![]() | 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. |
I am not sure if a merge is necessary if you feel the sources are fine there and notability has been demonstrated. Lets see if it can be expanded and I will look at all the sources to make sure they are summarized properly and are all within our policies and guidelines. If the article remains a stub and/or begins to become too promotional I will begin a merge discussion if no one else has by then.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 21:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Regardless, you're approaching this with much more light than heat and I'm reading your latest comments as very aggressive. Perhaps you'd like to tell me exactly what your thoughts are instead of assuming or guessing mine?--v/r -
T P 21:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)I did not !no vote in the discussion since I did not have a strong opinion either way, but if the AfD is closed, the closing should be based on a solid policy basis. Being cited and respected by fellow media is an argument for reliability, not notability. These are separate concepts. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 02:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, I understand now. Yes, there's something to that. In those circumstances reversed I'd hope I'd try to understand your point, and if I had violated the policy I'd hope it was unintentional. I think that's the crux of it, though - if you said I had done it intentionally, then I would feel insulted. I think "supervote" as a term carries that implication of intent. That would make it difficult for me to see it otherwise. Begoon talk 04:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Can we please get back on topic? To reiterate, in Tom's close, he cited being cited and respected by fellow media, which is normally an argument for reliability, not notability. Tom further clarified that he based his close on WP:AUD, although nobody cited this during the discussion. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 05:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I just realized that in your topic ban notice, "making any edit related to the historicity of Jesus in any namespace" might affect this page in my user space: historicity.
The page has been around since August, and I last edited it on October 2. It contains citations and quotations regarding the historicity of Jesus.
I'm fine with living up to the letter of the ban, and leaving it just as it is. (It may be a useful resource to other editors.) But, if there's actually some policy or guideline that applies in this situation, it would be good to know, lest I run afoul of it. Fearofreprisal ( talk) 07:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
xtools seem to be down? DaMatriX ( talk) 18:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey TParis,
Do you think there's enough activity at Sarah Danielle Madison to warrant the recent death template? According to the template documentation it's only used on articles that are heavily edited (their example is "dozens of edits per day") following a death. I'm not sure the editing here is prolific enough to warrant its use in this case.-- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 18:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
TParis (or any other admin talk page stalker), do you think you can have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#I_was_in_the_process_of_filing_a_report_here_.5B....5D where there seems to be a possibility of closure? You understand why I'm trying to phrase this diplomatically. There's more in that thread, but there's a section that's ready to be wrapped up. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 02:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you have an itinerary yet? We were there in Jul-Aug of this year and had a great time. A few unsolicited suggestions
TParis, as you are completely uninvoled and you have performed a number of closures on AN/I recently, I would like to see if you can close this section. Bots are pretty quick in AN/I, there are only 3-4 hours left. I had bumped it before. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Game 3 of the NLCS just started and I don't need the distraction. But if the game turns out to be a stinker I hope someone reverts you :p Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 20:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
You are saying things about teamwork and such but as long as Eric Corbett rubs editors the wrong way with his insults and snide remarks there can be nothing to be found here. I disagree with your statement about "Untouchables" since when are editors immune to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia? While you may have closed the topic today the long running war has not stopped and will have to be addressed sooner or later. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
that you imposed on Zambelo (that didn't take long). I just reverted it and given that I am on his list of evil POV editors (on his user page), I guess I should consider myself involved. This is the edit (sorry that is not a diff, but for some reason my browser gets blocked when I look at diffs of large edits...). Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Wrong. Landmark Worldwide isn't a New Religious movement. Zambelo; talk 11:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
More like a stalker fullstop huh? Coffeepusher. So you are saying Landmark is a NRM? Just to clarify. Zambelo; talk 09:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
hi tp. you are in the category of admins willing to provide copies of deleted material.
an inexperienced user got in too deep too fast and has lost one of his articles. i helped him save the other two in user space (they will likely and rightfully deleted from mainspace) and set up an empty page for the deleted one.
so could you please retrieve the deleted content from Diagnosoft, Inc. and paste it here: User:Naelosman/Diagnosoft,_Inc.?
Not sure if that is the appropriate way to ask - never did this before. but thanks!
Sorry to see that you are retiring, and in a 'walking into the sunset sad cowboy' kind of way. it has been good interacting with you. Jytdog ( talk) 17:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello TParis. I am from ptwiki and I noticed that Xtools is currently down (=504 Gateway Time-out). Did something happened? Or someone just tripped over the cable? :P Thank you in advance. -- Diego Queiroz ( talk) 22:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm bringing this here, after finding your commentary, including your linking to WP:MPOV, at a different user's talkpage interesting. First, that essay doesn't seem particularly useful, as linking to it in conversation would tend to make the person to whom you were addressing it feel attacked. With that said, however, your point about centrism is a good one. I for one have never known a true "centrist." I've known people who hold a mix of what would be called conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc. positions on various issues, but those type of people aren't "centrist", at least in my view. There are some people who hold almost universally liberal or universally conservative ideals, but those people are quite rare, in my experience. I, for one, hold a wild mix of strongly liberal and strongly conservative ideas. (For example, who has ever heard of a person who is anti-gun control, but also pro-drug legalization?) Anyways, just wanted to drop you a quick note to let you know I thought your comments regarding centrism were very on-point, although the linking to the MPOV was a bit less so. Regards, LHM ask me a question 21:03, 15 October 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/Landmark Worldwide. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 30, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, S Philbrick (Talk) 01:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)-- S Philbrick (Talk) 01:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello TParis. I noticed your edit regarding discretionary sanctions at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and observed the talk page notice as well. Both places link to WP:ARBEE and I trust it is a valid link. I am curious as to why the article itself is not listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Log of article-level discretionary sanctions; wondering: should it be? I also noticed on the linked page that while it allows edits to be made to the closed case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Log of blocks and bans, it does not mention allowing edits to add new articles. Is that an omission that perhaps should be corrected? Thank you for indulging my curiosity in this regard.— John Cline ( talk) 01:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I just realized that I mentioned you on this report but I forgot to ping you. Viriditas ( talk) 04:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi TParis. Thank you for your detailed close at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad that summarized the arguments well.
You wrote at User talk:Randykitty#Are you around? ( permanent link, bullet points changed to numbers for easier reference):
- So, I see you're not around so I'll lay out some thoughts I had:
- You could just restore the edit history. Sure, you are technically on solid ground and you are not required to. But, it doesn't harm the encyclopedia to have a redirect with edit history behind it and it would be an easy way to solve the drama. The advantages of appeasing the people upset over this far outweigh the nonexistent disadvantages.
- You could restore the page and then userify it or move it to WP:Draft namespace. Then leave a redirect at the article space link. The draft or userfied page could still have a redirect on it.
- Perhaps Cunard would be happy with receiving an emailed copy of the page.
My thoughts:
I understand that this was a difficult close to make. I would have preferred a close of "restore the history" since no one opposing restoration in the DRV could answer Unscintillating ( talk · contribs)'s question: "How does keeping the edit history deleted improve the encyclopedia?"
But that would have been a controversial close since the community was divided, so "no consensus to overturn" close is understandable.
I propose a fourth option:
Would you consider using your discretion as DRV closer to revise your close to "no consensus to overturn, default to relist"?If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.
Reasons in support of a relist:
At this level of abstraction, we are far removed from considering the actual underlying question (whether keeping the edit history deleted improves the encyclopedia). The purpose of AfD is to establish consensus, and consensus is found through discussion and collaboration. The five commenters here who expressed opinions related to retaining the redirect's history should have done so (and should have had the opportunity to do so) during that original discussion; they would have caused a nearly 50% increase in its level of participation, and probably an increase in its clarity. In a relatively low-participation discussion such as that (or this, for that matter) an obvious way to gather more data is to extend and advertise the discussion. There is no value to the project in extending this discussion, we need to get down off our meta pedastal and get back to the coal face where the actual issue is. To benefit the project, the original AfD needs the opportunity for more editors to get involved, and with the prominence this discussion has given it, it stands every chance of doing so. To benefit the project, this discussion needs to get out of its way.
If Randykitty disagrees with option #1, I hope you will consider option #4.
Thank you for taking the time to review and close this contentious discussion.
As a side note, would you consider closing some of the discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, which currently does not have a regular closer? Your diplomacy and aplomb in contentious discussions would be very helpful in resolving disputes.
Cunard ( talk) 23:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
A relist would allow the community to answer (2) without (1) being in the way (paraphrasing from the close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence).
The issue of a redirect's history has been discussed at an RfC in the past. It was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect in January 2011, where the closer wrote:
The close indicates that there is no consensus against history deletion when appropriate, which I interpret as referring to the "cases of copyright violations or BLP issues" you mention above. It was also discussed at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#History undeletion underneath redirect ( permanent link) earlier this year.There is no consensus for automatic deletion of page history when an outcome is "redirect" (though there's also no consensus against that deletion when appropriate)
forgive me if I have the wrong person, the other day I asked at the "help desk", when the "revision history statistics" link would be up, but I didn't get a straight answer(the page is very useful). If I have the wrong person please forgive my intrusion, thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 14:00, 18 October 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, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
|
NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!
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) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Would you care to comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DangerousPanda-EatsShootsAndLeaves? Msnicki ( talk) 04:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I find myself in agreement with you in regards to your point about how Wikipedia handled itself on the Santorum matter. If you're interested in opening a larger community discussion about how to address this ongoing problem, I would be happy to support you. Viriditas ( talk) 20:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to proceed here. Gamaliel ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has unblocked, but with a petulant edit summary, and still refuses to provide diffs of the serious accusations that have been leveled at Andyvphil. Now Gamaliel has blanked and protected their talkpage, so that no further queries can be lodged. I just don't see how Gamaliel can keep the bit after this meltdown. Am I wrong, do you think? LHM ask me a question 04:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
(TPS)From what I can tell, someone is accusing an academic of not being qualified for their job, which makes it a BLP issue. Might not be too cool if the guy's current employer thinks there's fire if there isn't even smoke. The talk page protection is not necessarily out of anger, but to prevent the unblocked person from posting on their talk page--solves that problem so they don't get spammed for the next 16 hours while they're sleeping and at work. There's nothing that can't wait. Someone should probably keep an eye on the unblocked one to make sure they don't try to reintroduce the controversial BLP material before everything can get sorted out. — Neotarf ( talk) 06:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
That was a horrible close. The sun does not have sufficient mass to go supernova. It will shift to fusing hydrogen, become a red giant, and engulf the Earth. Which might stop the pointless bickering on ANI, unless WMF has shifted the (future) InterplanetaryNet servers to outer orbit. NE Ent 00:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Your note at Andyvphil's talkpage was on-point. Some of the messages there were feeling very WP:BAITy, which is not good form. Particularly, though, when consensus wasn't "abundantly clear" at the thread that got him topic-banned, particularly surrounding the key point ("Andyvphil posts racist stuff on a BLP") was hotly disputed, and never demonstrated with actual diffs. He was upset enough before being topic-banned--poking him with a stick was a really bad idea. Thanks for nipping it, if not in the bud, before it got to full flower. LHM ask me a question 02:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The link to Xtools seems to be broken, this week the page didn't load every time I tried to view my stats. Now it is saying 404. Is someone addressing this? Lightspeed2012 12:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, TP! On October 20 you fully-protected the article Alison Lundergan Grimes. Since then several edits to the article have been requested by consensus on the talk page, but the requests are not getting answered. We don't seem to have any admins active at that article. Could I request that you either make those edits yourself, or else lower the level of protection to semiprotection, so that we can maintain the article? Thanks much. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello TParis. I have a question about something going on over at Mark Udall. I think you've seen the recent action on that page with promotional content being added and taken away repeatedly, etc. I went through the article today to try to clean it up and tagged some bits of information that didn't have apparent references. I was subsequently accused by User:DD2K in a variety of talk page messages [3] and edit summaries [4] [5] of vandalism for adding a citation needed tag. Is it even possible for the addition of a citation needed tag to constitute vandalism? Could you look over my edits and see if you believe they do constitute vandalism? I saw a piece of information without an inline citation, so I added the citation needed tag. I thought that was the protocol in such scenarios. I didn't remove the info outright because it wasn't contentious. Now I'm being accused of vandalism and disruptive editing for adding the tag, so I'm a little confused. I'm seeking to improve articles while remaining civil and assuming good faith, and these recent developments are rather unsettling. Your thoughts are appreciated. Champaign Supernova ( talk) 22:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
You seem active at the moment - could you indefinitely block HerTrueWarriorFromTheDeep ( talk · contribs)? Only made one edit, but what an edit. -- GRuban ( talk) 17:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello TParis. I came here for a snoop as i remember (a couple of weeks ago?) you asking on AN or ANI about editors interested in RfA; i wondered how that was going, if there'd be any evidence on this page of progress. Instead, i'm very sad to see that you are planning on giving up the mop and entering semi-retirement. I am afraid that that action will be a loss to the project and community; seeing "v/r - TP" at the end of a close or a statement is a sign that, though i may occasionally disagree with the conclusion, the argument is thoughtful and cogent. I am sure my posting here won't change your opinion or plans (though, if it helps, mine opinion is open to change!); i do hope, however, that your search for an RfA candidate is progressing and that you won't leave us till you have provided an adequate replacement. Cheers, Lindsay Hello 03:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to disappoint you about my semi-retirement. I only mentioned it now because I wanted to be able to leave without anyone thinking it was a rash and angry decision. So I figure if I say it early then I'm on clear ground when I do turn in the mop. Thanks for your kind comments, though, they are very much appreciated.--v/r -
T P 04:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
For In case you are in doubt of my opinion of your adminship, I hereby award TParis with the “
Cool Award.”
GRuban (
talk) 17:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I seem to remember adding it to the list of pending requests some time ago, but I'm happy for your article to replace it. It seems to be more relevant to that particular date, and I'll definitely support it if/when it gets promoted. I'll add it to my watchlist as well, but give me a shout and let me know what happens anyway, and all the best with the FAC. Cheers, This is Paul ( talk) 18:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Late to the party, but I recently came upon your "looking to nom for RfA" post, and if you're still offering, I'd be interested in a review. I'm primarily here to write, but I've been working AfD for a while and I'd really like the tools to help with the non- NACs czar ♔ 17:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey, TP. What's the status of the X Tools? As I'm sure you know, the edit counter has been on the fritz on and off for the last month or more . . . . and no one on the technical help pages can explain what's going on. Is there anything I can do to help? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 18:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I've been incredibly busy at work, as I generally am this time of year, so I just now saw the message you left me several weeks ago. I just wanted to thank you and let you know that I've responded on my talk page. Best, Joefromrandb ( talk) 22:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi TParis,
I see that you've been quite busy the last several months. I'm wondering if things may have settled to the point where you might have time to take a look at the edits I made in response to your most helpful comments last May, here [6]? Much appreciate any time you can spare--if you have any! EMP ( talk) 18:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I hereby forbid you from using humour such as this in the future. If you violate this unilaterally-imposed zero-consensus ban I will bombard you with wikilove templates and kittens. ;) -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Is WMFLabs down? I tried both the page count and supercount and — after a long wait — get a 504 (occasionally 502) error. I found a bugzilla bug report that was similar from last month, but it was reported as fixed. With both tools not working, I was wondering if labs itself is down. — al-Shimoni ( talk) 18:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I did not even notice that you corrected almost all of the conflicting content in the inline citations that used "pages" instead of "page". for consistency. Thanks and have a barn star for your hard work. The article is an important one and I hope my contributions were satisfactory and accurate. Sorry that it created more work for you. I am done adding content and if there is still anything that concerns you let me know. Also, feel free to remove anything that becomes an issue standing in the way of the FA status. I believe I have added relevant content to the subject but if I have gone overboard in any way, I will not object to you removing anything that is holding up the FAC!-- Mark Miller ( talk) 00:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for correcting the issues you found on Ford Island after my edits! Mark Miller ( talk) 00:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC) |
///EuroCar GT 02:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
[7]. This is beyond reprehensible. USchick is insinuating that I threatened your children or something. This is almost as bad if not worse as when they accused Geogene of being racist. Volunteer Marek 20:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi TP, I hope you're not mad at me for dragging you into something that turned so quickly, so wrong. That wasn't my intention and I'm sorry. The reason I'm here is because over time, you have shown to be reasonable and I respect your opinion. After any significant event, I like to reflect and think about lessons learned. At this ANI event, several things surfaced that I don't understand at all, and I would like to ask them somewhere. Some things are related to me, and some things are related to admins in general. As is often the case, the way things work on Wikipedia, is not at all how they work in real life, at least not in my life, so I'm very confused. I have four very specific questions. None of them are about other editors. I would like to get my questions answered for future reference. I don't want these questions and answers to be in a public place where they will come back to haunt me later as accusations of some kind. You are familiar with this situation so you would be a good person to ask. There are two other uninvolved admins that I would consider asking if you're not available or would rather not talk to me. What do you think? Is what I'm asking reasonable according to policy, or is there a rule about asking questions of this nature? Where is a good place to do this? Would you be willing to talk to me? Or should I approach someone else? Would that be appropriate to do, or would that be a violation of some sort? Whatever you tell me, I will follow your guidance, and either way, I respect your decision. Thanks in advance. USchick ( talk) 04:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Did I read that correctly in NA1000's RfA? I have to admit that if its true, its disappointing. We've butted heads in the past, but I consider you and your efforts to be one of the positive factors on this site. In my opinion, you are one of the members of this community that helps to keep it honest and on track in its purpose. If you truly are "retiring", you likely deserve the respite, but I hope that it will not be permanent. Regards, -- SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. There seems to be a problem at https://tools.wmflabs.org/ with xtools. At https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ ...I have been to the Village Pump Technical but have gotten nowhere, thanks-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 20:41, 17 November 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) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Tom, question: what is the difference between xtools' pcount and ec, if any? -- 82.136.210.153 ( talk) 05:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I sent you an email and it bounced. Can you see if you got it? Thanks. USchick ( talk) 18:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Could you please tell me where the talk page of the Arbcom Election Commission is. Thanks. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm just waiting on your co-nomination so we can get the RFA started. Thanks Secret account 22:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
It's an interesting idea. I wouldn't mind having admin tools, but I've got no interest at all in going through the current RfA process. — Swpb talk 22:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Could you check the Revdels in early September to see if all the objectionable material has been Revdel'd. It seems to me that only the objectionable editors' revisions were revdel'd, not the intermediate revisions which have the same information. This seems to be GamerGate-related. I came to this because of the editors who had revisions deleted has been making other questionable edits, and I decided to check his entire (short) edit history. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
...for handling the issue on my talk page. Some old friends from university are visiting, so I've been offline mostly. Any idea who it was? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The NA1000 RFA was closed as "successful", with no further comment, by a 'crat that !voted in support of the RFA, including a swipe at you in his vote. I have opened a discussion of the close at WP:BN. Just letting you know. LHM ask me a question 22:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
In reply to your comment at this discussion which was recently closed: I agree that Thebrycepeake could have been more courteous. However, certain aspects of any honest discussion on fixing gender gap will offend (male) editors. It is important to have those discussions anyway. I have only skimmed through GGTF talk page, but a discussion comes to mind where the idea of male privilege was hotly contested. I guess that is why someone (was it SlimVirgin?) had proposed the idea of a "safe space" at GGTF. That probably will never happpen, but the least rest of us can do is to ensure that those who want to fix the gender gap get enough space to air their ideas without fearing repercussions. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 19:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Half Barnstar | |
You are one of the few editors who have held opposite opinions to me often in consensus and yet have not pushed in your own point of view (even supported NPOV against your POV / personal opinion etc) or kept any hostility for later comments and always stayed civil (something I have observed you to be having as an admin as well though I never interacted with you in that capacity). I had thought of giving you this one back at those initial disputes but did not want to make it look like 'partnering'. I feel this one is even more due now all that is stale and after your recent support at AN. lTopGunl ( talk) 13:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC) |
TP, you have been someone I've admired from very early on, because you always seemed to make fair assessments of situations. However, I see something happening with you that I've not seen before, and I'd like to ask you to consider if what I'm seeing might reflect a problem you could work on. I suppose I am one of the last people you want to hear from right now, but I am reaching out to you because I want to regain the level of respect for you that I had in the not-too-distant past.
I think you are letting the discussions surrounding the gender gap and sexism on Wikipedia affect your good judgement. I first noticed this many weeks ago in one or two discussions. I remember the term "mansplaining" being involved, plus one or more of the more outspoken feminist editors. The way I can tell that it is causing you to lose some of your good sense is very simply your language. For example, at me on the GGTF ArbCom page:
The first eight examples are untrue. The last example ignores your own, good moral compass, because you have said elsewhere, "A pet peeve of mine is people telling others where they are and are not allowed to give an opinion." To be fair, my "behavior" on that page was giving my opinion, and I did not deserve such a hot-headed lecture.
I have never considered you sexist, but the hyper-sensitivity that you're showing on the subject is puzzling. Please take a breath and realize that most (probably not all) of the people (not only women) on Wikipedia who are complaining about sexism are doing it the best way they know how, short of not addressing the subject at all. After years of saying little and doing less, the community has some work to do on the subject. Yes, based on hard evidence, but also on the anecdotal stuff, too. There might be some here who are making this stuff up, or exaggerating it. I'm not, and I don't know anyone else who is, but I concede that is a possibility. However, the gender gap and sexism on Wikipedia is real, and something constructive needs to be done about it. The first step is for the community, which is predominately male, to acknowledge that the agonistic editing environment is toxic to many people, but especially to most women. The fact that many men and some women thrive, or at least survive, in this environment doesn't mean it's the others who need to change. For Pete's sake, they're the ones who are excluded.
If this pisses you off, which I know is a risk, I apologize in advance and tell you that I won't be back if you direct more of the same at me that you did at ArbCom. It literally makes me sick. I barely slept at all last. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 01:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
When I read your opening post, and I have reread it about five or six times now, I just keep seeing that same type of advocacy. You said, "doing it the best way they know how." I suspect that people are both sides of the isle are arguing the way they best know how. Now, while I think it is unfair of me to say to edit my way or get off, as you've pointed out, I also think it's unfair of you to say that editors must take the gender gap at face value without scrutiny and/or that we must accept at face value that the only reason the Arbcom case has gone the way it has gone is because of the gender of the Arbcom members. It lacks serious good faith, for one, and it's divisional.
I don't have the solutions to the gender gap. I'd love to see female editors thrive and all editors getting along. What I'd like to see is an open and honest dialogue between those with ideas to combat it and those who are skeptical of those ideas. With some open dialogue, perhaps something everyone can agree to could be devised. But, I don't think forcing an idea on someone and becoming upset when they ask why is going to solve it. I remember this study ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeK759FF84s). Instead of telling students "Racism is bad" and having the students ask "Why is racism bad?", the teacher engaged them in an exercise in discrimination and instead the students asked "Why do people do this?". Whether you agree with my summary of what is happening at the GGTF or not, I think at the very least you can accept that it has become the perception. Perception is not truth, and it much more powerful.--v/r -
T P 02:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)I was very good and ate only one (albeit very large) plate: turkey, mashed potatoes, gravy, stuffing, cranberry relish, green bean casserole, corn casserole, yams, and a biscuit - the whole nine yards! And, of course, pie and ice cream an hour later. My DIL was happy because her Lions beat da Bears. My granddaughters were sick, but only sniffles, so I was and am very Thankful.
I've read your comments and came back to make one final observation. You misunderstood my original/opening post at ArbCom and commanded me to explain myself, which I did. When I came here to share my personal concerns about you - and it wasn't easy for me to do so - you cited my original post again and insisted, again, that the only conclusion you could draw (from my original post) is that I made my observation based only on gender. You're focusing on my original post and ignoring the two or three times since then that I've explained the thinking behind it in detail. You write, "I hope I've helped you see that your intended message wasn't communicated." This is interesting, because I'd hoped that I'd helped you see that my intended message wasn't received. There are two ends to our communication. Let's just leave it by saying we both might have done a better job.
I am now returning to the ArbCom page to make - I hope - a final comment, provided the other editors (two come to mind, and neither is you) don't decide to make light of my input. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 18:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey TP, congrats on getting this promoted to FA, looks like everything's good for TFA on December 7. This is Paul ( talk) 13:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
This is a little overdue, because I saw your message a month ago. For burying the hatchet with Joefromrandb. ...William 20:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 03:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I take exception to your statement that I've been dominating the conversation anywhere. Obviously I'm not going to be exchanging Christmas cards with Neotarf anytime soon, but I doubt that account will ever be unblocked. I've had minimal interactions with LB, if any. When Carol returns from her timeout, well I'm sure we will be cordial. I'm kind of pissed at the FoF, which if you review Rich F's unsolicited analysis you will see its, pardon my French, complete bullshit. But I'll take the topic ban and move on. But I find the request for more sanctions to be punitive and mean-spirited. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 06:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I noticed you nominated Czar for adminship, which was successful, and Sarahj2107, which almost certainly will be successful too. Would you consider nominating me? Everymorning talk to me 16:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
And you did it, Tom! Your heroic effort to get it done, mostly through your edits, and to get it done in time for the article to feature as a
Featured Article on the Main Page on the anniversary of the day that shall forever live in infamy, well. Tom, for this you deserve a star of its own joy and designing. Allow me:
BusterD ( talk) 05:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
You posted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell:
Per Hell in a Bucket's insistence that I find the exact edits, here are all the ones dealing with Carolmooredc and Lightbreather - I hope this settles the matter as there were plenty and easy to find: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. There are more, but I think I made my point.--v/r - T P 02:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the link give above to ANI Disruption of WikiProject as support for Locus of dispute is unfortunate. To me it demonstrates that some supporters of GGTF lack knowledge of what a personal attack is and provide diffs that are no such thing. Accusing editors of personal attacks with diffs that are clearly do not support the charge is likely to reduce the credibility of the task force complaints. And it doesn't support the Locus of dispute: "The main focus of this arbitration should be the bad faith editor behavior which disrupted the project."
EChastain ( talk) 1:35 pm, 30 October 2014, Thursday (1 month, 3 days ago) (UTC-4)Problems with your diffs: As you so often do, your diff to Patrol's evidence isn't precise, forcing the conciencous reader to hunt through long and confusing pages for the evidence you claim to cite, for example long ANI pages (and when I've read them I've found you've misrepresented the evidence) and likewise when you cite your Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/related resources which seems to becoming a link farm (it would be an effort to read through the long list of questionably relevant articles, and then read the actual articles to see if anything you mention as fact was reliably supported by an independent source or even relevant to the Gender Gap on wikipedia.
You know how to provide specific diffs like this: this specific diff because I've seen you do it before.
Re arbs and other editors: I am wondering if many, including arbs don't have the time it takes to get through the long and confusing pages you cite to evaluate even one of your statements, so they assume you are validly supporting your "evidence" which would take many days. And especially a problem is your constant changing of your evidence (and perhaps your comments too, as I can't continually check) without notice, so what I read and react to may not be the same post after your perpetual revisions.
EChastain ( talk) 12:36 pm, 15 November 2014, Saturday (17 days ago) (UTC-5)If the Arbitrators have a problem with other evidence, they can ask me a question. The Resources link was an invitation for people here to look at the research themselves instead of asking people for their interpretation of evidence. If people care about the issue they will.
Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 1:14 pm, 15 November 2014, Saturday (17 days ago) (UTC-5)@ Carolmooredc I guess that means that no one else checks your diffs! And that you don't either to see if they're correct!! And that you have no scruples using evidence that you know is tainted by a CheckUser finding, and didn't even bother to read Patrol forty's talk page. Rather, as usual, you expect others to do the checking: "The Resources link was an invitation for people here to look at the research themselves instead of asking people for their interpretation of evidence." (As if you haven't done an insane amount of "interpreting" already in this arbcom.)
This is your usual MO, as you've done with Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/related resources, always saying things like you have no time, real life issues intervene, will complete in a few days, etc.
I've noticed that you frequently reply to comments by answering only the least relevant one, or by changing the subject. Here you evaded my overall comments about your links to huge pages like ANI#Disruption_of_Wikiproject which you cited as evidence of bad faith editors and of the "Locus of dispute", and which I posted to you before as a horrendous page that you seem to expect editors to go through and which doesn't support your statements [28]; Nor did you give relevant responses to my other comments at that time to you [29]
You misrepresented what Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide says [30] and misunderstood the guide to mean that "this guide which only mentions "negotiation" overrides one of the five pillars, which includes civility and dispute resolution? Obviously the Guide has to be beefed up to reflect that fact." [31] And you didn't even check Patrol forty's talk page. Do you make any effort to check out anything with even minimal investigation? I don't see any evidence that you do. From what I've seen, you usually misrepresent/misunderstand a great bit of the time.
It's also annoying that you took my suggestions for links to the Project Council/Guide, and presented them as your suggestions.
You also say: "The only thing I say about the "Getting into fights" section in this "Locus of dispute" section is that “unaffiliated editors” can be the source of fights." I wasn't discussing negotiation or dispute resolution, so I can't be misrepresenting anything, can I? And I agree that "The main focus of this arbitration should be the bad faith editor behavior which disrupted the project." But you can't understand bad faith behavior without understanding possible motivations. The Disruption ANI was how it looked at the time. My original evidence here was a timeline. Understanding of the motivations for the disruption - including through collection of diffs and seeing others' diffs - is an evolving process. Thus this later analysis to help Arbitrators understand that strong and even hostile POVs against the GGTF drove editors to their bad and disruptive behavior. [32]
I never said I thought the main "Locus of dispute" should be the bad faith editor behavior which disrupted the project.
All I can say in response to all of this is to ask if you are considered a quality editor here? If so, I'm disillusioned. You didn't follow the suggestions of the Project Counsel/Guide to be sure to define the scope before you open your project or task force or whatever. If you'd done that adequately, and followed their other suggestions, this arbcom probably would have been unnecessary.
I quoted from a member of the Wikiproject Council responding to a question about specific procedures to deal with "editors [who] have a problem with the scope or activities of a Wikiproject that cannot be resolved at the talk page". [33] Then I found out you, Carolmooredc was the editor who posted the question there! I have trouble believing wikipedia is this inept. (Sorry if this comment offends, but I'm surprised at what I'm seeing here.)
EChastain ( talk) 4:06 pm, 15 November 2014, Saturday (17 days ago) (UTC−5)]
TParis, I can add more diffs, but in no instance did I add evidence pertaining to Lightbreather, nor address any comments to her. I admit I probably overdid it regarding Carolmooredc, and in retrospect I wish I had posted much, much less. But I was mindblown at her misunderstandings and misrepresentations shown in her evidence. And I was frustrated she did not answered my questions directly, but evaded, changed the subject, deflected to other issues etc. I eventually gave up the attempt to get a straight answer out of her.
My apologies for this long post. Thanks, EChastain ( talk) 16:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
i've looked under gun control arbcom and can't see where Sue Rangell is involved. Couldn't find the Israeli/Palestine arbcom. Frankly I'd never heard of any of the editors of the GGTF or even the GGTF its self until I came across Neotarf's "cunt, nigger" post on NYB's page and was incredulous that this could happen on wiki at all. There seems to be a plan to hound me until they find something they can pin on me. Maybe Carolmooredc and Lightbreather need a villain - whatever Carolmooredc and Lightbreather can make stick.
Just found a link to the mailing list. It's really depressing. I guess this time I'm going to see a whole new side of wikipedia I never knew about before. Oh well. It doesn't matter what happens if I'm going to be banned by hook or by crook, so I'll dump any serious editing plans, cancel my book orders until I see if I can stand the harassment.
The last arbcom case I followed was Sexology and this GGTF case really reminds me of that one. On the mailing list, there's descriptions of all the attempts made to figure out who Eric Corbett is, and all they could find was that his family set up a trust for ferrets. WOW!
I rue I outed myself as a female, and if by any chance I'm not railroaded and harassed off wiki by Lighbreather et al, I'll ask for a renaming so my sex won't be known.
But, hey, if you could point me to places to look to find out the backstory to all this, I'd really appreciate it.
Why was it not ok for Jokestress to bring in off-wiki disputes onto wiki, but it's ok for the GGTF folk to do it openly, and even opening spam twitter accounts and openly try to out Eric Corbett? This place has really changed since I last looked in. Cheers!
EChastain ( talk) 01:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
It appears to me that you may feel like you havea guilty conscience re Lightbreather:
I don't understand these post by you and Lightbreather, but it suggests to me that you many be WP:INVOLVED.
And when posting her allegations on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell and updating them without noting that it was a revised edition, and without notifying me, was extremely confusing - I thought I must have Alzhimer's. (Even though I'm a new account, do I deserve no regard in your eyes?)
I've looked through her archives and see many examples of this kind of thing (like requests to remove of comments of others after pleas that her feeling were hurt). EChastain ( talk) 15:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.
a person's freedoms
Thank you, "active duty programmer in the Air Force" and "pro- just about everything related to a person's freedoms", for quality articles on what you know, such as
Ford Island,
Pacific Aviation Museum Pearl Harbor and
The Faerie Path, for welcoming new users and
service as an admin open for review, guiding "your" candidates for the mop successfully through the ordeal, for
realism and for
trying to protect children, - you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations getting the article up on time! It was a charm to review for ACR, good job to you and the other editors! Protonk ( talk) 18:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I got the email you sent me. As far as the MEDRS subpage thing is concerned, I didn't intend for it to be interpreted the way you read it. I do think this guideline is an important one and try to follow it as much as possible, but in the subpage I was talking about how it is inconvenient. Given that your email has led me to think about the issue of whether this looks like I am complaining unconstructively, though, I have tagged the subpage for deletion. Thanks for the feedback. Everymorning talk 18:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi TP. Could you sign your DS alert to User talk:MarieWarren? It's good for the user to have someone to ask if they don't understand the notice. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 19:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I noticed your comments at ANI about Shooting of Michael Brown and there are numerous cases of WP:BLP violations, misinformation and POV pushing. Pro-Wilson, Pro-Brown sections mingled with completely inappropriate analogies and assumptions. A call for a non-involved admin was requested and while I am not one, there are dozens of issues in the article that need to be immediately removed per BLP. Perhaps I was a little harsh by stating that editors blocking the NPOV tag should be blocked, but those involved are either blind to policy or complicit in the violations. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 18:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The rule of civil POV pushing goes like this: remain calm and dismiss your opponents concerns in the most simplistic and patronizing way possible. Whatever it takes to get an opponent to slip. Because once they slip, you have a direct line to their nerves. Civil POV pushing is a cancer to this project and no one is willing to address it and sysops routinely play their role in the strategy.--v/r -
T P 20:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)But from where I am sitting, I just don't see any way at all to get this project to take any claim of an overall political bias seriously and it's been draining on my faith in the project. There are only two ways forward, I could start whining everywhere that we're dismissing claims of bias too easily and become disruptive or I can just quietly bow my head and humbly leave. I don't want to leave is some kind of anger and frustration over the issue and so I gave everyone a 6-month heads up. But I would have left the day I decided to leave 12 months ago if I didn't think the project would think I am just some radical-conservative who has been playing nice for so long finally blowing up. I'd rather just shake hands with everyone and leave as friends and so I set a date far enough out where no one's shock would cause them to become defensive over my views and think ill of me.--v/r -
T P 22:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)I've had my issues with NYT and I've had my issues with Fox and all the others. I do not trust any source based on its origins. Wikipedia needs to adopt that stance, but as long as people are thinking of reliability and verifiability being tied to a publisher or brand... well, its going to be shitty. I do not even trust NRHP listings, because people make errors or assumptions that get picked up by mistake. I am free from much politic bickering in NRHP, but East District School has incorrect dates and the NRHP nomination bungles quite a bit. I try to keep out of political arguments because they are described as two halves of a coin which is really a die. You want to know a scary progression of Wikipedia thought mirrors philosophy and we are to subscribe to Kant's flawed concepts of intention-based morality. The cynics may like Thomas Hobbes's notions, but thankfully neither that or John Stuart Mills theories hold out. Its a bit of game theory and true morality which governs the interactions of the good-natured. Most people, in the wider community innately follow the same path, but those with a mission deviate and cause the most disruption of those who normally would defend themselves. Shame its not a perfect analogy for real life. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 02:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi TP, I consider you a "cut through the BS" kind of Admin and there's a situation that I think could benefit from your perusal.
There was a recent ANI involving this article Vehicle registration plates of Pennsylvania (that presented as simple content dispute) with one particular User who has been disruptive, Edit Warring, and non-communicative after numerous messages and pings on the article Talk page and the Users Talk page. This person has gone so far as to blank their Talk page, so we know that they have seen the messages. In fact, when I informed this person of such, my comment was blanked again with an edit summary that I was making a threat.
Rather than take this again to ANI or another Noticeboard, will you take a look? Thank you in advance for any help or insight you can provide, -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Amortias (
talk •
contribs) 22:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
[ [34]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hell in a Bucket ( talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I haven't always agreed with you, but I appreciate that you understand that "No one loves the messenger who brings bad news." Messengers such as myself will lose a fair officer when you hang up your mop.
Lightbreather (
talk) 20:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'm finally taking the time to ask this since I see you use it in your sig. Is this a military thing signing this way? I've noticed my military clients use this a lot. God Bless them however. They sure as shit beat my commercial customers. Professional, courteous and always reasonable. They could pay their bills a bit faster, but it's a bureaucracy after all. I do like some of the naval jargon. I think the next time I misbehave I'm gonna go to an admin and say "My compliments to the admin, but I just called so and so a douchenozzle". Happy Paganchristmahanakwanzika. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 16:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I am hoping that you can help me or, failing that, point me in the right direction. There is a picture of Kit Carson, the lede picture, that says his uniform is ca. 1860, but I think it is earlier than that. Can you take a look, and offer an opinion or a next step? Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 18:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Paris, my blocking was a minor speed bump in th road of life, one that taught me to . . ... drive slower. Intothat darkness here is the problem that I have with the early 1860 date for the picture. A photo of Carson in 1868 reveals him as a tired, wornout man. The one we are discussing appears to show a vigorous man in his prime. But after hearing the uniforn folks, whom I have asked for an opinion, I am inclined to let this one lie. thanks, Carptrash ( talk) 20:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Ahh, the truth, according to Oscar Wilde, "was seldom pure and never simple." Sort of like wikipedia. Thanks again. I am not going to make any changes in the picture caption unless ... something else happens. Carptrash ( talk) 01:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello TP. Regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement by TParis. Can you say more? In the linked thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#Factchecker atyourservice isn't here to build an encyclopedia you were saying both (1) Brianhe's charges against Factchecker were excessive, (2) the 2011 warning to Factchecker was renewed. Which of these observations did you want to bring to the attention of AE? Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
AmaryllisGardener talk 18:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I got a notification that you patrolled me, which is certainly fine, though I must admit I don't know what that covers. Hopefully, it checked out okay and thank you!
Anyway, thought I'd use this opportunity to ask you a question. If I make an edit from my other (policy-compliant) User account by mistake, is it possible to have it erased from that pages history? It's not a serious mistake, though it could reveal my other Username to a curious viewer. Thanks, ProfGray ( talk) 13:21, 19 December 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) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!! |
Hello TParis, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of {{U| Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list
Have a bright Hawaiian Christmas!-- Mark Miller ( talk) 16:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
From me too...! -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi TParis, you indeffed User: HelpGod and User:Sirriasrar as sockpuppets. Yes they were, but this was a newcomer who did not know the rules of Wikipedia and tried to edit constructively (even if his proposed edits incited a fierce discussion). He was initially blocked temporarily for violating 3RR and edit warring. Me and other editors was trying to educate him/her - indefinite block is fully justified in cases of vandalism, but here we didn't have that. Regards, kashmiri TALK 10:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) Tanbircdq, I've reverted your edits to the user pages of these accounts. It is the job of an SPI clerk and/or an administrator to tag (or not to tag). Please don't do that again. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
TP, Season greetings and I hope you are enjoying your holiday time off with your friends and family. I have interacted with you previously in a minor disagreement under another IP (my changes and I have no control over that) and we both had productive exchanges. I am contacting you because I have seen some very hard to understand behavior by another editor that you have interacted with. You know her as Lightbreather and she seems to have some respect for you. What I have noticed is that her issue is with pushing her POV's (somewhat common here). That in itself is not the issue but the level of disruption she causes in order to force her POV upon the community by baiting other editors into endless drama and by using the Wikipedia bureaucracy in order to get her way. She frequently steps up to line of being uncivil and even crosses it and frequently brings out the worst in otherwise useful editors. She has also frequently broken rules that she often accuses other editors of as witnessed by her bans. She is an agenda warrior, pure and simple. Her agenda warring is often disruptive and she seeks to game the system in order to push her agenda. A lengthy review of her substantial conflicts will demonstrate her behavior. So what can be done besides a ban? Can she be instructed to try to work more collaboratively with other editors? Can she be instructed that further disruptions and gaming could result in further bans? I do not have the knowledge due to my sporadic editing and outside commitments to know all the possible solutions. Could you offer her friendly counsel, maybe in private, although she may turn that against you? I just cannot believe the level of disruption is tolerated for such a long period of time. I have not seen a sincere change for the better unfortunately in her behavior. It is entirely possible that may never occur and thus the dilemma of what to due when an editor either by personality or conscious intent continues to cause substantial disruptions. If this was a paid job it is my opinion she would of long ago been dismissed for causing so much hate and discontent in the workplace. I felt it was necessary to put in my two cents to a reasonable administrator involved with the aforementioned editor but I admit I have no easy solution as a block would only result in her reappearing as new editor and conflict seems to be something she thrives in.
Again Happy Holidays!!! Retired Military and appreciative of your service to the nation. 172.56.41.115 ( talk) 07:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Can you please add "ro" in the language list of http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/?&uselang=en ? I've just finished translating the interface. Thank you. -- Gikü ( talk) 18:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
TParis,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Iryna Harpy (
talk) 23:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey! I was hoping you might get on IRC sometime in the relatively near future. Basically, I'm wondering if your offer still stands to help me prepare for adminship in the next year. My channel is ##T13 connect, and I would appreciate a /query if/when you have some free time to discuss this matter with me. Thank you. — {{U| Technical 13}} ( e • t • c) 22:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 133#Custom notices on user .js and .css pages. Thanks. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c) 15:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
This might sound crazy, but have you considered, you know, not leaving? The secret to my longevity here is frequent wikibreaks, not just from the encyclopedia as a whole but from particular parts of it: article topics, projects, etc. When I get tired of editing political articles (none of the angry partisans who think I head up the Wikipedia Politburo seemed to have noticed I hardly ever edit political articles anymore!) or writing about obscure 19th century lawyers or sick of DYK or ANI or whatever, I just shuffle on over to some other part of the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia and its users are often infuriating and discouraging, but there is much to work on and much to be done. If I participated in Wikipedia the same way now I participated in it in 2005, or even 2012, I would have grown bored and discouraged and left a long time ago. Gamaliel ( talk) 23:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I just came across a bit on George W Bush in the article on CBS. The bit was about criticism of CBS. Some editor didn't like that smear on CBS and so they added a sentence to the end of the paragraph as a cop-out. To paraphrase, "Even though CBS was entirely wrong and did not verify it's sources, there are still questions about Bush's service." The source didn't support the material at all. And the material itself is entirely vague. It's about a living person and has been in that article for almost 2 years. No one thought to verify an attack on a living person. And then I compared Fox News to CBS. Comparing the criticism sections should open a few eyes. There is an entire paragraph on Fox News article about specific allegations from Media Matters for America. The problem is, Media Matters for American is an openly anti-conservative website. The article presents the bit from MMfA as unbiased independent criticism - when it is actually a primary source. Media Matters for America openly admits it was created to counter Fox News. What's even worse, that little bit from MMfA is given an entire paragraph - and a long one at that - despite being a primary source and without any evidence of notability of the dispute from MMfA itself. Then I go over to RealClearPolitics where editors are still trying to paint the living people who founded it as conservatives despite not a single source saying that the people label themselves conservative. I read New York Times criticism section and it's littered with "Conservative <blah> says <this>, but MMfA says <this other thing> and LA Times says <this thing>". Editors make a specific effort to label conservative viewpoints and also to avoid labeling liberal viewpoints thus giving liberal viewpoints the image of impartiality (fyi, I was the one who added the "liberal media "watchdog" group" part to balance it). Skip on over to Rick Perry where editors were insisting on every bit of negative information about Rick Perry's indictment while removing any defense of Perry including that Liberals were defending Perry. They also wanted to remove the bit about the Travis County DA having a drunken driving charge which is the basis of the entire issue. And please, don't even get me started on Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism when You didn't build that. The entire article on You didn't build that is a defense of President Obama's speech while an attack phrase that some liberal opinion columnist made up one day explains why Santorum deserves it and why it hit off so well. What actually drove the stake home for me, though, was when Sue Gardner openly endorsed the ad hominem attacks and casting of aspersions against conservative editors in the Manning case. She spoke to Arbcom, she spoke in the mailinglists, and she spoke to the media openly endorsing attacking conservative editors for not supporting to move to Chelsea.
No, Gamaliel, I've avoided targeting specific people for several reasons. One is that people are fallible and so am I. I'm not going to hold others to strict standards that I myself cannot keep to. None of us can be expected to be neutral all the time. It's by working together that we find neutrality. But what often happens is that liberal editors believe that they, by themselves, can find the balance without the need for input from the conservative editors. Two, I believe that it is a systematic problem and it cannot be blamed on a specific editor when the system quietly endorses it. And number three, I believe that is a lot of blame to put on any single editor.
The fact of the matter is, this project is full of people who openly hate conservatives and conservative editors. Either they feel conservatives hate them and are projecting their fears or they have a personal dispute with a conservative social platform and they feel they are in a battle for humanity. Either way, I've realized a long time ago that I am not welcome here, even as a center-left libertarian, and if I feel unwelcome here then I can only imagine how true conservatives feel. There is simply no way to be anything less than a rank and file liberal and be an administrator, and there is increasingly little opportunity to be a conservative and a regular editor. I consider myself a center-left liberal or barely a conservative. Even still, there is a strong chilling effect against editors who are not well into the left side of the spectrum from editing political articles and so I've avoided editing them, myself. Even as an administrator, I've feared the harassment and bullying on those topics.
I've left the door open for myself to edit articles about my local community and perhaps a return in about a year or two if the atmosphere in here changes but I don't have high hopes. At this point, I just plan to say my goodbyes, try to explain a little about the other issues (this is only one of them) that have led to my departure and then sign off on good terms. It's better than hitting the eventual wall and being driven off the project by an Arbcom case or a topic/site ban which is what happens to many conservative editors. Thank you for being my friend despite our differences, I've always appreciated having friends who challenge me and allow me to challenge them. It makes me feel good to know that there are people who can think critically and be open to argument without taking it personally.--v/r -
T P 00:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
I don't know when you're going exactly (and most of your activity has been on the decline), so I wanted to make sure you got this. Your efforts on improving Wikipedia have been invaluable, you've been a great admin. Thank you. AmaryllisGardener talk 19:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
Lol.
Best New Year's Day ever. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 05:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm writing to you w.r.t. a user you unbanned with a warning not to indulge in promotional edits in favour of his employer, Indiaproperty. I'm afraid that he appears to have now gone and done exactly that.-- Cpt.a.haddock ( talk) 03:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, In this tool you need to fix this dead tool link : https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikiviewstats/ and replace it by https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikiviewstats2/ (the only difference is the "2" at the end of the address). -- Loup Solitaire 81 ( talk) 11:48, 20 January 2015 (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. |
I am not sure if a merge is necessary if you feel the sources are fine there and notability has been demonstrated. Lets see if it can be expanded and I will look at all the sources to make sure they are summarized properly and are all within our policies and guidelines. If the article remains a stub and/or begins to become too promotional I will begin a merge discussion if no one else has by then.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 21:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Regardless, you're approaching this with much more light than heat and I'm reading your latest comments as very aggressive. Perhaps you'd like to tell me exactly what your thoughts are instead of assuming or guessing mine?--v/r -
T P 21:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)I did not !no vote in the discussion since I did not have a strong opinion either way, but if the AfD is closed, the closing should be based on a solid policy basis. Being cited and respected by fellow media is an argument for reliability, not notability. These are separate concepts. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 02:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, I understand now. Yes, there's something to that. In those circumstances reversed I'd hope I'd try to understand your point, and if I had violated the policy I'd hope it was unintentional. I think that's the crux of it, though - if you said I had done it intentionally, then I would feel insulted. I think "supervote" as a term carries that implication of intent. That would make it difficult for me to see it otherwise. Begoon talk 04:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Can we please get back on topic? To reiterate, in Tom's close, he cited being cited and respected by fellow media, which is normally an argument for reliability, not notability. Tom further clarified that he based his close on WP:AUD, although nobody cited this during the discussion. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 05:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I just realized that in your topic ban notice, "making any edit related to the historicity of Jesus in any namespace" might affect this page in my user space: historicity.
The page has been around since August, and I last edited it on October 2. It contains citations and quotations regarding the historicity of Jesus.
I'm fine with living up to the letter of the ban, and leaving it just as it is. (It may be a useful resource to other editors.) But, if there's actually some policy or guideline that applies in this situation, it would be good to know, lest I run afoul of it. Fearofreprisal ( talk) 07:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
xtools seem to be down? DaMatriX ( talk) 18:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey TParis,
Do you think there's enough activity at Sarah Danielle Madison to warrant the recent death template? According to the template documentation it's only used on articles that are heavily edited (their example is "dozens of edits per day") following a death. I'm not sure the editing here is prolific enough to warrant its use in this case.-- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 18:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
TParis (or any other admin talk page stalker), do you think you can have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#I_was_in_the_process_of_filing_a_report_here_.5B....5D where there seems to be a possibility of closure? You understand why I'm trying to phrase this diplomatically. There's more in that thread, but there's a section that's ready to be wrapped up. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 02:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you have an itinerary yet? We were there in Jul-Aug of this year and had a great time. A few unsolicited suggestions
TParis, as you are completely uninvoled and you have performed a number of closures on AN/I recently, I would like to see if you can close this section. Bots are pretty quick in AN/I, there are only 3-4 hours left. I had bumped it before. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Game 3 of the NLCS just started and I don't need the distraction. But if the game turns out to be a stinker I hope someone reverts you :p Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 20:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
You are saying things about teamwork and such but as long as Eric Corbett rubs editors the wrong way with his insults and snide remarks there can be nothing to be found here. I disagree with your statement about "Untouchables" since when are editors immune to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia? While you may have closed the topic today the long running war has not stopped and will have to be addressed sooner or later. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
that you imposed on Zambelo (that didn't take long). I just reverted it and given that I am on his list of evil POV editors (on his user page), I guess I should consider myself involved. This is the edit (sorry that is not a diff, but for some reason my browser gets blocked when I look at diffs of large edits...). Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Wrong. Landmark Worldwide isn't a New Religious movement. Zambelo; talk 11:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
More like a stalker fullstop huh? Coffeepusher. So you are saying Landmark is a NRM? Just to clarify. Zambelo; talk 09:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
hi tp. you are in the category of admins willing to provide copies of deleted material.
an inexperienced user got in too deep too fast and has lost one of his articles. i helped him save the other two in user space (they will likely and rightfully deleted from mainspace) and set up an empty page for the deleted one.
so could you please retrieve the deleted content from Diagnosoft, Inc. and paste it here: User:Naelosman/Diagnosoft,_Inc.?
Not sure if that is the appropriate way to ask - never did this before. but thanks!
Sorry to see that you are retiring, and in a 'walking into the sunset sad cowboy' kind of way. it has been good interacting with you. Jytdog ( talk) 17:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello TParis. I am from ptwiki and I noticed that Xtools is currently down (=504 Gateway Time-out). Did something happened? Or someone just tripped over the cable? :P Thank you in advance. -- Diego Queiroz ( talk) 22:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm bringing this here, after finding your commentary, including your linking to WP:MPOV, at a different user's talkpage interesting. First, that essay doesn't seem particularly useful, as linking to it in conversation would tend to make the person to whom you were addressing it feel attacked. With that said, however, your point about centrism is a good one. I for one have never known a true "centrist." I've known people who hold a mix of what would be called conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc. positions on various issues, but those type of people aren't "centrist", at least in my view. There are some people who hold almost universally liberal or universally conservative ideals, but those people are quite rare, in my experience. I, for one, hold a wild mix of strongly liberal and strongly conservative ideas. (For example, who has ever heard of a person who is anti-gun control, but also pro-drug legalization?) Anyways, just wanted to drop you a quick note to let you know I thought your comments regarding centrism were very on-point, although the linking to the MPOV was a bit less so. Regards, LHM ask me a question 21:03, 15 October 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/Landmark Worldwide. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 30, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, S Philbrick (Talk) 01:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)-- S Philbrick (Talk) 01:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello TParis. I noticed your edit regarding discretionary sanctions at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and observed the talk page notice as well. Both places link to WP:ARBEE and I trust it is a valid link. I am curious as to why the article itself is not listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Log of article-level discretionary sanctions; wondering: should it be? I also noticed on the linked page that while it allows edits to be made to the closed case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Log of blocks and bans, it does not mention allowing edits to add new articles. Is that an omission that perhaps should be corrected? Thank you for indulging my curiosity in this regard.— John Cline ( talk) 01:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I just realized that I mentioned you on this report but I forgot to ping you. Viriditas ( talk) 04:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi TParis. Thank you for your detailed close at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad that summarized the arguments well.
You wrote at User talk:Randykitty#Are you around? ( permanent link, bullet points changed to numbers for easier reference):
- So, I see you're not around so I'll lay out some thoughts I had:
- You could just restore the edit history. Sure, you are technically on solid ground and you are not required to. But, it doesn't harm the encyclopedia to have a redirect with edit history behind it and it would be an easy way to solve the drama. The advantages of appeasing the people upset over this far outweigh the nonexistent disadvantages.
- You could restore the page and then userify it or move it to WP:Draft namespace. Then leave a redirect at the article space link. The draft or userfied page could still have a redirect on it.
- Perhaps Cunard would be happy with receiving an emailed copy of the page.
My thoughts:
I understand that this was a difficult close to make. I would have preferred a close of "restore the history" since no one opposing restoration in the DRV could answer Unscintillating ( talk · contribs)'s question: "How does keeping the edit history deleted improve the encyclopedia?"
But that would have been a controversial close since the community was divided, so "no consensus to overturn" close is understandable.
I propose a fourth option:
Would you consider using your discretion as DRV closer to revise your close to "no consensus to overturn, default to relist"?If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.
Reasons in support of a relist:
At this level of abstraction, we are far removed from considering the actual underlying question (whether keeping the edit history deleted improves the encyclopedia). The purpose of AfD is to establish consensus, and consensus is found through discussion and collaboration. The five commenters here who expressed opinions related to retaining the redirect's history should have done so (and should have had the opportunity to do so) during that original discussion; they would have caused a nearly 50% increase in its level of participation, and probably an increase in its clarity. In a relatively low-participation discussion such as that (or this, for that matter) an obvious way to gather more data is to extend and advertise the discussion. There is no value to the project in extending this discussion, we need to get down off our meta pedastal and get back to the coal face where the actual issue is. To benefit the project, the original AfD needs the opportunity for more editors to get involved, and with the prominence this discussion has given it, it stands every chance of doing so. To benefit the project, this discussion needs to get out of its way.
If Randykitty disagrees with option #1, I hope you will consider option #4.
Thank you for taking the time to review and close this contentious discussion.
As a side note, would you consider closing some of the discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, which currently does not have a regular closer? Your diplomacy and aplomb in contentious discussions would be very helpful in resolving disputes.
Cunard ( talk) 23:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
A relist would allow the community to answer (2) without (1) being in the way (paraphrasing from the close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence).
The issue of a redirect's history has been discussed at an RfC in the past. It was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect in January 2011, where the closer wrote:
The close indicates that there is no consensus against history deletion when appropriate, which I interpret as referring to the "cases of copyright violations or BLP issues" you mention above. It was also discussed at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#History undeletion underneath redirect ( permanent link) earlier this year.There is no consensus for automatic deletion of page history when an outcome is "redirect" (though there's also no consensus against that deletion when appropriate)
forgive me if I have the wrong person, the other day I asked at the "help desk", when the "revision history statistics" link would be up, but I didn't get a straight answer(the page is very useful). If I have the wrong person please forgive my intrusion, thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 14:00, 18 October 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, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
|
NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!
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) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Would you care to comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DangerousPanda-EatsShootsAndLeaves? Msnicki ( talk) 04:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I find myself in agreement with you in regards to your point about how Wikipedia handled itself on the Santorum matter. If you're interested in opening a larger community discussion about how to address this ongoing problem, I would be happy to support you. Viriditas ( talk) 20:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to proceed here. Gamaliel ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has unblocked, but with a petulant edit summary, and still refuses to provide diffs of the serious accusations that have been leveled at Andyvphil. Now Gamaliel has blanked and protected their talkpage, so that no further queries can be lodged. I just don't see how Gamaliel can keep the bit after this meltdown. Am I wrong, do you think? LHM ask me a question 04:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
(TPS)From what I can tell, someone is accusing an academic of not being qualified for their job, which makes it a BLP issue. Might not be too cool if the guy's current employer thinks there's fire if there isn't even smoke. The talk page protection is not necessarily out of anger, but to prevent the unblocked person from posting on their talk page--solves that problem so they don't get spammed for the next 16 hours while they're sleeping and at work. There's nothing that can't wait. Someone should probably keep an eye on the unblocked one to make sure they don't try to reintroduce the controversial BLP material before everything can get sorted out. — Neotarf ( talk) 06:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
That was a horrible close. The sun does not have sufficient mass to go supernova. It will shift to fusing hydrogen, become a red giant, and engulf the Earth. Which might stop the pointless bickering on ANI, unless WMF has shifted the (future) InterplanetaryNet servers to outer orbit. NE Ent 00:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Your note at Andyvphil's talkpage was on-point. Some of the messages there were feeling very WP:BAITy, which is not good form. Particularly, though, when consensus wasn't "abundantly clear" at the thread that got him topic-banned, particularly surrounding the key point ("Andyvphil posts racist stuff on a BLP") was hotly disputed, and never demonstrated with actual diffs. He was upset enough before being topic-banned--poking him with a stick was a really bad idea. Thanks for nipping it, if not in the bud, before it got to full flower. LHM ask me a question 02:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The link to Xtools seems to be broken, this week the page didn't load every time I tried to view my stats. Now it is saying 404. Is someone addressing this? Lightspeed2012 12:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, TP! On October 20 you fully-protected the article Alison Lundergan Grimes. Since then several edits to the article have been requested by consensus on the talk page, but the requests are not getting answered. We don't seem to have any admins active at that article. Could I request that you either make those edits yourself, or else lower the level of protection to semiprotection, so that we can maintain the article? Thanks much. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello TParis. I have a question about something going on over at Mark Udall. I think you've seen the recent action on that page with promotional content being added and taken away repeatedly, etc. I went through the article today to try to clean it up and tagged some bits of information that didn't have apparent references. I was subsequently accused by User:DD2K in a variety of talk page messages [3] and edit summaries [4] [5] of vandalism for adding a citation needed tag. Is it even possible for the addition of a citation needed tag to constitute vandalism? Could you look over my edits and see if you believe they do constitute vandalism? I saw a piece of information without an inline citation, so I added the citation needed tag. I thought that was the protocol in such scenarios. I didn't remove the info outright because it wasn't contentious. Now I'm being accused of vandalism and disruptive editing for adding the tag, so I'm a little confused. I'm seeking to improve articles while remaining civil and assuming good faith, and these recent developments are rather unsettling. Your thoughts are appreciated. Champaign Supernova ( talk) 22:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
You seem active at the moment - could you indefinitely block HerTrueWarriorFromTheDeep ( talk · contribs)? Only made one edit, but what an edit. -- GRuban ( talk) 17:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello TParis. I came here for a snoop as i remember (a couple of weeks ago?) you asking on AN or ANI about editors interested in RfA; i wondered how that was going, if there'd be any evidence on this page of progress. Instead, i'm very sad to see that you are planning on giving up the mop and entering semi-retirement. I am afraid that that action will be a loss to the project and community; seeing "v/r - TP" at the end of a close or a statement is a sign that, though i may occasionally disagree with the conclusion, the argument is thoughtful and cogent. I am sure my posting here won't change your opinion or plans (though, if it helps, mine opinion is open to change!); i do hope, however, that your search for an RfA candidate is progressing and that you won't leave us till you have provided an adequate replacement. Cheers, Lindsay Hello 03:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to disappoint you about my semi-retirement. I only mentioned it now because I wanted to be able to leave without anyone thinking it was a rash and angry decision. So I figure if I say it early then I'm on clear ground when I do turn in the mop. Thanks for your kind comments, though, they are very much appreciated.--v/r -
T P 04:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
For In case you are in doubt of my opinion of your adminship, I hereby award TParis with the “
Cool Award.”
GRuban (
talk) 17:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I seem to remember adding it to the list of pending requests some time ago, but I'm happy for your article to replace it. It seems to be more relevant to that particular date, and I'll definitely support it if/when it gets promoted. I'll add it to my watchlist as well, but give me a shout and let me know what happens anyway, and all the best with the FAC. Cheers, This is Paul ( talk) 18:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Late to the party, but I recently came upon your "looking to nom for RfA" post, and if you're still offering, I'd be interested in a review. I'm primarily here to write, but I've been working AfD for a while and I'd really like the tools to help with the non- NACs czar ♔ 17:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey, TP. What's the status of the X Tools? As I'm sure you know, the edit counter has been on the fritz on and off for the last month or more . . . . and no one on the technical help pages can explain what's going on. Is there anything I can do to help? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 18:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I've been incredibly busy at work, as I generally am this time of year, so I just now saw the message you left me several weeks ago. I just wanted to thank you and let you know that I've responded on my talk page. Best, Joefromrandb ( talk) 22:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi TParis,
I see that you've been quite busy the last several months. I'm wondering if things may have settled to the point where you might have time to take a look at the edits I made in response to your most helpful comments last May, here [6]? Much appreciate any time you can spare--if you have any! EMP ( talk) 18:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I hereby forbid you from using humour such as this in the future. If you violate this unilaterally-imposed zero-consensus ban I will bombard you with wikilove templates and kittens. ;) -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Is WMFLabs down? I tried both the page count and supercount and — after a long wait — get a 504 (occasionally 502) error. I found a bugzilla bug report that was similar from last month, but it was reported as fixed. With both tools not working, I was wondering if labs itself is down. — al-Shimoni ( talk) 18:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I did not even notice that you corrected almost all of the conflicting content in the inline citations that used "pages" instead of "page". for consistency. Thanks and have a barn star for your hard work. The article is an important one and I hope my contributions were satisfactory and accurate. Sorry that it created more work for you. I am done adding content and if there is still anything that concerns you let me know. Also, feel free to remove anything that becomes an issue standing in the way of the FA status. I believe I have added relevant content to the subject but if I have gone overboard in any way, I will not object to you removing anything that is holding up the FAC!-- Mark Miller ( talk) 00:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for correcting the issues you found on Ford Island after my edits! Mark Miller ( talk) 00:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC) |
///EuroCar GT 02:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
[7]. This is beyond reprehensible. USchick is insinuating that I threatened your children or something. This is almost as bad if not worse as when they accused Geogene of being racist. Volunteer Marek 20:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi TP, I hope you're not mad at me for dragging you into something that turned so quickly, so wrong. That wasn't my intention and I'm sorry. The reason I'm here is because over time, you have shown to be reasonable and I respect your opinion. After any significant event, I like to reflect and think about lessons learned. At this ANI event, several things surfaced that I don't understand at all, and I would like to ask them somewhere. Some things are related to me, and some things are related to admins in general. As is often the case, the way things work on Wikipedia, is not at all how they work in real life, at least not in my life, so I'm very confused. I have four very specific questions. None of them are about other editors. I would like to get my questions answered for future reference. I don't want these questions and answers to be in a public place where they will come back to haunt me later as accusations of some kind. You are familiar with this situation so you would be a good person to ask. There are two other uninvolved admins that I would consider asking if you're not available or would rather not talk to me. What do you think? Is what I'm asking reasonable according to policy, or is there a rule about asking questions of this nature? Where is a good place to do this? Would you be willing to talk to me? Or should I approach someone else? Would that be appropriate to do, or would that be a violation of some sort? Whatever you tell me, I will follow your guidance, and either way, I respect your decision. Thanks in advance. USchick ( talk) 04:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Did I read that correctly in NA1000's RfA? I have to admit that if its true, its disappointing. We've butted heads in the past, but I consider you and your efforts to be one of the positive factors on this site. In my opinion, you are one of the members of this community that helps to keep it honest and on track in its purpose. If you truly are "retiring", you likely deserve the respite, but I hope that it will not be permanent. Regards, -- SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. There seems to be a problem at https://tools.wmflabs.org/ with xtools. At https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ ...I have been to the Village Pump Technical but have gotten nowhere, thanks-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 20:41, 17 November 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) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Tom, question: what is the difference between xtools' pcount and ec, if any? -- 82.136.210.153 ( talk) 05:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I sent you an email and it bounced. Can you see if you got it? Thanks. USchick ( talk) 18:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Could you please tell me where the talk page of the Arbcom Election Commission is. Thanks. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm just waiting on your co-nomination so we can get the RFA started. Thanks Secret account 22:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
It's an interesting idea. I wouldn't mind having admin tools, but I've got no interest at all in going through the current RfA process. — Swpb talk 22:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Could you check the Revdels in early September to see if all the objectionable material has been Revdel'd. It seems to me that only the objectionable editors' revisions were revdel'd, not the intermediate revisions which have the same information. This seems to be GamerGate-related. I came to this because of the editors who had revisions deleted has been making other questionable edits, and I decided to check his entire (short) edit history. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
...for handling the issue on my talk page. Some old friends from university are visiting, so I've been offline mostly. Any idea who it was? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The NA1000 RFA was closed as "successful", with no further comment, by a 'crat that !voted in support of the RFA, including a swipe at you in his vote. I have opened a discussion of the close at WP:BN. Just letting you know. LHM ask me a question 22:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
In reply to your comment at this discussion which was recently closed: I agree that Thebrycepeake could have been more courteous. However, certain aspects of any honest discussion on fixing gender gap will offend (male) editors. It is important to have those discussions anyway. I have only skimmed through GGTF talk page, but a discussion comes to mind where the idea of male privilege was hotly contested. I guess that is why someone (was it SlimVirgin?) had proposed the idea of a "safe space" at GGTF. That probably will never happpen, but the least rest of us can do is to ensure that those who want to fix the gender gap get enough space to air their ideas without fearing repercussions. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 19:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Half Barnstar | |
You are one of the few editors who have held opposite opinions to me often in consensus and yet have not pushed in your own point of view (even supported NPOV against your POV / personal opinion etc) or kept any hostility for later comments and always stayed civil (something I have observed you to be having as an admin as well though I never interacted with you in that capacity). I had thought of giving you this one back at those initial disputes but did not want to make it look like 'partnering'. I feel this one is even more due now all that is stale and after your recent support at AN. lTopGunl ( talk) 13:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC) |
TP, you have been someone I've admired from very early on, because you always seemed to make fair assessments of situations. However, I see something happening with you that I've not seen before, and I'd like to ask you to consider if what I'm seeing might reflect a problem you could work on. I suppose I am one of the last people you want to hear from right now, but I am reaching out to you because I want to regain the level of respect for you that I had in the not-too-distant past.
I think you are letting the discussions surrounding the gender gap and sexism on Wikipedia affect your good judgement. I first noticed this many weeks ago in one or two discussions. I remember the term "mansplaining" being involved, plus one or more of the more outspoken feminist editors. The way I can tell that it is causing you to lose some of your good sense is very simply your language. For example, at me on the GGTF ArbCom page:
The first eight examples are untrue. The last example ignores your own, good moral compass, because you have said elsewhere, "A pet peeve of mine is people telling others where they are and are not allowed to give an opinion." To be fair, my "behavior" on that page was giving my opinion, and I did not deserve such a hot-headed lecture.
I have never considered you sexist, but the hyper-sensitivity that you're showing on the subject is puzzling. Please take a breath and realize that most (probably not all) of the people (not only women) on Wikipedia who are complaining about sexism are doing it the best way they know how, short of not addressing the subject at all. After years of saying little and doing less, the community has some work to do on the subject. Yes, based on hard evidence, but also on the anecdotal stuff, too. There might be some here who are making this stuff up, or exaggerating it. I'm not, and I don't know anyone else who is, but I concede that is a possibility. However, the gender gap and sexism on Wikipedia is real, and something constructive needs to be done about it. The first step is for the community, which is predominately male, to acknowledge that the agonistic editing environment is toxic to many people, but especially to most women. The fact that many men and some women thrive, or at least survive, in this environment doesn't mean it's the others who need to change. For Pete's sake, they're the ones who are excluded.
If this pisses you off, which I know is a risk, I apologize in advance and tell you that I won't be back if you direct more of the same at me that you did at ArbCom. It literally makes me sick. I barely slept at all last. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 01:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
When I read your opening post, and I have reread it about five or six times now, I just keep seeing that same type of advocacy. You said, "doing it the best way they know how." I suspect that people are both sides of the isle are arguing the way they best know how. Now, while I think it is unfair of me to say to edit my way or get off, as you've pointed out, I also think it's unfair of you to say that editors must take the gender gap at face value without scrutiny and/or that we must accept at face value that the only reason the Arbcom case has gone the way it has gone is because of the gender of the Arbcom members. It lacks serious good faith, for one, and it's divisional.
I don't have the solutions to the gender gap. I'd love to see female editors thrive and all editors getting along. What I'd like to see is an open and honest dialogue between those with ideas to combat it and those who are skeptical of those ideas. With some open dialogue, perhaps something everyone can agree to could be devised. But, I don't think forcing an idea on someone and becoming upset when they ask why is going to solve it. I remember this study ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeK759FF84s). Instead of telling students "Racism is bad" and having the students ask "Why is racism bad?", the teacher engaged them in an exercise in discrimination and instead the students asked "Why do people do this?". Whether you agree with my summary of what is happening at the GGTF or not, I think at the very least you can accept that it has become the perception. Perception is not truth, and it much more powerful.--v/r -
T P 02:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)I was very good and ate only one (albeit very large) plate: turkey, mashed potatoes, gravy, stuffing, cranberry relish, green bean casserole, corn casserole, yams, and a biscuit - the whole nine yards! And, of course, pie and ice cream an hour later. My DIL was happy because her Lions beat da Bears. My granddaughters were sick, but only sniffles, so I was and am very Thankful.
I've read your comments and came back to make one final observation. You misunderstood my original/opening post at ArbCom and commanded me to explain myself, which I did. When I came here to share my personal concerns about you - and it wasn't easy for me to do so - you cited my original post again and insisted, again, that the only conclusion you could draw (from my original post) is that I made my observation based only on gender. You're focusing on my original post and ignoring the two or three times since then that I've explained the thinking behind it in detail. You write, "I hope I've helped you see that your intended message wasn't communicated." This is interesting, because I'd hoped that I'd helped you see that my intended message wasn't received. There are two ends to our communication. Let's just leave it by saying we both might have done a better job.
I am now returning to the ArbCom page to make - I hope - a final comment, provided the other editors (two come to mind, and neither is you) don't decide to make light of my input. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 18:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey TP, congrats on getting this promoted to FA, looks like everything's good for TFA on December 7. This is Paul ( talk) 13:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
This is a little overdue, because I saw your message a month ago. For burying the hatchet with Joefromrandb. ...William 20:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC) |
Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 03:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I take exception to your statement that I've been dominating the conversation anywhere. Obviously I'm not going to be exchanging Christmas cards with Neotarf anytime soon, but I doubt that account will ever be unblocked. I've had minimal interactions with LB, if any. When Carol returns from her timeout, well I'm sure we will be cordial. I'm kind of pissed at the FoF, which if you review Rich F's unsolicited analysis you will see its, pardon my French, complete bullshit. But I'll take the topic ban and move on. But I find the request for more sanctions to be punitive and mean-spirited. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 06:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I noticed you nominated Czar for adminship, which was successful, and Sarahj2107, which almost certainly will be successful too. Would you consider nominating me? Everymorning talk to me 16:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
And you did it, Tom! Your heroic effort to get it done, mostly through your edits, and to get it done in time for the article to feature as a
Featured Article on the Main Page on the anniversary of the day that shall forever live in infamy, well. Tom, for this you deserve a star of its own joy and designing. Allow me:
BusterD ( talk) 05:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
You posted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell:
Per Hell in a Bucket's insistence that I find the exact edits, here are all the ones dealing with Carolmooredc and Lightbreather - I hope this settles the matter as there were plenty and easy to find: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. There are more, but I think I made my point.--v/r - T P 02:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the link give above to ANI Disruption of WikiProject as support for Locus of dispute is unfortunate. To me it demonstrates that some supporters of GGTF lack knowledge of what a personal attack is and provide diffs that are no such thing. Accusing editors of personal attacks with diffs that are clearly do not support the charge is likely to reduce the credibility of the task force complaints. And it doesn't support the Locus of dispute: "The main focus of this arbitration should be the bad faith editor behavior which disrupted the project."
EChastain ( talk) 1:35 pm, 30 October 2014, Thursday (1 month, 3 days ago) (UTC-4)Problems with your diffs: As you so often do, your diff to Patrol's evidence isn't precise, forcing the conciencous reader to hunt through long and confusing pages for the evidence you claim to cite, for example long ANI pages (and when I've read them I've found you've misrepresented the evidence) and likewise when you cite your Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/related resources which seems to becoming a link farm (it would be an effort to read through the long list of questionably relevant articles, and then read the actual articles to see if anything you mention as fact was reliably supported by an independent source or even relevant to the Gender Gap on wikipedia.
You know how to provide specific diffs like this: this specific diff because I've seen you do it before.
Re arbs and other editors: I am wondering if many, including arbs don't have the time it takes to get through the long and confusing pages you cite to evaluate even one of your statements, so they assume you are validly supporting your "evidence" which would take many days. And especially a problem is your constant changing of your evidence (and perhaps your comments too, as I can't continually check) without notice, so what I read and react to may not be the same post after your perpetual revisions.
EChastain ( talk) 12:36 pm, 15 November 2014, Saturday (17 days ago) (UTC-5)If the Arbitrators have a problem with other evidence, they can ask me a question. The Resources link was an invitation for people here to look at the research themselves instead of asking people for their interpretation of evidence. If people care about the issue they will.
Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 1:14 pm, 15 November 2014, Saturday (17 days ago) (UTC-5)@ Carolmooredc I guess that means that no one else checks your diffs! And that you don't either to see if they're correct!! And that you have no scruples using evidence that you know is tainted by a CheckUser finding, and didn't even bother to read Patrol forty's talk page. Rather, as usual, you expect others to do the checking: "The Resources link was an invitation for people here to look at the research themselves instead of asking people for their interpretation of evidence." (As if you haven't done an insane amount of "interpreting" already in this arbcom.)
This is your usual MO, as you've done with Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/related resources, always saying things like you have no time, real life issues intervene, will complete in a few days, etc.
I've noticed that you frequently reply to comments by answering only the least relevant one, or by changing the subject. Here you evaded my overall comments about your links to huge pages like ANI#Disruption_of_Wikiproject which you cited as evidence of bad faith editors and of the "Locus of dispute", and which I posted to you before as a horrendous page that you seem to expect editors to go through and which doesn't support your statements [28]; Nor did you give relevant responses to my other comments at that time to you [29]
You misrepresented what Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide says [30] and misunderstood the guide to mean that "this guide which only mentions "negotiation" overrides one of the five pillars, which includes civility and dispute resolution? Obviously the Guide has to be beefed up to reflect that fact." [31] And you didn't even check Patrol forty's talk page. Do you make any effort to check out anything with even minimal investigation? I don't see any evidence that you do. From what I've seen, you usually misrepresent/misunderstand a great bit of the time.
It's also annoying that you took my suggestions for links to the Project Council/Guide, and presented them as your suggestions.
You also say: "The only thing I say about the "Getting into fights" section in this "Locus of dispute" section is that “unaffiliated editors” can be the source of fights." I wasn't discussing negotiation or dispute resolution, so I can't be misrepresenting anything, can I? And I agree that "The main focus of this arbitration should be the bad faith editor behavior which disrupted the project." But you can't understand bad faith behavior without understanding possible motivations. The Disruption ANI was how it looked at the time. My original evidence here was a timeline. Understanding of the motivations for the disruption - including through collection of diffs and seeing others' diffs - is an evolving process. Thus this later analysis to help Arbitrators understand that strong and even hostile POVs against the GGTF drove editors to their bad and disruptive behavior. [32]
I never said I thought the main "Locus of dispute" should be the bad faith editor behavior which disrupted the project.
All I can say in response to all of this is to ask if you are considered a quality editor here? If so, I'm disillusioned. You didn't follow the suggestions of the Project Counsel/Guide to be sure to define the scope before you open your project or task force or whatever. If you'd done that adequately, and followed their other suggestions, this arbcom probably would have been unnecessary.
I quoted from a member of the Wikiproject Council responding to a question about specific procedures to deal with "editors [who] have a problem with the scope or activities of a Wikiproject that cannot be resolved at the talk page". [33] Then I found out you, Carolmooredc was the editor who posted the question there! I have trouble believing wikipedia is this inept. (Sorry if this comment offends, but I'm surprised at what I'm seeing here.)
EChastain ( talk) 4:06 pm, 15 November 2014, Saturday (17 days ago) (UTC−5)]
TParis, I can add more diffs, but in no instance did I add evidence pertaining to Lightbreather, nor address any comments to her. I admit I probably overdid it regarding Carolmooredc, and in retrospect I wish I had posted much, much less. But I was mindblown at her misunderstandings and misrepresentations shown in her evidence. And I was frustrated she did not answered my questions directly, but evaded, changed the subject, deflected to other issues etc. I eventually gave up the attempt to get a straight answer out of her.
My apologies for this long post. Thanks, EChastain ( talk) 16:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
i've looked under gun control arbcom and can't see where Sue Rangell is involved. Couldn't find the Israeli/Palestine arbcom. Frankly I'd never heard of any of the editors of the GGTF or even the GGTF its self until I came across Neotarf's "cunt, nigger" post on NYB's page and was incredulous that this could happen on wiki at all. There seems to be a plan to hound me until they find something they can pin on me. Maybe Carolmooredc and Lightbreather need a villain - whatever Carolmooredc and Lightbreather can make stick.
Just found a link to the mailing list. It's really depressing. I guess this time I'm going to see a whole new side of wikipedia I never knew about before. Oh well. It doesn't matter what happens if I'm going to be banned by hook or by crook, so I'll dump any serious editing plans, cancel my book orders until I see if I can stand the harassment.
The last arbcom case I followed was Sexology and this GGTF case really reminds me of that one. On the mailing list, there's descriptions of all the attempts made to figure out who Eric Corbett is, and all they could find was that his family set up a trust for ferrets. WOW!
I rue I outed myself as a female, and if by any chance I'm not railroaded and harassed off wiki by Lighbreather et al, I'll ask for a renaming so my sex won't be known.
But, hey, if you could point me to places to look to find out the backstory to all this, I'd really appreciate it.
Why was it not ok for Jokestress to bring in off-wiki disputes onto wiki, but it's ok for the GGTF folk to do it openly, and even opening spam twitter accounts and openly try to out Eric Corbett? This place has really changed since I last looked in. Cheers!
EChastain ( talk) 01:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
It appears to me that you may feel like you havea guilty conscience re Lightbreather:
I don't understand these post by you and Lightbreather, but it suggests to me that you many be WP:INVOLVED.
And when posting her allegations on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell and updating them without noting that it was a revised edition, and without notifying me, was extremely confusing - I thought I must have Alzhimer's. (Even though I'm a new account, do I deserve no regard in your eyes?)
I've looked through her archives and see many examples of this kind of thing (like requests to remove of comments of others after pleas that her feeling were hurt). EChastain ( talk) 15:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.
a person's freedoms
Thank you, "active duty programmer in the Air Force" and "pro- just about everything related to a person's freedoms", for quality articles on what you know, such as
Ford Island,
Pacific Aviation Museum Pearl Harbor and
The Faerie Path, for welcoming new users and
service as an admin open for review, guiding "your" candidates for the mop successfully through the ordeal, for
realism and for
trying to protect children, - you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations getting the article up on time! It was a charm to review for ACR, good job to you and the other editors! Protonk ( talk) 18:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I got the email you sent me. As far as the MEDRS subpage thing is concerned, I didn't intend for it to be interpreted the way you read it. I do think this guideline is an important one and try to follow it as much as possible, but in the subpage I was talking about how it is inconvenient. Given that your email has led me to think about the issue of whether this looks like I am complaining unconstructively, though, I have tagged the subpage for deletion. Thanks for the feedback. Everymorning talk 18:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi TP. Could you sign your DS alert to User talk:MarieWarren? It's good for the user to have someone to ask if they don't understand the notice. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 19:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I noticed your comments at ANI about Shooting of Michael Brown and there are numerous cases of WP:BLP violations, misinformation and POV pushing. Pro-Wilson, Pro-Brown sections mingled with completely inappropriate analogies and assumptions. A call for a non-involved admin was requested and while I am not one, there are dozens of issues in the article that need to be immediately removed per BLP. Perhaps I was a little harsh by stating that editors blocking the NPOV tag should be blocked, but those involved are either blind to policy or complicit in the violations. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 18:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The rule of civil POV pushing goes like this: remain calm and dismiss your opponents concerns in the most simplistic and patronizing way possible. Whatever it takes to get an opponent to slip. Because once they slip, you have a direct line to their nerves. Civil POV pushing is a cancer to this project and no one is willing to address it and sysops routinely play their role in the strategy.--v/r -
T P 20:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)But from where I am sitting, I just don't see any way at all to get this project to take any claim of an overall political bias seriously and it's been draining on my faith in the project. There are only two ways forward, I could start whining everywhere that we're dismissing claims of bias too easily and become disruptive or I can just quietly bow my head and humbly leave. I don't want to leave is some kind of anger and frustration over the issue and so I gave everyone a 6-month heads up. But I would have left the day I decided to leave 12 months ago if I didn't think the project would think I am just some radical-conservative who has been playing nice for so long finally blowing up. I'd rather just shake hands with everyone and leave as friends and so I set a date far enough out where no one's shock would cause them to become defensive over my views and think ill of me.--v/r -
T P 22:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)I've had my issues with NYT and I've had my issues with Fox and all the others. I do not trust any source based on its origins. Wikipedia needs to adopt that stance, but as long as people are thinking of reliability and verifiability being tied to a publisher or brand... well, its going to be shitty. I do not even trust NRHP listings, because people make errors or assumptions that get picked up by mistake. I am free from much politic bickering in NRHP, but East District School has incorrect dates and the NRHP nomination bungles quite a bit. I try to keep out of political arguments because they are described as two halves of a coin which is really a die. You want to know a scary progression of Wikipedia thought mirrors philosophy and we are to subscribe to Kant's flawed concepts of intention-based morality. The cynics may like Thomas Hobbes's notions, but thankfully neither that or John Stuart Mills theories hold out. Its a bit of game theory and true morality which governs the interactions of the good-natured. Most people, in the wider community innately follow the same path, but those with a mission deviate and cause the most disruption of those who normally would defend themselves. Shame its not a perfect analogy for real life. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 02:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi TP, I consider you a "cut through the BS" kind of Admin and there's a situation that I think could benefit from your perusal.
There was a recent ANI involving this article Vehicle registration plates of Pennsylvania (that presented as simple content dispute) with one particular User who has been disruptive, Edit Warring, and non-communicative after numerous messages and pings on the article Talk page and the Users Talk page. This person has gone so far as to blank their Talk page, so we know that they have seen the messages. In fact, when I informed this person of such, my comment was blanked again with an edit summary that I was making a threat.
Rather than take this again to ANI or another Noticeboard, will you take a look? Thank you in advance for any help or insight you can provide, -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Amortias (
talk •
contribs) 22:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
[ [34]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hell in a Bucket ( talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I haven't always agreed with you, but I appreciate that you understand that "No one loves the messenger who brings bad news." Messengers such as myself will lose a fair officer when you hang up your mop.
Lightbreather (
talk) 20:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'm finally taking the time to ask this since I see you use it in your sig. Is this a military thing signing this way? I've noticed my military clients use this a lot. God Bless them however. They sure as shit beat my commercial customers. Professional, courteous and always reasonable. They could pay their bills a bit faster, but it's a bureaucracy after all. I do like some of the naval jargon. I think the next time I misbehave I'm gonna go to an admin and say "My compliments to the admin, but I just called so and so a douchenozzle". Happy Paganchristmahanakwanzika. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 16:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I am hoping that you can help me or, failing that, point me in the right direction. There is a picture of Kit Carson, the lede picture, that says his uniform is ca. 1860, but I think it is earlier than that. Can you take a look, and offer an opinion or a next step? Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 18:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Paris, my blocking was a minor speed bump in th road of life, one that taught me to . . ... drive slower. Intothat darkness here is the problem that I have with the early 1860 date for the picture. A photo of Carson in 1868 reveals him as a tired, wornout man. The one we are discussing appears to show a vigorous man in his prime. But after hearing the uniforn folks, whom I have asked for an opinion, I am inclined to let this one lie. thanks, Carptrash ( talk) 20:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Ahh, the truth, according to Oscar Wilde, "was seldom pure and never simple." Sort of like wikipedia. Thanks again. I am not going to make any changes in the picture caption unless ... something else happens. Carptrash ( talk) 01:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello TP. Regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement by TParis. Can you say more? In the linked thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#Factchecker atyourservice isn't here to build an encyclopedia you were saying both (1) Brianhe's charges against Factchecker were excessive, (2) the 2011 warning to Factchecker was renewed. Which of these observations did you want to bring to the attention of AE? Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
AmaryllisGardener talk 18:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I got a notification that you patrolled me, which is certainly fine, though I must admit I don't know what that covers. Hopefully, it checked out okay and thank you!
Anyway, thought I'd use this opportunity to ask you a question. If I make an edit from my other (policy-compliant) User account by mistake, is it possible to have it erased from that pages history? It's not a serious mistake, though it could reveal my other Username to a curious viewer. Thanks, ProfGray ( talk) 13:21, 19 December 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) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!! |
Hello TParis, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of {{U| Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list
Have a bright Hawaiian Christmas!-- Mark Miller ( talk) 16:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
From me too...! -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi TParis, you indeffed User: HelpGod and User:Sirriasrar as sockpuppets. Yes they were, but this was a newcomer who did not know the rules of Wikipedia and tried to edit constructively (even if his proposed edits incited a fierce discussion). He was initially blocked temporarily for violating 3RR and edit warring. Me and other editors was trying to educate him/her - indefinite block is fully justified in cases of vandalism, but here we didn't have that. Regards, kashmiri TALK 10:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) Tanbircdq, I've reverted your edits to the user pages of these accounts. It is the job of an SPI clerk and/or an administrator to tag (or not to tag). Please don't do that again. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
TP, Season greetings and I hope you are enjoying your holiday time off with your friends and family. I have interacted with you previously in a minor disagreement under another IP (my changes and I have no control over that) and we both had productive exchanges. I am contacting you because I have seen some very hard to understand behavior by another editor that you have interacted with. You know her as Lightbreather and she seems to have some respect for you. What I have noticed is that her issue is with pushing her POV's (somewhat common here). That in itself is not the issue but the level of disruption she causes in order to force her POV upon the community by baiting other editors into endless drama and by using the Wikipedia bureaucracy in order to get her way. She frequently steps up to line of being uncivil and even crosses it and frequently brings out the worst in otherwise useful editors. She has also frequently broken rules that she often accuses other editors of as witnessed by her bans. She is an agenda warrior, pure and simple. Her agenda warring is often disruptive and she seeks to game the system in order to push her agenda. A lengthy review of her substantial conflicts will demonstrate her behavior. So what can be done besides a ban? Can she be instructed to try to work more collaboratively with other editors? Can she be instructed that further disruptions and gaming could result in further bans? I do not have the knowledge due to my sporadic editing and outside commitments to know all the possible solutions. Could you offer her friendly counsel, maybe in private, although she may turn that against you? I just cannot believe the level of disruption is tolerated for such a long period of time. I have not seen a sincere change for the better unfortunately in her behavior. It is entirely possible that may never occur and thus the dilemma of what to due when an editor either by personality or conscious intent continues to cause substantial disruptions. If this was a paid job it is my opinion she would of long ago been dismissed for causing so much hate and discontent in the workplace. I felt it was necessary to put in my two cents to a reasonable administrator involved with the aforementioned editor but I admit I have no easy solution as a block would only result in her reappearing as new editor and conflict seems to be something she thrives in.
Again Happy Holidays!!! Retired Military and appreciative of your service to the nation. 172.56.41.115 ( talk) 07:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Can you please add "ro" in the language list of http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/?&uselang=en ? I've just finished translating the interface. Thank you. -- Gikü ( talk) 18:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
TParis,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Iryna Harpy (
talk) 23:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey! I was hoping you might get on IRC sometime in the relatively near future. Basically, I'm wondering if your offer still stands to help me prepare for adminship in the next year. My channel is ##T13 connect, and I would appreciate a /query if/when you have some free time to discuss this matter with me. Thank you. — {{U| Technical 13}} ( e • t • c) 22:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 133#Custom notices on user .js and .css pages. Thanks. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c) 15:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
This might sound crazy, but have you considered, you know, not leaving? The secret to my longevity here is frequent wikibreaks, not just from the encyclopedia as a whole but from particular parts of it: article topics, projects, etc. When I get tired of editing political articles (none of the angry partisans who think I head up the Wikipedia Politburo seemed to have noticed I hardly ever edit political articles anymore!) or writing about obscure 19th century lawyers or sick of DYK or ANI or whatever, I just shuffle on over to some other part of the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia and its users are often infuriating and discouraging, but there is much to work on and much to be done. If I participated in Wikipedia the same way now I participated in it in 2005, or even 2012, I would have grown bored and discouraged and left a long time ago. Gamaliel ( talk) 23:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I just came across a bit on George W Bush in the article on CBS. The bit was about criticism of CBS. Some editor didn't like that smear on CBS and so they added a sentence to the end of the paragraph as a cop-out. To paraphrase, "Even though CBS was entirely wrong and did not verify it's sources, there are still questions about Bush's service." The source didn't support the material at all. And the material itself is entirely vague. It's about a living person and has been in that article for almost 2 years. No one thought to verify an attack on a living person. And then I compared Fox News to CBS. Comparing the criticism sections should open a few eyes. There is an entire paragraph on Fox News article about specific allegations from Media Matters for America. The problem is, Media Matters for American is an openly anti-conservative website. The article presents the bit from MMfA as unbiased independent criticism - when it is actually a primary source. Media Matters for America openly admits it was created to counter Fox News. What's even worse, that little bit from MMfA is given an entire paragraph - and a long one at that - despite being a primary source and without any evidence of notability of the dispute from MMfA itself. Then I go over to RealClearPolitics where editors are still trying to paint the living people who founded it as conservatives despite not a single source saying that the people label themselves conservative. I read New York Times criticism section and it's littered with "Conservative <blah> says <this>, but MMfA says <this other thing> and LA Times says <this thing>". Editors make a specific effort to label conservative viewpoints and also to avoid labeling liberal viewpoints thus giving liberal viewpoints the image of impartiality (fyi, I was the one who added the "liberal media "watchdog" group" part to balance it). Skip on over to Rick Perry where editors were insisting on every bit of negative information about Rick Perry's indictment while removing any defense of Perry including that Liberals were defending Perry. They also wanted to remove the bit about the Travis County DA having a drunken driving charge which is the basis of the entire issue. And please, don't even get me started on Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism when You didn't build that. The entire article on You didn't build that is a defense of President Obama's speech while an attack phrase that some liberal opinion columnist made up one day explains why Santorum deserves it and why it hit off so well. What actually drove the stake home for me, though, was when Sue Gardner openly endorsed the ad hominem attacks and casting of aspersions against conservative editors in the Manning case. She spoke to Arbcom, she spoke in the mailinglists, and she spoke to the media openly endorsing attacking conservative editors for not supporting to move to Chelsea.
No, Gamaliel, I've avoided targeting specific people for several reasons. One is that people are fallible and so am I. I'm not going to hold others to strict standards that I myself cannot keep to. None of us can be expected to be neutral all the time. It's by working together that we find neutrality. But what often happens is that liberal editors believe that they, by themselves, can find the balance without the need for input from the conservative editors. Two, I believe that it is a systematic problem and it cannot be blamed on a specific editor when the system quietly endorses it. And number three, I believe that is a lot of blame to put on any single editor.
The fact of the matter is, this project is full of people who openly hate conservatives and conservative editors. Either they feel conservatives hate them and are projecting their fears or they have a personal dispute with a conservative social platform and they feel they are in a battle for humanity. Either way, I've realized a long time ago that I am not welcome here, even as a center-left libertarian, and if I feel unwelcome here then I can only imagine how true conservatives feel. There is simply no way to be anything less than a rank and file liberal and be an administrator, and there is increasingly little opportunity to be a conservative and a regular editor. I consider myself a center-left liberal or barely a conservative. Even still, there is a strong chilling effect against editors who are not well into the left side of the spectrum from editing political articles and so I've avoided editing them, myself. Even as an administrator, I've feared the harassment and bullying on those topics.
I've left the door open for myself to edit articles about my local community and perhaps a return in about a year or two if the atmosphere in here changes but I don't have high hopes. At this point, I just plan to say my goodbyes, try to explain a little about the other issues (this is only one of them) that have led to my departure and then sign off on good terms. It's better than hitting the eventual wall and being driven off the project by an Arbcom case or a topic/site ban which is what happens to many conservative editors. Thank you for being my friend despite our differences, I've always appreciated having friends who challenge me and allow me to challenge them. It makes me feel good to know that there are people who can think critically and be open to argument without taking it personally.--v/r -
T P 00:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
I don't know when you're going exactly (and most of your activity has been on the decline), so I wanted to make sure you got this. Your efforts on improving Wikipedia have been invaluable, you've been a great admin. Thank you. AmaryllisGardener talk 19:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
Lol.
Best New Year's Day ever. Two kinds of pork Makin' Bacon 05:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm writing to you w.r.t. a user you unbanned with a warning not to indulge in promotional edits in favour of his employer, Indiaproperty. I'm afraid that he appears to have now gone and done exactly that.-- Cpt.a.haddock ( talk) 03:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, In this tool you need to fix this dead tool link : https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikiviewstats/ and replace it by https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikiviewstats2/ (the only difference is the "2" at the end of the address). -- Loup Solitaire 81 ( talk) 11:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)