This is an archive of past discussions about User:NE Ent. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Absolutely. It's far more respectful to a prospective article creator to give them a straight up "this article is good enough to stay," or "sorry it doesn't make the grade" deletion than subjecting them to the bureaucratic monstrosity of AFC. NE Ent02:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
In light of this [2] as a result of this [3], it would seem I am damned if I do as well as damned if I don't. Of course, there was nothing snide in what I said. My comments were directed only at you and quite sincere. -- WV ● ✉✓03:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. If a may offer a bit of advice, at this point it would be best to ignore the personal comments on both the article talk and ANI. In fact, I wouldn't contribute at all to the thread unless a new contributor asks you a specific question. NE Ent03:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
One thing, though. Core has just told a whopper of a lie at the AN/I thread. "We still have WV opposing the passage concerning Myerson's experiences with anti-Semitism, partly because we don't know that the "No Jews" signs she saw were directed at her! I'm serious." That's patently untrue. That issue was dealt with days ago when I rewrote the poorly written content regarding "No Jews" signs, expanded it to be more specific, and added a relevant reference (which was missing previously). These types of claims from my detractors at the thread that have been consistent misrepresentations or just plain untrue are being left unchallenged. I won't respond to the comment because, frankly, I've seen baiting happening with this all day. But it does rankle me that they are getting away with complete falsehoods that continue to drag my name and reputation in the mud. -- WV ● ✉✓03:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You have brought this on yourself. You edit war. You ignore of the sources that other editors provide. And you ignore what other editors say. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
This is the discussion. Where is the resolution? There was none. Your initial post was preposterous, and every single piddling or erroneous point you have pushed on that talk page has required exhausting discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The resolution was with this edit [4]. As the content was written previously, there was no context and no reference to provide context. -- WV ● ✉✓15:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't conjured up out of thin air; it was reliably sourced, but you didn't care. You didn't add that material until after you wasted people's time, coming to the talk page with a completely off-the-wall post questioning whether the "No Jews" signs were aimed specifically at Myerson. That was just trolling, pure and simple, and disruptive. If you don't want people to react to your disruptions, don't disrupt. Coretheapple (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Only one of the sources mentioned the "No Jews" signs and it did not give any context. The NPR source says, "While touring the country after winning the crown, she encountered "No Jews" signs...". That was it. The content without context before I worked on it read, "Myerson encountered "No Jews" signs when touring the country as Miss America". No context was precisely my point when I opened discussion on the content. Nothing was resolved with the discussion, so I took care of it myself. -- WV ● ✉✓16:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
There was nothing to resolve. You didn't want that passage in there. You attacked it by raising inane questions, though I'll admit that raising inane questions is better than raising none at all, and edit-warring over something and then posting a vague note on the talk page as you did at [5]. Your pattern, in that discussion and in the one just completed, has been to take an absolutist position and then drag editors into immense, time-wasting discussions to deal with your unreasonableness and obstinacy, failure to read and understand reliable sourcing. Coretheapple (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
If I didn't want the passage in there, I wouldn't have taken the time to look for a better source along with content to expand the passage and I wouldn't have said at the talk page, "The content deserves expansion and clarification". -- WV ● ✉✓16:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
NPR is not the only source: [6]. (and no doubt there are more) It is that kind of incompetence and ignorance of the topic and readiness on your part, WV, to make accusations, and demands, that places you in the position you are in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
If that source had been attached to the "No Jews" content to support it AND give context, then I wouldn't have needed to look for more. When I asked the question at the talk page, that source was not pointed to. I asked the question because there was no source attached to the newly placed content to give context. In response to my query on the article talk page I was told, "There is no need whatsoever to state exactly where the signs appeared, who put them up, or what grade of nail was used to hammer them into place" and "more details will be added as they become available". But now I'm being told the source was already in the article, and others as well, that gave context. I'm seeing mixed and conflicting messages here. No matter. It was stated that the "No Jews" content issue had never been resolved, and I've shown that it was. I see no reason for this discussion to continue here, on the talk page of another editor. -- WV ● ✉✓16:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
You need to hear this. It appears to go back to your "planned ignorance" approach to editing this topic, as set forth in your first talk page post. Read the sources first and in depth before you edit-spree and demand and accuse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean by "planned ignorance approach" other than you are accusing me of playing dumb, which I wasn't and would never do. I will say that your advice to read sources first is good advice and I will do my best to remember to do so every time from here on out. -- WV ● ✉✓17:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Not "playing" - at least, this does not feel like play to the rest of us - it is "editing" dumb, if that gets through to you any better. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
WV, you are playing dumb. There were two sources at the end of the "no Jews" sentence at the time you posted your note on the talk page[7], and the second one, from the encyclopedia, provided ample context. Sure there can be more, there always is. As for your intent to remove the material, it was plain. You were challenging inclusion, and in a manner that strained WP:AGF to the breaking point. Then at the end, after raising absurd questions as to whether the "KKK" was involved and whether the signs were aimed at Myerson alone - issues that would have been resolved if you had read the existing sources' - finally you made believe that you were just trying to make the material better and just wanted to improve it. But if you genuinely wanted to improve it, you could have and would done just that without wasting everybody's time. Coretheapple (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
No, there weren't two sources at the end of the No Jews sentence. Look again. I genuinely wanted to improve it, and did. I went to the talk page because that's what we're supposed to do. I was shot down every time I did it. Why are you continuing this discussion here? Why are you continuing to misstate the chain of events? -- WV ● ✉✓17:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, but they were in the same paragraph, at the end of the following sentence. They were right there. Let's go through this slowly. Your post to the talk page titled "No Jews" was date=stamped 17:32, 7 January 2015. This version of the article, which I just linked to, is dated 17:28, 7 January 2015. It was on your screen when you posted that rubbish. Take a look at the sentence after the one with "No Jews" in it. There are two footnotes, 15 and 9. Fifteen is the NPR article[8]. Nine is the encyclopedia article.[9] Are you seriously suggesting you didn't notice these two sources, that they slipped past your line of vision? Coretheapple (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
You keep backtracking and changing your story. You continue to make rude comments to and about me. Your interactions with me have never been civil. I'm finished trying to talk to ypu regarding this cornucopia of accusations and misstatements regarding me and my editing and my alleged motivations. Frankly, I'm tired of answering editors who just keep answering with more accusations and perceived dirt to use against me. Further, it's not right to keep clogging up this user talk page. For now, I'm done trying to communicate with you, ASW, and anyone else whose only interest is in piling on and seeing me blocked, sanctioned. -- WV ● ✉✓18:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Uh, you commenced this discussion by attacking me on a third party's talk page. "Changing your story" is funny coming from you, because that is your primary tactic. I'd still like to know how you can claim you didn't see sources that were in the same paragraph. I guess the answer is "Either I did and ignored them, or I didn't, but that's the way I roll." Coretheapple (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
A couple things: first of all, be very reluctant to use "lie" to describe another editors' statement. Per Wiktionary lie is an intentional falsehood, which requires knowing the mind of another. Simply because someone is mistaken or wrong doesn't mean they're lying. Secondly, the primary goal of anyone named in an ANI thread should be to get out as quickly and painlessly as possible. Lacking a clear consensus, the way that usually happens is the archivebot. "Defending" yourself just resets the archive clock and gives other editors another opportunity to repeat their statement in rebuttal. Don't worry about stuff folks are saying there: no veteran volunteer believes anything not backed by diffs. If no sanctions have come forth after a five day ANI thread, they're unlikely to unless the editor provides justification for them by behaving poorly. Let the others have the last word and go about your business.
For all who have commented here today, I'll note the "old school" wiki rule for article pages is documented at WP:FOC: Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. If you find yourself commenting about another editor on an article talk page, you're doing the wrong thing and not helping reach consensus. If you simply must comment about another editor, start with their talk page. Note also that if you have the numbers (consensus) on your side you're not required to continue discussion until everyone agrees with you; sometimes the answer is simply to agree to disagree and go with the majority viewpoint. (Naturally soliciting wider participation via WP:RFC or an appropriate noticeboard is always a valid option). Finally, try to keep the big picture; Ms. Myerson, while obviously notable, had faded from the public eye long ago, there wasn't any particular urgency to get the article perfect instantly. NE Ent02:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Advice, please
I'm at a loss as to how I should proceed in regard to an escalating matter.
Both users, Lips Are Movin and MaranoFan, are increasingly exhibiting ownership behavior, are intent on continuing to engage in edit warring behavior (even if they don't get to 3RR), and have been alternating and escalating harassment at my talk page.
All of the articles associated with the article subject Meghan Trainor that I have been editing are where this has been happening for days. I edit at any of the articles, they find reasons to revert - whether they are valid reasons or not.
You've seen and are aware of what they've been saying about me at AN/I, so I won't rehash it here, but coupled with the talk page harassment I've been receiving from them, it's a lot of personal attacks directed at me. The talk pages of each say about the same thing and the theme is generally how to get rid of me with hopes of a block or topic ban.
Absent of the topic ban they so desperately seem to want, it seems that their strategy has now turned to harassing me at my talk page by leaving bogus and inappropriate warnings there. The userspace harassment bothers me the most because it's more personal. And it's been going on for days.
Editing the Trainor related articles is a frustrating nightmare because of them continually reverting out what I've done at those articles. Mind you, they don't revert what other editors put in or remove, indeed, they are now making of point of going to those editors' talk pages and giving them barnstars with comments added to them designed to irritate me.
Their latest "tune" that they are singing to anyone who will listen is for me to be indefinitely topic banned. See this as the latest in a string of many times they have said the same thing: [10].
All of this together is the kind of crap that makes Wikipedia suck, and it really doesn't have to be that way, does it? It would seem so, since no one is taking notice, and if they are taking notice, they are ignoring it. Yes, I could go to other articles to edit, but why should they be allowed to chase off someone -- anyone -- who is truly working to improve those articles?
Like I said, I'm at a loss and really don't know which way to go at this point. It seems to me that reporting them will do little to nothing in dissuading them and they've become pros at looking for loopholes in policy and wikilawyering until those trying to discuss with them give up and walk away due to the IDHT brickwall they inevitably build. As in the past, I respect your opinion, and would really appreciate getting one in this case. Thanks, -- WV ● ✉✓07:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: Why are you recepting us as against you? You are a great contributor, your barnstars say so. We like you and it would be horrible to lose you. It is just that you need to be more neutral. Also, I can give barnstars to whoever I want. Maranofan08:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia-the-encyclopedia is pretty awesome and Wikipedia:: the namespace does, in fact, pretty much suck. See WP:CGTW, number 19, and WP:OWB#16 and WP:OWB#23. Specific recommendations:
The ANI thread is running out of stream. Anything meaningful on ANI usually happens in the first day or two. 11 days in, nothing is likely to happen unless you provide a reason for it to. Avoiding it is good.
Best not to worry about what others are doing with their talk pages. What you don't read can't bother you. See WP:Other duck.
Unless you can bring additional editors in somehow, it's hard to deal with a group of mildly POVing pushing editors. Unfortunately I don't have wikitime to help very much. Probably easiest to walk away and find more productive use of your time. The most important thing to remember about Wikipedia is it's a hobby, and you should be having fun. If you're not having fun, it's not worth it. NE Ent18:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, NE Ent. It's spot on, so no difficulty on my part taking it to heart. That was not intended to rhyme, but I like that it did :) I am now being harassed on my talk page by the two editors named above as well as a new one. Happy happy, joy joy! Have a great day. I'm going to keep monitoring the drama, I may even pop some popcorn to go along with the cinematic nature of it all, and will probably do some recent changes patrol while watching the AFC and NFC games. Have a great day. And thanks again. Sincerely. -- WV ● ✉✓18:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry
Hi, Ent. I'm sorry I expressed myself so harshly when you posted on my page. I was a little shocked, and also concerned to reassure the unfortunate applicant that there was support for them, that they weren't alone. Free-Range Frog put it better than I did. Of course I understand that you were trying to help (and not for instance to make the user give up and leave Wikipedia..). You'll be glad to hear that the impulsive newbie has apologized.[12] (He remains clueless as to what can and can't go into articles,[13] but that's something else.) Bishonen | talk21:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC).
I'm reminded of the child rhyme: Make new friends, but keep the old. One is silver, and the other gold. It's a hard thing, balancing respecting the efforts of our existing contributors while trying to keep the welcome mat out for new blood. Obviously my phrasing was awkward -- more suited to a chaotic noticeboard than your talk page. Clearly more empathy and less wiki tactics would have been appropriate. As you say, my intent wasn't to discourage anyone, and I'm sorry I made it seem that way. NE Ent10:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I have absolutely no doubt....
...that you "don't take Wikipedia personally", considering that you've never contributed enough to the encyclopedia to feel any kind of personal stake in the project, unlike those of us who do the grunt work of research, writing and updating articles. I look forward to the day when free riders such as yourself are seen by the community as exactly what you are, a drain on our resources and an unnecessary burden that we'd be better off getting rid of. BMK (talk) 09:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:WAAA. Whinge About Abusive Administrators. NE Ent, I've decided that I like you. Anybody as troll-proof as you are deserves a great deal of respect. JehochmanTalk15:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it was your intention, but you reverted a number of other correct edits I made with your revert at All About That Bass, "peacocking" aside. The sources in the article call it "a slew of viral videos". There is definitely a big difference between "slew" and "few". How does "a number of" sound, the sources also state "championed" - big difference between that and "tagged" - do you have a better word perhaps? and I ask kindly that you revert or edit back the number of other changes I made to the article which you ignored during your revert. "We generally don't archive 3 day old discussions" - only one of those conversations was 3 days old, it would be helpful if you could inform me after what period may they be archived then. Thanks. -Lipsare movin12:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Look. I get it. I'm not much into pop radio anymore but when I heard All About the Bass coming home one day I have to go online and figure out who the singer was (and checked out the video) Trainor is a pretty awesome talent and you think Wikipedia should reflect that. Which is fine and appropriate, but it needs to be done the Wikipedia way, which is "encyclopedic" which means very neutral, factual language, and an appropriate length. For example, I agree "few" doesn't match the "slew of" of the source, "many" would be a good encyclopedic word there.
You've actually done all the hard stuff, which is finding and formatting the references. Trainor won't be any less awesome because of what we write, right? Additionally, our role as an encyclopedia is to be a starting point of knowledge, not the end all and be all. Folks wanting to learn more about her will follow the links in the references to get more details. Other the other hand, if the article gets too long and has too much detail folks won't even read it all, they'll just skim and move on.
I've set up an archive bot (just copied the setup from [[Talk::Horse]]). Let the bot worrying archiving. As far as the edits, I agree most of what you had was fine, but it's not really my responsibility to sort all that out. I suggest adding your edits in smaller chunks so if another editor disagrees with a particular piece they can selectively revert / edit that. NE Ent23:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I am tired of being accused by the same users of only contributing fan and non-neutral prose and peacocking to Trainor articles. Do you have any idea what kind of mess All About That Bass, Meghan Trainor etc were before I got them? A few unintended words that appear as WP:PEACOCK do not make my entire effort to Wikipedia completely "non-encyclopedic". You could have merely just changed the two words you had a problem with in your revert instead of reverting everything rather ignorantly, it's hardly the big problem you're making it out to be. -Lipsare movin06:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
ps: right after the decision, I posted a suggestion for an infobox on the talk of one of Andy's articles, and an arb copied it to the article, - I still smile thinking of that ;) - The war is over, only some people still seem not to like that --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
"The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Gender gap task force, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here."
So does this action at WARE mean those standards apply to comments made everywhere on wikipedia, even on the talk pages of editors and on the talk pages of other wiki projects and not just at the GGTF project pages?
As a previously very active editor who forgot about this place for many years, I'm astonished over what I'm seeing. Wikipedia is very different today than the way it was before. Then it was very rough and tumble, but ultimately charming and interesting. Now it's frightening. Seems to me there is a massive POV push that will ultimately be bad and may even destroy the place as we know it. Do you have any suggestions? EChastain (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Real life is the best antidote to Wikipedia. Also, there are 122,190 active users editing 6,914,181 articles with help from 851 admins ... mostly without fuss. It just seems really bad if you hang out in the unsavory places WP:ANI. etc. NE Ent02:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, NE Ent/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I don't know whether your action here was in reaction to the "YGM" above, but either way I have restored the topic. You are an active participant in this discussion, and it is still active, as indicated by the comments here and here. In fact I see from the conversation above that you're involved in one of the articles that was the subject of the dispute, "All that Bass." Coretheapple (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that Wikipedia is simply not a good fit for you. The purpose of the IBAN was not so you and the other guy could stalk each other looking for violations. More importantly, your haranguing of Ched isn't acceptable. For all the wp-this and wp-that that's written around here, it's really this simple: if you basically act like a decent mature person, are focused in one way or another in improving the encyclopedia and run into a few folks who don't behave like they should (e.g. the admins referred to arbcom last year), on the good days we can help you out. If you are continually in "fight" mode and appear to go out of your way to look for reasons to be offended, you'll and the project will go your separate ways, one way or another. I'm sorry if I've somehow led you to believe I'm your permanent ally -- I evaluate every situation separately, so when I perceive you're the target of inappropriate behavior, I will and have spoken up; now you're becoming the instigator and I'll speak up -- not really "against" you, but I'll speak up for what is best for the project. And honestly, if you don't change your behavior real soon now I'll be the one starting a site ban discussion on AN (or equivalent). A couple great Wikipedians (Montanabw and Littleolive oil), have volunteered their time to give you some really good advice on User talk:Ched, be grateful and take it.) NE Ent03:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
My complaint to Drmies about the re-post of that article was made while the re-post was fresh. That is when one is supposed to make a complaint, not when stale. You opened a special ANI subthread specifically about the re-post of that article link, so apparently you thought it was worthwhile to do so. Now that it has been freshly re-posted, you don't.
I've been taken to the cleaners based on the tiniest of perceived infractions to IBAN. But apparently, even when the point of your ANI subthread has been undone, the shoe fits only one foot, not the other. Equal enforcement of IBAN should be in effect. If someone wanted to impress that unequal enforcement is the name of the game, they couldn't be doing a better job.
Ched went out of his way to feign complete blindness to the content of a post in order to put his own PA in, an unacceptable PA, and apparently he has the right to do that also, as admin?! I simply stayed on point and you call that "haranguing", when Ched simply should have not responded (like some other admins don't and haven't when confronted with their bad actions), and just reverted any further of my posts. His responses were all over the map while I stayed on point; so why did he do that (instead of simply reverting)?!
You're assertion I've been "looking for ways to be offended" is way out of line. There are PAs and there are PAs: If someone says "fuck you" or calls me "asshole", even "cunt", or other expletive-deleted, that's fine. Those PAs are just expressions of frustration and disapproval or dislike. (It's unbecoming conduct from admins, however, and shouldn't be acceptable. Like e.g. how an admin called me "mother-fucking asshole".) But if someone attacks another editor by calling them a child molester, or a grave dancer over a RL suicide, or misogynist, or manufactures that a user casually referred to a female editor as rape victim, or that they have schizophrenic, or "classic narcissist" diagnosable personality disorders, ... those are PAs of a different order. No editor should have to be subject to that quality of PAs, even in this chaotic and anarchistic WP environment. There's a difference, and it has nothing to do with "hurt feelings". (And for me, I've grown a bit tired of being on receiving end of that kind of PA from the orignal poster, admin The Bushranger, admin DangerousPanda, and now admin Ched. If objecting to continued use of the PA against me as a person is "becoming the instigator", I don't really understand that logic, Ent. [Even Drmies said he felt an offending post at Ched's Talk was blockable.])
After your last comments about Montanabw giving "really good advice", when it's clear she is simply wiki-friend of Ched and attempted to invent any insult she could think of in drive-by fasion (including insinuating I'm a WP:RANDY when I take project space so seriously that I do), and you like to pick on me instead for "fighting comments", man-oh-man, Ent!
Oh, here's a quote from admin Casliber that goes at least to some extent to back up the comments I made above that distinquish two different kinds of PAs:
The slur on someone's character then is much more potent than just being called an expletive. And it lingers. The kerfuffle goes on and many bystanders can't be bothered or unable to find the original comment, so the bad smell just hangs around. It's that simple. Someone once "good naturedly" and "civilly" made a slur on my honesty but it was buried in a long long exchange which then went on as we argued about it, and all other folks could see was two egos bashing heads together. It got me more annoyed than any other exchange I've had here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
And I'm learning *better* to ignore simple irresponsible insults that are deemed acceptable & normal simply because they come out of a cesspool environment that has been hostile & abusive for years before I ever signed up as editor (e.g. editors who feel free to drive by and insult/PA in any manner of their choosing, against someone who objects to an admin's conduct, simply on the basis they are wiki-friends with said admin, no matter what that conduct is [e.g. Montanabw, Doc9871]). (Yet you wanna imply *I'm* the "immature" & "not decent" editor! Go figure.)
As far as your philisophies to ignore egregious PAs of the second order (in blindness to existence of a pillar for a reasonable editing environment), I think you know already I'm more in tune with Eric's philosophies, than yours (yours are more like acts of Jesus; and if you hold yourself to such a level, then I really don't understand at all how you support and even compliment the trolling insults made by Montanabw?!):
The way to deal with bullies is to refuse to be bullied, and to let them know they may have bitten off more than they can chew if they persist. Malleus Fatuorum 13:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Silence is often considered to be a tacit admission of guilt. Eric Corbett 17:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, one last thing ... I saw you recently write that you have found the WP a depressing place for the last 7 or so years. (So why then do you defend this terrible environment by complimenting trolling insults and PAs while threatening me when I have simply objected to them?! Because *this* WP is "all we've got"!? Good luck with that. [WP needs major reforms. I've already suggested the way to do that--probably the best & only way--is to put the top 10 content contributors in charge of redesigning the governance and structures here. They know the problems & solutions already. Based on their invested commitments in time/effort, they couldn't possibly not do the right thing for the encyclopedia and its future; they couldn't possibly cause harm almost as matter of definition.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
note
I have to real life for awhile and will address comments addressed to me when the opportunity presents itself. NE Ent12:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping. I'm honestly not sure what else I can do from my end on anything, but I'm open to suggestions. I'll keep your page on my watchlist, feel free to ask me for any clarifications of my own actions. — Ched : ? 12:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Russian editor so and so
In my case, the reason I referred to him as "disruptive" was because of his odd changing of template coding to non-existent names, addition of odd red links, and messing up of infobox coding. This was a purely technical disruption, not anything other than that. In many cases, he self-reverted, and hence one cannot blame him for that. Certainly, nothing he did was blockable for 24 hours, let alone indefinitely. RGloucester — ☎20:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
"Slovenkia." That's a good one! You know, those silly Eastern European countries (or whatever) are just hilarious, aren't they? And to think that the Lipizzans have a connection to Lipica is ridiculous, when even the breed's name indicates that the breed clearly originated in Micronesia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LJU2ORD (talk • contribs) 21:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. If it's any consolation I couldn't spell "these" correctly either [16]. Did you have a link to the EU case? Googling is failing me. NE Ent21:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
No problem. I thought you were intentionally mocking Eastern European countries. Here is a fairly unbiased article from the WSJ: [17] --LJU2ORD (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, to access the article free of charge, you may need to Google "Riding Roughshod Over Lipizzaner Rights" instead of following the link. --LJU2ORD (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we don't, but would it have killed you to check how your action came out and remove the images lock, stock and barrel instead of making a godawful mess on the page? People are surely likely enough to tire of reading that thread without incomprehensible clutter barring the way.[18]Bishonen | talk21:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC).
Hi. I would like to make a comment on your reactions on Prisonermonkeys' ANI thread regarding "administrator etiquette". I'm doing it here because I don't want to get involved with that issue. Basically, your stance amounts to: "They have a general good attitude because they only got blocked for the first time four months ago in a total editing history spanning five years". That Prisonermonkeys didn't get blocked for edit warring until October 2014 really tells more about the administrators behaviour than about Prisonermonkeys' attitude. Your latest contribution to that thread really tells one all one needs to know. You purely determine the user's attitude problem on the number of blocks per weeks they have been active in total. That is extremely shortsighted and blatantly ridiculous. Take a look a the user's talk page archives and talk page history and you will find dozens of edit warring warnings and notifications of being reported for edit warring. You will clearly see the user has a behavioral problem with edit warring. And there are many similar cases like this user. But this one is a perfect case example of how the administrators often fail in their duties. I have reported multiple users, including Prisonermonkeys, for edit warring during my time as an editor and a recurring theme I have come across in rationales to let users off with a warning is "They haven't been blocked before.". As a result of which the reported users thought their actions were correct and got themselves involved in another edit war a few weeks later. In Prisonermonkeys' case this continued until they finally got blocked for edit warring in October 2014. And surely enough, once the user got a first block a new lengthier block followed for every subsequent edit warring offense, no matter how serious. I believe part of the blame of what happened to the user in the next two months lies with the administrators. If they had taken their responsibility and corrected the user's edit warring behaviour much much earlier, the user would have learned much earlier that edit warring doesn't produce any helpful results which would have spared us of a lot of disruption. Another clear case of the administrators shortcomings is Eightball's. In this case the user launched personal attacks at disagreeing users, signaled their refusal to discuss the matter on the article's talk page and signaled their intention to revert any change of the contested content on sight. The user was let off with a warning because "They hadn't been blocked for it before." And I can bring up many many more examples if you want. In general I feel some administrators put to much sole importance on the block log and don't bother to look at any other possible evidence of the reported behaviour problems. Tvx1 19:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for overlooking your post earlier when the "new messages" orange flashed up; just saw the one below initially.
You've inferred things that I've neither stated nor support. My stance regarding the ANI thread is simply a) the block extension was justified and b) additional accusations of misconduct should be both truthful and supported by diffs. Unfortunately the work to admin ratio is such that editors performing administrative work typically will not look beyond the evidence presented to them. If you become aware of an editor repeatedly edit warring I suggest stating so with supporting links to prior edit warring reports on the next AN3 report. Alternatively, if you can show a pattern of -- for example only (due to limited wiki time I'm unable to research further myself) -- an editor repeatedly gaming the system up to 2rr I'd suggest presenting well documented evidence of the behavior on WP:AN with a request for community review. NE Ent00:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The "Toddst1" request for arbitration is accepted, but a formal case will not be opened unless and until Toddst1 returns to active status as an administrator. If Toddst1 resigns his administrative tools or is desysopped for inactivity the case will be closed with no further action. Toddst1 is instructed not to use his admin tools in any way while the case is pending; doing so will be grounds for summary desysopping.
That book Eats, Shoots & Leaves has Panda picture [19] on its cover similar to the User:EatsShootsAndLeaves [20] . In the book's picture , there are two Pandas . And the user has two accounts , one with Panda name dangerouspanda another with Panda picture--CosmicEmperor (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Plot-exponential-decayYes. No hurry; fairly obvious to me from the beginning it was likely (but not a given, of course) the thread would wind down to nothing; I estimated it was far enough into the tail (see the e^(-x) curve in the adjacent graph) a close would have a reasonable probability of sticking. (Obviously I was mistaken.) NE Ent01:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
DYK
... that the DYKs in outcoms for women 2015 are not for any good facts about any good women but for new or expanded articles? Perhaps suggest a different section for Nobel prize winners etc (as I installed one for TFAs), - they don't belong in the DYKs section which is for articles which will in the DYK section of the Main page during March (or will be removed, - I am not sure that all nominations will make it). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
What is too complicated? - No need to revert now, many in the table are just nominated and not certain to appear. By the end of the month, only those that appeared will be left. - The new article would be good! No refs needed in the lead which should be a summary of sourced info in the body, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I looked at the new one closer. I will nominate if you do a few things, like make the current lead a first paragraph and write a lead that is a clear summary for someone unfamilar with IX - like me. Perhaps take some of what the critical source writes about it. Some year in the lead please, for people reading it in 10 years. Tell me when done, you have one more week ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, NE Ent/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Surely this doesn't mean you intended to roll back MB's t-ban, per this comment; if so, I disagree, only myself or WP:ARCA can reverser it, it's an AE ban. I'm thinking H got a little ahead of himself. Dreadstar☥06:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
We don't seem to get edit conflict messages anymore
Hello NE Ent. Sorry about this. We seem to have hit save almost simultaneously. I appreciate your trying to turn down the heat on the drama but it may not work. I wish other editors had a chance to respond to my research and message (30 minutes worth of work :-) ya know - this is in jest) before your closure but I am not asking you to reverse it. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk20:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Jeepers events are moving fast - a block was handed out while I was typing so this message is now irrelevant. Feel free to remove it if you wish. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk20:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Oh that was like my worst close ever in terms of typos, template etc. ... feel free to start a new section if you think ... never mindNE Ent!
HeeHee. I think I could hear the lilting tones of Emily Litella saying the last two words of your post. Boy I miss her as well as the other characters that Gilda created. Cheers again. MarnetteD|Talk21:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Ched, you may have missed that the original filer of that request has been checkuser-blocked as a block-evading sock. Fut.Perf.☼12:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm still not going to revert my revert ... the subject is going to end up there at some point. — Ched : ? 12:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
No doubt. However, it will be a tremendous distraction from the case if the filer is an editor designated as a blocked or banned editor. Why do you go ahead and file? NE Ent12:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I reformatted with this [24] to make that bullet list consistent. Please check that you are happy with the way I presented your comments in the list and feel free to adjust. Thank you. JehochmanTalk18:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
How dare you presume to presumptuously pseudo-clerk my pseudo-clerking presumptiveness so presu... ah hell, even I'm confused now. 02:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Know Your IX
On 24 March 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Know Your IX, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Know Your IX has been termed a "survivor-run, student-driven campaign to end campus sexual violence"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Know Your IX. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Further to [25], note [26], [27]. Compare the screenshot in the BBC article to Cheetah#Range_and_habitat: there is no indication of sourcing in the SMS version, if that screenshot is accurate and up to date.
At any rate, this type of article delivery results in a captive audience of passive consumers who can neither contribute to Wikipedia, nor check Wikipedia articles' sourcing, nor access alternative sources.
The only ones with read-write access to Wikipedia will be the country's business and political elite. The potential for manipulation, as illustrated in embryo by the Wifione case, is stupendous, all the more so as the average Wikipedian has little interest nor knowledge in these topic areas.
Thanks for that (the technical part, we're not going to agree on the politics). The other part of my question is whether the smartphone mobile interface, e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetah provides a way to access the talk page?
Rare today
... was made a bit brighter by your comment: "To anyone actually important (i.e. Wikipedia readers)" - such a rare precious thought! Readers, you really said readers, not main editors? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that word means what you think it means
That's not being "blunt", that's casually slandering other people's integrity (I'd blue-link it for you, but that would be a dick move). --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
From Integrity "integrity is regarded by many people as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions." The committee said one thing. They did another. What word would you used to describe that behavior? NE Ent17:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I hate it when people start playing word games when they realize they've been jerks. Similar to, but not exactly like, WP:SOUP. I didn't think you were one of those people. I hope it's an aberration. :( --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Re: promotion
Good point. The early bureaucrats would call it a promotion, but we got away from that kind of language with the "bit," "mop," "chore," etc which I think are usually used by the user body to describe admins. I think we still use the "promoted" to admin as the verb form - enbittened? Mop-entrusted? Andrevan@20:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Authorized, enabled, allowed, accepted, permitted, trusted by the community to act as administrators? Or a simple "successfully nominated"? Just throwing ideas. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉20:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I’ll nominate appointed (as an) administrator. Of the choices above I like accepted the most. A few more possibilities: chosen, designated, dubbed, elected, enrolled, inducted, initiated, instated, invested.—Odysseus147923:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It's my experience the user body uses "mops" when they agree with the last administrative action and "other" terms when they disagree. (See "admin abuse"). To the question at hand: per the original thought is highly overrated principle, given WP:UAL states "access levels need to be assigned manually by a user ..." I'd suggest "assigned". NE Ent02:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
"Infected" or "Afflicted" would be accurate. "Wikipedia has finished eating your brain. You've been afflicted with adminship." JehochmanTalk12:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I recently stumbled across mention of DangerousPanda's demotion. As one who has interacted with and observed BWilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves in the past I greatly appreciate the time and effort you contributed to the proceedings. Thank you ever so much, --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
p.s.— In looking through the arbitration case I noticed mention of stuff about the BWilkins/DangerousPanda name change. As he'd changed his username soon after a lost electoral bid (for ArbCom membership I think) I'd always assumed it was to distance himself from such. I'm curious as to what alternative narrative was he was promoting? --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. There's an additional case page RFCU which is the original RFCU which includes some discussion of the name. NE Ent01:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, congrats on driving away a good admin with abundant common sense, really well done, good use of our resources.Who are you gunning for next, got anyone lined up yet? BMK (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Re: Signpost article
Just wanted to update you on the WP:AN thread you raised about the Signpost article: I've closed it after everyone except you said that it wasn't a problem. However, Johnuniq raised a new topic, specifically related to your behavior, so please look at it and respond if you believe it appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
closings
Thank you for your approach to be known by the quality of your contributions and for being somebody who closes threads that lead only deeper into WP:Great Dismal Swamp aka Endmoot, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
Thanks for the inquiries; I'm good, life is excellent. Reckon' I'll be back once my local climate turns cold and miserable. NE Ent14:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
This action is taken in my role as an arbitration clerk, but was not directly authorized by the Committee. Any questions or objections may be directed to me, the clerk team, or the Committee as a whole (at my talk page, WT:AC/C, and arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org, respectively). Thanks - L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
In reply to [30] ... I was using the encyclopedia as a reader and found content that could use some help, so logged back in around 22 August [31]NE Ent01:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Because you obviously don't have enough responsibilities. I think you should start closing some RfCs.
Long ago the individual was a contributor, and in the past they were assisted in keeping the page by an admin, so it doesn't really hurt anything to attempt to resolve the issue with the least amount of intervention, which is simply blanking the page and leaving them a note. Hopefully by suggesting the alternate of wikia.com they'll find a non-disruptive way to pursue their interest, and by leaving the content accessible in the edit history they can copy the content without having to have pester an admin to email it to them or temporarily restore the page. I've got the page watchlisted and if they restore the content we can take more assertive measures then. NE Ent00:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Gregaga. 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. -- Whpq (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
RfA question
NE Ent, is anyone actually "in charge" of the RfA process? Something totally bizarre has happened at my RfA that may raise RL concerns, and I believe that I may need to privately forward some emails to the powers that be. Who is to be contacted? Montanabw(talk)01:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I note your point here ([33]) and it is a valid one. Constant civility and requests for group discussion seem to be the best way of wearing down belligerence. Regards Asgardian (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
FYI
Just an FYI, if anyone asks, I'm leaving an early closing summary at the RfA. It is NOT a withdrawal, just real busy IRL tomorrow. I can't express enough thanks to all of you for the hand-holding, thoughful insights and peeling me off the ceiling. We all knew this one was not real likely to succeed, but I'm hoping I did well enough to set up for a second round sometime next spring. Montanabw(talk)07:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, NE Ent/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I just saw that you closed (was later reverted) the Supdiop RfA with an "archive top" template. That is not correct. There are special templates for RfA closures, and well defined procedure how and where to place them. If you ever close another RfA, please read Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Promotions and RfX closures before doing so. Kraxler (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
It was also premature to close the RfA so soon when there were only a few votes cast and comments when the candidate wants the RfA to continue. It was later SNOW closed but that was after more editors had weighed in on the candidate. LizRead!Talk!18:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The unlikelihood of passing an RfA has not been a reason to close one. Just look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Recent and there are six unsuccessful RfAs and one successful RfA. In some of the cases, the voting is close but it often isn't and we allow the candidates to see the process through or withdraw. I think WP:SNOW might be appropriate when an RfA has over 15 votes if there doesn't appear to be much support. But not after just three editors have participated in the RfA. I just think it was too early then, especially since the candidate reverted the closure. LizRead!Talk!21:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course the probability of not passing is the reason to not-now / snow-close. What other reason could there possibly be? I don't think there's a reasonable argument that a 1/13 not now is better than a 0/3 not now. The candidate characterized my edit as a good faith edit and accepted the close at 13, two less than your suggested criteria. The question was never whether it was going to not now snow close, it was who and when would be the editor to do it; my attempting it made it easier for subsequent attempts, possibility requiring less of a time sink. So I respect but must disagree with your opinion. NE Ent21:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
There is a time to Entmoot, and a time to tear down Isengard. When I open an article and the name the pops over and over and over is the name of the guy that didn't do it, that's a BLP. Since it was not a simple single line John Doe got off, but did it anyway, that I could easily remove in the wiki-time I had available, I brought it to AN for further review and analysis. When I see a SPA on a BLP, I get concerned; when I see "facts" in a username (per CGTW), I get doubly concerned. I note that during the AN discussion the part changed their position on the number of name mentions. I do appreciate you're being on top of the situation; as I said, I just don't feel I have wiki time to be personally concerned with the article. NE Ent00:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I can't stress this enough: I do not think that NOTHERE should be used in block rationales, probably for the same reasons you do. However, there's just no way to convince admins not to continue using it. Including this rationale in the policy in no way condones using it; I was very clear to link the "essay" or "information page" as not being "policy". Admins like using this rationale to block people, and they will continue to like it and use it. It therefore should be documented in the blocking policy because it truly is a common blocking rationale. Jus' sayin'. Doctalk08:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The mistake is thinking past behavior predicts the future. My first few edits to Wikipedia were spam. I got a gentle warning from Kim Bruning and went on to write a couple featured articles, as well as other stuff. Imagine if a today-admin had given me an indefinite NOTHERE block. JehochmanTalk08:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
You are preaching to the choir.[35] I bring it up like that when I see it; and NOTHERE blocks are further reinforced to be "correct".[36] All I'm doing is trying to sadly note the widespread use of the rationale (from the information page) in the blocking policy. I would love to make it clearer that it's thought to be wrong by many, but that certainly would not have made it in. Doctalk09:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Apparently it's listed in some software interface? So the solution would be to change that ... anyway, a conversation best for Wikipedia Talk rather than User Talk. NE Ent10:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
What you did was bold, and I believe it was correct. However, you're changing something that was inserted over 2 years ago[37] which will make it against "consensus". Someone will revert it as such soon and say, "Take it to the talk page" (well, kinda like this![38] Oh, the irony!) Once there, I seriously doubt that enough people are going to vote to do the right thing. It's a shame. Doctalk14:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree it would be better if the correct block reasons were given but not something I personally have wiki time to persue right now. NE Ent15:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure as to why you seemed to have interpreted it as discussion related to theories on how Wikipedia should work, and find myself wondering whether you've actually spent any time reading through the entire section. It was an ANI accusing me of harassing the IP.
I feel deeply offended by the fact that an experienced editor should be expected to take this on the chin like a good sport, while someone claiming to be 'researching' methodologies (but actually here to push their POV) is actively encouraged to continue to pursue their bad faith behaviour. I spend enough time having to assume good faith with IP contributors and new editors who don't understand how Wikipedia works, as do we all: and it's based on the right here, right now WP:PG, not some pie-in-the-sky abstract philosophising over how it could be better. Having to defend myself over reverting a POV pusher is not my idea of constructive editing, and closing the section off with no summary is nothing short of insulting towards me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the thread needed to be closed because it was rambling. Iryna, if the IP has been causing trouble, please post a few diffs to my talk page showing their most egregious trouble making and notify them to respond. What I see are editors with different points of view, but all are within the realm of reasonable debate. JehochmanTalk03:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jehochman: Apologies to NE Ent if my objections weren't clear. Agreed that the thread needed closing off, but there's no summary in the status parameter as to conclusions. At the moment, an empty closure reads as, "Nothing to see here. Move on."
Rhoark templated the IP's user page with an ARBPIA notification on my behalf, as I preferred not to do it myself lest the IP conclude that this was more 'harassment' on my behalf to rail on about. I think that the ARBPIA notification should be reflected in the closure summary as I have a feeling that they're not intending to move on. I don't want another editor getting caught up in this IP's campaign without there being some form of outcome noted for the archives.
I know that it's getting a bit stale for a BOOMERANG, and I agree that blocks, topic bans, et al should not be punitive... but I have already outlined the diffs early in the thread. I'm happy to start a new section on your talk page if you'd prefer to have a quick summary there, but I'm afraid that it'll have to wait until tomorrow. I'm going a little cross-eyed after working on articles and cite checking since 8am (it's currently 4pm in the land of Oz). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The most important you've said is "working on articles," thanks for that (after all it's what's important). ANI is essentially an American 911 (Australia 000?) line to get an administrator's attention. The thread was 3 days old, multiple other editors had said you hadn't done anything wrong, which I accept per AGF. What I saw was an IP posting (which resets the time for the archive bot) ... my first thought was to bog standard revert as off-topic, but that often just leads to edit warring and forum shopping and the like -- since they weren't actually talking about any individual but Wikipedia in general, I choose to respond to them. Here's why: we can block the IP but there's a person there, and they can just get another IP. I wanted them to think a moment about what they were saying (to see how problematic -- difficult to implement -- it actually was); I also wanted to acknowledge their humanity for a moment. From the thread it sounded like they weren't a good match for Wikipedia, so they should go do other things, but there's no reason not acknowledge their dignity as part of that process. Beyond the basic goodness of that, pragmatically an editor who is treated politely is more likely to leave gracefully than one who is angry, and the restrictions WMF puts on us makes dealing with persistent angry editors time consuming. Because the focus of ANI is determining whether an admin needs to do something or not, "no admin action" is a phrase I often use when closing -- I'm not a judge picking winners and losers, I'm just an editor offering a hint that it's time to move on.
In the future, I suggest not feeling like you have to defend yourself against an initial complaint -- let other editors review the situation and answer any questions they might have rather than engaging the person who filed against you. It's often less work and less aggravation.
Nope. Your close was fine... and your explanation eloquent. I've just spent the morning wondering whether I should just delete my comment under the closed discussion with a facepalm ES qualified as a stupid reaction, or strike it with "I was in a pernickety mood." ES (for the record). I'm usually far more tolerant with a tendency towards overindulging AGF ... I've just had a couple of weeks where I've allowed myself to get ratty about the many weird contributors one needs to engage with. I think I'll just spend a few days expanding refs and cite checking them on articles suffering from link rot instead of chewing off my hind leg. It strikes me as being a more productive way to spend my Wikipedia time. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
CH/JTV
I have raised the data retention issue with Courcelles on his talkpage if you want to see my specific issues with it. The actual 'is he or isnt he a sock' bit does not interest me. Courcelles does not appear to be active at the moment but that may not really be a problem as the drama of AN/ANI gets in the way of genuine concerns at times and a small delay will give it a chance to die down. I also made the same queries during the WMUK/Grant Shapps issue but they also got lost in the general scrum. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm writing on your talk page because you took part in the discussion about the extension of a range IP block, there're less than 2 hours left for the new block to start and yesterday I added some information making a summary at the end of the section: may you please join back the discussion and give your final opinion about the matter?
Sense? Not the word that comes to mind with regard to the current proceedings. Perhaps Bishzilla should throw her hat into the ring next week? NE Ent01:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, no, I doubt it. Bishzilla got an indelible impression in 2008 of how much too-much work even just running for the committee was, and jumped shipped halfway, exhausted by answering all the questions.[41] She still likes being asked, though! (Very fine crop of candidates that year btw. The Lady Catherine de Burgh also graced the proceedings.) Bishonen | talk04:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC).
Bishonen - Giano ... my feeling is "shit or get off the pot". It's obvious that there are agendas in play - so put up the "Ban user:x, user:Y, and user:Z ... vote on it - and let's move on. Time is short - show me the end-game. — Ched : ? 16:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Re: AN/I
Just so you're aware, Mongo reverted your closure because you're not an admin. I reverted them, saying anyone uninvolved can close discussions, and they reverted again. Figured you'd know the best way to deal with it.
Yeah...maybe next time get some manners. I've been around here and done a hell of a lot more than you to have you guys hatting off discussions where I was merely trying to get some answers. Then showing up templating me with a 3rr warning. What comes around goes around buddy.--MONGO03:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Let's everyone back off a bit. There's an open discussion at WP:AN for anyone who wants to participate, so there's no reason to fight over the closure at ANI. Gamaliel (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
AC
It's not that I disagree with you. But when something becomes obvious and inevitable, then my thoughts are "lets just get on with it". — Ched : ? 15:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm hoping if we give the guy a little space he'll see the writing on the wall and simply resign; better path to same result. Imagine how many offensive red-linked redirects we'll have to see if it gets to the evidence stage. NE Ent
To be honest Ent? I can actually understand. I won't say the "why" per wp:beans, but I can actually see a value to bringing search results to wiki. As a computer tech, I've helped a lot of parents with parental controls, and showed them how to oversee their kid's computer use. Some folks might be amazed at some of the imaginative "searches" a young boy in today's world can come up with. — Ched : ? 16:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Just came across this and since you were the last to edit the template I thought you might be able to figure out how to fix it. Using Template:uw-wrongsummary, I found it was adding a hard return and a space afterward, so when I appended my signature to the end with the usual four tildes, it rendered in a box like this:
This very lengthy, very involved AN/I report was closed by you in early 2014. After days of contentious back and forth but the majority of those commenting (including a number of administrators) that Bus Stop should be topic banned from articles where the subject involves Judaism, Bus stop made the following commitment: "For the foreseeable future I have made the decision to voluntarily stay away from the topics that have caused contention and will limit myself to WP:NPOV editing since there is so much else to do on WP. It pains me to see so much discord and it is a waste of everybody's time, so therefore I wish everyone all the very best and I look forward to harmonious relationships with everyone." From what I can tell, Bus stop has issues with stirring the pot wherever he goes in Wikipedia. He is doing that at the following AN/I report, an associated BLPN report. The article subject in question is Jewish. While Bus stop has not brought up Judaism in any of his comments, it seems to me that he agreed to stay away from anything related to Judaism - a self-imposed topic ban (unless I'm reading it wrong). Is what I linked to above a violation of that self-imposed topic ban? -- WV ● ✉✓01:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I've reverted your edit because I think you misunderstood the problem and are misadvising editors. The section at the village pump deals with an occasion when "p" was used improperly to refer to a range whereas "pp" should have been used. Having overlapping ranges and pages is not a problem provided the templates are used correctly. For instance, have a look at Frindsbury where both Austin (2005) and Francis (1997) have ranges that overlap and include single pages. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I've been doing that for years. Once I tried to do it the "right way" by leaving a user talk page message; the arbitrator thought I was starting an argument and it got all convoluted. So the Ent rule is, per WP:TPO "there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar," if a typo is an obvious misspelling, I ignore it, but if it alters the meaning of the word -- for example, transposing the g and n in "sign" -- and it's obvious what was meant, I simply fix it. They haven't yell at me yet. NE Ent12:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Do you have evidence oversight has ever denied a request for removal of either a birthdate or a zip code? NE Ent03:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Please stop restoring my question if you are going to insist on deleting the clarification. I have a direct emailed statement signed by arb and OS teams (although I know that individual OS'er and individual arbs disagreed with it) stating that anything not specifically included in the oversight criteria (and zip and DOB are not) is not oversightable. Please either restore my clarification or delete the entire question; deleting non-argumentative clarification while retaining the rest of the question is not all that different from simply editing my question so that it as a question you liked more. Yes, I am also running, but I'm also voting and see specific value in having a non-admin on the committee and am refining the slate of candidates I'm voting for. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi NE - I'm headed to bed soon and have the feeling you aren't active currently. I've left the question on your page since I don't want to editwar on your own Q&A page, but I've removed my username from the header, and my signature from the end of the question. I've tried to do so in the least confrontational manner possible, while making it clear that there's a reason why I removed my name and signature. I would ask that if you restore my name to the question, you also restore the clarification I added - it wasn't argumentative, and directly clarified the significance of the question in an important way (arbcom decides how OS policy is interpreted, and different people and different arbs interpret it differently.) You're also welcome to remove the question if you would like to - I would just request that you don't restore my name without also restoring my clarification. To be perfectly clear, I really am looking to finalize my votes and see a significant advantage in having a non-admin on the committee, since I think as long as they aren't dysfunctionally argumentative a committee as heterogeneous as reasonably possible is likely to make better decisions for all of Wikipedia's stakeholders. The question wasn't intended to be at all antagonistic - it's a situation that has directly come up in the last year, and knowing how potential arbitrators are likely to interpret OS policy will inform my view of them.
Although I don't think it's noted, this is actually my second arbcom run. The first time around I pulled out of the race once I was satisfied that there were enough people who would make good arbitrators that there was no point in me continuing my candidacy that year. I know it may be difficult to AGF on, but I really did ask the question to try to put together my final set of votes, and tried to frame both the question and the clarification in a way that were not argumentative, but that just generated information to help inform the set of final votes I eventually make. I know it's not that common for candidates to ask each other questions, but there's also not a rule against it. Someone asked me on my Q&A page if I perceived any benefits of having an arbitrator who wasn't an administrator, and the more I thought about the question, the more I decided there were significant advantages to it and that I would like to cast a vote for a non-admin for arb. Obviously you can delete this section from your talk page as you desire, and you're more than welcome to delete my question as well, but I would request that you only reassociate my name with the question if you also readd the clarification I posted. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Dear User:Kevin Gorman. I am surprised to see a Candidate marshalling the Questions/Answers page of another Candidate. Perhaps should you comment further, on your own Q/A page ? Pldx1 (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I've answered the question you posed to me on my own Q&A page. I'm trying to finalize who myself I am voting for, and the more I thought about the question someone asked me about a non-admin arb, the more I decided I would like to have a non-admin arb. I asked NE a question that I consider the answer of fairly important in selecting who I vote for. After I asked it, I realized I fucked up asking a question by not realizing that someone without previous functionary experience wouldn't understand the full backstory of. After NE removed my attempt to clarify the question, I initially tried to remove my entire question (as people have done on my own Q&A page,) and once he restored it made the polite request above in addition to removing my name from the question because I wanted it to be apparent to readers that I thought I had fucked up by asking a question that NE didn't have the full context or backstory to respond to. I wouldn't describe anything I did as 'marshalling'. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Saw your note
NE Ent,
He's using the retired tag, which , per the documentation Do not use this template unless you plan to completely and permanently stop editing. Other templates are available if you might return at a later date, or if you plan to significantly reduce your activity. If you later resume editing for any reason, any user may remove this erroneous template from your user page.. reference is here Yes, I saw that he didn't use the "Retired" template, he recreated the message exactly as it appears if the actual template were used, in effect simulating the template. He's gaming the system. Note the ANI discussion you closed here where the close was: Dpmuk has replaced {{Retired}} with a banner atop their talk page to clarify their status. . He didn't actually do this, he just re-created the template with a simulation of it. Like I said, he's gaming the system. I'm telling you this to explain why I removed his "Retired" message. He's not retired, the template states it can be removed by any user it's placed on a user page where the user is not retired, and dpmuk was supposed to replace the Retired banner with something else that would clarify his status, and he didn't. Now, I won't revert you, but I'd ask that you self-revert and advise him he's not doing what he said he do. Thanks KoshVorlon13:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs actually the doc for that template says If you later resume editing for any reason, any user may remove this erroneous template from your user page.. Like I said above, I realize he wasn't using the template, he was creating an exact duplicate of that template - in essence, gaming the system, so I treated it like the template itself. KoshVorlon18:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Well post hoc ergo proctor is a logical fallacy, but I received an email from MPaulson (WMF) exactly 15 minutes before the changes were made thanking for bringing the oversight to their attention. Draw whatever conclusions you wish. NE Ent01:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The arbcom question template....
Sorry, that's kinda my fault. I created an "answer top" and an "answer bottom" to make my life easier when I ran for Arbcom a few years back, I thought framing my comments would make them much easier to read. Someone latched onto it and created that template. You can always add by using straight html - <br />, that seems to work :) WormTT(talk) 13:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
People are quick to voice their congratulations to candidates who win elections. I wanted to tell you that I supported you. I think you are a fair and honest person - and I'm sorry you weren't elected. — Ched : ? 01:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Sticks to in ground, bows head... Aw, shucks, thanks guys... since I won't be singing the WMF thing, I'll sing
They gotta name for the winners in the world
They call Drmies the Crimson Tide
I wanna name when I lose
Call me Wiki Blues[1]
Actually, I entered when the candidate field was lacking many of the folks who ended up winning; for the most part, the right folks won and hopefully arbcom can back on track.
Shame, I'd have liked to see you active even if only on a couple of cases. Perhaps we should have "Guest Arbitrators"? All the best: RichFarmbrough, 17:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC).
enlightenment
thank you
I think people like the three of us commenting on cases may have some influence, shed a little light in darkness. Thank you, NE ENT, from removing unique absurdity from my user page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Btw
Editors who have participated in WP:AE in the last year, are supposed to know about the WP:ARBPIA3 sanctions. And most of us "regulars" in the area have. IOW: no need to "template" us. Huldra (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know no hard feelings intended about recent happenings at Agent orange. Edits initiated by topic-banned editors are difficult to deal with at best, which was why I was urging caution. There also had been a few other instances of topic ban violations from those editors, which was why I was getting a bit terse about this additional one. I wasn't aware of the amendment/clarification request at the time either, but hopefully things are settled with that regard in the article now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Re: "Edits initiated by topic-banned editors are difficult to deal with at best" ? This is a strange apology. Furthermore it makes no sense. It certainly makes no sense in its vague generality. Anyone checking my contributions for the last 7 days of being topic banned can see that my edits were not found to be difficult to deal with. your reversion of one of my edits is a personal opinion and no proof. it looks to me like a false accusation, continuing intimidation, WP:HARASSMENT and sign of being WP:NOTHERE.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size NE Ent as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk17:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment
Re : The natural language "and" is actually ambiguous and derives its meaning from context;
the narrator searching for Love Potion No. 9 is only going to be successful finding Madam Rue's pad at the intersection () of "34th and Vine."
and then the cop broke the bottle..
Re: While I understand frustration with editors arguing about the edges of topic bans, the greater issue here is the scope of the 1RR and AC/DS:
absolutely , you got it.
Re: while useful as a tool for managing disputes
I dispute there is any usefulness. Gangs readily defeat individual editors under 1RR rules.
such restrictions do impede the normal editing process
of course.
NE ENT I had tears in my eyes reading your statement. Thanks. People who dont get it, dont like riddles, dont like to think. easier to insult someone.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Wishing you …
Happy Holidays and a Prosperous 2016!!!
Hello NE Ent/Archive, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this holiday season. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user happy holidays and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for New Year 2016.
This message is intended to celebrate the holiday season, promote WikiCheer, and to hopefully make your day just a little bit better, for Wikiclaus encourages us all to spread smiles, fellowship, and seasonal good cheer by wishing others a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Share the good feelings and the happiest of holiday spirits from Wikiclaus !
Nobody can be wrong all the time, can they?
It's 2015. Viriditas's insults are not acceptable. The "just kidding" excuse for any sort of -ism, doesn't fly anymore. [1][2][3]. NE Ent 12:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Did you just misread and misunderstand another discussion? I think you did. The "insults" under discussion in that thread, which you clearly did not understand, involve the insulting language of using "bastard" to refer to people who are born to single or unmarried parents and the insulting term "cripple" which refers to a person with disabilities. Using humor to poke fun at the regressive nature of a US state which is best described as "backwards" and parallels the use of archaic language is not the kind of "insult" under discussion. The links to "just kidding" excuses have nothing to do with anything I've said. Please stop taking offense at others taking offense. It is entirely inappropriate and unacceptable to use the words "cripple" and "bastard" in 2016. Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I think you closed the Scottywong ANI rather prematurely. I would have liked it to continue until there was a clear case to admonish Ronz with a boomerang for his harassment. Never mind, it's closed now, and I'll be watching Ronz for future instances of inappropriate behaviour. Happy holidays! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.
1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.
3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.
6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.
Thanks for [43] but that wasn't really what I was looking for (and it was already self-evident by the indent level). Since Mkdw wasn't clearly in opposition to the alternative proposal (and if he was, it's unclear if he was opposed to the proposal in its entirety, if he was opposed in part, or to the existence of WP:IAR), your opposition is still unclear. Since neither of us can read Mkdw's mind, and since Mkdw's statement is probably as unclear to other editors with respect to any opposition to the alternative proposal (remember - he was addressing Guy Macon, so he probably didn't see a need to be crystal-clear in any comments he was making with respect to the alternative proposal itself), please spell out what your opposition is so we all know what issue or issues need to be addressed. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again for the further update. It's still not clear if you are opposing the alternative proposal or not, but I'll stop pestering you about it. Just know that if it's unclear to one experienced editor (namely me), it's probably unclear to at least a few other editors. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you are on the notification list for this case. You may opt-out at any time The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.
I found out what I did wrong. Used |closer= instead of just a simple signature, which unless you are using the default close, doesnt actually do anything. So technically I did sign it, just badly and where no one would actually see it! Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
My RfA- formatting?
Hi NEEnt, and thanks for your support. Just popping by to note that you didn't bold your !vote on my RfA. Does that matter for the bot that counts these? Montanabw(talk)00:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I never know what the bots do, Saw that I'm getting some criticism for my AfD stats, but notice that the bot for that one doesn't track the stuff that's "similar but not identical". Which I suppose everyone at AfD has to deal with, but it makes it tough where there is no clear scale. Montanabw(talk)22:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Naw, !votes without a bolded word are counted properly regardless. What matters is that the numbered indentation remains intact: any properly indented comment in either s/n/o section is counted. Sometimes you'll even see joking "Oppose" comments in the Support section being properly counted as "support". :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉22:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Second formatting question, unrelated to bots-n-boldface: were you replying to me, or just commenting generally and happened to be below me? Aka did you mean ** instead of * in front of this comment,[44] is my question.
I ask, because although my bangbangvote was 'support' of Montanabw (not 'oppose'), that choice was because I believe her pledge to stay cool as an admin, not because I think that "interaction with, and posting on the talk page of, any other Wikipedian" has no relevance to an RfA. Such interactions are the key evidence about whether the person understands WP:NICE the way I do, or at least, the way I think admins ought to, and thus interaction is a valid metric to gauge whether the candidate has the requisite understanding of the pillar in question.
Sure, we only have a civility meme, not a civility policy, there is little enforcement generally and often ridiculously slanted enforcement when it does happen, and just as you say, that is not Montanabw's fault. What *is* on their plate, though, is their own interactions with other wikipedians, and whether they meet my personal standards for civility, which is to say, whether they meet my personal threshold for civility-as-an-admin. You seem to be arguing that, civility ought to have no bearing, since the civility-policy is so busted; I hear you, and wish we had a clearcut policy, but I disagree that civility of interactions has *no* bearing (despite the broken wiki-policy state ... or even, *especially* because the wiki-policy is so busted, how wikipedians engage with other wikipedians when they *know* enforcement is lax and uneven, is a vital factor).
p.s. Grammar bug in your comment == "I urge voters has used this as a basis for opposition to step back..."[45] , prolly should be "has who have" ... unless maybe you like 'whom' .... 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Happened to be below ... had actually been trying to get my thoughts into coherent form a couple days (see Entmoot), and had to write Wikipedia:Civility meme because a red link would have looked stupid. I've clarified exactly what I'm addressing on the page. Note in the original post said "cordial"; I agree entirely that what she posts anywhere is fair game for consideration, but who she's interacting should not be a "black mark," if you will. Fixed grammar bug, thanks. NE Ent00:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay thanks. And yeah, definitely agree with the sentiment, that judging her by who she likes-and/or-dislikes would be Very Wrongtm. That said, I do, actually, try to take the interaction-history into account, however... if somebody begins interacting with a beginning editor (does not sign their posts / does not indent with colons / thinks that google hits is the measure of notability / etc) and blows their top at the beginner within a few hours, I give them a bigger black mark, than in the case where somebody has been interacting with another long-haul editor for many years, with various content-disputes or simply rubs-them-the-wrong-way incidents in the past over the years, and there is a blowup over the latest thing. To be clear, both types of blowups get blackmarks, in my book, just different kinds: we need people that can avoid biting the beginners, but we also need people that can get along with the other long-haul wikipedians, even those that rub them the wrong way (with as little clique-behavior as possible). Montanabw can do both, methinks, but will have to practice de-escalation, and staying cooler longer and more consistently. (Aka don't be hasty.)
To do
And speaking of being hasty... somebody with a very similar set of numerals to my own, posted their first AN/I thread, and got it closed as poor behavior, by an ent. Ahem. :-) So at the risk of finding out the speed at which ents are rumoured to grow angry has changed, I will say, that I really did see that unorthodox move as the best way to de-escalate. Sure, it has now backfired, but at least there is one kind of poor behavior I know not to repeat in the future: never post to AN/I until really ready. I dislike that outcome, obviously, partly because I didn't get the specific advice I was after, but also because I don't really have much hope that the situation on the talkpage in question will de-escalate any time soon. I will try not to let it grow worse, but I think this is one of those articles where fundamental disagreements about What Should Be In The Encyclopedia start to rub people wrong. I've just arrived there, and my own self-botched AN/I thread was the first noticeboard-dramah of 2015. But there was plenty of dramah in 2014, including a 'voluntary' mainspace-only-t-ban, and a quasi-related desysop. The contents of mainspace never reached broad consensus, which is to say *outside* the local article-talkpage consensus; thus, the article just became a DMZ-article, waiting for somebody to stumble into it. Moi, apparently.
Do you have any ent-wisdom to offer, about how I ought to have gone about trying to improve the situation (aka alternative moves I could have made besides posting to AN/I at all), or about what I ought to try going forward? If not (or if it will take some ruminating-time) that is okay. Generic advice, like "follow the pillars" is also fine as far as it goes, but everybody there thinks they *are* following the pillars. So, I specifically came to AN/I, rather than going to some admin that I already happened to know, because I wanted to avoid the appearance of pulling in "my clique" to help me "win" the wiki-battle. And of course, immediately got accused that my AN/I post was attempting to "win" the content-dispute. Sigh. :-) Anyways, if you don't wanna mess with this situation, no hard feelings whatsoever, I'm sure it will all work out in the long run. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
If you can provide a link to the AN/I post I'll review it when I get a chance (we may be talking a week or so). NE Ent11:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:NORUSH aka WP:DoNotBeHasty. Here is your close.[46] Here is the brief archived thread, though I don't think it is very helpful for you to see it again, since you already saw it, and closed it as poor behavior. :-) My question is, since posting to AN/I was the wrong move, what would have been the right move, or at least, a not-poor move? Taking the specific source-question to RSN? Taking the specific BLP-question to BLPN? Just start going source-by-source, and adding one sentence per source to mainspace, to see what gets reverted, and what does not? There are too many people involved for 3o, and not enough people involved for arbcom, thankfully. :-) My other option, that I did seriously consider, was nominating for AfD#3, but that seems a bit pointy, since there are so many sources at the moment. The usual way to attract attention is to mark the article as a stub, and advertise it at the appropriate wikiprojects, but that's also been attempted (albeit not by me). I could open an RfC up, as the next phase; WP:DR would be logical, in theory, but it only works if there is a possibility of compromise.[47] There's already been plenty of talkpage discussion, and I don't expect longer and deeper discussion will help, though possibly metronome-edits to mainspace would help. I'm planning on checking some other encyclopedia, spaketh not their vile names here on-wiki o'course, to see if they have child prodigy articles, and if so what depth. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Yea, Jacob Barnett is weird; an article with nothing notable in it about a person who became notable for stuff we're not going to put on-wiki. Another Afd so soon would be pointy. You tried to source it, there was a pretty clear consensus against doing so, so you just move on. Overall Wikipedia the encyclopedia is pretty darn good, in specific pockets, not so much. And Wikipedia: the project is wikt:sausage factory (third definition). NE Ent22:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I will first note, that I found it amusing, that your advice boils down to the idea that I ought to make like a tree and leaf. ;-) But that seems the wrong way to improve wikipedia... this specific pocket needs improving, and moreover, the general trend of deleting reliably-sourced material, which I find extremely worrisome, is not just manifesting itself in this specific article. My question is, what procedure should I follow to improve the article, not what procedure I should follow under the assumption that no further improvement is possible. And, uh, yes, I 'tried' to source the article, as the first step towards improvement.
There are four sources left in mainspace: PsychologyToday, Skeptic, CBS, and Maclean's. Not in mainspace, same publishers: two more CBS pieces (one deleted), and six more Maclean's pieces. Also not in mainspace: two BBC pieces (one deleted), two CTV pieces (one deleted), six HuffPo pieces (one deleted), Discover (deleted), Time (deleted), TheTimes (deleted), Slate (deleted), et cetera. Mentioned at AfD#2, but never mainspaced that I noticed: two ABC pieces, two UsaToday/IndyStar pieces, TheSpectator, CBC, TorontoStar, etc. New ones I found myself, whilst resurrecting the deleted and elided refs: UPI, Variety, NY Daily News, Mirror, Globe & Mail, bunch of foreign-language-press-coverage, etc. That list is why AfD#3 would be point-y; the timespan since AfD#2 seems relatively minor by comparison.
All nominally satisfy WP:RS, no question about it. Sure, some bits of them are clickbait, sensationalism, WP:CRYSTAL, retractions, or whatever. Those bits ought be elided. But that's no excuse to delete the sources en masse, and thereby also delete every boring cold hard just-the-facts sentence said sources also back, right? Baby; bathwater. And yet, the local consensus is to delete the sources, and all sentences backed by them... which includes the deletion of "stuff we're not going to put on-wiki" that you allude unto, but goes waaaay beyond that, to also delete plenty of stuff we ought to be putting on-wiki.
To keep this meta-discussion we are having concrete, yet avoid delving into the oh-so-controversial stuff about Barnett, I suggest we switch gears briefly to another child prodigy article, Michael Kearney, which is as yet WP:NOTFINISHED. I have made some improvements, to my wiki-eyes anyways; I'd like to know what I ought have done differently, if anything, in your opinion.
Here is the article in 2005,[48] just after bangkeep,[49] with two refs (SatEvePost'96 TN'01) and 366 words.
Second theoretical-deletion-discussion in 2009.[50]
Here is a much-improved version from 2014,[51] with four new refs (LATimes'95 AP'98 MTSU'02 ABC'05) and 381 words.
I expanded it to 614 words,[52] adding another handful of refs (NYT'02 BizJournals'06 WinnipegFreePress'06 HuffPo'10 BostonGlobe'10 AOLnews'14).
Now of course, it could still use further improvement, for instance, re-adding SatEvePost'96 that was deleted at some point during the past decade,[53] or trimming some of the bloat. But trimming it back to 150 words would not be an improvement, right? Deleting ten of the twelve refs would also not be an improvement. Did my added sources or my expanded body-prose hurt the encyclopedia, over at Michael Kearney? If so, please show me where I goofed.
p.s. By way of contrast, see also Sheldon Cooper, the fictional child prodigy, with 3188 words of body-prose, backed by a dozen non-self-published general-readership refs including two LATimes, two ChicagoTribune, NewYorkMag, WinnipegFreePress, TorontoStar, BostonGlobe, Slate, PsychologyToday, StarLedger, NASA, SmithsonianMag, 3NEWSnewZealand; another dozen trade-zine refs include four IGN, two EntertainmentWeekly, two Variety, two AvClub, TvSquad, and TvGuide. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
You seemed to have not registered the "just move on." The essential nature of the Wikipedia collaborative nature is that often you have to simply accept your viewpoint will not prevail in a certain context. This isn't a big deal; there's no shortage of tasks to be done, so you just go find something else to do. 02:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
No, I caught your drift. See first sentence of my reply ("your advice boils down the idea that I ought to make like a tree and leaf.") And I may decide to do so, or I may decide, per my second and subsequent sentences, to pull rank and do an XKCD thing instead, adding the unused WP:SOURCES into mainspace once a day, to see whether local consensus to delete dozens of nominally-wiki-reliable cites can survive wider WP:RSN scrutiny. Anyways, if you wish to discuss Barnett, or Kearney, or my as-yet-unanswered-questions about the AN/I procedures and feasible alternatives thereto, I'm still open to suggestions, but if so please leave a talkback-note on my usertalk. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Chew on this!
With regard to your edit summary here, I don't think you should be encouraging people to chew bacca. It's a disgusting habit and can lead to cancer of the mouth and throat. EEng (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
He didn't remove it. He closed and hatted it. Caden, the comment in question has been removed, so there's no reason to keep things going. Sarah(talk)22:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
RfC on 'List of best-selling girl groups'
Thank you for closing this discussion – I apologise for not making a clear statement when I opened the RfC: perhaps that would have led to a clearer consensus, but as you have noted, few people wanted to take part in the discussion, but there are many people keen to keep the article, without actually explaining why and how useful it actually is. I suspect there might be a lot of angry editors at the removal of the overall list at the top (particularly from Korea where they seem to be very keen to have the data included), but frankly it was the most problematic part of the article and most of the sources used for sales figures were either dubious or dead links, so it was going to be impossible ever to keep it updated. I just hope you don't get a lot of hate mail as a result of your action... Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I've actually been doing that for years; I don't see why I would want to waste my time writing and your time reading "This is only drill. In the event of an actual comment ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent (talk • contribs) 21:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
This is not a joke
You should run for ArnCom, it's a perfect match for your skillset. You could break the admin barrier and be the first non-admin on the Committeee. I mean, it's not as if you're busy improving the encyclopedia or anything. Think about it, the field as of right now is extremely weak. BMK (talk) 08:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm still trying to figure out whether that's compliment or a curse, but in any event I took your advice. NE Ent
No, it was simply an observation. Thanks for your thoughtful answer to my question, I appreciate your taking the time and not blowing me off. BMK (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Your candidate statement
I just saw your candidate statement. I wish you the best of luck ... but I must say I think you are making a very unconventional campaign promise about the confidentiality agreement. Either that, or something more prosaic has happened, like a typo. Personally I hope it's the former. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. I'm opting out by opting out, there's nothing in the candidate requirements requiring to respond to singpost inquiries. NE Ent12:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
You get a measure of one candidate's immatury in the change made to the title—a candidate who has been shouting falsehoods from the rooftops about how there's something mandatory about this survey (evidence, please?).
I suppose I'll have to provide the obvious answers to these questions: first, the survey is not a carbon copy of the onwiki discourse, but is realted to news coverage that aims to provide a different type of information about candidates' views; second, the whole point is to gain information in isolation, without the herd mentality that would be likely to influence how candidates respond. It's a pity if you don't want to participate, since the statistics have proved useful for readers in the past. There's still time, but soon please if you want to be included. Tony(talk) 02:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that; I'm pleased to hear that it wasn't a candidate. You'd think that NE Ent would have reverted the tampering with the title I posted in good faith. Tony(talk) 07:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
...also known as humour, or in some variants of the English language, humor. See the section immediately above this one, further up the talkpage. In his arb-candidate-statement, NE_Ent made a campaign promise to sing the WMF NDA. This was a typo, NE_Ent obviously meant he would sign the NDA, but an amusing typo all the same. Former arb NYB came to give the ent some gentle ribbing... not sure if ents actually have ribs... and the typo was even-more-amusingly fixed: now the candidate *has* firmly promised to sing the NDA, followed by signing it.
Anyways, sorry I hijacked your title, and unintentionally caused offence. Nobody is questioning that you posted the title in good faith; I was just making a joke, which was 100% unrelated to yourself, and for that matter 100% unrelated to the WP:SIGNPOST. It was a running gag started by the typo. Since your new section was just a pro forma template-like notification, I really didn't see the harm in continuing the same running joke, from the prior talkpage-section, on into this one.
That said, like Voceditenore, I will also urge that you strike your personal attacks found at 02:49, 20 November 2015 -- specifically the accusation about maturity, and the accusation of lying. This is the second arbcom candidate you have accused of lying, actually, that I have seen,[54] which was just a couple days ago on the 18th. As a fellow WP:SIGNPOST contributor, I urge you to remain objective, and as a fellow wikipedian, I urge you to be WP:NICE, please, not just to candidates but to everyone. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not for a moment withdrawing any remarks. NE Ent should have managed the situation, and you shouldn't have interfered with the title in a way that would probably be seen as offensive to someone who wasn't in on your joke. Thank you all the same for apologising—I'm much obliged. Tony(talk) 13:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, sure, Tony, you are welcome. It was a sincere apology, I truly didn't mean to put you out, and wish I had been more careful. I did not include </humour> in my tongue in cheek edit-summary, so I suppose I can see how the name-change might have offended you, as a proud contributor to the wikiproject in question. But in the event, you didn't check whether the editor who changed the title *was* actually me rather than the ent, in any case, so you may not have caught the </humour> tag even if I had put it in. You simply assumed that it was NE_Ent fiddling with the title, which was not actually the case. And your response to that title-fiddling, seems to have gone from "hey please do not do that mister ent" all the way up to "you are an immature liar unfit for arbcom" at record speed, unless I'm missing a more-polite discussion elsewhere, in which you asked the ent about the title-change, and requested they revert 'their' alleged edit to that title? Surely you can understand that impugning the integrity of multiple arbcom candidates, without even supplying diffs, is hardly within the norms wikipedians are supposed to strive towards, let alone a Signpost editorial-board member who is writing an off-wiki story about said candidates and their competition. Please think it over again, before you decide to leave your remarks standing, that you made when the facts of the situation were not yet clear to you. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I do not consider titles of threads on my talk page of sufficient importance to worry about "managing" them. I've learned from too many WQA / ANI threads that some folks will simply choose to take offense, and it's not a good use of my time to worry about that, either. If I had described Signpost as RagPost et. al., being offended would be reasonable. There had been discussion about my sign / sing faux pas a) on this talk page, b) in my amended candidate statement, and c) in the question Graham87 added to my candidate question page, so I considered it as having sufficiently visibility to anyone interested in the election that further explanation was not necessary. NE Ent13:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
arb-itrary section break ...apologies to Kudpung for swiping his joke
I knew I was gonna be roped into this discussion eventually. By the by, Tony emailed me about the questions, which I had no problems with besides the ones about GamerGate. Then again I am surprised Tony didn't ask about Lightbreather. GamerPro6423:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Gamer! :-) You didn't see the problem with question F, which demands an all-numeric answer from the candidates, as to whether they agree or disagree that case evidence should always be on-wiki? Emphasis added... what about checkuser evidence? If they answer agree they are wrong thataway. If they answer disagree, they are also wrong, since that's anti-transpaarency. And if they refuse to answer they get marked down as having answered a numerical 4 anyways, aka the "do not care about this issue" answer... which is probably the worst outcome. I don't blame the people who helped with the effort, clearly a lot of work was put into this thing, but the idea that it would be "more scientific" to keep the questions secret, and force the candidates to answer without knowing how the other folks answered, seems just wrong-headed. And drawing up the questions without on-wiki critiques, means that nobody caught some of the bugs until the piece was already published, which is pretty sub-optimal. Gamer, can you divulge the details of how the questions were formulated and vetted, now that the piece is finally on-wiki? Also ping Rosiestep, whose arm I tried to twist about becoming a candidate herself this year (to no avail alas), and who was mentioned in the article-credits as having some early-stage input. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh I would definitely have problem with question F… if it was in the email. He must have wrote that one up after emailing me. Honestly the questions are completely different from the ones presented. My guess is Tony just gave me an early draft. In hindsight, I probably should've commented about the numeric answers. I may not be of help here. GamerPro6401:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again, 75.108.94.227, for nudging me to run for ArbCom as I appreciate the confidence you and @Hafspajen: have in me, but like I said, it's just not my cup of tea. I joined the SP Editorial Board about a week ago in the role of Personnel/Recruitment Editor. Let me know if you have any other questions. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Possible interactions
You wrote that "there are 128,730 active users, which means there are 16,571,284,170 possible one-on-one interactions." But you need to divide that figure by 2, because User:A interacting with B is the same interaction as User:B interacting with A. So the correct number of interactions to be policed is a mere 8,285,642,085, and thus a much less daunting task. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
You are correct, in that combination A+B is the same as B+A, however he said 'interactions' - and we know every wikipedians interaction with another is different depending on the POV of the person involved in the interaction. Or "there are two sides to every story". Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
It is all very simple. Just arrange all the wikipedians (and their underlying IP addresses -- depends on whether you prefer imaginary numbers or symbolic computation) into a two-dimensional spreadsheet listing all conceivable interaction bans, and from the self-referential diagonal, we can clearly see that wikipedia is theoretically impossible! The problem with wikipedia is that is exists at all. :-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
It's impossible to know how many active users there are. If you start counting them, but the time you are done, new ones could have arrived, and some of those counted could have left. At what time are you measuring? When you start counting? When you finish counting? Somewhere in the middle? Also, some users have multiple accounts and some accounts are shared by more than one user. JehochmanTalk16:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
This is my second account. The first was blocked for the username and was renamed to this one. What do you want done with my signiture and I will consider it? W oWiTmOvEs11:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Huh, he's big. You can always revert me of course. Hafspajen (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
lists.wikimedia.org, respectively). Thanks - L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
_(14586469407).jpg)
Happy Yuletide! 
Hello! Your submission of Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:Notnow did not apply for my RFA. Thank you. Supdiop (T🔹C) 02:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
— JJMC89 (T·C) 03:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
![[19]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eats,_Shoots_%26_Leaves#mediaviewer/File:ES%26L.png){kind=link}
![[20]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EatsShootsAndLeaves#mediaviewer/File:Giant_Panda_Tai_Shan.JPG){kind=link}
