This is an archive of past discussions - do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks, Archive 11! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed today with a unanimous 79/0/0 tally. It feels great to be appreciated, and I will try my best to meet everyone's expectations. If you have any advice or tips, feel free to pass them along, as I am sure that I will need them! Cheers,hmwith talk21:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh My God!
The judge took Britney's kids away from her! Words fail me (but I will be on all the Britney forums this evening/night, finding the words after all!). Wow! Fed-ex getting custody--what is the world coming to?!? Jeffpw21:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't say I'm entirely surprised - her recent behaviour prob won't have looked great in front of a court, and by contrast K-Fed has been pretty well behaved in recent months... WjBscribe21:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hot 100 number-one hits of 2007 (USA)
Howdy! I noticed you unprotected Hot 100 number-one hits of 2007 (USA).... I'm just letting you know that if I place it back into protected status I'm not attempting to undermine your decision... this particular page comes under a heavy barrage of edits and incorrect info/speculation on a weekly basis (moreso than the lists for other charts or countries or past years), mostly anon IPs, and most of the time before any chart has been confirmed or published (which is why it was protected in the first place).... anyhoo, most of the activity starts on Tues or Wed nights so I'm gonna keep my eye on it :-) See ya later! - eo01:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I watchlisted the page when I unprotected it. It had been protected for the last 5 months but had never been protected before that. It seemed that we should at least try having this article unprotected before it joins the list of those where protection is permanent... WjBscribe01:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem. It was actually protected at my request (I was not an admin at the time) because of the constant weekly bad and unsourced editing and most specifically the repeated removal of the legitimate reliable source links... the protection really helped cut down the vandalism. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. - eo01:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Admins
I'm not going to apologize for what I've been doing, however I am going to make sure all my vandalism gets reverted (if someone else hasn't already). Editors have no course of action against admins who quite frankly have no idea how to use their administrative powers properly. I'm a good case study of a good editor who has made significant constructive contributions with my regular username, only to become frustrated by the elitism and poor judgment to the point of defacing the encyclopedia. I know what I do as an anon IP is simple and easy to just click on the undo button; all the damage goes away into a endless archive. However, the newbies and regular editors who put untold hours of volunteer work into creating an encyclopedia can't simply revert their mindset towards the whole unfortunate situation. Thats all I have to say. If you like, I'll provide my own username and you can indef block it, and I'll stay blocked. Sorry for wasting your time. 70.247.252.6003:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I have no idea what your grievance is. There are a number of routes non-admins can make to complain of the misuse of admin powers. They can explain their grievance at WP:ANI or (if they and others have tried and failed to resolve the dispute) file a Request for Comment. Now I am perfectly willing to discuss whatever is on your mind, either by email or on this talkpage. I am not aware of any incident where I have used my administrative powers improperly but welcome review. I am also willing to investigate possible misuse of the tools by another admin. Whether you tell me the name of your account is up to you - though I probably would feel the need to take some action against it (I don't care that much about userpages - you'll notice I didn't choose to protect mine- but the vandalism to the mainspace is something else) though I don't think an indefblock is necessary. Get in touch if you would like. I will listen. Please don't damage the work of others (probability says the writers of Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra railway line, Sydney weren't admins) to take out your frustration. WjBscribe03:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to vandalize anything else, mainspace or userspace. You didn't do anything, and from your edit history you seem to be over-qualified for adminship (yes, thats a good thing). I'm not going to sit here like a temper-tantrum throwing maniac and start pointing fingers at different admins to explain my grievances. WP:ANI is fine to an extent, but unfortunately we use an online consensus to determine action if any. Put it this way; lets say you have a trial for some punk kid who committed the crime of shoplifting. Then, when you go to select the jury members who would ultimately find him guilty or innocent, you select only individuals from his neighborhood who were at the scene during the crime. Anything wrong with this picture? Why would the individuals from his neighborhood be with him at the scene? You'd have a bias jury.
Anyways, I am sorry for wasting your time on reverting my edits. My username is DigitalNinja and I primarily fight vandalism if you notice the contributes (ironic isn't it?). My old username which contains most of my article contributions I forgot in 2006 after an extended period of absence. It has the word 'smith' in it, and I did a lot of work with user SMcCandish on billiard related articles and cue sports. Thats all I remember of it. If you wish to take action against my account thats up to you. I'll sign under my account to confirm identity due to my dynamic rotating IP. Thanks for listening to me. 70.247.252.6004:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Its difficult to consider this purely in the abstract but the your analogy shouldn't realise arise. Admins are only admins in situations where they are uninvolved, if they are part of the dispute they should act as any other user. If a page needs protecting that an admin is involved in an edit war on, they should not be the admin to protect it. If a user an admin is in a dispute with requires blocking, they should ask an uninvolved admin to investigate. If you're suggesting a more generally defensiveness of admins towards complaints against other admins I think that comes from being worn down by the number of frivolous complaints that are made. The number of "Admin X should no longer by an admin because he deleted my article about my dog" threads at ANI is just silly and often people scream for an admin's head before they have even raised their grievance on that person's talkpage. So maybe there is a certain weariness given the low standard of general complaints (its a pretty poor signal-to-noise ration) but I think fair complaints backed up by diffs would be looked into fairly. Consensus is how all decisions get made here but I think where possible as impartial as possible a person should make any determinations. As I said though, its not easy when only discussing the problem in the abstract - rather than with concrete examples of where the process may have gone wrong. WjBscribe04:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, WJBscribe. I see that you and ^demon (talk·contribs) blanked Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's Meats, but I don't quite understand why. The presence of some bad-faith comments on that page doesn't seem a sufficient reason for hiding its contents from casual visitors. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Courtesy blanking allows for a page to be blanked for reasons such as invasion of privacy, libel and emotional distress — but I don't see any of those reasons applying to the Mzoli's AfD. In general, I don't think it's a good idea to blank Wikipedia process pages, especially when they've gained media attention: to the casual viewer, it will appear as if we're trying to hide dirty laundry.
Other folks are also asking about the blanking at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's Meats, and you may wish to comment there. If there's something about this that you'd rather not discuss on-wiki, you can email me via the "email this user" link on my user page. However, unless there's more here than meets the eye, it looks to me as if there's not a lot of support for this courtesy blanking, and you might want to reconsider it. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I have long been of the opinion that any AfD that contains (a) the name of a living person and (b) any negative comments about that person should be courtesy blanked. Its just that, a courtesy - our meta pages have a ridicilulously high google presence and people have historically been caused a lot of upset by finding that either our AfD is a high hit for them or that searching for their name plus other negative words leads to the AfD resulting. A lot of non-Wikipedians can misunderstand such meta discussions. The history remains available so nothing is being concealed from people (only from google Bots). If someone wants to add a permalink to the last revision pre-blanking, I would not oppose that. WjBscribe15:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I take your point about those who comment on the talk page not necessarily being representative of the community as a whole. I'll bring the matter up at AN/I. However, I felt that since ^demon was the admin who had originally blanked the page, and he said he had no objection to the blanking being reverted, the matter would be uncontroversial. Whose privacy are you trying to protect? Jimbo's? As I said on the talk page, I really don't think that's necessary. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry — I received your message after I had already posted to AN/I. If you'd like me to remove the AN/I post, I can do so, as long as nobody else has posted a reply. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, could you explain this edit? I'm not aware of any consensus that prohibits the use of Foundation copyrighted images in userspace. Any discussions I have seen suggests that they should not be treated the same as other unfree images. I'm not aware there has either been a change in local consensus or any directive from the Foundation prohibiting their use... WjBscribe04:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
In the name of free content, we remove and delete all sorts of images that pose no legal threat to us. The foundation's logos are kept on the Commons for convenience, not because they are free to use. —Remember the dot(talk)04:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Rubbish. The foundation's logos can be used on Wikipedia because it's their parent organization. You might as well remove the image on the top left corner, because they are "not free to use". Unless you have consensus for the removal, stop. --DarkFallstalk04:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
You There???
Why did you do that??? Connubbialis
Sorry can you give a bit more detail? I'm guessing you were blocked under a different name? What was that account's name? WjBscribe04:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
CHU/U
Hey, I redid the requests section, but I don't really volunteer there frequently, what are your thoughts? Regards, Mercury17:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Having a separate section for requests that can be done straight away is fine for people who really understand the process, but I think it will confuse everyone else. Lots of users will want to know why some get to jump "the queue" and requests will get filed in the wrong place. Crats are quite good at looking through the requests to see if any can be performed straight away - and I sometimes direct their attention to them. But frankly people already make a mess when making requests there, so I'd rather make the page simpler rather than more complicated for people who don't know the rename/usurp policies like the back of their hands... WjBscribe17:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I was looking over Portal:LGBT/Quotes and its related template Portal:LGBT/Quotetemp and noticed you created Portal:LGBT/Quotetemp and installed it to Portal:LGBT/Quotes. We've added a great many new quotes to LGBT/Quotes over the last few weeks but they aren't showing up, just showing the older quotes that were there before the addition of new ones. Does this have something to do with the settings in LGBT/Quotetemp? Thanks. -- ALLSTARECHO20:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I copied the code from another Portal. I may be wrong - but it maybe that the template only accomodates 10 different quotations. You might want to ask on the village pump to see if someone can rewrite the code so it supports more quotations than 10? WjBscribe20:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
It's been a while, but I've now moved back to the UK and settled into my new hall of residence, with the internet running. I will now accept your offer (dating back to August) to nominate me for RFA. Thanks.--Alasdair08:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem, we were working on fixing a series of page moves by the same vandal. I've now move protected the page so it can't happen again... WjBscribe01:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Sigh... okay, then I guess you can reopen it. I just didn't see the point, as you addressed my major consideration about navigability of categories, and all that's left now is people talking about how "gay people need this list to know there are other gay people out there" keep votes. I just don't see how the outcome would change either way. David Fuchs (talk)17:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Err, I was under the impression that if the nominator withdrew the AfD it could shut regardless of the votes. Is this not the case? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
AfDs are either closed early under the rules at WP:SK or WP:SNOW. There nothing that says the nominator's opinion is more important than that of everyone else, so the fact they change their mind doesn't seem a major factor if there are multiple "delete" opinions. WjBscribe18:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I flagged Snakebot. I was referring to some at the very bottom of the page that don't seem to be flagged. -- Cecropia03:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
User:P usurpation
I am doing some checking on sockpuppets over at en:Wikiquote by seeing if there are similar names here on Wikipedia. I noticed that you posted a notice on 11 July 2007, currently at User talk:P#Request for Usurpation, for usurpation of a username. I'm not clear on what an usurpation looks like after the fact, so I don't know if "P" is (A) the original username that was not usurped, despite the lack of reply from P on this page; or (B) the end-result of the usurpation, with no mention of the original username. I checked the WP:CHU archives for both "Rejected/Unfulfilled" and "Usurpations" in the 11-18 July timeframe, but saw no mention of "P" or of any requested username change that seemed to suggest "P" might be involved. Could you tell me what happened here, or at least point me to the appropriate records? Thank you for your help. ~ Jeff Q(talk)11:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you find false accusations not uncivil?[1] Do you find this comment (which you likewise surely saw) not uncivil?[2] And from WP:CIVIL#Examples: "More serious examples include…Calling for bans or blocks."[3]
When those things happen, it leads to hard feelings and strong words. Perhaps you cracked a smile at that second comment, perhaps not, but it left me more determined to stick up for this beleaguered whistleblower, who has been made today's scapegoat of the WP/IRC community, to the point that we're free to ridicule him as we please, even as he's blocked and unable to respond. Perhaps you thought the first inaccuracy, for which he was blocked, a minor detail, perhaps not (I've seen no apologies, save from the honorable Chaser) but I saw gross miscarriage of fact and of justice, which is what to begin with obliged me to rise to his defense: it should have obliged you, too.Proabivouac06:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Matt57's "sockpuppetry". Given the similarity in edits between Matt57 and that account, I can't see how Shell can be faulted for presuming sockpuppetry. You might like to remember though that the checkuser request that exhonerated Matt57 was filed by me - I could simply have relied on WP:DUCK and supported a block made on behavioural evidence but instead I sought further investigation.
Moreschi's support comment. Actually I had not seen that previously - I don't read every support on every RfA. It is at the borderline of civility - but if Matt57's reputation on Wikipedia has to declined to such a low that his oppostion of someone encourages support from others, I think he seriously needs to rethink the way in which he's contributing to this project. And no, I didn't smile - I find Matt57's conduct utterly outrageous as you well know. If it does not improve after his block, I will support further sanctions against him.
I am sorry but I cannot see how holding you to the terms of your probation could possibly be uncivil. I could have simply posted to WP:AE straight away. But I was aware that to do so I would have to link to the sanction in the RFARB in question and that would have meant pointing people to a page containing your real name. I knew this would upset you and so gave you the option to retract the comment instead.
I think that an adequate response to the diffs you have pointed me too. As before, I strongly urge to move on from old disputes rather than dwell bitterly upon them. I would also recommend that you sever your unfortunate association with Matt57, which seems to be leading you into unnecessary confrontations and further damaging your standing on this project. WjBscribe07:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
My standing on this project has been irrevocably damaged by the violation of my privacy at the hands of an administrator who was first set upon me, via IRC, as a component of this very dispute.
I'll not dispute your second two points. As for the first, I don't actually fault anyone for assuming sockpuppetry, except insofar as it was imperceptive and naïve - a breach of competence (at least I saw what was going on immediately,) not of faith. What I object to is the lack of a subsequent apology, at least on the part of the one who first raised this false charge. Chaser made the same error, and apologized. That's gold in my eyes.
For Matt57, it should be obvious to you that I don't pick who to defend based upon their popularity, else I should have long ago allied with you and helped to ban him.
Considerations of chivalry and common decency aside, what Matt57 advocated - to eliminate all material not squarely based upon reliable sources - is right by policy, and right for this project, and is no different from what I would have done on any other article.Proabivouac07:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
As an addendum, I also observe that the characterization "holding you to the terms of your probation" is demonstrably inaccurate: there was nothing whatsoever in those terms, nor in WP:PROBATION, which I'd violated. You cannot quote it because it doesn't exist, a straightforward observation of fact which dozens of others, including highly respected administrators (the old guard, not this new IRC-based clique,) shared. Whereas what was done to me violated the very clear language of WP:HARASS. An honorable organization doesn't invoke WP:IAR according to some ex post-facto and impromptu "spirit," but stands by its every word; its guarantees to its volunteer contributors are sacred and gold. Nor am I rightly on probation now, except to disrupt Wikipedia (and my life) to make a point.Proabivouac08:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I really would appreciate if you would make more judicious use of the "show preview" button to compose your posts in one go. I am finding the constant appearance of the orange bar rather distracting.... WjBscribe08:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
One question I admit I am curious about. You seem to blame an IRC-clique for the outing of your previous username under which you were sanctioned by ArbCom, which you say is your real name. But as far as I know, the first people to make the link between your accounts were your new friends at WikipediaReview. Yet you don't seem to bear them any ill will, why is that? WjBscribe10:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Good question; thank you for asking. 1) They'd made no pledge not to do so - not a trivial point - shall I repeat that an honorable organization stands by its every word, and that its guarantees to its volunteer contributors are sacred and gold? I have 15+k edits, and a great track record (until it became your fire hydrant) here, none there. As I was upholding policy here, it's only natural that they'd have targeted me there. That WP would have joined them is, in contrast, a betrayal of trust. 2) WR is far less prominent than WP - its main effect is in what it pushes onto WP 3) WR is, with some exceptions (e.g. Slim Virgin) on the whole less hostile - the very moment I began posting there, I was met with charity and understanding, whereas WP is an ongoing flame war, with interpersonal hostility infecting almosteverypage - count how many times and editors have RWI trolled me there vs. here - and I've seen nothing there which remotely approaches the obscenity and hate-filled racist madness I saw in the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee (well, I did just see one thing about a WP editor being run over by a bus, but it was deleted - meanwhile the stuff about me being punched in the face, among many other things, is still here in our history - we need their moderators over here) 4) these WR friends include several of your IRC friends, the very most aggressive in violating my privacy, who'd joined long before I did. Should they be desysoped?Proabivouac10:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
You see WP as an "ongoing flame war" and WR as a forum of "charity and understanding". Oh dear, I think you've rather lost perspective... WjBscribe11:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
If you're treated with respect over here, as you are, but attacked over there, of course you'll disagree, and vice-versa. i've not been treated well or with respect here as of late, nor was I treated with respect in arbitration; instead I was libeled, and Jews generally atttacked, and am/are still libeled and attacked, at the express invitation of the Committee, on their very own dedicated attack farm pages. This "perspective" you suggest I should have, I lost long ago due to real experience.Proabivouac11:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
If you have such fundamental problems with Wikipedia, I wonder why you're still here. If I had fundamental problems with a website, I would distance myself from it. --Deskana(talk)11:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Check my contribs: I am distancing myself very substantially, and may do so further, perhaps quite memorably.
Would you not agree that a site which for nearly a month tells the public that a living person intends to open a series of holocaust-themed restaurants[4] is an "attack site"? You may think these facts quite unconnected, but I don't think so. The common denominator is that every word on WR (or any other site) we rightly attribute to WR. If User:XFHIGHIO says so-and-so on WR, we rightly say, WR has said so-and-so. But on WP, we deny responsibility for everything except what we personally post under our usernames. "I'm rubber, you're glue…" We'll even maintain it indefinitely, and restore it against attempted blankings, while still saying it's not us.Proabivouac12:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you look at a block?
User talk:Haiduc. One week for a snarky edit summary seems a bit extreme. According to established policy, Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. This definitely seems punitive to me. I have no doubt that 1==2 is a well meaning Wikipedian ( :-) ), but I do doubt if blocking an established editor who has never been blocked before for one week is helpful to the editor or the project. Thanks. Jeffpw08:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Quick favour?
Hi there, ho ho, I believe we have yet never met, never a better time than the present. G'day to you! Well since you are one of the admins active at the moment, I would like to request a small favour; can you please delete my user page; I will recreate it after you delete it. Thanks a lot! Phgao10:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I am a member of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, because the majority of my edits are wrestling related articles. Is it possible to become an administrator for this project, and if so, how would I go about doing that? Hiphopchamp13:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not. As noted here, it is a site-wide user permission, and requires the trust and support of the whole community. There is currently no technical way to grant limited adminship, and no real support from the community to do so either. Daniel00:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding userpation Niaz <- Niaz_bd
Today I applied for a userpation from Niaz_bd to Niaz. I didn't know that user Niaz had some contributions on WP though those edits have been deleted later. Now the scenario is, Niaz does not have any existing edit other then those deleted contributions on WP and even he didn't create his own userpage/usertalk. He doesn't have any email address as well. In such case will it be possible for me get migrated to that username? I'll be extremely grateful if you kindly advise me what to do next. Kind regards, -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs)18:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The deleted edits put the request in a slight grey area - though so far similar requests have been performed. There's nothing else you can do really, its entirely in the discretion of the bureaucrat who review the request in a weeks or so's time whether or not to perform the rename. I suspect it will be fine, but ultimately it isn't my decision. WjBscribe23:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
For cleaning up the comments here. I was half tempted to specially after I saw people who opposed did the exact same thing (ironically that included you). Kwsn(Ni!)12:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
People who've been around a while will know those notes don't mean much, but it would be a shame if new editors were put off commenting - especially given that the discussions doesn't have a very obvious consensus at the moment. WjBscribe12:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
If you ask me though, if it doesn't succeed, in a few months, he'll have like 4-5 people wanting to nom him all at once and he'll easily make it, just the fact he has over 70% is impressive. Kwsn(Ni!)12:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, it just depends, some people just want it right away, some people just hold off. All depends on the person. Kwsn(Ni!)14:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Random thing on former admins
Hi,
I'm on an extended vacation, but I noticed your recent removal of the "controversial circumstances" marker from several folks on the former admin page. While your rationale -- that b'crats have discretion over such matters -- is entirely correct, I disagree with some of the removals. For former admins who have already failed a new RfA, a b'crat has already determined (sometimes, by stipulation of the candidate), that controversial circumstances exist. Ref 2 implies Ref 1, in other words. Jtkiefer is a special case -- he avoided being banned (by b'crat Taxman) only by agreeing to a future RfA and the disclosing of any name changes, even under the right to vanish before being readminned. Essjay is likewise a special case -- given the circumstances of his resignation (forced by Jimbo, basically), I submit that it is right to make him a "controversial candidate" also. I will now make changes to return the list to a clearer state, marking the cases that have already been determined to be controversial by a b'crat or Jimbo. Best wishes, Xoloz15:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I think readding with the summary "after talk with WJB" is an odd description when I haven't responded to your comment. My removal was based on the discussion on the talkpage and on the crat noticeboard at the time - particularly comments by Taxman. I concede the point that where those candidates have already tried attempted to regain the tools trhough RfA and have failed, 1 rpob can be safely added. But I'm not so sure that Essjay fits. Its unclear what would have happened if he had refused Jimbo's request and Jimbo did not use his steward access to remove them. I suspect Jimbo would have refered the matter to ArbCom and sanctions would have resulted, though not necessarily the loss of his sysop access. I agree that its very likely the crats would require him to go through RfA, but I think if we start adding that sort of subjective opinion we go back to the sort of prejudgment that was making the list problematic in the first place. So whilst I see the logic with the others, I think the tag should be removed again from his entry as there was neither (a) an ArbCom finding or (b) a bureaucrat finding. WjBscribe17:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The summary was in order under WP:BOLD -- give you my reasons for doing something, then do it. If you object, you can always change it. I continue to dispute the Essjay issue -- because of his particular infamy, I think it is healthier for the encyclopedia if he is marked. In all the myriad discussions of his misconduct, I am certain at least one bureaucrat submitted that controversial circumstances existed. While I see where concerns over a "slippery slope" might arise, I think the Essjay case is so painfully obvious that it is an exercise in absurdity to wait for a b'crat to declare something so widely accepted by the community, by Jimbo, by essentially everyone. Essjay is the only former admin to bring Wikipedia into disrepute in the mainstream press. It serves WP's reputation to have his account formally marked. Can you seriously imagine a circumstance in which he would be automatically re-adminned? Can you envision the reaction to such a move? If it happened, do you believe it would ever withstand the inevitable backlash? Best wishes, Xoloz11:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Your response to an editor's vote
WJBscribe, hello. I noticed you left this response [5] to a RfA vote by Proabivouac. It comes across to me as threatening and harsh. Please explain to me why you see such a response as necessary.--Fahrenheit45116:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Reading the exchanges that led up to that response, I can't help thinking that WJBscribe was being fairly measured ... richi16:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The response was not in relation to a vote (RfA isn't a vote anyway) it was a comment on his disruptive allegations he made elsewhere on the RfA page which is part of an ongoing pattern of disruption by Proabivouac ever since it was revealed that he had been sanctioned by ArbCom under a previous username and had returned under this one thereby avoiding those ArbCom sanctions. I would advise you to stay clear of the matter if you are not in possession of all the facts. WjBscribe17:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
WJBscribe, my purpose for asking you was to clarify your response. I thank you for giving me some of the relevant facts. On the RfAs, one does support, oppose, or take a neutral stance, so there is a vote involved. I see nothing particularly disruptive about his comments on Jehochman's RfA page. He does protest what he perceives as some injustices involving unnamed admins. Perhaps that is not the best page for placing that comment and to that extent, it may be inappropriate.--Fahrenheit45117:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
There is little point in my setting out my case against Proabviouac now after warning him to moderate his conduct. Should he decide to disregard my advice and continue as he is now, it will no doubt result in my requesting input from other administrators and the wider community (as I would not act myself). At that point you can feel free to weigh the information I and others provide and to comment as you like. In the meantime, the ball is in Proabivouac's court. WjBscribe18:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Album cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot17:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for supporting my RfA, which passed 63 to 1. I really appreciate that you wrote such nice things about me. I hope that I am doing good so far. BTW, I supported your bot's RfA, before I realized (1) that it was you, and (2) that I had not thanked you for supporting me! Bearian20:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Request for comment
Because of concerns over how I acted in semi-protecting the William Shakespeare article, I have opened a discussion on my use of my admin powers at User_talk:Alabamaboy#Request_for_comment_on_my_use_of_admin_powers. Based on how the comments go, I am prepared to give up my admin powers or accept other sanctions. I hope you will comment since you already voiced your opinion at ANI.--Alabamaboy01:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your support.
Hello WJBscribe,
Thanks very much for coming out to and being the second person to support my second RFA. Seeing that the community appears to have your trust, I appreciate that you took the time to vouch for me. That quite likely helped bring a certain level of gravitas that I currently lack.
I hope that I get to work with you, and — in the process — help foster a more positive atmosphere throughout the community. Thanks again. --Aarktica02:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
OK....
OK, so my RfA has been rejected.
So is it because I have a block against me, means I can NEVER be in administration??? I hope it's not the case as if you look at my archived talk, there is a reason they unblocked me. I understand the other reasons but can I ever be an admin? Aflumpire05:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
PS-please leeve any response on my talk page. Thanks
My recent RfA
I am sorry you felt it necessary to oppose my recent RfA, which did not succeed. I have seen you around and respect your judgment, and to see you oppose my RfA truly saddens me. Especially your harsh words about me not having experience in any area related to administrator work simply isn't true and astounds me. It is true I haven't participated in XfDs, but, indeed, I have tagged articles as candidates for speedy deletion. I have reported users to WP:AIV, and my bot has reported many, many users to AIV. Is not vandal fighting part of an administrator's job? I have done a fair amount of that, and my bot has done so much more. Furthermore, isn't blocking open proxies the job of an administrator? I am a verified open proxy checker, and participate at WP:OP. You also expressed concerns about my article writing experience, while it is true that I haven't written much, I don't see why article writing is a prerequisite to being an administrator. The administrator tools are more for cleaning up (thus the term "mop") rather than writing other articles. I will attempt to get more experience in the main namespace and the Wikipedia namespace and will try again for RfA in two month's time. I hope I will have satisfied your concerns by then, but if not, please comment as you feel you should. Thanks for participating in my RfA. -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn)08:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Congrats, WJB. Just make sure that you and your bot don't "go crazy" and delete the main page and block a bunch of established editors! ;) Sarah01:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The LGBT studies project has been rather quiet of late. Though we've added over 180 new members in the last year, only a small percentage are active participants. If you haven't visited our project or talk page in a while, please stop by for a look. Also, if you happen to bump into another editor who you feel might enjoy working with us, please extend an invitation. There's lot's do do, and the active members would sincerely appreciate some help.
Our Peer review project is struggling at the present, with only a few people reviewing the articles. While it is certainly possible to submit articles for a general peer review, a review by members of the LGBT community can be of additional value for LGBT specific writing. There are several articles currently up for review on a wide range of topics. At the very least, reading the articles will undoubtedly broaden your intellectual horizons :-)
At the moment, David Le Brocq, Malmö Devilants and Trajectory Hermeneutics are up for deletion review. Please take a look at them and make your voice heard at the deletion review. Articles nominated for deletion also present a challenge for improvement. See what you can do, and watchlist our deletion review page.
The Pederasty articles continue to be a point of controversy both within and outside of our community. Various editors have suggested that to include them as LGBT Project related somehow taints the project and brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Other editors have stated that the articles, and especially the Pederasty article, are part of the core of LGBT studies. Well meaning editors continue to remove our tags from the articles themselves as well as the talk pages. If you have time, please read the articles and watchlist them to protect them from vandalism and well meaning but counterproductive edits.
The list of LGBT people has survived its 4th nomination for deletion. Please watchlist this list to protect it from vandalism and unsourced additions. There are many in Wikipedia who would like to see this Featured status list removed from the project. It is up to us to keep it to such a high caliber that it never is removed.
Our project member David Shankbone is now working as a journalist for Wikinews, as well as continuing to improve our project and Wikipedia as a whole with his photographs. A sincere thank you goes out to him for all of his hard work. Wikipedia would not shine nearly as brightly without your contributions, David.
Happy Halloween, everybody! Be happy and celebrate!
The surviving life partner of prominent LGBT rights activist Barbara Gittings recently called one of our editors and, among other things, complimented us on what a great job our project is doing on Wikipedia. Thanks to everyone who contributes to this project, either through their article edits or support for other project members. We really are making an difference here!
Member assistance
Some of our project members have been having difficulties related to editing on the encyclopedia. If you are feeling frustrated or distressed by your editing experience, please don't keep it to yourself. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and we are all here to help one another. Drop a line on our talkpage or on another editor's page, and other members of the LGBT project will happily give you the support you want and need.
Lastly, Halloween is just around the corner. More than most holidays, Halloween is a holiday embraced by and tailor made to our community (though God only knows why we are invisible in the Halloween article here. Perhaps somebody would like to rectify that editing oversight). Have fun, everybody, and remember to both trick and treat!
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.
Delivered on 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC).
Doh!
Gah! I completely got my days wrong of what day the bot's RfA ended, lol. I fully intended to add a support opinion, especially after your great answer to my question, but I got distracted, and it completely slipped my mind. Well, not that you needed another support, that was a very impressive turnout. I guess I can just offer my congrats for you to pass along to the bot, lol. Ariel♥Gold12:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman
Ready to swab the decks!
Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your astute comments at my RFA. Arrrgh!
Hi Will, I asked to usurp '9' and I see you processed it and we are now awaiting the magic wand being waved. Only problem is - it hasn't. Seems a bit strange to have this incredibly long, drawn out and self-important process that then isn't followed by the very system it is supposed to assist. I'm not whining, but can you suggest someone I could take this issue to so I/m not waiting for another week? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Doctrinus (talk • contribs) 00:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Renames and usurpations can only be performed by bureaucrats. The 7 days is a minimum wait time I'm afraid - after that its a question of when a bureaucrat next visits the page and performs the pending requests. Often bureaucrats have other important commitments within the project and renames can be seen as a low priority area. There isn't much you can do except be patient, sorry - I'm sure someone will get to the requests soon though... WjBscribe00:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Will, thank you very much for all your assistance. A thankless task I'm sure - but much appreciated by me! 917:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
U2 album article...
Hi WJB. I'm a bit confused about this article. I thought it had been deleted. There is an afd with your name on it saying it had gone. Can you clarify it for me please? cheers. --Merbabu08:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It appears that since the AfD that I closed in May (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U2's 16th album), there has been a 2nd AfD that resulted in a consensus to keep the article in June after it was created at a slightly different title (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U2's 16th Album) - maybe there were more sources by then? Per the fact that consensus can change), the later decision is one we go by. Obviously with an upcoming album, at first there will only be rumour (too soon to create an article) but at some point as more info is released it will become appropriate to have an article. Does that explain things? WjBscribe16:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thorny redirect problem
Hi there. I'm currently creating lots of redirects to biographical articles. The story here is that people can be linked in several different ways, with redirects taking people to where the article is (as I'm sure you know). For example: Carl S. Marvel and Carl Shipp Marvel. Such redirects are often needed when people are credited in references to journal articles, or listed in lists of awards copied from a website (in such cases it is sometimes important to retain the exact original phrasing of the name). This creation of redirects should be done by people creating the biographical article, but as you can see from my sweep through Willard Gibbs Award (see [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]), this is often not the case. I did something similar for Royal Medal. The problem I sometimes come across is articles where redlinks exist, but the article hasn't been created yet. I'm then stuck with either creating a stub (which is annoying if I don't have time to do this), or leaving the redirects uncreated. If I created them, of course, your new master would delete them... :-) Here is a concrete example of that: W. Albert Noyes, Jr. (what links here) and William Albert Noyes, Jr. (what links here). Both are valid ways to write the name. At the moment I've noted on the awards pages that he is the son of William A. Noyes, but what I wanted to do was create a redirect from W. Albert Noyes, Jr. to William Albert Noyes, Jr.. It seems that I can't do that, and what I will have to do is either create a small stub (ideally the redlink would wait for someone who had time to write a proper article), or redirect both to the father's article (again, that may impede the creation of a proper article). In case you are interested, I tried to create a redirect to a non-yet-written page before. The redirect was Ramsay H. Traquair. If you look at the page history and the page logs, you will see that I created it on 7 February 2007, and it was deleted on 10 February. I failed to notice until 18 July, when I started this discussion (now archived). This probably all shows up a fundamental failing of the current redirect system (a redirect to a page that has mainspace links in the "what links here" list should be treated as a redlink, not a broken redirect), but what happened in that case was that I wrote the stub Ramsay Heatley Traquair and politely requested undeletion of the redirect. The terse response was "it's recreated", and I said I didn't care either way, but I see that someone later undeleted the redirect (all this took place on 18 July).
Right. That was a bit long! Hopefully you managed to get to the end of that. My question, in light of the recent RfA for your adminbot to delete broken redirects (congratulations on that), is what is the best way to deal with this sort of thing? Do you think that redirects should wait until there is an article, or not? If I see several different redlinks referring to the same person, can the relationship between these redlinks (a relationship that would normally be noted by creating redirects between them) be noted anywhere for future reference? Carcharoth14:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know... In the time it took me to write that, I could have written several different stubs! :-) But still, redirects can come before articles. What we really need is a empty placeholder that looks like a redlink but doesn't make redirects think they are broken. Do you think this is worth asking for. I very much doubt the developers would go for it, but you never know. Carcharoth14:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
And now I've come across something a bit strange. The redirects to Herman Mark were deleted under g5 (banned user). See Herman Francis Mark and Herman F. Mark. I've now recreated them (I initially thought this was a case of deleting broken redirects). Possibly g5 meant something else back then? I guess I'll have to ask Kusma, but it seems a bit pointless deleting valid contributions. The reason this is relevant to broken redirects is that while investigating that I found a way to record redirects - Requested Articles! Have a look at Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Culture_and_fine_arts. Search for Herman Francis Mark, and you will see a row of three links. When I looked at it, only Herman Mark was blue (well, browny red for stubs). The others were red. Effectively, the request was for an article and two redirects. I've now resupplied the redirects, when previously only the article had been provided. So maybe Wikipedia:Requested_articles is the place to record these groupings of redirects for articles that will be needed. If someone only creates the article, then someone who comes along to tidy up the request can create the redirects at the same time as they remove the fulfilled request from the page. Does that sound workable? Carcharoth15:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, let me try and answer some of those points:
G5 deletions. Just a guess, but a lot of people confuse G5 (banned user) and G6 (housekeeping) - I often see uncontroversial maintenance deletions tagged as G5 in error.
Redirects to articles yet to be created. I really can't see much reason to have these - I think its pretty confusing to the reader and doesn't add value. From what I can tell by talking to other admins those would be deleted at the moment by human admins. If you wanted that to change, I think you need to propose that CSD R1 be altered. But yes, the Wikipedia:Requested articles route seems a good one. I also suspect these redirects would come into creation organically - when someone searches by a series of names and, once they find the article, turn the other names into redirects.
Undeleting redirects. It seems to me that there is rarely any need to trouble yourself to get an admin to undelete these - they can be recreated whenever a target exists for them. Given the number of words a redirect contains, there is no need under GFDL to attribute it to the first person who created it or anything like that...
Avoiding a redirect being deleted by the Bot. If you want to create a redirect to a redlink that the Bot won't delete, just edit the page more than once. That's no guarantee a human admin won't delete it though.
As an aside, one of the problems here in the recent aggression in deleting stubs. There should be nothing wrong with a short article on someone obviously notable without needing vast numbers of refs to confirm notability. Full professors, members of national governments, Nobel prozewinners etc. are by definition notable and having one sentence about them is better than nothing.... WjBscribe16:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. The thing about 1-sentence, or slightly longer, stubs, is that people no longer see a redlink. I believe that redlinks encourage new article creation, and show people what still needs to be created. Unless you follow the link, you don't find out what is there. Also, it is disappointing as a reader (not as an editor) to follow a link and find a substub. I generally agree that redirects to articles yet to be created are not really needed, but I might ponder creating a category to put them in and editing them twice - but that would mess up broken redirects for humans who tidy up the ones the bot doesn't touch. A pity, because Category:Redirects to requested articles has a nice ring to it... :-) Oh, and the undeleting of redirects? That's just me being pedantic. It affronts my sense of natural justice when people recreate instead of undeleting, but that is something I'll have to deal with myself (deep breaths!). I'll wait for Kusma to reply about the G5 stuff. Thanks. Carcharoth16:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Ironically, the main disadvantage to redirects to requested articles is that people typing that in, or linking to it, will think an article exists. If there is one thing worse than following a link and finding a one-sentence stub, it must be following a link and finding a broken redirect, and then clicking that and being told no article exists, but would you like to create one!! I think that conclusively torpedoes my idea. Carcharoth16:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
ie. request redirects along with the article is the better idea. Maybe, just maybe, create the talk page first and make a note for the person who creates the article to create the redirects. It should be much easier to keep talk pages that don't have articles - there is precedent for that already with deletion discussion. This would simply be "pre-creation discussion". Groovy! :-) Carcharoth16:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Aloha, WJBscribe. Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Votes for banning. However, I am just wondering why and how you calculated a "delete" outcome, as nothing was stated on the MfD in your closure. It doesn't seem close to a consensus for delete. If it was the fact that it was a redirect to a now historical page, or that you were ignoring rules to better the encyclopedia, or some other explanation, a simple note saying so would be helpful. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i18:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi WJBscribe. Please note that User:Elonka started by reverting my edits for a more neutral version, and I think, a more appropriate placement inside the Crusades paragraph. As she reverted it, the image does not illustrate any text in the "Legends" paragraph. Regards. PHG09:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I am concerned that you have reverted 3 times (Elonka has done so only twice). Reading though the talkpage I was struck that you had never participated there. Recalling the discussion on another talkpage that the consensus of historians is that Jerusalem was not captured by Mongols in the period in question (a view confirmed by impartial editors such as Danny), it seemed to me that your caption was not representing scholarly consensus on the matter. Elonka's caption seemed preferable. Given that the incident depicted did not occur, the "legends" section seems appropriate to me. WjBscribe09:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope, I only did one edit, and then two revs when Elonka reverted my edit twice. I think Elonka's caption is uncesseraly POV and could take a more neutral stance: a painting is not "Erroneously-titled".. it is just titled by its author, and modern scholars are divided on the question of the occupation by the Mongols and Armenians. Regards. PHG09:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
PHG, you clearly made 3 reverts: 1, 2, 3. As to issues with the text, I suggest you agree a compromise text between you on the talkpage. WjBscribe09:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. That is when you are allowed to start your bot editing at the requested rate of 4EPM max. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to contact me via talk page or IRC (as TheLetterE). — Etalkbots10:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Protection Question
Hi WJB, A question for you. Related to a recent point raised at AN/I [11] , there has been a struggle recently over what to do about episodes of a series called Farscape. These do not comply with our notability policy or our episode guideline and, after a lengthy discussion process (back and forth here: [[12]]) I redirected per WP:EPISODE. This was reverted, etc... you can guess what follows. The question is: is page protection (either to prevent me from further redirecting or to maintain the redirect which I believe is a clear implementation of policy) a proper course of action. Basically, a committed group of fans is acting to stymie site-wide policy. Thanks for any thoughts you may have. Eusebeus12:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I second this concern. User:Matthew is simply edit warring to keep these articles. The editors in favor of keeping these episode articles are not doing anything to improve them so that they adhere to policies and guidelines. Looks like he's calling for back-up here. I'm not sure if protection is the right solution, but ask that you look at this. Thank you. --Jack Merridew12:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not particularly interested by whether these pages should be articles or redirects but the edit warring is unacceptable. I have fully protected the pages (in the state that I found them) until a consensus is reached as to what to do with them.... WjBscribe12:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I have stated on the talk page (diff) that I intend to review another of the seasons episodes tomorrow. I will, of course, consider any further discussion, before acting. The larger issue is the debate over tv show episode articles, which I gather is an ancient one. I'm always open to links to relevant discussions. --Jack Merridew13:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be best if consensus was reached before people start edit warring over another set of 20 odd pages - the issues for one series should be much the same as those for any other... WjBscribe13:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd love to see a consensus reached. On Farscape, the debate has been going on for better than six weeks. There is a huge section on the current AN/I page about this. Eusebeus has just dropped a note about RFC and Arbitration on Talk:List of Farscape episodes. I have been involved in quite a few discussion about tv show episodes and for the most part things are civil enough and outcomes respected. However on Farscape and Oh My Goddess the fans seem to be willing to try anything other than actually improving the articles. Since I go involved in this issue, I have come to see just how many problematic tv episode articles there are - many, many thousands. We spend six weeks discussing an old show, and a thousand new episode articles get created. I am open to ideas about what's next. --Jack Merridew13:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
sorry if I was unclear about the huge AN/I discussion; it's not specific to the Farscape articles, it's about the whole tv episode issue - which I'm sure you've seen by now. --Jack Merridew13:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that per WP:CONSENSUS, the standards for asserting notability are clear. Individual fans, however, prevaricate on individual series they like to stymie site-wide consensus. Anyway, thanks for reviewing the issue. Eusebeus13:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The Mediation is over. The proposal you made on the RfM page can just as easily be made on the article's talkpage. Or you could be bold an create an article if you believe it would meet our inclusion criteria. WjBscribe18:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't really have anything to add. I take your point that the edits were reverted and no doubt the bureaucrat who reviews the request will factor that in when deciding whether to perform it. I still think calling yourself "Buddha" will offend some users however. WjBscribe17:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the consideration. Yeah, it might offend some people but no, i'm not saying i'm enlightened, Lol! Thanks! Kevin22:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
As a very new admin, I blocked for 24 hours as a precaution. Thanks for the follow-up of an indef block. Bearian00:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
No prob - the speed of his contribs was worrying for one thing. Generally if an account has had proper warnings and every edit from them has been vandalism, an indefblock seems appropriate. Experience teaches that these return to vandalising after short blocks (and if they want to start contributing positively its prob better for them to make a fresh start than have the incident in their block log forever). Resubmitting reports to AIV isn't a great idea though - if you blocked the account, the Bot will remove the report immediately. I just happened to see it and guessed you wanted someone to check whether the block should have been longer... WjBscribe00:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Protection Question
Good day. ^_^ I was wondering if it would at all be possible to make it so a page can only be edited by clicking the top "Edit" button, as opposed to the individual "Edit" tags at each heading. Recently, I, and some others, have experienced some problems with the List of ThunderClan Cats page. There were these "family trees" put onto the official website, but the editor has since stated that they were put up against her wishes, and that they are false. We removed all information from these trees, but many people continue adding the info back in. And it's rather obvious now that barely anyone but dedicated editors check edit summaries, or they would have noticed us saying the trees are false. I may be digressing now, so back to the main point. We put a warning at the top of the page for whenever people would edit it, but, they're using the header edit buttons, and it would be near impossible to put a warning in everywhere. So, if it could be made so they could only edit through that button, that would be great, because then they would see the warning (Well, one would hope. I know barely any people read those at all, but it might improve things). --~|ET|~(Talk|Contribs) 01:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, there's no way to disable the section edit tabs for all users. You could try leaving messages on the IPs' talkpages in case the same one return. Otherwise more hidden comments is about the only option - though it is going to get rather messy... WjBscribe01:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
WJBscribe/Archive 11
This editor is a Grognard and is entitled to display this Wikipedia Little Red Book.
Thanks :-). Very kind of you but (although this usually surprises people) I don't believe I'm eligible for that particular award for another month ;-) ... I think you may have to downgrade me by one. WjBscribe03:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
For your contribution to My RfA, which passed with 8000 Supports, 2 Neutrals and no opposes.
The standards and dedication of the English Wikipeidan Administrators is excellent and I am privileged to stand among them. Thankyou for putting you trust in me, I'll not see it abused. And now, I will dance naked around a fire. Party at my place! Cheers! Dfrg.msc 10:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot10:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
More Protect Redirect Issues
Hey i am sorry to bother you with this again but now I have a slightly different issue. This user is engaging in revert wars to make a WP:POINT about consensus-determined redirects that they personally don't like (with the usual accusation-mongering thrown in, yes we're all ruining wikipedia sigh). Is the best solution to issue redirect protection on the affected pages (see my undos to the affected pages here or to seek a user block or both? Thanks and sorry for the tedium of this. Eusebeus22:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought your decision to protect pages pending resolution of a active dispute was prudent. Hoever, Eusebeus and a relatively small number of users (in comparison to the number of editors who contribute to the group of articles involved) have simply moved their edit warring on to a different set of unprotected articles. Eusebeus' position is simply that he has the right to unilaterally declare consensus and purge Wikipedia of the efforts of thousands of users. He shows no good faith, and a conspicuous refusal to respect the views of others. Since he is unwilling to to abide by the "cease-fire" you proposed, he should be viewed as the initiator of the edit warring, and sanctioned accordingly. I'd also note that his comments here and elsewhere demonstrate his refusal to abide by WP:AGF, another important reason to view him as the instigator of inappropriate behaviour. VivianDarkbloom22:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Mediation Buddy
Hi, I volunteered to mediate the Pro-pedophile activism case two days ago, and several members have stated that they think I would make a good mediator, but have expressed concern about my lack of inexperience. I was wondering if perhaps you might have the time to check in on things every now and then, and comment as need to, or step in if it got over my head, since you listed yourself for the buddy system. I don't think I will have too much trouble, but I feel it might aid the parties involved in coming to a conclusion over whether or not I make a suitable mediator if they have the reassurance of a more experienced mediator if I don't work out. Please note, they haven't even exactly decided amongst themselves whether they want another mediator to aid me, or me as a mediator at all, but I want to have the option of suggesting this if you think you would have the time for it. If not, I'll ask someone else. Thank you for your time. justice01:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Well I can watch the progress and give advice, but I can commit to being available to take over the case if things don't work out. I'd try and keep an eye on things and you could raise any questions you had here or by email as you prefer. It might be worth asking Vassyana or one of the other MedCab coordinators if you're looking for someone to mediate it with you. Best of luck if you decide to take it on... WjBscribe04:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It's been decided that no one else will probably need to be directly involved, but it would make the parties involved more comfortable if they knew I had someone to ask advice from if things got difficult. I don't anticipate you will have to get involved much, if at all. Both sides have strong opinions, but have maintained respectfulness (to some degree) and are willing to work together to resolve things. If it's alright with you, I'll just pop in to ask a question if I have one, but I think I can handle the case alone. Thanks bunches. justice02:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Revert
That is a valid point, and coming from yourself, a point I will consider seriously. I apologise if I have caused disruption by my actions. However, the user has demonstrated the point I wished to make. I wanted to participate in a discussion elsewhere, I was insulted for my wish for a civil discussion. Do you think that his comments were appropriate? eg. [13] I am seriously dismayed at the hostile fashion in which editors are conducting themselves, the language is inappropriate and, as I stated, it does not inspire further discussion. If he is an admin, he should be giving a better example of good conduct in my view. He censored the discussion, and is at liberty to continue this unproductive behaviour. If wish to comment on that, I would interested to hear your view. A mere request, I know you are busy I would be happy to write an essay on my views, I do not expect you to chase through talk page histories. I do think that many would be driven away from community discussion, if not off wikipedia altogether. Little consideration, or indeed motivation, seems to exist with regard to this point. It has become a sort of online combat in places, this can only encourage disruptive users to participate. This is no slur against yourself, the little I know of you is that you are worthy of respect. Sorry for the rambling, but I sign this as ... Yours faithfully, Cygnisinsignis15:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually I'm a little confused. The diff you point me too seems to be a response to this comment of yours. I'm assuming the word you were alluding to is "pants". Your post could therefore have been read as a little uncivil or as a bit of good natured banter. I would have thought you'd have taken Redvers' reply in the same spirit. It might have been a little odd coming out of the blue, but in context it seems to match the tone of your comment. Am I missing something? WjBscribe16:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I made a request for an appropriate nomination (at the top of the page) without the sardonic commentary - without potentially disrupting the whole discussion. The response was the implication that I therefore have a reading disability. Later it was stated that I should "stay the hell away from [him]". The word was disruption. Are you wilfully misinterpreting me? Cygnisinsignis18:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC) & 19:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You're being rather hostile - I'm merely trying to explain how this looks to a third party. Have I misunderstood this post? Is "pants" the word you meant to use to describe the language of the nomination? If so, then the interactions between yourself and Redvers remained at a tone that you set. The two of you seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot - you said his nomination was pants, he questioned your reading ability. Not the highest standards of civility from either of you really, but nothing very bad either. Seems to be a storm in a teacup quite honestly... WjBscribe18:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Well if that's not when you meant to say, in the sentence "but the language is a little... well, the word for it is above", to which word had you meant to refer? You might want to bear in mind that pants seems the obvious one to me when looking above for a word you might be refering to, and prob did to Redvers as well. WjBscribe19:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see - I'm sorry but "the language is a little disruption" doesn't make sense - one naturally looks for an adjective, not a noun. The only adjectives on the page that you might be using to describe language are "pants" and "shit" as far as I can see (I opted for the milder one). Perhaps now you can see why your comment provoked a harsher response than you were anticipating? WjBscribe19:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Sorry, Cygnis insignis came gunning for me out of nowhere and I fell for it. Three years in, I should (and almost always do) know better. The issue is actually an MfD I started today. I don't know what interest the user has in the outcome, but s/he appeared on it commenting that the nomination was disruptive in itself. Ah ha, says I, providing the non-disruptive version as requested.
My mistake: the user had an axe to grind, so my joke and my pantless sig (it's true - I'm wearing rather comfortable baggy shorts) plus my general, ahem, flippant tone (I'm so not taking this place 100% seriously post-wikibreak, so it's not wrong :o) was a red rag.
Next, I'm getting a formal, final warning for incivility. Then the user noticed I was an admin. Oh, dear Jimbo. I thought s/he was joking, or a mentalist or something, and said the former. Boy, did I get a slapping. Least said, soonest mended, away with the user and their "conduct unbecoming an admin" and "talking like you're in a public bar, not a public forum". In the end, I blanked the discussion, especially as the user said they'd finished and would never visit again. Then I got on with some actual paid work. So, here I am, saying sorry to you for you getting dragged in to something I still don't quite understand.
Nevertheless, I remain pantless, flippant and unadminlike. But perhaps older and a bit wiser. Although I'm off to Amsterdam (amongst other places) on Thursday, where I will be pantless, flippant and unadminlike for a whole ten days. But with less evident criticism at the time :o) ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 19:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I remain bemused. If the bar analogy is maintained, it still looks to me like "he started it guv" but obviously he doesn't like that conclusion. As to your pantless state, I shall make no comment ;-). I see the bizarre love-child of CSN and PAIN is to meet a fairly swift end. Anyway, enjoy Amsterdam. WjBscribe19:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you want me to bring anything back for you? Some ceramic clogs, tulip bulbs, sex toys, blue-patterned china, clamidia, that type of thing? ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 20:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Mmm. Well reviewing those suggestions, I'd have to say that one of those options I have little use for, another I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, one I have already, one is a little too horrifying to contemplate and the remaining one is just what I've always wanted. I'll leave you to work out which is which... ;-) WjBscribe20:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Holy smokes! I didn't mean to start such an incredible drama. Stupid me, I just created an example page to illustrate a proposal, populated it with a single example case, and everyone went to Defcon 1. Thus far the encyclopedia continues to function, but this cancerous page threatens to destroy everything. Won't one of you please WP:SNOW that MFD, to put it out of its misery, or do I have to suffer through to the bitter end as punishment for my sins? :-D - JehochmanTalk05:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
There is one precaution that would probably be worthwhile: calling for human decision when a broken redirect has a non-empty talk-page. I have occasionally left notes for a future article on the talk-page of a non-existent article, when what I had found would not be an article in itself; these are subject to CSD if anyone wants to; but it should be a human making that decision. (If you're already doing this, so much the better.) SeptentrionalisPMAnderson16:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Might be a good idea, though it prob should only be where the talkpage isn't also a redirect to a deleted page. WjBscribe16:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You recorded yourself as Neutral, pending Kizor's responses to Q's 4 & 6. Just to let you know that the questions have been answered. LessHeard vanU20:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for putting it out of its misery - my first impulse was correct. After moving it, cleaning it up and so on, there was nothing left and no sources to expand it. I'm not sure why Storm Rider was so attached to it. Acroterion(talk)00:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
No prob - almost every revision contained attacks and nothing was sourced. Seems better for that one to be written from the gound up if the school is notable (I've no idea what the consensus is on notability of schools these days)... WjBscribe00:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
If I was Boss of Wikipedia, high schools would not be notable by default. Vandalism and vanity edits would decline by half. However, as a rope-'em-in marketing technique, it's not such a bad idea to let every two-room backwoods secondary school have an article. Acroterion(talk)00:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Cambridge
I see you studied law at Cambridge. I'm applying to study there now and was wondering if you had any tips. It it means anything, I'm applying to King's College as an affliated senior status international student. Cheers. Mbisanz02:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Mmm - I have now idea what the application process is like for affiliated students. Is it just an application form or there an interview process? WjBscribe23:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
no interview process. Apparently they admit a lower proportion of affliated students, but the reqs are also lower. Know anything about King's College reputation, besides what's on the web? Mbisanz02:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
...for your help in semi-protecting the American Revolutionary War article and its companions for two weeks. The relief is tangible - the problems just stopped cold two days ago. You have given me (& other editors) a nice respite. You wrote, "Hopefully the kids will have found a new historical interest by then..." May it be so, though I mainly saw newcomers, seldom repeat offenders. For the time being, at least, you have given me back as much as an hour a day better devoted to more constructive purposes, and I appreciate that. All the best, Hertz188819:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
How to ask for a CU clerk to do something without using IRC?
Hi. see User_talk:Lar#HC_and_SPs. That last request of IP42's is particularly poorly formed, and needs a clerk to straighten it out. It's not embedded in the main RFCU page yet (thank goodness). What's the best way to ask for help from some clerk or another without leaving messages on every clerk's page when you can't just dart into IRC ? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c11:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
{{Clerk Request}} seems as good an option as any. You could leave a note on the RFCU talkpage but I don't know how well read it is. I'll take a look at that case if I get a moment (I'm not promising much as I'll prob have very little internet access for the next few days). Looking quickly at the archives though it does look like there have been any previous checks on HarveyCarter - let alone 27 of them... WjBscribe23:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry.
I am sorry, you unprotected Swadhyay Parivar. Swadhyay Parivar has turned to crime. They have killed one old dedicated Swadhyayee - Pankaj Trivedi and took control of wealth by forcefully (use of muscle power) replacing nearly 70 dedicated trustees. Pankaj Trivedi was exposing wrongs and filing civil suits to audit the accounts of Swadhyay Parivar which has funds in millions of $. The money donated to reconstruct houses damaged during massive earthquake in India, were never used. The criminals and/or novice followers of Swadhyay Parivar desire to keep glorifying article on Swadhyay Parivar in the Wikipedia. I was a follower of this organisation and moved in Indian villages for the mission and am also a witness to the rot. I believe, if the article on Swadhyay Parivar has to be on Wikipedia, it has to be with the facts of it's present criminal activities. I hope, you will agree that Wikipedia can not be allowed to be used to glorify criminals or criminal organisations.
I have brought back article to earlier protected stage.
You are cordially invited to attend one of the greatest pop events of 2008 or any other year: Westlife's March 1st concert at the O2 arena in support of their fantastic new album! Dev and I are going to go, and were wondering if you and Raystorm might want to meet up for it, too. Let me know soon, as tickets are sure to sell out in seconds of their release (and I am not kidding--did you hear how fast the Spicegirls tickets sold out??!!?? Headspinning). Jeffpw21:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Talk about bad timing - I'm pretty sure I'll be out of the country end of Feb/start of March next year :( ... I'll double check my dates and get back to you asap though. Thanks for thinking of me, WjBscribe23:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the March 1st concert sold out too fast to get tickets, and we got tickets for the March 2nd concert. Raystorm doesn't feel she'd be up for the thrill of it all (I think she might have a heart attack from all the excitement), but thought a meetup would be fun either the day before or after the concert. If you are in the country, that would be great. I'm going to try and see if we can turn this into a LGBT Project meetup for anyone who's interested. Jeffpw06:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Fully realizing this case is getting quite long in the tooth, I would nonetheless ask you to please consider the situation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Dunin 3 in a bit more detail. You may note that in a previous discussion, (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Dunin 2) I initially expressed sentiments quite close to those you have expressed in this current discussion. I eventually changed my opinion, though. Whereas it is possible that some primary sources exist that could be used to show this person's notability, it appears it would take a historical researcher to uncover them. And here's the major realization for me: Wikipedia is not the correct place for information about subjects that require additional historical research. It is only the proper place for encyclopedic material about historical research that has already been conducted.
We agree "this man is not a figment of someone's imagination." But that he clearly exists is not sufficient for an article about him to exist. You wrote, "The problem is that the sourcing needs to be improved." And frankly, I now disagree: the needed sources don't yet exist. Someone -- a historian -- needs to write about this subject. Then we can properly include this subject in Wikipedia, citing the work of that historian.
You also wrote, "The article seems harmless and frankly there are worse ones out there." That WP:OTHERSTUFF exists is not compelling. More to the point, precisely because deletion of this article has received so much attention, it will certainly be a precedent for many other decisions. We need to make it correctly.
You are an influential editor, and I am clearly not the only person who truly respects your opinion. So again I invite you to reconsider your comments! Sincerely, (sdsds - talk) 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I came here independently to express similar feelings, and my surprise at your continuing support of the article. please re-read Dhartung's comments both in the 2nd afd and in the present one. I differ slightly from sdssds in a strong suspicion that if the history were written, it would show him in a minor technical role only. DGG (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It appears the discussion is now closed. I was aware that my comments would find themselves in a minority and they were not intended to persuade. I did however wish to note that I felt the subject met our notability standards (academics and engineers seem to face rather a higher hurdle than modern popstars, that is regretable) and that sourcing could establish this. In my opinion, outright deletion in a case such a this should occur where information is unverifiable not merely unverified. The idea that a historian is required to write about a person for them to become notable is aburd - how many modern bios are of people who will be remembered in 10 years time let alone 100. Should material come to light that conferms Dunin's role in the project - i.e. something along the lines of calculating the most fuel efficient way of launching such a satelite, I would likely advocate its recreation. I certainly don't apologise for holding a minority opinion in that discussion. WjBscribe16:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The sock
This is a real sock, not a puppet sock. The sock the paparazzo was wearing when Britney ran over him is now up for auction. Better bid while you can. It's still under US$1500.00 Personally, I wouldn't pay that much for a pap's sock. Now if it were Britney's underpants I might consider it...but only because they're so damned elusive I am beginning to think they don't really exist. Jeffpw21:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Is this the sort of thing the bot will delete? It does need deletion, but it is used on several pages where the links (and maybe even the name) may need to be removed. The article that redirect pointed at recently got deleted at AfD, but there is a long clean-up process in place. See here. My question is whether the bot deleting redirects makes clean-up more difficult? Some editors may be relying on following what links here to find out where links were inserted, so they can then remove them. ie. From the AfD, use "what links here". If the redirect is deleted before its existence is noted, how do you find the links that pointed at the redirect? Carcharoth20:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Update - yes, the bot deleted it! The redirect no longer appears in "what links here" for the original deleted article (see here), and the redirect is still a redlink at Leonhard Euler. In this case, the redlink is fine, but I can think of other cases where the article would have needed to be cleaned up, and the redirect deletion bot has 'helpfully' cleared away some of the evidence that would have helped track things down. Is this an insurmountable problem? Can the bot list pages where the redirects are linked from, as well as the destination? That way, anyone checking "what links here" for Georgi Gladyshev would find a page saying that the Georgi Pavlovich Gladyshev redirect pointing at Georgi Gladyshev was deleted, and the trail can be picked up again at that point. Of course, this was a problem with humans deleting the redirects, but a bot doesn't mind extra work! Carcharoth11:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
As you say, this is just as much a problem with human deletions, but we may be able to get the Bot to produce such a list (prob is who except you and I would know to look for it later?). The other possibility would be tagging such redirects with {{R to future page}} or something similar. But that would require a consensus that redirects should be kept in those cases - which I don't think exists at the moment. I'll give the matter a little thought. WjBscribe16:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Question about Usurpation
Hi WJBscribe, I'm currently awaiting consideration for a usurpation name change, but I'd just like to ask a quick question just to find out if i'm wasting my time. The user in question is Spartan, a sockpuppet of Mjgm84, a user that has been indefinitely blocked or banned. Apparently, either Spartan never made any [edits] or they have all been switched to Mjgm84. Now, my question is, now that Spartan has no contributions, either way, will they allow me to usurp? If you can get back to me as soon as possible I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, Kevin00:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the relevant histories, its seems that Mjgm84 simply moved his userpage to User:Spartan for a while - I don't think he ever controlled that account so it shouldn't have any effect on the usurpation. WjBscribe16:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The only slight problem is that you didn't leave the notification message at User talk:Spartan. I've done that but you'll need to wait 7 days from today for the request to be processed... WjBscribe18:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh really? Well thanks for putting the request on the page, when I first attempted to put the request on the user talk page I wasn't allowed to edit, so thanks for putting the request on there for me! Kevin22:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there anyone around who can do a quick checkuser on them? I'm willing to be that they're all from the 91.108 range, that is the badger vandal/ User:The JPS hater vandal. Is there any way we can block all these sleepers from that range? Gscshoyru00:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Whew! Hope he can grab the underlying IP on this, my fingers are getting sore, lol. Awesome job on the speedy blocks here WJB, as always! Ariel♥Gold00:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The range is 91.104 this time but its too wide for a rangeblock or to identify other sleepers with accuracy. Just a question of indefing the sleepers as he uses them I guess... WjBscribe00:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi WJBscribe, I have left several messages to a few editors regarding some old business [14][15][16] (mainly apologizing for past actions/situations.) Because that is still editing, I strongly feel it would be inappropriete for my talk and user page to still be protected. Would you mind unprotecting those two pages? It's not that I am coming back, but there were I few things that I wanted to amend to.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.01:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I just want to clarify that for the most part, I am not active, but I may leave a few posts here and there. I have also taken the retired note off my talk page. Consider me semi-retired, for now. Thanks again!--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.02:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Just read your msg to me after I posted the one above.. That user has been warned by an admin already to leave the template alone. User continues to edit it as he/she sees fit. There's discussion going on as to what articles should be in the template. There's no edit war and in fact that users repeated attempts at changing the template after having been asked by several people, including an admin, to leave it alone is disruption. If anyone should be warned about anything in this case, it's that user, not me. Thanks. -- ALLSTARECHO16:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. You think too much of me. Renaming users is beyond the skills of a humble administrator- only bureaucrats can do it. Secretlondon seems to be processing requests at the moment - hopefully she'll get down to yours but there's a bit of a backlog... WjBscribe15:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
OMG lmao!!! I'm dying laughing at your comment on jeff's talk page... re: you were just asking for reliable sources that said so. That is the funniest thing that I have seen. Thank you for making me laugh. That comment where you made that tiny typo should stay forever in Wikipedia history. At your expense, of course, and for my funny bone. LOL. ~Jeeny(talk)07:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protection / other request
Hi WJBscribe,
I saw you've declined all the semi protections I have requested. I understand your arguments. I've asked for semi-protection on user Stifle's advice, (s)he advised me on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (see here).
When I saw your comment on one of the edit warriors' talk page (Scipo) (You said you have no problem with blocking all of the other warriors IPs) I thought maybe you could help me out. Would you please take a look at the Administrators' noticeboard/3RR page (click)? I've contacted Stifle but (s)he had no time to take a look at my research. I really would appreciate it! Cheers Kameejl(Talk)17:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I've posted a comment there. I'm not going to block now but if there's further edit warring from either side (even just one revert without discussion) I think blocks will become necessary. WjBscribe17:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I am pretty sure (as someone involved in quite a bit of Fr/En translation on Wikipedia) that we do not reference translators in articles. Could you point me to the policy or precedent that we do? WjBscribe15:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm perfectly OK with the Polish Biographical Dictionary. I want it there -- it's just I had no way of verifying the material in it -- now, "theoretically", I could download the article and verify the information if I wanted to spend $12. Sorry if I got a little riled up on that one. Mindraker 12:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindraker (talk • contribs)
Hey, You may have noticed me at Wikipedia:Changing username. I just wanted to drop by and say hello, we always used to get along rather well, and hopefully we can put the past behind us, and hopefully be friends, like we used to be. I do hope so :) Cheers, Qst17:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Looking at the noticboard, that seemed like a harsh move on Jimbo's part. But what can you do? He's the boss, the one in charge.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.21:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Well they always have been included in the past. But in deference to tempers running high on the issue, might be better left off. Though I suspect someone else is bound to readd it without checking the history... WjBscribe00:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Kudos, U.S.A. As someone who has squeezed information on long ago events from closely reviewing page histories, I believe just getting a temporary action into the history is worthwhile, and is one reason I created my page to keep a tab on events like this. NoSeptember 01:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. I will let you know if I ever decide that I'm willing to be put up for adminship. Cheers, Pete.Hurd22:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RfA. As you are aware, it was closed with "no consensus". Since your vote was one of the reasons why it did not succeed, I would like to personally address your concerns so that I can reapply successfully.
As an administrator, It would be wrong of me to use administrator tools to force a discussions one way or the other, aside from vandalism etc., no matter how ridiculous I view one side or the other.
My talkpage has been littered with orphaned fair use notices and lack of fair use rationale notices because I converted, by hand, many images to the PNG format in place of the originals. I often do not see the value in spending time writing explicit use rationales for every image that was uploaded when 10c was rarely enforced. I can't possibly get to a significant number of them, and I disagree with the policy anyway. I had hoped that users would see the ridiculousness of mass non-free image deletions by bot. And, since I was not the original uploader for these images, I could not tag them with {{db-author}}. For unused non-free images that I was the sole uploader of, I prefer to just let the deletion process run its course and not waste time asking for the images to be speedily deleted a few days early.
The Wikimedia logos are essentially by-permission-only and they severely restrict the portability of Wikipedia content. They hinder others' ability to re-use our content without fear of copyright problems. It makes little sense to me to say that these logos are above the rules, since they cause the same kinds of problems as other non-free images. In my mind such a position violates WP:NPOV. Nevertheless, if that's what the community wants, then I cannot edit-war or use administrator tools to stop it.
Hi WJB, how are you ? I noticed your user page and I am impressed. It looks really awesome. So I was wondering if I can take your template and use it to make my own user page ? I will, of course, give you credit if I am allowed to use it. Thanks and best regards. Watchdogb02:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to inform you, I will be coming back(as an editor). I realize now that it was unacceptable for me to only leave a few posts here and there(that add up to hundreds of posts, and not contributing to the project). I got a notice for not treating Wikipedia as a social networking place. That has never been my intention. As such, I will be editing mainspace(vandal reverting) and I apologize for violating WP:NOT.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.01:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Ahem
I trust those exacting standards will now be exercised by you on all articles you edit? That anything that a reference does not assert will be deleted wholesale, no questions, no prods, no tags? Benjiboi14:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Benji, WJB is just trying to get the article in tight enough shape so we can defend it from vandals and address the page protection people's concerns. He's on our side, OK? The article won't be deleted, and in a day or so we'll be smiling while we edit it. Jeffpw15:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The article was pre-gutted before the anon IP showed up but now it's a just a reffed mess. I'm so embarrassed for us all. Benjiboi15:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I still feel the edits were over-reaching and would not be readily found elsewhere but do appreciate you were trying to assist with an exceptionally stressful situation for which I'm grateful. Benjiboi06:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot15:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
A humble request
Hello WBJS I remember you had meditated a case relating to Sri Lankan Civil War. I am wondering if you can comment on issues relating to these articles. I know most people are reluctant to comment on these issued because they are afraid that they do not know much about the Conflict. However, I am wondering if you can comment on some Rules and claim if citations are RS or not (only based on wikipedia rules). You see, I am asking for help from various people because I have pleaded to stick to wikipedia rules and stop any type of edit warring. It will be a lot of help if you could. Thanks Watchdogb18:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I would rather stay away as I know little about the conflict. But I could take a look - is there a particular page where these issues are being discussed at the moment? Or specific sources you want me to look at? WjBscribe18:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, certainly a particular source UTHR has been questioned by another user. I will add below what the other say RS say about the citation. It would be helpful if you can comment about it.
PBS Frontline: UTHR "has published scathing reports detailing human-rights abuses in Sri Lanka", including criticism of the LTTE
BBC: "a prominent Tamil human rights groups accused the Tamil Tigers ..."
Chronicle of Higher Education: "The University Teachers for Human Rights is the only remaining Tamil Human-Rights group critical of the Tiger leadership."
They would seem to be a valid source. There isn't really such a thing as a "biased" source save in exceptional cases - the best way to respond to a statement from a source one questions is to cite another source that makes a contrary statement. The Wikipedia article can then say - "Issue X is disputed, organisation Y says A and organisation Z says B". What information is UTHR being used as a source for? WjBscribe18:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It is a reference for the Kalmunai massacre. The whole confusion is that on T:DYK another user has said that this article is not entitled to DYK because it has POV source. However, it is my understanding that if there is explicit attribution, then the article it can be used. Though I strongly believe that this citation is RS. Your comment would be welcome. Watchdogb19:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Blnguyen is saying he think the source is POV and therefore invalid. If I understand what he's saying (which isn't clear) he's suggesting that alternative sources would present a different view of the event and that because the range of sources used in the article is not balanced, the overall article is advancing a particular POV. I don't know enough about the events to know if that's the case but that's how I'm reading his objection - he wants the article to also explain "the other side of the story" (if there is one). Looking at it from an outside perspective, it strikes me that there was probably an official justification for the incident - perhaps an allegation of provocation? It does read a little like only one perspective on what I presume is a controversial event with blame disputed. WjBscribe19:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Of courser your correct. I have looked around for other citation that has the "other side". I have not found anything about this. No Official inquiry/ investigation/ press report could be located. As such, I cannot provide the other side if there is nothing to say what happens.Watchdogb19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Seems like it since they happened on the same month and year. I am going to add that to the background to see if that will maybe neutralize things a bit. Thanks for the good find. Watchdogb19:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
So if I understand this correctly, we have 2 articles about the same incident. One of them portrays it as a massacre by the Sri Lankan Army and the other claims a massacre by the LTTE? WjBscribe19:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
No, from what I just read from UTHR what happened was that LTTE decided to evacuate the Police from the eastern district of Sri Lanka Trincomalee. This lead to fighting between the Police and the LTTE and the Police decided to surrender to the LTTE. The police were taken to the Jungle and massacred by an LTTE Cadre (name Cashier). UTHR claims that the LTTE leader in that area did not give orders for the massacre but it happened nevertheless. In the later days the LTTE were forced out of the town of Kalmunai by the Sri Lankan Army. When the Sri Lankan Army took control of the town they massacred the civilians there. A local member of Parliment said that over 160 civilians were massacred by the Army but UTHR, which did more research and took information of the missing, claimed that at least 260 people were killed and in all over 1000 civilians (not police) were killed or have been missing.Watchdogb19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The two incidents seem so closely linked that they really can't have separate articles, they need to be combined into one that explains the full sequence of events in June 1990 or we have 2 articles telling only half of the story. WjBscribe19:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Here is the real problem with the other side of the story. In many massacre cases , in Sri Lanka, what happens is that the Perpetrators completely deny responsibility. No media is allowed in war areas and people are scared to complain and talk about what happens because they are in danger also. So in essence, no one really knows that there has been a massacre (even the Army Commanders). If they do not know a massacre has taken place, then how can they comment about it ? Also by the time things like UTHR report these massacres it would be almost impossible for anyone to verify who has done the massacre or if a massacre even took place. So most of the time it is impossible to find the other side of the story. Watchdogb20:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, can you please fix the comment at the T:DYK which says that the are the same story but with different perpetrators. One is a massacre of the Police and the other is a Massacre of civilians. Though I agree that we should merge them.Watchdogb20:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that. However, I am not too familiar with how to merge. How should I go about this ? Also the citations given on the Police massacre is either missing or I have no access to it. Watchdogb20:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Work out a suitable title for the whole series of events, move one of the articles to that title. Then cut and paste the relevant bits from the other article (its useful if you name the source article in the edit summary when doing so) and then change it to a redirect to the combined article. WjBscribe20:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you please comment [here] as to why you think it should be merged. Couple of users have expressed oppositions to this. Thanks Watchdogb22:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, an editor commented about this protection at ANI. Since apparently there is some dirt hidden somewhere, could you take a look and decide whether or not the template can now be unprotected? Thanks! -- lucasbfrtalk11:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Benjiboi continues with his anti-Catholic agenda in the Sister Roma article
Benjiboi has seen fit to include a picture in the Sister Roma article which depicts an event mocking the Passion of Jesus Christ. The article is not about that event, it is about the drag fag Michael Williams. Whether or not Williams co-hosted that event is irrelevant. Articles about persons -- term used loosely in the case of Williams -- ought to have pictures of that person, not events s/he has hosted. The only reason Benjiboi had for including the picture is to give presence and greater notoriety to an anti-Catholic event. In this way he fulfills his anti-Catholic agenda.
I think accusing someone of an "anti-Catholic agenda" is out of line, and a complete failure to assume good faith on the part of another editor. Is sister Roma not person on the right of the photo? The article does discuss her role in hosting such events - it seems a valid picture. WjBscribe15:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The photo depicts an event mocking the beliefs which Catholics hold sacred. The focus of the photo is the mocking event, an anti-Catholic event, and not Williams. Even mention of the event is simply made to give Williams greater notoriety, and that for hosting events attended by limited numbers of people and not widely known outside of SF or queer circles.72.68.30.12215:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. Notable people and events are included even if they are offensive to certain religious groups. Someone notable in San Francisco or the queer community would be notable enough for Wikipedia and it appears that Sister Roma is the subject of multiple third party references. If you find the article offensive, may I politely suggest not reading it? WjBscribe15:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone notable in SF, written about only in SF, is notable for WP? Oy! My greater concern is the lack of proper sourcing in the article. As has been said, there are many instances in the article where the material is not found in the references cited. This is an example of an editor like Benjiboi so taken up by his anti-Catholic agenda that he ignores the rules for sourcing. Read the article thoroughly and dbl-check the references -- you'll see what I mean. 72.68.30.12216:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I do find it off-putting that you seem rather prone to casting aspersions on the motives of others. The sourcing seems to be of a reasonable standard and I see that the religious objections to the festival are also covered in the article (and sourced). Perhaps you'd like to give examples of statements in the article that you don't feel are backed up by the references? WjBscribe16:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I will, later today, as long as you're not casting aspersions on my motives in insisting on proper sourcing for the article. 72.68.30.12216:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, WjBscribe, here ya go. Within this post, Williams = Roma. Starting from the top: Michael Williams may have been born December 22nd, but nobody was born on that day with the name cited in the infobox; "Sister ROMA! There's No Place Like Rome or simply Sister Roma" is not found in the next reference cited, nor is there anything which says "Sister Roma" is a contracted form of the more lengthly name -- so why cite that source?; "best known" and "most visible" is POV; Williams may be the first "Sister" of SPI to be "elevated and veiled," but not the first Sister anywhere to have done so -- I would think the first Sister to do so did so many hundreds of years ago, and in a place very different than SF; the STOP the Violence Campaign was intro'd to combat hate crimes throughout the city, but the reference cited does not say "to combat hate crimes...on college campuses"; the next reference cited does not say Williams has done coverage of the GayVN awards; reference (8) does not say Williams judged a Drag King contest; reference (10) does not say Williams was emcee at "the world's largest BDSM/leather event" -- only "the world's biggest leather fair"; reference (12) does not say the holiday dinners were served at Thanksgiving and Christmas; and there isn't anything at reference (16), as it is linked, that says Williams writes for them. Does this prove my point, that the article is not properly sourced? Why cite a source if the material is not found in the source? -- simply to give the impression of greater notoriety to the subject, Williams. This is the work of Benjiboi. Hence the deletions, because in the absence of proper sourcing, the material is OR. 72.68.30.12221:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, looking though those:
As you say Williams = Roma. So the birthdate of one is presumably the birthdate of the other.
I have switched to a source that gives the fuller name
"Best known" is a direct quote from the source
I think the meaning was clear, but have altered it to "first of the group" to avoid confusion
From the passage about STOP the Violence: "The Order distributed window signs and whistles in the various neighborhoods and districts of the city as well as on college campuses."
GayVN awards coverage was obvious from another ref, I've added it to that sentence
The reference for judging a Drag King contest is the website of such a contest, where she has a bio under the title SISTER ROMA - JUDGE
Those seem like the same thing to me
Those seem to be examples of holiday dinners
There is a copy of the last issue at the site - it does indeed feature a column by Sister Roma
So no, I don't see your point. I'm leaning to the conclusion that you're causing trouble because you find the content objectionable. Having aired your concerns and had them found wanting, I respectfully suggest you move on. WjBscribe22:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted the Veropedia article,
I would like to propose it for AfD,
and let the community decide on this important subject.
please replay.
QuantumShadow19:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The article made no assertion of notability and contained no reliable sources. Wait until Veropedia has received some coverage in the media, but until then its just another website... WjBscribe19:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for formatting this username change request, I was going to do it, but then I thought that they should do it, if we were going to take the time to rename them, then they should file the request properly, maybe I'm just evil, though :) Qst21:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
My view is that as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, insisting that people format their requests when they're obviously having difficult is counterproductive. One of the crats even criticised other crats for declining badly formatted requests rather than fixing them, so it seems best if the clerks just fix them (that's kind of the point of having clerks). WjBscribe22:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Off thin ice?
So am I off thin ice now? Is is sufficient that I participate on recent changes patrol by reverting vandalism on articles, or is that not enought to satisfy the concerns raised? Veiw my most recent contribs. I just want to know if I'm going on the proper track now, so that I won't receive a huge complaint about this issue in the future, about not contributing to the encyclopedia.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.22:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Not sure I'm the right person to ask as it was Majorly who voiced the criticism, not me. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a social network so its expected users will do something beneficial to the encyclopedia - be that writing content, cleaning up articles, reverting vandalism, or contributing to meta discussions (deletion, policy etc.). It seems to me that as long as your contributions aren't limited to talk and user pages and are beneficial to the project, people should be satisfied. WjBscribe22:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Alright. My contribs include, but are limited to vandal reverts(other and user and talk edits). No content, no cleaning up of articles, and no contribution to meta discussion. I left Majorly a message of about the matter(apologizing for some of my comments) and saying that I hope that that issue would be put behind us. He had no further commments. So, I think it would be best if I droped the issue with him and move on with editing. If you, however, have any comments or suggestions you would like to add about this, I'm all ears.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Moving is probably good. As I see it, someone reverting vandalism is helping the project. My opinion is that you'll enjoy participating more if you broaden your participation further, but that's up to you. WjBscribe22:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey,
0845 and 0870 number became unprotected today following your previous protection. I've made a radical overhaul of 0845 number, and it has been commented on that it looks a lot better now. Unfortunately, anonymous users keep reverting the page again! I just wanted your advice on how to proceed with this. I don't really want to have it fully protected again, but I guess that might be the only way.
~~ [Jam][talk]00:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll semi-protect this time- given the lack of discussion I think its fair to characterise those IP edits as vandalism. WjBscribe00:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Will, thanks very much! Perhaps that will convince the anonymous users to input into the discussion. I've started a section at the bottom regarding the updates since the previous unprotect, and hopefully we can sort out these petty problems. ~~ [Jam][talk]00:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Will, JGXenite has a one sided and blinkered view. Please unprotect the page based on Wiki ideology where semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism or in a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users or with the sole purpose of prohibiting editing by anonymous users. Protection should be used only to prevent continuing disruption. Lack of discussion is not the issue here, please read the discussion before randomly protecting articles. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snip1954 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd like to be more careful with accusing me of randomly protecting anything. You'll note that I protected the article before, and blocked several IPs that not only refused to discuss the material they challenged but blanked the talkpage discussions. The removal of content without discussion is disruption. The article was fully protected for over a month allowing for the content to be debated - no discussion occured. The talkpages are still available - raise concerns there - but I am not unprotecting the article. WjBscribe01:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
OK - minimal discussion occured. 3 posts then nothing for a month - that's hardly a positive level of participation. If I see good faithed efforts to resolve this matter, I will consider unprotecting or fully protecting the article. At the moment efforts appear to me to have been one-sided and these edits [25][26] look like simple vandalism. WjBscribe02:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, whatever you want to do, I don't mind, but I would not call it minimal discussion. After all the issue here is between handful of individuals. Also remember that article protection should not be used in a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users or with the sole purpose of prohibiting editing by anonymous users. The edits look like vandalism but they are not, please read the discussion and see votes. I believe JGXenite is a vandal here who is going against what most people have voted for. The moment you unprotect the article I am sure people will remove the disputed links. Thanks for your help and have a good night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snip1954 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I notice you are a proofreader for French-to-English translations, and I was wondering if you could check over my work in translating fr:CIMI-FM to CIMI-FM. After looking at Wikipedia:Translation, I'm not really clear on the best way to request proofreading on a page that wasn't submitted to the translation project to begin with, so if you don't have time, feel free to pass this on to anyone else or to tag it appopriately. DHowell06:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The translation is first rate - I've made a couple of minor changes but it reads well. The article suffers the slight flaws of any translation from fr.wiki - they do use a much more florid writing style and their lack of insistance on rigorous sourcing is frustrating. Still, hopefully those elements will improve with time as more people becoming involved in editing it. Good work, WjBscribe14:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
"First rate"—wow, that's quite a complement, considering it's my first Wikipedia translation, what little knowledge of French I have is self-taught, and I probably wouldn't be able to hold a conversation in French if my life depended on it. Merci beaucoup. I basically did a Babelfish and a Google translation and amalgamated the two machine translations into something sensible; using Wiktionary and a heaping of common sense to decipher what didn't make sense in either case. DHowell22:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
One of the problems people get into if they have really good French is keeping the translated sentences too much like then original - so they don't sound natural in English. Because you've effectively extracted the information and then written it in your own words in English, I think the end results reads much better than a more literal translation (which is in a way more technically difficult). WjBscribe19:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Her argument is absurd. You have to be notable to have an article on Wikipedia - the suggestion that not having an article is evidence of non-notability is ridiculous. WjBscribe21:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - especially that you have to have an article in order to be worthy of being cited in another article! We certainly don't have articles for every single magazine or newspaper author we cite (nor should we). Aleta21:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
