Jump to content

User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Ottava Rima

Since OR has reverted my simple link from her page, here is the link to what actually eventually got OR blocked. It's nothing like what she claims, at all. S. Dean Jameson 16:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Expert opinion needed on water fluoridation theories.

There's a storm brewing over at Water fluoridation opposition, involving ScienceApologist trying to remove what appeared to be WP:SYNTH violations to support the water fluoridation conspiracy.

You're a biologist and you have access to research on this kind of thing. You could probably cool things down a bit by giving your expert opinion? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What I say there wouldn't matter as much as what the reliable sources say , eh? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Quick skim through pubmed shows that there has been some scientific research into negative effects of fluoridation. My admittedly VERY quick skim through abstracts shows that people looked at effects of fluoridation on bone in the elderly (1: J Prev Med Pub Health. 2008 May;41(3):147-52. PMID 18515990 full text in Korean? Hmm, that's not handy) (none could be found at the level of fluoridation investigated), but if you overdose, you can have something called fluorosis. Is it the case that people originally added too much fluoride to drinking water at some point? That might explain why people might be a tad worried about it. I found one abstract for a review article (1: Evid Based Dent. 2008;9(2):39-43. PMID 18584000) that covered a search of 5000 papers, with ~500 falling within parameters... which stated that there are particular safe parameters inside which fluoride can be added to water, and thus recommends that this be done within those parameters. Someone would have to read the full paper, but that looks like it would be a balanced scientific view.
Not sure what exactly you need from me though, can you be more explicit? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, hmm ethical issues. Here's an article on the pro side: 1: Rev Med Chil. 2007 Nov;135(11):1487-93. Epub 2008 Jan 16. PMID 18259663 . I get the idea that much of the scientific opinion is on the pro side on this topic, albeit with caveats.
I checked the dutch wikipedia, nl:Drinkwater. The positive effect of adding fluoride to drinking water is much less marked when everyone can and does purchase fluoride toothpaste anyway. (The article itself states taht Topical {brushed on} application is as effective or more effective than systemic {swallowed} application, and carries practically no risk at all). That makes sense. Probably if I search pubmed some more, I could find papers on those studies.
Some people don't like having fluoride added, obviously. Since dental care in .nl is fairly good, and everyone in the Netherlands has access to adequate sources of fluoride, adding fluoride to the drinking water is not sufficiently beneficial. (There's also a ruling by the dutch supreme court, which states that adding fluoride is clearly not part of the duties of the water companies, and so shouldn't be done.)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 02:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, there's several refs on the dutch results when fluoridation was ceased, but I can't get at the abstracts (let alone full texts)... Annoying! (Search pubmed for fluoridation netherlands).
--Kim Bruning (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
There are a few issues that might benefit from a science-based analysis:
  • Topical vs systemic - are there any studies that separate the beneficial effects of topical application (which must be good, it says so right on the toothpaste tube :) from the effects of "dietary" fluoride, i.e. fluoride compounds topically available only on chewing or drinking, with presumed additional systemic effects?
  • Water intake of fluoride vs dietary intake - the Scientific American article was instructive as to the high levels of fluoride in processed foods. So, what is the quantitative effect of this combination?
  • Retention of water fluoridation compounds - another argument is that people who drink lots of tap water (that's me! - but I don't have fluoridated tapwater) will suffer an "overdose" of fluoride, but this would relate to the body retention of the typical fluoride-containing compounds used in water treatment vs for instance dietary fluoride compounds in prepared food.
  • Safety of water fluoridation compounds - this is just generally relevant. Fluoride is reactive enough that I would suspect it doesn't matter much what other atoms it hitch-hikes with. HF of course proves me wrong, and there's the issue of how we suspect that the whole thing is a plot by mining companies to pour their toxic waste down our throats. That may be tinfoil-hat material, but it does bear some consideration imo. The compounds used in water do not appear to have undergone tox-tests. Especially from the new European initiative (I forget the letters - all chemicals must be tested, translate that to Euro-speak), such data would be interesting.
  • Net dosage - when and how do we ingest too much fluorine?
  • Cut to the chase - if everyone in my town uses fluoridated toothpaste three times a day, do we need to fluoridate our water or our salt or put it in the butter?
I'm totally on the fence on this and have been since I asked at my former dental clinic (which was stunningly competent - hi Francois, hi Diane - miss you!) if I shouldn't have a fluoride treatment and they said "don't you use toothpaste?". Anyway, those are some more points to consider, blame Zenwhat, not me. Dispassionate consideration is sorely needed. Franamax (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

re: CSD and bureaucracy

Good evening, Kim. You commented here about the history of CSD and the potential for bureaucracy. I feel a need to reply but don't want to clutter up another user's Talk page with a reply not to him/her. Apologies that this breaks up some of the flow of the discussion. To your points:

There was no "regular speedy deletion" before the creation of the CSD criteria. Wikipedia:Speedy deletions was created in 2003 but depended on specific criteria itemized in the Deletion policy and DGFA. The earliest version I could find said simply "If the page contains no useful content (all gibberish for example) and no useful history, this step may be skipped" [referring to skipping the VfD discussion].

Copyvios, of course, always had their own separate process.

The criteria were gradually expanded and then consolidated onto what is now WP:CSD in Jan 2004. Before that, all cases had to be discussed and decided at VfD. There were occasional admins who would invoke WP:IAR to get rid of the truly awful and obvious stuff but almost everything spent at least a few hours on the VfD page.

Speedy-deletion was created to reduce some of the backlog at VfD. When the speedy deletion process was created, it was with considerable hesitation and only approved with the clear understanding that the criteria would be applied narrowly and that anything requiring a judgment call would be sent to VfD instead. Call it bureaucracy if you like but it is what the community consensus said they wanted. Rossami (talk)

My position is that people should use IAR, PROD, and the original speedy criterion (patent nonsense, vandalism) for all their deletion purposes.
There are demonstrable issues with AFD and CSD, which I think have already been adequately documented elsewhere, up to and including the international press. (The current implementation of DRV is also deeply flawed, and its intended function is already adequately covered by CCC).
I do not believe that any of AFD, CSD, or DRV exclude any other method from being used. Even though I often get the impression that AFD regulars, CSD regulars and DRV regulars each separately appear believe that their process controls the wikipedia and is essential to its functioning. I agree, these processes are just as essential as AMA and Esperanza. Where would we be without them ;-) [*]
If Kylu deletes something using IAR, PROD, or the original speedy criteria, that should be perfectly ok.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
No disagreement. And if that had been used as the justification, it would not have raised any eyebrows. But if he/she is going to use the existing CSD criteria, it's important to cite the right criterion. Given the deep and abiding skepticism that remains around the CSD process, it is important to take extra steps to be as transparent and consistent as possible - to give new editors as few reasons as possible to be more skeptical than they already are. That's my opinion, at least. I'll get off my soapbox now. Rossami (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, interesting answer. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration, and User:Teclontz/Documentation_Page

Kim, the long term series of endless edit wars with Lisaliel has now spilled over into an Arbcom on another user who got caught in our cross fire. Could you help confirm some of the history behind this? I'm trying to document everything on my documentation page, but there's just SO MUCH of it that it's taking a while. And, there are some diffs that I may eventually eliminate after a second readthrough. I really hate the idea of another user getting into problems just because Lisa and I can't behave.Tim (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim, please stop your misrepresentations. This ArbCom has everything to do with Alastair editwarring with Ilkali and with me, and with other people. Persecution complexes aside, this has less than nothing to do with you (except insofar as you chose to gang up with Alastair on Sunday to revert every edit I made). This grudge you have against me has gotten seriously out of hand. The world doesn't revolve around you. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, if you could add your own perspective, that would be great. You know how long this has been going on. And if Lisa and I are to be believed, neither one of our perspectives is to be trusted ;-)Tim (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Change from dormant to failed

I'm a bit concerned about this edit; is it really accurate to describe PWD as "failed?" I thought that its proponents just never got around to pushing this proposal with enough alacrity for a true consensus to emerge one way or the other. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's easy enough to remedy, if you disagree with Black Falcon, right? (actually, I think no one ever really just made the change to the software that pwd needed ^^;; Do you know php?) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Plus, the tag says, "If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the proposals page of the village pump." That's what the proposal would need to emerge from its slumber, so for the time being, the tag is entirely apt. Prove it wrong!--Father Goose (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Just wanted to drop a note and say hi. I was going to mention something I was trying to work towards at User:Hiding/Deadlock but it looks like you're at breaking point so I'll let you be. However, it was nice to make your acquaintance Kim. In all my dealings with you in the last three years or so I have found you to be maddeningly infuriating, frustratingly pleasant and generally right. The first two are typically down to me, which is even more disappointing. All the best. If our paths ever happen to cross in the real world, I owe you a beer. Hiding T 12:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

G'day Kimble!

Hope you've had a good weekend.... It's been an interesting wiki one for me!! I'm currently over at arbcom asking if my editing restriction could be lifted (which is incidental to this actually....) - and I saw Random832 has taken the discussion over to the Village Pump (don't worry! this is actually also incidental to what I wanted to ask you!).....

If you take a gander at that thread, you'll see Sam, a current arb, referring to me as "editing pages they shouldn't" - talking about my edit to the arbitration policy.

I was genuinely unaware at the time that this policy is (another!) unique one in the sense that it's not permitted to edit it in regular wiki fashion.... I meant at the time to poke you to hear your thoughts both on this specific instance, and also the direction (a la BLP) of 'privileged policy' .... whaddya reckon? Privatemusings (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)dunno why I called you Kimble by the way.... you're not a Fugitive are you? :-)

This is becoming problematic. OTOH, things have been going this direction for a while, apparently (especially the arbcom policy page), that's why I was supposed to be getting out of here. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC) perhaps you were thinking of Kimball?
If you guys want, I create my own "policies" and you can edit them as much and as often as you want. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sofixit template

I've never seen that template used for its intended purpose, so I thought it was a pointless template. Have you ever seen it used on a talk page? Maybe that was a little too bold of me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource

When you get a chance, I want to discuss with you Wikisource. I have a few texts that are missing from there that I can work on. We just talked about this before, so get a hold of me when you can. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What's your opinion of this?

Autopoiesis seems to be a modern biological theory, borrowing from Indian philosophy.

Hindus, Buddhists, etc., believe that evolution happens on a cosmic scale as well as a biological scale. So, the movement of things like stars can also be called, "life," in some sense and have some kind of consciousness\mental factors (often, they're associated with gods).

Is this just a wacky fringe theory with no basis, or is it a controversial yet interesting theory which might have merit?

In the Aggañña Sutta of Buddhism, the Buddha describes the creation of the earth as being various fine-material beings without bodies (presumably celestial bodies?) gorging on eachother out of desire, until they were reborn as more and more concrete objects, eventually things like plants, animals, humans, etc.. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ada Lovelace

I started a general clean up and update of our dear darling Lovelace. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to have a long conversation over Skype with Durova and explain to her the nuances of Consensus, Weight, and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So.

I disappeared for a while, and I feel really bad about it. I'm back now. Thought I'd say hi.--Tznkai (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

I would trust your judgment and unbiased opinion so as to ask you to give me some feedback at User_talk:Jossi/What_shoud_I_do ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahahaha...

Could spy satellites identify you by your shadow?

Hillarious! :D Kylu (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And totally cool, that could seriously work to quite some degree. Do you know how many (few) data points you actually need for gait analysis? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Policy Trifecta from Iceflow

Hi Kim.

The policy trifecta is basically 3 rules which are the foundation for the community within Wikipedia, and were the basis for the 5 pillars. They state that you should remain neutral (so you need to be unbiased when editing articles), you shouldn't be a dick, in other words, don't do things which make you look foolish. Pointing out the fact that someone is a dick, is a dick thing in itself, and finally, you need to Ignore all rules. If a rule or policy on Wikipedia prevents you from doing something to improve or help the site, you are free to ignore it, within reason.

I agree in some respects with the application of the trifecta, since it pretty much covers the minimum of what you need to do and know to help here. Neutrality is an important factor since, as an editor or administrator, you cannot expect other people to be unbiased if you yourself are not. Hippocracy will get you nowhere.

Not being a dick, while not actually being a policy, provides a fundamental understanding for editors not to behave inappropriately, and do things which make them look foolish. If someone politely tells you that you are being a dick, the chances are that you have to consider that they have a point.

And ignoring all rules gives you more scope to do things which you would normally be constrained by policy for. For example, if you need to CSD an article, as someone did for me recently, and you don't find a CSD Category which quite meets it, you can go ahead. This person assisted me with a CSD on an article which was screwed up beyond all belief, but didn't have a matching CSD category. He created one... "CSD G33 - Total train wreck".

The provision of these rules is a standpoint by which Wikipedia gets much of its work done, and which allows the smooth functioning of the site.

Thor Malmjursson (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

BRD in practice

And at a policy page at that. [1]. Further editing since. /NewbyG (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

wikibooks.ru

Do you need any help with your wikibooks.ru report? (Not completely altruistic suggestion :)) Then you could get more closely involved in mediating the dispute at MEDRS. (If you want that headache ;() Paul Gene (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Initiative.

Run with it. :-D Xavexgoem (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear!

I saw you wrote "Still, gotta keep trying eh?"

Could not agree with you more.

Btw, I'm back. :-) Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 05:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC comment

Thanks for your carefully worded observations. WP:Consensus of course gives no precise definition of how to assess a discussion as giving an overall outcome (and points about votes don't count, don't make consensus etc well appreciated and reflect quotes to similar points I had previosuly made). The RfC lasted about 3 weeks and I closed it when no further opinions expressed for 4 days; the various oppose points had been discussed by others and not continued further.

As per Eubulides' discussion point discussion on wording is being discussed generally very sensibly, and that is as it should be on tweaking a policy. Discussion on whether the page should have been promoted was discussed at length (WT:MEDRS#Rfc_Promotion_of_MEDRS_to_guideline) and onset of edit warring then commented upon (WT:MEDRS#Edit-warring_over_guideline_status), I did not take much part part in those discussions (main part held over the course of a week), as it seemed better to let others discuss the promotion, although I thought I was fairly even-handed in partly agreeing with Paul on need to consider carefully the worth of newspaper articles. Unfortunately disagreement over certain aspects of wording and emphasis been entangled somewhat over the issue of page status (likewise this intertwined at Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Consensus_being_replaced_by_silence_at_Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_.28medicine-related_articles.29.23Rfc_Promotion_of_MEDRS_to_guideline). As far as I can tell, Paul does not per se object to the page being a guideline if it addressed sources other than medical journal reviews in a manner more to his liking, but I can't see where this can now go for content resolution given the burnout of so many editors in the discussion so far - as someone had pointed out village pump not jumped in to help out, so not problem of failure to engage wider wikipediaship. I think points raised and Pauls own comments on his talk page are encouraging (not sure my presence there will help at this stage, so I'll keep low). But I have to wonder that if a page 22 months in development and with such prolonged RfC discussion does not count as sufficent discussion what chance can there now be (forget "Consensus 101", this goes back to the fifth floor of wikipedia development, not the 1st room on the 10th floor).

Not sure of what "clout" you can bring to bear (but I'm impressed with your input I've seen so far) or ability to muster up some additional opinions (which always helps give a broader view and helps focus discussions on issues vs group-vs-group conflict). Both at the time, and in retrospect, can commentary be given (I'd like to think I'm willing & able to learn) perhaps at the AN/I, here, or my talk page, on specific issues of:

  • my closing a 4-day quiet RFC and deciding to promote
  • choosing to act personally at all in the subsequent edit war over page guideline tagging (vs perhaps requesting another admin input from the AN/I). Frankly might have been easier to just user-block under simplier upholding of "edit warring is disruptive" (as others subsequently softly seemed to have agreed with at the AN/I) but that really had not seemed the best approach, and I went to some effort to explain my actions
  • whether reverting away from version of someone edit warring was correct in this case
  • whether page protection appropriate - both by any admin and then specifically myself, especially given the previous point.
  • Paul's talkpage reply to you quite sensibly wonders if actions technically correct vs wise, but other than letting discussion/arguement rumble on for even longer, what should mine or someone else's response have been - for almost without exception all in the dispute are very experienced editors
  • Likewise Paul wondered whether I should excuse myself and this I raised at the AN/I, where discussion went somewhat off the points sought :-) (as an aside also leaves unanswered the question of if, and by whom & when, the page should be unprotected - as no other admins seem to have offered to step in, sort of defaults to myself at some point to unprotect if a request so made)
  • I really don't have anything to contribute to WT:MEDRS discussion re usefulness of newspaper articles and how to decide to quote them for simpler language explanation or public impact issues (except that I think there is some usefullness of this), so I'm happy to stand back from specific content phrasing issues. I'm not sure though that someone disagreeing with an admin's action in a dipute should automatically mean that the admin must seek another admin's input - but again before the RfC/User was initiated, I did make offer for another admin to review and undo my revert/protection, but that not been forthcoming - rather seems the opposite leaving me propped-up in "the firing line" :-) or should that be :-( ? David Ruben Talk 22:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


Ok, let me think about the things you have said! --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I mostly agreed with your comment at the Rfc and asked in the spirit of goodwill to withdraw the Rfc.[2] Paul Gene (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

oi.

You are so unretired.--Tznkai (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Shoot. you're right. I'd better go off and code eh? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Mediation process

Would you please go ahead and educate me on what you are trying to do? Please provide the links to the ground rules. Will the unproductive accusations in "wikilawering" and "forum shopping" be dealt with swiftly and fairly? What about references to irrelevant essays with inflammatory names like WP:Fanatic or WP:Idiot? If I am supposed to keep mum except for answering your questions, how fast my response is expected? Why other people are commenting on the page on related and unrelated issues? Why Sandy and Colin can respond to others' comments and I cannot? How quickly will you respond with your following questions? You nudge me repeatedly and then disappear for several days. Thank you Paul Gene (talk) 08:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

How about contacting UnaSMith and NBauman who presented reasonable arguments against the "guideline"? Are you sure you are impartial? Paul Gene (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Stalemate again. Kim, please note that I based my recent suggestion [3] on the previous Colin's post[4]. Nevertheless, Colin appeared to answer "No" [5]. When I asked him to suggest something [6] he effectively answered "no" again.[7] And again.[8] His answers were 197 words and 277 words (MS WORD count) - a case for TLDR. Paul Gene (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Should we place a banner on the Talk page that the article is a subject of informal mediation to discourage irrelevant threads? Paul Gene (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Voting again took place on MEDRS page (see [9] with a friendly admin making the changes. Does the group that owns WP:MEDRS ever learn anything? Their modus operandi seems to be to drive the people who oppose them from the page with endless arguments and insults. (Which happened with Nbauman, Una Smith, Ludwigs2) Then they call a vote, which is speedily concluded within a day by proclaiming "consensus". Please note that I did not vote as to not inflame the war, and because you asked me not to participate in any discussions beyond my part. How can I trust them now? How can I trust you? Paul Gene (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Medcab followup

Hiya, you'd asked me to let you know when I saw a problem with another Medcab case. So, here I am.  :) Could you perhaps help out at Talk:Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA)? Thanks, --Elonka 21:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:BRD1.svg

seems to have a bad bleed through from the original image on the right hand side, at about 20% transparency. I noticed this, then found you based it on another image, and thought you might be interested. I do graphics and know how you can miss something on a CRT that will show up on a LCD. Or maybe you did this on purpose, but it was a bit distracting to follow the actual meaning of the image, so was guessing not. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 21:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Entirely deliberate. I'm trying to show how and where the two schematics are related.
It's hard to judge exactly how much transparency to use though, and as you notice there's some difference between different monitors. (Also, this trick works better when you *darken* things rather than when you lighten them, apparently... oops-ish)
Would you know other ways to arrange the image to both show the relationship between BRD and regular consensus-finding, and address your own concerns?
(Possibilities might be to place annotation on the left side, to use light-on dark (due to light-on-dark having better contrast on monitors), or .. be creative? :-) )
--Kim Bruning (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes to medcab

Check it out here. Was talking with Seddon, Roux, PhilKnight... haven't gotten Vassyana's opinion on it, but I think it'll be alright. Any opinions? Xavexgoem (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Philosophical/Implementation(I think you'll like this one)

Notwithstanding your belligerent optimism, and how we can take down the hierarchy (I think this is what you have in mind, OODA thinking not meaning much when you're facing a behemoth...c'mon, Boyd wasn't comparing the tactics of pilots vis-a-vis an ICBM fired and locked onto it ;-) )...

...where was I? Here's my point:

  • User - autoconfirmed, longstanding, blahblahblah
  • Trusted User - we like the person. We genuinely do. S/he's good. AGF it's always there; we never have to worry about it.
  • Admin - Phase1: same as always: candidates aint gonna be much better anytime soon, and that's a status quo nightmare to fight. But phase 2, and assuming the "Trust User" mechanism gets some credit for improving the project, it might become natural that you gotta be trusted before you get to an admin
  • Crat et al <Yawn>

This new "Trusted User" and the old "Admin" were--in respect to each other (an impression I get from you oldies)--one and the same. Obviously, this is not the case anymore. So, in light of at least some hard-to-come-across-these-days potential, how 'bout driving a wedge into this little rusty crack in our current system...?

=)

Xavexgoem (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom vote

I'm here for details. :) What exactly do you mean by binding decisions? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If by binding decisions you meant the whole Editorial Council thing, I urge you to read this reply I gave to another editor about that very same topic. In it, I indicate my rationale and reasoning behind such a proposal, including what I learned from its failure to gain community consensus. One of those lessons - that binding content decisions were unreasonable in the eyes of the community - I plan to apply when I redraft the EdCo proposal as something that would be, as I note in the diff, "a purely advisory, non-binding content-related" group to provide a "rudder" to major content disputes. It would be impossible for such a group to infringe upon, supplant or usurp community consensus. I've learned my lessons about binding decisions. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think you mean my answer to Sarcasticidealist's question #1. My observation of the events now forming a nascent ArbCom case, as described here, have led me to acknowledge I was wrong about my original answer. I'm not trying nor expecting to change your vote, I'm just trying to generate light instead of heat. Happy editing. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Dang, apparently they already closed. :-( FWIW, with your current position, I would have switched to support :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

and Merry Christmas to you, you heathen bast... I mean, you consensus loving wonderful individual, you. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Kim Bruning,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocking policy

We are working on a consensus revision on Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Suggestions_and_compromise_versions and need more eyes. We'd be happy to have your input on this whenever you're able to contribute to the discussion. Cheers, --05:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there

Happy new year, Kim! I thought you might want to know about this proposal, which is being voted on (rather than being discussed), and the gist of which is to make certain important decisions on Wikipedia not based on Consensus, but strictly on a headcount of the amount of people supporting the decision, regardless of how many people are opposed to it. Thought you might want to know. Cheerio, >Radiant< 21:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Well, everyone else was wishing you a Happy New Year, so I figured I'd do it, too. I spent New Year's with your scarf. Just lovely! & warm! I see you're away. Praps you'll get this message next year. ;) Jkbaum (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

EPISODE

I reverted your change. There was no consensus for anything in that discussion. A couple people voiced their support and their opposition, while others just talking about where they would like the page to go once WP:FICT becomes official. When there is no consensus, the page reverts back to its normal existence.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is incorrect. No one can judge consensus directly, so you cannot take actions based on your direct judgment of consensus. ("I am taking action x because it does/does not have consensus" is therefore a meaningless phrase). The default action is not to revert, the default action is to do nothing.
Whether or not you choose to do something is based on your personal view of the situation, and personal responsibility. If you disagree with a change, you edit further, if you agree with a change or can see further improvements, you edit further too. If you think a previous state is closest to your ideal, and you cannot think of a way to edit, you may as a last resort choose to revert, however, this might be considered rude.
In this specific situation, only if you disagreed with the change, then your revert was correct. If you agreed with the change you should not have reverted. If unsure, you should not have reverted (instead you should have let someone else who is sure make a change).
Every edit requires a specific reasoning behind it ([[WP:WIARM actually explains that you need to do this, what a lot of people don't realize is that if you need to explain yourself correctly even when you are ignoring all rules, then you absolutely must explain yourself when you think you are following them). In this case the provided reasoning is spurious, because as we just stated in the general case, it is impossible for an individual to find out what the actual consensus is. Once again, your options are:
  • IF you agree with the edit THEN take no action
  • ELSE IF you partially agree/disagree, OR see potential improvements THEN edit to a version you can agree to (move closer to consensus)
  • ELSE IF you disagree THEN attempt to edit
  • ELSE IF you disagree AND no edit can fix the situation THEN you MAYRFC 2119. revert; if you do, you MUSTRFC 2119 supply a valid explanation.
  • ELSE IF the edit was vandalism or etc. THEN simply revert
  • ELSE in all other cases, do nothing.
(all other cases includes the trivially true statement "I don't see that people have consensus". It is impossible to determine with certainty that people have consensus, so you will never see people have consensus. See also: WP:SILENCE)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

15 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

Please explain to EVula here that trying to mark something as "resolved" after merely 8 minutes during a discussion about a serious matter is not enough time to adequately form a consensus, especially when there are only three participants besides the notifier at the time. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Note - I ask merely because you like to lecture on and on about Consensus, and EVula, who wants to become a Steward, would probably benefit from such a lecture. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy Day!

  • Happy Day!
    Happy Day!

Jkbaum (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Reageer eens

Op skype ... Waerth (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Obnosis/Lisa Kachold and Scientology

Please review the links and explain clearly how any of the full list of sources does not meet description for Wikipedia WP:BIO? [[10]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.119.178 (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked through all of them before I offered my opinion of course, but I couldn't quite figure out why any of them really made the subject notable. (And some didn't actually directly link to a useful page :-/). That could be me just be me, perhaps?
Can you pick one and walk me through it? If you can convince me, I'll change my stated opinion, and I'm sure such an argument could convince others too.
I'm basically on the fence at the moment, my opinion as stated is to preserve the text, but keep it on a user page until we figure things out. I'm not prepared to actually go and delete the page, because personally I don't have a good argument to do that.--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:I just don't like it

You have a grasp of these sorts of things. Read. Enjoy. Edit without mercy. And so forth. Uncle G (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A theory of yawning.

Hey, do you remember me? A long time ago??

Just a few moments ago, I had a suddenly had a theory of yawning that I wanted to ask if you thought sounded plausible, and if I could send it somebody, maybe somebody might find it to be a useful thing to look into?

To be brief: If you think of the heart and breath as a complex metronome with various inputs (time of day, energy level, stress level, mood, etc.), that metronome often needs to adjust. Yawning is a way of adjusting\resetting this rhythm. I had this idea because I noticed that when you yawn in the morning, it has the psychological effect of making you more awake. When you yawn at night, it makes you feel more tired. Not sure why it's contagious, though.

Anyway, I didn't see this in the list of theories in the Yawning article. Is my silly theory plausible? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

I saw that you were listed in the Coaches for reconfirmation section of the admin coaching status page. Could you please update your status, and if you are still interested, drop me a note on my talk page? Thanks, Genius101Guestbook 14:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hola!

Haven't been heavily editing in some time my friend, just wanted to stop by and say hi. Hope all is well in your wikiworld.

--Wgfinley (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really editing at all atm! Nice to hear from you though! --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Dank voor je stem

Otto (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC) lijsttrekker De Groenen

Policy

...is descriptive, not prescriptive. We all know this - well, all who have been here for a few years, anyway.

Where is (was) this stated, and why can I not find it anywhere prominent now? Who moved it, darnit? And why??? Or am I just having a senile moment? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a bunch of people who want to prescribe policy to people who keep removing it everywhere it pops up, I think. Otherwise, perhaps its one of those "oops we actually forgot to write that down" pages. Would you care to write one? (It'll end up as a contested essay, I'm willing to bet, but at least it'll be written ;-) ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Heck no, I was thinking of adding it to several key policy pages. Wanna help? KillerChihuahua?!? 10:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't have much time at the moment, since I'm mostly coding. I can only afford to be The Cavalry :-/ . However, if you run into trouble, either light a beacon on the mountaintops or (if that seems a tad too epic) at least e-mail me, and I'll be there and cover your six. --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Okie dokie. I note your link #2 indicates So, against all hope, they have to call on the sorts of people who may not want to help or even like them. which is rather discouraging, but I am an Intrepid Puppy with a Cause, so I will sally forth anyway. ...huh, I note the list of heroes does not list the "reluctant hero". Might want to look into that. Tally ho! KillerChihuahua?!? 11:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Re link#2, oops. I just thought the whole lighting beacons on mountain tops thing was cool. I should have read more of the text, sorry about that. In any case, I got you covered, should you need it ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Still busy practicing use of Other Wikis

g'day kb

hope you're well :-) - I saw your post at jimbo's talk page and wondered what soft security is (maybe that's a blue link? we'll see!) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)ps. I gave a talk last night called 'wikis will eat themselves' - do think this is true?

ah c'mon - I know you're out there! I demand wisdom and engineering support in bridge building.! Privatemusings (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh I thought your previous question had self-solved, what with it automagically turning blue and all ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing

Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.

Notice delivery by xenobot 14:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Your straw poll

If it's a straw poll, then you need to make it clearer, I guess. Are you asking whether people believe that noindex violates the foundation principles? Gigs (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I reopened the statements section, so it's kind of moot. You can put your additional position up there, and move the talk to the talk page. Gigs (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why the threaded discussion can't go on the talk page. Gigs (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Because it has become interlaced with poll positions. Injudicious Tampering can be a blockable offence. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What time is it?

Not brains. Pudding.

Don't edit after 5 AM, your brain gets all mushy, like puding. I'm just sayin'. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's 23:06 CEST. No problem ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I'm at UTC+0200, so just worry if I'm up past 03:00 UTC ;-) check the time

Emailing Shuhari

I'm shooting off that email now. I'd CC you but I don't have your address.

Kim Bruning asked me to contact you regarding some usability issues surrounding userpages.

Currently the User: namespace is indexed in Google, and includes things like POV forks of articles, incomplete articles that have never existed in namespace, deleted articles, and blatant "fake articles" created for advertising purposes. Many of these things have been specifically allowed by community consensus, which has traditionally been very lenient about userspace content.

There is currently a discussion around the following proposals: 1. Prevent indexing by google of the User: namespace. * There is majority support for this, but no real consensus.

2. Include a warning on user pages so that it is obvious to the casual reader that they are not looking at an encyclopedia article. * There is a pretty strong consensus for this.

What we'd like your feedback on specifically is in determining what sort of warning there should be on User pages in order to clearly and immediately communicate that the reader is not looking at an encyclopedia article.

The discussion is at: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/User_page_indexing

The proposals, statements, and straw polls are at: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_page_indexing

Gigs (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it may turn out that we don't actually want any kind of warning, who knows. My name probably won't help much either. But let's see what we hear back eh? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Gilan

Dear Mr.Kim, I wanted to ask you if it would be possible to extend the time for discussion about the name change, becuse I have lately seen this discussion. user:Parthava only wanted to inform us in the gilaki wikipedia, because there are many people in that wiki whose knowledge in this issue was imprtant to notice, and it was not at all something like Canvassing. The name Republic of Gilan is the most used name for this Republic nowadays, even in Iran's history books taught in the schools it is refered to Republic of Gilan. It is the most common name. if you use google books search , You 'll find 494 results for " Republic of gilan", while there is only 42 results for " Persian Socialist Soviet Republic" or 133 results for "Soviet Socialist Republic of iran" . The current name is misleading, it says persian republic as if it included all of Iran, but we all know that this republic was limited to the borders of Gilan. sicas 09:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Policy

Hey there. I saw your response, but I also saw that it is, er, very large :) (and unsigned). I'd like to respond but it's currently much too difficult. Would you mind moving the article+comments into, say, /sandbox? It will be much easier, too, if we can focus on one thing at a time. Perhaps pick the single most important issue, mention that there are others, and link the sandbox page. I'm especially interested in your objections, since much of the other feedback has been very positive.    M   16:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I've tried to start a small part of that discussion of policies and guidelines, that you had wanted to get to, up on the talk page. It's going pretty well so far. I'd really appreciate your input on this, since I think you'd be able to clear some of the confusion and core disagreements up.    M   19:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV cleanup

I just misidentifies you as Kim Lind in an edit summary - sorry.

Parts of NPOV sure have become a mess! I just did a bunch of very bold edits, please go over them when you have a chance and maybe you will see cause for more edits. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits to policies and guidelines

Hey, thanks. I'm going to wait a little while to edit that section again, since I'd rather not be seen as edit-warring. But you could of course restore my wording if you like it. :) PSWG1920 (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried again, this time simply leaving out "descriptive" and "prescriptive" as that seems to be the best direction to go all things considered. As I technically have three reverts in the last 24 hours I'll wait at least another 24 hours before editing that section again. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Now someone thinks that I'm being disruptive with these kinds of edits. As I see it I've been following BRD, starting with D in the case in question, and pruning as suggested by WP:CREEP. Do you think I'm out of line here? PSWG1920 (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably not, if what you are saying is accurate. However, the community does seem to be changing. Do ask for (meta) feedback. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting in that discussion. I felt that I had some good points as to why the section in question was flawed, and am obviously disappointed in the direction the discussion went. While consensus appeared to be against removing the section, I wanted to discuss the prospect of changing it, but by then the thread had gone off-topic. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
What's the odds for bringing it back on-topic? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure not inclined to try, given what had happened. However, if you think there is merit to my arguments you could of course have a crack at it. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A question for you

I took an intro to biology course over the past few months and just learned about the Central dogma of molecular biology: DNA-->RNA-->Protein

My question is: What comes before DNA?

See this article from MSNBC: ‘Biocentrism’: How life creates the universe. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

DNA is the part of a cell that gets copied every time a cell divides (and both new cells get 1 copy). So DNA comes from DNA. That's what makes it special.--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the greeting

I'm curious to see what's changed and what hasn't, but I'm glad regardless that a few old hands are still around who remember me. I don't know yet how active I'll be, but more active than I've been the previous couple of years, at least. :-) Jwrosenzweig (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:5P and WP:Be Bold

The main reason I hesitated to post directly to the article page is because there are certain editors who, if they disagree with any one feature of a large revision, will revert the whole thing. But revisions like the ones I've proposed really consist of a lot of small changes, and it would make me upset if they got reverted in their entirety, rather than if the components could be examined for their individual merits. Frankly, if every single word of the previous version were added back by hand, I would not be offended at all. I just think it's a shame that some editors think the Revert tool is a civilized way to engage in a discussion. (Can you point me in the direction of any essays on Wikipedia along the lines of, "Reverting is rude?") Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 23:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We're actually discussing pretty much that kind of thing at WT:CONSENSUS right now. If you would care to submit your experience, perhaps we can make a writeup about that somewhere? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. I'll follow the discussion for a bit. By the way, I enjoyed many of the links you've gathered at your user page. WP:The Zen of Wikipedia was particularly enjoyable, and was on my mind when you showed me the WikiPedia quote from Ward Cunningham.
Ahh, I see you have posted a reply at 5P. Be right there. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 00:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Capitol image

Good call, Kim! kmccoy (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Third_version_of_proposal

hi kim, it's been a pleasure working with you over at WT:5P. Here's another proposal which you might want to peek at. thanks. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 16:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This one is a lot trickier. There isn't much that can go wrong with WP:5P, IMHO. I'm a lot less surefooted about NPOV. <scratches head> --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

village pump proposal

Here's another one for ya! Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 01:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

PS I stole your emoticon

While you are away

Just to reassure you... I will not be proposing or making any further changes to WP:CONSESNUS while you are away at Wikimania.

um... you don't call demoting it to an essay a "change" do you? I mean the language is still the same, so it isn't really a change ... is it?

OK... just kidding. Enjoy Wikimania. Blueboar (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

<quickly hides the bazooka behind my back>
Actually, feel free to make changes, no worries. I wouldn't be a good proponent of consensus or boldness if I didn't ask you to do so :-)
If there's anything I really don't like after wikimania, I'll just come back and discuss it with you, because consensus can change of course. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

3RR

I haven't counted your reverts at Consensus, but you almost certainly violated 3RR, which says that every time you undo another editor's work, in whole or in part, it counts as a revert, even if it involves different material each time. I don't want to report you for it, but the amount of reverting you're doing, given that it's policy and that no one appears to support you, is not acceptable, so please tone it down. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Prescriptive

What do you think of the following:

Editors take positions not only on what's true, but on what ought to be - and these are not the same thing. There is a community-wide consensus that 'all vandalism should be removed'. This doesn't imply a consensus that 'all vandalism is, was, or will be removed', though. The first position is prescriptive, the second descriptive. When there is community-wide consensus on some prescriptive issue, we try to describe it in policy, as in "the community thinks editors should not X". We often write "don't X" or "editors shouldn't X" or "X is strongly discouraged", for brevity. Policies do and should contain such prescriptive statements. The alternatives to this include:

  1. Pure description, "vandalism annoys many editors, since they think it is unencyclopedic, so they will revert you"
  2. Total attribution, with "it is generally accepted that editors should ..." preceding every prescriptive line
  3. Legal descriptions, "at the sole discretion of an admin, but subject to review, an editor has edit warred if ... and is subject to ..."

All three are inappropriate. The first is a strange sort of moral nihilism. The second seems pedantic. The third makes policies themselves the source of authority, which is precisely what many people want to avoid.

Would you disagree with it? Is it clear?    M   01:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Medcab 5 pillars

Hah, I don't think any of us can take that case as long as you are a party to it! Gigs (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ola!

— Nearly Headless Nick {C} 00:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Namaste! --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Did I spell that right?
Yes, you did! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 00:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC) नमस्ते
Kim Bruning in Hindi : किम ब्रुनिंग. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 00:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Cool, can you link to the transliteration engine? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
www.google.com/transliterate/indic — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 00:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

NullBook

The theme I use is Nullbok. The geometric mean of the infinitely many denominators of the continued fraction of almost all real numbers that I compute seems to be K0. —mako๛ 20:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Merging WP:UIAR into WP:IAR?

Since you're a major contributor to one or the other of these documents, I'm writing to let you know about a proposed merger which I wrote about at: Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means#Understanding IAR and Wikipedia_talk:Understanding_IAR#Merge. Any input on this would be appreciated.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Kim Bruning's Day!

User:Kim Bruning has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Kim Bruning's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Kim Bruning!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA comments

I just wanted to say I appreciate your comments at RfA. I get so tired of seeing the pack of lemmings headed off the cliff whenever someone comes up with a solution on Wikipedia. So little effort is ever undertaken to look for problems and then find solutions to the problems. Instead, everyone has their pet theory on what's wrong with wikipedia and lo and behold they've got a solution to fix it. Well, I've got my own pet theories on what's wrong with the world, the EU, Africa, the environment, and not surprisingly I have my own pet solutions for them. Not one of them is worth the paper they're not written down on because not one of them has seen me expend a microgram of effort to analyze the problem with a reasoned approach. Anyways, it's nice to see someone else trying hard not to be a lemming. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines

I was wondering if you would be willing to back inclusion of the phrase "policies are descriptive of our common practices, not prescriptive procedures" as a short and sweet addition in replace of the sentence currently in the article stating they should be adhered to and "used by all editors". And if you agree to further perhaps stating that IAR is the overriding policy at the end of the paragraph.Camelbinky (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Geni/2D barcodes and museums

I think this is pretty much ready to be put to the commumity. Any final comments?©Geni 17:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem?

I'm having trouble determining if this is the result of an honest misunderstanding, or simply snide sarcasm. Would you care to elaborate? Equazcion (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)]

--moved irrelevant exchange here from WT:POLICY -- Equazcion (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a novel proposal: We could use a wiki someplace? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what this means. Equazcion (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I sort of gathered that from your previous comment, yeah. :-/ <scratches head> --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Cryptic comments, while I'm sure very satisfying, aren't constructive. If you have a problem with something I've said, Kim, by all means describe it. I've left you a comment on your talk page. Feel free to respond there. Equazcion (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm certainly not being deliberately cryptic. I'm just trying to figure out how the heck I can explain what I would like to see done, if you truely have no idea what it means to use a wiki. I must admit I'm somewhat put out by that, since this is wikipedia, after all. I'll assume good faith for now though. Please do allow me some time to think of a more extensive answer? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
When I said "I have no idea what this means", I meant your comment didn't make any sense to me as a response. Since you've clarified that you actually thought I meant I didn't know how to use a wiki, and your previous comment was that you had that suspicion already, then you were attempting to insult me. Please direct your insults to the conversation I began on your talk page (or leave them on mine). Better yet, don't make them at all. Equazcion (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Let's not disrupt the policy discussion with this silliness. If you have a problem with me, don't be scared. Discuss it with me in an appropriate venue -- such as here. Equazcion (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Your proposal was to work by hand. I thought I was reminding you (in a good natured way) that we actually have a wiki consisting of thousands upon thousands of lines of PHP at our disposal.
You don't seem to be catching on though, so I've replaced my reply with a rather more blunt answer.
Sorry about that. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I still have no idea what you're saying. "Work by hand"? In what context? This is just as cryptic as your previous comments. I was suggesting discussion; What exactly are you suggesting? Perhaps I'm not as smart as you, but in the future, take pity on me and spell it right out to avoid any confusion. The only part of this I did understand was "Sorry about that", so apology accepted. Equazcion (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Your proposal is to have everyone write down proposed texts on the talk page and all that. That's *all* work by hand. There are perfectly decent, very fast, procedures to rapidly enter multiple variants of a text into the wiki directly, compare and select them. (history, diffs, reversion, etc.) This is supported by a very large amount of PHP code (diff highlighting, security, user attributiuon, diff comparison ui, etc etc etc...) , this is easy to work with, and has been perfected and proven over a period of over 7 years.
I'm just getting a bit tired of people insisting on arbitrary, inefficient make-work. Why would I support taking hours, days, weeks doing everything by hand, if we have proven procedure and proven working code with which it can be done in (often) under 24 hours? I mean, seriously?
Anyway, sorry if I come across as a bit testy. I hope you see why now? :-)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
We've got a dispute though. Editors involved in disputes trying to edit the same page to make it sound like they want has historically not resulted well, despite the millions of lines of PHP. Only one version can be up at once. That's why we try to settle disputes before going back to editing. You really think that's a bad practice? PS. I wasn't suggesting everyone write down suggestion, just the two major parties. I do understand now how you were feeling, and it's really a relief to see you actually expressing yourself finally. I was getting frustrated not knowing what the hell was going on in your head :) But it's alright now, really. Equazcion (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
There's a lot of implied background that "newer" wikipedians don't necessarily share with old wikipedians. Sometimes it's hard to figure out how explicit you need to be. :-/
I partially disagree with "only one version can be up at once", (beyond the obvious). Namely, you can certainly put up multiple versions, it's just that they're all in history. If you simply "put your version up" once (and don't foul up page history with revert wars and stuff), and the other person does so too; well, it's actually a rare occurrence where you *can't* find at least some similarities, and edit the page to contain those matches. This builds up credibility and good faith. Both editors can then edit and/or discuss each further aspect of the diff fairly easily too.
The wiki is actually designed to work that way :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
It would be good to discuss ideas based on diffs, but I don't see that happening here. This is a heated dispute, and in heated disputes editors have historically been less open to compromise and more interested in making sure their version is the one showing on the page, its history not meaning all that much to them. You can suggest your idea though -- each editor make their preferred edit, then we would have the diffs to discuss (this sentence would be an example of clearly stating your idea... :) ). Just hope it doesn't turn into an edit war, that's all. Equazcion (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
PS. I've been here for ~4 years, have 22,000 edits, and some PHP/MySQL experience. You may want to consider the possibility that you're just not using clear enough language. That's a friendly suggestion, I assure you :) Equazcion (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I am open to friendly suggestions. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Typing speed is irrelevant

It's not a matter of typing quickly: type your response in a text file (offline), and simply paste it in when you're done. You can keep the page open for just a few seconds this way. If everyone did this, the likelihood of edit conflicts would be nearly zero. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

An edit conflict is a situation where what you have written may no longer be in sync with what is currently on the page. The point of an edit conflict message is to point out that someone has started typing after you have, and to alert you to the fact that what you are typing may no longer be (fully) relevant or fit on the page.
So edit conflicts (the actual concept) still occur, even if the warning message is suppressed (for instance by the method you propose).
(Incidentally, the only method I know that is truely superior to edit conflict detection is Operational transformation. Wikipedia isn't *quite* ready for that yet. But don't be surprised if you see it on experimental wikis in the next year or so. ;-) )
--Kim Bruning (talk)
The technical edit conflict problem could be handled better though. [11] Equazcion (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah! I've seen that bug before. I agree with your comments there and here. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Found this in my user space

I forgot all about this, but I remember being so impressed with what you said one day i turned it into a user space essay. See User:Hiding/Editing policies. You may want to keep it handy. Hiding T 21:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You kept it? Interesting! --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought it was too. Even more interesting was the fact that I had forgotten I kept it. Hiding T 13:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Party!

Not the fun type though. Since WP:Village pump (proposals)#Move to republicanism? and similar other ideas for further bureaucrating and politicizing Wikipedia seem to be gaining traction I am thinking of writing an essay and preparing the groundwork for a potential "Wikipedia political party" based on defending IAR and wp:NOTSTATUTE, promoting the trifecta over the five pillars, defending and promoting use of common sense, and the primacy of consensus; should any sort of "representative" body that is elected by the community with the purpose to impose and maintain our policies "for us" because there are too many Wikipedians. The "party" would then put up candidates for whatever representative body develops and keep members informed about what candidates are "endorsed" by the party, keep them informed on relevant policy page discussions, encourage votes, pretty much everything a real pol party does (except we dont need money!). If some want to have a representative body and further organize and bureaucratize Wikipedia, I figure we should be prepared for it and fight within the system (plus I'm a poli sci grad student so this is what I do for a living!) Since you share similar views to mine, I was wondering if you are interested in helping to draft such an essay and/or in joining/organizing such a "party", which of course would start off as just a list of editors who sign on in agreement to said essay and ideals/beliefs of the direction Wikipedia should head. If you are interested I can detail on a sandbox off my user page further thoughts, and you can put your personal thoughts as well thus getting an essay off the ground.Camelbinky (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The RSS code

What would help me the most is a live version of that code on a working installation that has some meat on it. Do you have this anywhere? Gigs (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's ask Amgine (I'll be on irc later today, after work). Otherwise I could try to run it on a box of my own, I suppose. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20818#c19

Your uncivil, personal reply to me

Your reply to me was quite personal, very rude, and I am not a troll. I "Capice" just fine. I'm not an idiot.

You want me to "feel free to join in when [I'm] done voting"? Tell me how I can concense, but there's no need to be rude. I did not offend or insult you. I didn't write anything about you, personally, or about anyone else.

IAR doesn't mean WP has no rules (policies and guidelines). I assume that you got very personal on the project talk page because you needed to ignore the WP:NPA and incivility rules, that don't exist, to improve or maintain Wikipedia.

Please don't flame me in haste, like it's nothing, again. Count to 10 or "walk on by." -- Rico 09:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Masochist me

Hey, Kim. I finally decided I wanted the mop. Would you be willing to nom or co-nom me? (I'm waiting on DGG's answer for the time being.)--Father Goose (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Kim Bruning! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Jan Terlouw - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

  • gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

Apologies

I thought it was a spelling error. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

A Fact , you changed my statement to mean almost the exact opposite.
AFAICT you meant well, and that counts for a lot.
;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Okie Dokie, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to be punny, you know. ;-) Have a Great Day! --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Hehehehe. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Not funny

I don't appreciated being called an angry seal on his talk page. If you've got such great rapport, make him stop. Hipocrite (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a great deal of respect for Kim, but I am afraid that I'm my own man. But I have always found that Kim has a great sense of humour, coupled with an excellent sense of justice so I did as suggested and removed "inappopriate" animals. How you could be offended by a seal is beyond me, really. For someone so willing to jump into disputes and do things like ask for recall procedure and start up user RFCs, you are quite sensitive! But perhaps it's not a good idea to make changes to my user talk page other than edit your own comments? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Please stop wikistalking me. Hipocrite (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Please stop commenting about me behind my back and doing things like adding my name to Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests and filing a user RFC, which when discovered you promptly take to CSD. Perhaps then I'll not need to ensure that you aren't still attacking me. All of the things I've commented on so far have been in some way related to something about myself. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really

Re: [12]. The possible outcomes are: User:Juliancolton closes it as "no consensus" or User:Spartaz closes it as "delete, no sources". Consensus depends on who's reading it, much like election outcomes in Russia depended on who counted the votes a while back. ;-) Pcap ping 16:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh. And why bother with messing with the count, when you can control the questions? ;-) Wikipedia_talk:Community_de-adminship/Draft_RfC#A_simple_model --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Your analogy is spot on

...and when a quiet voice says "Hey, maybe we should review our decision-making process to ensure it's producing rational output — like not driving into the wall..." a chorus rises up to throw the quiet voice under the bus. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
A touch of meatball:DefendEachOther would be appreciated! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC) And it's just one person, not a chorus, fortunately. I think they just read my post the wrong way. I'm sure they'll reread and apologise! :-)
I guess we misread them. I've apologised. && That was *very* interesting. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship (WP:CDA)

I've seen many things on Wikipedia, but I've never seen anyone suggest that someone should be asked by the editors present to actually leave the topic before (however they have been behaving - and I've seen it all, believe me). Wikipedia is a community project, and you simply have to address opinions you don't like, not try and clear them out of the way (whether you think it is good for the project or not),

You actually made a good point - by trying to highlight the foolishness of the "us v them" mentality, I have actually been perpetrating it, and at a time when those who have previously been highly critical (and often unconstructively dismissive) of CDA - for whatever reason - have actually been slowly getting more involved. I wish you could have just pointed that out, instead of suggesting that people tell me to leave. One or two people have really tried to castigate and squash CDA (again for whatever reason), and instead of asking them to leave, I've had to stick my neck out to stop their momentum. It's been a thankless task, but doing that always is.

Only serious offenses should remove someone from a topic, not differences of opinion. Matt Lewis (talk) 7:45 pm, Today (UTC+0)

On the other hand, Kim, I happen to largely agree with your take on Matt's multiple disruptions being the worst enemy of Cda, and I thank you for posting your concerns. His self-congratulatory attack rhetoric, needless pedantic squabbles, insistence on unreasonable delay and his unilateral editing have brought discredit to Cda and may well have doomed the project. Jusdafax 20:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Dot around all the sour interjections you like. I believe in consensus, and since I came along, I have taken a load of flak off people that was largely caused by your own explicitly anti-consensus behavour. And possibly your earlier behaviour too, though I think people's claims of being roundly ignored are exaggerated. You did everything you could to jeopardise the planned finalisation poll (which was only named that, and rushed too, just to try and placate you), and in light of the current good work at CDA, for you to suggest it should still have been rushed through is crazy. You almost took it to instant failure, it is now starting to look like a professional proposal. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
If people misbehave and fail to work towards consensus, they should be sanctioned, of course. Topic bans are actually a fairly gentle form of sanction, and they are applied from time to time.
Matt, you *did* call me a troll; for posting a mathematical model, no less. That generally makes good faith editors a little angry and confused, as you might imagine.
But I now understand that you generally mean well; so if you're willing to apologise for the trolling part, I'll gladly (continue to) cooperate with you! --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Kim, I never spoke to you about your mathematic model - that was all Sswonk I think. All I did was move your section upwards to be a subsection of the poll analysis (where it fits in with all the other analysis). I replied to your other later section, but did so absolutely normally I thought. I'm not sure that I've ever directly called anyone a "troll" by name in all my time on Wikipedia. I certainly wouldn't have done it to you. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler

Hi, Kim Bruning. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, a discussion in which you participated, was closed as redirect to Open Watcom Assembler. Open Watcom Assembler has now been nominated for deletion due to notability concerns. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Admin Coaching: Reconfirmation

I was looking through the coaches at Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Status and saw that there are a lot under "reconfirmation".

Could you let me know if you are still interesting in being involved with Admin Coaching, or if you would prefer to have your name removed from the "reconfirmation" list. If you want to be involved, could you please move your entry from "Reconfirmation" to "Active" and indicate how many students you would be willing to have (obviously, if you are actively coaching at the moment, then please indicate this!)

If I do not hear from you within a week, I will assume that you would like to have your name removed from the list of coaches.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was off the list already. I wouldn't mind organising some Wikipedia:Lectures again, for admins under coaching, if folks are interested. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I hadn't heard about the Lectures before! And for clarification: do you want to be removed from the list? (Oh, and if you have coached before, would you rather be moved to the "retired" section?) Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll talk with anyone who wants coaching informally; I'm not really into formal coach-coachee assignments ;-). And like I said, I'll organize a lecture if folks are interested. I don't think there's coaching categories for either though, at least, not atm ;-) Up to you how you want to put it! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Completion of WP:PWD extension

I am pleased to announce the alpha release of the PWD extension. You can see the prototype here. Please report any bugs you may encounter and feel free to provide suggestions for enhancement. I also started a thread at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Pure_wiki_deletion.2C_redux. Thanks, Tisane (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

\o/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

mw:Extension:PWD - If I have some copious free time, I'll dl the code and mess around, if you like. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

See my comments at mw:Extension_talk:PWD#Draft_code_posted. Tisane (talk) 03:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting a second wind, so I think I'll take over again. Tisane (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like things aren't going so well at Village Pump Proposals. Perhaps this isn't the best wiki on which to introduce this idea. What about the Dutch Wikipedia? Maybe you could post a message to their forum? Tisane (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kim Bruning. You have new messages at BullRangifer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Brangifer (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback iadrian

Hello, Kim Bruning. You have new messages at Iadrian yu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

iadrian iadrian (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Kim Bruning. You have new messages at Iadrian yu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

iadrian (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

Are you in touch with Waerth? He has not written anything today on nl. --VanBurenen (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think he's probably ok. I sent him an e-mail just to be sure (because you asked :-)) . He might have lost power or internet for a while though. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Have you heard anything? No reaction on nl. --VanBurenen (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi again

Hi Kim, It was a pleasure to meet and chat with you on Friday in London. Hopefully something we can repeat. :-)

I was wondering if I could ask for you help in answering a question. User:SavantIdiot has left me a message on my talk page regarding suggestions on improving Wikipedia's colour scheme for the benefit of colour blind users.

I'm not quite sure who to refer this to. Given your length of experience and extensive knowledge of Wikipedia, I thought you might be able to help direct me.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 13:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Until very recently, I would have referred you to Naoko Komura (User:Shuhari ). Let me see who you need now... --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Opinion_Colors <- this page seems relevant. Note that it is possible to use a custom skin, so -for instance- one could design one's own skin to offset particular forms of color-blindness.
I'll ask around some more this evening (at work right now) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've asked User:Bastique; he recommends you ask User:Eloquence. You may need to use Wikipedia e-mail to reach him reliably. :-)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much Kim, I appreciate the help. I will pass the information on to User:SavantIdiot.
Cheers! -- Marek.69 talk 11:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Gdansk

Hi, our panel has been accepted for Gdansk and Coren has joined it. ϢereSpielChequers 15:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yay... I think ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. MBisanz talk 02:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Your last name pronunciation

What's the pronunciation for your last name? Like grooving? Or like done-ing? Wizardist (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Halfway between the two. If you're on skype sometime, I'll tell you in detail. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
You can add me at p.selitskas, though I'm not very fluent in speaking English :) Wizardist (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm having trouble finding you. Try search skype for my name? --Kim Bruning (talk)

Herr Bruning

Ik bel je vanavond even. Zag je niet op Skype de afgelopen week. Waerth (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Roger roger. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the talk page messages

...including the now deleted one...

I do appreciate your opinion on it. My having a strong opinion doesn't mean I don't value what others on the project think about it.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

zero-tolerance

Jimbo's talk page:"Well, if we were to have a zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia, we would not have an NPOV policy towards pedophilia. This is unfortunate. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)"

If we had policy instead of a PR claim, then we would have a definition of "pedophilia". Preference or compulsion or behavior? Age of victim and pedo? What if both are the same age? What if both are the same person? (A teenage boy was told by a judge that taking sexually explicit pictures of himself at age 16 (for only himself to look at) was his older yet to exist self victimizing his current self. Witch-hunts turn off the brain. Yet it is useful to not become a victim oneself of a witch-hunt, thus the need for PR claims.) - WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much my assessment too. :) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

<null>

/me waves

you're being more Cassie than me at the mo ;-) - you're pretty much right about everything, of course. Privatemusings (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC) (but which bits are you wrong about? Do you want to know?......

Will you be at Wikimania?

Will you be at Wikimania?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. It will be good to talk with you there! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I won't ... am still waiting for you (Jimbo) to come to Bangkok. Waerth (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
While you are here. Kim plz look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people ϢereSpielChequers 10:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Wave

How are you my friend? Thought I would stop by and say hi. I noticed the AMA shut down (sad panda), too bad. Drop me a line if you'd be interested in catching up.

--Wgfinley (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

\o/ Nice to see you! AMA still lives on, in the form of WP:EA :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks like EA is dead or close to it. I'm helping out with TINMC for now. --Wgfinley (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, shoot. I'm not as active as I used to be, else I'd go and investigate. <scratches head> --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

gdank for Gdansk

The Original Barnstar
Dear Kim, thanks for your participation in the panel I convened in Gdansk. ϢereSpielChequers 18:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
PS I don't know if you also edit on the Dutch wiki, but I've got a new project going on at meta that it would be nice to involve the Dutch in. ϢereSpielChequers 18:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't edit on the Dutch WP, but I can probably get in touch (via irc, for instance). Would you like me to do so? --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Inclupedia

Hi, I just wanted to inform you about the Inclupedia proposal, which is being discussed here. It was originally intended to provide many of the same benefits of pure wiki deletion, but I had to water it down a bit in an effort to assuage legal concerns. Cheers, Tisane talk/stalk 17:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

VPC

— raekyT 23:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Research about virtual communities

I am doing a research about virtual communities for my doctorate. I would like to study how the members define norms for the community. I would appreciate your contribution for my research. If I agree to participate, I will send you the questions. Jmbbmj (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, send me your questions. Also, I'd appreciate a copy of your paper when you're done. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Gheg wikipedia

Hi kim, I still don't understand how to edit, can you help?

--82.114.72.32 (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Arise, spectre!

I refuse to call you thrice by name. Uncle G (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That's ok, I'll just pretend you did anyway. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC) I'm tempted to kiboze , but that might be tricky since the database is so large. <scratches head>

Refactoring my comments on WP:AN

(This user was warned for violations of WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL and advised that parts of WP:RFC apply when they refuse to communicate. User reverted the warning on their user talk page, so we can assume they have seen and read it. relevant diff --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC) )

Some what ironic to violate WP:TALKO in a thread about refactoring comments, don't you think? I've reverted it; don't do it again. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I did not violate WP:TALKO. I deliberately made that edit as an example of what is fairly much permitted. Read very carefully and follow the links. Note that my usage is probably not controversial in this case. Your reversion on the other hand, treads a fine line with regards to the traditional reading of WP:POINT. You're going to have a bit of a steep uphill battle to explain how you could unhide a swearword under color of the rules. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC) TL;DR wikilawyering won't help you ;-)
Just to be sure, I'm not just being rhetorical: Yes, I do expect an explanation within the next 24 hours. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It is not permitted to modify another user's language except to remove BLP violations, copyright violations, or personal attacks. There's no "uphill battle" to fight in reverting refactoring of my comments; I certainly agree that your usage is not controversial, it's uncontroversially against the spirit and wording of WP:TALKO. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
You are misquoting the policy both in letter and in spirit. Read very carefully."Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning".
You are not permitted to alter the *meaning* of another person's comment. Refactoring is explicitly permitted by nature of this being a wiki.
I did not alter the meaning of your comment. Nor did I alter the actual content. I merely hid a dirty word using CSS (so the canonical text was not semantically altered at all, in fact; I didn't alter your comment at all, only the style information associated with it). Even if you try to push that the meaning of the comment was altered, one can easily recover the dirty word by highlighting it. I think it is going to be very very hard to convince people that this is a violation of WP:TALKO. If you want to try, I suggest using Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines for that discussion.
On the other hand, reverting the hiding of a naughty word is not really a nice or productive thing to do. If you make a big point of it, congratulations, you just managed to meet both forks of WP:POINT. You won't see me making a production out of it though. I do obey WP:1RR. ;-)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Bother, and now *I'm* channeling Sam Spade.
TL;DR. I stopped after the first sentence. Next time you make a self-confessed WP:POINT ("I deliberately made that edit as an example...") by altering my comments I'll be taking it to ANI, as clearly this discussing isn't going to go anywhere, and I have no intention of continuing it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Your assessment is not entirely correct. WP:POINT requires 2 elements: the first being the making of a point, and the second being disruption. You are free to make as many points as you like in as creative a way as you like, as long as each point improves wikipedia in some small way. You only need refrain if you act disruptively 'under color of policy'.
Apparently you have a fairly new account. One recommendation that I can make is that you should never refuse to read or refuse to discuss with anyone, as this fails the level of WP:AGF required for WP:CONSENSUS. My experience is that people who refuse to discuss tend to have fairly short wikipedia careers. As others will be able to confirm, I sincerely would like for you to have a long and productive stay here. :-)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yet another new section in one day

Ah, I see the spectre has arisen without the third call! Good to see you around again, Kim; I miss your wit and wisdom about the wiki. Have a happy new year! Antandrus (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh hey, I'm always around. Just not as much as I used to be (My wikiholism is in remission ;-) . You have a happy new year too! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Taiwan boi/Esoglou RFC

Hello. I have a policy question. I'm contacting you because I saw that you're a member of the (defunct?) group WP:Policy patrol. (I have contacted another editor with this question, but he/she has not yet replied.)

User:Taiwan boi has been drafting an RfC regarding User:Esoglou. I recently added an "outside view" to his draft. My outside view discussed the behavior not only of Esoglou but also of User:LoveMonkey, an editor who was also involved in the disputes that led Taiwan boi to draft the RfC. Taiwan boi removed the part of my comment that discusses LoveMonkey, saying that it violates WP:COAT.

I was under the impression that the behavior of any interested party is fair game for scrutiny once an RfC opens. That is how I interpreted WP:SHOT#There is no "immunity" for reporters (which, I realize, is not policy). So here's my question: To what extent may I bring up LoveMonkey's behavior in this RfC? I am happy to do whatever the appropriate thing is in this situation, but I need to know what that is.

Thanks in advance. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I just noticed the message saying that you probably can't respond to posts "atm". Please disregard my post when you do read it. I'll ask someone else. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Dutch Wikiversity

I'm trying to blow some life into the attempt to make a Dutch Wikiversity, and was told by the people on #wikiversity (irc channel on freenode) to ask for your advise. Thanks in advance. Ina Vegt Talk/Stalk 17:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Editor's noticeboard?

See User:Sj/EN. –SJ+ 11:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I am currently in the USA

I'm currently in the USA, east coast. SC, travelling north back to MA. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Now in MA. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP, ethnicity, gender

Main page: WT:BLP § Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Further information: WT:BLP § Relevancy for ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality (WP:EGRS)

Remember a couple of years back, when I tried a common subpage for both policy and guidelines? And you objected, so we split them back up?

Well, as I predicted, they've diverged over time. And now the wiki-lawyers are arguing that "policy" trumps "guidelines". Since the BLP policy doesn't specifically mention Ethnicity and Gender, while at least a half dozen guidelines do, it's been disrupting WP:CFD, and WP:EGRS, and quite a bit else.

Could you take a look at the main (above), and see whether you support adding Ethnicity and Gender into the policy?

And do you know of anywhere that the Policy and Guidelines has language about precedence?

I suppose that this boils down to prescriptivism versus descriptivism, yet another matter we have discussed. We need both, because the wiki-lawyers look for loopholes.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

RE: Dull roar

While I partly agree, I'm trying to curtail Palin-related discussion as much as possible. The story is only gaining more steam in the interwebs - I'm not keen on getting legions of editors coming to debate over the significance of a celebrity's comments. I'd rather it be purged from the talk page until this all settles down (which, given the Internet's attention span, should be in a week). m.o.p 23:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's funny, because I'm probably the administrator who has blocked the least amount of users - check my AN3 history and you'll see that I've mediated a good 15-20 cases just with good ol' mediation and negotiation. However, that's almost always between users who know the rules.
Users who don't know the rules come in with the overwhelming idea that Wikipedia is a place where they have the same right as everyone else. Now, I'm not disagreeing with that - every editor, administrator, bureaucrat etc. is on an equal plane - but their level of experience is next to zero. This leads them to, in most cases, edit-war, inject bias, and generally cause havoc. Not that they do it out of bad faith, but it does end up interrupting the encyclopedia.
In this case, I'm worried about the fervor that surrounds political stuff like this. This hit the front page of reddit (a breeding ground for liberals) and multiple other well-frequented aggregators, leading to an influx of people itching to discuss and edit. I'm worried that the talk page will become more- and more-defocused from the subject matter, which is why I asked people to stay away from discussing Palin.
Of course, in my experience, a simple warning is as good as nothing - people will do it again, and again, until you add that their offences are blockable. I wasn't planning to eradicate all discussion, just give people a clue and help them think twice before this gets all Palin-tastic. I'll explain some of this at ANI, too.
To conclude, I do agree with you about everything, but I think that our policy - which is that talk pages should only focus on the subject matter and avoid become a forum for pop-culture discussion - should be enforced when lots of attention turns to an article. m.o.p 03:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

User Scryer 360

It's your business, of course, and you must be a saint... but I assume you saw the messages on your page, Kim, and mine? [13][14]. Again, your business and I respect you for being a forgiving person, but I think it went well beyond 'stress'. Just my 2 cents. :) Wikipelli Talk 22:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did; and thank you so much for standing up for me! :-)
Hmm, Scryer 360 was very rude to you too. I missed that edit. In that case, are you actually ok with having the period reduced?
We'll see if it's wikistress or something else pretty soon. It depends on how Scryer 360 behaves on return. Though, looking at their user page, it looks like Scryer 360 normally has a good sense of humor. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipelli beat me to it, was very nice and gave him another chance (I wasn't going to) he didn't take. Hopefully he can gather himself and return. --WGFinley (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Your faith in people inspires me. Let's see how it goes. I was just surprised at the quick reduction and poked around to see who requested it. We'll see tomorrow. Cheers! Wikipelli Talk 22:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Be Nice?

Who was I not being nice to? The only editor I've bashed for being new was an astroturf account that's been since blocked. And no... I've never been new. :) - JeffJonez (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you might mean the "DO NOT EDIT" comment, but it was an unsigned aside on a section marked in red "Please do not modify" about reddit. I'll not SHOUT so loud next time. :) - JeffJonez (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Email

Bruning, could you please check your email (it might have gotten over into spam)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SavoRastko (talk • contribs) 12:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Stories Project

My name is Victor Grigas and I'm a Storyteller at the Wikimedia Foundation. We're exploring new ways to explain why Wikipedia is so special and we’ve started a Wikipedia Stories Project, where we’re chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community, especially editors and active contributors in the movement like you. I'll be traveling to Wikimania next month to collect stories for our 2011 Fundraiser. While there I'd love the chance to meet with you and hear your thoughts about Wikipedia. We’ll have a schedule of available times for you to sign up if you’re interested, but right now, we’d like to make the initial contact to gauge your interest. Please let me know by emailing me at vgrigas@wikimedia.org or responding on my talk page.

thank you,

Victor Grigas (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

DC Meetup, July 29

DC Meetup 21 - Who should come? You should. Really.
DC MEETUP 21 is July 29! This meet up will involve Wikipedians from the area as well as Wiki-loving GLAM professionals. See you Friday! SarahStierch (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

New Orleans hackathon in October

MediaWiki developers are going to meet in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, October 14-16, 2011. Just wanted to let you know in case you are interested or want to spread the word. Sumanah (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Events

[2011-08-28, 03:49:48] <kim_bruning> ToAruShiroiNeko, sounds like a job for ... actually, good q
[2011-08-28, 03:49:57] <kim_bruning> is there a decent (set of) plugins that can handle that?
[2011-08-28, 03:50:02] <kim_bruning> or something
[2011-08-28, 03:50:09] <kim_bruning> events vs geographic location vs date
Hi,
There are two problems at meta I noticed.
  1. Events are typically named in English rather than the local language
    • This gives the wrong message. We are a multilingual project, not just English.
    • Causes controversy. For instance in Belgium the use of either French or Dutch would upset the other half of the country.
    • Difficult to follow by people who don't understand English.
  2. Naming is not very diplomatic to handle such situations. Also not very interoperable.
    • The title is typically either light years long or in a language unintelligible to the general region the event takes place in
    • Hard to follow as every event has a naming style of its own. I cannot even immediately tell if the event was in the past or future.
    • Consider a meeting in Western Europe, which language would we even attempt? People might want to drop by a smaller event but currently the only way to know is to speak multiple languages to read each and every chapter and make careful notes for the dates.
I have initiated a discussion but it has been more or less ignored so far: m:Wikimedia Forum#Event naming convention discussion. If we had a standardized naming scheme that doesn't favor any language and also remains machine readable, I believe we can generate such information automatically. A tool could analyse based on search criteria if templates and wikitables prove to be insufficient.
-- とある白い猫 chi? 02:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Banning-enforcement undermining

Template:Banning-enforcement undermining has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. which you nominated to be deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:66.245.19.132/sandbox

A tag has been placed on User:66.245.19.132/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kumioko (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal#Inexperienced_editors_as_mediators

Heavy duty. Any input is appreciated! Xavexgoem (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

British Museum Backstage event

You missed this and wanted to be informed of next similar. Do see ad on the watchlist for event at the Herbert in Coventry. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Kim Bruning. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 21:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Banned on Hr. wiki

Dear Kim,

I had decided to show good faith and after all that has happened, obey the three-month block that administrator Ex13 had given to me sanctioning alleged violations of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. I have spent that time cooling off from Wikipedia, because only after such a short activity, major incidents had arisen - I have also periodically run again through everything that has occurred, I do notice that newbie lack of experience had jeopardized my approach over there and was indeed an disruptive element on my part, by I could not come in the end to a conclusion any more different to the consensus of all persons I've inquired on the matter while it was still a hot topic - that this was a blatant example of abuse of administrators' powers for the purpose of proving a point, including a very lagging presence of discrimination on ethnic basis.

Hereto, taking to granted my real life obligations and the good will to show "good behavior" to express myself with the prison jargon, I had decided not to push this any further, but to cope with the 3-month block and wait until it passes to resume my contributions to the Croatian Wikipedia.

However, almost immediately upon the expiration of my block, Ex13 has banned me indefinitely from the Wikipedia. Therefore, I am left with no other choice except to pursue this now until the end, since Ex13 has crossed every reasonable limit and has rejected every single hand of peace I offered so far. It becomes now, I think, more than self-evident that Ex13's original block has had the sole purpose of intimidation, with the final desired result my flight from the Wikipedia due to fear of an abusive administrator's authority.

I plead you to be my assisting hand as the final drop has fallen - obviously that announced Wikipedians' meeting, in which the Croatian Wikipedia ongoing problem was supposed to have been a subject, has given no result; the time has come to settle this once and for all and insert some order into the Croatian-language Wikipedia - which has, due to the delinquent behavior of but a few wrong persons with powers, in itself become a mockery of the entire Wikimedia project and of Jimbo Wales himself!

Dearest greetings, --SavoRastko (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Patents and notability

Hi. Having said that I'll stay away from the Patterson Cell AfD, I'll not comment there, but I don't think the existence of a patent can be any evidence of notability - there are millions of them, and most are probably worthless. Indeed, they seem often to be taken out just to give an air of credibility to an invention. In any case, this one is a primary source, written by an involved party. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The article about the Patterson Power cell doest exist because of the patent. It exists because it had a lot of media coverage 15 years ago. This is why we have an article about it. Please remember this is not a science article. Call it mythology if you like. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
A patent has been reviewed by a patent examiner, is publishedissued by a patent bureau, and has legal status. WP:V mentions patent content as not being RS (fair enough). However, the publication of the patent itself by a patent bureau is -errr- patently a verifiable fact. ;-) I am convinced that it is true that someone has written a patent for a "Patterson Cell". Furthermore, I am convinced that it is true that this has been reported on by several different journalists and magazines, of varying reliability.
Since I am not currently operating a Patterson cell powered flying car ;-), I suspect that there are also going to be some sources that point out that this concept doesn't work, and/or we can state that there are no further sources post date X, and let the reader draw the obvious conclusion.
For the above reasons, I believe that this is the correct position wrt NPOV, at this point in time.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it is correct to say that a patent bureau 'publishes' patents. This beside the point though. You raised the patent at the AfD as evidence of notability, which as a primary source originating with the inventor, it cannot be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
(s/published/issued/g as per Patent office)
The existence of the patent itself, however, is not in question. The fact that the author requested and was issued the patent is also not in question.
These bits come together and confer a small amount of notability. It certainly shows that there is something to report about.
If a number of magazines then indeed report about this person and their patented idea, then it is possible to write an article.
Note that at no point am I saying anything about the legitimacy of the underlying claim. I just want to say "X said Y" (as per WP:NPOV), and this is a fact that can be shown to be true with the sources at hand, I'm sure you'll agree.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Until I know better, I'll treat this like Flat Earth

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the info so far!

Maarten

Maarten van den Dungen (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Kitten Schmitten

Alexwanders (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


What does this Button do?

Freek de man (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Photographer's Barnstar
Goed bezig! Mira Bückmann (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Kim Bruning, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Kim Bruning/Tilburg University.

  • See a log of files removed today here.
  • Shut off the bot here.
  • Report errors here.
  • If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kim Bruning. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical).
Message added 21:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

causa sui (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

For helping me in time of need. SavoRastko (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Cupcake, non-fattening

Don't get fat on those, try one of these. And it is official, I was led astray, but now I realize that bold editing is no longer a policy on policy pages. Its on WP:V and WP:CON so it must be true, but please dont interrupt a good nap on the couch to check, you can take my word Kim (even without a diff to my name, or a cupcake drat, must have dropped it somewhere), cheers NewbyG ( talk) 06:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible interview about Palin/Revere edit war in June 2011

My name is Sara Marks and I am doing research for a masters thesis at Fitchburg State University. My thesis has to do with resolving conflicts on Wikipedia entries and I am focusing on what happened to the Paul Revere entry after Palin's comments last summer. I have been going through the archives and would really like to talk to you about what happened after her comments, especially your part in it. I want to get a better idea of what happened and your thoughts on the resolution process. You can get back to me on your talk page, my talk page or via email at librarygurl at gmail.com. I can also answer any questions you may have about my thesis. I look forward to hearing from you. --LibraryGurl (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I have some prepared questions, but first you just need to review the informed consent form. Once I have that I can email you the questions I have and you can respond via email. I know you may not remember things and thank you for already going through things to jog your memory. I will provide links to specific aspects of the talk archive for questions that may require some review of those events. --LibraryGurl (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
No problem! :-) Note that typically everything we say is in the public record, everything we do is in the public record, all the information we base our actions on is in the public record too. So my (bad) memory isn't so important, fortunately. ;) (though also note that some people apparently didn't read all the information before making decisions in this case, and some of the information had (imo erroneously) been removed from the public record in this case, thus potentially exacerbating things)
I've filled in the consent form for you, though it probably wasn't necessary, unless you want to ask me really private questions for some reason. All of my words in this situation were public and were licensed under a free license, AFAICR, so you would be free to use them anyway :-) . --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse

Hi Kim! Thanks so much for participating in the Teahouse - it's always great when experienced editors come by and help out. I encourage you to consider being a Teahouse host! If you'd like to learn more about that, and the basics about how the Teahouse is proceeding during this pilot period, then I encourage you to take a look at this page! It has tips (for example: we always say hi and greet those who ask a question, just like you'd want to be if you were at a new place for the first time, and we do our best to avoid "wiki speak"..) and can inform interested participants seeking to help new (and experienced!) editors on how the Teahouse works differently than other help places on Wikipedia. Thanks Kim, and see you at the Teahouse :) Sarah (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I found out about it from a WMNL email!
I feel a bit guilty that I wasn't perfectly host-like for my first try yet. If I answer more questions, I'll try to be more host-like. ;-)
As for becoming a host <scratches head> Hmm, first let's see how I do.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Flowcharts for editing

Hi Kim, it's been a long time since we were last drawing editing flow charts, but I've tried again and would appreciate your comment at Wikipedia_talk:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#BRD.2C_copyedits_can.27t_fix_a_flawed_heart. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on WP:BRD?

As the original author I was wondering if I could pick your brain a bit. I wondered what you thought about how the cycle has been reduced from several numbered steps (5 or 6) to a simplified 3 step process that seems to have left the original intent behind a bit and even contradicts itself in a few places. When did the community decide to add the supplemet to policy tag? Is this a legitimate use of the tag? What happened to the Harmonious Editing Club? Why are they no longer associated with the article? Has it always been difficult to make changes to the article? Even as badly as I spell I found a number of spelling errors and ill concieved copy edits to prose that, in my opinion, have altered intent from caution to aggression. Are you still involved with the article? Would you be willing to help assist editors on the page form consensus of some kind on issues and help collaborate to improve the article? Any help you are willing to contribute would be greatly appreciated!--Amadscientist (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes

BRD needs your attention. I want to remain out of that essay for now, but I'm just saying it could use your attention. Best. Be——Critical 22:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey

Teahouse logo
Teahouse logo

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Radical alternatives?

Hey, Kim, I noticed this edit in Recent changes. Did you mean to post something there, in a section that's over a year old, on a page where the last meaningful edit was a month and a half ago? I don't mean to be a bother, but it just looks like you posted something to the wrong page, and I thought I'd let you know. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, not listed as archived, so should be ok. (no idea if anyone will read it of course, but there you go) Thanks for the heads up! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


Hi kim

That's me! :) ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭtalk 07:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

WMF statement

is here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

graphs

Rich Farmbrough, 16:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC).

Wikimania Barnstar

Wikimania Barnstar
It was great to see you at Wikimania 2012! -evrik (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

mwclient

mwclient. Enjoy. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Project Lombok too. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Even More Content

Wikimedia Commons picture! :-D (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:James_Lawrence_King_Federal_Justice_Building.jpg) Cielbie (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Viswaprabha here!

Hi there, Thanks for those great discussions during Wikimania HIDC nights! Viswanathan from India ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭtalk 07:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kim Bruning. You have new messages at Callanecc's talk page.
Message added 04:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 04:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The thinking cupcake!

Something to munch on as you answer the question I left you (on my talk page). And to say thank you for a great chat :) Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 18:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

It was great meeting you at Wikimania. I just saw you post a comment on the travel wiki proposal and wanted to say hello. I wish we had more time to talk. I could have done more Wikimania in general - at least another 1-2 days. I hope we can meet again in Hong Kong. Thanks for helping me talk through Wikipedia philosophy and ethics. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan, nice meeting you too! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/more detail

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/more detail, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/more detail and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/more detail during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. meshach (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the dumb comment I made at the MfD. I struck it out. I also appreciate your kind response to me. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Your comments were awesome and much appreciated, with or without the stricken wording. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Kim,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC).

Oppose vote

Hi Kim. The arbcom restriction specifically allows him to make !votes. There's just been a massive uproar over the whole thing, and I'd rather you left the can of worms shut. Do feel free to review the complete discussion. WormTT(talk) 10:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, and I see that you've already escaped, too! --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC) heads off to read discussion
Ah, but I'm a Worm that turned... I'm pretty sure I don't count. WormTT(talk) 11:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

On second thought

Regarding my note on ANI regarding the "blocks are not preventative" bit - I know of course that you're aware of the purpose of blocks and should have posted a wee note here instead of in the block thread. Everyone has edited when too tired at night or without the requisite jolt of caffeine in the morning! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 04:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment in RfA

I hope I am not to take the following at face value:

"Well, it's too bad that it depends on your mood. :-P Once you mature enough to rationally and consistently choose the safe path, do please contact me, and if RFA has been replaced, who knows, I might nominate you for admin. ;-)"

It conveyed, to me, at least, a statement that I am "too immature" to be editing at RfA or even talk about admin tools. Would you please clairify what you meant? Buggie111 (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh! I'd never thought of it that way. I was trying to follow your logic. Perhaps I'm following it wrong?
The relevant portion of the thread:
"Would you -for instance- dive right into AFD and just close things at random; or would you read the documentation first, ask other admins and users for help, and try some easy cases first?"
"That would depend on my mood that day :)."
  • Well, by your own criteria, if someone without experience jumps directly into the deep end at AFD they'll start making mistakes, right? ( this is something you're worried that a candidate might do, you've told me).
  • So someone who jumps right into AFD like that is obviously not mature enough to be an admin yet, once again by your own criteria. Is that correct?
  • Someone who decides such a thing on a whim "that would depend on my mood that day", also would not be behaving in a consistent manner. Do I have that right?
--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you do, somewhat. The smiley was really intended to convey that the answer to the question was an attempt at being funny (I had no time to think of a true answer as my class ended in two minutes, plus the editing system went all bonkers on me). My real answer would be this: If I did get the bit magically one morning, whether or not I started closing discussions would depend on my confidence of doing such things. If I had seen many AfD's run their course and understood how to close them, or if I was rock solid on CSD criteria so much that my dreams involved it, then yes, I would start deleting. If I didn't have confidence in those areas, I would try either taking a non-admin approach (tagging for CsD, commenting in AfD discussions) or ask another admin to mentor me and spend several days reading over old AfD discussions and related pages. But of course, this is my confidence bar. TommyBoy, or anybody else for that matter, probably has a different one. You understand what I'm saying? Buggie111 (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand. That sounds a lot more like the mature approach I'd expect from someone who just got the flag (or who comes back after a long-ish absence). :-)
If this was the olden days, I'd start checking your contribs now (to see if I could nom. you).
Unfortunately, I get the impression that RFA is just a tad broken atm, so you may have to wait a while until people get around to fixing/overthrowing it. ;-) (it's been slow going so far)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment on my maturity (and I'm serious, this time!). Speaking about RfA, I rather foolishly threw my name out back in December, and consequentially got a nice mixture of constructive criticism and rather unintelligible "Oppose per blah" statements. I'm now trying to gain a feeling as to where I stand with regards to that RfA without getting tarred and feathered and being accused of "hat-collecting". Buggie111 (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

World Domination

Ermmm mr Bruning how to stop our server ..... Waerth (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

screen -x , and ctrl-c in the relevant screen window. I have just err... destroyed the world for you. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom elections

Soooo, since you seem to be around atm... think you might be interested in running? : ) - jc37 01:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I see you are hunting arbcommers! --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I dunno about "hunting", but definitely asking : )
(And unfortunately getting a lot of negatives : (
How about you? - jc37 01:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Who would be crazy enough? :-) Are you running this year? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Smiles. I note you haven't answered yet : )
As for me, I commented at AGK's talk page about that. If I thought I had any chance, I might be tempted (I like to help out) But I'm doubtful. - jc37 02:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, still doubtful, but AGK and carcharoth convinced me to make the attempt anyway : ) - jc37 22:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

RfA

So you were pulling a radiant?

Just one response to that:

: p

(lol)

Now we just need to get radiant back to regular editing : ) - jc37 23:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Also: I suck at being a Radiant!. Would you care to give it a try?
Be careful what you ask for : ) - jc37 02:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I am always carefully carefree. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of change

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow. --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
They dont want you back anymore lol Waerth (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm still here. But yeah, that's not how you do editor retention ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedians in Belgium

Hello Kim Bruning, I noticed you saying here you live close by. We are currently working on founding a chapter in Belgium. If you are interested in this, you can visit our wiki at wmbe: and sign up on wmbe:Founding/Interested people. Greetings - Romaine (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

WT:BN

Personally, I would be fine if we didn't have the "3 year rule", but 3 years is the minimum number of years I could accept, and it seems it's the maximum others would accept. So it was a compromise solution of sorts.

And if we're gonna do this, then it should be consistent.

That said, I'd be fine with you starting a new RfC to suggest overturning the 3 year rule : ) - jc37 20:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

We already know what the outcome would be if I did that straight away. ;-)
It appears that in practice, user retention is currently not a priority for the en.wp community. This is going to need to change, at least if en.wp wants to be around in its current form 10 years from now. It's our own "global warming" in a microcosm! ;-)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
In several ways, I've been feeling that Wikipedia is eating its young, as it were. Deletions more and more due to IDONTLIKEIT/FANCRUFT/NOTINMYENCYCLOPEDIA. Reverting good faithed additions as vandalism, instead of SOFIXIT and the wikiway. And chasing off contributors in various ways. Not to mention the rise of VOTING and BURO.
There are solutions, I would hope, I'm just not sure what the best way forward should be. - jc37 23:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

RFA

Ok presuming you aren't a wiki anarchist (and I think that's fairly safe to presume : )

I have 2 proposals which I think if both were implemented would help achieve the affects you seem to be looking for.

Would you look them over? I'd be happy to discuss them with you. (The more input I get, the better the eventual proposal, I think.)

They're linked at the top of my talk page, just under the memorable quotes. - jc37 23:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, How do you believe that these changes will alter the dynamics of the community? Especially importantly: what will the effect be on user retention? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The admin package has become a dumping ground essentially for any new tool addition. We, as a community, talk about experienced editors, but we really have no way to differentiate between trusted content editors, and brand new off the street editors. And we don't differentiate between those trusted to address content iddues, and those who are trusted to assess behaviour. the two are not necessarily skill sets that every person has developed yet. So why should we deprive ourselves of help with content because we have some editors who should not, or even do not wish, to be involved in assessing behaviour? As a volunteer project, that seems like we're shooting ourselves in the foot.
At the same time, RfA is a one shot, one moment in time, trust discussion. There is a sense of "speak now or oh well"/"this is your last chance". Without a direct community discussion to allow for removal as well as entrusting, it causes a negative tone amongst those who may feel they are the "have nots", and honestly, even amongst those seen as the "haves", who may despair of being able to address any issues, due to the lengthy bureaucratic processes needed to go through to deal with such issues.
Adminship is supposed to be "no big deal", a set of additional tools and responsibilities. It's merely the usage (especially inappropriate usages) which can be a big deal. And so without a community safety valve, the fear of inappropriate usage leads to a big part of the problem at RfA.
So if we can change that dynamic, we should be able to see a change in tone and environment.
And if we make the community a more inviting, enjoyable experience, we should retain more editors.
I could write more stream of consciousness comments, but I suppose this is enough for the moment : )
What are your thoughts on this? - jc37 03:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Frungi#don't delete comments

Hello, Kim Bruning. You have new messages at Frungi's talk page.
Message added 22:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

For the record

Although I disagree with your reverts of Ryan Vesey’s edits on Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness, I think you seem like a generally wonderful person. —Frungi (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, although we disagree on this topic right now, you seem very nice too! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Hi Kim. I have boldly closed the AN discussion of the Star Trek page, including your section requesting assistance removing the RM template. (Although by the time you read this my close very well might have been reverted.) It appears, at the moment at least, that the "page move" discussion is endorsing Mackensen's move; even if that changes and a consensus develops to move it back, that seems to me to be the least drama-filled way of letting editors have their say. I welcome your thoughts, though. 28bytes (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm entirely off base, I'd have thought it empirically established that it was one of the -near-record-heights- MOST drama-filled solution in wikipedia history. Am I missing something? What makes you think this round will be different from the last?
--Kim Bruning (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Moot now, I suppose, since the discussion's been snow-closed. Hopefully that will be the end of it. 28bytes (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
So certain, are we?
There's still the move protection;
fat lady hasn't sung.
O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Bear pit

Your actions at Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness have placed you into a bear pit. There was a huge who-har over the closing of a RfC on Men's rights whether "should" in means "must" in WP:TITLECHANGES (see for example Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 38#RM not required and this rejected Arbcom request)

The wording at WP:RM "If the page has recently been moved without discussion, you may revert the move and initiate a discussion on the talk page of the article" is to stop the sort of pre-emptive move that moving "Star Trek Into Darkness causes. This has recently been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Talk:Neve Şalom Synagogue. -- PBS (talk)

Now to the big one. There was a debate over dashes in the MOS: see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 123#Dashes: a completed consensual draft for inclusion in WP:MOS(July 2011) and also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting. It seems that no one bothered to announce on the WP:AT talk page that this was happening (at least no diffs have been provided to show that an announcement was made at talk WP:AT) although this would affect how the decision making process at AT was carried out. Belatedly (right now) there is an RfC on this issue at AT see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal.

-- PBS (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been in this bear pit many a time :-/ The RM procedures have contributed to many a Wikipedia conflict which I ended up trying to resolve. --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to come here to thank you for your consistent support of non-regular editors in the discussion on Star Trek Into Darkness. There was a really negative attitude in there, especially yesterday, that was founded on the idea that lots of new eyes being brought over from xkcd was a bad thing, when I think many more eyes and voices is always better for Wikipedia than a small handful of regular editors. Thanks for being kind to people who aren't seasoned veterans and encouraging people to play nice and be kind to newcomers. Zeutheir (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Especially if a handful of editors is trying to WP:OWN a page. O:-) And thank you for the compliment. I hope you'll follow the example, and do the same kind of thing in future! --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

TINC

*nudges politely, with a mischievous smile*.... Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal 2.0

*Hug*! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

DRN

It would be great if we put the DRN on halt until I can give my weighing opinion. There are things that I would like to say that neither chris nor Ryulong have stated.Lucia Black (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you point me to the decision that says you're not allowed to participate now (according to you)? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Nevermind, found it: [15] . You're topic banned. Let me think on what to answer. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

GITS DRN

He's reverted out the explicit covered the dedicated manga page and my concern for the disruption of the topic-level article, I've made a statement about it, but I am upset at this latest issue and believe that talking is useless; the original merger was contested and even after agreeing to the changes I proposed - reverted them out to his contested version. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not agree to the edits he is claiming I have. I have only agreed that the content that he proposed be put on such a page be put on the existant ones.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Have you found a way forward? I tried to explain the PTOPIC argument to Ryulong, but he does not want to discuss any GITS matter outside the DRN page. So I will not address the other issues with him, as even simple matters of policy are contentious it seems. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Apologies, I have been away in West Ireland for a few weeks so missed the entire DRN shebang. Suffice to say dispute resolution requires that parties are able to either compromise on what they want, or are willing to accept a third party making a ruling that will not go in their favour. And then abide by it. As the GITS dispute is basically a disagreement over the fundamental aspects of how articles should be organised, with parties diametrically opposed, policy and guidelines should be what editors look at. Does the subject of an article pass notability? Does it pass reliable sourcing? Then it needs community consensus to make it not exist. Either through redirect or deletion. Where media franchises span multiple notable formats (film, book, TV, computer games) many of the individual formats will pass gng. So they get articles. This is a basic tenant of wikipedia. Personally I am not a fan of the whole 'list of episodes' level of fancruft, but manga, anime, film & vg's get their own articles. Primary articles where notability is equal/shared should either be a disambiguation page (personally I find that a bit too 'heres a link to another link!' bad solution from a useability point of view) or an article covering in brief the wider franchise. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

here is the link if you want to add your 2 cents there Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Ghost in the Shell. I may not be able to mention anything relating to anime nor manga, however i am allowed to speak anything that isn't in the topic itself. regarding franchise pages, they are often a superfluous combination of subseries that already have their own respective article. when they don't, it shows that they are most necessary. And its all up to whether we need an individual page, or not. For this matter, i can't add my 2 cents specifically. But overall if there's any form of media and has their own respected spin offs that already have their own articles, and all spin offs are directly related to the plot of the original, splitting the two would only be redundant. WP:REDUNDANTFORK, there would also be careful consideration onto whether theres sources that cover the franchise "as a franchise". Most cases, franchise pages are made due to lack of info to spin off their own articles, not because a franchise page is notable on its own.Lucia Black (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Redundant fork is in practice only useful where there is one branch. Re-merging is a viable option. Or where the fork is very small content wise. Where you have 4 branches in separate media, all passing GNG, all having both existing content, as well as the potential for further content, merging into one article is unwieldy and results in a combination of bloat & usually badly formatted articles. WP:REDUNDANTFORK is not meant to be used to *prevent* the creation and expansion of articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
However, if the original media encompasses all 4, it would be redundant to split the original from the franchise even if one intends to keep the original to not have any info. If there was a particular series that looked just like ghost in the shell's setup, the need for a franchise page would be unnecessary as all their spin offs have their own respected article, making it easier to setup a summary style fork. and since all of them are directly connected to the original enough to making it "necessary" for the original to mention these aswell, it would practically serves the same as a franchise.Lucia Black (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
And here is where the discussion ends with you, as you are topic banned and I cannot go into specifics further. Suggest you remove all anime & manga pages from your watchlist until november. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The subject is still franchises over original works to encompass spin offs, I just mentioned if there was a work that resembled GITS (not in form of manga and anime, but in branching). Good example of franchise pages are works that aren't all based off the original, example: Final Fantasy in which has several spin offs in which are not based off the original, the same could apply to gundam where any form of new entry can be based more on the "franchise" rather than the original work. Its still completely relevant to say that Franchise pages are usually made when theirs not enough spin off articles to encompass certain works. Their not made with the intent of notability.Lucia Black (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Ghost in the Shell

A few points

  1. Per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#Helping a case that is already opened, Any volunteer may close a stale dispute, as long as a warning has been given that the case will be closing in 24 if no further comments are made. Attention was called to the fact that you had gone MIA without any sort of notice so TransporterMan (a very senior volunteer at DRN) gave an extended wait period for you to return before closing rites were pronounced.
  2. DRN is supposed to be for short, relatively simple dispute resolution. In no way did the Ghost in the Shell dispute confine itself to that definition. 32 days is not short, 97k bytes of text is not short, no forward progress was being made on any issue, no editor appeared willing to compromise (therefore DRN was going to be useless)
  3. Commenting on an archived thread is considered very poor form, especially when it's remarks like that.

For these reasons, take a breather and let go of the issue. Hasteur (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

  • It's too bad that DRN is limiting itself in those ways.
  • I'm just taking the situation off of DRN then, and looks like it's (partially) auto-resolving anyway.
Have a nice day! --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

GITS re

I'm still trying to figure out a good response, I'll try to have something up tomorrow. OK? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It's up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Ryulong has gone against the "no more responding to each other, no more arguing" and made a POINTy AFD of media franchise. I value your time and effort in trying to resolve this, but it this is twice that the spirit and suggestion has been ignored by Ryulong. Niemti's return, also opposed to merging like other 5 editors, was unexpected, but Ryulong did not accept a majority in the past and I am beginning to doubt he will accept even your decision if it is not favorable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Technically that particular agreement was and could only be a voluntary agreement between the two of you, and need only be limited to Talk:Ghost in the Shell, so he's adhering to that. Of course we need to assume good faith religiously here, if only because -like you say- what we've said and done may well be reviewed further on, if either of you are unhappy with what I think up.
Ryulong is also technically correct in not necessarily accepting a (local) majority, so they're definitely acting within the bounds of policy here. Whether that is also wisest action is beyond the scope of this talk-page post.
Note that Ryulong is an experienced wikipedia-editor, so typically you can expect them to act within the rules and in good faith. As a general rule in disputes on wikipedia (and IRL too, I've noticed), typically the first person to assume bad faith loses; so don't do that. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
While I do understand the dangers of a localconsensus, it is I who have fought against it and have been attacked constantly for it ever since even if I am not the starter of said discussions. A major concern is the repeated redirecting of notable topics "per MOSAM" and such as a major point of contention, especially since Ryulong did it repeatedly at pages like Dragon Ball Z despite being an experienced editor even when I repeatedly said it should go to AFD. A split can be bold, but the act of redirecting something with 60 sources and 40kb in size is not likely to be well received, and edit warring by redirecting out repeatedly is bad. This case perhaps is not so clear cut, but I believe my arguments carry a good insight into it and I do not need to reiterate or rehash them here. Even though this is voluntary, I will await your decision, I have more content to add regardless of whether or not it is on one page or two, and I am running closer to my self-imposed deadline on my tribute to Toren. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
That's unusual! ChrisGualtieri can you tell me about this deadline, and what is your tribute to Toren? --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Ghost in the Shell was translated by Toren Smith, his 1995 translation was my first manga that made an impact on me and got me really interested in anime and manga, before I knew what it was. Previously I had seen various shows from the age of 4, but knew nothing of its origin or history. This translation is considered one of the best ever done and its faithfulness to the original work should not be understated. A later translation was done, but reverted to Toren's simply because it was so much better. Sadly, Toren unexpectedly passed away this year and his bio page is indeed rather sparse on details so I've actually been trying to get copies of his work and notes from various places to update that - though because the book is something I treasured, I want to get that to FA by the 1st anniversary of his passing. When I learned of his death, I became entrenched rather than taking another Wikibreak as I first had done, until the conflict is resolved I won't be able to really do it justice and have been spreading my knowledge around elsewhere to improve topics to GA level only to find more and more problems with the medium's coverage on Wikipedia. I started learning Japanese to read the works and biographies on people like Osamu Tezuka. I am different from a fan, but I am also eager and stubborn because I have a vision and a goal that drives me forward. In discussions, I am constantly told I should write a book because I correct A&M's RSes with proof of why they are wrong, and I know a publisher, but I'm not of the writing level to do such a thing. My first academic paper on the subject was more than a decade ago and it was on Neon Genesis Evangelion, but that is another story. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Quote by you

Many wikis have never heard of Assume Good Faith
Kim Bruning (2007)

Out of curiosity: do you notice any change for better or worse after six years?
I haven't done a recent survey of wiki's so I can't tell for sure, but I do have the impression that en.wp ideas have been showing up in other wikis, for better or for worse. What has your experience been lately? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
It differs from person to person. Some people don't respect good faith, I'm afraid they never will.  Klaas|Z4␟V:  13:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Assumption of good faith is required if you want to reach consensus. Also, the first person to assume *bad* faith tends to lose first too. So it is definitely important.
If there are people who constantly assume bad faith, they will tend to make their community a poisonous place to be. Try to get them to change their ways, or ask them to leave (if they haven't made themselves impossible already) . --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Heh :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am now editing this page using the web browser links. It is clearly possible to do this. Just: one may need to be slightly drunk.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC) (ps. Not actually drunk :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC))

Superspreader

Sad situation. I encountered a very similar situation when I started editing. A very opinionated admin insisted that everything in the article was "consensus" (no one had edited it in months) and that no changes could be made with "consensus" (her agreement). I got a similar set of "edit warring" and "non-neutral POV" posts to my user page and threats of blocking, even though I tried to engage on the talk page and was simply ignored and reverted. She even went so far as to start going to all my edits on other articles and reverting them. I left for 6 months and came back under a different user name.

There really needs to be a more streamlined way to address this sort of behavior, but I don't think it is likely to happen. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Sorry that happened to you.
When I made some of my first edits, they got copy-edited and improved on within something like 30 minutes. I was duly impressed by the AI, until I discovered that it was actually several humans in quick succession. (After which I was hooked. )
That was a long time ago though ^^;; <feels old>
In the mean time I quickly went through your edits. Interesting pattern starting out as an IP editor. And you have 1 or 2 good editors communicating with you on talk. Those are all good signs. :-)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, actually I had a different username before the IP period and have been around a total of 3 years. I did the IP editor thing for a while because I was trying to keep a low profile and not have that run in again.
I do some pretty controversial edits - there are a lot of people out there that are really angry at the pharmaceutical industry and justifiably so, but they express their anger in inappropriate ways. The ciprofloxacin article that got me started editing here had been completely rewritten by a guy who was engaged in litigation against the manufacturer. It was one of the longest articles on Wikipedia and listed virtually every case report of an adverse event that could be found in the literature (the drug is prescribed 20 million times a year, and has a lot of rare but serious side effects), but had only a single sentence describing what the drug is used for. There is a lot of that sort of angry editing here.
I check in with Doc James and a couple of the other admins on a regular basis to make sure I'm not going overboard, and I think Doc looks over my shoulder even when I don't ask. He only reverts about 5% of my edits, so I guess I'm doing ok, I think he reverts fewer of my edits than those of a lot of other people. :>) Formerly 98 (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

42

You never answered the ultimate question! Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I'm in a discussion about whether Wikipedia:Edit warring should describe "bold-revert" as "the BRD cycle" (hmm, where'd that 'D' go?), and it occurred to me that I missed seeing you around and having someone else explain what "the wiki process" is. Thanks for your work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata with Wiktionary

These are the links you asked me to give you: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary/Resources https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Comparison_of_Projects_and_Proposals_for_Wiktionary JanZerebecki (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for the help today Jachapman82 (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

mw:Gerrit/Tutorial Anomie⚔ 12:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

If I Link Everything almost everything actually exists.

Yet a lot of the things you linked to link to things that have nothing to do with the sentence in hand. For instance, "Almost" is about the "almost" in mathematics. Well I see your point, you may try to link to Wiktionary instead using [ [ wiktionary: placewordhere | placewordhere ] ] . LalalalaSta (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Yuppers. I was teaching an introduction to mediawiki. I was showing folks that if we were to link automagically, the words can end up linking every which way except in a useful direction ;-) (hence the need for manual use of [[ ]] ) O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Cultural guidelines

Wikipedia:Cultural guidelines, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Cultural guidelines and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Cultural guidelines during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Sadads (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Lie-to-children for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lie-to-children is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lie-to-children (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Andrew D. (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kim Bruning. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Does that mean that there used to be a consensus that consensus can change, but now, not so much? St. claires fire (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kim_Bruning/Archive_9&oldid=1215289850"