User talk:Indubitably/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Archive 60

A BLP page somehow sneaked in

Dear Admin, I was searching for some other subject but came across Leung Kam Fai. It's shocking to me that a page with mostly empty contents can somehow sneaked through. Please take a look, and maybe forward to someone who can act on it. --EJohn59 (talk) 05:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)EJohn

Thanks for your help with BLPs!

		The BLP Barnstar
		Your hard work on BLPs in general, and at User:Lar/Liberal Semi specifically, is much appreciated. That page has now been sunsetted (and I hope never to need to bring it back) but the work you did there (whether by bringing articles forward, reviewing them, or protecting them... or even by questioning or criticizing the process!) was of great help to the project. See you in the trenches! ++Lar: t/c 01:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yay, ditto, bravo!!--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 07:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

pssssst....

Pictures ... I want pictures damnit! Hell, I'll send you a SD card if that's what it takes. ;) — Ched :  ?  23:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Just uploaded them. They'll be up on Commons in a few minutes. Lara 01:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Very cool ... Thank you!!! ;-) — Ched :  ?  09:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Block of Malleus Fatuorum

A couple of things I am wondering about regarding this block. The first thing I am wondering about is that the block log does not show any block by you. The second thing I am wondering about is that your block message does not make it clear to me what the block is for, nor does his most recent contributions.

Please understand I am not challenging your actions in any way, I am simply seeking clarification. Chillum 23:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a joke, Chillum. Majorly talk 23:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps she was merely making a point? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2: I'm just messing with Mal. Ignore it. It gives him mild heart attacks, but it's all good. ;) Lara 23:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Chillum 23:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You know, Lara, you could block his IP address (if you find a willing CU) and have it block all access - that way it wont show up in his blocklog but would be ultimate scary pwnage. Of course, you would be violating many ethical standards. Still, amusing. April 1st maybe? :D Ottava Rima (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yea, that should be easy. Lara 23:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't encourage her Ottava, she doesn't need any encouragement. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)\

Ah, Mal. You know it's nothin' but <3. You'll get my support in your pointy RFA! Srsly. Lara 19:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems that some people thought you were serious Lara. Which is strange, because of all the administrators who'd love to block me you'd be just about the last one I'd expect to actually do it. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't have been funny if people didn't believe it. Sort of like Ottava shedding a tear or two in JC's channel in IRC. Lara 19:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

{{uw-tempabuse4}} Law _{type! snype?} 00:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Head→desk! I done got pwned! ;) — Ched :  ?  00:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way of telling if these warnings are for real? Or is it a joke because it is Malleus or what? I do not know what to think. And I do not know what warnings are real, and which are jokes. —mattisse (Talk) 01:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. It's srs bizniz. Nothing is an illusion. Lara 01:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, September 12 is "September Fools Day". Ottava Rima (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What, you didn't know that? September Fools Day has been celebrated in Zanzibabwea and Great Blagian for centuries... — Huntster (t @ c) 04:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what my desk calendar says. Lara 16:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

note

thank you for caring re: my loss. DS (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you around. Stay strong. Lara 14:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Image sizes

I understand, I continuously switch between browsers and computers weekly (usually from Windows with Firefox, and Internet Explorer 8) to Mac (with Safari... ect.) I'm well aware how the image sizes seem different with different browsers, in which case they usually seem messy when they're near infoboxes or section headings, in this case none of those seemed as if they were even close to interfering with such peripherals. Or otherwise; correct me if I'm wrong. -- GunMetal Angel 17:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not as late as I thought so I just went searching for the guide and I can't find it. Perhaps they've updated the software so that it doesn't matter anymore. I'm not sure. I also didn't see it in the history of Knitta... I know I was told this, though. It's just been nearly two years. So, whatever. Not a big deal. Lara 17:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: RFPP

Actually the only protection requests I tagged as "checking" were the three from CobraGeek (talk · contribs) regarding sockpuppetry concerns (on three pages) about 129.252.69.40 (talk · contribs). I marked the requests that way because I was waiting to see CobraGeek's answer to my request for more information. Since he or she has not answered yet, I have not removed the checking flag. I figured there was no need to have other admins re-invent the wheel if someone was already working on it, and regardless of the sock claims, I am most interested to know why he is removing what appears to be properly sourced content [1]. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There's the guide or policy or essay or whatever it is that says edits from banned editors can be removed, but it's a stupid rule with few exceptions. In this case, I don't even recognize the name of the banned user this IP is accused of being, so it wouldn't be one of the exceptions that I would apply. Regardless of that, however, there's no need for protection when it's one editor (banned or not) causing the alleged problems. Not a big deal. For the most part, I just wanted you to know why I'd handled requests you'd tagged. Lara 01:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Name

This is a random hi coming from someone new to Wikipedia. I just want to say I love your name. <tommy> (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but which one? Jennavecia or Lara? Lara 20:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Jennavecia... that just might make a gay man think again! lol love it! (Lara is an awesome name too though don't get me wrong!) <tommy> (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha. XD Well, for reference, see Bad Girls Club#Season Two. That would be where I got it. Lara 21:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh I see. Well I personally love it. - Fellow Wikipedian <tommy> (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC) --- PS the "friends of gays shouldn't be allowed to edit Wikipedia" is the funniest thing I've ever read.

inorite? Lara 22:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I just have a quick question... Where/how did you learn how to do all the tables and designs and stuff for your user page?? Thanks! <tommy> (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well, you can check out WP:TABLE, but I just did it by taking code from other people's pages and playing with it on a day that I had nothing better to do... or, at least, a day I convinced myself I had nothing better to do. :p Lara 20:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You are receiving this notification as you participated in the administrators' noticeboard thread on the issue.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

German CDU sub stubs

Hi, I've requested to User talk:Xeno that they be deleted as you and Colton don't seem to be around at the mo. The task is too huge (and mind numbingly boring) to take on alone. I tried fleshing a few out and even had a few DYKs out of them and some de stubbed but the sheer amount needing doing is too much. As there clearly aren't many editors working on them it is best to salvage what has been edited and just delete the sub stubs. Then they can be started at a later date with some adequate info and references and it greatly reduces the BLP problem created with many of them back in July. Please note I don't want to create further wiki drama with another mass AFD and have more editors scoffing at sub stubs. I am happy for them to be deleted under the same criteria as Albert Herring's was. It was a trial but didn't work, the task needed to clean them up and expand them all is too huge and there are not enough people sadly from the German project either who seem to be working on them. Himalayan 10:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll get some peeps on it. Thanks. Lara 17:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no reason to doubt the deletions, but why remove the links? (Like here - surely a former foreign minister warrants an article, and therefore a redlink per WP:REDLINK?) And in lists like List of German Christian Democratic Union politicians, entries should be removed altogether if there are doubts about their notability, not just de-linked. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that's true. I left the setting default as I considered it unlikely many of these people were worthy of an article. I believe the vast majority are of marginal notability. Only qualifying because they are/were a politician, nothing else of note. In what I presume are only a few cases where there is the potential for an actual article to be created, red linking is fine. Leaving all of them linked though seems like a bad idea. Lara 20:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh they are mostly notable subjects they just don't reflect this, the lists should definately be kept. Many of them served in the national/state parliament etc and many are the equivalent to senators in the US. The problem is that the articles don't show this and nobody is actually helping expand them to prove notability or actually indicate why they are worthwhile. If there were a group of editors actively working on them expanding them all it would be different. Besides which they can all be restarted with no problems if they provide some info and references. Don't delete the ones that have been translated I did expand a few of them but it got soooo boring doing it by myself... E.g Albert Pursten is notable see here, but if somebody wants to restart it and provide actual info with a reference they can later... Himalayan 21:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying none of them are notable. I mean, they qualify by Wikipedia's criteria simply for having been politicians. I'm saying that most of them (not all) are not more than marginally notable for the English Wikipedia. The chances of most of them being expanded to full articles is pretty slim, in my view, as there are no English sources for most of them. And a lot of them even have short articles on the German Wikipedia. But yea, we're not deleting the list. We're also not deleting the ones that have been expanded and referenced. If there is agreement that they should all remained linked, leaving the lists mostly red links, then the last reversion before my first edit can be restored. Lara 21:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh I didn't see your edits on the list only his. Just delete the articles, the list should remain as it was. I am pretty certain that German wikipedia is of a high enough standard to include or exclude content then the vast majority are notable. If they ar enotable in a given country they are generally accpetable on wikipedia, but only if they provide adequate info and sourcing. SO I would say just leave the list as it was, red linked, I seriously doubt anybody will start them in the way again and it makes it more work to have to reactivate them all at a later date when they do get started. They are now missing articles which are believed to be within notability requirements they just need to be started gradually with proper content...All the other lists are red linked like List of German Communist Party members etc as it is easier for editors who actually want to create an article to start. Obviously if in the unlikelihood somebody restarted them all in the same way then you might think about shutting off the links... Himalayan 21:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just looked at the list, all my edits to it had been automatic following article deletion. This isn't a "list" by Wikipedia standards. It's just a category, but manually updated and in the article space. What purpose does it serve? Lara 21:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

To root out what is missing and gradually work towards adding them appropriately! Himalayan 21:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that plenty of articles that were not created by Blofeld have been deleted as well, such as Ewald Bucher (22 edits, created in February 2006). You may want to review your deletions. Also, making hundreds of edits to remove backlinks is unecessary server drain and history clogging, additionally to being against WP:REDLINK, as most are notable. Cenarium (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right about the backlinks. Oversight on my part. I don't see the history of 2,000 articles being checked though. Every article I deleted was manually checked. Nothing of value has been lost. If some of these unreferenced sub-stubs and stubs were created by someone other than Blofeld then they or someone else can bring it to my attention or restore it or whatever. But the articles themselves aren't worth the time it takes to load them to any reader. If these articles are so important to anyone, I think they'd be inclined to reference them, not to mention actually write something about the person. Lara 22:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Much better. We should have articles on them eventually but like Karl-Josef Laumann. Himalayan 10:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What's going on here? I can see how subsubsubstubs like Wolfgang Fiedler (politician) might get deleted, but Birgit Breuel is a useful stub, and Helmut Brandt has at least a DOB and some links. And how many of these actually qualify as CSD G7? Neither Breuel nor Brandt seems to. Why remove any of these backlinks? Finally, where has this mass deletion been discussed prior to doing it? Rd232 ^talk 12:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What's going on is clearly explained above. If you have issues with specific deletions, list them here and I or someone else will review. A date a birth doesn't make a substub valuable, though, so don't bother listing those. Referenced articles with more than an intro of information will be restored, but I can about 100% guarantee you none of the deleted articles had been substantially expanded and referenced, as all of them were manually verified, perhaps you can find an article or two that slipped through. For any that got caught up in the Blofeld G7s that weren't created by him, all apologies. List them here for restoration, and if they're unreferenced or otherwise worthless substubs, I'll mass-nom them at AFD so as to follow proper protocol. The backlinks issue, again discussed above, has been sorted and is moot now. I don't have time for drama, so do try not to start any. We'll resolve issues per policy, but nothing of value has been lost here. Lara 12:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Brandt is restored and awaits AFD. Breuel is a Blofeld article. The original article, created by an IP, had been deleted years ago. Blofeld recreated it. Considering the criteria is that the author can request deletion if they are the one who created the article's only substantial content and these articles contain no substantial content, this deletion is covered. Lara 12:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Breuel isn't covered by G7: "provided that the page's only substantial content was added by its author." Blofeld recreated it, but others added the substantial content which makes it non-deleteworthy. And why should I trawl through zillions of these? How can I know someone else hasn't already? This is exactly why things of this magnitude shouldn't be discussed merely on someone's userpage. Is that the case here? Rd232 ^talk 13:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you are correct. That one had been substantially expanded. I restored it and will proceed to slap Ironholds upside the head with it. Any others? Lara 13:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I am Blofeld! Himalayan 19:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yikes what happened with Birgit Breuel. I really hope you have not deleted more like that. As I said I did expand a fair number.... Himalayan 19:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ironholds checked that one. Last names in B-F are his checks. When I was going through them, TW indicated how many kb each was. Those that I saw were above 1k I double checked. Only one did I see where I believed it should be kept. I didn't catch this one, obviously. I'll see if I can get a query to pull how large each article was and double check them. Lara 19:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Mm OK, I thought I had expanded more articles beginning with A and B though.... I can spot a lot of them remaining anyway. TW was definately the best way to do it so you probably did it correctly yourself...Never mind. Are you a bit happier now with the situation? Himalayan 19:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I'll be happier when it's over, though. I'm having a query run to tell me how many kb each article was at the time of deletion. I'll double check those that are beyond 1,000kb. Lara 01:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hey Lara. I have a question of sorts that I was hoping you could clarify for me. I was a little surprised by your comment at the Arb proceeding.

You said: "we saw an [block] of a month over a grammatical improvement to prose in an article that mentioned Obama." Which seems to me to suggest that you grasp that it is tenuous at best to argue that the ACORN article, where Obama is mentioned once 3/4 of the way in, falls under the restriction. And yet you go on to suggest: "Reblock for a week from the time of the original block."

If there was an issue wouldn't common sense have suggested simply asking me not to edit that article? Wouldn't that have amounted to (quoting you) "Problem solved"? Was any of this dispute even necessary apart from ongoing efforts to have me banned? I can make the case that lots of articles are somehow Obama related, because he's the president, but shouldn't there be some effort at good faith problem solving and dispute resolution before blocking those editing in good faith?

I don't understand any of the disruption, drama or time wasting that is going on over this absurd misrepresentation of my good faith edits. I haven't seen any diffs that show I violated any restrictions, I've certainly done my best to avoid articles about or related to Obama and I haven't made any meaningful change to any content related to that subject at all. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.

The whole episode only makes sense to me in the context of a long term campaign of harassment and stalking against me, but shouldn't that be brought to an end? I've made every effort to comply with any and all editing restrictions imposed on me no matter how inane. Does no good deed go unpunished? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Somebody dropped a link on the case of you making a post on the talk page that pretty clearly has you suggesting the article is related to Obama. The restriction is "broadly construed". From my view, getting blocked for the edit you made is stupid as hell, but the little tirade you went on after sort of justifies a block, though not for a month. Am I judging? No. I probably would have spouted off at the mouth too for such a blatantly stupid block. Lara 12:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the partisans dropped in that link. All political subjects that are controversial are related in the sense that they are also patrolled by a clique of partisan POV pushers, which was the point I was trying to make. There's no question that ACORN is controversial. But having controversy in common isn't the same as being related in a meaningful way as far as content goes. I don't see how that article is about or related directly to a different subject that is only mentioned once in it. I haven't been banned from political subjects and this attempt to connect dots and to make logical extensions by reaching seems to be an effort to try to get me in trouble for editing any controversial political article where there is a dispute. That seems ridiculous and disruptive to me when I've abided pretty closely to the explicit intention of the restriction to avoid anythign about or related to OBAMA, but I understand where you're coming from. I think I used the word "related" to signify that there are partisan POV pushers introducing bias across a wide swath of articles, and not in the sense that its related to him in terms of needing to include more ocverage or connection to him. If I was trying to make that point I certainly lost since he's only mentioned once deep in the article. But maybe I'm trying to make too fine a distinction. So okay. Thanks for the explnation. I appreciate it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was discussing this issue with an editor privately and we both agreed, our personal opinions of course, that articles that merely mention Obama, like ACORN, should only become an issue if you're editing the sections of the articles that include such mentions. In this case, your edit was wholly unrelated to the man. Furthermore, from my view, your edit was purely grammatical and didn't actually change the meaning of anything. So, again, I think the block for the edit was beyond stupid. Just bureaucracy at its finest. The stuff you said later could probably justify the block. Personally, I don't care either way. But the unblocking admin shouldn't be at ArbCom, Sandstein taking it straight there is a joke, and a month long block should have him bowing his head in shame, not advertising his mess in wiki-court. Lara 15:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Your deletion of German politicians

Hi, you deleted several articles per author request, okay. But some of them have been on my watch list, one e.g. 'Michael Freytag' is a minister of finance of a German state. He is not notable? Because the stub was too small? Sorry I can't understand this, thats what stubs are for, I thought. I'm confused, because the now/then main author requested a deletion, (and the wikilink in another article was removed [by you?]) and the article was deleted; and I (and others) don't even get a chance to expand the stubs, which I (or others) find interesting? That sounds a little bit random and I think, that G7 was not true in all cases! But have your way! (I think after this, I need a wikibreak.) Sebastian scha. (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw very little evidence anybody was actually working on them, I requested months ago that Wp:Germany and other people help expand them but few people ever showed an interest and the ones who did only expand one or two. In fact you Sebastian were one of the only ones I came across you had even added anything worthwhile to a few of them. People had plenty of chance to begin working hard on them. If there at been the slightest glimmer of a small team working on fleshing them out I wouldn't have requested their dleetion. You can always restart them adequately with references. Himalayan 20:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x3: Yes, apparently some popped up that weren't Blofeld's articles. In such cases, list them here and I'll restore them. I don't believe there were many, but I'm not totally certain. The problem with the vast majority of these articles is that they were unreferenced sub-stubs (articles that contain one to two sentences and state little more information than name (maybe birth date) and occupational title). If any editors were interested in expanding them, I think they would have. They aren't salted, of course, so any can be recreated. However, if they aren't referenced, chances are pretty good they'll go to AFD. Lara 20:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

They can quickly be restarted like Michael Freytag anyway with adequate info if you really are interested in them. Actually most of the one started before anyway were of a similar poor quality I did look through them a while back and there was no articles I thought, wow this is good. Himalayan 21:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

When restoring such articles please also remember to restore the talkpage. Thanks Agathoclea (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Yes, thank you. Lara 12:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit rude yesterday, I was busy all day and at home at last, sitting on my couch relaxing, I saw several articles of my watchlist deleted. Articles I just consider as notable and important, so I overreacted. I need to apologize. Cheers and thanks for your work. Sebastian scha. (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. For what it's worth, I didn't think you were rude. Maybe it was just by comparison to others around here that you seemed fairly lighthearted. Haha. :) I do appreciate your note, though. Thank you. Lara 18:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I had planned to take a much more cautious approach to this; using AWB to filter the ones that had content from the ones that didn't... What process did you use? Just mass delete the whole category? (See deleted contribs of DK4 for some work he had put in on these articles. Some Most still remained unreferenced though...) –xeno^talk 15:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We manually checked each. If they had been significantly expanded (not past stub, but past sub-stub) and referenced, they were kept. There are some BDPs, I believe that were kept and tagged as unreferenced, but the BLPs without references were deleted with perhaps one exception. Lara 17:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. This was the only one I found in in a random poke-thru that maybe could've been kept (ref was erroneously placed in EL section, maybe that's why you missed it).

In any case, you guys saved me some work, so cheers. –xeno^talk 18:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That one would need to be double-checked to verify that it (the source in EL) covers the second paragraph. Several of the sub-stubs (those with just the intro sentence, sometimes one more sentence) included such an EL, so I'm not sure that it covers that added info. Particularly important as it's discussing a connection to the Nazi Party. Lara 18:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I agree with you there. I was actually talking about the book ISBN and not the EL though. –xeno^talk 18:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even see that, but we don't use entire books as sources. We need page numbers to verify claims. Lara 19:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

← True enough. Hey, just FYI your "This page looks best in Firefox" is not positioned well for monobook... It obscures 'my watchlist, my contributions, log out" [2] –xeno^talk 19:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Camp Tamakwa

Camp Tamakwa please remove the information about Michael Greene in the discussion page if you can David Greene stokru720 68.41.181.37 (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Lara 01:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Lara 01:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

hmmm

re: a post. I think someone needs a fresh delivery of trout. — Ched :  ?  00:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello, Indubitably. 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. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Stealth canvassing on Wikipedia Review in AfD discussion : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.2FMiriam Sakewitz. Thank you. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh sigh. More wiki drama. What is the point one asks.... What happens on WR has no "legal" connections to this site. People can say whatever they wish on WR and not face blocking or whatever it is you are after. Completely pointless. Your ANI post actually attracted a huge number of people to quickly vote delete, probably not what you were expecting Cyclopedia... Himalayan 18:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's the general consensus that's been held for quite some time. Some people just don't believe others when they tell them that, so then ANI is needed to confirm. Personally, I believe this was the best thing that could have happened, because now there is more attention on the AFD from experienced editors who know how inappropriate this article is. Lara 18:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it seems less people are sympathetic than might have been anticipated...Personally I don't think this nom is worth so much trouble to try to keep it but if it was decided to be kept it would seriously make me wonder what people have in store on here in the future... Articles about taxi drivers from Skegness who are notable parrot smugglers reported in the national newspapers maybe. The CEO of an animal thawing business perhaps, the possibilities are endless... Himalayan 18:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, if this were kept it would probably be quietly deleted as an office action anyway. I may be no fan of Jimbo and the WMF, but (as someone who's actually been on the receiving end of a warning from Jimbo on the matter) I can testify that they actually take a much stricter line than either me or Lara on "material that violates human dignity" when it comes to their attention; the issue is just that there's so damn many problem articles. – iridescent 18:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, that's the thing. I was asked by my boyfriend why I was fighting for this woman. Why I cared. Admittedly, some people I have more compassion for than others. In this case, I don't really care about her. That's not the point though. My personal feelings about each individual are irrelevant. It's about looking at the big picture. This article isn't encyclopedic. It's also not a biography. It may be interesting to some people, but it isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. At least not as a stand-alone article, and especially not as a BLP. Furthermore, this case has potential to set precedent for future cases that could be a great deal more sensitive. So, again, my feelings on this particular subject do not matter. Wikipedia's notability criteria for living people needs to be tightened up. People also need to wake up and realize that this is a online reference site. One of the top six websites in the world. The #1 Google Hit for almost any article, so it's a big deal to have a biography here, and tens of thousands of the biographies we have on this site really need to go, because those lives are more important than this website. And, for full disclosure, I say this as someone that has (or has had) thousands of biographies deleted and will fight to have thousands more go. Lara 18:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Imagine how people like Caster Semenya feel! A talented athlete who is known for nothing but... Himalayan 19:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It happens there is something on which we agree, Lara.

The woman is not the point for me either. And I realize that this is one of the top six websites of the world.

These are exactly the reasons I am fighting (and unfortunately losing, it seems) for keep. Because a serious encyclopedia should not be deterred by fleeting "moral" POVs on what needs coverage and what not. If we have notable, reliable information to deal with, we are not only entitled to cover it: we have a sort of moral duty to do it, because our aim is building the best and most complete encyclopedia. About "lives being more important than this website", first you admitted this is not only a website, this is, if possible, one of the most important tools of the first half of XXI century. The small amount of control one has to do on his own BLP is well warranted by that. Second, lives are not into jeopardy. If we keep to NPOV, RS and stuff, we're doing nothing else than repeating already available information, and as such there is no harm that is done. I hope we understand each other a little more now. --Cyclopia (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't agree. First of all, Wikipedia will never be considered "a serious encyclopedia" as long as it's under its current model. Secondly, there is no "moral duty" to have tabloid garbage about living people included on this website. That, Cyclopia, is a joke, though I'm not laughing. Go look at any version of any encyclopedia and tell me how many articles you can find in them like this one. Let me save you the time. There are none. This is not encyclopedic. One of Wikipedia's major problems that is not specific to BLP, but causes problems for BLP, is that too many people think Wikipedia is a dumping ground for whatever bullshit they find on the web. Just because it made some local papers or because it was on a few websites does not mean it is appropriate for a website that attempts to present itself as "a serious encyclopedia." In that you believe that is the case, I have serious concerns about both your judgment and your understanding of the word "encyclopedia." Furthermore, Wikipedia does have victims. And that's only the notable cases. I mean, maybe I should move that to the mainspace. It's sourced and they're reliable sources. Each case was of note. But no, wait. That would be synthesis, because there aren't sources for that particular article title. Just like there aren't sources for Miriam... just for her crimes. Clearly, Cyclopia, we don't understand each other at all. Lara 19:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is, "tabloid garbage" is POV. It is your opinion. While I may agree, if it's sourced and covered, I must restraint to "judge". That's the point, and it is not a joke at all. As for the "encyclopedicity", well, WP:NOTPAPER. And that's the great thing of WP. We don't have to be restrained by the strict limits of a paper encyclopedia. We can cover notable and sourced stuff, and we should do it, to leave an heritage of information to be passed. As for WP having victims, I don't doubt it: there's a price to pay for everything. It's unfortunate it happens and we should strive it doesn't, but we have the instruments to deal with it (watchlists, protection, hopefully flagged revs),but we should not surrent to losing perfectly legit information.

We surely disagree: I wanted only to let you know that our starting motivations are pretty similar, even if they lead to opposite paths. --Cyclopia (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"Tabloid garbage" is exactly what this article is. Fine as a story in the local rag, but not in an encyclopedia. Malleus Fatuorum (Talk) 19:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just because it's sourced doesn't mean it's not tabloid garbage. It's not encyclopedic. Period. Sum of all human knowledge is being taken way too seriously. It's people like you that cause the BLP problem to be an uphill battle. We shouldn't have to fight this hard to protect living people. Lara 19:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And I shouldn't be fighting this hard to protect objectivity and NPOV. Sigh. "Not encyclopedic" is only your POV. Reasonable as it can seem, that's what it is. I thought the beauty of WP was also minimizing personal judgement in what is encyclopedic and what is not. --Cyclopia (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You've definitely got some funny ideas Cyclopia. I was once in court, charged with causing criminal damage. Should there be an article about me as well? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I read about that... ;) Lara 19:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When it involves living people and considering I've taken on the task of researching and documenting the cases of victims of this website, there is no beauty in allowing Wikipedia to serve as a defamation machine and libel target. Wikipedia will not only survive, but it will be better respected when it stops allowing for garbage in alleged biographies. Your opinion that this bunny hording story is encyclopedic is no less a POV than me and others with clue thinking it's not. In cases that involve living subjects, it's best to default to the position that puts the project on the moral high ground. In that you don't believe the project has moral responsibilities, I have nothing further to discuss with you. Lara 19:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I fully believe the project has a moral responsibility: that of covering reliably sourced, notable information, and strive in preserving that. The moral high ground in such cases is, therefore keeping, from my point of view. The fact is, that story being encyclopedic was supported by all policies and guidelines, and no one would have touched the article if people like you didn't find it "morally objectable". --Cyclopia (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"Funny ideas" is putting it mildly. Cyclopia, quite aside from all those Evil Wikipedia Reviewers, you currently have two members of Arbcom and a Steward lined up in the delete column. Can you really not see where this is going? – iridescent 19:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If Cyclopedia you are anxious to cover the sum of all knowledge why not create us an article about Crime in Oregon. That would be notable... Himalayan 20:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can see. Sometimes it happens to be on the minority position. It is very sad, indeed: a valuable article with plenty of sources about a notable and interesting subject will be lost, most probably forever. And people will rejoice thinking in good faith that they will have done the right thing. This is truly sad. Makes me think of books burning. I am aware it's not the same thing, but in both cases, information gone forever, because of emotions of the masses trumping objectivity. Sad. --Cyclopia (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This is me politely asking you to avoid my talk page. You can stop posting here now. It's best for everyone if you do. The last thing I want on my talk page is someone ignorant of the BLP problem and who actually perpetuates it. Lara 23:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As you wish. Please allow me just to drop this last post here. I am sorry of you closing doors. You seem a clever, nice person. I am trying to explain my position to several of you, not to make you change your mind, but to let you understand that I (and people like me) are not driven by some kind of odd evil instinct to do harm, but because I am trying to benefit a community, even if we have opposing views on what is best. It would be much more pleasant for everyone if discussion between opposite POVs are allowed, instead of closing doors to who doesn't think like you. You're welcome on my talk page for civil and nice discussion, anyway. Bye. --Cyclopia (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What it makes me think of is yesterday's news, fit only for wrapping your chips in. (I forget what you Americans call chips, is it fries?) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

French fries. But we don't wrap them in newspaper. Law _{type! snype?} 23:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have too much work to do to fix the BLP problem on this project to entertain any discussion with POV about the appropriateness of putting this website before living people. I have no time for people who believe this project has no moral obligations. Lara 00:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Camp Tamakwa

Camp Tamakwa unless there is a reason to keep the additional two discussions I am content with how the website reads. David Greene Stokru720 (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you're pleased with the article. The talk page discussions that mentioned Michael have been removed. The others need to remain. Lara 00:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

BLPs

Danke! You can see my watchlist with your big ol' admin tools or something? :P. Ironholds (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Neg. I'm using your contribs as a watchlist. :P Lara 18:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Maura Murray

Hi, I don't normally badger people who disagree with me at AfD, but in this case would you mind looking at the sources I've found covering the disappearance of Maura Murray? I'm fairly sure that they demonstrate the notability of this case. I'd tidied up the article after the last AfD, but I neglected to suggest a name change to refocus on the case rather than the individual or to include more sources, apologies. Fences&Windows 23:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Nashville meetup

Nashville meetup

Hey Jenna, you look pretty cool in the pic. It seems as if you guys had lots of fun at Nashville. :-) BTW, how is EVula in RL? AdjustShift (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And why does one of you have Heinz Ketchup instead of a drink? – iridescent 15:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

AdjustShift, one word: PIMP.

Iri, don't judge Keegan's drinking habits. Lara 16:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

False gossip

Hi Lara, as you're as a BLP guru, could I get your thoughts on an issue with biographies? On Richard Gere's bio talk page, editors are digging up 'the gerbil' yet again, despite an RfC a few months ago that resoundingly decided against inclusion. On Glenn Beck's talk page, some editors are arguing for inclusion of the 'rape and murder' meme that was started to satirise his style of questioning. And, although he's not a living person, the question of how many testicle's Hitler had keeps cropping up on his talk page. The common thread is that nobody really believes these false rumours, and they're not really about the person involved - the person is a foil for a joke/meme, and inclusion doesn't tell you anything about the person or their life. Do we have a general policy on this kind of thing, and if not, should we? Fences&Windows 20:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If the fact that Hitler only had one testicle is "a false rumour nobody believes", you'd better tell the BBC. And Fox News. And the Telegraph... – iridescent 20:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

False or not, we don't need tabloid celebrity gossip in our articles. Lara 20:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, fancy that. We do discuss Hitler's ball(s) in detail: Hitler Has Only Got One Ball#Did Hitler really have only one testicle.3F. Fences&Windows 23:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Hitler and his balls or lack thereof, I don't think WP:UNDUE would really apply. An important part of the story would be how he went from "ordinary minor painter" to "raving xenophobe", and I'd think "having his knackers shot off by a Frenchman" would be a significant aspect there. (Even if the one-ball aspect isn't true, he was certainly wounded in the groin - and the "I've been there" aspect was an important aspect of his ability to connect with the military - the same could be said for Churchill's time as a POW) – iridescent 13:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a policy regarding this stuff. We've got undue and BLP works to cover some of it. Some specification in NOTNEWS that could be pointed to in order to keep tabloid garbage out of articles would be nice because RS doesn't cover otherwise reputable sources printing rumors and gossip. We need a policy on this stuff for sure. Lara 20:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced or poorly sourced rumours are thankfully already firmly excluded from articles. WP:UNDUE applies to viewpoints and opinions, not pieces of information, doesn't it? Our presumption in favor of privacy may cover such material: "Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.". Do we have a policy or guideline on what to do with trivial information about a subject? It's not quite the same issue as WP:TRIVIA, is it? Fences&Windows 23:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's the third paragraph of UNDUE that would possibly be applicable for this. It basically says to consider how significant any given piece of information is to the subject. May be difficult to apply if it's only a sentence or two being added. That portion of BLP is a good start. TRIVIA, last I checked, was more about placement. We don't have trivia sections, it should be written into the prose and sourced when it's appropriate. Some trivia is just silly. This sort of stuff, like gerbils up butts, is something beyond trivia, though. Lara 23:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I'd missed that UNDUE says: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Along with the presumption of privacy, this is probably adequate to keep out salacious gossip, as both are aspects of policy. Fences&Windows 13:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP redirect talk pages

Hey Lara, I had a question. With a talk page of a redirect, I usually just clear the wikiproject banners and redirect it to the target's talk page. But with BLPs (i.e., a BLP redirecting to a group), adding non-bio=yes and NA class is the usual procedure. Is this really necessary for documentation/categorization, or is there anything wrong with just redirecting the talk page? It probably takes me the same time either way with BLPPotential work...but I'm just curious. JamieS93 23:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If a page is a redirect, it shouldn't have a talk page in use. Redirect it. Lara 23:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, will do, thx. JamieS93 00:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Some random thoughts

I hope you did not know that User:Law == User:The undertow when you placed support #43 on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Law. Your effusive comment creates an appearance which I think it might be good for you to dispel.

When I searched the above page for "Jennavecia", I did not get a hit on your support vote. I then realized that the "J" in your signature was another utf-8 character and searched for "ennavecia". As an admin, and for the sake of transparency, it might be good for your signature to include your username.

Thanks, bye. Jehochman ^Talk 10:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Information came up at ANI that you did know the connection between the two accounts. I've started a discussion about your role in this matter. Please comment. Hopefully there are some sort of unknown circumstances that justify your actions. Jehochman ^Talk 13:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

He's my best friend. Get over it. Lara 13:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You and Jehochman seem intent on having a personal discussion about personal failures. Please keep it off ANI. --Tznkai (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

God forbid I tarnish the drama board with drama. Lara 14:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know. ANI and WP suck. I get it, I really do. Every now and then, I make an effort to reduce the suck a little bit at the margins.--Tznkai (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to think it's just broken beyond repair, but however you want to word it, I suppose. Although, AN/I does, in fact, suck. Lara 15:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So how quickly do you thing a redirect to ANI from WP:Sucking Hole in the Universe would be deleted? Also, was amazed to find WP:DRAMA has its own page now, instead of the classic redirect to ANI. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame DRAMA doesn't go to AN/I anymore. It was fitting. Lara 15:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI does have a purpose; its scope and function have limits. It used to be that non-admin editors were the ones who lost sight of that--not the sysops themselves. Consider the actual subject of that thread: Law/The Undertow. He has his good points; I want to see the fellow make a legitimate return someday like Rootology and Jack Merridew have. Does that become more likely or less likely when sysops engage in mutual recriminations? Wouldn't it be more effective in the long run to model good behavior? Admin conduct RfC is thataway. Will be posting a similar message to Jehochman's user talk in a moment. Durova³²⁰ 15:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

At least you're hitting J's talk page too considering he's the one that distracted from the point. I'll defend myself against attacks regardless of whether or not people like it. Lara 15:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Mae West said it best. "It's not what you do. It's the way you do it." Durova³²⁰ 15:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Honey, that's the best that can come from me. A year ago, it would have been a mess of expletives and ranting. I may not turn the bitch switch up to 11 anymore, but there's not turning it off completely. Everything I stated was fact, and I was chill the whole time. Usually laughing, actually, so I'm going to have to conclude that I handled it pretty well. Maybe not the peaches and cream, rainbows and butterflies other people would have put forth, but this is how I am. Everyone should know that by now. I don't deny being a bitch. Drama-mongers shouldn't deny being drama-mongers. Lara 15:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I support deleting WP:ANI. Jennavecia, I was hoping to get a point across to you, not to start a feud. I am dropping the matter now that you know know how I feel. You don't need to agree with me. Yeah, I have fairly strong feelings about principals and will stand up and say what I think even if it causes a lot of drama. Luckily I wasn't born in the middle of a war or revolution or I'd never have made it 41 years on this planet. Jehochman ^Talk 15:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, ya know, I support standing up for what you believe in and passionately fighting for it. So I won't fault you for that specifically, but I certainly don't appreciate being a target in a matter where there's no administrative action to be made, so instead it distracts from the matter at hand. At least it's over now, though. Thanks for the note. Lara 15:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope you notice that I stood up for your friend. He should not be banned. The best thing he could do is make a statement acknowledging any mistakes. After a year or two of doing much good work he can go back to RFA. User:Gwen Gale did it. I did it. So can he. Jehochman ^Talk 15:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure he'll make a statement after the dusts settles. But this wasn't about your stance on Chip. This was about you coming after me, as if there was some action to be made because I supported my best friend. Lara 15:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec x3) No one is attempting to silence either of you. You're entitled to your opinions and debate is welcome. We're Wikipedians after all; that's what Wikipedians do. It's mainly a question of venue. When an editor comments on an article within the article, we ask them to move it to talk. User talk or policy talk would have been better in this instance, with conduct RfC a possible followup if that failed. ANI's purpose is for airing urgent situations that may need the use of the tools. Neither of you were requesting a block on the other, so that side discussion really would have been better to move elsewhere. Durova³²⁰ 15:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I respond where I'm engaged, though. Always have. As far as WP being like real estate, you mean it's going under? XD Lara 15:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I made the mistake of taking out an interest only balloon payment loan. Had trouble meeting the mortgage two years ago. Now it's strictly month to month rental. But hey, you guys are supposed to be building superintendants. go mop the stoop or something. ;) Durova³²⁰ 15:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mop or sweep so much. Mostly just collect all the tabloids strewn about and throw them in the garbage. Lara 15:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That was the issue where you were cover story? ;) Durova³²⁰ 15:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I framed that one and hung it above Shankbone's bed. (No one will get that reference but him.) Lara 15:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP

Maybe something to distract from the above and get back to doing important work. Category:Homophobia has a bunch of BLPs in there that should probably be removed if they don't have some very solid sourcing to keep them in the category. –xeno^talk 15:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look over that later tonight. I really need to start studying. I have a test tonight. Lara 15:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Best of luck. Cheers, –xeno^talk 15:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Inviting comment and discussion..

Hey Lara, I'd like to invite your comment on an essay/discussion I just posted about the whole Law/Undertow etcetera thing User:SirFozzie/Alternate. I'd appreciate any input you have. SirFozzie (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no way to fix it. People need to prioritize. This sort of shit simply doesn't matter. It's drama to latch onto.

You can't give the blocking/banning policy teeth. It's not in the software. Accounts get blocked, not people. It's not possible. The Citizendium approach is stupid. I can sign up with an infinite number of fake names. The only way to fix it, or come close to, which I have stated many times, is to required domain emails for registration. Of course this doesn't prevent people from creating multiple emails for multiple socks, but not everyone has access to multiple domain emails or has the ability to create them. Along those same lines, not everyone has a domain email to begin with, so everyone can edit becomes everyone with a domain email can edit.

I don't see anything changing. It's impossible to change much on this project anyway. However, if we had to chose between improving the project at the expense of the community or improving the dynamic of the community at the expense of the project, I think the decision is pretty easy. Lara 17:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It is also easy to tell which one would be chosen. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly. Drama > content. Lara 18:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)