User talk:Lexein/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

File:Robotic Richard Simmons.png

Deletion of this file is under review. Since you were involved, you are invited to join in discussion. --George Ho (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thx. Responded there. --Lexein (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Why discussing policy? What's wrong with only discussing content and context themselves? I'm not implying that you are "pretentious" about policy. Actually, like me, you can discuss that, if relisted, "robot" and "Richard Simmons" may need illustration. Or maybe you can expand Burns' Heir by including more about one scene in order to justify addition of the image. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't see the image (Google cache is empty) or its NFUR, as I've stated. The FfD nom was deeply flawed though several (in my view radical) admins insist it was not, and the discussion was prematurely truncated by closure. The situation is annoying, and I hate every goddamn public assertion that I don't "understand" policy. So I reply. Whatever. --Lexein (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

SLY111

Just "killed" the modifier in Rogers entry. One need be a member of a society to see the obvious here and most visitors to the entry would therefore miss the obvious. Good to hear from you and have a good 2013.SLY111 (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)SLY111

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 6#Four more Simpsons images

Because you were involved in deletion discussion of The Simpsons images, you are invited to join in deletion review of these images. --George Ho (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Glass is a liquid misconception

(Note: I'm listing this on the talk pages of all editors active at Talk:List of common misconceptions for the last two weeks).

I started an RfC on the "glass is a liquid" issue that caused the edit war leading to protection status. Your comments would be appreciated, so that we can build a consensus and avoid further edit warring. siafu (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I appreciate and share your concern over losing potentially important material from the Easter egg (media) article, but come on, telling another editor to "f off" and describing them personally as "trivial-minded" and "lazy" doesn't make for a great editing environment. Let's stick to discussing the content. --McGeddon (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that personal attacks are not the best approach. However, I will always aggressively attack deletionism as lazy and unconstructive. That's never going to change. An editor who deletes rather than performs a trivial source improvement to an article has, in my opinion, no place here, and should go away. I'd rather spend 10 hours coaching a new editor on finding and using better sources than a single second on trying to get a deletionist to do anything constructive, because they're devoted to damage. They are damage fetishists. Some editor attrition can't happen fast enough. --Lexein (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Aggressive defence of articles is admirable and important, but you are crashing blatantly through WP:AGF and WP:NPA by calling another user a "troll", their arguments "bullshit fabrication" and concluding that they are "out to lunch". It obscures whatever point you're making if the bulk of your argument appears to be anger at another editor. Recheck your own Hierarchy of Disagreement and remember that you are not facing a WP:MASTODON here. --McGeddon (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, please don't mischaracterize my text, either. It is rather carefully constructed. I'll take responsibility for my words as written. I always have. --Lexein (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND! I'm not "fighting" against you, here, and it's not your place to tell me who my "fight" should be with. If you've deduced that another Wikipedia editor is a troll - that's great, it should be trivial to undermine their argument by pointing out the deliberately false statements they're making, or the facts that they're wilfully ignoring. If they have a history of trolling on similar subjects and being called out on it - that's good to know, you should provide a dispassionate link so that other editors can put the thread into context, we shouldn't just have to take your word for it. On the Easter Egg talk page you're taking some basic, reasonable rebuttals and jamming unnecessary angry WP:PA spikes onto the end of nearly every sentence, all of which could be lopped off without affecting your argument. Let your points stand by themselves. --McGeddon (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Not my place? Of course I have my opinions, and I grow bored of always adding "IMHO" or "IMO" to every single sentence I write. IMO, you should also be focusing your energies on the deletionist, instead of bowing out because of my text. IMO, I'll take my lumps with any DR process which is brought in. IMO, I always have. IMO, note that I have never been blocked or sanctioned at any DR process discussion (this is only to make clear that if wrong, I've not been deemed wrong enough to sanction). IMO, your concern is duly noted, but I don't think I'll be backing down from any text I've written so far on the subject. --Lexein (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hey, Lexein, I removed your comment on the 3O page about three editors already being involved. If you'll look through the history of the 3O talk page, there's agreement that we generally won't put notes and comments on the listing page as well as some agreement that multiple-editor disputes should remain on the list to see if a volunteer will take them despite there being more than two editors involved. (If no one takes it within 6 days, then it can be removed as stale, which is the preferred procedure.) If a neutral editor had removed the listing for having three editors, I probably wouldn't have reverted him but I would have pointed this out to him and encouraged him to self-rv. At the same time there does come a point when 3O isn't appropriate. I'll remove a listing if 5 or more are involved OR if a third (or fourth) editor weighs in for the first time after the 3O listing has been posted with the clear intent to address the dispute in question. (If either of those is what's happened here, give me a diff and I'll remove the listing.) Or if you don't want to go along with any of this, just rv my rv and I won't rv back or even argue with you. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I was unaware of that part of the discussion at Talk:3O. I agree with the notion of minimizing comments in the list of requests for 3O, and thanks for bringing that to my attention. May I suggest adding that consensus (and a link to the archived discussion) as an undated topnote to Talk there, so it doesn't scroll off? --Lexein (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lexein. You have new messages at Ryulong's talk page.
Message added 13:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC/U Request

I would like to invite you to an RfC/U request regarding Cantaloupe2's behaviour on Wikipedia. Currently editors who have experienced issues with his conduct are drafting a request here, note that decisions reached are not binding and users who agree to any arrangement made in the request are expected to follow through as a sign of their good will and intention. Admin actions are unlikely to be imposed as a result of request, however the aim is to reach an agreement without the need for blocks, sanctions or any administrative action. At the moment this is the last stage before an official complaint is filed at ArbCom. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 01:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks, that's surprising and interesting. A) I need to understand more about RFC/U, and B) I'm pretty sure I'm up for some sort of DR, RFC/U, or AN/ for my reactions throughout this incident with Canteloupe2, because I brook no nonsense whatsoever with deletionist behavior. My goals if I participated? I want the editor to: be less of a deletionist, learn the spirit and totality of policy/guideline (not be selective or narrow), be less troll-like (not abuse the boundaries of AGF), and to stop misrepresenting other's words. I am not sure those goals can be reached with RFC/U. I'm also not sure, given my reactions during this incident, that I'd be taken seriously (by the editor) at any behavioral discussion of the editor's actions.

First, re my (a) above - is RFC/U about a single incident or not? If so, which one? --Lexein (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Your goals can be achieved if Cantaloupe decides to cooperate with the users at RfC/U, if not, with the number of users who have been affected by his behaviour, it's worth taking the issue to ArbCom if necessary - hopefully we don't have to go to that stage. To answer your question, judging by the other RfC/U cases that are listed, this process is used to discuss the behaviour of users who habitually disrupt Wikipedia by disregarding the policies and guidelines and whose behaviour has affected a wide variety of projects and articles across Wikipedia. Currently in Cantaloupe's RfC/U case, by my 8 users from 6 separate incidents have issues with Cantaloupe's conduct, excluding you, so the cases vary significantly. Of course you can choose not to participate in the request if you wish, you can just add your name to the list of users who endorse this informal inquiry into his behaviour. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 05:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I second some of Lexein's comments for myself. I was very rude in my responses to Cantaloupe and edit-warred. On the other hand, I feel perturbed that this is frowned upon, because it's the obvious and natural way to respond to someone who is harassing you.

Anyways, Lexein I came across your paid content tax and thought you may be interested in two newish Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Paid Advocacy Watch and Wikiprohject Cooperation.

About half my work on Wikipedia is volunteer and half of it is in a PR role. You can see a recent example of my work and approach to COI at RTI International. Whether you love or hate me for it, I'm always interested in providing discussion from the PR side of the issue and you're welcome to follow me around or correct any bias you feel I have or just pick my brain. CorporateM (Talk) 14:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Just thought I'd follow up on "If more detail is needed, let me know on my talk" from your RfCU comment - I think the level of detail is fine, and I'd even support the idea of trimming it a bit if you want to revise it. :) This RfCU is inevitably going to be long due to so many editors being involved, so I figure the conciseness/minimal-commentary suggestion of Wikipedia:RFC/How to present a case#What users will and won't look at is helpful to consider. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, now that Cantaloupe2 has started arguing in place, against RFCU commonly-agreed upon format, I'd rather not alter my text, to avoid "changing the sense of discussion." Shall we delete/move his comment(s) elsewhere? They're not historical timeline anyways. --Lexein (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Answering my own question, yes. I read the style guide, and moved the response in my section to Responses. --Lexein (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Chevron paid editor

Hi there. Would you have any interest in taking a look at the Chevron article talk page, though perhaps it is on your watch list. I'm concerned that I spent several hours to become familiar with the subject that the paid editor wants to rewrite and then he disappeared for a month and only now returns with a new proposal. If I were to once again attempt to argue his edit I would need to again spend a considerable amount of time becoming familiar with the complicated situation. Any thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that I've looked at Talk:Chevron Corporation, I do vaguely remember replying to that edit request from a month ago. Yeah, the lack of progress info can be irksome; some ack ("Thx for cmts. --CJ") would have been nice. But we can't really insist that other editors, even COI editors, "go faster!" Heh: "Inaugurate faster!", I pleaded with the television, futilely pushing the fast-forward on my remote. I've replied to both you and Chevron justinh there. --Lexein (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Corporate participation is slllooowww at a company of that size, because there are 20 hands involved in a corporate approval cycle. The Talk page comment was probably overly formal, because it was also approved by the legal department. Volunteer editors tend to keep providing feedback, reluctantly dragging the PR editor over contentious content. I find this form of collaboration straining.

Instead, if the COI editor is adequately helpful as a resource, a volunteer editor should take a stab at the section in a completely independent capacity and thank Chevron for providing them with such a robust volume of sources and information to equip that editor.

The PR editor is here to support volunteers, not to replace them. My two cents. CorporateM (Talk) 14:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC) (PR guy and COI contributor)

PCT - paid content tax

CorporateM, you're the first paid editor to respond to the notion. Paid Advocacy Watch and Wikiproject Cooperation are a) not enough and b) not tough at all. They are ill-defined, and lack the strong, clear-eyed purpose that is needed to protect the encyclopedia from short-con and long-con exploitation. For an example of a successful PR long con, see Stiletto Spy School and its failed AfD (by me). In PCT I might not have been clear, but the point of it is to forever avoid balkanisation of content editing: to avoid the us/them dichotomy between volunteer editors and paid editors. I think paid editors, and their funders, should deeply understand that the encyclopedia is just that, and not a yearbook or pr-exploitable resource, and that it makes deep, foundational sense that for every self-interested article (SI, related to COI) created by paid editors, those editors should as a matter of natural custodianship, also create and prolifically maintain non-self-interested articles. If the phrase "tax", (as in, one for you, two for WP) is too onerous, look at it another way. WP is an open-source project. More than that, because its content is released under the GFDL, it's a free content project, with all the philosophical weight attached to the word "free" that Richard Stallman intended. For many other open source or free software projects, companies pay developers to enhance and fix the code in the repository, and keep those changes freely available to the community. The companies benefit from a more robust and thriving code base, and the community benefits because the company isn't fixing only their own stuff - they're improving the whole dang thing, all the time.
So I'm saying that any entity buying in to paid editing is buying in to maintaining the whole encyclopedia. It's not "adopt a highway", it's "buy in to maintain the whole freeway system."
For funding entities to think that they can just tend their own two-page plot of Wikipedia article space and walk away from maintaining the encyclopedia as a whole, is a violation of the very notion of the Commons (and the underlying principal of the Creative Commons, the other content licensing under which out text is released). So instead of a tax, it's an automatic obligation to the Commons, attached upon commencement of any paid editing project. Behaviorally, PE funders should act as content benefactors to the whole project, not just their own fiefdom. IMHO. --Lexein (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

True, the flood and scope of things is so large, I'm not sure any Wikiproject could make a dent in the waves. I do a search every now and then for "industry-leading" and do a few AfDs and article-chops as a result. I think throughout Wikipedia there are a lot of untapped opportunities to use analytics; one of them being to automatically detect obvious spam and censorship. Also, it is the Federal Trade Commission's responsibility - not Wikipedia's alone - to deter astroturfing. I have had a lot of luck using the FTC's legal mandates for marketing professionals online as an argument for ethical participation.

I will say that most PR people don't want to be here. We say that "COI editing is discouraged" but they are required to do their jobs and answer to their paymasters (boss or client) as to why they don't have an article or why it is so poor. PR people can't justify spending even a few days on Wikipedia. It is too small a part of their job (corporate side) or does not have enough billable hours (agency side) to invest in. So the idea of donating their time may be unrealistic. This is a big problem, because PR people don't actually want to learn to do it well, they just want it to be over with.

Anyways, as you say, you haven't been able to talk to a "paid editor," because most of us don't engage with the community in a meaningful way. So I guess that makes me a sort of exotic creature of sort in a unique position to provide perspective from our side of the fence, much like PRs and journalists actively network and discuss what they need from each other, etc.. CorporateM (Talk) 16:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, this would be a great idea as part of a certification program. Though I don't approve of the specific direction of COI+, I would love to see a day where hiring a certified COI consultant was what any reputable company would do, and those that are certified showed a track record of quality contributions. The day where doing Wikipedia work un-certified is a pretty good sign they should be avoided. CorporateM (Talk) 16:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm impressed with your dehype edits. I'd support your creation of WP:WikiProject I'm A Paid Editor And I'm Not A Jerk. Or at least an essay along those lines. . --Lexein (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Lol. I am still criticized for being promotional and avoiding or marginalizing negative materials even where I have no COI - a bias anyone with a PR background will have, but when that bias occurs where I have a COI, it is more difficult for editors to AGF and some speculation in that regard is healthy. Sometimes I lose the war in the corporate bureaucracy and I must simply entrust the community to improve upon my work, but I have also gotten better at fighting that war and selecting clients for which I will win it.

I think I have enough essays and templates for the moment. I have been using this template[1] boldly and its expected AfD survival is a good sign. I would love to see it on all company articles someday. I have found that this template[2] is much more effective than our COI notification template.(see example) I should re-write our Request Edit instructions. WP:COI needs an overhaul in my opinion. But there's only so much I can do without drama over a PR person being overly involved in this type of stuff and I certainly won't edit WP:COI.

Most PR participants aren't jerks; it's just a very frustrating experience for them. The openly editable model leads to a feeling of entitlement to edit and control the page. Wikipedians go around saying they are not "worthy of notice" and their articles are "low priority" and they have no idea their behavior is inappropriate - Wikipedia doesn't do a good job telling them what appropriate behavior is for them either. CorporateM (Talk) 14:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Your reminding me of templates and such inspired me to take another stab at the Request Edit instructions[3] as well as a long overdue quick brainstorm post at village pump[4] for the certification idea, which incorporates your "tax" to a certain extent. CorporateM (Talk) 15:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)