Jump to content

User talk:Lepricavark/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

DRV

While I always thought DRV was more a appropriate venue for this case than ANI, the DRV you opened seems fine up until the part about This closure was particularly ill-advised given the recent history between BHG and Jweiss11 ..., which opened the door (perhaps unintentionally) to re-deliberate a closed ANI in another forum. Would you consider striking that part and allowing the merits of the CfD close itself to be discussed? If so, maybe BrownHairedGirl would agree to having her initial response there collapsed, and the CfD close alone can become the focus and not the TLDR it currently is.—Bagumba (talk) 06:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I appreciate your efforts and would welcome the striking of those sentences. And yes, DRV is indeed where it should have been in the first place. However, we are where we are, and given the pile of abuse which was heaped on me by the other party, a DRV now risks vindicating JW's deplorable abuse of an admin and abuse of process.
So I am sorry, but no I won't agree to collapse my initial response. It contains important background and context, as well as correction of several misunderstadings by Lepricavark, whose good faith I do not doubt. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I have struck the offending excerpt. BHG, I appreciate your assumption of good faith and I believe that you are also acting in good faith. I empathize with your frustration at how Jweiss11 has treated you. I respect Jweiss11 a great deal, so it pains me to observe this situation and I am taken aback at his aggressiveness. Still, I believe that the solution is fairly simple. It would be best to allow the category to be deleted per standard practice in college football-related matters. Lepricavark (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject listas parameter

Hi, there is no need to make edits like this, since the |listas= parameter is recognised by {{WikiProject Bibliographies}} and it has exactly the same effect there as when it is used in the {{WikiProject Biography}} template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is that the page still shows up in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter unless the parameter is specifically under the WikiProject Biography tag. I'm gradually working to clear the backlog, ideally all the way down to zero. Lepricavark (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
And, could I just add, he's doing a pretty amazing job of clearing that backlog, his contributions show up on my watchlist pretty much every single day! :) Dr. Vogel (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, that means a lot! Lepricavark (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   22:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

Articles for Improvement question from a relatively new Wikipedian

Hey, I'm a relatively new Wikipedian (account several years old, but have only been actively editing this year). I recently nominated an article on Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations. In the week since nobody else except that MusikBot has touched that page at all. Looking at the page history, it appears a few other isolated (and seemingly viable) nominations have died without comment over the last few months. Is it a dead function of Wikipedia? I recently learned about articles for improvement and found it very interesting and thought to get involved, but it would appear that nobody is really paying attention anymore. I'm reaching out to you because you're listed (under you former alias "AutomaticStrikeout") as one of the founders of the project, and the only one of the original four on the project who appears to be still active on Wikipedia and hasn't expressly disconnected from the project (that I can tell). Any insights on the Improvement project? Clearly new articles are still being listed each week, but it seems new nominations are dead and the pool will exhaust itself eventually. What is the best way to either reboot/jumpstart or decide whether to discontinue a project? Kenmelken (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kenmelken:, projects on Wikipedia often run their course after a certain amount of time, and unfortunately it appears that this is true of the TAFI project. I actually have not been involved with that project for several years. You could leave a post on the project talk page and see if anyone responds, but the project is most likely dead. Please don't let this discourage you from seeking out new articles to improve. You might also consider joining a WikiProject related to your interests. Lepricavark (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration request

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

If you no longer wish to receive notifications for this case please remove your name from the listing here

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

U.S. Deletion sorting

Bot edits damaging stubs

You appear to be making bot edits that remove the place of birth from stub articles. The bot is leaving an edit summary removed place of birth from lead per MOS:LEAD using AWB. This is not a sensible thing to do. Please desist from this. Is it possible for you to get your bot to revert itself?-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Those are not bot edits; they are manual edits via AWB. I have been removing the place of birth from these stubs because the information belongs in the infobox instead. It appears that my edit summaries should instead be pointing to MOS:BLP, which contains the following quote: Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and should appear in the lead if relevant to notability, but not in the opening brackets alongside the birth and death dates. Lepricavark (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Hope to see you back soon. isaacl (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It’s obviously more than a stub.

William H. Holland (politician). Looks C-quality to me. deisenbe (talk)}

It only has ~1200 characters according to the DYK eligibility assessment tool, which means it's wouldn't even long enough to qualify for a DYK nomination. That's where I've generally drawn the line between Stub-class and Start-class. Given that it only has one paragraph and an add-on sentence, I certainly wouldn't consider it C-class. There is a stub banner at the bottom of the article, although that did not influence my assessment. It would be informative to know what criteria you use. Lepricavark (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Chiyo Miyako

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chiyo Miyako. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andrew D. (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Question

During a recent RfA there was much ado about another site called WO. I'd like to dig a bit deeper. What is WO? ―Buster7 ☎ 15:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Buster7: WO stands for Wikipediocracy. Lepricavark (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kane Tanaka

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kane Tanaka. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 100.40.125.198 (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations

100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 511 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

-- Dolotta (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, thanks! Lepricavark (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome! -- Dolotta (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth

I was actually the one to remove that assault sentence from the lead of Gurbaksh Chahal, but in re-reading the entire section I sorta agree that it's worth mentioning there as well. Primefac (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't realize that until after the fact. I certainly wouldn't have intentionally directed such an edit summary towards you. It is good that Mr. Chahal has again failed in his efforts to whitewash the domestic violence information from his page (it seems pretty clear that this is being done on his behalf). Lepricavark (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Not cool, not AGF

These comments "This editor has previously used his Asperger's as an excuse for bad behavior, and now he is using cancer"; "we can't allow Winkelvi to get away with his underhanded behavior any longer" [1] are totally not cool and most certainly not WP:AGF. There's no "using" or anything "underhanded" involved. I was providing an explanation - a reasonable, logical explanation (of something that is medically proven, by the way) - as to why I had no recollection of the iban. When I have brought up my ASD previously, it has been for the same kind of explanation and I have done it quite infrequently. Both of these explanations came after an ah-ha! moment where something I didn't realize previously was pointed out to me (most recently, having the previous iban brought up). After all, if it is reasonable for the other editor to have forgotten about the iban, why isn't it reasonable that I didn't remember it? Back to the topic: To say I'm "using" these facts of my life is casting aspersions and I will not tolerate it. And, from what I've read at the talk page of another editor who commented similarly in the same thread and was strongly warned about the same thing, others are not tolerating it, either. That said, you should seriously consider not making these kind of statements about me - or any other editor with similar issues - again. You may not like me, you may not agree with my edits, but that doesn't give you or anyone permission to say what you did regarding my medical and disability status as well as the comment that I was using both in order to game the system. Looking forward, I'm going to count on you heeding my advice and, as a show of good faith toward you, I will drop the matter from here on out. Unless it happens again, of course. Let's move forward from this and work together to help build this encyclopedia rather than waste time focusing on editors, deal? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

You should count on no such thing. I am aware that this other editor was "strongly warned", but you should note that nobody came here to warn me. Perhaps that is because our comments were not the same. Mind you, I think the response to Tarage's comments was over-the-top anyway. I didn't lecture you on your talk page when you made false accusations of racism at Commons, and you should not expect me to listen to your rebukes now or at any time in the future. Lepricavark (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Your response explains a lot. You think Tarage's comments were a-ok and he shouldn't have been rebuked, so it makes sense you don't see the problem with your own. Good luck to you. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
You are putting words in my mouth. This is not about Tarage anyway. Lepricavark (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Daisy Johnson

Can I make a request for how specifically the Daisy Johnson (writer) article can be improved beyond Start-class? Da-rb (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be to expand the article with more sourced content until you believe it meets the C-class criteria as delineated on this page. Lepricavark (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
That's my concern: I think it has the reliably sourced content, and there's nothing out there which is likely to be better given the age of the subject. It's more the structure or tone that I'm guessing caused the assessment: and there's not many good templates for Bio of Authors. I don't believe it'll ever get to GA or B, given the relative importance of the individual, but it should be capable of getting to C at some point Da-rb (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. I've upgraded it to C-class. Lepricavark (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Da-rb (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Lepricavark. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Assessment of Sven Erlandson

Why had you assessed it as A-Class? It has a very, very long way to go to A-Class, and currently looks to me to not even be notable. Vermont (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm Done

I've had it with this place. There is not enough accountability for those in power and good–faith concerns are dismissed as "pointless ad hominems." Thankfully, there are plenty of better places on the web where critical thinking is permitted. Lepricavark (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

You're allowed to make repeated insinuations (without evidence) that another editor is behaving unethically and immorally, but when this is called a "pointless ad hominem" (no other consequences to your comment - no template, no warning, no blocking threats, no blue-linked policy pages, just calling it a pointless ad hominem without even mentioning you by name), that's just *too insulting* for you to take and you retire? If you unretire any time soon, use your critical thinking skills to reflect on the craziness of that attitude before posting your "good faith concerns" about any other editor at ANI again, or you may very well be blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I thought about sending you an email to try to explain my position and why my concerns were held in good-faith rather that simply being "pointless ad hominems", but I had my doubts about whether it would do any good. Perhaps you would have read it and responded politely, but that's not going to happen now. Contrary to what you may think, you weren't doing me a favor by calling my post as a "pointless ad hominem" instead of issuing a warning or something like that. I had done nothing wrong. And no, this wasn't the only thing that caused my retirement. I've been disillusioned for a long time and it didn't help that my day has gone poorly in real life. At any rate, I don't think my attitude is all that crazy. I see something that looks fishy and I say so. Suddenly, I'm the bad guy. Now why would I feel insulted by that? Lepricavark (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

An apology

I'll ping Swarm and Floquenbeam, but this apology extends to anyone whose time was wasted by my meltdown. I made a fool of myself and I am sorry. To Swarm: I was sincere in my concerns about the incident in question, but based on your reaction, I think it is quite clear that I read the situation wrongly. I apologize for failing to assume good faith. Lepricavark (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For being the most sane voice in the recent series of AfDs and allied discussions. ∯WBGconverse 07:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. It was a mistake I don't think I'll make again anytime soon lest I end up with a target on my back, but I do appreciate the barnstar. Lepricavark (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Jeff Nelson

You removed my recent edit to the article for no reason other than what you claim is "ump bashing". The content I added to the article was sourced and I used neutral language as laid out in Neutral point of view for Biographies of living persons. It is in line with other umpires' pages that list their controversial/notable calls in their respective articles. I don't see why my edit should be removed when it's not in violation of Wikipedia policy. Seems like you just removed it because you didn't like the content. --24.114.70.227 (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

You ignored the part of my edit summary that plainly referenced WP:UNDUE. I have been working on umpire articles here for many years and the content you added is not in line with what appears in other articles. We should not include a specific missed call unless it is very significant and this missed call does not rise to that level. Lepricavark (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how UNDUE applies here, it would help if you elaborated a little. The call was a blatantly wrong one as evidenced by the human eye, pitch/fx, replay, ect. and it has received adequate coverage in sports media, so not a minority view. Also, the call is indeed a significant one, as it turned a 3-1 pitch into a 2-2 pitch in a crucial stage of the game, affecting the batter's approach and perception of the strike zone on the following pitches and changing the complexion of the game. I'm wondering what the threshold is for a missed call to rise to a "very significant" level as you put it. If the general rule is that we don't mention missed balls/strikes unless it's say, a third strike at a crucial moment (usually followed by protest and ejection), then I can understand given the difference in the severity of the call. --2607:FEA8:1160:4FD:D4A3:9A83:3A1C:5743 (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
There's no hard and fast rule for what we do and don't mention, but a missed call during an at-bat that does not end the at-bat is unlikely to be included. I'm certainly not disputing the big difference between 3-1 and 2-2, but there are missed ball-strike calls in every playoff game. In fact, I recall there being some discussion a few years ago about an umpire having a near-perfect ball/strike game in the postseason. I believe he only missed two calls and that was seen as a big deal and very unusual. That umpire was Nelson and you'll notice that it is not mentioned at all in his article. Lepricavark (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Jon Paul Morosi

Greetings Lepricavark,

I went back and forth on whether to name the article 'Jon Morosi' or 'Jon Paul Morosi'. What finally tipped the scales to 'Jon Morosi' was the fact that 'Jon Morosi' outnumbers 'Jon Paul Morosi' about two to one on Google hits, and the fact that he goes by 'Jon Morosi' on his twitter account. Obviously it could go either way, but I wouldn't necessarily say that 'Jon Paul Morosi' is overwhelmingly more common. CThomas3 (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

It appears I jumped the gun here. For the time being at least, I have moved it back to 'Jon Morosi' as this doesn't seem to be as uncontroversial as I first thought. In fact, I may have been dead wrong. Lepricavark (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Lepricavark, no worries at all. As I mentioned before, I hemmed and hawed about which way to go also. I'm definitely open to be convinced myself. :) CThomas3 (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

A star

The Barnstar of Integrity
You have made a valuable contribution! Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 21:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

User pages

As far as I know user pages are not supposed to be attack pages about other edds or rants about Wikipedia, is that correct?Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes on the former. Not sure about the latter. Lepricavark (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Not friendless

You might be an editor who worked alone, but you are not friendless! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

... with thanks from QAI
Die Fliege

You are certainly not without friends.

I've always appreciated your work, and trust me, for someone who works mostly on sports subjects, that's some big praise for me. I'll always remember the good old days at WER. But even Dennis has quit over FRAMgate and I sure can't blame you.May God shower your life with abundance and I'll see you when I do. If you care to dig, you should have my email address if you wish to use it. John from Idegon (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you John for your kindness. It is greatly appreciated. Lepricavark (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lepricavark/Archive_4&oldid=1202020240"