User talk:Hesperian/Archive 44

The following text is preserved as an archive of discussions at User talk:Hesperian. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Hesperian. No further edits should be made to this page.

Environment

I have added to your post at WP:AN/I#Xandar, as I feel that the situation has degenerated so far that some administrator assistance is required to restore an environment conducive to debate. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been mentioned at WP:AN3

Hello. A user has complained about your deletion of Category:Epidendrum Subgenera at WP:AN3#User:Hesperian reported by User:Jay L09 (Result: Waiting). You may respond there if you wish. If there is an actual controversy about the need for this category, it seems that a WP:CFD discussion could be merited. If you agree to open a discussion, I see no reason why the AN3 report could not be closed. If you don't think any discussion is required, I would probably suggest he open a WP:DRV. No objection if the two of you can agree on something without going through those procedural steps. I do note that you left one comment on his Talk, which he apparently did not feel was convincing. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.

This is to inform you that the removal of exceptions to the use of Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 22:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These

Can you say which ones? I've uploaded a few hundred recently...Skier Dude (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd been going on the assumption that (WP:IMGSIZE) that the thumbnail was default to 180x180 (ergo the minimum) and the max size should be a total of 800px (i.e. 400x400) for non-free images. I've been shooting for c. 300 average depending on the image, and especially for the .png images that upscale well, have been going with the 200x sizes. I've tried to stay away from the -300 with .jpg and others as - you're right - they don't upscale right at all. But, since there's the option, as you said, to reset the default thumb to be up to 300 (I've never done it - crappy slow ISP to begin with :( ) I can put the minimum setting in my 'image manipulation programme' to 300. No problemos... Skier Dude (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B.sessilis series

Do these fit within the B.sessilis sequence? Gnan garra 14:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nice! I have a bud on my Banksia robur' I just noticed...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[Copied from User talk:Storm Rider]

I'm still waiting for you to substantiate or withdraw your false accusations of harassment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#Xandar. Meanwhile I see that you have moved on to calling me names like knuckle-dragger, and tweedle-dee, whatever that means. Frankly, I couldn't care less about the name-calling—you go right ahead—but I must admit it rather annoys me that you drag the tone of the discussion down to the level of flinging personal insults, while at the same time playing the holier-than-thou "focus on the proposal" card. Maybe knock off the hypocrisy and practice what you preach a bit, huh? Hesperian 03:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior accurately describes the manner in which you and your compadres edit. None of you focus on the topic and all of you have attacked Xander on the discussion page. What is laughable is that you don't have the good sense to just admit what is obvious to everyone else. Heck, be proud of your actions. If you are not, then I will give you a clue...STOP DOING IT.

Second, I did not attack you on a discussion page about a proposal. It is really quite simple to just focus on the topic and not attack other editors. If you find this difficult, I would propose you focus on a personal blog page and give Wikipedia a rest. You do a disservice to other editors and you aren't helping yourself either; a lose - lose proposition.

I named no one in my personal communication to Xander; however, if you think the shoe fits, I implore you to wear it. Dance up and down the aisles of Wikipedia for all to see. What you cannot say is that I degraded any discussion about a proposal such as you did. Nope, this pair of shoes you get to wear all by yourself. Cheers and happy editing. --^StormRider 04:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down and speak a little more clearly. You lost me with the first sentence: "Your behavior accurately describes the manner in which you and your compadres edit." My behaviour describes my behaviour? Huh?

Since you apparently intend to continue with these accusations, perhaps you might start at the beginning and provide a diff or two for your very first batch of accusations against me, as I requested more than three days ago.[1]

Hesperian 05:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of why diffs are so great. You said above "I did not attack you on a discussion page about a proposal. It is really quite simple to just focus on the topic and not attack other editors."[2]. But here is a diff of you attacking editors on a policy RfC: "You three seem to be the knuckle draggers in this little escapde".[3]

The other reason diffs are so great is you can't invent them.... so, I'm waiting. Where's the diffs that back up your several accusations against me?

Hesperian 05:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My, we are a little thick this evening. Your links are meaningless. If you read the slowly you might be able to comprehend. First, there is a different between a user's discussion page and the Naming conventions talk page. Think about it a while and I am sure you will get it; if not, please don't ask because I won't take the time to respond to you. I tire of these silly shenanigans.

Again, your comments speak loudly for you. When editors act like a hand in glove act, I don't need further evidence than what you have supplied. Cerberus does not do a better job of acting as one.

This conversation is ended. I will delete it entirely in the morning. It is a waste of time. Cheers. --^StormRider 05:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should take your own advise and slow down. The diff above—this one—is from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. Have you got it yet? You said "You three seem to be the knuckle draggers in this little escapde" on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions [4]. Here's that diff again: [5] Have you got it yet? Here it is.[6]

From what I can tell, the situation is this. I haven't done any of the things you've accused me of doing. I have asked you to substantiate your accusations or retract them. Your response is to reassert them, again without substantiation, and then punt. Too "tired" to back up your lies with evidence. Having people challenge you for slandering them is "silly shenanigans". Fine; whatever. You lose. Hesperian 05:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is too rich, I will keep it up for a little while longer. Please do a search of your link above and find the word knuckle dragger. It is not there nor have I ever used it. The only place it is found is on Xander's personal talk page. You might want to back off on the drugs. You are losing it...but, Cheers anyway.--^StormRider 15:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth line. Maybe you need to install JAWS.

Look, I'll highlight it for you:

"Comment - Again, following up on WhatamIdoing comments; FOCUS ON THE PROPOSAL. Xandar is not the proposal and never has been. He has quoted the language accurately. If you disagree and that you are proposing something different, bring to the body. You three seem to be the knuckle draggers in this little escapde, do you have anyone that is willing to focus on the proposal?--^StormRider 03:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Hesperian 23:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

Can you see it now? And here's the diff.[7]

Hesperian 23:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[discussion blanked by Storm Rider with edit summary RV unwanted stupidity.]

[break]

That is simply astonishing. It almost makes me appreciate Born2cycle. I suppose the talk page also contains "wanted stupidity".--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, progress. It's only a matter of time, Curtis. ;-) --Born2cycle (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time management

I can't believe that you had nothing better to do than to spam your disagreement with Xandar to a couple of dozen WikiProject talk pages. Wouldn't one message at the RfC have been sufficient?

More pointfully, perhaps you should see about fixing the problem that Xandar perceives. If Xandar can't figure out how the changed context affects the "rule" change, then neither will the average editor. The resolution may require only something as small as a statement underneath #General conventions and guidelines that says "These are principles, not hard and fast rules. Depending on the situation, one principle may be more important than another. Editors should consider these principles in developing a WP:CONSENSUS for the best name of an article." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that people want to have their say even though they can't be bothered reading into the topic. Xandar spams a biased message across a gazillion pages, gets people into a panic, and the discussion ends up swamped with users turning up to oppose soemthing they don't know anything about. I wanted to neutralise that threat. I would have liked to have rolled all those biased messages back, but that would have made me the bad guy. Therefore I did the next best thing. You will note that Xandar then spammed his response to every page, and I let him have the last word. I have no wish to carry on the same argument across a hundred pages; I believe I have achieved my goal of neutralising the threat, and that suffices. In response to your question "wouldn't one message at the RfC have been sufficient?", the answer is yes, for ten minutes or so. By the time ten minutes has passed, Xandar and others would have responded to my post with more misinformation, and it would soon have been lost amongst the wall of text that the average editor can't be bothered reading.

"Perhaps you should see about fixing the problem that Xandar perceives" It has been tried, repeatedly. The problem is that Xandar doesn't want a good, accurate, useful convention. He wants a convention that will enable to win him whatever naming dispute he is embroiled in, even if it is a bad, inaccurate and useless one. He entirely disagreed with the thrust of the previous convention, but there was a single phrase in there that he was able to hang his argument on. The overall convention is now far more his cup of tea, but all he can see is that this one phrase is gone. It matters not to him that the convention has been vastly improved and the phrase under question is now utterly redundant. He would roll it all back so long as he can get back that one phrase that might enable him to win the day on some other page, in some other argument.

Perhaps you should see about fixing the problem that Xandar perceives. I'm not one of the reverters in this game, so you shouldn't fear obstruction from me. But I can guarantee you that Xandar won't accept what you've proposed here.

Hesperian 04:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't acted on this, because I haven't entirely decided whether a change from "statements widely perceived as rules" to "statements that are supposedly co-equal principles (although you couldn't tell that from what's written here)" is truly desirable.

I firmly believe, however, that supporters of the new system should make an effort to have the policy say what they supposedly mean. If you (and they) really mean it, then put it in the real policy, not just on dozens of WikiProject pages. If relatively experienced editors misunderstand the proposal, then it is poorly written. The policy's talk page will get (and deserve) a steady stream of complaints and questions until this issue is formally clarified in the policy. Policy pages should not be written in ways that promote confusion and disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the text of the policy is the source of the confusion and disputes. Hesperian 00:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned

Hesperian, I've warned you at WT:NC about the ad hominem remarks. The rhetoric you're throwing at Xandar will get you blocked if you don't cut it out. I don't care what he said about you, although he's also been warned for that. Rise above it, or you'll be posting unblock requests right here. I'd rather you stay and contribute to the important discussion we're trying to have. Okay? -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You set very high standards, GTBacchus. Hesperian 12:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It's way too easy for discussions to descend into flame wars otherwise. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo. Here's to high standards. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Reflist#cite.php update!!

-) Hesperian 12:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

{{talkback}} Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 02:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification and apology, re: Sircharlesgairdner

Hi, Hesperian. I just wanted to drop by today to clarify a couple of things and apologize. My reference to the trout in this message was directed at the tone of your message, not the content; sorry if there was any ambiguity there, as I would consider one to be more offensive than the other, personally, if that was said to me. Furthermore, the content of my message was not intended to distill down into "You disagree, you undo it.", but rather "That's fine, undo if you like." as I was just heading off to bed at the time. With regards to my blanking of Sircharlesgairdner's talk page, I was simply following a standard practice of indefinite block notification and did not intend any offense to you by it. I feel I should also note that the blanking was not performed manually, but with an automated tool, of which performing that action when leaving an indefinite block notice is a feature. I do think that you're one of the most valuable contributors on the project (top 30 by edit count as well, I'm sure; kudos!), and I apologize if I stepped on your toes or otherwise belittled your experience. The decisions I made were done so with poor judgment on my part, and I hope that you can forgive me for causing undue stress. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 14:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:NC#Names_vs._descriptions

Since you're usually pretty good at understanding what I'm trying to convey, please let us know if you understand my point in this discussion with PMA and whether you agree. Thanks... --Born2cycle (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article creation bot

I spent 100 hours or more cleaning up Anybot's mess, without help from the bot operator or from BAG members.

The operator and designer of ContentCreationBOT ingored issues during the design phase and issues I raised during the bot approval process.

Now, because BAG members are too lazy to do the task they appointed themselves, or probably too busy like the rest of us, this bot will be approved without anyone in the community willing to and capable of monitoring its creations.

The bot owner and his buddy suggest I do their work for them. I'm not going to. You spoke in support of this bot, but you're not a paleontologist (it appears). I've been tidying up Abyssal articles for a long time. He starts strong, but he's not a paleontologist. The operator and Abyssal don't even have the credits correct for the articles the bot will be putting data into.

Would you please speak up and raise issues about this bot from the standpoint of what happens when bot-generated content is not monitored? I am not being listened to.

I don't see anyone willing to monitor this bot's content. Abyssal can't even correct a single pair of articles, leaving wrong information generated by a single source to breed all over the internet courtesy of Abyssal and wiki mirrors.

There is NO community consensus for this bot. It should not go forward without the active support of authors willing and able to take responsibility for its output. That isn't in place.

--69.225.3.119 (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

28 minutes, not seconds. Still, his commentary appears to ignore all input and concerns about the bot. --69.225.3.119 (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me some examples of errors please? Hesperian 01:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the errors are due to lack of understanding the date. Abyssal creates fish articles, which wikipedia needs, but doesn't include class. Even when available and obvious. This is fundamental to a fish article, and adds one word. The bot operator's goal is to create articles after filling in tables, but with limited understanding of taxonomy the articles will say no more than this organism once existed.

He created a couple of articles, one included a misspelling from the data base. I pointed this out, he ignored it for months, and, after pointing it out again on the ContentCreationBot board, he continued to ignore the error, accusing me of a passive-aggressive attack on him. Another editor (the bot owner) eventually cleaned it up. Their attribution for the database is incorrect. If they get the dates from a remote source, it must be credited. These issues concern me because of the anybot mess.

Bots should only be contributing content if there is someone knowledgeable monitoring. Both ThaddesusB and Abyssal admit they're not qualified. But, they ignore concerns. I'm not going to monitor their contributions. Also, I'm not an invertebrate paleontologist. If these editors had aggressively pursued problems with their bot, instead of telling me I'm having a "hissy fit" I could see the bot going forward. But, again, their attitude towards me for pointing out problems, their ignoring problems, their basic lack of understanding of the data, all seem to line up for the potential for a great mess.

--69.225.3.119 (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me some articles where these errors have occurred. (Sorry, I'm not trying to dick you around. I'll act on this if I can get my head around it.) Hesperian 02:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is from Abyssal's example of some of the 10,000 pieces of data ContentCreationBot will upload to wikipedia:

"Cryptoplax Blainville 1818 valid 023.03 Early Miocene to Late Miocene "[8]

This entry is based upon the paleobiology database. This database, like others, includes extant species, when they also appear in the fossil record. Species extant were not created this instant, some have extensive fossil records. Dates are given "Late Miocene -" in the database to indicate the first appearance, and the last appearance is recent. Abyssal and ThaddeusB don't know how to read the data in the database. They are not qualified to extract it for wikipedia.

Abyssal had a problem before, due solely to his error, of confining an organism to a fossil range when the database he extracted the datum from indicated it was extant.[9] I pointed it out to him. I corrected it. This type of error is not new or unique to Abyssal's experience editing on en.wikipedia and no one is going to want to have to repeat their explanations and keep prodding Abyssal to correct articles as he requires me to do.

The problem with anybot was that the bot operator was not familiar with the data he was uploading, in addition to not listening to users who pointed out errors. This bot is also being operated and helped by two editors who are not familiar with the data they are uploading, and are not responding appropriately to others who point out problems with the data.

They need experts. They got the one who has found most of their problems blocked for a week, then came back and taunted me while I was blocked. There is no possibility of communicating with them.

It's anybot all over again: the don't know their data, they can't and won't communicate with those who do. ThaddeusB claims this is not specific and he can't do anything about it. That was the problem with anybot that created 5000 articles and redirects to be deleted: a bot operator who could not and would not listen to problems with his bot.

--69.225.5.4 (talk) 09:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop distorting the truth. I most certainly did not claim THIS was not specific, and I most certainly did say I would fix this specific problem that you have finally outlined after refusing to do so for 3 weeks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In my opinion, I don't think this bot should go forward without proactive community support for the bot. This means more than no one disapproves or shows negative interest. It requires editors from relevant projects get on board for vetting uploaded data. Without a group of editors to check data, it is my opinion the potential for another AnyBot type mess exists." My post, to which you responded" --69.225.12.99 (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"I have requested be specific 10 times and you have ignored me 10 times, so who exactly is ignoring who? Oh and for the record a didn't make a single one of those comments you attributed to me, so I would appreciate it if you strike that part of the comment. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's my complaint about this bot, posted on the 11th of September. --20:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That isn't anything I can address, but as you stated in your own words, your opinion. All 10 of my requests for specific problems went unanswered until finally you were blocked for being disruptive 9a block i didn't even agree with.) Only then did you finally offer a specific; and I have stated I will fix that specific problem. Specific="data item 12 is wrong." General="I think this will make errors b/c I don't trust the operator." It is a logical impossibility for me to "fix" your opinion that I can't be trusted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS Thanks for listening. I really don't know why I care what kind of crap anyone puts in wikipedia. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hesperian, thanks for your input on the bot and for looking at the matter. I won't continue posting on your board. --69.225.5.4 (talk)

It's no problem; that is what it is here for. Hesperian 05:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bleah

there's a shortage at DYK so... Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even Salt River (Western Australia) is better than that. Hesperian 06:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A few more words and it can be a dyk too...Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Jack Axford.jpg

File:Jack Axford.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Jack Axford.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Jack Axford.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your recent comments

Hesperian

Sorry I have never “talked” to anyone one here so I am not entirely sure how to do it. You left some comments on my talk page and I have replied there

Best Regards Whodidwhat (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply back on my talk page (PS do I need to poke here or do you get some sort of notification?)

Whodidwhat (talk) 04:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hesperian

Firstly A heartfelt thank you (again) re Adele (1906), I am sorry to have been such a pain for you and appreciate you stepping into an argument that was not of your creating, especially since I have been away from the computer and have only come back to see what appears as the aftermath.

After this I will not create any more pages but will focus on going back and adding some detail

Again sincere thanks Whodidwhat (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have helped. Give me a yell if you need anything more. Hesperian 02:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect

I have pointed out how your math and claims about my content editing are incorrect here. I ask you in the future to actually look at my contribs, to not count numbers, and to realize that quality matters over numbers. Anyone can huggle up 100 mainspace edits. That is not content contributing. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. Hesperian 05:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think carefully...

Think very carefully about how you respond to my comment on my talk page. It seems to me that you are on the harsher side of the admins I've met and I really don't want to get into a war with you over something this inconsequential. However if you decide that you are going to further involve yourself in this, do everyone a favor and try to somehow appear neutral. Your comments on my page offended me, and were, quite frankly not what I would hope to see from an administrator. Nezzadar (speak) 06:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Request

This is a friendly request for you to cease and desist posting on my talk page. The conversation in question has been removed, as the only possible conclusion, given enough time, is a full on flame war resulting in me being blocked and you losing admin privileges. Because this seems like a mutually undesired outcome, I am proposing a truce. You and I avoid each other for a while, let this cool off, and neither of us will be forced to pursue other actions. This seems reasonable enough. Eh? Nezzadar (speak) 07:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said what I had to say to you—slow down and use Twinkle properly, or I'll blacklist you—so I am happy to comply with your request: next time I post on your talk page, if there is a next time, it will be to inform you that you have been blacklisted.

Whether you get yourself blocked is entirely in your hands; but I have no intention of misusing my administrative tools.

Hesperian 07:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cripes

You gonna get a medal for the longest titled article on wp? Satu Suro 17:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be; I don't know. :-) I would have shortened it if I could.... Hesperian 23:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that since you are being as concise as you can be, even this very long title is not an exception to the concise principle. However, does the pattern in this title match that of other similar articles? Uh, no. It's consistent with other titles in that it merely reflects the name of its topic, but there is no pattern matching going on here, or any attempt to make this title similar to that of the titles of similar articles. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but what was I thinking when I titled it? For once I am exclusively qualified to answer this question. I started with the actual correct title. Since it was so unwieldy, I consulted my reliable source to see if there was a shorter version in use. There was: "Brown's Congo". But this would not come across right without italics, so, on balance, I felt the full title was better. Hesperian 00:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the name of the topic, the "actual correct title", was your first choice. Naturally. Did consistency apply other than being consistent with how almost all other articles in Wikipedia are titled... by using the name of the topic in question? I don't think so. All I'm saying is what you did here is very typical for how the vast majority of articles in Wikipedia are named. There is no consideration for matching the pattern used by other similar articles in most cases. I'm not saying that never applies. I'm saying that does not apply almost universally the way recognizability, concise, etc. applies in most cases, so it needs to be qualified. I really don't understand why I'm getting so much resistance on this point, which seems so obvious. If we leave "Prefer titles that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles." unqualified, we're incorrectly implying that applies to the vast majority of articles the way the other listed principles do. That's just incorrect. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "There was no consideration for matching the pattern used by other similar articles in most cases." Actually, there was. I felt immense pressure, which I have so far resisted, to use title case. Title case is okay for books, but I think it is not really appropriate for article titles. Hesperian 01:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the decision of whether to use title case is an issue of trying to match "patterns" used in other titles. To me a "pattern" is like the convention to specify the state a city is in according to a specific patter, like ", statename", or to have all titles of articles about naval boats end with the term "naval boat", or to have all titles of lists begin with "List of ...", or to specify the name of a TV series to which a TV episode belongs in brackets.

I mean, I agree the convention to use sentence case in WP article titles is a convention of consistency in Wikipedia, and I support it, but I just don't see it as an example of "similar articles should have similar titles", or "follow similar patterns". --Born2cycle (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd have better luck convincing people, if you were able to articulate precisely what forms of consistency you support and what forms you don't, instead of nodding vaguely in the direction of a few examples. Hesperian 02:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated many times that a much more accurate reflection of how consistency applies in article naming is that when the other principles do not lead to a single obvious name, preference is often given to a title that is similar to those used by similar articles. We might also note that for some groups of articles such preference for similar titles is given even when the resulting name conflicts with the other principles.

That last part is completely unnecessary in my view, and in each such exceptional case conflicts with the goal of improving WP, but is unfortunately accurate. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Blacklisting

It's obvious that you are looking for an excuse to blacklist me. Of the listed points you only had one good one, and it was done very early on in my Twinkling. I have no idea what you are trying to prove, but I am asking you to undo this. It's wrong.Let me respond to each of the different citations you gave me.

Rolling back the removal of a copyright violation as vandalism.[10]

I didn't see anything about copyrights, I saw a large amount of content being removed. The comment was "cleanup tags" not "removing un-cited material"

Tagging an olympian for speedy deletion.[11]

Of all of them, this was the most clearly wrong, even then the person finished 25th. The article was a single line, and while I was hasty, if it was any other competition other than the Olympics, the person would fail notability.

Nominating for deletion nine stubs created by the same newb, all that the same time, and filling up their talk page with intimidating deletion template messages, without regard to how the poor newb must feel about it.

The articles were crap and were being churned out rapidly. Every one of them was unnotable in their present form. I could have easily nominated every article he created. All of them were deletion worthy in their present form. I have no regrets about this, and in the end, my deletions forced the kid to slow down and make good articles. Unconventional, yes. Unintentional, yes. Unwarranted, no.

Tagging an obviously good faith article for speedy deletion as vandalism[12]

Obvious is a relative term. I've never heard of that, and I saw a lot of empty categories. I don't believe in publish as you go, it's unprofessional, and this editor is in the minority of cases where people publish stubs and then quickly flesh them out. There is a sandbox, you know.

Reporting someone as a vandalism-only account,[13] when they are obviously not.

Another editor agreed that the contributions were page spam. There is no button on twinkle that says "95% bad edits and currently making 100 useless disambiguations. I am clearly in the right here. If you were to assume good faith yourself, you would take the two seconds to realize what I was trying to say.

Reverting as vandalism a good-faith edit,[14] the cautioning the good faith IP that made the edit.

I really don't understand this. The person removed content unnecessarily, I warned him not to and reverted the edits. So I tagged it as vandalism, I'm still batting .990 on vandalism vs. good faith.

Nezzadar (speak) 06:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nezzadar, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/new users. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently had the misfortune of encountering this admin-hopeful as well. I've been editing as an anon for about three years and occasionally get flak from RCPers who don't understand what I'm trying to do, but usually after a conversation they come to a bit of understanding with me. This guy told me that essentially he doesn't have to understand me or AGF because I choose not to edit with an account. I have many thousands of edits to my credit, and yet this editor saw a pattern and made a judgement call without looking into what was really going on. I was blocked once in 2007 without warning, and have had warnings here and there for this and that, but I'd like to think any mistakes and misunderstandings don't outweigh my positive contributions. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetorical question

Hi Hesperian. Today I edited Rhetorical question to remove what I believed was unencyclopedic language. You reverted my edit, commenting that it is the best known example of this form of rhetorical question. (It is not an example I have heard before.)

Wikipedia’s policy on use of profanity in articles is available at WP:Profanity. Such a policy is unable to provide unambiguous rulings on what is acceptable in Wikipedia, and what is not. However, it does provide some excellent guidance that is very helpful to Users who are grappling with a choice of whether to resort to profanity, or not. (I see nothing at WP:Profanity to indicate that profanity is acceptable if it is the best-known example.)

You have stated that the text in question is the best known example of this form of rhetorical question. I will assume you genuinely believe this to be true. It may be true among your friends and family, and perhaps among men in your community, and perhaps even among men in your cultural group. Profanities are valued in all-male company in many cultures, but they are offensive to many other groups such as educated men, women, mixed company, religious people, children etc. Readers of Wikipedia are not an homogenous group. People of all ages, all genders, all nationalities, all religions, all educational standards and all cultures read Wikipedia. I will refute any suggestion that the text in question is well known among all readers of Wikipedia. When you say it is the best-known example of this form of rhetorical question, let’s agree that your comment is merely your original research.

At *Should Wikipedia Use Profanity?#Cons there is a cautionary note that profanities will be blocked by offensive content filters. If this happens to Rhetorical question, Wikipedia’s valuable information on this subject won’t be available at schools, internet cafes etc. where such filters are operating.

I ask that you abandon your enthusiasm for profanity at Rhetorical question. It is not compatible with WP:Profanity or Wikipedia’s claim to be an encyclopedia that is usable throughout the world. Thank you for your understanding, and your continuing commitment to Wikipedia. Dolphin51 (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For crying out loud (shakes head in disbelief). --Born2cycle (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an anglophone? My sympathies; if you have to settle, consider "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?" It may not be as familiar to you, but it may be equally common in its native country. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two sections up, this edit revealed me to be a Christian.[15] One section up, this proves that I'm non-religious. Doesn't it just take your breath away how a simple edit can yield such profound insights into your character? Hesperian 03:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a reactionary Protestant Marxist atheist myself; but my tricks weren't unmasked in such quick succession. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Five days have passed and no-one has attempted to refute anything I have written here, so I will assume there is no longer any insistence that Does a bear shit in the woods? is an essential example at Rhetorical question. If this example is still there after seven days I will erase it again. That will present people with three options - do nothing; raise the subject on the Talk:Rhetorical question page and attempt to win a consensus among interested Users; or re-instate the example. I would recommend either of the first two.

If I erase it, and it is subsequently re-instated again, I won’t erase it for a third time. Twice is enough, but I might raise the problem of Rhetorical question being in breach of WP:Profanity at WP:ANI. Happy editing. Dolphin51 (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your question was perceived to be rhetorical. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[16] Hesperian 23:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hesperian. Thanks for your prompt response. Your in-line citations should be sufficient to withstand any challenge from WP:Profanity so I am persuaded that the example can stay.

I suggest you change the most widely known example to something like a widely-known example. The former is clearly a false claim – short of sending a questionnaire to the English-speaking people how could anyone determine what is the most widely-known example? Dolphin51 (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for that Satu Suro 18:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only a couple of things left.....

At Banksia cuneata...dang, and the map....must ask GnangarraCasliber (talk · contribs) 22:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello, Hesperian. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

DYK for Observations, systematical and geographical, on the herbarium collected by Professor Christian Smith, in the vicinity of the Congo, during the expedition to explore that river, under the command of Captain Tuckey, in the year 1816

On October 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Observations, systematical and geographical, on the herbarium collected by Professor Christian Smith, in the vicinity of the Congo, during the expedition to explore that river, under the command of Captain Tuckey, in the year 1816, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 20:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Give peace a chance...

I would like to see if there is a chance to compromise on the article text. Let's save the war crimes tribunal for later. --Richard (talk) 08:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox broken again

Hey,

Sorry, messed up. I've left another editprotected to fix the subtemplate transclusion again. Sorry! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool; don't panic! It took me about ten seconds to figure out relative paths weren't going to work and fix it, before I discovered your urgent attempts to let me know.

It must be frustrating having to work through a third party on stuff like this.

Hesperian 12:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Limnonectes tweediei

Hello,
Sorry to my poor english (I'm a french wikipedia contributor). The author of this species is not correct (see Discussion page) and it seems a common error. Could you rectify? Thanks a lot. I have not found a Biological project page as we have. If this page exist could you add my remark... 83.195.22.124 (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Givet PS : I have choice you in the history list but there is more bots than human contributors![reply]

Bonjour, Givet. This is strange. Every source says "Limnonectes tweedliei (Smith, 1935)"; yet the full citation is to "On a collection of reptiles and amphibians from Perak, Malay Peninsula" by Malcolm Arthur Smith, whose author citation is "M.A.Smith". Hesperian 11:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best I can do without breaking rules against original research. Hesperian 11:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above text is preserved as an archive of discussions at User talk:Hesperian. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Hesperian. No further edits should be made to this page.