User talk:TParis/Archive 15
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:TParis. 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. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
BLPs in gneneral
Hi TP, the most recent run in I had with Hullaballo Wolfowitz at ANI along with a comment made by Floquenbeam on Drmies Talk page[1] has me wondering if a belief I have about BLP articles is misplaced. I understand that BLP policy protects not only the subject, but Wikipedia as well. I also understand that "verifiability trumps the truth". But all in all, BLP articles are about "people", not inanimate objects or subjective ideas, but fallible, emotional, human beings and as such, we as Editors owe it to them to represent them accurately and fairly in the aspects of their lives that we can locate sources to cite. Furthermore, its not our job as Editors to pass judgement on the subjects of BLP articles, we just report reliable, credible, verifiable facts and when necessary widely held opinions as long as we state that they are opinions and who they belong to. Am I off base or not getting something? Thanks, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 08:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm going to butt in here. For living people, just because something is verifiable does not mean it must be included. We use editorial judgement in looking at all of the RS befoe using something in an article. BLP subjects must be given a fair shake per the source coverage including a NPOV tone. Furthermore any contentious material, good or bad must have multiple RS backing it up. In theory, that's how it's supposed to work. But look at the George H.W. Bish article that has a whole section related to him getting sick at a dinner. Where is the editorial judgment? What about WEIGHT? My teacher would have had me cleaning blackboards all semester for putting in such tripe in a report. Tom is right. The fucking advocates are winning.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 09:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, let me go one step further, what about non-controversial information like a person being a parent or married, where in some circumstances multiple, but less than stellar sources cite the claim. Not everyone is important enough to merit coverage in the New York Times or the UK Guardian of their personal life, but that shouldn't automatically disqualify the info and the source. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're both right. Regarding children and marriage, even though it's not negative it might still be personal and private. We don't really know how much of people's lives they want exposed and there is really no added advantage to the encyclopedia to include private information such as someone's family unless that family is important to their notability or if the family members themselves are notable. So, sometimes it might be better to just leave it off. It could be that they aren't important enough to merit coverage, but it could also be that the person has tried to keep it private to avoid putting their children in the spotlight.--v/r - TP 17:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Right, I get that. Talking about the various Kardashians is one thing. I'm talking about simply stating that someone "is" a parent or "is" married, but not necessarily going into full details with kids names and such. And I agree, if its relevant to their notability, then it might be OK to mention their spouse's name or similar.
- But more to an earlier point about representing BLP subjects "accurately and fairly in the aspects of their lives that we can locate sources to cite", I think its perfectly fine and within policy to include human interest content. For example (not a perfect one since he's dead), William Shockley's article, the inventor of the silicon transistor, is mostly about his technological work and achievements, but it also has a Personal life section that contains innocuous as well as controversial information about the man. I think its entirely appropriate to mention that he was married along with other aspects of his life and in my opinion it simply provides a more complete representation of the individual. It's what I refer to as "humanizing" the subject. Conversely, I am against removing this kind of information, or in other words "de-humanizing a BLP subject". That's where the "passing judgement" aspect can come into play.
- Now TKP, to your point about "just because something is verifiable does not mean it must be included" and using Shockley again as an example, I made a case for deletion of this paragraph in a version of his "Early life" section:
- "During Shockley's childhood in California, psychologist Lewis Terman was beginning a longitudinal study of high-IQ children, using his newly developed Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales to identify study participants, who were schoolchildren when the study began. The Terman longitudinal study in California eventually provided historical evidence on how genius is related to IQ scores. Many California pupils were recommended for the study by schoolteachers. Two pupils who were tested but rejected for inclusion in the study because of IQ scores too low for the study grew up to be Nobel Prize winners in physics, Luis Walter Alvarez and Shockley."
- I contested that the paragraph was "light on content about the subject" until his mention in the last sentence and that it was WP:UNDUE because it started the article with a claim that Shockley was not considered intelligent by the person who literally came up with the test. Shockley clearly wasn't a dummy, but I offer this as evidence of what I consider worthy of inclusion or not in a BLP. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is that you're asking for a specific statement about a general case. I can't be specific on when to include or not include any sort of information. If this is related to the LB/Mike case then it'd help if I knew both of your politics for context. IIRC, LB is anti-gun, TKOP is conservative and I assume pro-gun?, and I have no idea what your politics are. I cannot give you advice on what I'd do in your shoes without knowing what your shoes are. From my political biases, the question appears to be whether to include stances on certain politics within articles of political personalities? In that case, I would say that if an issue is core to a person's career then yes. Santorum's anti-LGBT views and anti-Abortion views should be prominent in his article. But should President Obama's views on either topic be considered? I don't think I've ever heard Obama talk on either subject. I suppose he has mentioned reproductive rights in relation to the ACA. But his politics deal more with economics, helping the lower class, and his foreign policy. And those are where an article about him should be focused. We have to avoid making a topic that is substantial to a Wikipedia editor's life appear substantial to the article subject's life.--v/r - TP 23:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- 10 years ago I might have considered myself mildly conservative, but the Republicans have doubled down on dumb so often, I can't go into that tent anymore. Of course the Democrats aren't exactly a basket full of kittens either. It takes a special kind of dick-sauce to be right on most of the issues and still come off as a flaming asshole. Never owned a firearm, and short of being in the country or bad area see no need, though I don't begrudge those who need or just like them. I mean, anything that goes bang is just plain fun. Hopefully the mental health initiatives will reduce the Newtons of the world.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 01:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is that you're asking for a specific statement about a general case. I can't be specific on when to include or not include any sort of information. If this is related to the LB/Mike case then it'd help if I knew both of your politics for context. IIRC, LB is anti-gun, TKOP is conservative and I assume pro-gun?, and I have no idea what your politics are. I cannot give you advice on what I'd do in your shoes without knowing what your shoes are. From my political biases, the question appears to be whether to include stances on certain politics within articles of political personalities? In that case, I would say that if an issue is core to a person's career then yes. Santorum's anti-LGBT views and anti-Abortion views should be prominent in his article. But should President Obama's views on either topic be considered? I don't think I've ever heard Obama talk on either subject. I suppose he has mentioned reproductive rights in relation to the ACA. But his politics deal more with economics, helping the lower class, and his foreign policy. And those are where an article about him should be focused. We have to avoid making a topic that is substantial to a Wikipedia editor's life appear substantial to the article subject's life.--v/r - TP 23:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- I contested that the paragraph was "light on content about the subject" until his mention in the last sentence and that it was WP:UNDUE because it started the article with a claim that Shockley was not considered intelligent by the person who literally came up with the test. Shockley clearly wasn't a dummy, but I offer this as evidence of what I consider worthy of inclusion or not in a BLP. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm still pretty much harping on the criticism and berating I've been getting from Hullabaloo Wolfowitz and impression that I'm doing something wrong from Floquenbeam regarding the ANI with HW. It seemed like a pointless transaction, but for Floquenbeam to say "after a brief read-thru" that he wanted to "unilaterally topic ban Scalhotrod from all BLPs for not giving a flying fuck about BLP" leaves me scratching my head.
- Speaking of politics, I've edited politician articles as well. I noticed the Steve Scalise thing recently and decided to involve myself in the debate about how to represent the story about his 2002 speaking engagement before a group connected to David Duke. The reality of it is that Scalise likely did not know what the nature of the group was. I can't imagine even the most hardline of politicians knowingly committing "career suicide" by having such a blatant connection to such a seemingly racist organization. That said, the version I edited and simplified is what stuck and gained consensus except for the usual nitpicking over word choice and vocabulary, Steve_Scalise#European-American_Unity_and_Rights_Organization_speech. Does it belong in the article, hard to say, but the Editors who believe that Google results dictate which content is important or not would likely fight to keep it.
- I guess I'm looking for validation that my views towards BLP articles aren't going to result in serious and/or long term damage to the project, my occasional sloppy WIkilinks notwithstanding. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I know you well enough to give you that assurance. I wouldn't take that harshly, I don't know anyone well enough. As many times as I've run into TKOP, you'd think I would remember something about his politics. But, I'd be happy to be a sounding board about specific issues. I can give you my best advice based on my understanding of policy with an honest attempt to keep my politics out of it on anything you've got.--v/r - TP 01:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough and thank you for the offer. Maybe I'm overthinking Flo's comments, but I took your consideration of RfA seriously and its something that I hope to be granted some day. But I think for now I'm still considered one of the main attractions at the side show. In the mean time, it gives me more time to build and de-vandalise the site... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- I guess I'm looking for validation that my views towards BLP articles aren't going to result in serious and/or long term damage to the project, my occasional sloppy WIkilinks notwithstanding. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
2014 Year In Review Awards
|
The Epic Barnstar | |
| For your 2014 contributions to multiple history related articles you are hereby award this Epic Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |
Civility stuff
I agree with you that it would be better if Wikipedia had an actual civility policy instead of a civility meme we vaguely wave our hand at. User:NE_Ent/Notes_on_civility (bottom) lists the various community civility consensus failures. Unfortunately, that battle can not be won by individual administrators blocking inconsistently, nor by pile-ons on particular kerfuffles. With regards to Cassianto, taking breaks is not only not against policy, it's often a good idea, one I've done myself from time to time (I just usually don't do melodramatic retired et. al. messages -- my breaks are due to needing more real life time and less wiki time). All we can do is model appropriate behavior ourselves, and push firmly but gently against the incivility of others. NE Ent 02:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) The lack of civility in talk space is (unfortunately) pretty well established, but the lack of civility in actual article space is rapidly becoming the issue. The GG issues weren't just talk space, for instance. Or, I've now wasted months of my editing with the Landmark Worldwide articles where the talk pages were always vitriolic, but now it's fully in the actual articles. It's just not why I'm here, or what this project was for. Count this stalker comment as a !vote in favor of admins pushing firmly against the incivility of others. --Tgeairn (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) It's time for incivility in talk namespaces to end. I don't get why we have policies against personal attacks and incivility, but then people are treated like idiots when they point out a violation of the policies. Also, enough of the FA/GA/"valuable" contributor immunity to blocks when they are not civil. I won't mention names, but I can think of three cases of this type of immunity from blocks. Should the civility that a user practices (or does not practice) only be assessed at RfAs? I think not. Start the movement! --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Best thing we can do is be the movement. That's why I recommend reporting incivility to ANI, if and only if you try to peacefully resolve the problem with the user first and nothing happens. I realize that NE Ent and others might not support that, but I think the habit of blaming the reporter of the incivility needs to end. For too long we've seen admins and editors who side with them create a chilling effect when it comes to civility reporting, often trying to create a boomerang on the reporter when there isn't one. I also strongly disagree with NE Ent's main point that civility is difficult to define because it means different things to different people. When you analyze that argument closely, it falls apart. Schools and workplaces have no problem defining civility and neither should we. Viriditas (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- It appears I have just spent the entire day griping about stuff that other users have found me to be disruptive. So, for the rest of the night, I am going to go play Destiny.--v/r - TP 04:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- I certainly did not say, and am not saying, you're disruptive. Hope Destiny was fun. NE Ent 10:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not taking it offensively, my blood was boiling yesterday. Mix that with my talk page blowing up and I know I am attracting attention which isn't a good thing. Anywho, I got Gjallarhorn from a legendary engram so I'm happy with my decision to go play.--v/r - TP 17:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
cmt
If there's something you feel is wrong that can be put right by administrative actions, then I will respect and honor that. Otherwise the "he said - she said" crap needs to stop. I hope you know from past interactions that I have a ton of respect for you, but the current situation needs to stop now. Your page, you have the last word. — Ched : ? 23:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- What needs to happen is a conversation about what we expect from one another on this project and I get increasingly frustrated when that conversation gets shutdown. Until that conversation happens, though, admin actions will only be more disruptive.--v/r - TP 23:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- The thing is that this type of situation has become so inflamed that good editors are becoming frustrated. That leads to people saying things in ways that aren't acceptable here. We're supposed to be a project providing knowledge, not a social commentary site. As admins, we should be trying to put fires out - not throwing fuel on them. Posting "look what he/she said" on another admins page doesn't further the goal. If another admin. is working on something, and you think there's something they missed - then drop them an email. I know that bickering is part of the wiki-culture, but this is/has gotten way out of hand. Sorry - it is your talk page, say your piece and I'll not bother you further. — Ched : ? 00:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're welcome to keep commenting if you choose to. I don't mind continuing a conversation with people I disagree with who are willing to discuss the meta issues. The facts as I see them are that I do not see that anyone had actually done the homework on the number of times Cassianto had 'retired'. So - I raised a new fact of the case to demonstrate that this wasn't the end but actually a pattern of behavior. I believe my comment was relevant and accurate. Now, if you feel I should have done it in private - that would be a personal preference of yours that I might be willing to go along with if you felt it was less disruptive. But clearly, at least I have demonstrated that all of the facts were not discussed but rather that discussion stopped when Cassianto mentioned retirement. We have a culture that respects people's honest efforts to disengage but because of that culture we've created an opportunity for folks who do not honestly wish to retire but wish to take advantage of that opportunity. That is what is happening here. Unfortunately, any attempt to discuss actual indisputable facts, like the number of times Cassianto has retired under a cloud, is run over by those who have nothing but anecdotes and their shock that their friend could be in trouble. Not everyone fits into that category, but the category is sufficiently noisy that it drowns out the rest of the conversation. There is generally a likewise noisy crowd of enemies as well. Either crowd - the conversation doesn't get to happen because it is consistently derailed.--v/r - TP 00:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't understand why "the number of times someone has "retired" is an issue. What the HELL has that got to do with anything? Lord knows I've felt like posting that template on my page on a daily basis at times. So WHAT if he/she posted some template to his/her own page and went about editing articles - more power to them. — Ched : ? 00:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's got everything to do with this issue. "Retirement" is being abused to avoid scrutiny, and if you can't recognize that, then I suggest you need to think about it a bit more. TParis is correct on this issue. What is troubling is that other editors and admins still refuse to recognize the problem. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- If they are not posting while not logged in, or under a different name (sock), then how is it avoiding scrutiny? A users contribs are clearly definable, and if they add their sig to something it's not avoiding anything. And FYI - I HAVE thought about it. — Ched : ? 01:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ched, either you have misunderstood what has been said or you are addressing another topic altogether; I'm sorry, but I cannot parse your comment. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ched - in my earlier comment I said that we've developed a culture of ceasing our investigations into concerns at AN and ANI when a user retires. Some users have taken advantage of our cultural norm and they'll retire just so that scrutiny stops but then return as soon as possible.--v/r - TP 04:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- So people are not allowed to change their mind on waking away? I would have thought that it was a good thing that people walked away for a break, and returned in a better frame of mind. There is no "avoiding scrutiny" - the editor in question has not ever returned under a different name, or when not logged in (afaik), so there is ample opportunity for scrutiny for each edit they have made. To claim the editor if trying to avoid scrutiny is, I'm afraid, utter tosh: a number of the diffs you posted were wikibreaks, not retirements and they were not under clouds, they were for RL reasons. I'm not seeing much in the way of GF here, or of getting some basic facts right before posting into an inflammatory atmosphere. Certainly one or two disruptive elements sadly picked up on your post there and here, which is dragging this whole sorry saga out even further! – SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- You are intentionally ignoring my argument because it conflicts with yours. You chose to believe that the system cannot, has not, and will not be abused - and even if it is that your favorite wouldn't possibly ever do that. Clearly, you have a bias because the basis of your argument is that your favorite person is a good person and you cannot believe in the possibility of them being anything other than that. When we show a pattern of behavior, there is no need for good faith. Good faith exists when it happens once, twice, or three times. You're trying to excuse seven "retirements" as good faith. Seven retirements under a cloud where he came back weeks or a few months later. When you are ready to discuss the possibility that you are wrong, you may come back to discuss this with me. If you notice my comments above, I'm only willing to change my opinion if you are willing to change yours. Ched, Viriditas, NE Ent, and others have come here to be open minded and actually discuss this. You've come here to be right. I'm not interested in that and I won't apologize for providing new facts for others to discuss.--v/r - TP 17:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for not taking on board what I have said. There are no 'seven "retirements"': as I have said above, you also selected Wikibreaks for holidays and being busy at work. For the majority of each of those breaks there was no cloud to be under, and you are smearing without the basis of correct facts. It's a shame you didn't take that on board, or that you think that I've "come here to be right": I find the lack of good faith saddening. I'm always happy to discuss things woith people, but - and you may or not find this ironic - only with people who are open to listening and taking things on board. You have decided not to take on board something where you have made an error, and that's fine, but a bit of a shame. If you look into those diffs again and decide you maybe judged some of them too rashly, I'll be happy to talk further, otherwise I'll just move on. - SchroCat (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- You are intentionally ignoring my argument because it conflicts with yours. You chose to believe that the system cannot, has not, and will not be abused - and even if it is that your favorite wouldn't possibly ever do that. Clearly, you have a bias because the basis of your argument is that your favorite person is a good person and you cannot believe in the possibility of them being anything other than that. When we show a pattern of behavior, there is no need for good faith. Good faith exists when it happens once, twice, or three times. You're trying to excuse seven "retirements" as good faith. Seven retirements under a cloud where he came back weeks or a few months later. When you are ready to discuss the possibility that you are wrong, you may come back to discuss this with me. If you notice my comments above, I'm only willing to change my opinion if you are willing to change yours. Ched, Viriditas, NE Ent, and others have come here to be open minded and actually discuss this. You've come here to be right. I'm not interested in that and I won't apologize for providing new facts for others to discuss.--v/r - TP 17:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- So people are not allowed to change their mind on waking away? I would have thought that it was a good thing that people walked away for a break, and returned in a better frame of mind. There is no "avoiding scrutiny" - the editor in question has not ever returned under a different name, or when not logged in (afaik), so there is ample opportunity for scrutiny for each edit they have made. To claim the editor if trying to avoid scrutiny is, I'm afraid, utter tosh: a number of the diffs you posted were wikibreaks, not retirements and they were not under clouds, they were for RL reasons. I'm not seeing much in the way of GF here, or of getting some basic facts right before posting into an inflammatory atmosphere. Certainly one or two disruptive elements sadly picked up on your post there and here, which is dragging this whole sorry saga out even further! – SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ched - in my earlier comment I said that we've developed a culture of ceasing our investigations into concerns at AN and ANI when a user retires. Some users have taken advantage of our cultural norm and they'll retire just so that scrutiny stops but then return as soon as possible.--v/r - TP 04:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ched, either you have misunderstood what has been said or you are addressing another topic altogether; I'm sorry, but I cannot parse your comment. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- If they are not posting while not logged in, or under a different name (sock), then how is it avoiding scrutiny? A users contribs are clearly definable, and if they add their sig to something it's not avoiding anything. And FYI - I HAVE thought about it. — Ched : ? 01:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's got everything to do with this issue. "Retirement" is being abused to avoid scrutiny, and if you can't recognize that, then I suggest you need to think about it a bit more. TParis is correct on this issue. What is troubling is that other editors and admins still refuse to recognize the problem. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't understand why "the number of times someone has "retired" is an issue. What the HELL has that got to do with anything? Lord knows I've felt like posting that template on my page on a daily basis at times. So WHAT if he/she posted some template to his/her own page and went about editing articles - more power to them. — Ched : ? 00:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're welcome to keep commenting if you choose to. I don't mind continuing a conversation with people I disagree with who are willing to discuss the meta issues. The facts as I see them are that I do not see that anyone had actually done the homework on the number of times Cassianto had 'retired'. So - I raised a new fact of the case to demonstrate that this wasn't the end but actually a pattern of behavior. I believe my comment was relevant and accurate. Now, if you feel I should have done it in private - that would be a personal preference of yours that I might be willing to go along with if you felt it was less disruptive. But clearly, at least I have demonstrated that all of the facts were not discussed but rather that discussion stopped when Cassianto mentioned retirement. We have a culture that respects people's honest efforts to disengage but because of that culture we've created an opportunity for folks who do not honestly wish to retire but wish to take advantage of that opportunity. That is what is happening here. Unfortunately, any attempt to discuss actual indisputable facts, like the number of times Cassianto has retired under a cloud, is run over by those who have nothing but anecdotes and their shock that their friend could be in trouble. Not everyone fits into that category, but the category is sufficiently noisy that it drowns out the rest of the conversation. There is generally a likewise noisy crowd of enemies as well. Either crowd - the conversation doesn't get to happen because it is consistently derailed.--v/r - TP 00:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- The thing is that this type of situation has become so inflamed that good editors are becoming frustrated. That leads to people saying things in ways that aren't acceptable here. We're supposed to be a project providing knowledge, not a social commentary site. As admins, we should be trying to put fires out - not throwing fuel on them. Posting "look what he/she said" on another admins page doesn't further the goal. If another admin. is working on something, and you think there's something they missed - then drop them an email. I know that bickering is part of the wiki-culture, but this is/has gotten way out of hand. Sorry - it is your talk page, say your piece and I'll not bother you further. — Ched : ? 00:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Book recommendation
Have you read The Martian? It's uphill for the first 50 or so pages, but after that, it's downhill all the way. It's a really fast read. I think you would really like it. Viriditas (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't. And I'm right between books right now. I'll pick it up and check it out.--v/r - TP 19:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Calm down, please
These aren't the comments of the person that I thought would be great on ArbCom. Bugs is just making a joke; he does that, in case this is the first time you've "met" him. Some of them fall flat. He doesn't mean anything more by it. But more importantly, by taking a section that had nothing in it implying editors taking political sides before your first post, just a heads-up that a normally quiet article might become active, and injecting accusations out of nowhere, you're not helping. This is so unlike you. You used to be the guy that would come around with the fire extinguisher, not the gasoline. Please. I know you're burnt out fighting fires; fine. Let others fight them. Don't start them yourself, OK? --GRuban (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- May I have your permission to strike or just remove your comments entirely? --GRuban (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- My tact is waning as retirement draws near. Besides that, I just read Greek_government-debt_crisis#Alleged_pursuit_of_national_self-interest the other day which comes off as a European college student essay about the evils of capitalism adapted to fit on Wikipedia. My comments are freely licensed, anyone is allowed to remove them. I'm not one to fight someone with a cooler head than mine.--v/r - TP 20:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) (talk page stalker) Gasoline? All I see is Bugs making an inappropriate joke and TP responding. Not exactly extinguishing, but definitely not fueling a fire. I don't see a reason for bringing this here to TP. Best solution for this is this: Don't make insulting jokes, and don't talk about politics of WP if it's not improving the encyclopedia. There, problem solved. Regards, --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Someone else closed the section, so it's all right. While you have the mop, though, you might want to semi-protect Molly White (Texas politician), as it has just been repeatedly hit by a persistent IP. Or you can block the IP, he's earned a large number of warnings by someone with faster fingers than I have. --GRuban (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- @AmaryllisGardener - I don't really mind it if someone wants to say they disagree with something I am doing. Thanks for the cover, though.--v/r - TP 20:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Someone else closed the section, so it's all right. While you have the mop, though, you might want to semi-protect Molly White (Texas politician), as it has just been repeatedly hit by a persistent IP. Or you can block the IP, he's earned a large number of warnings by someone with faster fingers than I have. --GRuban (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, was that really necessary? I knew someone would be around sooner or later to mess with it, and by turning it into an us-vs-them thread, you might have reduced the eyes on the article to keep it under control. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm jaded, you've been there.--v/r - TP 20:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I realize this might not be the popular thing to say, but I like this TParis better than the old one. You know where he stands on things. Viriditas (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Heh, I try to be flexible in my stances - though.--v/r - TP 20:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Your comment here
- What I'm more concerned about is that you appear to have just recused yourself from any admin action, ever, involving politics. I have a great amount of respect for you, but was that wise? Black Kite (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see that. If anything, it makes him more human, rather than someone pretending to be neutral and never sharing an opinion. While I disagree with his point, it is still a valid point, and I don't see how it could impact his admin duties. Today is a special day because TParis has stood up for the civility policy while many admins continue to remain silent or refuse to enforce it. TParis has let the community know where he stands on this, and that makes him a better admin and someone I can more fully trust, even though I disagree with his opinion on some topics. Which brings us back to point of derailment, yet again. Why, Black Kite, did you bring up something he said about politics in a thread about civility? Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant to put it in as separate section. But to answer your question, because I worry it could be brought back to haunt him by other editors. I totally agree on the civility issue, but by posting things like that, if in future TP blocks someone on the "left"/"liberal"/whatever side of a dispute, they're not going to have the authority that they would have had otherwise. If someone of ArbCom had posted that diff, they'd have had to recuse from every politics-based case that came up. It's not a criticism, I just think it's unwise. Black Kite (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- I accept your POV
but it's still derailing from this thread.. In any case, I think TParis' comments were pretty tame, as they were more rhetorical than anything else. I much prefer my admins to speak their mind than to hold their tongue. Like I said, even though I disagree with him, I feel I can trust him more because he's not afraid to let people know how he feels on a topic. And frankly, while I disagree with his opinion, he is certainly representing a significant POV that feels Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Now, as you may know, I have spent the last decade fighting against this POV, and I believe it is entirely wrong. But, that doesn't mean people can't hold wrong opinions, and if we are going to live in free societies, we must be able to share our ideas without filtering and self-censorship. This is why I support TParis's right to speak freely. I've seen him block liberal and conservative editors in equal measure, so my faith in his neutrality as an admin remains as strong as ever. And that's an opinion coming from someone who does not identify as a conservative. I like my admins to be human, not unfeeling robots who pretend to be neutral. Good admins recognize their bias and act neutrally in spite of it. That's the real measure of excellence. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you. However, I'm sure you'll realise that as soon as you "reveal" your worldview here, it can be used against you. And that can be especially problematic for an admin. Anyway, this probably isn't helping build the encyclopedia, so I'll leave it there. Goodnight. Black Kite (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Black Kite - I'm in the middle of drafting a retirement speech which will address your concern specifically. In my speech, I am not waving vague accusations of neutrality violations, I'm going to back it up and show an inconsistency with BLP articles and negative information during election years. However, in regards to your question, I believe it's quite clear that I'm on the out. I've barely used the tools in about a year and less so in the last 2 months. My last block, however, was actually of a right-wing anti-abortion conservative. I'm not a conservative, or at least I don't self define as one. I believe I appear conservative because I am to the right of the general Wikipedia populace. However, isidewith.com has me center-left. I personally identify as a libertarian and I've blocked other libertarians (MilesMoney was the most notable, I believe). I disagree strongly with conservatives on social issues like LGBT-rights, abortion, ect. Either way, we won't see another Congressional election nor a general election for almost two years. By then, I'll be a memory and folks will be saying "hey, remember that one guy". That said, understand that my politics are not what they appear to be. I generally speak up when I see injustice and unfairness. I'm speaking up now because, having patrolled political articles since the 2012 election, I've personally witnessed from the outside the kind of double standards regarding UNDUE and IRS. I've already detailed them on this page to our mutual friend Gamaliel and his response wasn't what I hoped for but it was, nontheless, respectable. He said that he could find similar anecdotes proving the opposite. I believe that Wikipedia has widespread biases in all sorts of directions on all sorts of topics. Conservative bias on religion, western bias on the Cold War and Pearl Harbor, white-male bias on most articles, ect. With regard to politics, outside of economics, I see a widespread liberal bias. On economics articles there is generally a socialist-libertarian battle that has deadlocked. Either way, my main concern is BLPs and the misuse of UNDUE and IRS to both whitewash liberal politicians while simultaneously trashing conservatives. And Baseball Bugs' open hostility toward conservatives should prove the point. Concern that he could be condemned for openly hostile remarks against conservatives doesn't even enter his mind because it is accepted behavior here.--v/r - TP 04:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)First, I'm here to change your opinion. I understand that you refuse to change your opinion unless my own opinion is available for change as well. It is. I would rather that you take an undeclared break (no "I'm retiring if..." drama) than make any move that has you affirmatively "leaving". WP needs editors and admins that are "right" of the majority. It's not about fighting every fight (I know), but it is about trimming the rudder. Without relatively level heads like yours, things are only going left-er. We don't need that. I (and you, and many others) have spent man-years editing this thing. Ultimately, it will go the way of myspace. Before then, it would be fulfilling (for selfish me) if it at least stayed somewhere near the middle. I hope you change your opinion, and I hope you write a retirement speech and give it to someone else. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'll read this later because I'm on my way downstairs to play video games. But just one note: my retirement has been planned for quite some months and I've been writing my going-away speech for a few weeks. I'm certainly not starting any "I'm retiring if..." kind of stuff.--v/r - TP 04:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, and enjoy! --Tgeairn (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- I accept your POV
TParis, would you consider the possibility that you misread Baseball Bugs comments? I don't think he was displaying "open hostility to conservatives" at all. He was making a stereotypical joke about Texas.[2] Now, because you are from Texas (I think), you might not find that funny. But, let's assume Bugs is from NYC (I think). Then, you can begin to see why he thinks this is funny. So, this has more to do with stereotypes, comedy, and regional rivalry than it does with politics. Now, let's be perfectly clear. In any academic discussion about racism in the United States, Texas comes somewhere near the top of the list. That's what Baseball Bugs was pointing to, not politics. Now, if you're from Texas, you might find that insulting. And as you know, because of direct flights, we have a lot of Texans in Hawaii, and they're a mighty fine and upstanding people. So, it's perfectly understandable that his comment would upset you. But this isn't about politics. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is always the possibility that I am wrong. And the possibility is always quite large no matter the subject. I've seen Baseball Bugs making bigoted comments himself about trans people so who knows.--v/r - TP 18:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- To make my point another way, if I was from Texas, I would probably have had a similar reaction. The implication of the joke is that everyone from Texas is racist. But, you and I know that isn't true. Still, it is a trope found in the comedic lexicon. Doesn't mean it's right. It's like joking that everyone from San Francisco is gay or liberal. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
RfC: AfC Helper Script access
An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Greetings
Hello TParis, I just wanted to say thanks for the service you did as administrator. And if the day comes that you have a change of heart and come back, that would be great. Enjoy your time there. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
One last goodbye
I've said this several times, but I wanted to say goodbye to a great admin. Like I've said before, if you ever have to urge to edit Wikidata (or the Scots Wikipedia if you don't mind learning a new language), you'll be welcomed by me. I wish you the best. You will not be forgotten. Sincerely, --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sometimes we agreed, sometimes we didn't, but regardless you're someone I've respected. Best wishes for the future. --Rschen7754 02:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I know how you feel
So does Dennis. I hadn't noticed you had been doing less lately, to me it always appeared that you were up there in front driving things forward. You'll be missed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Considered running this in the Signpost ...
But if there's one thing I didn't want, it was a drama-fest that detracts from your legacy as a terrific administrator:
- TParis retires: Traditionally, the Signpost does not recognize retirements of individual editors for a host of reasons, most of them obvious, and we do not intend to break that tradition often. However, this week, one retirement bears special mention, and that would be that of TParis, an administrator respected by most Wikipedians even when they fundamentally disagreed. In his departing remarks, TP wrote, "I don't know that I've achieved much of anything lasting here. Many of my contributions could be described as a MMORPG style participation ... Perhaps my biggest achievement as an admin is in finding other potential candidates to encourage to run." He went on to list his work getting Ford Island up to FA status and to be TFA on December 7, the anniversary of Pearl Harbor as a favorite accomplishment. Perhaps Dennis Brown summarized TP best when he said, "The readers will probably never know who TParis is, but they will always have a better reading experience due to his efforts here." We here at the Signpost thank TP for his years of service as an administrator and respected editor to Wikipedia.
TP, you will be missed. Thanks for all you have done both on Wikipedia, and in real life for America. Go Phightins! 03:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you...
Thank you for all your good work....but family should always take priority. Best wishes!--MONGO 05:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
We're going to miss you terribly
I know the section title sounds presumptuous, but I know it to be true. I doubt that any of the regular editors won't be empathising with you. Speaking for myself, I'm deeply disheartened by your decision to retire. Perhaps a wikibreak is all you really need, but I'm not you, [EDIT] nor can I honestly say that the project has become anything more than exercise in cynicism: welcoming new POV contributors while penalising experienced Wikipedians for having the audacity to interpret guidelines and policies using genuine common sense. Promoting user retention as the imperative has come at a great cost to quality over quantity. (Removing my petty whinging which has no place here. If the project has impacted on your life to the point of neglecting and/or alienating your nearest and dearest, it's time to reflect on your priorities.)
While I wish you'd reconsider, I sincerely hope that you'll come to terms with your decision and not return for the wrong reasons. If you really feel that you must distance yourself, then that is what you must do.
Wishing you well in your personal endeavours. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to you go
It's quite obvious you have a very clear grasp of issues and the loss makes it cloudier for the rest of us. Fair winds and following seas. --DHeyward (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Assuming you don't mind replies
- You've been pretty clear that this was coming, so I'm not surprised, just saddened. You're far too kind, and you've misunderstood something; I have no "poor feelings" about you. Sometimes I disagree with some of your comments, but 100% agreement is not required. I've always admired (and said so!) the careful and honest approach you take, even when we do disagree. If I've ever implied otherwise, I'm sorry. Vaya con Dios, enjoy the real world, and if you ever change your mind come back and visit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's very sad to see another pillar of this community disappear. You will certainly be missed. Thank you once again for your nomination at RfA – the past 11 months have taught me a considerable amount. Best wishes for the future. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 01:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have always greatly respected your dignified approach, your honesty and old school civility, a sadly dying grace. I also greatly respect your service in the United States Air Force, which I think has helped to shape the honest and upright person that you obviously are. We have not interacted a great deal, but my respect for you has always been considerable. As a patriot of a great nation and ally, both to the United Kingdom and Israel, I salute you, as a gentlemen. I hope you prosper in your career, and your family blossoms and has good fortune. Very Respectfully, Irondome (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- I too am sorry to see you go, though I absolutely understand the feeling. I wish you the absolute best for the future, good luck in all you do. v/r. WormTT(talk) 07:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
For both your service to Wikipedia, and on a more personal note, for your service to our country. Putting your family first is a wise decision, and I completely respect that. Perhaps some day you will wander back and edit a bit purely for fun and not for obligation. Know that you will always be welcome, in any capacity. If you don't, then thank you for all the contributions you made while you were here. The readers will probably never know who TParis is, but they will always have a better reading experience due to his efforts here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- I knew that you had been signalling your impending retirement for some time, and I respect your decision to prioritize your life as a natural and even healthy part of the Wikipedia contributor cycle. That having been said, I wanted you to know how much I appreciated your work on behalf of the project as well as your frank expression of your advice and opinions while you were here. You will be missed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Remember
Wikipedia is a hobby. If you're not enjoying it, then there's no point in continuing. Have a good retirement; perhaps you'll return some day, but perhaps not. DS (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Apologies
My apologies for failing to find the right way to encourage all parties to reach a suitable way forward with the RFC. Good luck in your future endeavours! isaacl (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| Going to miss you, TP, always thought highly of you and your excellent comments. Dreadstar ☥ 14:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
| A Wikipedia without you but with [list of users redacted] is a lesser encyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC) |
I've already tried to convince you to stick around so I know that's pointless. I know that you have a lot of ideas on how to improve the encyclopedia, and I don't agree with all of them but they have always been thoughtful and worth listening to. If you decide you want to share any of them, the op-ed pages of the Signpost are always open to you. Gamaliel (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| Thank you for all your work on Wikipedia. I hope real life treats you well, but Wikipedia is always open for you if you ever come back. Epic Genius (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC) |
I wouldn't feel right....
...if I didn't say "Thanks for everything you've done for the project." I didn't always agree with you, and you may have thought that I acted like a putz at times, but I always respected your work as an admin, and rarely was aware of a misstep on your part -- to the extent that it was almost shocking when it occasionally happened. (Of course, I think you're totally wrong about a liberal bias in our articles, but that;s neither here nor there.) I hope that you're happy and fulfilled in real life, and that if you ever find something missing, you come on back and give it another go. Best of luck to you. BMK (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts
Thanks very much for your service to The Project, TP. You've always been a voice I've respected. For what it's worth, I never had the slightest clue about your politics, so give yourself the Dennis Brown Barnstar™ for having done something right. Best of luck to you in your future ventures and come visit us at Wikipediocracy from time to time. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Farewell
The project will be poorer without you. Thank you for all you did here, and best of luck in real life. Family is definitely more important, and I think you made the right decision. Respectfully, ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Wherever you fare
Farewell wherever you fare. You were the first admin to ever get my attention with your fairness. I've quoted you on my user page:
- I see it too often that editors pile on here [ANI] saying a particular user is disruptive and want a topic ban w/o evidence and the truth of the matter is that the user simply has a different POV than the crowd. Not flowing with the crowd is not a crime on Wikipedia. Disruption is though. So please provide evidence of actual disruption and not anecdotal evidence that equates to 'she makes me mad.'
Therefore, you are one of my WP heroes.
Also, thank you for your service in defense of our fair country, that we both love.
Finally, enjoy your family and your life - though somehow I feel we'll see you here again. Lightbreather (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
A beer for you!
|
Well, now I'm really saddened. I missed the ping--thanks for your kind words. I saw them because--well, what else? I was going to leave you a note asking for your advice! But I can only echo what others have said: we are the worse for your leaving. I greatly appreciate the tough calls you've made over the last few years, and what I appreciate especially is your unwavering willingness to look at matters from the other person's perspective. You were (well, yeah, "were"...) a credit to us all, and I salute you. Come by and have a real beer--Dennis knows where to find me. So long. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC) |
A beer for you!
|
|
You already know that I feel the project will be worse off without you. I'll personally miss your insights and opinions as well. But I'm glad that you'll be sticking around enough to work on Project Hawaii articles... :) Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Special Barnstar |
| We've never really interacted but I've always seen you around and thought you were one of the great admins here!, Thank you for all your work on Wikipedia and It goes without saying the door will always be open to you, |
The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Smart Move Sergeant Take Care of Your Family and your real world responsibilities
TP I was that IP (it changes frequently beyond my control) who said to keep you around in the self imposed admin review. I also had some interaction on your talk page where we disagreed (I scolded you a little but you argued and then saw that it was somewhat justified) on some things and agreed on others but you were fairer to an IP than many of the other Admin's who are paranoid of or extremely biased towards IP's. Thanks for being real. Man, do not ever neglect anything for this soul sucking project. I have never wanted to join the club and have always remained as an outsider so to say but I have the outmost respect for peeps like you. If there was ever a good reason to join this project you would be it. Unfortunately gems are somewhat rare and you are one of the best I have known here. I came here today to ask for some advice about an article that was politically pushed for deletion after existing for many years with notable sources and usage and had many editors deciding to keep with a couple more activists wanting to delete. I thought if there is one guy I can get sound advice from from it would be you. Take care and Best Wishes for you, your family, and career. Semper Fi!!! 172.56.7.197 (talk) 09:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to see you go
You've been a positive force here at Wikipedia, thank you for your efforts here. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- You handed my out my only suspension in a decade of editing and there never was any question in my mind but that you were dong the right thing. I always felt good knowing that you were out there and I hope that you will come back, as an editor if nothing more. We are all deminished by your leaving. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree completely. I'm only just coming back around after a year and a half break but I have no trouble remembering you as one of the pillars of the Wikipedia community, one of the best administrators we had (even if you were only nominally one), a grounded voice of reason in any discussion and an all-around good person. I'm sorry to see you go, but surely the people in your real life deserve your attention more than this website does. All the best to you in your future endeavors and I hope to see you around here again sometime. v/r - Swarm X 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
On your recent spurt of activity
Saw you had two edits today. Good to see that you aren't necessarily gone for good. And, FWIW, I did find and will add to wikisource a book on the history of the Hawaii Marine Base which is in the PD as a government document and should be able to help us develop our article on that subject. John Carter (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Is it weird that we're all watching you waiting for you to return? Gamaliel (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Gamaliel: Yay, it looks that I'm not the only one doing that! --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to see you go, part deux
I always looked forward to seeing you give your 2¢ in discussions. I completely echo what you said about personal attacks; I'm simply stunned at how much goes unchecked by the rest of the community (I could even give a few names; I've even been on the receiving end of this treatment for reasons that will become obvious when you see my signature). It's so blatant but no one cares. I also agree about the evident bias you've witnessed; that alone keeps me from even checking those articles, let alone trying to fix them.
At any rate, God bless you and your family. And thank you for all your hard work & dedication here on Wikipedia. LazyBastardGuy 03:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
On a semi related funny side note
You must be bad luck chuck [[3]]. Sorry couldn't resist, no other comments on the substance just the coming back to say hi part. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| While you may be gone, you're efforts towards neutrality in political issues are not forgotten. For that, I present to you this belated barnstar. I should have given you one long before finding out that you have retired. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
Farewell
TParis, very surprised to see your name show up at WP:FORMER. Wanted to say my farewell and let you know it always meant a lot to me that as a prominent member of the community you supported my RFA and my background gnomish edits. I also appreciated your participation at WP:ADRV when I was working to save the process from {{historical}}. I closed your Admin Review since you're retiring; hope you don't mind. Wish you all the best on your future endeavours. Mkdwtalk 06:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
A beer for you!
|
|
Still miss you, TParis. These are troubling times, it seems, and the project can use someone as decisive as you, with a good sense of policy and a healthy dose of empathy. That you were typically wrong about everything else is nothing more than a side note (did you tell Ted Cruz he should run???). All the best to you in whatever you're doing: I have no doubt that it will be well-polished. Goodbye old friend. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC) |
The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Rats!
Oh rats, sorry to see you've pulled the plug. I came here to call attention to a request for comment from you that I posted at BLPN. Well, shoot, rats.
The few times we crossed paths, I found you to be thoughtful and realistic. Enjoy those sunny beaches or however you spend your former wiki time.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
A beer for you!
|
|
What a pleasure to see you, TParis. Don't make a habit out of coming back or we'll all start thinking you're back. Take care of yourself: you are a greatly valued Wikipedian, and you're probably a pretty decent human being as well. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC) |
- Well I'm almost a conservative so that automatically kicks me out of the running for a decent human being. Anywho, I'm up late with nothing to do. I see someone has been mentioning me to Jimbo again - and of course altering the facts to suit themselves. Some people get on a power trip and they have no idea when to get off. But power trips tend to crash. Maybe once this place isn't so hostile (and by that I mean someone has found something fulfilling in their life and GTFO'd), maybe I'll come back for good. In the mean time, I should really take a sleeping pill and try to get some rest.--v/r - TP 04:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- I understand your reasons for disillusionment described above, but someone who writes such a thoughtful retirement statement clearly still cares about this project. So please read books and spend time with your family; and consider coming back to Wikipedia from time to time, when it feels right for you. Take care. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- On the subject of books, I just finished Kate Mulgrew's autobiography. Not only does she have a way with words, but it's a great story too.--v/r - TP 05:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- I just read three reviews, and the book seems notable. I have two sisters. One, only 15 months younger than me, gave up a baby for adoption in circumstances similar to Mulgrew's, and also re-established ties with her birth daughter after many years. My niece is a fine young woman. My youngest sister was adopted after my mother had two disastrous pregnancies. She, too, re-established ties with her birth mother and half sisters. So these family themes resonate deeply with me, with love. Thanks for mentioning the book. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's absolutely fantastic. I like Kate Mulgrew even more than I like Kathryn Janeway. Her life is really quite remarkable. She is constantly battling tragedy or heartbreak. I particularly liked her first interview for Star Trek: Voyager. Although my favorite chapters were the parts about her daughter. I feel quite a bit of sympathy for her sons, but I'm glad she was able to talk about that and be honest about herself.--v/r - TP 06:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- I will look for it the next time I pass by a bookstore. Life is not a rose garden, though we should take time to appreciate the flowers. Take care. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's absolutely fantastic. I like Kate Mulgrew even more than I like Kathryn Janeway. Her life is really quite remarkable. She is constantly battling tragedy or heartbreak. I particularly liked her first interview for Star Trek: Voyager. Although my favorite chapters were the parts about her daughter. I feel quite a bit of sympathy for her sons, but I'm glad she was able to talk about that and be honest about herself.--v/r - TP 06:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- I just read three reviews, and the book seems notable. I have two sisters. One, only 15 months younger than me, gave up a baby for adoption in circumstances similar to Mulgrew's, and also re-established ties with her birth daughter after many years. My niece is a fine young woman. My youngest sister was adopted after my mother had two disastrous pregnancies. She, too, re-established ties with her birth mother and half sisters. So these family themes resonate deeply with me, with love. Thanks for mentioning the book. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- On the subject of books, I just finished Kate Mulgrew's autobiography. Not only does she have a way with words, but it's a great story too.--v/r - TP 05:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- I understand your reasons for disillusionment described above, but someone who writes such a thoughtful retirement statement clearly still cares about this project. So please read books and spend time with your family; and consider coming back to Wikipedia from time to time, when it feels right for you. Take care. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey!
How's you? It is nice to see that you are not fully retired. Best wishes. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ohh, I'm not back. I just happen to be away from home to attend a class and the change in timezone has me sitting here at 12:30am wide awake. Nothing else to do but internet.--v/r - TP 04:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Too bad, I'm about to go to bed here in NC. Are you in Europe? --AmaryllisGardener talk 04:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm in Baltimore this week.--v/r - TP 05:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, I don't know why I thought you were in Europe, I was too sleepy to think about time zones. :P Anyway, stay safe. --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm in Baltimore this week.--v/r - TP 05:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Welcome Back!! Can you bock someone for me? (I don't care who, just randomly). :) --DHeyward (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Nah, I don't have tools anymore. Hehe.--v/r - TP 05:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Too bad, I'm about to go to bed here in NC. Are you in Europe? --AmaryllisGardener talk 04:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
A pie for you!
|
Everybody could use some pie from time to time... Good to see you checking in! Are you here for ArbCom season? We have a lovely crop this year. Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC) |
- Oh no, I am most definitely not here to participate in Arbcom. Haha!--v/r - TP 16:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, good, you get my jokes... :) I hope all is well with you. We're hip deep in manure processing... I mean ArbCom evidence preparation. Of course its always a gamble on what it will produce, blossoms or a bigger mud pit. Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth...
...I do "support" (in the sense of "remove negative information about", etc.) right-wing individuals and organizations (and conversely, "oppose" liberal individuals/groups/philosophies) when to do so is consistent with policy, just as I'm doing here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- If that's the case, I've never happened across it. Perhaps it's that you and I cross paths about once in a blue moon since I tend to avoid social topics. But I think calling the SPLC controversial is uncontroversial in itself. A few years ago, SPLC would've been considered the go-to source for this kind of information. But their activities over the last few years have been highly partisan. I think this was generally understood by most people.--v/r - TP 14:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm not this editor... Drmies (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Mention
I've seen that you've been around a bit recently, so you might be interested in this mention at ANI. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Great article!
[4] Nicely done! Although I think the reality of Pending changes watches is more like a dozen or so diligent editors. I woke up this morning to edits that were 20 hours old. That hasn't happened in quite a while. But we do try to turn back the tide of vandals... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
FYI, someone else pointed this out on the talk page, but I think that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement#Statement_by_Uninvolved_TParis is only for the opening statements of named parties and that you actually should move your statement to a section under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. --B (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi. You're right, it is not wheel-warring and I clarified that on the evidence page. I didn't strike it on the main page because I'm not allowed to edit that page. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 23:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- @B: Thanks, I've moved it. My bad. @Greg - Rog.--v/r - TP 00:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi!
Nice to see you back, TParis! I hope you will feel like returning soon. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Just bouncing around the 'ol watchlist. Not really back :). How have things been going around here?--v/r - TP 22:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Drama levels keep going up, I'm making a new bot, and xTools is broken. :p Weren't you going to do some reviewing? ;-)—cyberpowerChat:Online 22:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Cyberpower678: User:Cyberpower678/RfA. I see your stress level has gone "up"? Let's wait until things calm down for you run.--v/r - TP 21:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Actually I had a RL stressful morning. Nothing was working. My rent was deducted twice, my devices weren't working, and I letter I was supposed to t deliver to a professor at 10:30 this morning wasn't delivered because he ever showed up. After I got most of it resolved, I drank a beer a relaxed afterwards. All is good. :-)—cyberpowerChat:Online 23:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Cyberpower678: User:Cyberpower678/RfA. I see your stress level has gone "up"? Let's wait until things calm down for you run.--v/r - TP 21:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- On the subject of that...I'll send you an email on Friday.--v/r - TP 23:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- I started poking around a bit lately as well, the intensity level is pretty high. Enough so to keep me from getting too involved. My real life is exciting enough, don't need the extra drama either. This is kind of common now that school is out, things will calm down a little in September when the children go back to skool. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- @TP So you're starting to come in again just as I'm starting to go out? ;) Since I've slowed my editing, I kinda need an update of what's been going on as well. All I've been doing the last 15 days is update a tennis bio here and there and delete/revert disturbing things/edits when I see them and can't leave them as they are. (Notice that even those of us that are inactive ourselves watch your page to talk to you when we see you've edited? ;)) --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ya have to come back! I have waaaay too much work to do by myself! Huge amounts of biographical information of very historic figures.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Drama levels keep going up, I'm making a new bot, and xTools is broken. :p Weren't you going to do some reviewing? ;-)—cyberpowerChat:Online 22:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
@TParis: Hope you come back, if you do, I would support you getting back the bits/mop.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Heh, folks, don't get your hopes up. I just lurk once in awhile. I'm not planning any come back any time soon. All I can promise is that I'll poke my head in. Thanks, though, ya'all are very nice :).--v/r - TP 06:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well shit. How the hell did I not get a ping in your farewell! My lurking game must be slipping... or my apathy game is getting stronger, one of the two; probably the later. It sucks you won't be around nearly as much anymore but I totally understand wanting to retire. I hope all is well. If you ever need anything drop feel free to give me a poke on my talk page, I don't mind at all. Of if you'd rather email that's perfectly ok too. You have my actual email and not the one that this account is tied to so I will actually read it
Anywho, have fun out there! Cheers, — dainomite 06:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well shit. How the hell did I not get a ping in your farewell! My lurking game must be slipping... or my apathy game is getting stronger, one of the two; probably the later. It sucks you won't be around nearly as much anymore but I totally understand wanting to retire. I hope all is well. If you ever need anything drop feel free to give me a poke on my talk page, I don't mind at all. Of if you'd rather email that's perfectly ok too. You have my actual email and not the one that this account is tied to so I will actually read it
Hey there!
Nice to meet you! Luckily, it's been almost two years and the immaturity in the old me has changed (I was Celeste6566 but asked for username change)...hopefully :) I'd like to introduce myself! Do you have any tips for how I can contribute here? EmilyREditor (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
- Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
- Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
- Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
- Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
- Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
- Research coordinators: run reference services
Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Molly White
Do as think best with this. I just saw it while reading Texas Monthly. I am no expert. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Good reason
It breaks the RfA counter.--v/r - TP 18:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Fair point.
- (As an aside, I think neutrals should be bulleted, since there probably isn't much of a need to have a numeric count.)
- Anyway, if we're going to split them, then maybe split out all the indented neutrals to the bottom - that way it maintains chronology at least? - jc37 18:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I suppose. It looks like a bug in the mediawiki software where the first invokation of # creates a 1. no matter if it has a : after it or not.--v/r - TP 18:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Jc37 and Stfg: Stfg found the brilliant (and obvious once it was pointed out) way of solving this. I feel like a durr.--v/r - TP 18:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed (with a "me too" thrown in : ) - jc37 19:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Jc37 and Stfg: Stfg found the brilliant (and obvious once it was pointed out) way of solving this. I feel like a durr.--v/r - TP 18:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I suppose. It looks like a bug in the mediawiki software where the first invokation of # creates a 1. no matter if it has a : after it or not.--v/r - TP 18:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Cyber RfA
I know you hate me for opposing and I have to admit that my changing to oppose was a tactical move. I could see the RfA heading for success and I had to do something to ensure that those tools remain a priority for a while. I meant every word I said though. I vote on every RfA and I'm usually on target. In fact if and when I do oppose, most of the time I don't even use all the ammo I have up my sleeve. My vote on this 2011 RfA was the oddest I ever made. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't hate you, we're friends (well, as far as two people on the internet who have never met go). I just get heated when I am passionate. I'm sorry if I gave off the impression that it was personal.--v/r - TP 18:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
An Asian Pacific American edit-a-thon in Honolulu co-sponsored by the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center
Aloha! Given your retired status, & not knowing whether you reside on Oahu (I believe that you once did), I am unsure whether or not you would be interested in helping with an Asian Pacific American edit-a-thon in Honolulu co-sponsored by the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center. But I thought I would give you a try. One other editor has expressed an interest thus far. Here is the message that I have posted on editors' talk pages for those who I was able to reasonably identify as living in Hawaii. Peaceray (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 |
|
Aloha!
Last summer I moved to the Seattle area after 14 years in Kailua on Oahu. I immediately fell in with the Cascadia Wikimedians User Group as it formed, joined its board and became its first president as well as the GLAM representative for Washington State.
Recently, Adriel Luis, Curator (Digital & Emerging Media) at the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center, contacted me about setting up an edit-a-thon like the previous Wikipedia APA edit-a-thon. In addition to discussing one for Seattle, he wrote:
| “ | It's awesome to learn about your past in Honolulu - I'm actually going to be there for another SmithsonianAPA project mid September, and thinking that this could be an opportunity to do an event there as well! I have lots of contacts with UH and the museums, but do you know of any contacts on the Wikimedia side out there? | ” |
As I was working two jobs while I lived on Oahu, I did not have the opportunity to meet your or any other Wikipedians at the time. Hence, the reason why I am contacting you now.
If you would like to help, please contact me through one of these methods:
- Email me directly at peaceray@cascadia.wiki
- Use Special:EmailUser/Peaceray to email me
- Leave a message for me on my talk page.
Mahalo,
Peaceray
Reblock requested
TParis, it looks like Toddst1 is no longer active and you're the most recent admin to have had interaction with Zarembo (talk · contribs). In his fifth edit since being unblocked for repeated copyvios, the editor removed a copyright tag from what appears to be an obvious copyright violation. I've removed the material, but I'm pretty sure this constitutes a violation of the terms of Toddst1's unblock. The Dissident Aggressor 01:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm no longer an admin. I turned in the tools. Sorry.--v/r - TP 02:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia library Newspapers.com renewal
Your free one-year account with Newspapers.com will end on September 5 2015. Newspapers.com has offered to extend existing accounts by another year. If you wish to keep your account until September 5 2016, please add your name to the Account Renewal list here. I'll let Newspapers.com customer support know, and they will extend your subscription. If you don't want to keep your account for another year, you don't have to do anything. Your account will expire unless I hear from you that you want to keep it. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Double expired PROD?
Looking over the logs here and it seems there was a declined PROD before a second PROD... or something. Can you figure it out? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:26, 18 November 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) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
A year ago, you were recipient no. 1055 of
Precious, a prize of QAI!
I remember the lucky find ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
December 2015
Sorry to see you go. Hope it's not permanent. - theWOLFchild 03:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for the advice. I will step back. I think its just a dispute of content and yes it is a edit war. Sigh, controversial content will not satisfy anyone. Winterysteppe (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Welcome back!
9 users loves this.
Good to see your (very respectful) face again. You've been missed. MelanieN alt (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, welcome back ! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- What's a nice guy like you doing in a place like this? Great to see you back TP!--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- +1 --GRuban (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nice seeing you around these parts again TP! Cheers, — dainomite 19:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Good to see your name on the WL again! Hope all is well with you and yours. Irondome (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Happy to see your sig at AN. Welcome back! Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yay! :D --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks guys. Glad to be back. Not going to be full time or anything, but I'm feeling much more refreshed.--v/r - TP 01:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Congratulations on the promotion by the way. Mass promotions are good for morale ;) Irondome (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yay, extendedautoconfirmed!--v/r - TP 02:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nice to see you got your mop back! — dainomite 14:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yay, extendedautoconfirmed!--v/r - TP 02:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nice to see you back. - theWOLFchild 01:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- I love seeing your name in blue highlighting again.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 03:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Re: your comment at ANI yesterday
I got a kick out of this [5]. Not all that far from the truth. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Haha, have a good one.--v/r - TP 21:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
A most impressive return
Welcome back to the asylum in the middle of silly season. You'll note the top inmates have changed a bit but they still are in charge. --DHeyward (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- I hope to stay out of silly season this year. I only stepped into the DT issue because it's a WP:BLP and I wanted to make sure there was a strong consensus against that sort of smear-campaigning on Wikipedia. In all honesty, I'd be the first to share that sort of thing if it came across my FB account about Trump. The guy scares the crap out of me.--v/r - TP 04:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Me too. Trump is a populist which makes him as scary as Bernie, --DHeyward (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Eh, as a minimalist libertarian, I kind of get the appear of Bernie on some topics.--v/r - TP 05:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Me too. Trump is a populist which makes him as scary as Bernie, --DHeyward (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Administrators' noticeboard
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
?
this is one of the strangest things anyone has written to me in WP. I have no illusions of becoming an admin. And this stuff about me OUTING anyone is just miles offbase. What is up your bonnet with regard to me, TP? Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- I feel that you really were rude to that new and you won't acknowledge it. So I'm giving it back at you for a few days. Besides, I think gamilel was wrong on this issue and I don't see how their actions are defensible. So instead of defending him, you've tried to redirect attention at arkon. That strikes a chord with me. --v/r - TP 02:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hm. thanks for the explanation; i appreciate it. i see how you could get there on rudeness to the new editor, which is different from claims that i asked him to self-OUT, which i don't do; on the gamaliel thing, what even called my attention to the thread was the edit warring and "fuck you" to an admin - how often do people EW a close at ANI and curse out the closing admin? crazy over the top and i don't care how right or wrong arkon was (and i don't know how right or wrong he was - as soon as i saw that it was something about a joke page in the Signpost and its extension past April fools day - nothing to do with building an encyclopedia - i stopped thinking about it. maybe i am missing something really important. ). that's all. again, i appreciate your response. Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's not outing, it's a violation of the outing policy. The outing policy calls it harassment. Asking for people to identify themselves has a chilling effect on conversation and can be used abusively to silence critics or opponents in a dispute. I get that you used a template, I'm not blind, but the implication there is 'I think you're involved, prove me wrong' whether intended or not. Besides that, yeah, to a newbie editor, it is rude.
Regarding the Gamaliel thing, his participation in that thread is as an editor. And in that context, he was edit warring with another editor to close a thread about himself. That's inappropriate. Admin's don't have some special privilege or prestige against being told to fuck off. As a human being, yeah, it sucks getting that language thrown at us. But there is no reason at all to treat admins as some sort of royalty where getting a "fuck you" should inspire some sort of nationalist response. I like Gamaliel, I've found them to be responsive and level headed when confronted when reasoned and calm criticism. I've also seen Gamaliel double down in the face of onslaught and I've seen the goon-squad some to his rescue. My frustration isn't Gamaliel defending themself, although I do think they're wrong and should come to that conclusion on their own eventually, my frustration is the goon-squad trying to divert attention to the accuser (Arkon) and you happened to jump into that fray.--v/r - TP 04:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's not outing, it's a violation of the outing policy. The outing policy calls it harassment. Asking for people to identify themselves has a chilling effect on conversation and can be used abusively to silence critics or opponents in a dispute. I get that you used a template, I'm not blind, but the implication there is 'I think you're involved, prove me wrong' whether intended or not. Besides that, yeah, to a newbie editor, it is rude.
- Hm. thanks for the explanation; i appreciate it. i see how you could get there on rudeness to the new editor, which is different from claims that i asked him to self-OUT, which i don't do; on the gamaliel thing, what even called my attention to the thread was the edit warring and "fuck you" to an admin - how often do people EW a close at ANI and curse out the closing admin? crazy over the top and i don't care how right or wrong arkon was (and i don't know how right or wrong he was - as soon as i saw that it was something about a joke page in the Signpost and its extension past April fools day - nothing to do with building an encyclopedia - i stopped thinking about it. maybe i am missing something really important. ). that's all. again, i appreciate your response. Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for these replies. I hear you on the Gamaliel thing. I am going to set that aside as it was a one-off and would like to focus on the COI stuff, as that is enduring. The "chilling" thing is interesting, and I want to think about that and come back to you on that. While I do, if you are open to it, I would like to explain my approach and how I arrived at it, so we can discuss that with context. Would you be open to hearing that? Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- sure, that's fine--v/r - TP 01:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for these replies. I hear you on the Gamaliel thing. I am going to set that aside as it was a one-off and would like to focus on the COI stuff, as that is enduring. The "chilling" thing is interesting, and I want to think about that and come back to you on that. While I do, if you are open to it, I would like to explain my approach and how I arrived at it, so we can discuss that with context. Would you be open to hearing that? Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
OK. I first got interested in COI issues at all, because I got hounded for about three years by some wingnuts here who believe(d) I was a shill for a certain BigCompany. While I was working on that stuff, trying very to create NPOV content and maintain NPOV content it became very easy to identify new POV-pushers when they would show up (there were about 5 different, very easy to identify, kinds of POV pushers, including some very clearly company-rep ones). Could tell by their word choices and sources, after just a couple of edits. Really easy. I started to see the same sort of thing on articles about health.
I just watched for a long time, and saw how people who were concerned about COI would do things like slap warning notices, and make accusations here and there, and would never just treat the editor who maybe had a COI, like a human being. And how often, these discussions about COI got tangled up with content disputes, and just got really ugly. I also noticed that people displaying a clear COI didn't really know what they were doing in Wikipedia. (When I say "displaying" what i mean is writing POV content, that is unsourced or badly sourced, and removing well-sourced, actually-neutral content. often both at the same time. The only thing that matters here is content. )
I figured out two things.
- First, just asking someone who displayed typical COI editing, nicely, if they have some connection to what they have written about, almost always elicits a "yes", and a followup explanation of what they should do, and then an explanation of how Wikipedia actually works (a quick run-through of the policies/guidelines), is often met with gratitude. (!) People who didn't know what they were doing, feel welcomed and oriented via a real dialogue (which is what i aim for), and can proceed more productively in WP (and avoid having a rabid COI-hater bite their head off later). When people say "no" to the question, I have some follow up stuff i usually say to them about advocacy and asking them to be self-aware going forward and off we go our separate ways.
- Second, it is really, really important not to get involved in content, if you want to then talk with someone about their potential COI. The risk of a blowup goes up a boatload, if you ask someone about COI on their talk page, after getting tangled up with them in a disagreement over content. (This was the mistake i made with Neatguy - the person who brought the ANI; i had tangled with them over content prior to raising the advocacy/COI questions on their talk page. Dumb of me.).
So those are the principles i try to follow in dealing with COI/advocacy stuff. They are human/dialogue oriented, and they generally work, and generally leave people feeling welcome and oriented. I do make mistakes, and there are blowups. But my goal is not to be "chilling".....
Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think the change in approach I'd recommend you do is that if, after your notice, a user becomes abrasive or hostile then back off and watch from a distance. If, given time, you can formulate a more comprehensive argument for a COI, then bring it to a noticeboard. Your approach seems reasonable, but the part where I think you went astray is that you doubled down on your concern instead of backing off. You tried to explain yourself and the explanation itself became more of an accusation about the user.
The effort to create multi-tiered notices and warnings for each type of issue was still on-going when I signed up for the project and I remember the discussions about how it was supposed to offer a gentler approach. But, I can tell you that it's human nature to become defensive despite how friendly the 'notices' seem to established users. To newbs, they come off as hostile.
You have to remember, to everyone else in the world, Wikipedia seems like a closed off social circle where only the elite easily navigate. To us, we feel like we've bent over backwards to be welcoming.--v/r - TP 03:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, that makes sense. I appreciate that; usually when things start to go south i do back away but in this case the user leapt to ANI before I could. I do hear that.
- i have debated whether i should include the actual template:uw-coi in what i write - most of what i use is my own, with that in the middle, and that is by far the most legalistic piece of what i present to people. But to be frank i know there are people who might want to pound me for trying to help manage COI better so using the template is somewhat ass-covering.... ironic.
- btw if you want to follow my approach unfolding in real time, you can watch User talk:ProblemSolver321. Things this editor did have been in the news per this and i am trying to guide them into the process here. What I wrote was wordy (and unusual) but I want them to understand the context here that we "insiders" are acutely aware of. I was surprised they came back at all, so am curious how they will respond. Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC))
- I don't think I need to follow you, I'm sure you'll take my feelings to heart. I just think that you took it too far with Gongwool. In this edit notice they declared they had no COI. But you went back to try to explain yourself better. Almost as if you thought you had to explain you were a 'nice guy' and you're not a 'hounder'. Regarding neatguy, yeah, maybe he did flip - but I think his actions actually suggest sockpuppetry more than a COI. I mean, WP:RS/N on his first edit? Creating Wikiproject banners by his 5th? And regarding Collegetrader, the accounts activities are questionable, but your message on their talk page comes off a lot like "I want to know who you want". If I were you, I wouldn't say anything like "I am not asking you to disclose your identity", I would just point them at WP:DISCLOSE.--v/r - TP 04:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- And if it means anything to you, I haven't forgotten about how you tried to mediate a dispute between me and a few others at WP:COI about a year ago. I appreciated that.--v/r - TP 04:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hm, I will think about all that. And thanks for remembering that stuff at COI; i had forgotten about it! Jytdog (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think I need to follow you, I'm sure you'll take my feelings to heart. I just think that you took it too far with Gongwool. In this edit notice they declared they had no COI. But you went back to try to explain yourself better. Almost as if you thought you had to explain you were a 'nice guy' and you're not a 'hounder'. Regarding neatguy, yeah, maybe he did flip - but I think his actions actually suggest sockpuppetry more than a COI. I mean, WP:RS/N on his first edit? Creating Wikiproject banners by his 5th? And regarding Collegetrader, the accounts activities are questionable, but your message on their talk page comes off a lot like "I want to know who you want". If I were you, I wouldn't say anything like "I am not asking you to disclose your identity", I would just point them at WP:DISCLOSE.--v/r - TP 04:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad you guys are getting along now. You both seem nice.
I don't think anyone is saying that admins should be treated like royalty. Do you really think there's any danger in that happening? I think that if you tell someone to "fuck right off", that should not be casually ignored, whoever they are. I would have immediately blocked were I an uninvolved party. But this is wikipedia, where policy minutiae and em-dashes inspire righteous rage and demands for sanctions while trolling and abuse are shrugged off. Gamaliel (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Em-dashes are serious shit, yo. They've started wars and shit over less.--v/r - TP 06:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi TParis, Jytdog has lost the plot re Frivilous COI accusations on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Collegetrader and I can't stop him, as has made threats on my talk if I take it to ANI. Can you try to control his COI accusation compulsion? The loss of editors on WP is due to actions of eds like him who breach WP:BITE. Gongwool (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- You shouldn't be following Jytdog's edits.--v/r - TP 03:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- No I shouldn't be TParis- understood. But was checking if any of the warnings you tried to give him on AN/I had sunk in, and it seemed not to. It was only 1 case and watching is distressing to me and I don't need that, but still reserve the right of my 1 cent worth on ANI or wherever if I see things again. Thanks. Gongwool (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Gongwool I apologize for having insulted you with this. I took the time to write to you at all because you are a promising presence here but i should not have been so harsh. So I'm sorry. Jytdog (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- User:Jytdog please listen to TParis' wise words. Newbies will always seem a little COI if you squint as they start on topics they are familiar with before moving on to other topics, give them a chance. I have concerns for WP:BITE and the loss of editors to WP, and I don't think you help in retention at all. Bye, that's it. I have no official complaint to make. Gongwool (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- You are about to be blocked, I believe. I warned you and so did TParis. Jytdog (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Jytdog and Gongwool: The both of you face opposite directions and walk away. Don't go to each others talk page, don't look at each other's contribs, and don't address each other any more for a week and let's call this quits.--v/r - TP 06:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I would be very happy not to interact with Gongwool and happily agree with that: I have not interacted with Gongwool since the stuff around the diff above, except to react to him at the ANI about me, where he piled on to something that had nothing to do with him. Please note that I am not pursuing him around or interfering with his work here; I would like him never to do anything again like what he did at CollegeTrader - that needs to be definitively addressed. Those conversations are delicate enough as it is. I have tried to warn Gongwool away from the cliff edge he has driven over, and he has ignored me. TParis you warned him as well. This is not the first editor who has become obsessed with me to their own detriment. Whatever any one can do to pull him out of this, would be better for everyone. He could be a useful editor around here. Jytdog (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Man, right now, my advice to you is to drop it. I don't see him getting blocked over this. I see this escalating with each of you trying to get the last word in. I just recommend you leave it where it's at, at this moment, and walk away.--v/r - TP 07:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I already filed the ANI and he will end up blocked; I have no doubt about that, especially as he expressed his intention above. I will drop it if Gongwool agrees to stay away from me and not do this anymore. If he doesn't give up I will prosecute the hell out of it; that kind of interference is intolerable and it will only get worse from here. I have seen this before, and as you know there is nothing new under the sun here. I appreciate your effort to mediate. Jytdog (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Man, right now, my advice to you is to drop it. I don't see him getting blocked over this. I see this escalating with each of you trying to get the last word in. I just recommend you leave it where it's at, at this moment, and walk away.--v/r - TP 07:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I would be very happy not to interact with Gongwool and happily agree with that: I have not interacted with Gongwool since the stuff around the diff above, except to react to him at the ANI about me, where he piled on to something that had nothing to do with him. Please note that I am not pursuing him around or interfering with his work here; I would like him never to do anything again like what he did at CollegeTrader - that needs to be definitively addressed. Those conversations are delicate enough as it is. I have tried to warn Gongwool away from the cliff edge he has driven over, and he has ignored me. TParis you warned him as well. This is not the first editor who has become obsessed with me to their own detriment. Whatever any one can do to pull him out of this, would be better for everyone. He could be a useful editor around here. Jytdog (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Jytdog and Gongwool: The both of you face opposite directions and walk away. Don't go to each others talk page, don't look at each other's contribs, and don't address each other any more for a week and let's call this quits.--v/r - TP 06:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- You are about to be blocked, I believe. I warned you and so did TParis. Jytdog (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- User:Jytdog please listen to TParis' wise words. Newbies will always seem a little COI if you squint as they start on topics they are familiar with before moving on to other topics, give them a chance. I have concerns for WP:BITE and the loss of editors to WP, and I don't think you help in retention at all. Bye, that's it. I have no official complaint to make. Gongwool (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hey User:TParis he's not taking your advice, he's misrepresented the sequence of events and written them up and taken me to ANI with lies [[6]]. I'll take your advice as it's wise, but I'm not sure who's Hounding who? What I see is jytdog compulsively Hounding Newbies and those who disagree with him. No wonder those I know will not edit on WP, it is like they say just like 'Lord of the Flies'. Cheers, Gongwool (talk) 07:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know how I can be more clear on this topic. Neither of you can force the other to do anything. All you can do is police yourselves. You want to be on the right side of this issue? Then drop it, regardless of the other.--v/r - TP 07:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I know i cannot force anyone to do anything. the community can. I am taking Gongwool's last statement at ANI, however bitter the rhetoric, as a promise to not do anymore what he did today. I am done there, as i believe the behavior will not happen again, and i hope that belief is borne out. . Others are unhappy with his rhetoric/attitude and may push for more. Jytdog (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know how I can be more clear on this topic. Neither of you can force the other to do anything. All you can do is police yourselves. You want to be on the right side of this issue? Then drop it, regardless of the other.--v/r - TP 07:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- You know what TParis, I am going to take your advice because I know boundaries and restraint when required. Jytdog has no concept of this and will keep on bullying, bullying, bullying newbies because of his disorder. And his other mobbing mates on ANI will keep on supporting him. No doubt WP will eventually become irrelevant, not be listed at top of Google (as is already is starting) and become considered an unreliable because of eds such as this purposely restrict diversity in involvement. Men who use the word c*nt such as jytdog are partly to blame for WP'S bad reputation. Thanks for your wise words, they sank in with me, shame they didn't sink in with the compulsive WP:COI accuser. Bye, Gongwool (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I actually cut off the ANI before the community took action against you. Maybe that was a mistake on my part. I hope not. Jytdog (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Stop following me jytdog, your a stalker and following my edits around, I am trying to liaise with TParis without sociopathic interference. As you have had me banned from COI and ANI comments and responses by your gang, you know what, you now cant frivolously report me to COI or ANI cause I cant respond... yep shot yourself in the foot well and truly there, lol. I'll take your final comment as a threat as breach of WP:BITE and WP:BULLY. I read an article from Jimmy Wales somewhere criticizing actions of WP:BITErs such as you. I agree with Jimmy, he and I are seriously worried about you. AND DONT DARE PRINT THE UNREDACTED WORD C*NT AGAIN ON WP, YOU FOWL, FILTHY, MISOGYNIST, POTTY MOUTHED BULLY! Gongwool (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- about this, just
Facepalm. It's not true. Yes, in any case, let's stay far away from each other. I won't respond to you here again. Good luck Gongwool. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- about this, just
Your recent close of this discussion seems unsatisfactory. You talk as if Doncram was the only keep !voter when this was clearly not the case. Myself, I was not at all persuaded by the nominator's argument that this was cross-categorization which seemed then and now to be nonsense. As I cited policies such as WP:LISTN and WP:CLN, I am not understanding why you appear to have completely ignored the position of myself and other keep !voters. Please reconsider. Andrew D. (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't ignore your position at all. I fully read it and considered it. Doncram's argument was the most convincing to me. But, I'm not the one that matters. What matters is if either you or Doncram convinced others. And frankly, you didn't.--v/r - TP 17:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hais
Good to see you back around, even if on a more limited basis. (Me too, for that matter.) Hope to see you around! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 02:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Kharkiv07 (T) 02:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- On it.--v/r - TP 04:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Urgent Question!
Would you mind if I quizzaciously posted to your talk page? :) Chrisw80 (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- we need a WP page to spread awareness. What's up? --v/r - TP 04:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Good to see you around again sir.
— Ched : ? 11:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Arab Telecommunications
Hello bro، Im Mishary from Arabic Wikipedia, please can you move this Page From Arab Telecommunications To Mada Communication, Because this company change this name.. you can check in Official website, Thank you --MeeshQ8 (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- The page isn't protected. Any autoconfirmed user should be able to move it.--v/r - TP 02:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I believe you were the admin who volunteered to help out with my disagreements with User:Anmccaff. I am starting to think he will find fault with everything I do; I am trying not to respond with frustration but its becoming increasingly difficult. Can you offer any advice on how we can resolve these difficulties? Thank you, ツStacey (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Yassin Kadi
You kindly reviewed a number of edit requests to the Yassin Kadi article earlier this month, and invited another editor to review the second half of the edits that had been proposed via my user Talk page. The remaining requests have not yet been considered by another editor, and I should be grateful if you would review those if you are able to do so, in addition to some further requests and suggestions for improvement that I added on 20 April.Carter-Ruck (on behalf of Sheikh Yassin Abdullah Kadi) (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Weekly Shonen Jump
Hey there,
Hoping you can check something out regarding a page you protected and unprotected recently, Weekly Shōnen Jump.
I saw this message] at WikiProject Feminism. Couldn't find what the user was talking about, looked at her user page, and saw this. Upon closer inspection, none of the links mention the subject, those with the subject in the title are actually links to unrelated articles. In other words it looks like a hoax -- probably a continuation of the vandalism/trolling spree that led to protection in the first place.
Hoping to leave this message to shortcut going down both CSD and AIV paths. :)
Thanks — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oh wait, this is more straightforward than I thought. This and this. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, problem solved.--v/r - TP 19:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.
Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Coming in out of nowhere, I think maybe one of the more effective ways to maybe deal with any issues of bias which might come up at the Signpost in the future is to maybe have a few editors with markedly different political/social/cultural viewpoints serving as a sort of "editorial board" for any sort of content there which might be questioned by one side or another. If such were created, I think you personally might be a very good candidate. Just an opinion, of course. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think I could work well with Gamaliel on such a board and that sounds interesting. But, I lack any worthwhile credentials. I only have a high school education and a 2-yr degree.--v/r - TP 17:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hijiri88
Talk with HighInBC about it. I was inclined to defer to you and unblock, but I figured I'd better re-review his talk page before doing anything, and this led me to HighInBC's rationale for declining the unblock request; I don't want to unblock unilaterally after such a statement. Feel free to tell HighInBC that I'm okay with an unblock if he agrees. Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- See WP:AN#Admins disagreeing on unblock; when three admins disagree like this, I suppose it's better to request community review. Nyttend (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Haha, it looks like you might have a few issues to sort out with the bot you created ;-). I would make sure that there is a newline between the end of the previous talk page message and the beginning of the message that the bot leaves. I'd also trigger the bot to add the message only when a new ticket is created at UTRS. This will ensure that the message is left only once and not done so repeatedly, unless the user creates another new ticket - In that case, repeating the message with the new ticket number would be fine IMO. Anyways, good luck :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Trout
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly. |
You asked to be routed. XD—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 03:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
BAGBot: Your bot request UTRSBot
Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/UTRSBot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 14:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.
Your AN/I close of the revdel incident
A few comments:
- Why do you say that evidence of abuse is required to overturn the revdel? One can simply disagree about the judgement without alleging abuse. I never alleged abuse in my own opening statement, but explicitly asked for a review. Thus nobody commented about abuse, because it wasn't even an issue.
- In your quoting of the rev-del policy, you did not quote RD2, the rationale given for revdel. "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our biographies of living people policy." I think a strong case can be made that this did not violate BLP, and as I see it, there was a consensus against the claim of BLP violation in the ANI thread.
- I do not see why you simply ignored the third bullet point:
Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal.
. Clearly, there is significant dissent, and was even before it was revdeled. I also fail to see what exactly is "grossly offensive" in a passage which is debunking allegations. If I say to someone "you are not a Nazi, you are in fact a committed anti-fascist" am I offending them? - As for a consensus of uninvolved administrators, is it my fault that enough admins didn't bother to comment on the administrators' noticeboard? The requirement for limiting it to administrators only exists because the material is only viewable by them - which does not apply here. To cite this requirement and ignore the statements of non-admins seems to me just legalism. If one really wants to be pedantic, the statement "clear, wider consensus" does not say "clear, wider consensus among administrators". However, I have no desire to be pedantic. All matters are ultimately under the control of the community, which you also quote. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I quoted the policy, read it. Regarding the number of admins, it's luck of the draw but generally gamergate topics runs admins off. Especially after what is happening to Gamaliel.--v/r - TP 04:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I did read it. Hence I quoted from what you wrote, and from the policy. For instance, let's simply look at the first point. From WP:REVDEL:
They are subject to review by other administrators (who can see redacted material), and to reversal upon clear, wider consensus.
I don't see anything about abuse here, nor did I raise the point. Yet you write in your close thatWhen closing this discussion, my objective is to determine if there is a consensus of administrators that the action was an abuse
. Why? If I ask for a block review, or deletion review, there is no question of abuse. I am asking for an independent review of the revdel, or block, or deletion etc. If I wanted to ask a question about abuse, I would have opened a case against the admin, not a case about the revdel. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)- I'm also a bit confused about this, and I'm not involved in Gamergate whatsoever (beyond closing a couple discussions that were listed at WP:ANRFC, I suppose). You quoted a policy which states revdel should not be used when any significant disagreement over its use could arise. This seems to suggest you must have consensus for revdel for it to remain deleted rather than consensus against revdel. Would you mind elaborating on why you think the "no consensus" outcome should be for the deletion to remain in light of that line in the policy? ~ RobTalk 22:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- There is no consensus for me to take an action. I can't stop the original action, but I can take an action to reverse it. No consensus exists for me to take the 2nd action. No consensus generally defaults to status quo. You can discuss with the original admin that REVDEL the material to review the discussion and determine that the action was contended. But what cannot be done is for a future action to be taken when there is no consensus to take it. You can be bold and ask for forgiveness, but you can't ask for permission and then be bold.--v/r - TP 22:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- May I ask how you determined consensus? I see 4 people supporting the revdel (Johnuniq, Only in death, Jehochman and SlimVirgin) in the ANI thread, and 9 people opposing (everyone else). In my own mind, the arguments of the 4 are weaker, so that counts against them as well, but I am biased, so I will say that, won't I? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Clearly you haven't read my close since your questions were already answered before you asked them. Read this slowly and carefully so you don't miss anything:
- "I can already see how unpopular this is going to be, but, the policy on revdel makes it clear that:
- "RevisionDelete allows selective redaction of posts and log entries by administrators, as well as peer review by any administrator of the correct use of the tool."
- "The community's endorsement of the tool included a very strong consensus that its potential to be abused should be strictly barred, prevented by the community, and written into the policy."
- "Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it should not be removed."
- "They are subject to review by other administrators (who can see redacted material), and to reversal upon clear, wider consensus."
- When closing this discussion, my objective is to determine if there is a consensus of administrators that the action was an abuse. This discussion has determined there there is no consensus that the REVDEL was an abuse. It has also noted that there is no consensus for its original use, either. But my role here is to determine if a consensus exists to overturn the original decision - which it does not. In what format the community is meant to prevent abuse of the tool, I do not know. There doesn't appear to me a method for the community to judge the material by themselves in an ordinary situation without administrative access to review the material. In this case, that material is available but the policy isn't written to allow for this exception. A discussion should take place at the WP:REVDEL talk page to resolve this issue. In the meantime, the material should not be restored because a consensus of administrators has not developed in 2 weeks to overturn the original decision. I make absolutely no judgement on the material that was REVDEL'd, no judgement on if the original action is correct, and no prejudicial statement on future precedent. This closure strictly addresses whether or not a consensus has developed to overturn an administrative action in accordance with the WP:REVDEL policy. I've determined there is not a consensus for that."
- There are 6 administrators in that thread, 3 in support and 3 opposed. Good day.--v/r - TP 23:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- May I ask how you determined consensus? I see 4 people supporting the revdel (Johnuniq, Only in death, Jehochman and SlimVirgin) in the ANI thread, and 9 people opposing (everyone else). In my own mind, the arguments of the 4 are weaker, so that counts against them as well, but I am biased, so I will say that, won't I? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- There is no consensus for me to take an action. I can't stop the original action, but I can take an action to reverse it. No consensus exists for me to take the 2nd action. No consensus generally defaults to status quo. You can discuss with the original admin that REVDEL the material to review the discussion and determine that the action was contended. But what cannot be done is for a future action to be taken when there is no consensus to take it. You can be bold and ask for forgiveness, but you can't ask for permission and then be bold.--v/r - TP 22:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm also a bit confused about this, and I'm not involved in Gamergate whatsoever (beyond closing a couple discussions that were listed at WP:ANRFC, I suppose). You quoted a policy which states revdel should not be used when any significant disagreement over its use could arise. This seems to suggest you must have consensus for revdel for it to remain deleted rather than consensus against revdel. Would you mind elaborating on why you think the "no consensus" outcome should be for the deletion to remain in light of that line in the policy? ~ RobTalk 22:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I did read it. Hence I quoted from what you wrote, and from the policy. For instance, let's simply look at the first point. From WP:REVDEL:
- The snark isn't really necessary. We've read the close, but we disagree with it because the policy (RevDel shouldn't be used when it would likely encounter "significant dissent") doesn't match with the action (RevDel remains while there's significant dissent). In any event, this is a more productive use of everyone's time. Dropping the link here for other editors who stumble upon this section while disagreeing with the close. Good day to you as well. ~ RobTalk 23:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not going to make a judgement on whether it should or shouldn't have been used. But it was. The question is then whether there is a consensus to reverse it. There wasn't. I suggested the issue of review by administrators be taken up at RfC, which you've done. I think that's the best way to go.--v/r - TP 23:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I already told you that I read your close, but thanks for copy-pasting it again. /sarcasm It's clear that you won't change your mind, which is fine. Since a masochist, I have opened a review of your close on WP:AN. I am happy that an RfC has been opened, which can modify WP:REVDEL to deal with future cases. However, I am of the opinion that even the policy as written does not support the revdel. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not going to make a judgement on whether it should or shouldn't have been used. But it was. The question is then whether there is a consensus to reverse it. There wasn't. I suggested the issue of review by administrators be taken up at RfC, which you've done. I think that's the best way to go.--v/r - TP 23:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I saw your comment on the WT:REVDEL page and was puzzled about what "gender divide" you're talking about. I also saw your comment above, where you say that the discussion among admins was "3-3". As far as I can see: there were two admins which supported revdel - SlimVirgin and Jehochman. (GorillaWarfare carried out the original revdel so she didn't vote). There were 2 which opposed: Protonk and DGG. Among all people who voted one way or another, only one - SlimVirgin - identified as a woman - the rest were male or unspecified. So I have no idea what you're talking about. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Consensus isn't about counting !votes. There is another admin in that discussion who agrees with GorillaWarfare and SlimVirgin. Ask yourself why three female admins feel one way, and the male admins feel another.--v/r - TP 02:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Are you talking about Liz? She didn't say anything about the case: hers was a procedural point. She was unaware that I had already discussed with GorillaWarfare before opening the ANI case - and GW set her straight about this. Perhaps I should have opened the discussion on WP:DRV instead, but as GW stated, ANI works too. I see no divide, gender or otherwise in the ANI ddiscussion. Also, are you seriously considering GW as part of consensus? Of course a person will agree with their own decision. DRV/ANI discussions are for other people to weigh in on the matter.
- Speaking generally, I reject the use of "gender divide" in this matter at all. The "class divide" is relevant to the matter, because the permissions are a crucial part of the argument. Gender is not: I was not aware that admin corps contain more women than the general editor population. And may I remind you of what OR said?. She said that she doesn't trust the general Wikipedian population, but admins are supposed to know what they're talking about. Am I the person who brought up "class" here? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) When Navigation Popups added the gender-identifying feature last month I did a little study of the currently-active admins, and the ratio was about ten males to one female, fairly consistently by a few different measures—and not obviously different from the general editor-demographics surveys I’ve seen. Details of my methodology & results available on request.—Odysseus1479 03:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- When discussing the gender divide, I can include GW. The gender divide point is that male admins see the material as no harmful while female admins see it as harmful. Whether GW revdel'd it or not has no bearing on the clear evidence that differntly gendered admins viewed this matter differently along gender lines; with the exception of Jehochman whom I apparently overlooked.--v/r - TP 03:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- That still makes only two female admins. Also, if you have followed the Gamergate drama, one cannot accuse MarkBernstein of being in the, "non-feminist" side. The redacted passage is actually by a woman, who is friends with Zoe Quinn, who was the main target of misogynistic attacks. If you can find some lesson about "gender" in this saga, you're a better person than I, Gunga Din. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- When discussing the gender divide, I can include GW. The gender divide point is that male admins see the material as no harmful while female admins see it as harmful. Whether GW revdel'd it or not has no bearing on the clear evidence that differntly gendered admins viewed this matter differently along gender lines; with the exception of Jehochman whom I apparently overlooked.--v/r - TP 03:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- So interesting to see a polite exchange of comments between admins as being "set straight". Clearly, I should have been more vocal in my support. My point was that I didn't believe ANI was the correct forum for the discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) When Navigation Popups added the gender-identifying feature last month I did a little study of the currently-active admins, and the ratio was about ten males to one female, fairly consistently by a few different measures—and not obviously different from the general editor-demographics surveys I’ve seen. Details of my methodology & results available on request.—Odysseus1479 03:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Your recent bot approvals request has been approved for trial. Please see the request page for details. — xaosflux Talk 01:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Bbb23's talk page: No clue what happened
I literally just left dinner midway because there was apparently some kind of software bizarreness emanating from my response to a comment on User:Bbb23's talk page that led to a couple of random comments being deleted and all hell breaking loose. I have no idea what happened here and have no idea what level of assurance is necessary, besides what has to be my apparent abject cluelessness here, regarding what led to that happening. I genuinely don't know what happened, and I couldn't respond or fix it because I was at dinner with only my iPhone, and the interface is not sufficient to allow me to respond to the person who restored the apparently-randomly-deleted comments or to you. I came back to my office to use my desktop computer to let you know I have no idea what happened here. I don't have the knowledge or authority to generate or turn over any kind of logs for this computer, which is what I used when I responded to User:Bbb23. I seriously don't know what happened and I am mortified and in borderline hysterics at this point, late on a Friday night when I thought I had responded appropriately to a nice comment, logged out, and gone away for the weekend. I am sorry that you are having to deal with anything but I haven't done anything, knowingly at any level, that I even understand well enough to formulate an apology for. So sorry to take your time. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- The "HAHAHA" plus the deleted content screamed "intentional vandalism" to me, but if you say it was an accident, I'm willing to take your word for it. Sorry for the over reaction.--v/r - TP 04:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for protecting me, TP. Amazing what happens to my Talk page when I'm off-wiki. No reason to feel mortified, Julietdeltalima, I forgive just about anything if it's done entertainingly. My favorite federal circuit judge is in a different part of the country: Alex Kozinski. He's smart and funny. Even better than his opinions are his stand-up comic routines when he gives talks. Maybe we should recruit him to rewrite Wikipedia policies. They might even be understandable then.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, I'm just glad I didn't embarrass myself more by blocking.--v/r - TP 16:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- No problem and no hard feelings! I can see why that had to have looked weird. I still can't figure out what the heck happened; even if others posted while I had an editing window open for that section, I wouldn't expect that saving my changes in that section would have had any effect on any other section. (Bbb23, rest assured Kozinski is on my list right after Posner and Easterbrook! and TParis, thank you for your patience in discussion of U.S. Court of Appeals judges as prose stylists!) All the best for a good week, folks - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, I'm just glad I didn't embarrass myself more by blocking.--v/r - TP 16:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for protecting me, TP. Amazing what happens to my Talk page when I'm off-wiki. No reason to feel mortified, Julietdeltalima, I forgive just about anything if it's done entertainingly. My favorite federal circuit judge is in a different part of the country: Alex Kozinski. He's smart and funny. Even better than his opinions are his stand-up comic routines when he gives talks. Maybe we should recruit him to rewrite Wikipedia policies. They might even be understandable then.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
TParis-alt (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Time: May 15, 2016 01:16:56
Message: test
Notes:
- If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
- Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.
--UTRSBot (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
DeFacto
Nice close. A lot of the details were a bit intermixed in the discussion and it required a bit of reading between the lines, but you summed it up quite cleanly. Now hopefully, he will move forward with a new perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've been watching his early edits and they seem to be focused in adding images. Hopefully he sticks to that for a good while until the community can open up to him again.--v/r - TP 23:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Retire permanently
This is NOT meant as an insult. You are too good for Wikipedia. You deserve better. Your family deserves your time far more than Wikipeida does. Life is short, please don't waste it on this disease ridden, moronically managed sham masquerading as an encyclopedia. God bless you, father, husband, soldier, neighbor, and friend. 69.143.128.229 (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Dennis, you should also quit for the sme reasons. You rock.69.143.128.229 (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- You are probably right, but I can quit any time I want. No really... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Dennis, I'll see you at the Wikipedians Anonymous meeting.--v/r - TP 21:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- You are probably right, but I can quit any time I want. No really... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
tpo violation!
I think this is what you meant [7], right? NE Ent 11:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 13:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—cyberpowerChat:Online 13:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
UTRS lik: 502
Hey, TParis, I was looking at your "help wanted" post about UTRS development on VPT (sounds kinda interesting), but the link you gave to the requirements gave me a 502 bad gateway error. this isn't one of those sneaky "solve the problem as your application" things, is it? if it is, i-i think i just failed Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, it shouldn't be a test. I think labs may have had a hiccup at the time. Try again.--v/r - TP 22:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's not a test at all or a preview of a major coding issue ;), it's labs being a </sentence before she gets herself in trouble>. I've sent an email or two about it in now, and i'm waiting response. Either way, demand a refresh till your browser crashes. It'll work. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Missed one!
Make sure you get our friend User:Debbie Wasserman Schultz's redirect in mainspace: Alimentation Douche-Tard! and its corresponding talk page redirect! Thanks a lot. MisterRandomized (talk) 03:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Got it, good catch.--v/r - TP 03:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Wrong section?
I think that this might have been intended for the previous section (the one about noticeboard changes, not the one about "very good" section headings). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciate the catch.--v/r - TP 05:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Lynda Roy sock template
Hi :) I think the sockpuppet template you removed in this edit was intended by the user - I think they were quoting it to ask what it meant (it was prefaced with "Not sure what to make of this so posting below:"). I'm not sure how they would otherwise have quoted it myself, actually (short of circumlocution), but I think that's what they were trying to do, and removing it wholesale seems to leave their previous half a sentence dangling…. Not sure what to do, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I thought as much too and that's what I said in the WP:ANI report. I took it off their page because the ANI discussion was leading toward believing that she was self-admitting to socking. If you ever want to link to a template, you can either use the {{t}} template, or just use regular wiki-links like Template:Sockpuppet.--v/r - TP 05:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Cool, sorry to bother you. Thanks :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 06:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- (No need to read this paragraph if you aren't interested.) (Rereading your comment at ANI, I think I misinterpreted it — I thought you meant that they didn't understand the template [at all, and copied it due to a lack of competency], whereas I think you actually meant that they didn't understand the template [in the sense of that they were confused by it, and copied it to request clarification. This explanation doesn't really matter much; I just thought I'd write it up in case you were curious about what was going through my head, and also for the sake of lurkers following the conversation.) Thanks again! Goldenshimmer (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
IPv6 range blocks
Hey - saw your befuddlement about IPv6 range blocks at ANI (gotta take Mr. Katie to the airport so I'm up super early) and thought I'd give you Katie's IPv6 Rangeblocking Tutorial. This is SO easy and way easier than understanding IPv4 addressing and blocking. Don't get caught up in the whole 'millions of IPs could be affected' stuff at the MediaWiki help page or at our IPv6 article, because in this case we're talking about one disruptor.
As a reminder, we're talking in this instance about a list of IPs that NRP has listed here, and I'm copying one of those sections for reference:
Take a look at the pattern of these addresses. See how the first four groups of hexadecimals are the same? That's one end user. You take those four groups, use two colons, and append /64. If you block 2602:30A:2C95:8C0::/64, there won't be any collateral damage and you'll block your guy. Even if he resets his router or something, his new IP range will still have the same pattern and you can rangeblock the new range. The first three groups will be the same if he's using the same ISP; this is the case with NRP's vandal.
It basically breaks down that the first hexadecimal group is continent-level, the second is country-level, and the third is ISP-level. Don't do a /32 range without some serious consideration, because then you really could block millions of IP addresses. Somebody did that a couple of weeks ago (there was an ANI thread about it that I'm too lazy to find) and much handwringing ensued. ;-)
It's possible that an organization could further break down that /64 block into a /128 block but it's very rare. I've done dozens of IPv6 range blocks and have never run into that scenario.
Thus endeth Katie's IPv6 Rangeblocking Tutorial. :-) Katietalk 07:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks Katie. So, it's essentially the same as IPv4 just with a more addresses and using hexidecimal instead of decimal?--v/r - TP 08:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- (tps) Yep, IPv6 looks complicated, but it's really not so bad. I like this simple tutorial, but unfortunately, it usually doesn't apply when dealing with mobile IPv6 ranges. The /64 rule-of-thumb works for (primarily) North American residential ISPs, but when it comes to mobile broadband, I've seen socking and other disruption over much wider ranges, and blocking anything more than /64 can be dicey. If in doubt, there are range calculators (I use this one) that will do the math for you. P.S. Once you determine that a /64 block is appropriate, you can just stick any of the single addresses in the block form and append "/64". Just like with IPv4 rangeblocks, the software will give the address the appropriate number of zeros automatically. —DoRD (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.
- DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.
- DHeyward (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
- For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
- Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
- The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed
The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Request for administrative action
There is currently a thread at WP:AN regarding the editor Sfarney which basically needs closing. I remember some admin, I can't remember which, who said you were someone who has shown a willingness to close longish discussions like this one. If that is true, your input would be quite welcome thee. John Carter (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Seems like it got resolved already. Thanks for thinking of me.--v/r - TP 23:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey TParis, I could use your help with this. This guy should be on the front page in the DYK section, getting thousands of hits. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, good work--but now for the rest, TParis. We could beat Bacon explosion. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I can do more once I get home, but I've got a full plate at work today.--v/r - TP 00:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Good luck with it. I'm running off to teach some Oedipus. My oldest says "she hates my class" so I'm feeling a bit down. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- “One thing on which you can depend is / He sure knew who a boy’s best friend is!”—Tom Lehrer, “Oedipus Rex”, 1959.—Odysseus1479 17:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I worked 13 hours today and 10 yesterday. Tomorrow I have to be at work early. I'm super tired. I am meeting up with User:Mark Miller on Saturday, too. So, not sure when I'll be able to get to this but I'll try to have it at 1500 chars before the DYK window closes.--v/r - TP 06:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies: I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be able to get to this. I have too much going on right now.--v/r - TP 00:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- No worries TParis--be good. Take care, Drmies (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies: I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be able to get to this. I have too much going on right now.--v/r - TP 00:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I worked 13 hours today and 10 yesterday. Tomorrow I have to be at work early. I'm super tired. I am meeting up with User:Mark Miller on Saturday, too. So, not sure when I'll be able to get to this but I'll try to have it at 1500 chars before the DYK window closes.--v/r - TP 06:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- “One thing on which you can depend is / He sure knew who a boy’s best friend is!”—Tom Lehrer, “Oedipus Rex”, 1959.—Odysseus1479 17:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Good luck with it. I'm running off to teach some Oedipus. My oldest says "she hates my class" so I'm feeling a bit down. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- I can do more once I get home, but I've got a full plate at work today.--v/r - TP 00:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Picture
I found a picture. --GRuban (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Salvidrim! § Kit Parker 2007(In reply to Salvidrim adding (2007) to the caption)
I'm not actually sure that photo was taken in 2007. It was published in an article 2007, but the same article also had a photo marked as taken in 2003. See, the photo caption makes it clear that he was a captain at the time it was taken. (That is what CPT means, right?) And wasn't he a lieutenant colonel by 2009? Does someone go from captain to lieutenant colonel in 2 years? Or maybe I'm wrong in when he got the lieutenant colonelcy. Colonelship? --GRuban (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Fair point. Until we have more info I'll amend the caption to "2007 or earlier"; it's just important to provide time-relative context to any visual representation. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Or we could say "(picture published in 2007)" which also makes it clear the picture was from 2007 or earlier and might sound more... "professional" I guess? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- 'Preciate y'all's help. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Scouting for Shangri La
I'm a new user, so forgive me of any etiquette infractions! I am looking for local wikipedians who may be interested in assisting the Shangri La staff in organizing an edit-a-thon this summer. I understand that this may not be within your designated area of interest. However, your name came up in a discussion with some other contributors as someone who has a wealth of experience, and may be able to refer us to other users, if not assist directly. Thanks! Km31284 (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Km31284: Hi. I can certainly help and I am on the right island, but I'd have to warn you that I am awfully terrible at event planning. I tried to organize an edit-a-thon at the Honolulu public library a couple of years ago but I couldn't pull it together. If all you need is a Wikipedian with experience, I can provide that. I'll be moving away in January, though, so any event that I could participate in would have to be before then. If you'd like to email me, using the "email this user" feature in the left navigation menu, we can organize a time to meet and discuss what you'd need from me.--v/r - TP 18:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you TParis for the great meet-up!
Hawaii is sooooooo much hoter than Sacramento by far. Yes...it was 107 degrees here the other day but...it was a dry heat. LOL! That phrase is so true. The 85 degrees with the humidity was seriously gonna kill me in Hawaii. I am such a mainlander now it is embarrassing ( I blame the three years in Yosemite). But it was seriously cool to get the tour of Ford Island and the drive around Hickam was absolutely freaking awesome! It was really a great joy to see my first elementary school, my old neighborhood and the old complex that I think we lived in but at least I know we were on the right street. Everything is so different from 1971.
Below is one of the images we took. This is the basic area that I grew up. The tower that you see is very near my old home. I lived there from age 3 to 8. From 1966 to 1971.
Sorry I did not respond here earlier. I was seriously needing recovery time. I tried to jump back into Wikipedia too fast after I got back and then realized I couldn't handle sitting in front of the computer too long without getting really tired. Then it started to get hot out here and I was just not a happy camper. And yes...I was a total Touron in Hawaii. I was so out of my element. I did get a really good tan though.
--Mark Miller (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
New user, not sure how to handle copyright issue in a BLP
Mark_J._Perry seems to be mostly copied directly from his blog, which is one of the refs. Doesn't seem like he's notable either. I'm not sure how to go about tagging it as a copyright violation and possibly put it up for deletion. In case you're wondering I picked your talk page because I've seen you write on some noticeboards in the past and you seem pretty level-headed and decently nice. Any assistance with this would be appreciated. 71.11.1.204 (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the compliments. I'll check it out.--v/r - TP 23:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, thank you for the help. I appreciate it. 71.11.1.204 (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I made a serious mistake
- Neve-selbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi TParis (and GoodDay). I have found myself in a slight predicament and I think this may result badly. I reverted an edit that was incorrectly marked as minor on List of state leaders in 2004 and I gave a decent rationale for doing so. Zoltan Bukovszky reverted me again. Since I was using WP:AWB, I accidentally reverted him again as I was using the Advanced settings that overrided the revert he made. I should have checked the diff but I was in a hurry and I saved it anyway. He then proceeded to post a rather threatening message on my talk page (that I soon semi-reverted) and I immediately realised my error and quickly reverted the edit. He remains unsatisfied and repeated to ping users in an attempt to have me blocked again. I have tried reasoning with him (and apologising) but this seems to full on deaf ears. I made a stupid mistake and I cannot regret it further. I have been unblocked for almost four months now, and I have hardly edited the "State leaders" articles while preoccupying myself with other articles. I made a serious error of judgment, and I am now worried that other users will try and gang up against me in an effort to drive me from Wikipedia. I need help.--Neve–selbert 22:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Neve-selbert made a mistake, admitted it & then reverted it. IMHO, case closed. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hello TParis. I am one of the admins who was pinged to this discussion about User:Neve-selbert. I notice you are not steadily active these days, but since you are the last unblocking admin, your opinion would be useful. The unblock conditions from last May are rather general so it's not easy to tell if they have been violated. (Did he promise not to edit the Lists of state leaders?) User:GoodDay is listed as his mentor and he might also have an opinion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Are we really considering blocking a user over 2 reverts on an article and 1 revert in user's own userspace? Let GoodDay do their thing by using this as a mentorship opportunity. We really have gotten a bit strict if 1 foul up in 4 months can get you blocked. @Neve-selbert - Check your AWB settings. You agreed to a 1RR and using automated tools is not going to be an excuse in the future. If automated tools becomes a problem, you may need to stick with manual edits.--v/r - TP 02:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've advised Neve-selbert to stay away from those articles & Zb, until November. In full agreement with you, mistakes (which were latter corrected & apologized for) don't warrant a block :) GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Are we really considering blocking a user over 2 reverts on an article and 1 revert in user's own userspace? Let GoodDay do their thing by using this as a mentorship opportunity. We really have gotten a bit strict if 1 foul up in 4 months can get you blocked. @Neve-selbert - Check your AWB settings. You agreed to a 1RR and using automated tools is not going to be an excuse in the future. If automated tools becomes a problem, you may need to stick with manual edits.--v/r - TP 02:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
UTRS logo
FOX 52 was evidently quite anxious to archive the GL section, and my initial ping there was malformed, so I thought I’d just drop you a line here. There are three versions shown below. Let me know if any further tweaks are needed, or if you want the one with the logotype set in any other languages.
-
Logo with tagline -
Icon only -
Simplified icon for small renderings
—Odysseus1479 05:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'll probably use all three of these. The simplified one I can see being used as a favicon for sure and the one with the tagline on the WP:UTRS page. The middle one would be the main logo in the header of the UTRS interface. I really appreciate you putting in the work and coming up with the ideas.--v/r - TP 05:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Immense thanks Odysseus1479 from me as well! UTRS's lack of a favicon has been an annoyance for years for me but I lacked any artistic drive to fix it, so your help is immeasurably appreciated. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
User analysis
https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Kudpung&project=en.wikipedia.org is not working. I need some of this info because it required by Arbcom. I have also notified the other developers. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: What isn't working about it?--v/r - TP 07:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- It loads but all the data results fields are empty. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- You're going to have to get MUCH more specific on what is going on; because it works for me.--v/r - TP 22:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- I thought that was pretty specific ;) but anyway, it's working again now. I have come to the conclusion that it'a a connectivity issue, but not necessarily due to my unusual location. All other US servers load their sites quickly. That all said, I have a question: X-tools user editing times analysis: are the times shown UTC or the display time zone as set in my Wikipedia prefs? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
- My profile is having issues. User ID and user groups are blank, First edit: Dec 31, 2099, 12:00 AM, Latest edit: Dec 2, 2, 12:00 AM, zeros throughout the data, (Semi-)automated edits: n.a., Reverted edits: n.a., Namespace Totals and Year counts are blank, time card is an empty chart, latest edit is an empty chart and the rest of the sections are blank.
- Honestly, it looks like my data isn't loaded into the tool. No errors, console or web based. (Executed in 0.22 second(s). · Taken 1.75 megabytes of memory to execute. (Peak: 2.5)) Though a cache clearing refresh did fix it. But I don't know if that was me or the server that fixed itself. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Top edits is throwing a 500 if that's any help. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I believe what you're telling me, but I do not have the same results. Your edit count shows all the data for me.--v/r - TP 02:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is starting to sound like a client side cache problem, as all data loads fine for me too. Try WP:BYPASS.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 02:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- I believe what you're telling me, but I do not have the same results. Your edit count shows all the data for me.--v/r - TP 02:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- You're going to have to get MUCH more specific on what is going on; because it works for me.--v/r - TP 22:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- It loads but all the data results fields are empty. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello Tparis
You remember me i make one article from you name Navv Inder . So i talk about you in this article so please guide me. how to add biography in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by NavvInder (talk • contribs) 15:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection
Hello, TParis. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
- Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
- A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Connecting re: Wikipedia APIs
Hey TParis,
Great to meet you @ the Wikiconference. I'd really appreciate an intro to your contact re: accessing Wikipedia data via API. Specificlly, I'm looking for a way to efficiently pull bios for people at scale -- ie: 100's of 1,000's.
Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibbonsdna (talk • contribs) 20:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andrew! Isaac here. I am looking foreword to learning from you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swapoo24 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Consairway at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello
Hello TParis. I had the honor of meeting you at the conference during the Wells Fargo room training (mature black man in suit and hat). Thank you so much for the help you gave me.
That training was a 'quickie'. I have much to learn and hope you don't mind helping. Thanks!--v/rSwapoo24 (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hey, that suit and hat was nice. I almost wore a pin stripe vest and pants that day. Feel free to drop by any time you need some help!--v/r - TP 21:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Consairway
Hello! Your submission of Consairway 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! Edwardx (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
UTRS CheckUser list
Hey - would you add me to the CU (and Oversighter) list at UTRS so I can act on that queue? The guy has been waiting two weeks and it's a simple response but I can't do it because I'm not on the list. Thanks, and keep in touch. :-) Katietalk 15:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- No problem, I've taken care of it. Thanks for volunteering.--v/r - TP 17:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Consairway
On 26 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Consairway, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1992, civilian employees of Consairway were granted veteran status by the Veterans Benefits Administration for their World War II service transporting munitions and military personnel? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Consairway. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Consairway), 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.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Malleus Maleficarum
FYI1: [8]
FYI2: [9]
FYI3: [10] a part of [11](long) --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
FYI4 (short): [12] --Asterixf2 (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi TParis.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, TParis. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
UTRS
Can you take a look at [13]? It's been 3 weeks since your request was answered by the checkuser. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
WikiConference North America Barnstar |
| Thank you for the role you played at WikiConference North America 2016. This year's conference could not have been a success without your contributions and we hope you will continue to be involved in 2017. On behalf of WikiConference North America - Gamaliel (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC) |
I saw your comments on another user's page. Terrorism in the United States is paltry, certainly. Apparently slapped up by someone copying stuff form websites. I linked most of one section, weeding out some obvious duds as I worked. But the great majority of the incidents I looked at were actual, ideologically-motivated, terrorist attacks. Some linked to extremist organizations, others self-radicalized. The Harlem mosque article is very weak on analysis and unclear about ideology of that mosque. I don't know enough to judge motive on that one. I would be cautions about hasty deletions or mass deletions. I proceeded one by one, linking most, and deleting only after reading up. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Op Ed removal at Trumpism
Yo, amigo. There's nothing wrong with reverting an arguably UNDUE op-ed. But the issue at play is that TTAAC published a gratuitous vicious ad hominem smear against the author of that Op-Ed, thereby flouting BLP and the protections it provides for innocent third parties and the legal protection it provides WP. That is the issue and it suggests this editor is WP:NOTHERE. I'm surprised you'd discuss the trivial revert and ignore the issue raised by the edit comment. BTW normal, mature, constructive editors don't have opponents -- from time to time we have disagreements, not opponents. We discuss content. WP:Competence includes fundamental level of socialization that enables an editor to engage collaboratively with the diverse range of editors here. SPECIFICO talk 01:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- We've had good discussions in the past, so please don't take this personally. But right now, I'm a bit frustrated but what I perceive to be double standards and I really don't want to talk about this. I've stricken my comments at AE. I'm not upset, but my faith in other editors/sysops in this topic area and AE is damaged. I'm feeling more division between myself and everyone else on this project than I've felt in a long time and I really doubt my words will be given any consideration by others. I've never felt more in my belief that there is a hostility toward conservatives here and that collaboration ends at political beliefs. I'm really not sure I could hold a conversation right now that wouldn't be damaging to our ability to chat about our differences. And that's not something I'd like to risk.--v/r - TP 01:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- I fully understand, and that's why you are one of the editors whose wisdom and efforts I will always respect. See ya later alligator. SPECIFICO talk 01:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
"Filth"
Hi, TP. You say on Hidden Tempo's AE appeal that "I've never seen someone sanctioned for calling an editor's remarks 'filth'". No, and if you're seeing it now, it looks like you're buying into Hidden Tempo's narrative that the "filth" edit summary was one of the things I sanctioned him for. It was not. As I pointed out on AE in response to HT's many claims that it was, I topic-banned him for "persistent tendentious editing, soapboxing, and WP:BLP violations on Trump- and Clinton-related pages".[14] I didn't mention the "filth" edit summary in my banning rationale. I did mention it in a remark I posted simultaneously, above the ban template, but certainly not with guns blazing: for {¶\‰}¥{ sake, I barely even criticized it. I'm not that sensitive, and I don't suppose Volunteer Marek is either. I said I was "mystified" by it, given that the post HT was removing with that summary had seemed civil enough to me, and the statement VM made in it, that WP:BLP applies to talkpages, was correct. That's all. Please look at my edit for yourself: my ban rationale + remark about "filth edit summary", all one edit. An admin being mystified is not a sanction. But by now it's looking like my "sanction" for calling another editor's remarks "filth" has entered the realm of truth simply by being assiduously repeated. It may be around as a classic Wikipedia myth when both you and I are gone from here.
Altogether HT's notion of what he was banned for is IMO mistaken, not to say imaginary. Please look at the AE post where I explain this, it's the second paragraph here. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC).
- Fair enough. I recalled you saying that in your remarks, but it'd already slipped my mind by the time I started formulating my comments. My primary concern is the civil POV pushing that I've always faced, though. I'm more apt to walk away from it than to keep arguing against a brick wall that will never move. Most people aren't. It's really easy to make someone else appear to be tendentious on this project.--v/r - TP 22:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, TParis. I just stopped by to ask if you could please take a minute to review my shortened and revised statement here, as it would be greatly appreciated. I misinterpreted Bishonen's statement and thought that the "filth" remark was part of my ban, since she mentioned it in the ban message on my talk page. I removed all mention of this incident in my revised statement.
Additionally, I suppose it would be far too much to ask you to weigh in on my appeal on the AE board, but I think it would go a long way for an administrator to at least confirm (perhaps in your statement?) what many of us already know: that there is one standard for edits, sanctions, and WP:RS that are perceived to reflect well on Democrats (no action taken), and another for edits that are viewed to reflect poorly on Democrats (lengthy bans and/or blocks).As it stands now, the narrative appears to be that I am something of a raving gun-loving, right-wing Christian fundamentalist who listens to Rush Limbaugh all day long and is trying to infect Wikipedia with talking points from Sean Hannity and Alex Jones. The general consensus amongst regular users is that the 6-month topic ban was draconian and needlessly punitive in nature, with three or four administrators standing in solidarity to support Bishonen's TBAN. It would be fantastic to have at least one dissenting viewpoint. Thanks very much in advance, but please don't feel obligated to speak on my behalf. I'm already very grateful for the statement you've already made. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)- I guarantee that my opinion isn't going to be helpful. I'm also viewed on here as a "raving gun-loving, right-wing Christian fundamentalist who listens to Rush Limbaugh all day long and is trying to infect Wikipedia with talking points from Sean Hannity and Alex Jones". I really don't know what to do here.--v/r - TP 05:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Haha, understood. Thank you anyway. I'm very curious how you managed to infiltrate the ranks of administrators, though!Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- I generally don't edit political topics. Too many partisan editors there. In the past, I've been able to be impartial enough but sometimes, lately, this stuff has gotten to me. I'm not actually a conservative, anyway. According to isidewith.com, I am slightly left of American center. I just come off as conservative because I'm constantly arguing that people with shitty attitudes and POVs that are given broad leeway as long as they have a certain persuasion.--v/r - TP 07:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Haha, understood. Thank you anyway. I'm very curious how you managed to infiltrate the ranks of administrators, though!Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- I guarantee that my opinion isn't going to be helpful. I'm also viewed on here as a "raving gun-loving, right-wing Christian fundamentalist who listens to Rush Limbaugh all day long and is trying to infect Wikipedia with talking points from Sean Hannity and Alex Jones". I really don't know what to do here.--v/r - TP 05:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, TParis. I just stopped by to ask if you could please take a minute to review my shortened and revised statement here, as it would be greatly appreciated. I misinterpreted Bishonen's statement and thought that the "filth" remark was part of my ban, since she mentioned it in the ban message on my talk page. I removed all mention of this incident in my revised statement.
Precious anniversary
| |
| a person's freedoms | |
|---|---|
| ... you were recipient no. 1055 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Dennis Brown Talk Page.
I started that thread because it's very clear to me that TTAAC needs to be blocked or banned. If you'd like to start a more general discussion of editing in American Politics, lets find a place to do that w/o cluttering up Dennis' talk page. I feel that your last comment there kind of denied the on-point comments that I made and Marek later made, but whatever. I'm always glad to interact with you. SPECIFICO talk 01:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Did you see Marek's retraction?--v/r - TP 02:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- That has nothing to do with the 2 reverts I posted and TTAAC erroneously denied. I have no idea why Dennis thought it's resolved. If it was due to your comment, that's too bad. SPECIFICO talk 03:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
A beer for you!
|
|
Have I told you how happy I have been since your return? Drmies (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC) |
- I'm always happy to entertain :).--v/r - TP 19:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Seriously, there's plenty of entertainment. Judgment, even if sometimes from a different angle, that's what we always need more of. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))
Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
  
|
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year!
Hi TParis - I hope you had a very merry holiday season. May your new year be happy and prosperous! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Happy New Year, TParis!
TParis,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
UTRS II
Hi, TP! This is a different UTRS question. I'm writing to you because I'm pretty sure you were the one who activated my UTRS account back in the day. Anyway, whether you did or not, you advised me, and I remember vividly how patient and helpful you were. Nevertheless, I haven't really been able to be useful there. I can't away with the interface, and when I made a serious attempt to review an unblock request (years ago now) I was quite discouraged by getting no response from the blocking admin. In short, I'm ready to give it up, I think I can be more useful in other places. Some ten days ago, I emailed utrs-admins@googlegroups.com, an address I found somewhere on the UTRS Wikipedia page, to ask to be un-volunteered. But I've had no response to that either. Maybe somebody has silently removed me per my email request, maybe not. I'm unhappy with the notion that I may still be there and people may try to talk to me, and *I* won't respond. Can you give me any advice? Bishonen | talk 15:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC).
- E-mail received. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 21:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC).
- (edit conflict) Hello Bish. I'm sorry, I hadn't seen your email or I'd have been happy to help. No one will be able to send you any messages unless you initiate the conversation by emailing them first. In fact, even old tickets will no longer be able to email you once they've closed. But, for your assurance, I went ahead and deactivated your account on the system to make sure. If you'd ever like it reactivated, please just let me know. As a side note, we've revamped the way we notify blocking admins that we need their help.--v/r - TP 21:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Uh, did you revamp it before or after 27 December 2016? Because I got a message on my page then, concerning a case where I was the blocking admin, and where I guess the system for notifying me hadn't worked as expected.[15] That's how I got to thinking about it. Anyway, it's a weight off my shoulders, thank you very much! Bishonen | talk 21:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC).
- So, that notice isn't affected by whether or not you have a UTRS account. It's sends a message to any blocking admin. The reason you didn't get the message is because the bot respects your "bots|deny=all" template at the top of your talk page. I could modify the code to log it when UTRSBot encounters one of these, I suppose. Something in the log about "Blocking admin does not allow bot edits" or something.--v/r - TP 21:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- The bots|deny! I never thought of that. I like to have it, though, it saves me a lot of pest bots. If you changed the code to log when the bot was frustrated, would that mean somebody would write to me by hand (as Just Chilling in fact eventually did)? That sounds like a good thing. Bishonen | talk 00:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC).
- So, that notice isn't affected by whether or not you have a UTRS account. It's sends a message to any blocking admin. The reason you didn't get the message is because the bot respects your "bots|deny=all" template at the top of your talk page. I could modify the code to log it when UTRSBot encounters one of these, I suppose. Something in the log about "Blocking admin does not allow bot edits" or something.--v/r - TP 21:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Uh, did you revamp it before or after 27 December 2016? Because I got a message on my page then, concerning a case where I was the blocking admin, and where I guess the system for notifying me hadn't worked as expected.[15] That's how I got to thinking about it. Anyway, it's a weight off my shoulders, thank you very much! Bishonen | talk 21:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC).
Just in case....
....you choose to make a further reply at AE that seems to expect a reply on my part, be aware that I'm off to bed now and so will not be able to respond until about 11pm GMT when I return from work. Night night. CIreland (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- @CIreland: I don't know how you came to the conclusion you did reading the same diffs I did. But I'm not going to hound you anymore. I know I've got a bias. I've worn it on my sleeve a lot lately. But I just don't see what you see.--v/r - TP 03:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)