User talk:Sven Manguard

Looking for something that was here? Check the archives: 2010 · 2011: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 · 2012: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 · 2013: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 · 2014: Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 · 2015+
Fast navigation: Commons · Wikidata

---

Quick Link Bar
Monitor
File Mover Permission Requests
File Size Reduction Requests
Sandboxes · Subpages
Work
Backlog board
Category:Articles with missing files
Chinese Dynastic Period Article Improvement

Architecture of the Song Dynasty

Is Architecture of the Song Dynasty ready for its closeup? For the GA re-listing? Is there anything else I can do/advise on to help the GA process along? --NickDupree (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I really haven't had a chance to work on it or look at it at all since I talked to you. I'm on Wikipedia only during my study breaks. I'll look now though. You got me at a good time, so I have 10 minutes to spare. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see two things that need to get handled.

1. The citations need to be redone, preferably in that style you showed me a few days ago, so that we get rid of all the 'ibid' citations.

2. We need someone who can read Chinese to go look at the zh.wiki version of the article, which is at FA level, and see about getting something about temples listed, since that is a noteworthy gap in coverage.

You probably can do the first of those things better than I can. I know some native/native-level Chinese speakers from the IRC, so I'll go after the second one when I have time. (Which will not be until Thursday, as I'm knee deep in finals preparation.) In the mean time, I'm going to go ask someone from GOCE if they can spare some time to look it over and make sure that it meets the Manual of Style. Thanks for giving this a boost of energy, I'll be nice to take this off my list of things to do. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I had User:wctaiwan give me alternate citations for the Li Jie page numbers and I can add them in the coming days. NickDupree (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yay! Sven Manguard Wha? 04:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at User_talk:Odysseus1479#Architecture_of_the_Song_Dynasty_Copyedit's talk page.

Beta ANI

I'm more than a little disappointed here by your comment on the topic ban proposal.

Beta is uniquely contentious in his approach to NFCC / FUR issues, and has been for some years. Many other users have worked on the general problem; he has generated more complaints than the rest of them combined.

I am not stalking him nor any of the others who work in that area. Particularly not the others, who work in a much more collaborative manner. But I really don't care about the vast bulk of Beta's actions.

It's only when he acts so aggressively contentiously on the topic that the trouble begins; and it must end. It's been to Arbcom, there's an active community sanction I could have entirely legitimiately simply blocked him for a month (given other recent blocks) under. He's getting blocked once a month that sticks.

If you want to pick up his efforts and run with it, please do. I encourage anyone with good judgement and communications ability to work on NFCC / FURs. There are legitimately a lot of problems there. But anyone else ... everyone else ... working on the problem does it without causing community uproars. Any reasonable person, on having a long ANI thread started over their behavior, will back off and behave themselves during the discussion. Beta took it as a challenge and ran a new large sanction-skirting-or-breaking automated removals run. That is either unacceptably bad judgement or POINT.

He has to move on and do something else. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

At this point I've all but given up on good faith here. Yes, Detla has civility issues, and yes, he does break the sanctions imposed on him. However what I have seen over the past few months is numerous editors going after everyone that seeks to enforce the NFCC, (Detla and Damiens.rf in particular as their civility issues make them easy targets). It's become little more than an attempt at policy changes by banning. Standards of civility are applied unfairly, unreasonable demands are being made, people that clearly are not uninvolved are pretending to be neutral, concerned onlookers. I'm sick of it, all of it.

There is a legitimate complaint about Detla to be made. He needs to slow down and double check his work. He sticks to the absolute letter of the law in image work, an exceptionally grey area, and that causes tensions. However he does good work, a lot of it, in a thankless environment, and he is no more uncivil, in fact he is often more civil, than the people going after him.

It has to end. The underlying problem is not Delta, it is the NFCC. There's no interest in an RfC to fix it, there's no interest in rewriting the policy, ArbCom won't do anything more than ban a few people and slap discretionary standards on the whole thing, the WMF legal team won't touch it, and a majority of the community can't be bothered to care unless it winds up at AN/I, which is why it winds up at AN/I, in some form, ever week for months on end.

Maybe you were, or think you were, acting in good faith. A number of the posters there were not. More importantly, by going after Delta, a symptom, you're diverting attention from the real issue and damaging the project in the process. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be making my case for me.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think we share a fundamental agreement that NFCC is toxic, but a fundamental disagreement as to the role of Delta. I believe a great deal of complaints about him are motivated by the NFCC war itself; i.e. I think it's that Delta is a major enforcer of the NFCC, not his actions pursuant to that, that are generating a good deal of the heat that surrounds him. Would there still be complaints about him if not for the political machinations of a small group of editors acting in bad faith? Yes. Would the number of complaints be abnormally high? No. As you have just illustrated, this has become a self feeding cycle. Because there were previous bad intentioned complaints, whenever good intentioned complaints come up they feed off of the bad intentioned complaints as evidence or as history. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

We can't break the cycle with him in the picture, because he has chosen (or is simply unable to avoid becoming) to become the flashpoint and keeps pushing people's buttons.

Again - he responded to the ANI discussion by escalating rather than calming things down, by starting several new edit wars. That is incredibly badly not ok.

If he's the face of the deletionist NFCC enforcers - you've lost, and you are lost, and this will end in disaster not just for everyone else but particularly for "your side".

Defending him is counterproductive for your own goals. I know he's someone you want to support on principle, but that's the point. You have to treat the things he does do, not just the things he's trying to do. What he is trying to do and wants to do is fine, but how he does it is not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(←) Well now, a bit more of the issue comes to light. Deletionist and NFCC enforcer are most certainly not the same thing. I consider myself an NFCC enforcer, but I don't consider myself a deletionist. Many, such as Damiens.rf, Future Perfect, and Delta are both, however there is a large number of NFCC enforcers that are not deltionists. I'd actually like there to be more flexibility in the NFCC. I think that filling up an entire page with dozens of non-free images (as is done in Western painting) is absurd and wrong, but I think the whole thing about deleting Getty images on sight is also absurd and wrong. I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding as to what people that work with the NFCC actually do. It's like IRS auditors. It's a lot of technical compliance stuff, no one likes being focused on by them, and the vast majority of audits don't result in action, however the first thing you thing when you hear IRS auditor is "he's going to take all my money away or throw me in jail."

As for the concept of sides, I do consider there to be sides, but I don't see myself as wed to one side in particular. I acknowledge that Delta causes problems, but I think that the tactics being used and the focus overall are unfair, so yes, I defend him, but no, it's not because I'm on his side. Maybe he can't be rehabilitated, but at this point I view him as just as much the victim as the perpetrator. I see him as a bull, who having been baited by a good number of clowns, now acts in a way quite different from how he would have acted had he been left alone. A bull is aggressive, thickheaded, and dangerous as it is, but it dosen't just go out on rages unless someone keeps hitting it.

One final note, as I really must be getting off, is this: Whatever happens here, whether Delta is let off with a wrist slap, a topic ban, or a site ban, if you think that the NFCC problem will go away quietly, you're fooling yourself. Once Delta is taken out, many of the same people will try to have Damiens banned. After that, they'll seek a desysop of Future Perfect. Then they'll go after the half dozen other people that list large numbers of files for deletion. You might think that I'm being paranoid, but I'm confident that this is far from over. For now, I'm disinvesting myself of this mess. It's going to be horribly ugly with or without me, so it might as well be without me. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into the "deletionist" comment - that was a comment on the tactic (preferred enforcement via deletion, versus via correction / fixes / discussion) rather than the end goal (improper fair use is not ok in Wikipedia). Improper fair use images should go, yes. Go == deleted.

I can't predict the future, but I for one would not support going after Damiens or particularly Future Perfect (or you) about this. There have been individual incidents where someone did something wrong that perhaps rose to the level of admin attention, with other users, but not a pattern requiring community intervention.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You know, I mentioned before you to that you should go read up on some of the history on this. Now, I don't know if you've actually done that or not, but I can't imagine you've thoroughly read it if you claim he's a victim. Delta has been like this forever. Ever since I've seen this issue crop up. You once again try to blame everyone else for Delta's failing, but the failing is his. No one controls his actions except him. I haven't seen a single report of any editors breaking into his house with a gun and forcing him to edit the way he does. You even admit here that he's disruptive that you don't know if he can be rehabilitated, but still support him? That makes no logical sense at all. It sounds almost like you're supporting him because if he was actually topic banned for the good of the encyclopedia, it would seem like some kind of a loss for NFCC. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand is making automated edits his behaviour right now is not significantly different than this, this occurred over 2.5 years ago and the result was an indefinite block. Which went on for a long time until he was let back in under heavy sanctions (which he violated around 24 hours later) and continues to violate to this day. Heck even with this huge on-going discussion he goes through and does a huge NFCC purge, which some people are complaining about, because it seems he made errors or what they see as errors, and who made him do that? anyone? No one.--Crossmr (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What I said was "just as much the victim as the perpetrator". I know he has a long track record, and I don't endorse his recent sprees, but you and others have done a great deal of kicking him, and not only do you somehow act surprised that he responds negatively to being kicked (do you honestly think the timing of the sprees is coincidental) but you also seem unwilling on unable to acknowledge that your kicking of him might have something to do with the continuing problem. His response is childish, but you all are taking the role of the playground bullies. The actions that got him in trouble in the first place were wrong. He continues to do things that are wrong. Ganging up on him and bringing him to task not only when he's causing harm but when he's not causing harm is also wrong. Two wrongs does not make a right. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive2

I have replied to concerns.--WillC 07:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, whoops. Forgot to tell you here that I replied to them there. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 07:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sven, for your rapid response. How'd you get on the list? As it says in my post, anyone (other than anon IPs) who made an edit to either "pro-life" or "pro-choice" since 1 July 2010.

Now if I may, can I ask you to consider revisiting the discussion? I'm sorry that I didn't make myself clear, but you see, we already know that a lot of people feel as you do. Trouble is, there are pretty much an equal number of people who are on the opposite side of the issue. The result has been that, over the past year, there have been 499 edits to these two articles, but 1351 edits to their talk pages. And that talk page discussion has been dominated by one topic--what to call the articles.

The mediator knows and respects what the two sides want, but he's hoping to find a new solution that both sides can agree on. Would you see if you can find the time to read his suggestion and comment directly on that? Thanks. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You are going to get a ton of vandalism fighters with your method. I have to believe that's how I wound up on your list. As for mediation, I have little interest in participating. I have nothing to add other than what I've said, and in all honesty I hold little hope that mediation can solve the issue. If it can, good job. If not, don't take it hard at all, you're dealing with a contentions subject, meaning that you're up against hopelessly stubborn warriors, and I do use that word with care. Good luck regardless. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I recognize that the method of selecting whom to post to was not perfect, but it was at least completely objective, thus pre-empting any claims to votestacking. And it has accomplished its purpose--the number of participants in the discussion has probably quintupled, which in my eyes is a plus. But will it solve anything? Not likely. But Steven Zhang gave it one try, and his attempt was flailing, and I saw it as a way of injecting some life into the proposal. If it doesn't work, I'll withdraw permanently. What troubles me most is that the most obstructionist editors appear to be the very ones with whom I agree on the subject of the articles in question. "Warriors" is not a bad word choice. Thanks for your comments. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

FAC images

In addition to the two images I added on RHM22's behalf in the Gobrecht article, I've added one, here for the Indian head article. Could you stop back at the FAC and give it a clean bill of health? Many thanks,--Wehwalt (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Please block

Can you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE bblock that user who is messing up the List of Waterloo Road characters article. He is driving me CRAZY 2.100.144.137 (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, so no I can't. However if he keeps it up, he'll hit four warnings and will get blocked by someone else. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh right, im sorry I thought you were. My apologies. Its near next to impossible to stop that article from being vandalised every single day now. I have never known any other artile on the entire wiki to be targeted as much by if anything "retared" vandalism 2.100.144.137 (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

...yelling at Fastily isn't going to make it any better. I submitted a request for page protection, however that'll prevent you from editing it as well. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:Non-free image resolution advice

Thanks for the tips; I'll make sure to do that stuff before I nominate an article again. Images have never been my strong suit, so this should definitely help me with future nominations. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Necromancy is nothing

But out of interest...what would you like to see the CONTRIB team do if I could resurrect it? working on it... Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 11:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Backlogs has seen some improvements recently. I hadn't seen that, but I was angling for something along those lines. It needed a good kick to get it back up to speed.

I also have plans to revamp the tournament, make it more accessible to more people, and tie it in with other interested projects. It needs to be more of a hub for gnomes than it is. I'll get back to you with details.

Oh, and it's worth saying again, It's good to have you back. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

YF-23

No worries, I've replaced it. I'm very appreciate of your reviewing the YF-23 already. 03:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp33dyphil (talk • contribs)

I responded at your talk page. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Regarding your evidence submission; the site ban proposal was placed beneath an ANI section started by MickMacNee, but it was not MMN himself who proposed the site ban (see [1]). –xeno^talk 19:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Evidence withdrawn. Easy enough mistake to make, but still a mistake. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, after all the refactoring it wasn't entirely clear. You can remove your header and note altogether, if you want. –xeno^talk 19:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No golden goal

Hi Sven. You declined my request to create this redirect to Golden goal. I was previously unfamiliar with this term, but was watching a Women's World Cup match recently and heard it used. I searched the term on Wikipedia, and instead of being redirected immediately to the relevant article, I was left with a search list. I was able to find it, but it would be helpful to other users to be redirected immediately. "No golden goal" just means that a goal does not immediately end the game in extra time, the full extra time is played out (as was the case in the USA-Brazil match I watched earlier today which allowed USA to win). Hope this convinces you. Cheers. 98.200.59.112 (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I am an Association Football (Soccer) fan, so I do know what Golden Goal rule is. Wikipedia, however, dosen't create redirects like that. For example, No penalty kick does not redirect to Penalty kick. If we did redirects from negatives, we'd have to create tens of thousands of such redirects, and almost none of them would ever be used, because most people lop off the negatives when they search for things. You can submit it again and hope someone else accepts it, but I'm not convinced it's needed. Sorry. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Case in point really. You are a football fan so you would know that "golden goal" is the term to type in. Me, having no idea what it was, simply typed in exactly what I heard. "No golden goal" would be helpful, plain and simple. It wouldn't hurt anyone. Plus I hear redirects are cheap. 98.200.59.112 (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW I think there is a typo on your userpage: "I would be in favor of making the requiring of the entire collection a prerequisite to running for RfA." 98.200.59.112 (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

go fudge yourself