User talk:Reyk/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Problem with redirecting over prodding

re your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Heineman - redirecting doesn't leave a log entry. I have noticed that some of my redirects have been reverted without any notification for me. At least if I prod something I can check my PROD log and see if the entries are still green (I use a script that colors redirects as such) or if they have been restored without discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• That's true, but you can always put those on your watchlist if you're worried people might revert you without discussion. And this way, if someone is targeting you specifically, they won't have the plausible deniability of "Oh, I was just monitoring the PRODed articles list". Reyk _YO! 06:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Notification

I had informed him of ANI[1] but he ignored and still editing. Can you modify your message on ANI? Wareon (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see it was in with the RfD notice. Oops. Reyk _YO! 11:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"pompomendacious sermonizing"

Literally ... thank you. Best turn of phrase I've read on Wikipedia for literally years. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and

Hi Reyk,

Thanks for your comment. If I understand correctly, point 3 is a constructive suggestion directed at me. Could you spell out a bit more what you meant? The precursor activities to the ANI report were spread over a bunch of places and I'm not sure which bits triggered that response.

Thanks, JBL (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm talking about stuff like this: [2]. Talking like that will just get held against you. "Don't look at the substance of JBL's complaint. He said a bad word. Reeee." Of course, them asserting you're politically motivated will be allowed to pass without comment but that's because WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are there to protect them, not the likes of us. Yes, I'm bitter and cynical but my cynicism is grounded in personal experience and careful observation. Reyk _YO! 10:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Indeed -- didn't have enough time to deal with it, but should have taken enough time to edit the tone to something more appropriate. Thanks for your feedback! --JBL (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

New Way Forward Act

Wait are you saying I am POV pushing here? Or defending me? I know we have been on opposite sides in the past, but I don't edit political article for this reason, however this is notable and I was surprised it was not added now that I did it has become a clusterfuck. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• And I don't believe people are taking this content out for politically motivated reasons. Reyk _YO! 11:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Why did you accuse me of POV pushing, after how long I've been here you can't possibly believe that. In fact this is one of the few times I've written an article about something in politics, I can't even remember the last time I did. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Fleddy Melculy

Hi, I saw your edit to this article[3], and just wondered: I used "while" here with the meaning of "whereas", which I thought was an accepted meaning. Your version is better, but I'm just trying to learn whether I should avoid using "while" like this, or if it was correct but potentially confusing. Fram (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• That's just one of my pet peeves, and I'm probably a bit over pedantic about it. These people make the point more eloquently and less snarkily than me [4]. Reyk _YO! 08:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks (also for the edit summary :-) ) Fram (talk) 08:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Copy pasting from ANI

I think the issue here is TimothyBlue's casual dismissal and bad-faith assumptions in the actions of good-faith editors, false accusations of inflammatory behavior on my part, rampant filibustering and wikistalking (again, responding to literally every "keep" vote and every post about him with a giant text-wall), gross misrepresentation of policy (malls aren't events, so WP:ROUTINE holds no weight), constantly saying that things are "routine" and "run of the mill" with no evidence, and reckless mass AFDing to the point that he gets topics mixed up. It is clear that his views line up with literally no one else's, and are doing more harm than good. It is equally clear that no amount of discussion will get through to him (to the point that he's told me to stop posting on his talk page entirely), and so I think a topic ban from either shopping malls/retail, XFD, or both would not be a bad idea unless other admins have a better solution. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• I saw your response on ANI but haven't decided what I want to say to it yet. There isn't any need to copypaste this onto my talk page as well. Reyk _YO! 07:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Could you do the same

 re: [5] for [6]? TIA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• I thought about it, but since that account got blocked for disruption and not technically for being a sock I held off. Personally I think it is clear from the overlap in editing that they're a sock of Moscowdreams but the SPI check came back inconclusive. Reyk _YO! 08:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Your minor edits

		The Minor Barnstar
		I noticed how you found a missing period on Protonium and, after checking your contribs, you really do a great job with minor edits. Keep it up! BirdValiant (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• Wow, thanks! My contributions mightn't be super flashy or impressive but I like to think I improve things in my own little way. I appreciate it! Reyk _YO! 08:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

No, you're right ...

... he's just a troll. At least the likes of Mick MacNee and (pre-reformation) Alansohn had principles they followed, as opposed to AD being perfectly willing to lie, distort, insult and contradict himself in the service of knee-jerk inclusionism. Just sets my teeth on edge how he's so routinely and reflexively uncivil, and somehow never, ever gets sanctioned for it. Ravenswing 17:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Inclusionist celebrities aren't subject to the same civility rules as the rest of us. If you or I started calling people "busybodies" throwing around "diktats" we'd be facing a pitchfork mob at ANI. Terms like "diktat" have unpleasant nationalistic overtones, which I'm sure is deliberate, just as I'm sure he'll walk them back if called out. On the plus side, everyone knows he's full of it and he's having to strain harder and harder to get a rise out of people. Hope you're enjoying the festive season. I'm comfortably full of roast and gluhwein so I'm actually in a pretty good mood. Reyk _YO! 17:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• Hah, I don't start cooking for another couple hours. But my lady wife made a nice alfredo casserole for lunch, and that and sourdough bread has me comfortably stuffed myself. All the best of the season to you! Ravenswing 19:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:SNG

I'm posting here is response to your post at WP:ANI#Disruptive POINTy AfD !votes and racist comparisons by Johnpacklambert, rather than take that discussion off-topic. I think we agree about WP:CRIN. Just because we could write a stub about a cricketer doesn't mean we have to. Another example is WP:NSPECIES - do we really need an article about an extinct animal known from a single tooth? or even about a species known from a single publication? In many cases, readers would be as well or better served by a redirect to a well-written list. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• I agree completely. I've long thought that these little ministubs would be better presented as parts of a list, for example List of species in genus whateverus, or List of Derpshire cricket players, or Numbered asteroids (12000-13000). Reyk _YO! 10:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Sanity check

See Talk:Habib Miyan#Redirection. Am I missing something here? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

CalConnect

Hi, I'm writing in regard to your recommendation for removal for the CalConnect page. The goal of my prior edit was to begin remaking the page to be more useful and less buzzwordy. Do you have any recommendations for doing this? Perhaps a piecemeal approach is less useful than a wholesale overhaul? (Apologies for the time lapse between then and now... pandemic.)

Thanks, Atlauren (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Polar mesospheric clouds

An article that you have been involved in editing—Polar mesospheric clouds—has been proposed for merging with Noctilucent cloud. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pierre cb (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

A request

If you get a chance, any interest in giving an opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Piotr (2nd nomination)? Given the somewhat confusing history here, I think it'd be best for this to have a definitive resolution, whatever it may be; I don't care what way you go, just want another look. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hey there, I'm afraid this is way beyond my level of expertise. I know nothing whatsoever about folk music so I don't think I'd be able to make any kind of useful comment. Reyk _YO! 10:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  No worries. Figured it was worth a try. Good to see you're still around in general. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Templates For Discussion - AFL Player Significant Statistics Templates

A new discussion has begun regarding the AFL Player Significant Statistics Templates. Please add your thoughts there. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Capitalizing Go

Please join discussion here. Thank you. Coastside (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Four Go Houses

Hi - Were you the editor who moved Honinbo into Four Go Houses? It seems that almost all useful contents was lost, and that Four Go Houses is incomplete now, and contains modern stuff unrelated to its title. I don't know where to find the original contents but other language WP still have some of the desired detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:3FF4:1:B62E:99FF:FE4C:71C3 (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I recommended a merger of the four articles back in 2019.

If you're new to Wikipedia, you can look at the page history of a redirect as follows. Click on this link (Inoue house) and you'll be taken via the redirect to Four go houses. Near the top you'll see in small text "Redirected from Inoue house". Click that link and you'll go to the actual redirect. Hit the "history" tab at the very top to see a list of all previous revisions of the page--- select the one just before I did the merge, and you'll see the content you were after. Same goes for the other three houses.

Otherwise, the tables you're looking for are all on Sensei's Library and I rather suspect they were originally copied here from there. In my opinion, as a specialised and focused encyclopedia, that is probably a better place for this kind of content than Wikipedia anyway.

The problem with the content as it stood was that none of it was sourced properly. Wikipedia's rules about verifiability are strict for good reasons and, and unfortunately user-generated content from another Wiki isn't permitted. We'd need to see this stuff in a reliable secondary source before we could include it here.

I'm not, in principle, opposed to a big table at Four go houses listing all the house heads, so long as it's properly sourced and there's enough other prose around that the big huge table doesn't dominate the whole article (as a matter of good style). And I completely agree with you that the article needs a lot of work, particularly around the Honinbo situation.

I hope this helps, and if I was still unclear about something feel free to ask. Reyk _YO! 18:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

See discussion at here. I found the list. It's here. The reason it's hard to find, is because the page on Honinbo was merged and moved several times, with various diacritic spellings. I had to follow the thread a bit to find it.Coastside (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not just talking about the naming and diacritics issues, but also the situation about the Honinbo name turning from the name of a house into the name of a tournament. Need to think about how to handle that. Reyk _YO! 19:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, WP knows about disambiguation, so Honinbo (house) and Honinbo (tournament) can be distinguished. There is a lot of material that belongs under the heading Honinbo, and not more than half belongs under Four Go Houses. The current Four Go Houses article is of very low quality. Progress would be to split it into Honinbo house, Inoue house, Yasui house, Hayashi house and delete Four Go Houses. Move post-1940 data to Honinbo (tournament). Concerning diacritics, English tends to avoid them. When spelling foreign languages that use them it can be a matter of correctness. But for Japanese this would just be a random convention. Books like Iwamoto's "The 1971 Honinbo Tournament" do not use diacritics. Concerning sourcing of this data, there is for example Bozulich's "The Go Player's Almanac 2001" where page 64 lists the heads of the houses, and also the holders of the office of Meijin Godokoro. Concerning the four houses as a topic, that is something that requires a sentence or two at a place that discusses Go in the Edo era, not a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:3FF4:1:B62E:99FF:FE4C:71C3 (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hello there Gerda! It's been a while. How have you been? Reyk _YO! 08:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-apology

Ok so a semi-apology for my comments at WT:WPM: I am certain that I could have found a more collegial way to express myself, and I should have invested the effort in doing that -- sorry. --JBL (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hey, no problem. On re-reading my initial comment I agree that what I intended as hyperbole "you need a feckin PhD to deal with this" didn't really come across the way I intended. Reyk _YO! 13:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Bogus Confucius quotation

Hey, what do you think of this? I don't really wanna deal with the drahma, given the article's primary author and therefore the one who likely added the bad quote, so I self-reverted, but my edit should probably be restored in the long run. Honestly, I've been quietly (and selectively/inconsistently/casually) monitoring the whole rigmarole since I was pinged to ANI, and in order to avoid grave-dancing I've refrained from commenting, but if you-know-who is still adding fake content based on dubious sources in non-deletion-related contexts, said content probably needs to be fixed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Holy shit! Someone gave you a "diamond" two sections up! What a coinkidink (sp?)! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I generally agree. If he's still adding crappy sources that would need to be dealt with. But in this case I think adding "attrib" to the quotation to that alleged Confucius saying is enough to indicate that those words possibly weren't said by Confucius. A quick bit of googling satisfies me that there are plenty of sources that do attribute that proverb to him. I wouldn't call this another example of Davidson falsifying or misrepresenting sources. Reyk _YO! 09:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you misread it: it's not that they "possible" weren't said by him but that they definitely weren't said by him; they were said by a relatively unknown figure more than 2,000 years later, and misattributed to Confucius in 1967 (and possibly mistranslated by the same source: I wouldn't mind translating 玉 as "diamond" if said translation came from a trained sinologist, but in this case it seems to come from a book called Everyman's General Knowledge by some guy named Mohammed Sirajul Islam who thought the quote came from Confucius). There's also a reference in the article body to how Confucius and other classical philosophers propounded the principle of the golden mean which counsels against extremism in general, which may or may not be true, but in this context it looks like "Confucius" is actually Jiao Hong. I can't find references to this problem in English outside of Wikiquote, but the original Chinese of the quote is attributed to Jiao Hong on multiple Chinese websites. CText attributes several works using the phrase to 项笃寿 and 陶珽, both Ming dynasty figures, but I haven't looked into it closely.

I don't think it's him falsifying sources so much as him adding garbage to the encyclopedia with inferior sources.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You think I should go for it?

I self-reverted an ANI report earlier today because I noticed a certain crowd were still at ANI and I didn't want to risk them crowding in to suggest I be site-banned for my anti-Nazi views (or "making up lies about receiving emails" or "trying to out people by revealing their IPs and physical locations" or something like that) again. I then had half a mind to support the current TBAN proposal with the following:

• Support Per everything above, plus this. I have found this editor extremely frustrating to work with, and in three years I haven't seen any evidence of his behaviour improving.

... but I'm still really paranoid that any prose I post on ANI will result in swift reprisals, and I really don't need that. The current count seems to be something like 17-16 mildly in favour of TBANning, and with my support vote it'd be slightly more tilted toward passing, but it's still much too close for comfort. (I know it's not a "vote", but disagreeing with that many editors at ANI feels dangerous, and in my experience it's pretty rare for a closer to actually weigh the arguments when the vote-count is split roughly 50-50 and a policy/argument-based close would result in a backlash.) I also notice that you don't seem to have actually !voted, so... I guess your advice would be to hold my tongue?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• I have no strong feeling on whether this is a good idea or not. On one hand it seems to be heading for a no consensus result with or without your input and, as you say, you'd be opening yourself up to vicious reprisal. On the other hand putting your concerns on record might be a good idea for the next time this comes up; otherwise people might ask why didn't you say anything last time. During this whole long saga the only !vote I put in was for Andrew Davidson's topic ban so my own instincts have been to mostly stay out of it but I don't think I really want to be telling people to do or not do the same. Reyk _YO! 09:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I bit the bullet again. We'll see if I get a similar apology and retraction to what User:William Harris. Whether or not I get such an apology/retraction, I fear I may have now condemned myself to being pinged back in to the next ANI thread on 13 once the current one ultimately gets closed with a slap on the wrist and the next report-worthy incident occurs, as though I haven't already said everything that needs saying. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

++++++

The greater the difficulty, the more glory in surmounting it. Skillful pilots gain their reputation from storms and tempests

— Epictetus

William Harris (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I suck at explaining things clearly

Gymnastics qualifying is incredibly complicated, even under current rules. So, hopefully I explained it clear enough. Honestly, most of those articles don’t really seem to pass the notability test, but I’m not an expert.Afheather (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

ANI

At ANI one editor has essentially said that I should be indefenitely blocked from editing Wikipedia because in the last 2 weeks when there was an ANI against Lugnuts for uncivility attacking me for nominating some of the 93,547 articles he created for deletion, I have nominated 2 of that huge number of articles for deletion. So this seems to me to say that A-an ANI that has not been closed, and where it seems highly unlikely to close, is still binding on people and so I must abide by it, or be driven forever from Wikipedia. This is very much frustrating me. You and a few other editos expicitly said I had done nothing wrong. I have not tried specifically to target Lugnuts. Most of the AfDs I have started during this time frame have actually involved other editors. This whole process makes no sense to me. Lugnuts falsely accuses me of targeting him. On what grounds does this, because someone found his language objectionable enough to bring to ANI, then become grounds to bar me from nominating any of the 93,547 articles he creted for deletion. Especailly if it applies to the during of the ANI, which has now run over 2 weeks. This is very frustrating. Even more frustrating is the claim that I should be indefinately blocked from editing Wikipedia period for doing this. So Lugnuts can be rude to me, and as a result I have to stop nominating any articles he created for AfD? Where is this even policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Happy Seventeenth First Edit Day!

Hey, Reyk. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)