Jump to content

User talk:Anachronist/Archives/2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Improper speedy deletion of Cabriana Sea Skiffs

Please restore this article and take it to a deletion discussion if you don't think it's notable. There is plenty of very substantial coverage in reliable sources. I understand you may have thought the content was promotional, but it was based on the coverage in reliable sources and you were welcome to improve upon it. The subject is custom crafted boatbuilder that uses finer materials. If it had been an aluminum boat builder, prehaps it might have noted durability and sturdiness, but when reliable sources focus on the beauty and craftmanship used in manufacture then that's what should be noted. Speedy deleting the article is particularly egregious and narrowminded since the article wasn't in any way meant to promote the subject. The article was factual and based on reliable coverage. I understand you may not be familiar with this niche subject matter, but you are bound by the same policies that apply to all editors and administrators. This was not an appropraite speedy candidate and I would appreciate it if you would correct your error. Thank you. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The article was not deleted due to lack of coverage in sources, it was deleted as being unambiguously promotional, regardless of your actual intent. If you like, I can restore it to your own user space so that you can improve on it at your leisure without danger of being deleted, but I will not restore it to main article space in its most recent state. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, please restore it to my userspace. I would also appreciate an explanation of how the content was promotional and misrepresented what was in the sources. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The only text it it was "Cabriana Sea Skiffs is a maker of fiberglass and teak boats in Pensacola, Florida.[1] Described as having classic teak detailing and a graceful hull, the boats are outfitted for serious and recreational fishing. The company is owned by Curt Morse, who grew up "in the Delta riding around in a duck boat”. The company makes a limited number of boats costing between $24,000 and $70,000 in 2010.[2]" Everything in it is factual and well sourced. I am certainly open to the text being tweaked if there was something specific you objected to about the text style or wording. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page. I consider this matter closed. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback re James C. Bean

Hello, Anachronist. You have new messages at Arunsingh16's talk page.
Message added 23:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Quasihuman | Talk 23:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for my snarkyness. No excuses are needed, you haven't done anything wrong, we all make mistakes. (if I had a penny for mine, I'd be a rich man) Hope the rest of your day is nicer. :) Quasihuman | Talk 23:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the well wishes but... I spent the rest of the afternoon un-installing, taking apart, re-assembling, and re-installing the garbage disposer in our kitchen, which had jammed. A wet, dirty job, taking me away from my work to earn a living, and from idle time on Wikipedia. Tomorrow will be better, I'm sure. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In what way was that an improper G12? I can see that there's an argument over whether it's worth G12ing and then recreating the redirect or simply creating the redirect but in no way was it improper. The CC-BY-SA license requires attribution. Without attribution it's a copyvio. Dpmuk (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It was improper because Wikipedia cannot logically infringe on its own content; the tag characterized the article as a "copyright infringement" of another Wikipedia article. A10 was the correct reason for speedy deletion. If the original article is a copyright infringement, then it should be tagged, but as far as I can tell, it is not. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes it can infringe on it's own content. The CC-BY-SA license requires attribution and a simple copy and paste without attribution means we are violating the copyright held by the original contributors. WP:CWW has more on this. As the creator of that page had not linked to the original page in any way they breached the copyright held by all the contributors to the original page, hence the G12 request. Dpmuk (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. WP:CWW doesn't really cover this. This wasn't a content fork, it wasn't a merge, it wasn't a dispute, it wasn't a re-use of deleted material, it wasn't a copy&paste move (although that may have been the intent). The fact remains that an exact duplication of an existing article should be tagged WP:CSD#A10. That's what that tag is for. Either tag works, though, each would result in the content being removed. I'll grant that A10 would be invalid if the title weren't a plausible redirect. In this case it wasn't completely plausible, so A10 was appropriate. However, I felt it was borderline, so I redirected it. The WP:CSD#G12 tag, as far as I have been able to determine, was never intended for internal content, but in either case it got the attention needed. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason I put this up for speedy, was because User:JensHjerto and User:Joakimhaukaas had been creating the articles Jens Hjertø, Joakim Haukaas and 2Boys together. I believe 2Boys is some friends of their, but it's been speedy deleted. For these two teens, it must be a victory that the article about Haukaas is not speedy deleted, and with AfD the article is on wikipedia another week. I thought creating article about themselves was a clear candidate for speedy? Mentoz86 (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No, editors with a conflict of interest are not prohibited from creating articles, they are just discouraged from doing so. In some cases a COI editor will create a good article, and we don't want to discourage good articles. WP:BAND is pretty clear on what merits inclusion, and this looked borderline enough based on discography and mention of a notable label, that I had to decline the speedy. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protecting user page

Hi Amatulic, at the suggestion of User:Binksternet can I ask you to semi-protect my user page and talk page? I got a bunch of vandalism from a now-blocked IP user today, and I get it from IP addresses every so often. Thanks for your consideration. NYyankees51 (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Azteca

Thank you for protecting Azteca horse. Unfortunately, you protected the wrong version containing the disputed new material that could subject it to a GAR. Can you restore it to the version that passed GA, which is this one, or, if you'd prefer, the last consensus edit, a few days later, which was this. Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 19:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

An admin reverting to something other than the last version, when the last version is clearly an edit in a content dispute and not vandalism, would be equivalent to taking sides. I don't see any danger of a GAR for an article fully protected due to a content dispute (although protection any version shows that the article is unstable, so perhaps it should not have been GA in the first place).
Once a version is protected, it stays that way until the dispute is resolved. To understand the reasoning for this, please see m:The Wrong Version. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, I am aware of policy, but the policy has flexibility. My protection request was to the last stable version, not the last version, admins have room to do this. (And actually, at the time of my request, the last version was a revert to the stable one, not what's there now, but I understand lag time. We have a long history with this particular user, who has done this before, most recently attacking another FA article the day it was being prepped for a main page appearance. I got pretty hot under the collar myself, but the truth is that this is about the 5th or 6th GA or FA horse breed article he's attacked in some form. You may find this example and the closer's rationale to be of interest. Montanabw(talk) 00:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
You requested full protection. That's what you got. An admin won't make a reversion for you if it's a clear case of content dispute, as this is. Again, see m:The Wrong Version.
I have looked at the history of that editor. His behavior may seem disruptive, but he has made civil, policy-based arguments for his position. There is nothing wrong with challenging an article's GA status. A GA desigation, after all, is the result of an opinion by a single reviewer, and he is free to disagree. The instability of the article will not be affected regardless of which version is protected. If a dispute cannot be resolved under the current protected version, I don't see how it would be resolved under a different protected version. If the disruption resumes after the protection period expires, the article will be re-protected for a longer interval.
A threat of GAR isn't a reason to revert. While I understand your concern, I don't see a real argument here for sidestepping the dispute resolution process by reverting to an alternate version when both sides in a content dispute seem to have a valid point. Sorry, but the protecting admin should not be used as a means to extend an edit war during the protection period. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
This is the problem with wikipedia in general. The playground aides cannot tell who started the fight and who was forced to defend themselves, so everyone gets detention. Oh well, I would have thought that the policy stated that the article should have been protected to the last stable version, not the version of the person who won the race to the courthouse. If the topic had been holocaust denial, would you have also frozen the version that included denial POV? Just curious... I know that's snarky, but I think you didn't read policy; you also didn't review the history to verify if my request was a legitimate one. Montanabw(talk) 02:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Follow up: I realize I sound a bit snarky, but your ref to m:The Wrong Version was pretty snide and snotnosed too, as I did none of the actual behavior cited therein (I haven't asked you to take a position at all) but one might think that the GA version is the one worth protection until consensus to ADD material is reached per WP:BURDEN. Montanabw(talk) 03:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
No offense taken. Actually, your original request, asserting in the second sentence that I protected the "wrong version" and characterizing a correct version as "the last consensus edit" falls exactly in line with the description at m:The Wrong Version — which is why I mentioned it. It was not intended as snide, but as a way to point out a common attribute of Wikipedia of which you seemed unaware, and it is common for an admin to provide that link in response to requests to revert a fully protected article. I apologize if I came off as snide or snarky too.
I know the policy quite well. The relevant part is at WP:PREFER. There is no requirement to revert to a prior version. An administrator may do so if a clear non-contentious version exists, but I did not see that to be the case here, when the side making the changes you to which you objected backed up those changes with policy-based arguments. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes: "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." Wish ya had, that's all. And wish you'd noted the editor's history, he likes to target the horse GAs and FAs and while sometimes he has made small legitimate points, on the big issues, he has lost every single time. Montanabw(talk) 01:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, when I protected the article I pondered for a while whether I should revert to a prior version. I did spend some time looking over the histories of the editors involved. It was by no means a slam-dunk decision on my part. In the end I felt that the most neutral action was to leave it as is, rather than try to judge the merits of the dispute, which is something one shouldn't do when taking administrative action. If you need others to weigh in, there's WP:RFC that might attract readers. I could participate as well, but in doing so I would have to abstain on taking further administrative action (protecting or blocking) if I see more disruption.
I do have mixed views of your particular dispute. If I were pressed to take sides, I couldn't yet do so. On one hand, I agree that deliberately causing disruption to newly-minted GA articles is disturbing, and if it becomes intolerably WP:TENDENTIOUS, such behavior should be brought to the attention of WP:ANI. On the other hand, I also know that GA status is basically the decision of just one reviewer, and there's nothing wrong with challenging GA articles to be improved. I see good faith on all sides here, even if the actions of one editor are irritating. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I suppose you did the best you could do with what you had. And, without knowing the history of WPEQ with this particular editor (this might be illustrative, though), the spat may have seemed more balanced than it is. I'm aware that RFC and ANI are available, but these have, IMHO, become "drama boards" and seem to be disintegrating into not much more than a playground for the most tendentious editors amongst us to get lots and lots of attention with very little real action while everyone basically just argues until they are exhausted. The only time I would consider an ANi would be if I had a week of my life to sacrifice to the drama and if I felt it was time overdue to request a hardcore block; I wasn't quite there yet, in spite of my rather snarky edit summary to the contrary. We shall see. Montanabw(talk) 17:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, first of all, thanks for reverting the vandalism on the page I was working on, Tay–Sachs disease, so after, I saw that you have blocked the IP. So now to the subject: The IP is eligible for a Abuse Response case. Abuse Response is a place in Wikipedia that contacts the ISP for more efficient handeling of the abuse. I'm a member of the team who investigates the abuse and contacts the ISP. For me, blocking can just prevent edits, but is standardized, and so can not be as effective. I will be doing the report. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 23:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. I'm glad there's a community who's doing this. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Anachronist. You have new messages at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.
Message added 04:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

  — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Article titles and capitalisation case

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

3RR

Hello.

If you think I am edit warring, please block me indefinitely without talk page access or, better still request some kind of community ban at WP:AN.

Like me, you are a party in the current case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. There has been a lengthy discussion of Eraserhead1's edits to the image subpage (and the article talk page) at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images/Proposed_decision#Eraserhead1's recent actions. I made two edits to the images subpage:

  • at 11:27 on January 29 [1]
  • at 20;55 on January 30 [2]

This concatentation of edits would not even qualify as edit warring per 1RR and I am certainly not in any way linked to Tarc (see below).

If you assumed that I was going to revert Eraserhead1, you were wrong, because there was no point. As I've written in the link above, I think it is completely inappropriate and premature at this stage to make any edits of this kind to the rubric before the arbcom case is closed and certainly not without discussion. I don't have any views on the rubric apart from the fact that that sort of thing is always posted as a result of consensus.

If you look at my current editing history, you will notice that I have been heavily involved in a lot of content editing, which has required a lot of thought (I have been preparing new material for Contraction (operator theory)). Bearing in mind all these circumstances, including your own involvement, your message on my talk page had too many assumptions attached. As you are a party in this case, please read the discussion on the proposed decision talk page and leave this kind of thing up to administrators who are not parties to the case.

My own reading of the current situation at this point is that Eraserhead1 is trying to manufacture an incident to guarantee that Tarc is topic banned. My personal view is that Tarc should not be involved in any further discussions concerning Muhammad images, but not because of his edits to the rubric on the images subpage. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mathsci, Eraserhead1's behavior has been unnecessarily provocative recently. However, in all fairness to Amatulic, he warned Eraserhead1 as well. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
And Tarc. Most recently he has apologized to Eraserhead1 for missing he link I posted where the lengthy discussion has taken place.[3] Perhaps he might apologize to me, who knows. Mathsci (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Apologies to all parties: Mathsci, Tarc, and Eraseread1 for expecting discussion of a dispute between those editors to be where it's supposed to be, on the relevant talk page, rather than buried in an ArbCom wall o' text of all places..
I haven't been involved in the ArbCom case except to post an initial comment when the case was first requested. I have no opinion regarding this talk page header dispute, I don't care who is right or wrong. All that matters is edit warring on the talk page. Warnings I have issued, and possible subsequent administrative actions, would reasonably be performed by any uninvolved admin. Edit warring is what it is; ArbCom or my "involvment" in some past dispute aren't necessary to prevent me from taking administrative actions that any admin would reasonably take to prevent further disruption. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I have no views on the rubric either. The circumstances are evidently related to the timing of the closure of the case. That is what the discussion has been about and two other administrators have commented there, agreeing with me. Please read that discussion. Mathsci (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah... what a mess. And I do agree, there's no rush; changes to the talk page header can always be made after ArbCom posts their final decision. Honestly, I hadn't looked at the case since before it was accepted; I just posted a comment and moved on. And it's been suggested to me in the past that I should run for ArbCom. Ugh, no. Imagine what a time suck that would be. No thanks, not with a family and full time job. My hat is off to those who step up to volunteer for that. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Amatulic! I saw that you were previously involved in regards to this article's creation/deletion. I strongly believe the editor is the actual band member, and has been at it for some time to see to it that he has his own article on Wikipedia regardless of notability. I feel for this editor..I really do... At the same time, it appears we're going around in circles here, and felt it appropriate to let you know. Thanks. OSU1980 01:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no beliefs about the identity of the author except for a conflict of interest as demonstrated by some of the promotional text in the article. I have left a comment on the deletion discussion page. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I saw it. I appreciate your feedback. OSU1980 02:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Puzzle Place protection decline

Can you explain what you mean by describing the recent vandalism as a "non-malicious content-based edit"? It's exactly the same kind of vandalism (making up offensive and nonsensical plot summaries) that this user (it's the same user operating from different IPs) has been trying to put in the article for months. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh, that's what I get for glancing at a diff via popups while answering the phone, and then trying to write about what I remembered seeing.
In any case, rather than protecting the page as you asked, after examining the edits for various IP addresses, I blocked the entire range 72.70.224.0/19 (that's 72.70.224.1 to 72.70.255.254) for 3 months. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Excellent, hopefully that will put an end to it. Thanks! –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Protected page you moved?

A, did I understand correctly that you moved Average Directional Movement Index and then move protected it to stop a move war? Is that kosher? Dicklyon (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I had no idea Dicklyon had raised this with you: I came here independently to do the same thing. First, I was going to say, it's clear you have a close knowledge of the topic. This is obvious from some your edits, and is to be respected—you've done some good things there. However, when it comes to the use of an admin tool to cement your version of a title when you're clearly involved in the article – and more broadly in the matter of title capitalisation – a serious breach of admin policy has occurred. Have you read WP:INVOLVED, which was part of your undertaking with the en.WP community when you went for adminship? It's a central policy that is designed to protect both admins and non-admins: for admins, its proper application has the immediate benefit of forestalling accusations of CoI and policy breach.

By protecting your version of the title after you seem to have had a minor skirmish with Dicklyon over it, you have indeed prompted this accusation. What is surprising is that you cited "Move war" in your edit summary as a justification, when you yourself have been involved in the "war"—at least in a couple of slow-motion reverts over a while.

I have no intention of taking up the caps issue here—I just don't care enough about it, and article stability is more important than the revert sequence I've seen you engage in. I'm sure Dicklyon has no wish to further engage in a sequence of reverts. But your breach of WP:ADMIN can't be passed over. The only proper thing to do is to undo the protection of the page title and find another admin to consider the matter (and if they think it's right, to protect it).

I ask in good faith that you do this as soon as possible. If there's a problem in interpreting WP:INVOLVED, please ask me and I'll explain (or be put right by you, if I'm mistaken).

And if I may raise another point: you've reverted ?two newbies' edits there over the past few months. One looks reasonable and was adequately explained in your edit-summary; but another few of your reverts had either no edit-summary or a possibly gruff one (just, "we go by what the sources say"). I hope these newbies were not so discouraged that they left, or at least no longer edit. I'm keen to encourage new people to contribute, and I hope you are, too; but perhaps there was a history behind these users that explains it. Tony (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Dicklyon showed a willingness to ignore WP:BRD after I reverted True strength index back to uppercase, and instead engage in a move war. I suspected that such a situation would occur again, and I fully expected to receive complaints about it here. Those expectations have been met, and I appreciate the communication.
Because it is clear there is no consensus about how such article titles should be capitalized, the move Tony1 made to a number of such articles to lowercase are all contentious, controversial moves that should have been discussed first. Similarly, Dicklyon's move of Average Directional Movement Index to lowercase, without any effort whatsoever to propose the move to lowercase on the talk page, suggested a continuation of this WP:BATTLEGROUND situation, which I sought to prevent, and preserve stability, by protecting it. I thought long and hard about WP:INVOLVED in my action, and decided that a reasonable uninvolved admin with knowledge of the prior drama would do the same thing.
My alternative would be to undo the contentious move, then propose a move back to that contentious version on the talk page to initiate discussion. I was going to do that with the other articles, and I have just done so on Talk:Average Directional Movement Index.
Finally, I am frankly flummoxed as to why Dicklyon would be considered a "newbie", as it was his edits I reverted when I moved the article back to uppercase. If you are referring to something else, it is not clear what. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Certainly he's not referring to me as the newbie; he knows I've been around for years. Dicklyon (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
No, I was clearly not referring to Dicklyon as a ?newbie. The ?newbies I was referring to (I didn't bother looking at their histories) were/are Faithprice and MarkDavidFunk, as you can see from the page history (redlinks to names). Now, you've completely sidelined the WP:INVOLVED issue, which is not going away. Please unprotect and find an uninvolved editor to judge the situation themselves. This should be done as soon as possible, as a matter of good faith. Otherwise, do you want me to explain the CoI policy for admins? Tony (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to do that earlier today after I initiated the renaming discussion. As long as the debate has been initiated, however, it shouldn't matter to you in the least what the protection status of the article is. It would be up to another admin, not you, to rename it yet again, which you should know by know is a controversial act. You need to have more than an imperfect MOS guideline to justify it. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
"I...decided that a reasonable uninvolved admin with knowledge of the prior drama would do the same thing"—Then let a reasonable uninvolved admin take care of it. This is not ok. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
That's exactly why the move request has been initiated. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't make it ok. I'm relieved that you unprotected it, but you crossed the line when you acted as an administrator in a situation you were involved in. I'm concerned that you don't seem to realize how inappropriate that was. Do not do this again. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I know how it looks. However, I am following WP:INVOLVED in that I acted in a way that any reasonable admin would have acted. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

An arbitration case regarding Muhammad images has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case.
  2. Ludwigs2 is prohibited from contributing to any discussion concerning Muhammad.
  3. Ludwigs2 is banned from the English Wikipedia for one year.
  4. Tarc is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
  5. FormerIP is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
  6. Hans Adler is reminded to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility.
  7. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted.
  8. The participants in the dispute about depictions of Muhammad are reminded that editors who engage extensively in an intractable dispute can become frustrated, and that it is important to be aware that as editors we are limited in our ability to contribute constructively to a deadlocked disagreement. Our exasperation with a dispute can make us unprofessional or unreceptive to compromise. We therefore encourage the disputants of this case to consider if their participation in the coming community discussion of depictions of Muhammad would be useful, and we remind them that if they disrupt the community discussion they may be banned from the discussion or otherwise sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions provision of this case.

Mlpearc (powwow) 16:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee

MSU Interview

Dear Amatulic,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:CupNoodle.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CupNoodle.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, BeCritical 22:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

cancel off edit summary

delete edit summary of Wikipedia user aylo54 in revision history talk page of Criticism of Muhammad article.Tvaddict15 (talk) 14:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? The edit summary shows a mild assumption of bad faith, as do many other edit summaries on Wikipedia. What part of the policy Wikipedia:Revision deletion would justify deleting it? ~Amatulić (talk) 14:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

it is grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value.Tvaddict15 (talk) 15:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read the policy again, particularly the sentences after the part you quoted. Redaction isn't justified for "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations. The edit summary in question says, reasons for removal of this content ive mentioned on talk page of this article;the grounds for including this content look personally motivated and out of context from reality. This is simply an ordinary violation of WP:AGF. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

is it "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations.it seems more like grossly insulting.cancel off edit summary edit summary must be meant for explaining reasons behind edits here it is used for insulting.will edit summary of the user just stay there?Tvaddict15 (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Tvaddict15, I'm also an admin, and I think I agree with Amatulic here. What specific edit summary is it that bothers you? I don't see any that are insulting, let alone grossly insulting. Aylo has made many edits to that page; what is the one that you think is so "grossly insulting"? Remember that "grossly insulting" usually means things like "user's mother is a (*&!@!@*" or "All people who believe in Religion X are (*&($*&!@". Qwyrxian (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

specific edit summary that bothers me is one in which user says I heard them say this plus when user mentions how there are some who say.that edit summary should be cancelled off.Tvaddict15 (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Aylo54 shows the entire history of this user's edit summaries. None of them are actionable.
Aylo54 has edited Criticism of Muhammad exactly once (here). I quoted that edit summary above. It is not actionable. There is no policy argument to redact it, so I will not redact it. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

why arent the edit summaries actionable.will they just stay there forever.why cant the edit summaries be redacted.Tvaddict15 (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

An edit summary can't be redacted just because you don't like it. Wikipedia:Revision deletion specifically mentions merely uncivil edit summaries as not actionable. So yes, it will stay there forever unless the policy changes. If you want to argue for a change in policy, the place to do that is over at Wikipedia:Village pump/Proposals and the community must decide if your proposal has merit. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I visualise that edit summary to be gone.this is not the Day of Judgement take your time make that edit summary go away.An internet identity can't be verified.Mentioned statements online can be false.Motivation behind them can be unknown.Tvaddict15 (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Citizens of Russia accepted Jesus Christ as their saviour.The edit summary and edits by that user should be cancelled.Kindly respond.Tvaddict15 (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You have been given sufficient response already, above. You have been shown the relevant policies, and have been given guidance on how to change them. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any religious group. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Imperator

Other accounts? My concern is possible copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

My concern is block evasion. Praetorian3005 appears to have been created as a result of Imperator1974 being blocked for 48 hours. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
SPI then? I still haven't dealt with the copyvio although I've brought it up at Moonriddengirl's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Raised at SPI. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I created the SPI report yesterday. Thanks for your input there. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Feedback wanted

Please kindly comment on this:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Misconceptions2#Request_for_comment

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Arturo Alvarez and Salvador Tercero wikipedias taken down In Bad Faith by author

Dear Sir or Madam, The wikipedia page for Music Producer Arturo Alvarez was taken down in bad faith by the author. After researching and writing up the page of an industry colleague he deemed worthy of Wikipedia note, he had a falling out on a personal level with Arturo Alvarez and took down his Wikipedia as act of sabotage against him. I respectfully request that the administrator check and verify the validity of all information contained on Arturo Alvarez’s former Wikipedia page, in order to validate that the page was not taken down because of any lack of integrity, but purely as a result of personal resentment on the part of the author. This same author did the same with the page of Salvador Tercero, a music engineer. He wrote Salvador’s wikipedia page, than took it down due to a personal grudge.

Thank you so much for your attention to this matter.

My very best,

--Ellathecat (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The author of Arturo Avarez (music producer) is the only person who made substantial contributions to that article, and the author requested that it be deleted. There is nothing preventing you from creating the article yourself.
The same is true for Salvador Tercero, and as you can see from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvador Tercero, others agree that the only author who has made any substantial contribution has every right to request deletion. If you disagree, again, you are free to write the article yourself. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion: help preventing edit war, solving conflict

Dear Admin, please give your opinion here, it would be most welcomed: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#William_Muir.27s_opinions_in_Life_of_Mahomet

Thanks in advance--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
For helping to prevent edit wars Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiqi55 and his 1RR: now at ANI

Amatulic, I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Next steps for User:Wiqi55 — advice needed. The question is whether Wiqi55's indef block should be restored since he has broken his1RR for the second time since December. Diffs are given at User talk:Wiqi55#Your unblock condition from December. You've already commented there, so this part of my notice is redundant :-). I am notifying you since your name appears in Wiqi55's block log. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Truvia

Conversation moved to Talk:Truvia#Controversy section

Trail To Eagle

Hello! You deleted the Trail To Eagle article per WP:CSD § A7. Though the article should have been deleted anyway, it didn't qualify for this criterion, as software is specifically excluded from its scope. I'm not actually sure about what should be done now. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

A7 includes articles about web content. Mobile apps qualify as web content, as far as I know, because the web is the only source for them. After looking at the A7 criteria again, I admit that this interpretation deserves some discussion, since the A7 criteria were probably developed without mobile apps in mind. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't call mobile apps web content; effectively I'm not sure whether an article about obscure Gmail clone could be deleted per A7, as this would be an edge case. Still I probably shouldn't have bothered you with all of that as this article shouldn't get restored per WP:SNOW. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably its best to block that page again, as Fountain again removes references and referenced text. Thank you. Tagremover (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It's probably best for you to come to an agreement. You're at 3RR. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Red Deer Cave people

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

speedy deletion of janusvm

why have you dont answer to my answer??? you just delete!!! its easy... Jean65001 (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You did not ask for an answer. The article was promotional. Just because you don't work there doesn't mean it isn't promotional. If you want, I can restore the article to your userspace so you can work on it there, but in the state you created it, it was not suitable for main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
yes good idea, because its a software that exist, so will work on it for to be good for you.Jean65001 (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Restored to User:Jean65001/Janusvm. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

wiqi55 sock

50.17.128.255 ,contribs ip account has posted at the SPI http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Someone65, i am assuming it is wiqi55 as it has not posted any other comments outside spi--Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It has posted from another IP address, Special:Contributions/50.17.15.172, where it has made other comments, including past interaction with Pass A Method. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
They are different Ip's the admin Muzemike has already reverted that ip--Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I know they are different IPs, but from the same hosting provider, and one made a claim to be the same person as the other. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

USA politics

Yeh, i love ron paul, and i follow USA politics. Only because its the most powerful country in the world (and unfortunately if USA goes to war, so does my country, so i have to see whats going on over there), i dont follow the polictics of any other country. Awareness of american polictians by brits is a one way road. brits here about many politicians (inncluding santoroum and other gop candifated on tv), but i doubt americans ever here about our politicians.

I see ron paul as an honest person. I dont know of any data or statistics about political awareness, so doubt i could make a list about that--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

User talk:67.168.135.45

Although I understand that you are trying to encourage using an account, and more effectively than I tried, I do consider this comment [4] to be a bit strong and factually incorrect - a single (aborted) error, not even using rollback. More importantly, is the lack of AGF. Encouraging need not come at the expense of others? Widefox (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not consider the comment factually incorrect, and I apologize if a lack of good faith on your part was implied; that was not intentional, and the message was meant for the benefit of someone else. I appreciate and thank you for your understanding, and your final point is well taken. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your consideration. Not wishing to labour the technical point - and I'm sure you know this better than me - but to ensure we're all on the same page - no rollback right was used in error (it was Twinkle), but yes rollback was removed until I explained my error. (I did point-out the irony - however understandable - of removing rollback for a non-rollback error with the other admin). Widefox (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

An arbitration case regarding article titles and capitalisation has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegiately towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes.
  2. Pmanderson is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in discussions and edits relating to the Manual of Style or policy about article titles.
  3. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed.
  4. Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments on User_talk:Tarc

Hi Amatuilic! I really appreciate your comments. It's really nice of you to look out for me.

You said:

As an admin myself, I appreciate your goal of being one. However, your account has been active only since January and you haven't even tallied up 1000 edits in main article space. I don't mean to disillusion you, but an WP:RFA for you would be highly premature, and dead on arrival, based on my experience with RFAs. That doesn't mean you wouldn't make a good admin, but you simply haven't yet established an extensive record of participation that the community can examine and trust. I suggest you wait at least until you have a few thousand main space edits under your belt, and try it.
I'll also add that being an admin is really like being a janitor. There is no "leadership" implied by the position. I am continually amazed that people seem to think so. It's a lot of drudge work. If you enjoy contributing to quality content here, you may find that adminship involves a lot of cleanup, housekeeping, preventing disruption, etc., and that takes time away from making quality contributions. Wikipedia needs more good editors more than anything else. I hope you stay. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This merits clarification. I don't have any "burning desire" to be an admin. Didn't plat to submit an RFA tomorrow. If we need more admins, I'd we willing to try, but if it seems like we have enough admins, I'm happy to sit back and just edit. I have no interest in blocking, banned, closing RFCs, or anything that controversial I have noticed that I _do_ need ViewDeleted to intelligently participate in XFD.

Everyone has to pay their dues. My need to "view delete" isn't urgnent or case-specific-- it's just something I thinK I can be trustedto do.

But-- I'm at a crossroads. I can't accept being "doomed' to second class because of my wik-political politcs. If WP doesn't weclome me, I could alsom move to a different platform. I think it's preferable to reach out to a coaliston of my fremies and ask what they think about my general "moral responsibility" as a Wikipedia.

If Tarc and others like him want to "sink" my inclusion in to the community, he can-- immediately or a year from now. I won't presume to decide which is the best answer for Wikipedia--- but I want to know whether the communities consideres me 'Welcome' or not. No point in wasting a year just if I'm just going to be rejected-- there are other venues.

I believe in Wikipedia, I want to believe all good-faith editors are on-track to become "full fledged member". If that's no realistic, I'll can always branch outward and find other platform and t start a blog. But I 'want' to join the WP community, if my "political opponents" agree I have the moral character for the job. --HectorMoffet (talk)

You have some misconceptions still.
There isn't a "second class" except maybe for a technical distinction between autoconfirmed and non-autoconfirmed editors who don't yet have 10 edits. There are additional user rights you can have also without being an admin, and some are "administrative" rights. This is not a complete list:
Beyond that, there are no distinctions; your "class" is a continuum, a function of the respect you have gained from the community as a result of your participation. And that takes time.
Some of our most productive editors with the highest edit counts have chosen not to become administrators; they are hardly "doomed" to be second class.
The only valid reason to become an admin, in my opinion, is if you're interested in picking up the mop and helping out with backlogs. There is so much to do that there's no time left for productive editing. Once in a while I take a wikibreak (like I'm trying to do now, see the top of my page) and edit as an anonymous IP, without being concerned by the admin duties I'm taking a break from. It can be draining. There is no end of AfDs to close, no end of articles needing a decision about speedy deletion, no end to article protection requests, no end to usernames requiring attention, no end to preventing disruption from spammers and vandals, no end to reviewing unblock requests, no end to analyzing blacklist and whitelist requests, no end to sockpuppetry investigations, no end to ArbCom enforcement discussions, etc. Gaining access to a few additional tools comes with an unwanted burden that turns away experienced editors who are more interested in contributing good content.
Since I started six years ago, I have never needed to view deleted contributions to participate in any XFD discussion. Even as an admin, I don't need to view deleted contributions for XfD. The only thing I need it for are speedy-delete decisions. I can't see why anyone would need it for XfD. I suppose it's a convenience, and I recall it has been discussed in the community to grant this right to trusted editors, not just admins. I don't know the current status. This happened with rollback, which used to be an admin-only right, but now any trusted editor can have it by asking an admin to grant it.
Your general "moral responsibility" as a Wikipedian is to uphold the five pillars as best you can. Be neutral, don't push a personal point of view, be civil and understanding to others, be bold and edit. Refrain from edit warring even if others don't. It's pretty simple, really. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I think all those things you say were true of Wikipedia. Six years ago, it was No Big Deal. Everyone knew everyone else, rednames and IP editors got equal respect, etc.
I grow increasingly skeptical if the ideology we shared is still an accurate reflection of how people actually treat each other on our project. The "admin-vandalfighters" seem to be getting distant from the mainstream of the Writer/Editor community.
Most of the admin tools are No Big Deal. But a few are a big deal. We give vastly more oversight to inter-admin disputes. Admins can view deleted, a huge huge advantage in some discussions. Admins have special "approved" venues for off-wiki collaboration.
If it's "no big deal" why are there so few new admins compared to the past? Six years ago, you could get adminship almost on a handshake, whereas now I understand very few potential admins ever make it through the process.
And I personally don't want to try, based on the fact that RFA is such reportedly such a negative experience. but I'm interested in whether my behavior to date is incompatible with future inclusion in the ranks.
I used to believe the theory you share: "Admins are separate group of editors, but all editors all are equal." Unfortunately, group dynamics trump fancy words-- in practice, separate gives rise to unequal. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

OotS

Well, I think that biographies of the antagonists of OotS should be included only in the article about the OotS characters, like in the case of the main characters. Mithoron (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite


Hello Anachronist/Archives. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.


You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Leif Ericson

Hello Amatulic, I was reading the article on Leif Ericson and noticed that the Icelandic version of the name was missing at the beginning (currently only Old Norse and Norwegian).

As you've marked the article as semi-protected, I wanted to check with you, if it was ok that I (or you) added it?

In short, I'm proposing this addition:

Icelandic: Leifur Eiríksson;

Best regards from Iceland, Omnis

Omnis73 (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi protection simply prevents anonymous IP addresses and newly-created accounts from editing the article. Semi-protection was necessary because that article seemed to attract vandals for some reason. Nothing prevents you from making any necessary changes. Go right ahead, be bold and do it. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Android (operating system) > Marketing Section Edit

Hello Amatulic!

I am a new user and wanted to kindly ask your help to make a correction for Android (operating system) page, Marketing section. As you've marked the article as semi-protected, I still can't make edits to that :) I added Edit Request to the talk page, but I am not sure if anyone saw this yet. I was hoping you can help me edit the page, please.

In Marketing section please change "The Android logo was designed along with the Droid font family made by Ascender Corporation." to "The Android logotype was designed along with the Droid font family made by Ascender Corporation. Android robot icon was designed by Irina Blok, as part of Google marketing team."

Ascender corporation designed the original Android logotype, not the Android logo. Android logo is a little robot character, and logotype refers to the words of a logo (it spells Android). Please add a correction that Irina Blok created the little green robot (known as the "bugdroid" among Android team members) in the fall of 2007. She was a member of Google's marketing communications team, which was helping Android team out with copywriting and graphic design in preparation for the announcement of the Open Handset Alliance on November 5, 2007 and the early look SDK on November 12th.

Evamy, Michael (October 2011) "Android, not built by robots" Creative Review. Retrieved 2012-04-12.

Woyke, Elizabeth (September 26, 2008). "Android's Very Own Font". Forbes. Retrieved 2012-02-16.

Blok, Irina (November, 2007) Creative Portfolio Retrieved 2012-04-12.

Kim, Sung Hu (May 2012) Android (OS): Who designed Google's Android icon? Retrieved 2012-04-12.

--Sashatemov (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC) --Sashatemov (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Could use some admin advice

Hey Amatulic! I could really use some advice on how to deal with an issue that is unfortunately starting to spread to other Wikipedia pages. Essentially I want to know if I have cause to go to the WP:RM page and request the admins there to close what I feel is a premature (and slightly bad faith page move).
Here's the short and sweet: An editor at Talk:Champagne expressed a desire to change all reference to Champagne to lowercase. After he encountered some concern and opposition to his wishes, he still went ahead and unilaterally did what he wanted anyways (Kind of BRD turned into Discuss, Find Opposition, Do it Anyways :P). Thankfully, he just did this once and responded to the plea to let discussion continue so we could have some kind of real consensus emerge. While discussion has emerged and with one editor on his side, one a slight lean, two opposed and some anons/new users chiming in more or less opposed, it is still pretty mixed with no consensus. This would be fine except now this editor has decided to drag this secondary pages involving Champagne and has opened up a page move request for Talk:History of Champagne to lowercase the title. (Kinda odd since the article is also about the winemaking history of the Champenois in the region, but hey) This, again, seems a bit bad faith and a heavy handed way to try to "force" consensus back on the primary Champagne page by getting this page move to go through. So is this cause enough to go to the WP:RM page? What are your thoughts on how best I should proceed? I greatly respect your opinion and if you think I should back down or go another path, I certainly will. AgneCheese/Wine 17:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you in opposition of the RM some weeks ago that promoted Champagne (wine) to the primary topic Champagne? I don't see how that matters to the present debate which involves the capitalization not of the article title, but of the word as used in the article body. A RM won't change the content, just the title, and the title is already capitalized according to Wikipedia convention. I have closed the RM proposal on History of Champagne on the grounds that a contentious disagreement should be resolved before renaming related articles, instead of spreading the disagreement to multiple fronts.
"No consensus" on Wikipedia means "maintain the status quo" but if you want an official "no consensus" result, you need to have a discussion that has an end point (that is, an admin can close it and judge whether there's a consensus or not). For that you need an RFC. Otherwise you can wait until an open-ended discussion shows a consensus emerging.
Another alternative would be to propose clarifications to MOS:CAPS, which is a flawed guideline that could use clarification, in my opinion, although attempting to change it isn't likely to be fruitful considering the pedantry I've seen in the past from the protectors of that guideline. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Since I wasn't here to participate, I can't take too much qualm with the original Champagne (wine) move. In all honesty, I probably would have been a weak support since the French wine does seem like it is the primary topic but I can see a strong case for Champagne staying as a disambig page too. As for this current discussion involving capitalization, all I really wanted to see a good faith effort made towards continuing the discussion rather than trying to strong arm one POV on how things should with back door stuff like RMs on secondary pages. For the most part, it feels like the conversation has been pretty constructive (even if long-winded, my specialty :P). But there has been a diverse set of view points presented and some great contributions from editors like User:Encycloshave who have really taken this thing apart and looked at it from a variety of angles. Whether we'll come to a consensus or a "no consensus", I don't know but at least we'll let the Wikipedia process work its way out like it should. Thanks Amatulic for your time! AgneCheese/Wine 22:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"History of Champagne" on ANI

Put the History of Champagne RM on ANI here. Kauffner (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, good. I had just proposed you do that over on Talk:History of Champagne. Always good to get a second opinion. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Third Opinion Thanks

A final final final note (yes I know that is pathetic) I have left a new section on the Alkaline Diet Talk page about the blatant bias there. I had presented the text of the holy secondary source they all love to champion, showing that the source confuses blood pH and body pH. One of the people who have been attacking me there then attacked MY use of the term blood pH, not realizing that I was quoting their favorite secondary source. They actually made a good case why anyone using that term has no idea what they are talking about. They did this to discredit ME, when they actually discredited the very source they have been aggressively defending. It is obvious they are biased. There is a team of them. I am done there. I hope that you know the process to take this further and have them restrained. I don't know Wikipedia well enough to do that, and I also don't care enough to fight that battle. Since you did get involved maybe you want to do something about that. In the end it is clear they are unfamiliar with the diet, yet happy to attack something they don't understand, as evidenced by their questions about the diet. I read three books on the diet. I don't follow it and I'm not promoting it. I just happened to pass by the page and saw something written there that was completely inconsistent with the details of the three books I read. 2 days later and I now understand why that page is so incorrect. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

PS on a personal note I have been to over 50 countries, many of the same ones you have, and I can say there is some good stuff south of the equator, and I hope you get there some day. I am born in Australia so I guess I am biased... 86.93.139.223 (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

A final final note (sorry), I seem to have misunderstood Wikipedia. If a primary source cannot be used as evidence of itself, but a secondary source, which is attacking and criticizing that primary source, in contradiction of the facts of the primary source, is used to define the primary source, what is the point of Wikipedia? Someone said that if 5 secondary sources say that Harry Potter is a girl, then Wikipedia would say that he is a girl, despite the primary source showing he is a boy. Is that the way this thing really works? If so then it seems pretty nuts to me. Maybe the fault is in the setup of the system, not the people using the system? I don't know. As a moderator I assume you understand these things. Perhaps I just totally missed the point of Wikipedia. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Amatulic, thank you for your third opinion on the Alkaline Diet Talk page. As someone new to Wikipedia editing I am also sadly leaving it. I have done my best to provide some logic and reason to the situation there and I have found none forthcoming. I appreciate your attempts to be involved. I don't understand the Wiki system and I have lost patience trying. Below is my last post on this talk page and probably my last on any talk page. I don't know the technical term for it in "Wiki Language" so I will just say that these people seem to want to own that page and anything that does not agree with their negative view of the diet is rejected. I am not the first person to form that opinion on the talk page. I wish you the best in your Wiki adventures. Take care and thanks. 86.93.139.223 (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Yobol, it is good to see that you are asking me for sources and not providing them yourself. It is good to see that you have demanded them of me in the same sentence that you say that you are not obliged to provide them. It is good to see that you say no one is obliged to prove anything to me while you require me to prove my statements to you. I will do as Ronz does and quote a Wiki page about my viewpoint of this behavior. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Double_standard. I also note that while Ronz was happy to make his comments, when he was asked for sources he went silent. I have learned that Wikipedia is not about facts, it is about consensus. The consensus I have seen on this talk page is that this article is biased. I have enjoyed seeing that people who have no knowledge of the details of a diet are able to pass judgement on that diet. I have enjoyed my time as a Wikipedia editor, and like others before me here I leave you now with your precious Alkaline Diet page which you clearly believe you own. In a sense you do own it between the four of you as you block any opinion here other than your own. You all know how to play the Wiki game to get your own way here. I am fortunate that I do not know how to play these Wiki games. I will now go back to my life... 86.93.139.223 (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Amatulić, can you please warn this editor of pseudoscience discretionary sanctions and log the warning in the appropriate place? His editing is starting to cross into WP:TE and he's apparently got a bit of wax in his ears. Thanks. SÆdontalk 01:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
From my viewpoint, that goes both ways. You are both making valid points but not trying to understand the other's point of view. The anon's opponents seem to be unaware of the distinction between secondary sources and secondhand information, as well as when primary sources are appropriate to use. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I did anything out of line on that page so I'm not sure what you would warn me about, especially in regards to discretionary sanctions; at the most you could say that there was a slight misunderstanding between you and I over the proper use of sources, and that's fine. I now understand your point and I don't disagree. However, I'm not willing to wade through 10,000 kilobyte walls of text replete with accusations of bias and bad faith to find the two sentences in his post that actually address the topic.
I will eventually go in and fix the problems with the page, but one of the problems is not that the Harvard source is a straw man. The nit-picking between the words "alter" and "affect" came off to me as a simple case of semantics, where the main point is that the sense of the words is to refer to "change," which is what the diet purports to do and what the Harvard source says the diet can't do. So what's the option then, to say something like "While Dr. so and so has said blood pH will barely change and only for a short time, proponents of the diet posit that the diet doesn't claim to change blood pH, just to affect it." What the difference is between "changing" and "affecting" is beyond me, but the Harvard source says the blood pH can't be significantly changed by the diet and the diet site says the diet affects blood pH explicitly. Sounds to me like standard fringe POV pushing using a semantics argument to discredit a source that criticizes a POV that is obviously dear to this person. SÆdontalk 19:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Replied on the article talk page, since you copied your second paragraph there. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. You are one of the good guys. I've left a long comment (yes another wall of text) on the Alkaline Diet page and now I am done with Wikipedia. Success in your life. Maximus 86.93.139.223 (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Need your suggestion

Check this and this. I don't think that the right amount of people were notified and also those who voted understood the problem (since most of the voting took place before I finished my explanation). I, honestly, didn't expect that I would need to break it down to such a level.

That short referendum doesn't reflect the true consensus, IMO. I tried to explain every point that was and could have been raised, on that AfD page. In short, this article is about a Qur'anic verse. And that should have been the end of it.

Everything else will be people's personal opinion on the translation (probably predicated upon conflicted interest) and interpretation, making the state of its neutrality inherently an unfixable or insurmountable issue. Besides, why repeat same thing in two different articles? Why keep two articles more or less about the same topic? If you read my points carefully (which I hope you'd do) you'll find that it's nothing more than a coatrack article. The thing is, I would like to appeal again for deletion of that coatrack article, so could you tell me where to go from here? Or, could we just do something to draw more administrative attention to it? Please help me.  Brendon ishere 16:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The place to appeal an AfD closure decision is at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Given that the article is extremely well referenced, I am skeptical that a consensus to overturn the 'keep' decision will happen, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I must try. Do you not think that it's a coatrack article? “extremely well referenced” - only cherry-picked poxy references. See, I know arabic to some extent. I know how clear that injunction is. Just read what I wrote on the AfD page. The article doesn't reflect the present consensus of Islamic jurists and theologians. These jurists presumably know better arabic than me. And they are devoted Muslims too. Why would they choose to lie about what they respect the most? Why would anyone ignore or overlook such an eminent fact? From Pickthall to Yusuf ali, from Arberry to Rodwell all of them could not be wrong. Ibn Kathir even acknowledges that it's permitted. Why would they have an intrinsic penchant for deceiving themselves and their followers about their own venerated religion?  Brendon ishere 19:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
It looks to me like you just made an argument for improving the article rather than for deleting it, if reliable sources link those views to that verse. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Amatulic please, try to understand what I'm saying. I appreciate your efforts to lighten things up. Moreover, there is a proper way to beat own wife. Why should I present same content in two different articles when one is enough? Tell me that. You do know what a coatrack article is, right? I presented those links just to show that the article cherry-picks sources. Unfortunately, it's inevitable. For once, just go through my points and replies in that AfD page, please. (this page)  Brendon ishere 19:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Why are you trying to engage me in a debate on my talk page? As I said before, WP:DRV is the place to challenge a decision to keep the article. Not here. All I'm doing is playing devil's advocate to your points. Naturally, there is no reason to have the same content in two articles. That was my point: If you improved the encyclopedic content of article on the verse to include all the relevant issues surrounding it, you'd basically end up with a duplicate article that would qualify for merging.
If you want me to look at, comment on, or copy-edit a draft of your DRV proposal before posting it, I'm happy to do so, but beyond that I have no idea what administrative action you expect me to take as a result of your initial post to my talk page. What I will not do is countermand an administrator decision that has already been made, without a wider community discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
"That was my point" - wow! hahahaha!!!

"you'd basically end up with a duplicate article that would qualify for merging." - I don't like the idea of merging, even a bit. I get it now. Take care. See you at the Muhammad page.

FYI, Could I contact you through your email? If you're not up for it then it's fine. Good..okay bye!  Brendon ishere 19:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You want to delete one article that meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria without merging the information that would be lost to a related article? Care to explain that?
And I still don't know what you expected me to do in response to your initial post here. You do understand WP:INVOLVED, right?
You can send me email if it's something that isn't appropriate for public view, but I prefer keeping Wikipedia business on Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
"You want to delete one article that meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria" - that's your opinion. I didn't say I “want to delete one article that meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria without merging the information”. You do understand what it means to refrain from putting words in others' mouth, right?
I just said, "I don't like the idea of merging, even a bit." What is so wrong in that? I don't like it.

"You can send me email if it's something that isn't appropriate for public view" - Are you referring to the possibility of me sending you something obscene and redundant? If that's what you're concerned about, be informed that it won't happen.

The thing is, for some reason I just wanted to chat with you in private. I don't know if that in itself is inappropriate, or not.  Brendon ishere 21:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

What part of the WP:GNG inclusion criteria does the article fail to meet? Again, WP:DRV is really the best place to hash this out.
I thought it would be obvious that "inappropriate for public view" meant personal in nature. Generally if someone contacts me and I feel that talk page communication would be more appropriate, I'll say so. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Minor confusion your help needed