User talk:SCZenz/Archive12
Hi. You have left an "according to whom?" notice on the above page, and I thought you might like an explanation. I should say first that I did not add the paragraph which you are questioning, and I am not happy about it being there (i.e. I support your edit).
So here is what I understand about the matter. I got the following information from current and former members of the Alexandrov Ensemble, via third parties. Since the 1950s when the Alexandrov Ensemble started touring non-Soviet countries, it has called itself the Red Army Choir outside the USSR/Russia for simplicity. Since 1989, another large but somewhat different group which had been founded later then the Ensemble started to call itself the Red Army Choir outside Russia. The problem was that the worldwide public frequently thought that the two choirs were the same, and various problems occurred, including concerns about competition. During the past 12 months there has been a court case about this in Moscow. People in Moscow tell me that the results of these cases are often not publicised. I think that the case has ended, but have not yet found anyone who knows the result. The only clue that I have seen is that someone has been making uncited edits about the use of the title "Red Army Choir" in WP articles connected with the Ensemble. All I have written here is hearsay, so I am not in a position to remove or correct those edits, although I am not happy about them. I hope that helps. --Storye book (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. I think the point is that assertions that can't be sourced should be, at minimum, flagged - and in some cases it's best to simply remove them. Wikipedia doesn't need to be in the business of claiming to give a comprehensive list of "official" Red Army Choirs at all, and it really can't be if there's no reliable source for such a thing. In any case, I'm happy to leave the "according to whom" tag up for the time being and see if someone can fill it in. Cheers, SCZenz (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm entirely in agreement with that. Cheers. --Storye book (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Notification of automated file description generation
[edit]Your upload of File:ATLAS Muon.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Another one of your uploads, File:ATLAS ForwardCal.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Another one of your uploads, File:ATLAS SCT.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Even though I think you've been broadly doing the right thing on the Alan Guth page, as I said when I first arrived there, I really, really don't think you should continue to revert or edit the page until we've worked out a consensus. This is your 3rd reversion and it's very clear there's an ongoing dispute. It doesn't matter whose version is up there right now. What's important is building consensus. Honestly, given that you were at 2R and are now at 3R, it's probably best for you to avoid editing the article entirely until the dispute is resolved. There are clearly a number of people looking at the page and discussing it in the talk page. There is no reason for you to be the one to make the edits personally, and if you refrain it will leave you above reproach. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 16:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- @0x0077BE: I disagree with your focus on process to the exclusion of the current content of pages. I also think there's a clear difference between restoring a compromise version - an edit that clearly had support from other users - and restoring the version I previously preferred. Nevertheless, thank you for your attention and hard work on this matter. -- SCZenz (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that, but I really don't think it will help. If this edit warring continues from both sides, the page will almost certainly be locked for a week or more. I honestly doubt that it will take that long to achieve a consensus, and when they lock pages, they don't pick whoever's version was best and revert it there first, they just lock it in whatever state it's in. 3RR is brightline, but has some fuzziness to it. If you continue to make edits to the page before achieving consensus, despite my ongoing warnings, an administrator would likely have cause to temporarily block both you and Holybeef. My focus on the process is for good reason - I want to depersonalize the discussion and my philosophy is something like "slow is smooth and smooth is fast". When no one's edit warring, we can resolve the content dispute without all this meta discussion about who was wrong and who was right in their behavior. I've been in exactly your position before and I saw that it got me nowhere, which is why I've been such a strong advocate of doing this right. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 17:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia may have changed into fields of happy bunnies since I did lots of physics editing, but back then if multiple people restored a supported version against one person repeatedly reverting to a heavily-slanted version of the page, the admins took note of things like: what the talk page discussion had been, whether the statements made by different people were substantive or spurious, and so on. I think you are mistaken about the likely administrative view of this "edit war," and I think it is because you perhaps haven't considered the existing discussion carefully enough to realize just how slanted Holybeef's version is, and just how many times he or she has thrown spurious charges at editors trying to help until they shut up. Still, I think your slow and careful strategy will work eventually, and I don't want to make your life harder. Please do feel free to report me in any administrative context if you think my edits are inappropriate, but otherwise I ask you to think about whether you're adding anything useful by continuing to tell me that you don't like my strategy. Editing the page is allowed while content discussions are ongoing, and I do understand you prefer that it not happen; I won't push it, but I also won't promise to not touch the page until you're happy with the discussion. I do hope you will make contributions to the content discussion even despite our disagreement on the page-editing strategy. -- SCZenz (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Not editing the page during content disputes is obviously allowed, but the fact of the matter is that you're perilously close to violations of 3RR, and being right is no excuse. If you actually read WP:3RR you'll see that being right (or reverting to the consensus version) is not one of the acceptable exemptions. You'll also see that you don't need to hit 3 reversions to be in violation of the edit warring policy. I understand that you feel that the quality of the article is low with this in it. I don't understand your need to be the person who does the reversions. There's a clear proscription against it, and if you're really just implementing a consensus, there should be other editors around who have consented to the new version. Let them implement it. Keep in mind that everyone thinks they are right, but one experiment to tell if you are actually enacting a consensus is to suggest that it's time to implement it and let someone else do it. If that doesn't happen, it might mean your assessment is biased. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 17:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, any admin who thinks I'm editing aggressively or inappropriately can already block me. If you think that's the appropriate action at this time, please go ahead and bring my edits to the attention of an uninvolved administrator in an appropriate place. Believe it or not, I am quite familiar with the policies we're talking about, and I ask you to reflect on whether it's a bit patronizing of you to assume otherwise. You've made your points, repeatedly now, I just don't agree with you. Maybe I won't be "above reproach" or a "neutral arbiter," but maybe I don't aspire to be those things. -- SCZenz (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Not editing the page during content disputes is obviously allowed, but the fact of the matter is that you're perilously close to violations of 3RR, and being right is no excuse. If you actually read WP:3RR you'll see that being right (or reverting to the consensus version) is not one of the acceptable exemptions. You'll also see that you don't need to hit 3 reversions to be in violation of the edit warring policy. I understand that you feel that the quality of the article is low with this in it. I don't understand your need to be the person who does the reversions. There's a clear proscription against it, and if you're really just implementing a consensus, there should be other editors around who have consented to the new version. Let them implement it. Keep in mind that everyone thinks they are right, but one experiment to tell if you are actually enacting a consensus is to suggest that it's time to implement it and let someone else do it. If that doesn't happen, it might mean your assessment is biased. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 17:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia may have changed into fields of happy bunnies since I did lots of physics editing, but back then if multiple people restored a supported version against one person repeatedly reverting to a heavily-slanted version of the page, the admins took note of things like: what the talk page discussion had been, whether the statements made by different people were substantive or spurious, and so on. I think you are mistaken about the likely administrative view of this "edit war," and I think it is because you perhaps haven't considered the existing discussion carefully enough to realize just how slanted Holybeef's version is, and just how many times he or she has thrown spurious charges at editors trying to help until they shut up. Still, I think your slow and careful strategy will work eventually, and I don't want to make your life harder. Please do feel free to report me in any administrative context if you think my edits are inappropriate, but otherwise I ask you to think about whether you're adding anything useful by continuing to tell me that you don't like my strategy. Editing the page is allowed while content discussions are ongoing, and I do understand you prefer that it not happen; I won't push it, but I also won't promise to not touch the page until you're happy with the discussion. I do hope you will make contributions to the content discussion even despite our disagreement on the page-editing strategy. -- SCZenz (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that, but I really don't think it will help. If this edit warring continues from both sides, the page will almost certainly be locked for a week or more. I honestly doubt that it will take that long to achieve a consensus, and when they lock pages, they don't pick whoever's version was best and revert it there first, they just lock it in whatever state it's in. 3RR is brightline, but has some fuzziness to it. If you continue to make edits to the page before achieving consensus, despite my ongoing warnings, an administrator would likely have cause to temporarily block both you and Holybeef. My focus on the process is for good reason - I want to depersonalize the discussion and my philosophy is something like "slow is smooth and smooth is fast". When no one's edit warring, we can resolve the content dispute without all this meta discussion about who was wrong and who was right in their behavior. I've been in exactly your position before and I saw that it got me nowhere, which is why I've been such a strong advocate of doing this right. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 17:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
[edit]
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
[edit]
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Inactivity
[edit]Hi SCZenz, due to your recent inactivity, I have now removed your sysop userright. Thank you for all your hard work WormTT(talk) 07:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Kay Tipton
[edit]Regarding Draft:Kay_Tipton, I have been trying to gain approval for inclusion, but meeting pushback ("heroic teachers aren't notable"). I have described national-level awards with citations. Biographical data, actionable suggestions, or weighing in on notability would help. The ongoing notability debate is happening at User_talk:Kostas20142#13:51:27.2C_9_October_2017_review_of_submission_by_Pacingpoet. Thank you in advance, Pacingpoet (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Prison University Project logo.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Prison University Project logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
