User talk:Cyclopia/Archive 3

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

Quadra Street[edit]

I see you removed the prod notice I placed on Quadra Street, but you didn't add anything to the article to indicate what makes it notable. Adding a note to your edit saying 'several GHits' doesn't help the article. PKT(alk) 18:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strict need to add something to the article (I will gladly do however). The point is that there are several news sources indicating it can be notable (e.g. [1] and [2]), and as such it is not a good PROD candidate but, at best, an AfD candidate. That is, it would be better to have a community discussion instead that a default-to-delete tag. Note: I am not sure that Quadra Street is notable. I am only concerned about having it deleted without having a proper discussion. Thank for your note! --Cyclopiatalk 02:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your stance on BLP[edit]

Alright, I'll admit I'm getting somewhat frustrated, so I'll try to stay mellow. You say that the BLP issue is overexaggerated. I'd like to see your sources for that. I can find dozens, likely hundreds, of articles from news agencies discussing the real-life harm Wikipedia does to subjects of its content. Do you have any independent, reliable sources to back up your claims, or even diffs or links for that matter?

I've already explained why BLPs present such an enormous problem, so I'll try not to rant. I respectfully ask, though, that you take a step back and think about the implications this website has had on the real world without letting your attachment to it cloud your judgment. I consider myself a thoroughly addicted user, an inclusionist at that, but I recognize that it's unprofessional, rude, and disrespectful to only consider our internal-bureaucracy when contemplating biographies of living persons. Think about what would happen if you met the subject of an inaccurate and libelous article which you opined for retention at AfD. How would you explain why they lost their job because their article was vandalized? Would you tell them, "Sorry, mate, but you've been mentioned once in the New York Times, and since you meet our notability guidelines, we can't delete your article; but it was nice to meet you!"? –Juliancolton | Talk 02:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much exactly that. I would, more properly, say: "Sorry, mate, but people has the right to write about you. I understand this created problems, but freedom of speech has its downsides". I often think what I would do if it would happen to me, and I always end up thinking there is little I could complain about the existence of the article. The problem, in fact, is not with me who opined for the keep. The responsibility is on who vandalized the article. It is a problem of content, not of existence. If we debate at AfD, we debate for existence. If we have to debate on content, let's be bold or discuss on the article talk page. If I was the mate, therefore, I'd try to go for the jugular of who wrote libel on my BLP, probably, and ask loudly for better protection of such articles, but I could only accept the existence of my article. I can try to make people say the truth about me, I can't try to shut up them. --Cyclopiatalk 03:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but the only reasonable way to prevent vandalism is to bar the article in the first place if the subject is of marginal notability. I think this discussion has likely run its course, so I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. Happy editing. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, and thanks for the nice chat. If there's something I love is to discuss respectfully different points of view. Happy editing to you too. --Cyclopiatalk 03:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about BLP deletion problem[edit]

On the other hand I appreciate your views on BLPs, including your draft essay. I agree that we need to tightly enforce rules on BLPs, but I'm worried by the apparent emergence of a "Biography Euthanasia Squadron", and I'm no inclusionist. The efforts to get deletion policy to change to allow default to delete on BLPs didn't gain consensus, so instead they're aiming to change practice directly using closes at AfD and DRV, aided by canvassing at Wikipedia Review - conspiracy does share the starting four letters with consensus, so I can see how they might confuse the two.</rant> Fences&Windows 02:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should finish somehow that essay,unfortunately time is short. Anyway thanks a lot for your support, F&W. My feeling, from the WT:DEL rejection of default to delete, is that the majority of the community is loudly in agreement with the fact that BLPs need priority in protection and patrolling, but not outright obliteration. But there is a small (even if significant) amount of admins and editors who routinely patrol AFD/DRV, often meet at WR, and come almost always together in supporting such deletions. The problem, as I feel it, is that the rest of the community should be made more aware of what is going on, but I know of no simple way to help in that. Any suggestion? --Cyclopiatalk 02:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUS states that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." So Lar's assertion that these admins are setting policy by consensus in their actions ("AfD and DRVs tell us if things are shifting or not. They are")[3] is contrary to policy. I'm not sure how to get Lar and the others to recognise this. Maybe open a discussion at WP:AN? Fences&Windows 20:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know. The problem, as I see it, is not of administrative action but one of global community awareness. Most of the editors/admins who patrol AfD/DRV of BLPs do that because they are over-protective about them, and other editors only occasionally care. But when other editors come up, they usually recognize there's something strange. But until all of this will be handled by the same bunch of people it is not going to help.
If we want to go at AN, better be sure to collect a *lot* of evidence on as many cases as possible, and to make it right and good. --Cyclopiatalk 11:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can only speak on the one DRV and deletion issue, but I see it as clearly problematic. First of all, Diana Napolis is not a BLP1E case. Second, IAR appears to be bandied about rather too quickly - IAR is only meant to apply when it improves wikipedia, and this one didn't seem to. Napolis' page, as far as I could see, was not neutral. There was no original research. Every single sentence was sourced to a reliable source. There was no opinions that I recall, it was all statements of fact. Everything about the article was, as far as I can tell, compliant with the BLP policy. Even compared to the WMF's statement of principles it seemed to be allowable. It was not promotional. It was not vandalized frequently (and was monitored by yours truly in this regard). It was well-sourced and if there were any small errors, they were not cited as a reason for deletion (and would never be one). There was no smearing - I at one point put in a summary of Napolis' beliefs, taken from her own website; I also included a link to her website. These were judged inappropriate and removed, which I did not object to once there was consensus(also struck me as stupid - they were her own words). Everything was neutral and verifiable. There was no privacy issue that I can see, the topic was neither ephemeral nor marginal. I don't see why it was deleted, or why the DRV is coming up negative. I also find it bizarre that BLP cites John Hinckley, Jr., specifically, and why he is famous and therefore has a wikipedia article, seems to have obvious parallels that are not being seen. JHJ is OK because he tried to kill a president, but threatening two world-famous celebrities just isn't notable? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also of note - if this sort of DRV discussion is regular and common, that suggests a policy or guideline is no longer documenting the community's opinions and should therefore be adjusted. If IAR has to be consistently applied, then the rule should change to capture this new consensus. Because right now, it looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT is trumping BLP, N, RS and NPOV. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WLU, thanks for joining. The problem is that this kind of pattern happens all the time. It happened with Rachel Uchitel. it happened with Miriam Sakewitz, it happened with Kari Ferrell, it risked to happen with Esther Reed, it happened with List_of_disbarred_lawyers (now this recently came back under a more precise name after editing), it happened with David Shankbone, is happening with Google Watch. Just examples I remember and I've been involved into. In all these cases, BLP has been used, more or less in good faith, as a baseball bat to hide WP:IDONTLIKEIT-like motivation. The thing is that we have a BLP problem on Wikipedia, but that's not what is commonly understood. We have a problem of BLP policy being misused as a wildcard to ignore all rules, and this is done by a relatively small but determined group of editors/admins who happen to have very strict views on BLPs and patrol such AfD's. Only a minority of editors is aware of that, and you are the perfect example of what happens when a good-faith editor stumbles on that. I opened my eyes thanks to the Miriam Sakewitz AfD, you opened yours with Diana Napolis. Welcome to the club. :) We have to work together to find a solution. What do you think? --Cyclopiatalk 19:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undent. Have you raised this before? Do you have a centralized list of previous discussions? You'd really need a list of cases that were problematic, why they were problematic, and then a venue. Probably a WP:RFC or discussion on one of the policy metapages - WT:BLP being a prime candidate. If there's this much disagreement and discussion, that suggests a need to clarify the policy - you could end up with a tighter policy that is far more restrictive (in which case you personally may not like it, but at least the closures will be per the policy) or a clearer line where IAR and IDONTLIKEIT excludes cases like these. A piece of clarification might also be a distinction - normally our no consensus defalts to keep; is there a P or G that states that BLP defaults to delete?

A problem will be that to see a lot of stuff like this, you need access to the deleted pages to verify notability, or at least copies of the sources used to show the cases pass N and BLP1E. I vaguely remember seeing the David Shankbone page, and finding it a problematic one for deciding on notability. My biggest beef with this article was the totally inappropriate citation of 1E, which seemed to bring in the flood from Wikipedia Review. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with your comment. About your questions, no, I have nothing consistent -that's what I'm trying to set up here- and your advice is more or less what I was thinking. We should build such a database first, and we shouldn't raise this problem alone. I will prepare a subpage here on my place for this purpose. As per the default-to-delete, this has been systematically discussed several times and always rejected; last time was open for 40 days at WT:DEL#Default to delete for BLPs and consensus was firmly against the proposal. You are invited to review the (long) discussion ,if you have time. --Cyclopiatalk 19:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in finals mode (and visit family mode) so my time is going to be quite limited for a few weeks (or more). That said, I think it's really obvious that there is a group of admins using WR to canvas and also pushing the bounds in AfD/DrV (and then blaming others for calling them on it). I'm really not sure what to do about it. I think a fair chunk of AbComm favors these aggressive moves, and a lot of the admin corps does. So I don't really see anything to do other than continue to call them on their disruptive behavior. If someone put together a case for AN it would have to be pretty strong. Hobit (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. My main concern is, they are organized (even if WR is only part of the problem, and I have no problem with WR per se when it is just a forum and avoids messing half-stealthily with WP). And we aren't. And many other users are not aware of the problem. So, my first plan would be, apart from collecting evidence, some way to help raising awareness of XfD's. --Cyclopiatalk 22:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be a stretch to say WR is organized. People there do tend towards deletionism, but only a minority of them meet all of the following conditions: A) deletionist, B) unbanned, C) not "wikignoming" to avoid attention, D) not apathetic to the value of any form of participation in WP processes. Besides, anybody who mentions an AfD on WR is effectively asking me to go vote to keep it. Everyking (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The funny thing is, I'm totally a deletionist - very high standards for notability and on average the borderline cases I AFD usually end up as a keep because of the horribly low standards of much of the community (curse them). But this clearly wasn't a non-notable subject. It was an IAR vote (note lack of ! - it was a vote plain and simple) based on absolutely nothing. BLP1E certainly didn't apply, and none of the BLP concerns applied either. The only thing left was "do no harm". A tough call on whether we're actually "harming" the subject since it is accurate reporting. But an AFD shouldn't be a vote, it should be a !vote, and if we're going to IAR then it should be laid out why. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, check out the page for Florentino Floro for something that again seems very, very comparable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really mourn the loss of the articles about the bunny hoarder and the 'hipster grifter' as they are "and finally" fodder, but that's just my prejudices showing. These kind of news stories are the modern equivalent to the freak show, which is why people want these articles deleted. They find them unseemly. This isn't that new a phenomenon for deletion discussions, e.g. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manar Maged. Fences&Windows 17:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to notice this here—and ask anyone, I'm not an inclusionist by any stretch of the imagination. But even deletionists don't want to delete everything, and I don't want to delete articles we can properly and thoroughly source. The offsite canvassing is very problematic (ArbCom spoke out pretty strongly against that when it was being done via IRC, I don't really see how doing it via WR is any different), I ran into the same type of issue myself at Talk:Star Wars kid (a while back, check the archives if you're particularly interested) in a discussion over including the real name. The same type of thing happened—there was initially support for it, and then the canvass crew showed up. I'm not sure how to handle the situation. I don't think too many people are actively anti-BLP, per se. The initial version of BLP basically boiled down to "Enforce our content policies (V, NPOV, NOR, CITE) strictly and swiftly on BLPs." I can't argue with that. I wish we'd enforce those policies more strictly and more swiftly on everything. But stuff like this goes well beyond enforcement of normal content policy, largely into personal preference, and I'm not sure there's really consensus behind such a broadening. It's more of a continuous push from a few very determined people (ArbCom spoke on that as well, in their "fait accompli" ruling, and again was not complimentary of the practice). As Cyclopia pointed out above, the discussion at WT:DEL clearly showed that there is not consensus for default to delete in any discussion, but people continue to do it anyway without sanction, and largely the same group shows up every time to endorse it at DRV. I don't think fighting fire with fire is really the way to do anything, but the question "How is this a BLP violation?" is getting asked more and more often, I think properly so. I just hope everyone involved has the fortitude to keep asking it, and the wisdom to be smart about how they ask. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A "BLP violation" is a meaningful thing with rules and reasons, but I agree that at least in this case it is treated as a bit of personal preference with no regard to what BLP seems to actually say. Applying IAR in these situations is also running headlong into what IAR is supposed to mean and what wikipedia is. IAR should be employed when it improves things. It does not improve wikipedia to delete a neutral, well-sourced article about a notable person. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just arrived home now and I've seen more and more people joining the discussion. I am happy to know that several people share my concerns. I am especially happy to see that several people who call themselves deletionists actually agree that there's something worrying going on, nonetheless! -it is not a deletionism vs inclusionism issue, it is indeed a NPOV/policy issue. Thank you guys, this is really a breathe of fresh air. For sure I don't want to fight the situation with fire -it is only going to, er, backfire. I would like however to know if it is possible to begin patrolling these AfD's more consistently and -perhaps- to organize ourselves, so to bring back some objectivity. --Cyclopiatalk 19:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Patrolling" will probably piss people off, get you in trouble and divert the discussion. I think you'd be better off documenting and !voting as you usually would . If it is an issue of certain closing admins, that's an organizing principle, as is off-site canvassing at WR. Perhaps a table might be useful - urls are messy in a text box but a diff will neatly fit into a table cell and can allow for sorting. You'll have a more honest result if you start with something like Category:AfD debates (Biographical) or another criteria that supports systemic information rather than cherry-picking, but it looks like that disappears after the debate closes. Might be worth wikilinking to these on a going-forward basis. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can still see my nagging of WLU from a year ago on my talk page, as I saw the Napolis article was very close to being a WP:BLP violation back then. But (as far as I recall) this article was still sourced sufficiently, and met Wikipedia's three pillars (WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR). Napolis also met WP:N for several different things, and so while the article maybe wasn't the best it could ever be, it deserved to stay so it could be improved over time. I knew the AfD result was bullshit when I saw that the DRV votes for overturn were all coming from established editors who I'd met before in AfD (DGG and JoshuaZ, for example) - while the endorse votes were all coming from relative nobodies. It was also notable that the AfD's closing "admin" was part of the Wikipedia Review board's discussion of the AfD. That alone indicates abuse of process, to me.
So, while I think WLU's suggestion above is a good step towards a solution, I'd also suggest that anyone who wants to fight off this tide do 4 things:
1 - always refer, in your vote, to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and note that they are the three pillars of Wikipedia. If the article meets these 3 criteria, it deserves to be here. (WP:BLP is actually a fourth pillar, but only insomuch as the Wikipedia Foundation doesn't want to be able to be sued for libel - and so all unsourced libelous statements must be deleted instantly. Sourced contentious statements, however, could survive if they're simply rewritten in journalistic tone. In any case, WP:BLP is not a deletion criterion unless, as it says, the entire article can't exist without being libellous.)
2 - if you see canvassing, refer in your vote to WP:CANVAS and WP:MEAT. That'll warn the established editors that there's hanky-panky going on - and they generally don't seem to like newbies messing with their Wikipedia.
3 - add the "notaballot" tag to the discussion, as I did to the Napolis DRV. That'll also warn the established editors that there's hanky-panky going on.
4 - for every newbie's "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" vote, you should reply, quoting the rules. It seems to me that the people making up a WP:TAGTEAM, in AfD anyway, don't want to put in the effort to reply to anything - they're just ctrl-c-ctrl-v-ing comments into the discussion. The AfD closing admin should discount any "vote" that you've shown has an invalid rationale. So, in the Napolis case, you should simply have replied to every response with "that is not a valid criterion for deletion" or "subject is known for several events, this is thus not a WP:BLP1E case" or "how does this article not meet WP:N?" or "if you have found a sentence that violates WP:BLP, go delete the sentence - WP:BLP is not a criterion for deleting the entire article." No noob is going to bother learning the rules, or bother to reply to your excellent reasoning.
To a certain extent, if you want to get your way, you really do have to fight for it. Wikipedia's content is ultimately determined by the various editors' apathy or conviction. Ultimately, you can wait til these kiddies all get bored of WP, and then re-establish the article after perfecting it in userspace. Wikipedia always ultimately gives you what you deserve. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And even as we speak, on goes the Star Wars kid bit yet again, with claims even that it's a "settled issue" and that there was a "consensus", when really all that's happened is there never has been one. Honestly, I don't know what to do about this issue. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the discussion on DRV or AfD, could you link it? Thanks! --Cyclopiatalk 09:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, sorry I wasn't clear. It's at Talk:Star Wars kid if you'd like to see what I'm talking about, that's an example of a different but quite related issue. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I think raising it again is not going to help. There are more roots in policy for such edits. But I haven't seen the full discussion, so I don't know. --Cyclopiatalk 22:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See this discussion. The collusion apparently extends to a forum on a site called sofixit.org (now down and redirecting to goatse) on which admins organised deleted BLPs. No names yet. Fences&Windows 00:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MarineMeat[edit]

I have reopened this AfD and relisted it. WP:Speedy keep only allows a close on the nomination being withdrawn if others are not arguing for deletion. Fences&Windows 15:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I already recognized my mistake, but there is already a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MarineMeat (2nd nomination)! Perhaps the best thing is to merge them? I really apologize for this mess. Sorry. --Cyclopiatalk 00:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed it again, with a link to the open discussion. Not your fault, Wikipedia rules are arcane sometimes, you did what you thought was correct. Fences&Windows 02:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays[edit]

Happy Holidays to you and yours Cyclopia. Turqoise127 (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You too! Thanks! --Cyclopiatalk 20:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy the season![edit]

well... hi[edit]

shouldn't mergers be discussed instead of creating such an article?. What's CSD A10 for then? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For sure the article is now a content fork of the three parent articles, but it doesn't meet A10 for the following reason: This does not include content forks, split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material. (emphasis mine). Merging all three together like the guy did was clumsy for sure, but it is a reorganization of existing material, and as such it does not go, in my opinion, within A10 (I am however looking for a CFORK template to put in the page, do you know one?). Also, I suspect that threatening the guy's articles with CSD is at risk of creating more drama, and I'd prefer in such cases to have everyone cool down and discuss to settle the situation. I hope it helps. --Cyclopiatalk 14:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you see from my comments (emphasizing "I disagree, but that's fine") it should be clear that I am not looking for drama here. I really did not think it would even come to this kind of behavio(u)r on the author's part. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that you're looking for drama, but that it could create it :) -I have no doubts on your good faith. Also, your AN/I intervention, without trace of you talking matters with the editor on his talk page, does not help in my opinion (but maybe you discussed in on the articles' talk pages, I admit -did you do that? However in the AN/I there was no mention of that)--Cyclopiatalk 14:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: as it stands, there is no template for this case, only CSD A10. Ah well.... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But CSD A10 does not include content forks, alas. --Cyclopiatalk 14:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't, but I don't see how a copy is a content-fork. Let's just leave it. There are only two possibilities: the Hawaii-thing gets deleted, then the article is useless -- or the Hawaii-thing is kept, then the article is useless as well. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is: It copies the content and presents it in a rearranged way with different context. CSD A10 is, in my interpretation, if you just copy-and-paste the same article within two different titles, not if you arrange several copies together. And the are more of two possibilities: if the Hawaii-thing is deleted, the merge could nevertheless be fine (I admit it would be my preferred solution). And if the Hawaii-thing is kept, the merge article could be useful as a summary, when heavily trimmed, or even as a list. However I admit I didn't think of the copyvio, and for this I apologize (CSD tag was wrong nonetheless IMHO, but anyway it makes the situation more delicate). I hope admins at AN/I know how to deal with that. --Cyclopiatalk 16:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies needed. We just need to deal with this in the proper way. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, glad I looked at this also when visiting. Ok, not A10. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf][edit]

You added some comments to the page above, which is the main case page and only for parties to the case. I'm assuming you weren't adding yourself to the case, but did you mean for them to go on the evidence page which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence? Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ops, sorry for my mistake. You can remove the comments if you wish, or move them to an appropriate place. It seemed to me that also uninvolved parties were commenting, but probably I was wrong. About Evidence, well, I don't have novel diffs or similar to present, so I didn't comment there. --Cyclopiatalk 16:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all, and thanks for commenting even if in the wrong place! Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this ok? [4] - you might want to read it in light of the commnents by Pohta ce-am pohtit on this page as your original response was to comments by him that I also removed for the same reason. Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks! --Cyclopiatalk 12:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Obama_assassination_scares&action=historysubmit&diff=334197314&oldid=334197197

What do you think about this article. A few people are aggressively trying to kill it by redirecting it and do not want to have a merge discussion. Maybe discuss it on the talk page of the above link? JB50000 (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have correctly restored the redirect and added the mergefrom tags to the main page. That said, my advice is, now, to let everything settle before taking action. Let's leave the disambiguation page alone at least until the AfD's and AN/I have properly closed. After that let's discuss the merges. There is no deadline and since all of this has become an inextricable mess of AfD's, CSD's, merges, redirects, etc. the only way to recover the hairball is to wait a bit and then solve the issues one by one. I hope it helps. --Cyclopiatalk 12:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Cyclopia, I'll wait and be patient. I am not a hardhead idiot or a disruptive fool. JB50000 (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JB50000 (talk • contribs)

I'm sure you are not! Wikipedia is complicated, that's all. It is very difficult to make steps without doing some mistake :) --Cyclopiatalk 11:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a quick thinker[edit]

Jesus, man, I wasn't being serious. Y'daft a'peth. --212.159.160.53 (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Nevermind, I've seen it. See comment on the Mousetrap page. --Cyclopiatalk 23:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

userfied page deleted[edit]

ANI[edit]

Hello Cyclopia, Happy New Year. I've asked for a review of my block of COM at Wikipedia:Ani#Block_review_please. As you have commented on this, I thought you should be made aware of the discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I commented. I support your block, FWIW. Happy new year,too! --Cyclopiatalk 16:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crotchety Old Man not a sockpuppet?[edit]

Hi

Thanks for opening the ANI.

Just a quick note - it may be worth doing that fancy trace test where you see which IP addresses / cookies / users match this user. in other words, we should check if he/she is a sockpuppet. My internet connection sucks ATM, but I'll check back in whenever I can. Rfwoolf (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I have no serious reasons to think that C.O.M. is a sockpuppet, however how do you do that? Isn't checkuser admin stuff? --Cyclopiatalk 11:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes checkuser sounds right, and yes im pretty sure adminship is needed, of which i dont have. in any case, he has many of the signs of a troll/sockpuppet. First of all he reminds me of a certain admin that is known for his gross incivility who I shall remain nameless, but odds are isn't him. Crotchety's user profile goes as far as showing his actual PICTURE -- with absolutely nothing else. Why would he reveal his actual identity and nothing else? Therefore the photo isn't him. If he put his picture and some userboxes and stuff like "Hi, I'm John. I like fishing, long walks on the beach and Cubin cigars" I might have believed he's legit. Then take a look at his contribs. While there may be no serious reasons to believe he's a sockpuppet, he does come across as very suspicious. Rfwoolf (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. First off, I can't seem to track down the ANI anymore. Was it removed somehow?
Second, the photo on the userpage of Crotchety Old Man is a photo by User:Beyond_silence -- take a look at Beyond silence's userpage in his/her list of favourite photos. The photo title is Old man and the Sea. Still convinced he's not a sock puppet? Rfwoolf (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1)I guess it has been automatically archived. It happens all the times at ANI, unfortunately, because admins leave discussions pending without closing them. I will contact the admin who has expressed concerns, but however I think we have to wait for next questionable behaviour by our old man, reopen it and maybe contacting directly a couple of admins.
2)No, it doesn't convince me. Simply using the same photo tells nothing to me. See WP:SIGNS. --Cyclopiatalk 11:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the archives and couldn't find anything. As if it mysteriously disapperaed, but I didn't look very hard because my internet connection is pretty crap at the moment. Think about the photo, the fact that it's called "Old man and the sea", the fact that another wikipedian took the photo. This was not a user that uploaded a photo he happened to have of himself - this is a user that searched for a photo of an old man and put it up as his picture as if to say "this resembled my character". Rfwoolf (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1)There is, I found it before. It is in one of the latest archives.
2)Again, nothing of what you say makes me think that C.O.M. can be a sockpuppet even remotely. They happened to choose the same photo. Meh. Please look at WP:SIGNS before tossing out such pretty serious accusations. --Cyclopiatalk 14:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll disregard all the personal attacks and accusations of sock-puppetry. If I had gotten clowned as bad as you two did, I'd be embarrassed and throwing directionless haymakers too. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I have accused no one of sockpuppetry, so please be precise in your accusations. Oh, and FYI, no one's gotten "clowned". --Cyclopiatalk 18:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.. I hate to say I told you so, but... he was a sock puppet :p And I don't go around throwing that term just willy nilly cos I know how to feels to be falsely accused, but in his case the signs were all there... Rfwoolf (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that C.O.M. has used sockpuppets recently, but was he a sock of the user you claimed? If yes, congratulations for the guess, but I frankly find a bit distasteful to come here and cheer because you got this Cluedo game right. You didn't have evidence: if your suspects were confirmed, fine, but remains the fact that you shouldn't have accused openly of socking without good evidence. --Cyclopiatalk 16:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like that C.O.M. is a sock of User:Beyond silence. What are you talking about, then? --Cyclopiatalk 16:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crotchety Old Man. He had two accounts blocked before he started editing as COM. Fences&Windows 00:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, but Rfwoolf "guess" was completely wrong nonetheless. However, kudos to your investigative abilities. --Cyclopiatalk 00:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never guessed that he was a sockpuppet of Beyond_silence -- you misread me. I said that it's extremely odd for people to obtain their photos from photographers on Wikipedia. Beyond Silence has a repository of professional/hobyist photographs, and one was used by COM. The nature of the photo in addition to its source, in addition to the other elements abouts his profile and behaviour, all indicated that this was a persona in the form of a sockpuppet. Rfwoolf (talk) 11:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for clarifying. I was convinced all this time you were telling me he was a sock of Beyond Silence because they had the same photo. Yet I still think it means nothing, by itself -I guess you had other evidence on him. Heck, I could find a photo of a cyclop newborn from someone else profile and put it on my userpage; does it mean I am a sock? --Cyclopiatalk 12:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For you[edit]

WP:BITE --Neptunerover (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, thanks. But we all are trying to be reasonable with you. Acknowledging the issues with your content and trying a compromise would help. --Cyclopiatalk 13:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but nobody ever offered me a compromise. I assumed there was no such thing here considering how people hammer me without even discussing it beforehand. When you're facing the bad end of a shotgun, talk of compromise tends to sound a little one-sided and forced. The only compromise I see available is for me to simply give up my ground and my principles, which is not my kind of a compromise. When people sticks their nose in my business, I don't just let it go. I have tremendous perseverance. (Which means I perseverate, and perseveration knows no compromise of its own creation.) What was wrong with it? Was it because I was too nice at the beginning of the page in welcoming people to read my personal crap? Was I supposed to say "get out of here this is private stuff"? Was it the welcoming format that made it seem "webhost", or whatever that is that I still don't get? I'm not hosting anything but my own thoughts while I read the encyclopedia and try to fix things here and there in my own way of doing it. Nobody's really made it clear what the problem was, so I perseverate and accomplish very little as far as what I would like to be doing here. But hey, this is fun too (not), and we can keep on wasting our time doing this if this is what is needed right now. I think there are some bad rules or rules being applied badly, and it's been brought to my attention, so if I can help fix that, then I consider myself to be accomplished here, no matter what anybody else thinks. --Neptunerover (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I try to assume you are in good faith. Now: what is wrong with your page is that you are using Wikipedia like it is a web host. That is, your userpages in Wikipedia should be generally related to the encyclopedia. You're hosting a draft of an article you're writing? Good. You're hosting an essay about Wikipedia? Good. You're hosting something that has nothing to do with Wikipedia, or that has to do only with the subject of some article, not with Wikipedia itself? Not good. Your page falls in the latter case. Putting down your thoughts while you read the encyclopedia is all nice and good, but your Wikipedia userspace is definitely not the place to do that. That's it. You can easily create a webpage of yourself somewhere else, and you can even link to it in your userpage -this would be a reasonable compromise- but hosting all the content in the userspace is not allowed. Because your userspace is never really "yours": it is a gentle concession that Wikipedia makes to make easy and nice for people to build the encyclopedia. Your userspace is a tool. You're misusing this tool. No bad feelings, no hating. You're misusing a tool, and we're trying to fix that.
About your "tremendous perservance", take care with it. Wikipedia is all about compromising and trying to fix things along with other people. Tremendous perseverance is on a very fine line with stubborness, and it is not necessarily a good trait in this environment. If your perseveration means "no compromise", well, prepare to be very much frustrated here, because it simply doesn't work here.
I hope now things are clearer. Wikipedia is not easy to grasp at times, but you should try to relax and understand why something is happening, starting from the assumption that there is a good reason behind that. We do not exactly have fun in creating trouble to editors without reason. So you should sit down, relax, and begin to ask yourself "What am I doing wrong?". This could be a good start point. Which doesn't mean I, or other people, can't be wrong too, but if you tell A and 10 more experienced people tell B, you should at least think about A and think why they all disagree. --Cyclopiatalk 14:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I missed the part where everyone agreed against me. It looked to me like there were a lot of people on my side too. --Neptunerover (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Majority was not on your side, nor was policy, and in fact one of your page got deleted. --Cyclopiatalk 15:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this rule found at?: "Putting down your thoughts while you read the encyclopedia is all nice and good, but your Wikipedia userspace is definitely not the place to do that." How is anyone supposed to work on this encyclopedia without reading it? Sense of touch? --Neptunerover (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is WP:NOTWEBHOST, as many pointed out to you. Let me give you the relevant quote: Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. (emphasis mine). See also WP:UP#NOT for a detailed clarification: you will find that Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia are not generally permitted.
About the other question, I don't quite understand. I'll try to explain myself again: If you are taking notes about Wikipedia, like "Here is my own reminder on how to put images in WP!", well, that's all good and well. If you are taking notes about a subject, like "Here is what I've learned about black holes by reading WP", that's not allowed to be hosted on WP. So you can put down these notes, obviously, but somewhere else. --Cyclopiatalk 15:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So point one under WP:NOTWEBHOST is the only one that could possibly be misinterpreted as applying in my case.
Wait a minute!; Webhost, blog, social networking, etc. none of that crap applies to me, but I just noticed something nobody ever pointed out to me. Perhaps what I was doing was a Wiki! It says right there that "Wikis are... often used...for personal note taking..." So that's what I was doing wrong! Why didn't anyone tell me that? I just need to figure out how to take my notes outside of Wikipedia. I can plainly see now that what I was doing in my user space was in violation of Wikipedia's rules. I can only credit myself though for discovering what I did wrong, since nobody really pointed it out to me and I had to struggle on my own to figure out the problem. Now I have to figure out how to get the required software on my computer so I can continue to do my thing unhassled. Thank you for the challenging exercises in futility CyclOpia. I finally got it. --Neptunerover (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Webhost" quite clearly does apply to you, as the material is irrelevant to the construction of the encyclopaedia. Wiki isn't a policy page, and you will notice that the word "often" is used. ViridaeTalk 01:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute, does it apply to me, or to the material? What are you trying to say? All I can do here is assume good faith of a very lost person. Otherwise you are trying to beat a dead horse, and we all know there's no such thing as a dead horse, or do we? In order to facilitate ease in you withdrawing your false "webhost" claim, I hereby quote the rule you missed somehow which is found directly at WP:NOTWEBHOST: "You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia." (emphasis mine) However, I see now that it is not mandatory language since it uses the words 'may not' rather than what would be a distinctly mandatory "shall not." Perhaps I was right after all. Thank you for pointing this out to me Viridae. I owe you one. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is mandatory to all practical purposes, and it applies quite obviously to material not to people. Now, if you want ideas on how to take your note-taking outside Wikipedia, have a look at WP:Alternative outlets. --Cyclopiatalk 11:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and I'm sorry since that was sort of lawyerishly "if the glove don't fit.. " I just couldn't believe it if you know what I mean. I had finally seen the light (and hopefully not just me). Certain people have been incivil as hell to me, and I wish they could recognize it. They won't though because it was my fault that I did not understand what they were mad at me about. The heck with them understanding my motivations beyond fearing and assuming some deceitful purpose in my activities. (Please note the last two sentences are to be perceived as irony). Thank you for the link too. --Neptunerover (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. May I suggest you Wikinfo ([5]) or Encyc ([6]) for a start -both sites should be apparently happy to host your contributions. --Cyclopiatalk 12:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dude, thank you very much! This here current place feels like a safe environment to me (maybe I've just read too much Asimov) which is why I hate to have to go elsewhere. The few I looked at on the internet so far did not seem appealing to me--talking about business models, what? If anything I want to write a free book because I enjoy writing and I don't want anyone to feel ripped off if they don't like it. (I'm telling you, I bought this Einstein book written by Nigel Caulder, terrible is my one word description. I may have gotten my money's worth though if I can use it as a reference for bad interpretations various things. His writing is so complicated though, I just hate it). My email needed to be verified or something that has been done now, so if all the deleted crap can be emailed to me, that would be most excellent. It was actually Rjanag who offered to do that for me before, but I told him I was afraid of hate mail. =) {What, me worry?} Thanks. I can ask him though, no problem, since you may understandably feel overly tasked with my needs. So, always remember to have fun. =) --Neptunerover (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to email your content back, but I am not an admin, so I do not have access to deleted material. I am sure the admin you cited will help you. --Cyclopiatalk 13:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know you're not an admin. What am I doing talking to you? =)JK Thanks --Neptunerover (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Some random advice[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that the whole purpose of my intending to make an article about me is purely contribution. The administrators don't need to worry about watching the page; I'd like the honors of deleting spam edits myself. The "Facebook substitute" thing was just a fleeting idea that never got properly started, with good reason. I just thought I should ease some of your concerns about my attempts to contribute to Wikipedia. I'll go ahead and delete the "Facebook substitute" experimental edit, and be rid of it completely. Thanks for the advice, anyway!

--Mast3rlinkx (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Cyclopia! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 944 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

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

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletions[edit]

The Biography Euthanasia Squadron has declared war: Wikipedia:ANI#User:Rdm2376 starting mass deletions. Rather than recognising Kevin's mass deletions as abuse of his tools, many editors are praising him and even giving him barnstars. Fences&Windows 11:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know all too well, unfortunately. I was going to write you in fact. Check WT:PROD and cry. --Cyclopiatalk 12:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to reason with Kevin. I think we need an 'Unsourced BLP pledge', in which as many editors as possible sign up to dealing with the backlog by sourcing and expanding these articles or else nominating them for deletion. 100 editors doing one a day could clear half the backlog in a year. Much more constructive than binning 50,000 articles. If we approached everyone who has contributed to that debate, every member of the BLP WikiProject and every member of the ARS we should be able to find enough willing volunteers. We could have our own barnstars and competitions, a la the WikiCup. Fences&Windows 18:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks cool! Thanks for the great idea. --Cyclopiatalk 19:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like any reasoned approach is losing out, ArbCom is currently siding with mass deletion of unsourced BLPs. Might as well bot-delete the whole flaming lot if that's the decision. Meh. Fences&Windows 16:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've seen it. I really don't know what can be done at this point. --Cyclopiatalk 16:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010[edit]

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence WP:BLP. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. MBisanz talk 01:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I expected that. Thanks for the notice, for what it's worth. --Cyclopiatalk 01:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, puhlease. As though the BLP crusaders aren't coordinating on- and off-wiki. Fences&Windows 15:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Please consider undoing this edit: [7] If somebody speaks rashly and then takes it back, it is a good idea to let them de-escalate the conflict. Jehochman Brrr 16:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd usually say yes, but unfortunately not in this case. It's not matter of escalating a conflict. Part of the discussion (I'd say the most fundamental) is about a dangerous situation that stems exactly from that kind of mindset. It's necessary for ArbCom and for the community to know what kind of mindset we're talking about. If he didn't think such stuff, he wouldn't have acted the way he acted. Thank you for contacting me. --Cyclopiatalk 16:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter[edit]

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
Issue 2 (January 2010)

Previous issue | Next issue

Content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people[edit]

I really enjoyed reading your comments. LOL. Bearian (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

x2. Ikip 02:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

The Socratic Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Cyclopia, for his inspiring words against corruption on wikipedia. Wow, you are a wonderful asset to the project, please keep up the fabulous work. Ikip 02:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ikip, I don't think to deserve such an award but I appreciate it a lot. When this all will be finished, whatever way it goes, it's probably better for me to contribute more and argue less, for a while: better for my health! --Cyclopiatalk 12:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

Hi Cyclopia, hope all's well. Just wanted to quickly apologize if I've been a bit of a dick throughout this whole BLP debacle. It's obviously a sensitive issue, and I admit to getting frustrated at times. I've got to give you credit for sticking to your guns. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 21:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and thank you for this notice. It's not that I don't understand the issues, it's more of a disagreement on the weapons to use. You've been anyway one of the most civil and well-thought editors in this issue; no bad feelings. Hope a widely-agreed solution comes out! --Cyclopiatalk 10:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WGB[edit]

Hello. It's a long story how I got to reading that but whatever. I don't understand how as administrators of Wikipedia, one of the biggest knowledge databases on the PLANET can sleep at night while a fellow editor is threatening suicide. I understand what he's done wrong but he went through the time to write very thoughtful and sincere emails apologizing to Wikipedia as a whole and explaining how he does not understand the policies. If someone does not understand a policy/policies as senior editors you must help said user out. I'm not blaming you in particular but you seemed to have very opposing views on WGB. Had you agreed to help him out and he understood you might have had the trust in him to unblock him and therefore putting him out of his misery. If someone has the heart and will to edit Wikipedia like he does he/she should be allowed to. I've honestly never seen such will to be unblocked and continue editing. That will on its own should be enough to warrant an unblock.

Say you (you does not correspond to you specifically - it corresponds to the group of editors who took part in the discussion. I hope you've picked up on that) unblocked him. Then he goes on to break the terms of the unblock or just causes general trouble. Then you just block him indefinitely no questions asked. Is that honestly such a big deal?

As an unregistered user my opinion will probably have no bearing on the current status of WGB but I do expect my opinion to be taken into account. Thank you. --78.86.20.189 (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Pamela Paulshock‎[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Pamela Paulshock‎, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Paulshock‎. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Enric Naval (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for the barnstar, let me see what I can do with your article up for deletion.... Ikip 23:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusive invitation[edit]

British Royalty Cyclopia/Archive 3, Wikipedia:Wikiproject new user welcome wants you!

We are currently asking for concrete, constructive proposals on how to avoid the deletion of 48,000 articles created by 17,500 editors through sourcing.

These constructive proposals will then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.

Please help us:

>> User:Ikip/Wikipedia:Wikiproject new user welcome <<
For now, participation on this userpage is by inviation only.

Ikip 19:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link please[edit]

For the Boer war article about McLaren. Pcap ping 12:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found it. It uses the spelling MacLaren. Pcap ping 12:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[8] It was linked on the McLaren page itself, that's why I didn't give the link, sorry, my fault. --Cyclopiatalk 12:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Participation at my RfA[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. --otherlleft 13:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and even if I voted oppose, I am sincerely sorry for your unsuccessful RfA. I think you could deserve the tools in the future! --Cyclopiatalk 13:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You did oppose on the basis of why I nominated a particular article for deletion. I stand by my reasons (the consensus at the article page did not support including what, in my view, were the only sources establishing notability), so if I choose to go this route again I don't expect garnering your support to be easy! But I like to spend time around folks I disagree with, because they're the ones that will force me to rethink and test my views frequently. Regards, --otherlleft 14:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. Yes, my oppose may have sounded weird or petty, since actually the article got deleted, but the point is that, in my opinion, noms like "if we remove X, then it is not notable", are not well-thought -the case against the sources was pretty weak and also, I found the request of salting too much strong. In short: edit warring is not a good reason to delete. My opinion, for sure, but I found it an example of not-perfect judgement, which combined with other small things made me lean on the oppose side. But apart from that, you seem a bright editor, and if following actions of you will appear better thought, I'd have no problem in support you. :) --Cyclopiatalk 14:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Village pump discussion[edit]

DMS appears to have placed a response in the middle of one of your comments. To avoid more refactoring I simply copied your signature to the portion of your comment that he responded to: [9]. Hope thats alright, if not feel free to try your own fix. Equazcion (talk) 03:15, 22 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people[edit]

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove your accusation about me.[edit]

As you know you described me as a textbook case of disruptive editing. And you described me as such in spite of the fact that I have let stay content that I do not agree with, and continued discussion about it. If you do not remove or strike through that remark from the discussion page I am reporting you. DMSBel (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. Your disruption is exactly in continuing an endless and pointless discussion about it: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Cyclopiatalk 15:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your threats are a form of incivility. If you honesty believe that he is incivil in his statements, please report him instead of threatening him. Please see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts. My council is to be careful. If you open a can of worms, you invite others to evaluate whether they think what he says is true or not. Atom (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate representation of your views?[edit]

I've skimmed through the talk pages and can't find where you said, "it doesn't matter how many editors support the removal if it is against policy" per User_talk:KillerChihuahua#Could_you_look_in_on_the_Ejaculation_discussion.3F. Did you? --NeilN talk to me 22:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that, now I can't remember. The case is the same of, for example, Talk:Muhammad or in Talk:The Mousetrap. Lots of people almost every day ask for the images to be removed from the first, or for the spoiler to be removed from the second. Yet, since both things serve an encyclopedic purpose, and removal is against policy, they are regularly reverted, per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:SPOILER respectively. Local consensus on a page cannot override general consensus expressed in a policy. --Cyclopiatalk 00:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said something like that at one point, but I cannot find it now. I said that it did not matter if a large number of editors wanted to censor an image by putting it behind an inline link based on it being offensive, that removing an image on that basis was against policy. Editors can find a consensus for removal for other reasons, of course. Atom (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010[edit]

random threats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do not edit war to add contentious material to BLPs, as you did with this edit. If you continue to edit in this manner, you may be blocked. Scottaka UnitAnode 23:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not edit warring, and please retract such accusations. I reverted once and added sources. I am also not re-reverting, just because I don't want to edit war. You are confounding WP:BRD with edit warring. Your threat is nonsensical. --Cyclopiatalk 23:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. You added rubbish. It was removed as rubbish. You reverted, to readd it. That's edit-warring, and it needs to stop.
Your opinion. I disagree. Bye. --Cyclopiatalk 23:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's objectively edit-warring. Feel free to "collapse" this as well. The warning stands, and if you persist, you'll most likely be blocked. Not a threat, just a warning. Blatantly ignoring BLP concerns is not a good idea. Scottaka UnitAnode 23:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: blatantly ignoring BLP concerns is by no means a good idea. But I am not ignoring them at all. I am considering them, but I disagree on such concerns. You, like me, do not have the absolute truth on your side. We have opinions, we discuss them. I don't know what you're trying to obtain by pestering me. If you want to have a peaceful discussion, remove edit-warring accusations, remove threats/warnings whatsoever, and let's discuss. I'd be more than happy to -I like to talk with people whose positions disagree with mine, it's always a learning occasion. If all what you can do is accusing me of non-existent edit warring, or threatening me with blocks (btw: are you an admin? I don't think so, so your threats are relatively moot), well, I kindly ask you to leave my talk page. Thanks. --Cyclopiatalk 00:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't threaten you, I warned you as to what will happen if you continue inserting junk like that in BLPs. Ignore the warning, if you like, but it's at the peril of your editing privileges. Scottaka UnitAnode 00:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Johnny Weir[edit]

Cyclopia, please don't do that. We're an encylopedia, not a tabloid. WP:NOTNEWS an' all that. The commentary quoted is pretty offensive, IMO (as someone who's LGBT), and quoting someone else's nasty remarks, however well-sourced is largely irrelevant - Alison ❤ 00:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alison. First of all, let's just satisfy a curiosity of mine -where are you guys also discussing this? I've seen this but commentary about me appeared after a couple of regulars (Kevin, Unitanode) jumped in the Weir discussion (and on my talk page) out of the blue just after I commented on it, and before it appeared on WR. So? No problem, really, but I would find it nice and honest to tell me where my edits are discussed.
That said: Yes, the commentary is offensive. It is a shame for the two braindead Canadian broadcasters who did that. It stirred up a controversy, including LGBT groups enraged at them, and prompted a public answer by Weir, which has been reported all over the place. That's why I propose its inclusion: it was a notable incident that impacted (positively) on Weir's coverage and image. If anything, Weir comes out very well out of it: he showed to the world how stupid these guys were, where he showed to be a very smart guy instead. --Cyclopiatalk 01:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno about the others, but I'm not discussing it anywhere, having just got on-line here. And no, it's not a 'notable incident', it's just tabloid garbage and irrelevant to a serious encyclopedic work. Nor is it our place to show anything to the world, other than verifiable, relevant facts: NOTNEWS again. Seriously, it's clear the subject was hurt and annoyed by this gratuitous bashing & here you go, trying to publicize it even more?? C'mon!! - Alison ❤ 01:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: our place is to show verifiable and relevant facts. Here they are: Weir has been publicly insulted by broadcasters: fact. The incident was widely and publicly reported on national networks and news:fact. The incident stirred up response also in LGBT groups:fact. Weir has answered such insults in a public press conference: fact. All these facts are backed up by several RS (see Talk:Johnny Weir. He may have been of course annoyed by the broadcasters' remark, but again, my impression is that his answer etc. after all make this incident positive for him, after all. Regardless, it all falls under WP:WELLKNOWN. NOTNEWS is a germane objection, but this pretty much monopolized coverage of him for a while. I'm all for rewording it in the less concerningly possible way, but it should be included in the article IMHO. --Cyclopiatalk 01:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly doesn't fall under WP:WELLKNOWN which, in itself, is not a handy catch-all category for justification of anything we like just because it's widely quoted. Hence no gerbils (don't ask me to explain - you know!! :) ) Furthermore, WP:BLP easily trumps this ruling, and I note that you completely ignored my final sentence - Alison ❤ 01:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, WP:WELLKNOWN is WP:BLP: are you saying BLP easily trumps itself? I'm not taking it as a "handy catch-all category for justification of anything we like". But for sure it allows to focus what to take care for the inclusion. Which answers your final sentence (which I didn't ignore): Seriously, it's clear the subject was hurt and annoyed by this gratuitous bashing & here you go, trying to publicize it even more?? C'mon!! is completely irrelevant if there is widespread RS coverage. Note that WP:WELLKNOWN covers also allegations (see examples in it), and, again, it is a part of WP:BLP. So, we can focus on questions like UNDUE or NOTNEWS, which are instead reasonable questions, regardless of our agreement or not. --Cyclopiatalk 01:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hey[edit]

hey I need help with something. reply to me on my user page when you can! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flash forward1 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyclopia/Archive_3&oldid=1136197415"