinking particularly of edits such as this one. WP:BAN talks about a banned user using his or her talk page for appeals - it doesn't seem to anticipate such an editor using it in other ways. I note also that WP:BANBLOCKDIFF says access to one's own talk page is "usually not allowed" if a user is site banned - is there any reason why MilesMoney continues to have access? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StAnselm ( talk • contribs)
In light of the course events have taken, I'm not sure what to do about the MilesMoney RfC that I started. I have copied the bit of evidence that I had submitted into my own userspace, and since there wasn't really any other significant input from other editors before MM was indef'ed (aside from a bit of tussle between MM and a few of his opponents), I don't know if the RfC has much value in continuing to exist. Perhaps the tussle could be referenced as evidence in an arbitration case, but there's plenty of other material that could serve the same purpose. In any case, I don't think it should remain open, so if you have a moment would you mind closing it and either archiving or deleting as you see fit? Thanks, alanyst 17:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
At User talk:ChrisGualtieri#Interaction Ban you had a bit of wording issue, I pinged you, but I don't think you got the message. It reads ".. you may not make any edits related to ChrisGualtieri..." so it says I am interaction banned from myself. Thanks in advance for fixing it. I didn't want to modify your post. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 17:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello TP. I was a bit startled to see your use of "tallying" in reference to the closing of TFD/Miles ANI thread. It sounded like vote-counting, which I presume was not the meaning you intended. SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi TP. I see that in your close of the MM thread you state << SPECIFICO's houding of editors in this dispute hasn't been helpful at all. Attempting to tie nearly every editor to MilesMoney in someway is an ad hominem. It doesn't address their argument in any way and attempts to discredit them based on who they are. That's not good dispute resolution.>>
Hello, TP. It's now been well over 48 hours since my message above concerning the statement you made in the closing of the ANI in RE: MilesMoney. I understand that this is a busy time for you, but these are important concerns, and I would like to resolve this issue and put it to rest. If you do not have the time to research or consider this in detail, you could simply redact your comment about me and we can consider the matter closed. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Name | Position | Involved in Underlying Dispute @Talk:Pamela Geller | Involved with MilesMoney | Comments | Community Ban | Topic ban | BLP ban | Oppose |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The_Four_Deuces | Support | Yes | Yes | X | X | X | ||
Gamaliel | Support/Oppose | No | No | Administrative Capacity Only | X | |||
Nil Einne | Comment | No | No | Left ANI notices that were unmade | ||||
Mangoe | Oppose | No | No | Assisted at BLP/N | X | |||
MONGO | Support | No | Talk:Phil_Robertson | X | ||||
Two kinds of pork | Support | Yes | Yes | X | ||||
Collect | Support | Yes | Yes | X | X | X | ||
Iselilja | Support | Yes | Yes | X | X | X | ||
Safehaven86 | Support | No | Talk:Ocean_Grove,_New_Jersey | X | X | X | ||
Johnuniq | Support | No | No | X | ||||
Cullen | Support | No | No | X | X | X | ||
Roccodrift | Support | Yes | Yes | X | X | |||
StAnselm | Support | Yes | Yes | X | X | X | ||
Sportfan5000 | Oppose | No | No | X | ||||
ViriiK | Support | No | No | X | X | X | ||
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz | Support | No | Talk:Scott Rasmussen | X | 2 | 2 | ||
RL0919 | Support | No | Talk:Ayn Rand | X | ||||
John Reaves | Support | No | No | X | ||||
goethean | Oppose | Yes | Yes | X | ||||
Gaijin42 | Support | No | Talk:Gun control | 2 | X | X | ||
Drmies | Support | Yes | Yes | X | X | |||
Someone not using his real name | Support | No | No | X | X | X | ||
MrX | Support | No | Talk:War on Women | X | ||||
A Quest For Knowledge | Support | No | Ludwig von Mises Institute | X | ||||
Sportsguy17 | Support | No | No | X | ||||
I, JethroBT | Support | No | Talk:Ayn Rand | 2 | X | X | ||
Lukeno94 | Support | No | No | X | X | X | ||
S. Rich | Support | No | Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe | 2 | X | X | ||
Capitalismojo | Support | No | Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers | X | ||||
Epicgenius | Support | No | No | X | ||||
SPECIFICO | No | Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute | ||||||
Georgewilliamherbert | No | No | Acting only as an administrator | |||||
Writegeist | Oppose | No | No | X | ||||
Morphh | Yes | Yes | ||||||
Carolmooredc | Support | No | Talk:Gary North (economist) | X | ||||
Binksternet | Support | Yes | Yes | X | 2 | 2 | ||
Niteshift36 | Support | No | Talk:Phil Robertson | X | X | |||
Beyond My Ken | Support | No | No | X | 2 | 2 | ||
Steeletrap | Oppose | No | Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe | X | ||||
MarnetteD | Support | No | No | X | 2 | 2 | ||
Darkness Shines | Oppose | Yes | Yes | X | ||||
NinjaRobotPirate | Support | No | No | X | X | X | ||
The Devil's Advocate | Support | No | No | X | ||||
QuackGuru | Oppose | Yes | Yes | X | ||||
Itsmejudith | Oppose | No | No | X | ||||
Medeis | Support | No | Talk:Ayn Rand | X | ||||
Adjwilley | No | No | ||||||
Sitush | Support | No | Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute | X | ||||
All !votes | !Votes not in | !Votes never interacted | ||||||
underlying dispute | with MilesMoney | |||||||
34/8 | 26/5 | 12/4 | All !votes | 29 | 23 | 20 | 8 | |
TOTAL SUPPORT | 81% | 84% | 75% | |||||
!Votes not in underlying dispute | 23 | 16 | 13 | 5 | ||||
!Votes never interacted | 12 | 8 | 7 | 4 |
Re: Wikipedia:CBAN#Community_bans_and_restrictions you wrote in close of MilesMoney matter above: A community ban discussion of uninvolved editors means that a group of predominately involved editors in the current dispute cannot determine who gets banned from the project. It does not mean that editors involved in the dispute cannot contribute to the consensus. This interpretation is fairly new and recent.
Obviously it is since I and evidently others never heard of it and then when I looked at WP:CBAN the references were to an inactive community ban noticeboard and an ambiguous reference to uninvolved/involved "comments" which I assumed included support and nonsupport. So before posting to talk-WP:CBAN asking for clarification of policy, I thought I'd see if you wanted to initiate the relevant change at the policy page. Thanks. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 18:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Can you look here to see if I have done it correctly? It seems to be taking a while and I am thinking I muffed it up. Darkness Shines ( talk) 23:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello TParis, Happy New Year. Please can you let us know what it is about the Climate Change Capital page /info/en/?search=Climate_Change_Capital you feel is advertising?
CCC is authorised and regulated by the UK's Financial Conduct Authority and therefore is not allowed to advertise new funds. The information is historical (i.e. funds we have raised and closed and are not open to new business).
By comparison, a commensurate business would be Generation Investment Management /info/en/?search=Generation_Investment_Management who do not mention specific funds but go as far to include a section on funding opportunities (albeit to other networks).
Happy to shorten or make any changes you would recommend. There are some items that need correcting (i.e. James Cameron is now Vice-Chair of the World Economic Forum's Global Agenda Council on Measuring Sustainability and their Advisory Board of the Global Competitiveness Index and he is no longer on Pepsico UK's advisory board). I would also recommend including that CCC is authorised and regulated by the FCA.)
Welcome your feedback. Daniel Danielcremin ( talk) 15:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Doh!. Help!-- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 00:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I am the user Chauahuasachca, who sent an unblocking request. I already unsigned the box "mark every edit as minor" in my settings. Could my account be unblocked, now? I already adhered the site you've sent me.-- 93.134.238.121 ( talk) 10:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Finally got around to starting this here and did quote you. FYI. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 20:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to request userfication of deleted article named "Insurance Hotline" to my userspace User:BiH/Insurance_Hotline for improvements that will establish notability. Thank you. -- BiH ( talk) 17:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable to remove the stale merge tag from both Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell (manga)? It has been there for months and over 250,000 readers have had a chance to see it. My last GAN passed and I want to get both of these to GA by March for the anniversary of Toren's passing. I wish I had more on Toren to. I think it might need to be closed, but I can neither request, interact or do anything which might seem to skirt the line here. It's rather degrading to have one of the most trafficked articles remain like this. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 05:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
...but I think your good faith with regard to unblocking User:Nightskate has been wasted. Their contributions today have been bizarre (to say the least) and there unfortunately appears to be an element of WP:NOTTHERAPY. Your thoughts?-- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 22:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I left this warning about Wikihounding on SPECIFICO's talk page, which includes my previous June warning to him and related WP:ANI when he would not stop. Since you have discussed this kind of behavior with him previously, perhaps you could discourage him from it. This is the kind of badgering that made me angry enough to quit editing in the subject at all twice previously; but I find it difficult to ignore the policy issues in the articles being edited so have managed to return. Also note that all of the articles are regarding libertarians and/or under Austrian economics/General sanctions. Thanks. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 02:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
FYI - I'm about to file an ArbCom request. This has gone on long enough. Let them figure out how best to sort through this mess. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 19:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Tom, I apologize if I've done something wrong. I wasn't trying to imply that you were involved in this dispute. The reason why I used the diff to your talk page is that it demonstrates that the dispute is ongoing. IOW, it's not stale. The fact is that involved editors are using your talk page as part of dispute resolution. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they are. In any case, let's see what the clerks have to say. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
13:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, could you take a look at Myron & E, as the current page is based of a copyvio initial G12 deletion request. Another editor has changed a bit but it still largely resembles the original copyvio. Jarkeld.alt ( Talk) 08:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
As the admin who issued the interaction ban, I have a question of clarification. According to the proposal I agreed and supported stated "Lucia Black and ChrisGualtieri are indefinitely banned from commenting on, at, or mentioning about the other. The normal exceptions apply. Persisting violations will result in escalating blocks up to and including an indefinite block." [9] Two editors said that I did not have to avoid pages that I was working on for GA - I just cannot interact with Lucia, and IBAN says as much. According to IBAN, editors can edit the same pages as long as they do not revert, or undo each other's edits (assuming rollback) as well. Is that correct? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 14:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
The text was taken from the Ghost in the Shell page and copy pasted right onto the manga page. Here is as the page appeared. Diff for dates. Note the distinct sections for Title, Setting, Films, Video game, Stand Alone Complex and Arise sections. Comprising the bulk of the text. In this diff, Lucia Black takes content from the sections for Title, Setting, Films, Video game, Stand Alone Complex and Arise sections and inserts them in verbatim into the manga article. Minor formatting of the section titles and an organizational switch is done. I thought I was removing something I had added and with good reason, the entire contents were duplicated and it was more than 2 months ago that it was done. I was just going to drop the rest of the development in an nominate it for a GAN when Lucia Black reverted claiming I was undoing her edit - but I didn't "undo it" and it was not even her own work. She just took one page and tacked it on to the other without attribution. I was told by two other editors that I would not be prohibited from working on good articles, and I asked if I had to submit it to a 3rd party or something - they both said I could edit the page without issue. Even before Lucia reverted, two admins (Serge and Sal) suggested she not get involved. She reverted anyways making a big red notification and that's how I learned of it. I need clarification because I've had the content ready for months and I've repeatedly stated for months that I want to get that article to at least GA by March for the anniversary of Toren's death. It means a lot to me and that is why I specifically asked and the ANI said clearly it would not impact my work and now it seems like it encompasses every article Lucia ever edited and I have to check every edit history before doing any edit - including copy pasted content that was not her own. Sorry to make a rambling post, but I am so confused, and upset. Lucia got blocked for a week and I feel that I am being punished and that the "Rules" are changing from what was agreed and explicitly told to me. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 15:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC) |
I've just closed a thread at the administrator's noticeboard for incidents concerning your participation in War on Woman. While you were not topic banned, you should be aware that the thread was nearly evenly split with a slight majority in favor of a topic ban. You should take that as a definite sign that, at the very least, editors are seeing your participation there as disruptive. That's not to say that you cannot participate, but that you should make an effort to be make clear and concise arguments that refrain from making comments about others and are supported by strong sourcing. On the other subject of Roscelese, consensus is that you are banned from mentioning, replying to, discussing about or otherwise addressing Roscelese in any way. In addition, you may not revert or undo Roscelese's edits in any way. The usual caveats of dispute resolution on appropriate noticeboards apply.--v/r - T P 14:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC
– Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 04:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Can I edit Monster (manga) without violating my Iban? I have been cautiously scanning the history and it seems that the last activity from Lucia Black was back on 11 November 2010 and not since in the intervening 3 years. Changes would be required to split the extensive and excessively detailed character section and possibly making a list for the detailed manga volumes which will require a fair amount of work. With the splits a fair amount of additional details and a better summary will be required. This particular title is of fairly mid-importance and needs only 4-5 hours of work to be GA-level. If you decline, I'll see if I can get something else from Madhouse's works that I familiar with. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for maintaining X's tools! For a really long time now (a year at least, I don't remember) I have tried to see the list of articles created by me (in Estonian Wikipedia, etwiki), but the tool shows only the first 100 and when I click the link to see more, it gives 502 proxy error (The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server. The proxy server could not handle the request GET /xtools/pages/index.php. Reason: Error reading from remote server.) I am not really so tech savvy to know what to do with it or even if I can do anything at all. Can you say something about it? Is it some "my computer's problem" or is the list too long or there is really a problem with server or what? I apologize if I bother you with silly things, I just thought I'd do sth to get to see the list. Adeliine ( talk) 11:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I saw some edits by User:Pass a Method, and I was wondering if they were in breach of his topic ban for religious articles: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] and the creation of Category:Quranic epics. Some of those may be simply gnomic, but the category at least is possibly controversial. I am mentioning this to you as the admin who notified him of the ban. St Anselm ( talk) 20:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about the accidental rollback, I was trying to scroll down my Watchlist on my smart phone and the page reformatted as I was about to view the diff on another page causing me to hit the rollback link on you talk page. - Nick Thorne talk 21:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 22:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 8, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 01:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. There seems to be a problem at https://tools.wmflabs.org/ with xtools. At https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ all I see is "No input file specified." — Wbm1058 ( talk) 15:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear TParis,
In late September 2011, you were credited with deleting the entire Wikipedia page concerning Dr. Punyamurtula Kishore. In that same timeframe, links to the Wikipedia page were also rapidly purged from various search engines. The web metrics concerning this page have become a point of journalistic interest in the weeks prior to, and following, the deletion.
Having a copy of the original Wikipedia page, and using the parameters you suggested for determining what rationale might have motivated the deletion prior to communicating with you, I find myself unable to get an unequivocal sense of the reasoning behind the deletion. To complicate this matter, the deletion came within a few days of a highly controversial indictment of Dr. Kishore. That this could be entirely coincidental, and the deletion made for completely justifiable reasons independent of any other activity surrounding the subject of that Wikipedia page, is certainly what one would hope would be the case. Therefore, understanding the rationale behind the deletion would go a long ways toward establishing the timing to be coincidental, with the one event not having any causal relation to the other.
I am publishing a series of articles about Dr. Kishore's case and have in passing drawn attention to the Wikipedia deletion in light of its suspicious timing. If the rationale for deletion is legitimate, however, I will need to revise any published statements concerning the deletion that would cast it in an unnecessarily derogatory light. The objective basis for the deletion should trump any subjective perception concerning it on the part of the subject, so long as the former is legitimate.
Thanking you in advance for your insights into this ongoing, and growing, controversy,
207.235.13.82 ( talk) 21:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Martin Selbrede
I translated, duck attack on the German Main page ;) - Thank you for closing threads and "We love you anyway", -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Why have you threatened to block me for marking the lightbreather account as a SPA? That account is the very definition of an SPA. It edits Gun Control Related articles exclusively. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Although I was originally in strong agreement that the SPA label applied to LB, they have begun to branch out now (to a small degree). Although gun control is still certainly their focus, it is not exclusive anymore, and the SPA label is just causing drama at this point. Additionally Sue, your editing has crossed the line into disruptive several times now, so I would be wary of bringing any accusations. LB has some major issues and might end up having a WP:CIR action in the future, but antagonizing them, and interfering with other editors work on articles where she happens to edit is not acceptable either. Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
on: https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ ok links: https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/ https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/User:tparis/Index not ok links: https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ec https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/blame https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ipcalc try to redirect to: http://www.tools-webgrid-01.com:4086 should be: https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ec/ https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/blame/ https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs/ https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ipcalc/
Xb2u7Zjzc32 (
talk)
05:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:
Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt ( talk) 04:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, I seem to remember that I promised Worm to stop talking about that. *shrugs* I dunno, willpower, man. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 23:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Tparis, I just wanted to respond to a comment you made at ANI. Your right, accusing someone of abusing the tools is a serious accusation as it should be. What's even more of a problem though is the general attitude of admins on this site to plead ignorance of the problem. Even in that discussion multiple people commented they didn't have an opinion about the editor. Which means they do, but don't want to get involved because that admin has a history of retalitory actions against users who speak out against them. Like confronting them and threatening them with blocks for "Personal attacks". If they supported them or didn't agree with my statements they would have said that. Instad they decided to stay out if it. That is a huge problem for me and it should be for you as well. Nyttend has already been brough to ANI multiple times and has survived a couple Arbcom decisions where he was a party because the processes in place to deal with Abusive admins and editors don't work here. The only thing I have left to do is to be vocal and raise awareness of the problem in the hopes that it will eventually be identified and fixed. 138.162.8.57 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The thing about admin abuse is that more often than actual real cases, it's an angry editor who refuses to acknowledge guilt or responsibility for themselves. I'm speaking from personal experience here. StillStanding-247 who made a very chilling remark and then claimed it was innocent banter, Joefromrandb who edit warred against an IP and then refused to read the policy when he got blocked, and recently EllenCT who accused me of admin abuse despite a very clear table showing that he definition of WP:CBAN actually hurts her argument instead of helps it. And now this most recent example of Nyttend.
Do you think everyone of us with the sysop bit just wakes up in the morning somehow feeling some sense of 'power' because we've got a bit in a database that says we can have extra functions on a website? Hell, the majority of admins regret ever running for RfA and wish they didn't feel a sense of responsibility for having done it and feel bad about quitting. Have you even seen my edit counts in the last 6 months? If there is admin abuse, it's by folks who are burnt out and made a bad judgement call. And we're so happy to ignore years of excellent contributions to condemn folks for a bad call. Those folks need to be forced to take a break, but that doesn't mean we have to crucify them to do it.
It's much easier to claim admin abuse than to prove it and that's all that happened on ANI yesterday and that's all you're doing here now. You again are claiming admin abuse without proving it. You're part of the abuse of 'abuse'. You devalue the word, you desensitize the rest of us to the real thing, and you legitimize efforts to block any kind of reform that would provide more accountability to admins because of how wildly you use the term.
That's not to say that admin abuse doesn't happen, but it's to say that the ratio of admin abuse and 'abuse' abuse is actually much lower than your words admit. I've seen admin abuse, I've been very vocal about it. I was one of the first few people to challenge User:SchuminWeb on the issue that got his tools revoked before anyone even mentioned bringing it to Arbcom. I was vocal about David Gerrard's tool use to win a move war. I've got 3 admins on my watch list at this very moment that I'm keeping an eye on. The difference is that I'm waiting until I can substantially prove a history of admin abuse, whereas you'll run to ANI to make wild accusations with little supportive evidence. I'm direct and targetted, careful, and patient and you want this thing to be fixed overnight. You're incapable of distinguishing between general pissiness because someone rightly got blocked and actual admin abuse. You don't take into account that admins will naturally receive criticism from those who get blocked. You jump at any chance to jump on the admin abuse bus. By railing against one problem, you're actually working against it. You create (you literally are the reason for) the very 'admin shield' that you are angry about.
You want change? Strengthen your arguments.--v/r - T P 18:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear TParis,
Thank you for directing me to the deletion page for Dr. Punyamurtula Kishore last week.
From what I can gather, there were two rationales stated for deletion. We’ll take them in increasing order of importance.
First, MelanieN made the following assertion to justify deleting the article:
The article contains many exaggerations and outright inaccuracies, as exemplified by this claim: "He began his medical career as a primary care/family practice physician and then moved into a position as the Medical Director of the Washingtonian Center for Addictions, the first organization in the U.S. to recognize addiction as a disease. Their philosophy was an early precursor to the AA or 12-step program movement." A good trick, considering that the AA movement was founded in the 1930s and the Twelve-Step Program was published in 1939. --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Assuming that MelanieN has provided her best example of exaggeration and “outright inaccuracies,” it is easy to show that she is misinformed and providing a false rationale for deletion. In Wikipedia’s own reference to the Washingtonian movement ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washingtonian_movement), the launching of the institution in question is asserted in respect to “the Washingtonian Homes which opened in Boston and Chicago in 1857.” The University of Boston Massachusetts traces back the birth of the Washington Center for Addictions to 1857 ( http://www.lib.umb.edu/node/1646), describing the evolution of the institution from that point forward through to its final dissolution in 1980 (at which point a large portion of its library was bequeathed to its medical director, Dr. Kishore). MelanieN appears to be unaware of the long, involved history of this institution, and accused Dr. Kishore of attempting to put over “a good trick” on the reader. She assumes that the chronology self-evidently disproves the article’s assertion, because in her view the Washington Center for Addictions was founded well after the 1930s, creating an obvious anachronism. In point of fact, the Center was founded 80 years earlier than that. The original statement in the deleted page is accurate. The “good trick” comment is prima facie sarcastic, I might add, but it wasn’t you who made it, so I will pass on that.
Second, the question of notability (which I assume is the more pressing rationale for deletion) deserves attention. Dr. Kishore is the architect of the Massachusetts Model for addiction treatment. Its notability primarily rests on the objectively documented claim that while opiate replacement therapies (Methadone, Suboxone, etc.) yield a 5% success rate after one year of treatment, Dr. Kishore has a 37% success rate after one year of treatment (750% more lives restored to sobriety). The replacement therapy statistics behind the conventional therapies' 5% figure are “soft” statistics because a significant portion of the raw data is based on addicts self-reporting their sobriety, whereas Dr. Kishore’s 37% statistics are based on actual drug tests (which is why several faculty members at Harvard University’s School of Medicine have been providing testimony in support of the clinical objectivity of Dr. Kishore’s achievement). His clinics grew quickly because his addiction treatment method was both revolutionary and record-setting. Kishore’s approach is non-narcotic, using Vivitrol to remove cravings after the second month of treatment. Consequently, the disastrous shuttering of his clinics in September 2011 (as the media noted in alarmist terms) put his many patients at risk, since no other state doctors knew how to treat with Vivitrol (which cannot be administered to anyone who’s not 100% sober due to drug interaction issues). Two years after the shutdown of Dr. Kishore’s clinics, Massachusetts now has the worst heroin problem in the country.
In light of the above, I would appreciate a fuller explanation for the “non-notability” label being applied to Dr. Kishore’s work. If you require more information, I would appreciate a clear explanation of what you would expect in the way of data that would establish notability.
Thank you once again,
207.235.13.82 ( talk) 23:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Martin Selbrede
Hello! I remember the UTRS project wanting to use HTTPS but could not because it required using the User's IP. Having both was not possible with the labs infrastructure at that time, but is possible now! If you have a few minutes to spare at some point, I'd like you to be online at the time I make the transition, to ensure that nothing goes wrong. Do let me know when you can be available? Thanks! YuviPanda ( talk) 19:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I've sent you a response. I almost slapped a {{ ygm}} on your talkpage, but I realized that would be a little disrespectful. My response has the same subject as the original that you sent me. Cheers, -- ТимофейЛее Суда. 22:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear TParis,
I'll respond to the notability issue as it is of more importance. In passing, let me add that Dr. Kishore is male and not female.
Here is a first set of tertiary sources that touch on the question of Dr. Kishore's notability. Let me know if these are adequate to establish notability. If not, do I need to supply further references (which I have) or is the issue the quality of the sources (in which case, please advise on that point as well).
Thank you for your patience on this matter. A preliminary list of sources relevant to Dr. Kishore's notability or lack thereof follows my sign-off.
207.235.13.82 ( talk) 00:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Martin Selbrede
First, note the ASAM Fellow criteria:
http://www.asam.org/membership/asam-fellows
List of 327 physicians world-wide elected as ASAM Fellows since 1996: http://www.asam.org/membership/asam-fellows/current-asam-fellows
Interview chapter in “Drugs Make You Unsmarter” (Winner of Golden Quill Book Award)
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-547735
http://www.amazon.com/Jill-Ammon-Vanderwood/e/B002BMBRGQ
http://www.jillvanderwood.com/dmyu/about.html
http://heavenonearthsystem.blogspot.com/2011/02/fifteen-year-old-teams-up-with.html
http://drugsmakeyouunsmarter.blogspot.com/2011/10/drugs-make-you-un-smarter-wins-golden.html
LANCET article: Kishore is cited 51 times and 6 times respectively:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(83)91130-3/fulltext
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(83)90568-8/abstract
LANCET: 2 articles: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/issue/vol322no8349/PIIS0140-6736(00)X4693-4
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/issue/vol322no8363/PIIS0140-6736(00)X7118-8
Google Scholar Citation List:
Export citation:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(83)90568-8/abstract/exportCitation
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(83)91130-3/fulltext/exportCitation
New York Times considers Dr. Kishore’s research a breakthrough:
http://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/02/us/alcoholism-tests-back-disease-idea.html
MANY ROADS TO RECOVERY article published in JOIN TOGETHER/PARTNERSHIP FOR DRUG FREE AMERICA (2007)
https://www.drugfree.org/join-together/drugs/many-roads-lead-to-recovery
2012 NATIONAL PHYSICIAN CENSUS: 878,194
http://www.fsmb.org/pdf/census.pdf
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/total-active-physicians/
Total Professionally Active Physicians in Massachusetts: 13,561 Primary Care doctors + 16,530 Specialists = 30,091
Total membership of the American Society of Addiction Medicine: 2,700
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=American_Society_of_Addiction_Medicine&action=history
Massachusetts members of ASAM: 66
http://community.asam.org/search/newsearch.asp?txt_state=Massachusetts
Members with ASAM Certification and/or ABAM Diplomate Status: 6 http://community.asam.org/search/newsearch.asp?txt_state=Massachusetts
Of the six doctors on the list:
1. ALFORD: Full time staff at Boston Medical Center (not ASAM certified)
2. BROADHURST: Suboxone/Methadone Doctor (not ASAM certified and not a Fellow)
3. GASTFRIEND: Works full time for drug company Alkermes (not a Fellow; psychiatrist by training)
4. GAVRYCK: Suboxone Doctor (not a Fellow)
5. KISHORE: Developed Massachusetts Model (ASAM Certified, ABAM Diplomate, Fellow)
6. WARTENBERG: Works as expert witness in legal cases (ASAM Certified, ABAM Diplomate, Fellow)
Number of doctors in Massachusetts that are ASAM Certified, ABAM Diplomate, and Elected Fellows of the Society: 2 (Kishore and Wartenberg) Of these two, only one is actually practicing addiction medicine in the state.
AMERICAN BOARD OF ADDICTION MEDICINE:
ABAM is not a member board of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). ABAM's goal is to gain recognition of Addiction Medicine as a medical specialty, and the creation of a certification process through collaboration with the ABMS and its member Boards.
ABAM DIPLOMATES : 1452 in 2009
http://www.addictionpro.com/article/landmark-recognition-addiction-medicine
Five Hundred Thirty-Seven New Diplomates Certified by American Board of Addiction Medicine
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/6/prweb10819492.htm
The American Board of Addiction Medicine (ABAM) was proud to honor and recognize 537 physicians who achieved board certification in addiction medicine during the organization’s recent annual awards luncheon in Chicago, IL. The new ABAM diplomates join 2,557 physicians in the United States who have already been certified and awarded diplomate status by ABAM, an independent medical specialty board.
It seems there is now consensus. How does this come to an official end? Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 04:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
You recently blocked my home IP but you didn't leave a message on the talk page of the IP you blocked giving instructions about how to request an unblock. Is it not still the standard to leave a message on the talk page of the blocked? Or should people be left guessing as to what to do? Of course I know, and didn't bother with it, but it still would be nice to have had that. We shouldn't be making them guess about how to unblock themselves or that they are even blocked. I didn't even know until I went to RFA to respond to the below comment. That my friend is piss poor admining. I always though higher of you than that, don't let the bad habits of bad admins rub off on you too. Oh and its worth noting that there has been an error on the Cannot create account message for months, might be nice for someone who is "trusted" to take a look at that so its not still pointing to the toolserver. 138.162.8.59 ( talk) 17:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
When you have a moment could you pop in to UTRS? The appeals are now coming in with the WMF Labs IP address listed as the main (proxy) address of the appellant. This obviously messes up the tracking of repeated requests. Thanks!-- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 18:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Tom, we let the ANI filing against Ret.Prof peter out under the assumption this dispute is headed to formal mediation. However, despite PiCo's best efforts (and my own and Davidbena's), Ret.Prof has temporarily "stepped back", as he has done so many times before, and now there is no request for formal mediation. Where should we go from here? (Please reply here.) Ignocrates ( talk) 19:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I am contacting you today as one of the users listed at User:Secret/recall. In case you were not aware, Secret has once again resigned his admin status and is once again about to ask for it back. I am concerned that this behavior constitutes the sort of erratic behavior that this recall mechanism was designed to deal with and am asking all other users listed there to add their opinion at the talk page of the recall subpage. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks like, you were closing it while I was adding a comment. I don't know that it matters but technically my comment came several minutes after the close. I think the subject could have done with a more thorough discussion and was really just getting started but I'm not going to make an issue about it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 04:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kamehameha Highway may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 19:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
In
this edit you stated, "Arbcom already heard MilesMoney's appeal and gave a solid rejection back at him."
I would like to read that appeal.
I tried searching
this page for "Milesmoney", which returned three pages, none of which were the appeal.
So I am interested in knowing how to search for something in ArbCom, as my approach failed, and I would be interested to see the appeal, so if you have a link, or a way to find the link, I would appreciate it.--
S Philbrick
(Talk)
03:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Greetings, while browsing
Category:Username_internal_link_templates, I tried out {{
IP_summary}}, and the "count" link went to
http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php which after awhile redirected to
http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/index.php ...
Shouldn't the proper behavior be to go directly to the wmf labs url like the {{
User summary}} template? I didn't check any of the other templates in that category which may have a "count" option. FYI. ...
172.162.77.52 (
talk)
15:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
As you were the closer on the ANI-set editing restrictions [22]) for Lucia Black, I need your opinion if this might be a problem.
Specifically, in long discussion on the MOS:TM talk page, Lucia stated that "You know who you're really calling an idiot Gaijin? the people who are for the MOS". (Note that Gaijin commented before that "It appears that people that pronounce the "five" [in Deadmau5] are generally considered idiots and called out for it widely." - as this was not a comment to goad Lucia in any way). I suggested to them they may want to retract that comment. They replied on my talk page, saying they weren't going to do that and that they were only under an IBAN (which seems wrong), and then proceed to expand on that comment on MOS:TM's talk page. And they did wipe that warning I gave too.
I've not been involved in the larger issues with Lucia so I don't know how serious this, hence why I ask for a check. If you believe this is a problem, I can handle the larger report to ANI if that's needed. If this is nothing to worry about, I'll let it drop. -- MASEM ( t) 17:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi TParis, I know your fairly busy now, but could you take a look at the contributions of user Photon lloyd, Their only edits are to put A Voice for Men up for AFD, and to call it a hate group at the same time. I've got no real comment as to whether the article should be deleted or not, but I'm fairly certain the article falls under the Mens Rights Movement Article Probation. What's more, the group is fairly small, and calling it a hate group can run afoul of WP: BLP. I'm not saying stop the AFD, but this type of AFD posting just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 14:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think there is much point in keeping this up. Assorted shenanigans are now threatening to cause trouble to other editors; I don't want to see people bickering about edit waring, or causing trouble for MONGO, FSP, you or anyone else unlucky enough to get involved in this mess. Let this end here and move on. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to delay responding ... I meant to do so last night but I was up late watching the Beatles tribute with my wife and that turned out to be more tiring than I thought, so after it ended the next thing I really remember is waking up on the couch an hour later.
But enough about me ... I was thinking about your request and what exactly you want to do and how I could help you. What sort of help are you looking for? What are your ultimate goals for the article? Those are the questions we should begin with. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Some more things later. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
Thank you for taking a stance aiming to diffuse the conflict by taking over a certain protection, and helping to close another dramu-fuelling discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apache Continuum didn't. None of the sources listed were reliable. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
As Peridon noted in denying the unblock request, it seemed from the edit history to be likely that there were multiple people behind the account, editing to promote the ostensible account-holder's interests. It is now being asserted that Ballesh himself is behind the account. This would, if true, exempt him from the username block (bit not a block for COI reasons). Daniel Case ( talk) 17:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey TParis,
I'm having a problem responding to your email via the URTS. The error I'm getting is a 550 5.1.1, "Recipient address rejected: User unknown in local recipient table." It looks to me like a server configuration error, any ideas? Nevermind, I just missed the link to respond.
Noformation
Talk
02:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
has asked me on my talk page to help him out on an article that falls within my banned scope. Am i allowed to edit there? Pass a Method talk 04:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
TP, I don't believe that BullRangifer ever tried to resolve his dispute with me. I simply cannot accept his proposal that we should biased sources to promote the WP:TRUTH. You may as well close that discussion because I will not agree to his demands. Arzel ( talk) 18:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Essentially, as others have said in your support in the RFC/U, while biased sources can be used, they need to be balanced with the opposing viewpoint to create appropriate WP:WEIGHT. Biased sources are all over Wikipedia. If you go into WP:LGBT topics, you'll see the argument made going the opposite direction. That Fox News & conservative sources are biased and should not be used. The problem is, bias is subjective. There is no objective measurement of bias at all. And so, we don't exclude sources based on "bias", we exclude them based on " weight". You may be right that there is an over-dependence on left-leaning sources, you may be wrong as well, but your argument should be WP:WEIGHT which supports your view in policy and not biased which policy opposes your view.--v/r - T P 18:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello Tparis. I apologize for bothering you with this but it looks like CensoredScribe is, one again, ignoring the community. Today the editor is adding this [[Category:Fictional weapons of mass destruction]] to several articles. A quick check of CS's edit summaries [23] shows that WP:OR and WP:SYNTH is still part and parcel of their edits. The guidelines regarding "Defining factor" and "Sourced info about the cat must be in the article" are also being ignored. I tried to leave this at AN/I but it is having problems at the moment and I have to go off-wiki in a couple minutes. If you would prefer not to have to deal with this please feel free to remove this message. In any case thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 21:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Admiral Clarey Bridge at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hawkeye7 ( talk) 08:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I've replied to your comment here. Thank you for reviewing me! Corvoe (speak to me) 20:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for loading DYK. I was hoping to save this for a meeting in March (the 30th) is it possible to leave this? I will move it to a safe area. Thanks anyway Victuallers ( talk) 09:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
You've got email from me. Cheers -- ТимофейЛее Суда. 22:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you blocked me, and took a rather rude and hostile tone toward me, as if I've been an unruly and disruptive editor when I've put in a lot of good faith work in to improve Wikipedia and have never received so much as a warning during six years of editing, making me feel rather disvalued as an editor. I'm sorry for whatever I've done to have personally offended you. I reverted edits on United States presidential election, 2012 that were considered disruptive by 75.91.224.24 a grand total of only 3 times, spread out over three different days, then I stopped. I note that the rule on Wikipedia:Edit warring is that editors must not perform more than 3 reverts within a single 24-hour period, so I still don't think I deserve that edit warring block on my permanent record as an editor, so I still hope you will reconsider it. But the only one edit warring was 75.91.224.24. And he is at it again. He has been reverted a total of 9 times now by 5 different editors. Since admins have said what the IP is doing doesn't meet the strict definition of vandalism, then he can't be reported as a vandal, so what exactly can be done? Thanks. Inqvisitor ( talk) 23:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
On 18 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Admiral Clarey Bridge, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the $78 million Admiral Clarey Bridge (pictured) connecting Ford Island to O'ahu was called "the bridge to nowhere"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Admiral Clarey Bridge. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thank you Victuallers ( talk) 16:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Am i allowed to correct a redirection error? Its not technically on a page so. Pass a Method talk 23:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Admiral Clarey Bridge you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden ( talk) 06:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The article Admiral Clarey Bridge you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Admiral Clarey Bridge for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden ( talk) 19:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
User:ТимофейЛееСуда/RFA -- ТимофейЛее Суда. 16:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
23:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you and JamesBWatson are aware, but Pass a Method keeps violating his topic ban, usually in subtle ways, as recently as today. Well, actually, I'm sure that if either of you did know, you would have acted in that regard by now. One recent example of Pass a Method violating his topic ban before today is the Hezbollah article, which is definitely a religious topic; he's been editing that article regularly since his topic ban. I don't think that Pass a Method is editing religious topics in subtle ways because he misunderstands his ban (despite seeming not to understand when he asked you this); I think it's being done in subtle ways so that he is not caught. JamesBWatson already caught him, but when the edit was not so subtle, as noted on Pass a Method's talk page; that example was not the only violation on that day. And when Pass a Method violated his topic ban just a day after he was informed of the ban, I knew that he likely would not take the ban seriously or as seriously as he should. And for the record, I consider Pass a Method a problematic Wikipedia editor for various reasons. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
FYI, he has removed the sanction notice on his talk page again. [24]. 107.15.200.87 ( talk) 16:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
-- TLSuda ( talk) 20:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, TParis. I frequently use the range contributions listing tool which used to be at http://toolserver.org/~tparis/rangecontribs and is now at https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs/index.php. It is a very useful tool, and I should like to thank you for it. However, as far as I know there is no such tool for IPv6 addresses. If you know of one, I would be grateful if you could point me to it, and if there isn't, I wonder whether you would consider providing one? I don't know how your tool works, but it seems likely to me that a few minor tweaks would be enough to get it to work for IPv6. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 11:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
A brand new account ( User:Johnsagarika) just created this: InsuranceHotline. It looked a little odd, and I then spotted Insurance Hotline, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insurance Hotline and User:BiH/Insurance Hotline. Worth a closer look? Blackberry Sorbet ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that the edit count tool you had worked on (at tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/) is currently unavailable. Does that mean it was dropped, or is it being upgraded? Just curious. -- Pereru ( talk) 03:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
TP, before I head off for a much-needed Wiki-break, I want to give you a brief update on the Ret.Prof conflict and ask your opinion on where to go from here. Briefly, Ret.Prof was taken to ANI for repeated disruptive behavior on the Gospel of Matthew article. ANI closed with a recommendation that the content part of this dispute be resolved in formal mediation. Mediation commenced, but Ret.Prof abandoned the mediation midway through the process. In his absence, we were able to negotiate some compromise wording which I incorporated into the article here and here. We have taken the dispute resolution process for content as far as we can, but I don't think any of the remaining parties expect Ret.Prof to accept this compromise wording upon his eventual return. So, where do we go from here? AN? ArbCom? What option or options make the most sense to resolve the behavioral aspects of this dispute? Please advise. Ignocrates ( talk) 15:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, Lucia Black's interaction ban is still in effect and it didn't even take 24 hours from my first re-entry into the topic space for her to already follow my edits and act inappropriately by altering the flow of content in relation to another issue she has with Ryulong and DragonZero and whomever else she constantly has problems with. Every time I do anything, Lucia Black promptly shows up to mess with whatever I am working on and the last time it was taken to ANI as gaming. There is no valid reason for this edit, a mere 4 hours after my first return to A&M space in a long time. [25] The edit itself is actually wrong to begin with - the swap was not even in line with the "primary or original work". Lucia Black has a demonstrated a deliberate willingness to continue involving herself in my pages and I think it is time it be dealt with. I took a break from the area for two months and my first content edit results in Lucia Black showing up within 4 hours and making a controversial changes in relation to other disputes with other users. I want action on this, because she is a real problem and she's going out of her way to involve herself with me - repeatedly. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 15:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive833#Large amount of properly sourced content is being continually deleted from Providence Religious Movement Article. ... Since you previously responded in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive785#Looking for uninvolved admins to watch Jung Myung Seok, I thought your consideration of the case would be of value. Sam Sailor Sing 11:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi there TP. You reverted your comment on my talkpage, but I thought I'll respond anyway. The IP 81.153.161.127 is User:Milneg. [26], [27] & [28] contained threat to report WMF for alleged breach of charity laws, tax laws and whatnot. And then there's the bit about criminal offence etc. The last one came after a warning by Gaijin42. -- KTC ( talk) 17:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Labs is in the middle of a migration to a new datacenter. Part of this migration required active participation on the part of project admins -- I have now shut down and set aside those projects which went unclaimed or unmentioned during the pre-migration period. The UTRS project was among those mothballed projects.
I see now that at least one person was still using it, based on a recent comment on the village pump. If you are still willing to maintain this project and would like it to be revived in the new datacenter, please contact me. Email or #wikimedia-labs will get you the fastest response.
A bit of context about the migration can be found here and here. Andrewbogott ( talk) 02:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
12:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey TP - inbound UTRS tickets are again showing the wmflabs IP instead of the sender's.-- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 20:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi TParis! I'd like to let you know about, and invite you to join the proposed Texas Wikimedians user group. Also, on more of a national scale, perhaps you would like to participate at WikiConference USA.-- Pharos ( talk) 04:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Hey thanks dude! MONGO 21:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC) |
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I've left a message there for you. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 22:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
T P, I'm getting an error message when directed to this link at tools.wmflabs.org and the page says that you monitor it...you might already know about this but just in case, here's notice. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
One of the participants in the Hillary Clinton move discussion has proposed that the move request is disruptive and should be closed early, on the grounds that he can't see any legitimate reason for the move to have been proposed. In full disclosure, I disagree (and I think it is surprising that such a request would come after we are halfway through the discussion, and only after 40+ editors have supported the move), but I think he deserves an answer as to this serious charge that the discussion is disruptive and should be tossed out. Since you are apparently heading up this closing panel, I hope you can address this. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 18:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I haven't been around much lately (what's up with this new font?), but some emailed this to me the other day. What the hell? I don't the full story, but it appears that toddst1 screwed up, and rather than face the music, he has run off (à la bwilkins...). This should be reviewed anyway, and if there's any correction to be meted out, then let it be done (just like with Kafziel).
My 2 cents. - theWOLFchild 04:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC) (btw - howz things?)
... appears to be on the fritz. Help! -- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 23:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
As you were the admin who enacted the topic ban, you may like to comment here: [29]. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:39, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
Hi . can you check plz,why this tool is not working ? thanks -- מלאחווז ( talk) 21:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, TParis! There used to be a very useful piechart at https://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/ , from which URL I assume you created it. Now when I click on it I get a message that it has been moved to wmflabs, but the new link https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/index.php doesn't load for me - just spins and spins. Can you tell me how to reach this tool nowadays? Thanks! -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
What it be possible to have Module:ISO 639 name and its subpages restored? Thanks — lfdder 22:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I knew from the first couple of hours on that week long discussion involving DIREKTOR, USChick and others that it would end with an admin saying "no consensus, that's enough of that." That article was nominated for deletion (I only found out about the article through the AN/I, so I missed that), result, no consensus, there was a deletion review, (I didn't know about that either), result, no consensus. There are some horrifically anti-Semitic themes being pushed in that article, I just have to hope that it is being done through ignorance and not malice, the whole idea that Bolsheviks were Jews and Russia was in the grips of a Jewish plot to take over the world is constantly put forward by many many Russian nationalists,particularly poisonous in that article is the suggestion that Jews killed the Tsar, that is untrue and it is a central theme of extreme anti-Semitic Russian Orthodox nationalists. I have sources that compare that idea to holocaust denial and other central anti-Semitic themes. WP processes have resulted in being told repeatedly "there is no consensus not to become an anti-Semitic website." That isn't good enough, I don't know what to do about it, but it cannot be accepted. Smeat75 ( talk) 12:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
[30] pcount tool is showing some internal error when trying to access, please look in to the matter. thanks in advance Irvin calicut ( talk) 10:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, TP, I think you should have asked me before unblocking Mark. As you know, it's customary to at least consult with the blocking administrator, and in this case, there is still an open report at SPI. I'm not saying Mark is lying, but there are certainly instances of a user admitting to meat puppetry but denying sock puppetry, but a later CU proves they lied.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
http://i.imgur.com/gomp0UJ.png
WP:MEATPUPPET. It's handled in the same section as Sock puppetry. Tutelary ( talk) 22:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, TP, and thanks for taking on the closure of the above article. As you saw, there is confusion about the status of that closure. That's because there is nothing there (at least nothing visible) to explain it. There used to be an explanatory comment from you at the top of the page. But when Adjwilley posted an update, both your comment and his update became invisible; I don't know why. The comment is still there (viewed in edit mode) and looks like this:
{{discussion top|Suspending discussion while the closing admins discuss the consensus.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 01:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC) <small>Status update: we have determined a consensus and are in the process of writing up a final draft to post here. Apologies for the delay. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]] <small>([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</small></span> 06:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)</small>}}
But it doesn't display when looking at the page. Can you figure out why? Thanks! -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
14:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the delay. Seems you got my main account blocked as a sockpuppet of an Irish politician who was reporting himself for some reason? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=prev&diff=601264794 /info/en/?search=User:Selfpublishing
I used to be a wikipedia editor a long time ago. Here is my old account /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Eccentricned A post appeared on reddit that showed an account named after the politician removing controversies which I felt should be reported. I forgot my password to the old one and knew that I needed to be logged in to report so made a new one.
I am not a volunteer or employee of any political groups or organizations. I'm just a programmer who doesn't even have the time to log in to wikipedia more than once a month. :)
I hope that clarifies the situation and this weird accusation that I'm a member of a politician's campaign reporting myself as a vandal can be removed.
Selfpublishing2 ( talk) 10:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shaa. Since you had some involvement with the Shaa redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – Allen4 names ( contributions) 05:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to ask you to consider removing the 1RR restriction you placed on Ayn Rand back in October. The primary provocateur of edit warring on the page was User:MilesMoney, who as you well know was community banned in early January. Since his departure, the primary effect of the 1RR restriction seems to be restraining editors from fixing obviously bad edits when they have recently fixed some unrelated bad edit. It would be better to restore more normal editing conditions (bearing in mind that discretionary sanctions are in place indefinitely). Thanks. -- RL0919 ( talk) 21:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi TP, I read your analysis (with Adjwilley) and I wanted to tell you how much I appreciate the careful thought you put into it. This was a very difficult decision to make in assessing consensus as understood on Wikipedia and the only way to do it correctly was the way you broke the problem down into its various subcomponents and assessing policy together with empirical evidence. I know you are going to catch a lot of heat for this decision, but you made it using a thoughtful rational process, which is all one can ask for. -- I am One of Many ( talk) 17:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I came here to say exactly what IaOoM just said. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
As did I. Thank you. Tvoz/ talk 23:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The Half Barnstar | ||
For your work on a complicated closing on a yet another move request at Hillary Rodham Clinton. The other half goes to Adjwilley. Thanks again for all your hard work! (Mark Miller) Maleko Mela ( talk) 05:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks for asking, I have considered it but not sure I have the stamina right now for the process. Maybe I should do a request for editor feedback and work on some things for a few months or so to build up a better record? I want to focus on more content creation mainly. Also I'm afraid some admins don't like me much... I was heavily slammed by a lot of people for closing HC a year ago and called all sorts of nasty names. What would you suggest?-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 03:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
What are the copyright implications of using UTRS response templates verbatim to respond to on-wiki unblock requests? Is the content of wmflabs covered by Wikipedia's CC BY-SA license, thereby only requiring attribution?-- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 21:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
You know, that's priceless. Thanks again. Drmies ( talk) 17:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I am (unsurprisingly) more than a little disturbed by your abrupt closing of the ANI discussion regarding User:Carriearchdale and the dismissive comment in your closing statement. This is the second time in two months ANI discussions regarding "Carrie's" editing have been concluded without action, despite strong evidence of bad behavior. I have been a target of groundless retaliatory complaints since I filed this ANI report last month, a report that concluded without action even though every experienced editor who commented supported the complaint and almost all called for substantial sanctions. I am hardly the only editor who has expressed concerns about Carriearchdale's behavior and general WP:COMPETENCE, and Fram's points that "Carrie" had actively encouraged an obvious copyright violator and misrepresented the simple facts about an editing dispute in order to denigrate editors she disagreed with should not have been dismissed as a mere personal disagreement. Please modify your closure to reopen the discussion regarding Carriearchdale's conduct. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 22:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
"Carrie may be inexperienced"; not really, she has been here for more than 6 years, and has made more than 2,5OO edits. As for "the way Fram did it seemed retaliatory from an outside perspective."; I have never encountered Carriearchdale, and haven't had much interaction with Hullabaloo either. The only "retaliation" was for someone coming to an unrelated ANI thread not to give useful opinions and perspective, but to get an opponent into trouble, and by making completely incorrect statements to boot. I don't think such behaviour is acceptable. Fram ( talk) 17:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello. The talk page for User talk:Snow Rise has a transclusion of the Signpost in the heading. For some reason, I believe this is preventing users from editing the section headings on the user talk page (as they appear when the transclusion is removed). Is there a tag that should be added to prevent this from happening? Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 03:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry it was me. Chasing a vandal, took all from Dennis Brown s page over to Drmies, so you got alerted, my fault. See at Dennis talk page. AAAh, now he is having dessert. (Drmies). I need an admin. Hafspajen ( talk) 00:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi TParis, thanks again for your recommendations for improving the Climate Change Capital page earlier this year. Please could we now remove the advertisement warning? Kind regards, Dan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielcremin ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
More edit-warring, more personal attacks. Why the heck hasn't he been indeffed? p b p 16:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Your accusations of canvassing and meatpuppetry are just plain burning me up and are distracting me from getting on with my off-wiki life. I really don't have much rational to say but that your behavior strikes me as borderline abusive and certainly unbecoming of this fine community. I can see the basis for a little suspicion, but didn't you learn in WP 101 not to act on every suspicion, let alone to levy such cocksure accusations as "obvious canvassing is obvious?" That sort of nastiness is toxic. Please consider settting a better example, putting down the battleaxe, and AGF.
{{ trout}}
-- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 05:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
" UTRS is sort of a 1-admin ballgame".-- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 05:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I want it noted that your accusation of meatpuppetry aimed at me is unfounded, uncivil, and offensive. It's likely that the only reason you have made this accusation against me is so you can accuse another editor you are currently involved in a dispute with of canvassing. Your conduct in using this to provoke drama at ANI in order to further your personal dispute is unbecoming of an administrator...among many other things. It is a failure on your part to assume good faith. It is a display of ignorance and an apparently inability on your part to engage in logical reasoning. I don't care what your beef is with other people, but let it be known that I want nothing to do with it or with you. Geogene ( talk) 19:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
She seems to have taken it up a notch to 11. [31] Viriditas ( talk) 05:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, at least they fixed it now. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 08:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm actually mildly worried about Malke. Their behavior could also be caused by something in back-channel. (more than just the blog, I mean).
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 20:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Sometimes when someone seems to be reacting illogically to inputs you can see, perhaps they are reacting logically to inputs you cannot see.
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related content on Wikipedia throughout the month of June. On June 21, there will be a multi-national edit-a-thon, if you wish to participate. Here is the project page for Houston: Wikipedia:Meetup/Houston/Wiki Loves Pride 2014. Ways to help? Create or improve LGBT-related articles, host an edit-a-thon at a local coffeeshop, library or other location, or photograph LGBT culture and history in the Houston area. Visit the project page for more information, and if you are interested in contributing, just add your name to the list of supporters or add the results of your work. Thanks for your consideration! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi ... can you pls send me (or create a userfied version) of the article that was the focus of the AfD here ... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Brander? Also -- it was a complex AfD, both in the discussion and in the SPA involvement .. a more detailed close may well be helpful there, so editors know how you weighed both points made and SPA !votes. Tx. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kenneth Brander. 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. Epeefleche ( talk) 07:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)