User talk:The Gnome/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:The Gnome. 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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Txiki Begiristain

Hello there, from Portugal,

can we please reach a compromise in this player's article? Now, i elaborate on my request:

1 - i don't know why did you remove the player position(s) in the introduction, but they are perfectly valid information. I wrote the intro and mentioned the flow because the previous version was more "chronological" so to speak, it mentioned what the subject did with his club(s), then the national team and lastly as a director of football, i did not imply one was more important that the other but, matter of fact, his footballer career is more (much more) notable than that of his director one.

2 - wording, i apologize for reinstating some POV-ish bits again, good of you to compose it. However, you did overlink two subjects when you reverted me (J. Toshack and L. López Rekarte), so i had to re-revert there; in reference #1, you reverted my translation when "alirón" is some sort of a victory song in Spanish (i have now reworded translation better), it has nothing to do with euphoria. Also, said source contained a match result before the wording ("2-2"), you removed that too from the title. Why? Last but not least, the more commonly used wikilink for the sport is Association football, not soccer.

3 - display of contents: i feel there is no need for a "Director" sub-section because Mr. Begiristain is acting as director to a CLUB, so it can be inserted in the "club career" section, don't you concur? I do agree with you 100% that the refs needed to be displayed in better fashion (with the fields rather than automatically), i have helped out in that department in last edits.

All in all, hopefully we will see eye to eye on most of the topics i approached in this message. Sorry for any inconvenience, happy editing --Quite A Character (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I have further enhanced my desire of a compromise, mentioning his CURRENT status in the introduction. --Quite A Character (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind and constructive response. A general comment: Many Wikipedia articles about show business personalities, prominently including professional athletes read as if written by their agents and/or fans. We need to be vigilant against unverifiable, personal input masquerading as encyclopaedic content.

About your objections:

We agree on the need for citations to be in the appropriate style. We also agree on linking "football" to "association football". We agree on the meaning of aliron; on removing overlinks; and on removing POVish content.

As to the lede, the subject is noticeably well into his career as a director of football. He is not a novice. And he has not worked in small, not very popular clubs. He has worked in evidently elite clubs. Therefore, he already has a career that today people know him for what he does as well as for what he once did. And, in the future, he may offer his services to another team.

There is clearly no need to mention what he now does twice, once in the opening paragraph and once again at the end of the lede. So, one of the two must go and the strongest choice seems to leave this bit of crucial info in the first para.

Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the repeated bit in the lede. But keep in mind the following, intros must contain two things per WP:FOOTY guidelines: 1 - sumup of his career (in Mr. Begiristain's case, what he did as a PLAYER for club and country and what he has done so far as a DIRECTOR, that is why I repeated the mention to the latter); 2 - his current job/status.

However, if you feel adamant about the removal of one, I will not "fuss and pout" whatsoever. Maybe a compromise could be "...and the current director of football of English club Man. City", and "After retiring, he worked as a director of football.", without mentioning any clubs (and leaving that to greater description in body of text).

Take care as well --Quite A Character (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Harry Lauder

I don't have the time to read your long post. Clarification: "someone" was blocked because the someone requested it himself, and the RfC makes no sense because it asked to keep the infobox, but it was removed, so can't be "kept". Nice meeting you, good points otherwise! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear Gerda Arendt, thank you for your message. I must say, though, that it is a little surprising, as well as disconcerting, to learn that you did not have time to read my post, seeing as you congratulate me for the points I raised in it, and, moreover, you clarify another matter for me. Thanks again all the same and take care. -The Gnome (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I strongly believe in short posts, and not more than two per discussion, so can't reply there ;) - I was on my way out when I wrote that. - I have been advised to forget the topic completely, which was easy for the beginning of the year until now, but looks like the summer games start over again. Last year we had Gustav Holst. I enjoy other festivals! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't link in my first post here, just a private clarification. Why you cite someone to ANI who is (self-requested) blocked for weeks to come, is a mystery to me. See also 1 + 2. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I was not aware that the user had already been reported for the same incidents and then blocked. That is all. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think there's only two ways of resolving this. 1) is to ignore it and just take (or not) an infobox as and when it comes. Some of the articles I got to GA have infoboxes, some don't. Live and let live, I say. 2) Is to take the whole lot to Arbcom again, get a whole bunch of longstanding editors topic banned and maybe have a few retirements thrown into the bargain. Seriously, if you can resolve this dispute, you've probably got the skillset to get the DUP and Sinn Fein to forget all their differences, have a cup of tea, and look at some cats on the internet. I haven't done 2) myself because I fear I'd be dragged into the fray and given a sound telling off. Or something. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The folks who obsess about infoboxes are truly a sight to behold. Here is some text describing Wikipedia, taken from the User Page of one of them, text that he/she has since deleted. Perhaps they do get embarrassed after all. :-)

"...collective groups press a tiny agenda without objectivity, without common sense and without recourse to the use of intelligence. Some articles are just idiot-magnets, around which idiot clusters form, dipping the levels of common sense to dangerously low levels; others attract rank trolls whose idea of discourse is to use walls of tedious text, a condescending attitude and naked arrogance to try and force their warped view of matters where they need not be forced. The lowest circles of hell should be reserved for the arrogant MoS fetishists...most of whom couldn't write any decent prose if their lives depended on it – the second-rate drivel they spew out looks and feels like it's been done by a half-wit with a metal bar through their skull."

Thanks for the humorous comments, they are truly needed and appreciated. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie, to whom are you talking, in a thread with the header Harry Lauder? You say "just take (or not) an infobox as and when it comes". I agree fully. It came, and who did not take it? Again and again? Talk to them, please, about calling a feature that was stable from 2008 to now bold, perhaps? - For the text quoted (which I saw before), there's only one response for me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Let me also quote (read again the same page which is good for consolation): a "...reminder of just how fragile life is, and how we tend to take things for granted. We're all born with an expire date so remember to appreciate each new day and savor the moments. I know of no one who tires of compliments and well wishes - be generous in sharing them", - thank you, Atsme. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed the flurry of ANI activity pertaining to Harry Lauder etc. Good gawd. There has been talk about an arbcom on infoboxes, to which I believe both you and I were dragged in by bot, and clearly the issue is not whether or not there should be infoboxes but whether there are user behavior issues pertaining to them. I just remembered that the bot once took me to a dispute over the Rod Steiger infobox, and lo and behold the same cast of characters, same tactics. P.S., there is talk of someone getting a "self block." but reading the ANI it's plain it was not unrelated. Coretheapple (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia should perhaps deploy an in-house service of psychological support. :-) We editors often get carried away with issues that are, at the end of the day, definitely trivial in the grand scheme of things. Yet we allow them to occupy a significant part of our lives and especially our moods and sentiments. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes II was filed and declined - and that was good. Arbitration has not helped in the past, nor will it in the future. I am the alleged leader of the infobox flashmob, DYK? - The word infobox-war was coined in 2005, well before I arrived on Wikipedia. - There were several arbcases, I was subjected to the last. Little is it known that all restrictions from that case were lifted by April 2016, restrictions such as: one user was not permitted to even add an infobox to articles he wrote, also "no more than 2 comments per discussion" (which would actually help if applied to all participants, not just me). - I still go by it, saves time. - The solution could be so simple: just no reverts. Period. Watch out for them, revert them, but only once, then talk. You heard my battle cry ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

To me, the issue is not infoboxes but user behavior. Full stop. Ownership of articles implemented via personal attacks, and users immunized from consequences for their personal attacks by a coterie of Wikifriends. I noticed that in two articles involving British personalities, non-infobox-related, even before this infoboxes bullshit arose. One of the disputes led to a longtime user throwing up his hands and retiring. ANI proved ineffective in their case. I regret in retrospect that I was not more help to the editor in question at that ANI, but I found their position on the merits to be wrong. So I was with the "cool kids" for a while. It's just utter bullshit, it's affecting content in a negative way, it's creating a toxic atmosphere in certain articles and it's driving people from the project. It won't stop until topic bans and permablocks are handed out to the affected parties. The position at more than one ANI is to denigrate and "boomerang" editors who are victims of personal attacks, and that needs to stop. Until such issues are taken more seriously it is going to continue. Coretheapple (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is above the issue du jour. Two rules are pertinent here. One is about the belief that those who work a lot on an article are somehow more entitled than other editors to decide what's "right" for it. And the other is simply the obligation to be civil. The ominous development, as far as I can tell, is this tendency of some Wikipedia editors to form issue-centred groups, which go on to behave like predator gangs. -The Gnome (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I am part of such a gang, the cabal of the outcasts, - you are invited ;) - some will believe that you are secret members anyway, and that I am the mean spirit behind attacks on articles without an infobox. About main editors making editorial choices: I questioned that, and was cited to AE (arbitration enforcement, and happy all who never encountered it) in return, because the question was my third edit, and only two allowed, see above. (Archives of Laurence Olivier, if you can digest sickening literature. An admin left Wikipedia after he had protected the article because of an edit war over the hidden notice about "no infobox", and was desysopped for that. Remembered). Proceed with care. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Fortunately I've run into this problem in articles that are generally outside my area of interest, and twice after being summoned by bot. So I'm somewhat peripheral. On my user talk page it was suggested that some kind of essay be written to deal with the problem of civility not being enforced, but I don't quite see how that would have any impact. My feeling on infoboxes is that they are no big deal, but that the tactics being deployed are a big deal. Coretheapple (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

My little essay was for the cabal, 2013 and nothing much to change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

In a nutshell: "I believe that no article is "harmed"/"damaged" by an infobox that lets the reader see at a glance at least when and where to locate a subject." - which is exactly what Harry Lauder had, and I suggested for Pierre Boulez. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

There used to be an RfC process for editors, but that was abolished a while back in favor of ANI, which is ineffective. I'd suggest that the entire system is broken. Coretheapple (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

As far as infoboxes are concerned, the problem is that there is no unfiorm criteria, so some articles have it and some don't, based upon the presence or absence of editors who don't like it. Has nothing to do with the characteristics of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Just found that article. Look for the name of the author in The Rite of Spring infobox discussion (on the talk, not even archived, it's where I learned the phrase "Please let's not add another eyesore to another beautifully crafted article."). He was almost banned (would have been a third time) in the infoboxes arbcase, about four years ago. That's how arbitration doesn't work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

RfCs

Hi, re this edit - never copy the |rfcid= parameter from a different RfC, it compromises the database maintained by Legobot (talk · contribs), with one result being that the RfC listings are damaged. For instance, at this version of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies, the heading links to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility but the text is taken from Talk:Greek royal family#RfC for the article's title. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and the correction. Apologies for the mistake. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Requiem (Duruflé)

Do not remove, alter, or interfere with another editor’s comments, simply because you disagree with them. I have read the discussion and I have found the anonymous comment to be wholly accurate. I think if you look at the comment, the anon editor has made a judgement on the tone of your comments and not you personally. If you don’t want people to judge your comments so negatively, then it might be within your interest to proof read what you’re writing before hitting “save changes”. If you don’t, then expect them to be challenged and be prepared to hear a little dose of the truth. Cassianto^Talk 12:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I resent the quite unpleasant tone of your remarks here, dear fellow editor User:Cassianto. The anonymous "contributor" to that discussion engaged in many personal attacks and emitted insults, wholly unbecoming to the Wikipedia project - not just against me but at practically anyone who disagreed with him/her. One of the worst I removed (and which you reinstated) was this piece of garbage: "How patronising and obnoxious your comments have been. So dismissive of all opinions except your own." There is no "difference of opinion" here; simply an insult. You seem to believe, though, that the garbage is a "dose of the truth", which is quite revealing.

And as a personal insult, Wikipedia expressly allows other editors, including of course those who are insulted, to remove it. I quoted the rule already. Here it is again. Per WP:TPO: "Removing another editor's comments is...allowed...[such as] harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling." But I will leave the garbage up 1. since I do not intend to engage in silliness, such as edit-warring, and 2. as a testament to the kind of partisan mentality creeping up on the project. -The Gnome (talk)

Mary Shelley

Hi, The Gnome. May I request you to remove your latest comment there please. That particular comment serves no purpose, but to stir up negative feelings. Thank you. Alex Shih (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Alex, do you really not see the irony? - See thread just above. Amused. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, Alex Shih. I respect your opinion but reserve the right to comment, even as innocuously as I did, on the horrendous situation developing about this grand non-issue of "infoboxes in Wiki articles". I've been on the Wikipedia project some ten years or so, and the worst violators of the code of civility I've seen, without any close contestant, have been certain editors among the aforesaid cabal. It is a true disgrace and I wish Wiki admins were taking the trouble of clamping down hard on such behavior; but they don't. They leave up dialogue such as "[your edit] was childish...amateurish... drivel", which I believe contributes way more to "negative feelings" than my comment - which was but a mere, humorous warning to neophytes, such as the editor to whom I addressed it, about the toxicity these editors produce. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Alex Shih. Your comment only makes matters worse. Please remove it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear here: That discussion is full of boorish commentary, such as "[your edit] was childish...amateurish... drivel" (a small sample of the toxicity). Yet it is my warning to another editor to beware of the history of the anti-infobox mania that "makes thing worse"? What am I missing here, Cullen? -The Gnome (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that you take responsibility for your own actions rather than continuing to try to inflame the situation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Everyone is responsible for what they do here. But I'd appreciate specific responses, dear Cullen. Generic suggestions such as the above do not help much. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I have been quite specific about what I am asking of you, as has Alex Shih. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

What you are asking has been quite clear. But, aside from generalities, you have not provided any basis for that request; of course this is your prerogative. Consistency in the application of rules is the foundation of a well functioning community. This is where I happen to be coming from and whereupon all my questions originated. Thanks, in any case, and take care. -The Gnome (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. : "[An editor] who sometimes makes good edits, but endlessly bickers, threatens, insults, whines...will have taken hundreds of hours from other users who would have better spent that time building the encyclopedia. ... Efficiently managing troublesome editors is one of the best ways to improve the project, but also one of the most difficult." I subscribe to this piece of wisdom in full. -The Gnome (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion anyway, as the OP has withdrawn the request. For future reference, I'd like to state again that snarky irrelevant remarks is not a solution to incivility; rather, it is part of the entire problem as they incite incivility and needs to stop. If I ever see comments like this again in a Infobox discussion, or any discussion, I will promptly remove them and warn accordingly. If you ever feel you are being targeted by unfair incivility, do not respond with these kind of remarks, consider deferring them to another administrator. Alex Shih (talk) 05:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I tried every other way. Look up the relevant discussions. Anonymous trolls were allowed to run rampant throughout - and the invective was going on unabated and unabashed. There was even an admin there for a moment but chose not to interfere at all; just to offer homilies about civility to everyone. As effective as neutral gear on an upwards slope. Anyway, cheers and take care. -The Gnome (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Royal Family Designation

Pardon if my contributions on the RfC have been counterproductive. I would likely vote in agreement if the proposal was similar to that of FactStraight. - Conservatrix (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Greetings. I would personally label your opinions and the contributions you made to the RfC as "strongly held" and "idiosyncratic" but not counterproductive; not even controversial. Be that as it may, I'd suggest you table your opinion in the discussion proper - and allow it to flourish there like a dauphin in the court taking quadrille lessons. :-) The Gnome (talk) 11:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

My self-imposed place on Wikipedia is in preserving the memory of clerics, nobles and soldiers, with specific care given to the House of France due to the uniquely traumatic nature of their deposition. On occasion, I may argue an ideological or "silly" position to defend an issue of great importance, as my primary concern in the case of the RfC was the language-wide preservation of royal dignity. If it is necessary that I play the role of the Mad Monk, so be it. Pride and self preservation are mere secondary considerations.
- Conservatrix (talk) 11:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations on a conclusion of that RfC that agrees with your worldview. :-) The Gnome (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If only I could have mustered the eloquence of FactStraight or the concise nature of DrKay, then perhaps I might have emerged from this RfC with both the royal dignity and my own. - Conservatrix (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Be certain to ping me if relevant RfC's are in play. It would provide an opportunity to redeem myself before the community. - Conservatrix (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There you go, ma'am. -The Gnome (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Barbara Stocking

That material could and perhaps should be included at Oxfam #Allegations of sexual misconduct by staff in Haiti and Chad - but not at her biographical article as it appears not to make any direct reference to her personal involvement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, Ghmyrtle. Stocking was in charge of Oxfam during the crucial period when incidents of gross misconduct were allegedly taking place. She has already implied that she should have fired people at the time. (See her statements about her "greatest weakness.) Being Oxfam's CEO at the time does not denote just a nominal involvement; she was directly responsible for the decisions not to fire people and to allow them a "graceful" exit, per cited sources. Plus, Stocking was co-recipient of all relevant, internal reports. We cannot avoid an extensive, if carefully worded, mention of Stocking's involvement in this significantly notable event. That would be a white wash. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the current version is fine. It's a question of whether reliable sources mention her specific responsibility, in my view. Do you have sources that say that Stocking was "co-recipient of all relevant, internal reports"? We should not make inferences as to her personal culpability, even if only by juxtaposing information about her and information about the organisation. The issue needs to be discussed at the Oxfam article, linking to her article, rather than adding unreferenced insinuations into her own biographical article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, in a recent interview to BBC (the relevant video is here), Stocking has admitted that, in fact, she knew sexual exploitation by Oxfam staff was going on. Stocking has ceased to deny knowledge of the alleged misdeeds; in fact, she admits that reports about acts of misconduct have reached her before, i.e. before the Haiti affair broke out, and that she did not act on them for the reasons she has already given (to protect the charity's work, etc). Stocking is also on record as approving Oxfam not notifying the Haitian authorities about the allegations: she has stated that, "at that time [the Haitian authorities] were not exactly worrying about these things. They were worrying about the state of the country." And the other day, Oxfam's former global head of safeguarding has told how she begged senior staff (and the charities watchdog) to act about sexual abuse allegations at the charity.

Let me state that I'm a strong supporter of the Wikipedia BLP rules currently in force. Yet, this is one case where mention of the subject's omissions while on duty, as reported, is necessary. -The Gnome (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Help with Matt Lauer issue in Noah Oppenheim

Hi,

You previously participated in the inclusion of Harvey Weinstein content in the Noah Oppenheim article. There is an RfC on another matter, about Matt Lauer's firing, with a vote, and I am notifying everyone who participated on the Talk page recently.

As I have disclosed before, I am a paid consultant to NBC News so am not voting on the matter.

Thanks, BC1278 (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I'll try to assist if I can. Thanks for the notification. And I appreciate the respect for the rules about conflict of interest. -The Gnome (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. I read your vote and I think I know what you want, but I added a note asking you to clarify, since you didn't make explicit if you want to keep or delete the language about Lauer already in the article (not the new language, which you Oppose.) If you have just a minute to clarify on the Talk page, I'd appreciate it. RfC BC1278 (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

It all comes down, as far as this encyclopaedia is concerned, to traction, i.e. the extent and the duration of reporting of events in the media. (Or whatever else is considered a reliable source 'round these parts.) In that field, there's a slight possibility that Oppenheim got a bad rap, as they say. At least, we are trying (at least, we are supposed to) minimize denigrating text in the article, as in every BLP. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

An RfC?

Play nice. - Conservatrix (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Amicus Conservatrix, sed magis amica veritas. As ever, The Gnome (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

An excellent contribution to the RfC. - Conservatrix (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Keynesian economics

Hello - you asked a question in my talk page. I asked below it what it meant, but forgot to ping you. Colin.champion (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Kyriacos A. Athanasiou

Hello, thanks for your comment there, but please don't change indentation styles like that; see my edit summary there. Graham87 14:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Apologies. I thought it was an error. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review: Migazzi

Would you kindly review my work on Christoph Bartholomäus Anton Migazzi? The process has been...rather involved, as the edit history will embarrassingly reveal, and your input would be valued. - Conservatrix (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, Your Wikedness. My unworthy perusal renders the following: The article contains references almost exclusively to non-English sources. The same sources appear in the article in the other languages' Wikipedia. There are no inline citations on any article whatsoever. And the English-language article is full of fawning phrasing, e.g. "he died full of years and of merits"; "a Christian whose faith and conscience were sincere"; etc. The lapses in style, e.g. italics for quotes, should be of minor concern to Your Wikedness. It's the rules on referencing that should concern You the most, because they have been appreciably tightened. I cannot assist with sources, since, aside from culottes, I also find myself without a competent bibliography. As ever, The Gnome (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The article was not composed by myself, it was written indeterminately between today and 2006. I italicized quotes only from the subject individual. How have you come to bestow the style "Wikedness" upon me? - Conservatrix (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

A play on words as a token of endearment. (Wikipedian/Wicked Royalist.) Discard if it does not meet with approval. :-) The Gnome (talk) 08:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Wicked? Sorry, my broom is in the shop. - Conservatrix (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Sincere apologies on the revert. It did not occur to me at the time that I had requested your review. Please feel welcome to edit any page of my own creation. - Conservatrix (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Greetings. I'm busy working on a few Economics articles on Wikipedia these days. I would not have looked into the Migazzi article, let alone edit it, if it weren't for your request. No need to apologize; nothing offensive at all occurred. You acted in good faith anyway. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

You were right. Restored the Christoph Bartholomäus Anton Migazzi page to your revision. You were correct to simplify the speech, whimsical as it was, per the MoS. – Conservatrix (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Aaron Sim

Hi, Gnome. Aside from being a successful investor, the person is also a successful entrepreneur and speaker, talking engagements and conducting educational seminars for the last decades in SouthEast Asia. So I'm not sure how that's not notable to you. Shenalyn2018 (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Shenalyn2018

Greetings, Shenalyn2018. The issue is not whether we (I or you or any other editor) consider the article's subject to be notable. The issue is whether the article satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria, and specifically the criteria about persons. And, for this, we cannot rely on our personal testimony, or any other individual's. We are obliged to strictly check for third-party, independent, reliable sources that testify to the subject's notability. Remember, Wikipedia is not about truth but about what's verifiable!

P.S. I have initiated a proposal for notability criteria specifically about businessmen, investors, and entrepreneurs in the appropriate page. Perhaps, you'd want to participate. Take care.-The Gnome (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Former Greek Royal Family

Hi, Apologies if I was overly blunt in our discussion at that RfC. It's a shame that editors have been ignoring policy, and not engaging directly with your proposal. Not that it matters much but I've struck through my vote in dissent of this. All the best Cesdeva (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC) Cesdeva (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Cesdeva . No apology necessary, it's all part of Wikipedian passion! :-) In articles about politically flammable subjects, e.g. "Israel", "royal families", "Trump", and the like, it's very difficult to have people make assessments on the basis of Wikipedia's rules rather than their ideology. This is just how it is - but we have to keep at this, and make a difference. IMVHO, your change of vote is a step in that direction, irrespective of that specific RfC. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I apologize

Hello, please do not blame Newimpartial for their comment; it was a script of mine that edited it without my realizing it. They never said "fucking idiots". I apologize for this quite embarrassing snafu. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, that is alright then. We should bring this back to normal, asap. Thanks for the heads up. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I saw that as well, and added this link at the AFD. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

AfDs

Just a note to say I always enjoy your AFD comments. I sometimes even laugh out loud. Have a nice evening.104.163.147.121 (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :-) The Gnome (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review

Hey, Gnome. I apologize for withdrawing my nomination for Melanie Melanson. Unfortunately, a few editors took offense to me using the social phenomenon "missing white girl syndrome" as context to the routine news coverage and weren't bothering to read my full rationale. Because of that I did not believe a productive discussion would take place and withdrew to revisit it in six months. No one voted differently than keep so I am within bounds to do so.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

That's alright. We move on. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Word-count rule

What is the word count rule? Where is it stated? ArchAngelAvenger (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Greetings. I'm assuming you're referring to the Fantastic Mr. Fox RfC. The rule can be found at WP:FILMPLOT and it states: "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words." Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes I was referring to the Fantastic Mr. Fox RfC. Thank you for that. It was most helpful. ArchAngelAvenger (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review: Democracy 2.1

Hello! I am a student at UC Berkeley and have created an article on Democracy 2.1 for a class assignment. I noticed you have done some work on Karel Janeček's article and thought you might potentially be able to offer some constructive feedback on my work. If you know of any other users who could also lend a helping hand, that would also be appreciated! JackRubenacker (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, JackRubenacker. As far as other Wikipedia contributors who could assist you in this project, I'm afraid I cannot help. As it happens, I know and have corresponded with Janeček from his involvement in advantage gambling some decades ago, although, of course, he would not remember me since I was but one of the many users of his seminal SBA program, which is how it came about that I created his English-language Wikipedia page. (For more on Janeček's days in the mix, see also the archives, if still accessible, of Stanford Wong's BJ21 website.)

A few remarks about the Democracy 2.1 article. Wikipedia hates promotional material, which is why the community is now about to take some steps against paid editors, people who typically use Wikipedia to promote the biographies, the work, or projects of their clients.

Your article, if I may say so, is not, of course, promotional but reads uncomfortably like one! Try to read it critically, if I may suggest a course of action, as you'd read the text in some encyclopaedia, and assess it on that basis. As an encyclopaedia user, you'd be after not just information and reliable sources, but also neutrality and a balanced presentation, without unattributed, fawning wording.

I recall seeing a mathematical demonstration of the system somewhere, possibly online, given by its creator, with math and stats thrown in. Perhaps, you should go after that, in order to include in the text a presentation with specific examples of pros & cons, of weighting issues, etc. (In case you ever need to post up mathematical notation in Wikipedia, you could get help from WP:MSM and WP:MATH.) At the end of the day, Wikipedia users would want to know how exactly D2.1 does better, as its creator claims, than the typical electoral systems.

I see you have not included in your article a list of categories of articles to which your article may belong. (Listing multiple categories is encoureged.) To hit the ground running on categorization, you might want to visit articles with content that is similar or tangentially connected to your subject, "Democracy 2.1," and look up their categories, see if some of them fit your article - articles like, for example, Two-party system; Plurality voting; Single-member district; Auction and Auction theory (oh yes!); or Winner's curse. (BTW, the book titled The Winner's Curse: Paradoxes and Anomalies of Economic Life by the recent Nobel laureate Richard Thaler, would be highly recommended. And fun!)

And because we often look to find something without remembering its exact name or title, you'd want to add at the top of the text, something that would distinguish your article from the article about the similarly titled DiEM25. For how to do this, check out Template:About.

Incidentally, I keep referring to "your" article but that's purely for convenience's sake. In Wikipedia, no one owns anything. :-) I might be overstepping my mark and you could already know all the above stuff, but this is what I can offer for the moment. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I agree that the article currently has a neutrality problem, which I think stems from the fact that most of the sources I have found online are unanimously positive.

Regarding the mathematical demonstration: there is a lengthy design document for Democracy 2.1 I have found written by Janeček, but I was under the impression to steer clear of such a source due to its non-independent nature? I suppose it'd be okay to incorporate so long as I have enough other sources?

Thanks again for the response, and let me know if you have any more advice! JackRubenacker (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

There would be absolutely no problem if you were to present, in a rather concise and short manner, of course, Janeček's mathematical demonstration of what D.21 is about. All you need to do is make sure you present it as what he "states"/"posits"/"claims"/"writes"/etc. You may present Janeček's side and then, under perhaps a separate section, present any criticism or problems envisioned for the application of D.21. If no adverse opinions exist, you can go ahead and list only Janeček's presentation, as above. If they do exist and you somehow omit them, Wikipedia is fine with it, since some other editor is probably bound to put them up. (Although your supervising professor won't be happy!) :-)

The mention in the article of "corruption" in Czech politics needs to be supported by third-party sources; and, even so, a term such as "ostensible"/"ostensibly" comes handy. If no such sources exist (which I doubt), one can simply attribute the allegation of corruption to Janeček. -The Gnome (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@JackRubenacker: Don't forget to announce yourself at WP:SUP. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello again! I have made some additional edits to the Democracy 2.1 article based on our previous exchange (created a criticism section in an attempt to balance neutrality, added more background on Czech corruption, etc.). However, the article was recently flagged with a consideration for deletion that my professor and I feel is unjustified. I have since made some tiny edits in response and intend to contribute to the ongoing debate, but if you have the time, would you be willing to weigh in on the debate as well? Also, thank you for referring me to the project page! JackRubenacker (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, JackRubenacker. I'll try to look into the article and its WP:AfD nomination. For the time being, you should familiarize yourself with this rule. We all learn as we go! :-) The Gnome (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about WP:CANVASS, I will keep that in mind for the future! And thanks for your contributions to the article, they have provided me some very helpful insight on making content more neutral and better organized. JackRubenacker (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

AfD "accident prevention"

Hi. I think you were being facetious calling it "accident prevention" when this Single Purpose Account disruptive editor canvassed you to the AfD on her promotion of her pet fringe political promotion. But from the WP-wide point of view, canvassing is a serious violation of our processes, and even though you may think your view is valid and maybe even think hers is as well, it's not all that good an idea, IMO to encourage such behavior by validating it - even if partly in jest. SPECIFICO talk 11:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Greetings. Allow me to clarify a few things.

I already and openly conceded that I was canvassed. The onus of blame for that is on the party doing the canvassing; not on the party on the receiving end. I never implied canvassing was not a serious infringement of Wikipedia's rules but I guess what's "facetious" for one person, is "just a joke" for another. Apologies for any harm caused; it was unintentional.

Beyond this bagatelle, I firmly believe the contested article should stay up. You are entirely in the wrong to assess the AfD on the basis of the validity of the article's subject, i.e. of the so-called "debt-free money." You're still doing it, here, when you write about "pet fringe" ideas. As it happens (and I emphasize, as it happens), I find the whole "Positive Money" approach an entirely misdirected viewpoint that, moreover, distracts and misinforms people. (I'm planning, as I already wrote, to go medieval on the article, in order for it to become adequate for an encyclopaedia. Patience, please.) We are to assess articles on the basis of their subjects' notability; not of their validity! Articles with far more hideous and outrageous subjects are here, and rightly so. The fight against illiteracy in Economics will not be fought by eliminating articles from Wikipedia. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Bagatelle? Nah. More like a whirling dervish than a bagatelle. We agree these folks are merchants of nonsense. But their nonsense fits within the framework of relevant articles, not standalone. If it warranted standalone, they wouldn't be sourcing it to primary sources, undue snippets, and unpublished working papers. They're ignorant and have no idea what they're doing but that's all the more reason for us to channel them into the right venues for their pet project. SPECIFICO talk 12:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Again: Please be a little patient. Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

We can't anticipate notability. If it happens, we start an article. Right now it's just normal level PR and primary bluster. And the fact that its promoters think it's earth-shaking doesn't make it any more notable than my anti-gravity machine I am about to perfect. Gravity is really really important, just like money. SPECIFICO talk 00:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I did not mean "Have patience, notability will come"! What I meant, and I think was quite clear in context, was, "Have patience, the article will be made over"! And it was, as you can see. We got rid of the biased verbiage, almost all the primary sources are gone (only a couple of ones remain, presenting each side of the issue, which is the right way to have it), and the added, abundant, new sources both illuminate the issue and reaffirm the subject's notability.

It still amazes me that someone knowledgeable about Economics such as yourself cannot see the major importance of the issue at stake in the Swiss referendum. If nothing else, this presents a great opportunity to educate Wikipedia users on banking operations, if not Money itself. Sockpuppets come and go; Wikipedia stays the course. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

What a disappointment to see you soiling the AfD with personal disparagement and aspersions. And your denial of site policies and guidelines only confirms that you have nothing constructive to add there. Your defense of this infamous SPA with a years-long history and a dozen editors failed attempts to rehabilitate his abuse of WP pretty much disqualifies your views on any related topic now or until you show you've come to terms with this. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, this is getting delusional. You are challenged to provide one single piece of evidence of me defending sockpuppetry or any particular SPA. Speak now or forever keep your peace; in so many words, cease an desist, at least in this talk page. I know I've been overtly polite and a tad too generous but enough is enough. -The Gnome (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You may call yourself polite, but your actions speak for themselves. SPECIFICO talk 13:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You're blinded by personal animosity (against the sockpuppet, the SPAs, and all that riff raff) and you're missing the bigger picture. And that goes for that other editor, Number 57, too. Here's the bigger picture: Just because the creator or the main contributor to an article is a miscreant, their punishment should not necessarily involve the article! We assess articles on their own merit, whether they have been created by an anonymous IP or Jimmy Wales himself. End of story.

As to the "actions" you speak of, the actual outcome of that AfD speaks for itself. The overwhelming majority of participants decided the subject is notable, and so did the closing admin. There's nothing more to say. We move on. -The Gnome (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. An editor came to your page to clarify something (i.e. his views on economic policy) and you heaped a whole lot of personal abuse onto him, e.g. "You should be in a nutshell," which I guess is your idea of being "polite." FWIW, I do NOT agree with many/most of the ideas promoted by Michael Reiss, aka Reissgo, but I do not resort to boorishness. -The Gnome (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank-you

Thank-you, very kind of you. MegEng (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

What mane...

(diff) Does that mean something, or is it a typo? As an exclamation, I kind of like, accident or not. :) My eye keeps falling on it and I wanted to ask...Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Lions have manes, don't they? Even Surgical Lions. (I can smell them from miles way those socks.) -The Gnome (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I get it now! Did not connect those dots. I am going to be using "what mane!" from now on. :) Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Another fine mess

A small example of how "asymmetrical" the effect that paid editors can have on Wikipedia is offered in the Talk Page of "Nextdoor". The average editor of Wikipedia works on their free time, has no resources beyond his own personal knowledge and experience, and acts alone. The paid editor dedicates serious time, if not their full time, enjoys all available corporate resources, including legal ones, and can use additional human assistance. The former's objectives are typically informative, the latter's always promotional. Not a very satisfactory state of affairs, this. -The Gnome (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. This guy barges in and takes over the page. He has time to do it and is paid. I got other things to do like make a living. Chisme (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Know that what I wrote above, far from being taken as some sort if indictment, will be copied and used as proof of what paid editors can accomplish and how much valuable their services can be. It's inevitable. -The Gnome (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Subject-specific guidelines

Hi, your recent comments at the Gardner AfD, and those of Bearcat, have massively clarified for me the relationship between GNG and subject-specific guidelines. In this instance, it was WP:NPOLITICIAN but the same will apply to others.

I think the explanation currently given at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria is as clear as mud. I realise that someone at the AfD thought you had misunderstood the relationship but, assuming you are correct (and it is the only logical way to resolve the Additional criteria blurb), would it be worth attempting to modify the wording? Obviously, it would need discussion on the relevant talk page first.

As I see things, the point is that for certain topic areas it is necessary to apply a standard beyond the GNG. That is, the subject must not only meet GNG but also the additional criteria. I'm presuming that the primary reason for this is, crudely put, to prevent massive bloat in biographical articles but I may be wrong about that. - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Greetings. Are you referring to the wording of the article contested in the AfD or in the policy? If it's the former, changing the wording changes nothing as far as notability is concerned. If it's the latter, then I hold not much hope.

Nope, the order of preference for the criteria has never been clearly established. This follows an obvious pattern in Wikipedia, which stems from a reflex antipathy towards rules. (Hence, the rule to ignore all rules!) The collective, co-operative and free flowing nature of the project spills over to an attitude of laisser faire that, in my view, threatens to derail the whole thing. I assign to this characteristic part of the blame for Wikipedia's steady drain of contributors. Witness this discussion about the notability of schools: There is supposedly no subject with "inherent notability", yet we routinely keep articles about schools no matter what (with very few exceptions). But trying to make a clearly written policy out of the practice meets with very strong opposition! People are happy to have a policy and violate it too. Take care. -The Gnome (talk)

Yes, the policy. I understand that it is something of a wild west scenario and, since you mention it, the schools one irks me particularly. I will have a think. Thanks for your thoughts. - Sitush (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

One of the central problems with the way some people interpret the relationship between GNG and the SNGs is that for some people, GNG is passed the moment the number of sources present in an article meets or exceeds two, without regard to considerations like the geographic range of where that coverage exists or the context of what the person got coverage for. As I've pointed out many times in the past, however, if that were how GNG worked then we would have to keep an article about my mother's former neighbour who got into the local papers a few years ago for finding a pig in her front yard — there's literally no reason why she would belong in an encyclopedia, but if passing GNG exempts a person from having to pass an SNG and GNG is passed the moment more than one piece of media coverage exists, then she has to be in an encyclopedia.

And, too, if the existence of two or more pieces of media coverage was all it took to exempt a person from having to pass any SNG, we would also have to keep articles about winners of high school poetry contests, bands who have never accomplished anything more than playing the local pub a few times, teenagers who got some "human interest" coverage for participating in high school sports despite having an unusual number of toes, presidents of condo boards and church bake sale committees and school parent teacher associations, smalltown municipal councillors, school board trustees, and every standing and/or losing candidate in every election. That's not sustainable.

So no, it is not "if somebody has X number of sources available, then they pass GNG and have to be kept even if they fail the actual SNG for their field of endeavour" — for one thing, there's an incredible amount of disagreement on what value of X would even mark that line, and even if we set a specific number there are still lots of people (like my mother's neighbour and her pig) who could easily pass that number without actually having a substantive reason why the world needed to know about them. And conversely, there are also lots of people out there who try to get a Wikipedia article by claiming to pass an SNG, but the coverage needed to actually verify that they actually do pass an SNG is nonexistent because the claim is either an outright hoax or a pile of public relations hype.

So GNG is not in and of itself an exemption from having to pass an SNG, or vice versa — a person needs to receive a GNG-passing volume of coverage for accomplishing something that passes an SNG. They both have to be met, not just one or the other. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

That's precisely my viewpoint as well. I hope that came out clearly in my comments, too. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

"Most gracious"

Hey, I don't understand your edit intending to shovel sarcasm in my direction. I don't know you, I don't know what might offend you, you don't know me. But about tallest buildings being "inherently notable", sure I am willing to bite, for sake of discussion. "List of tallest buildings in the world" is so obviously a notable topic that it is worth calling it "inherently notable". The tallest buildings are literally the pinnacles of our achievement, the greatest creations of mankind. It seems reasonable to believe that building them is what mankind was put on earth to do. So the world-wide list is Wikipedia-notable. Splitting that by geography is reasonable. Fuzhou is one of the greatest (biggest) cities in the world, with skyscrapers as tall as 272 metres (892 ft). It makes little sense to delete out a big chunk of the world-wide list. I think it would be a collective temporary act of insanity, like an ice-cream brain-freeze, to delete out a big chunk of the world-wide list. What's to get insulted about? --Doncram (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Greetings. You wrote that "a temporary local consensus of English-speaking editors, perhaps all being Americans, has a brain freeze." Forgive me for being perhaps too touchy, but I do take offense at having my brain assessed as being at freezing temperature. Yet I did not respond in kind. I thanked you for that "gracious" and "kind" comment. Yes, it's sarcasm. The next best thing to trading insults.

As to the substance of that AfD I have no inclination to import the discussion over here, seeing as I did not even offer a suggestion. The important, general issue for me is that, seemingly, some subjects possess inherent notability and some others do not. I knew about schools in the former category; now I learn about buildings, the tall variety. That's alright. I learn as I grow older. -The Gnome (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Okay it was the brain freeze thing then. Maybe speaking of collective insanity in AFDs might not go over well with everyone either. I'm not sure, but I will watch for other ways to put it, when I do think stuff is all going down badly, maybe I can be learned too. :) And i do agree with you that it is easiest/sensible to keep all high schools. :) --Doncram (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It would be easier to keep everything. It would be an even more useless encyclopaedia, though. And it is pretty crap now. - Sitush (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't actually believe we should keep all schools in Wikipedia, Doncram, but I do get the nudge/smiley. As it happens, I do not support rigidity in rules (or in life) but when a practice becomes the effective rule, I say let's make that rule official. If we are going to keep all school articles in Wikipedia, then there's no sense in having rules that say otherwise or (worse) that are unclear. Clarity is useful. And a tremendous time saver. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, Doncram, you state in your user page that you find all AfDs to be "by their nature negative." Since AfDs are all suggestions to delete, i.e. something "negative", this is like saying that you find swimming in the sea to be by its nature wet.

An AfD is a process born as a result of editors' reviews; not the reviews themselves. An AfD is simply the "negative" process born out of a review, while the "positive" process is lost: Reviews of articles that conclude the article should stay up are not written and no one can see them, read them, or count them. The positive process is never born. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Anything

If you have anything you want to say that you can't get across because it's being constantly reverted, feel free to post it on my talk page! :-) I'd rather read something interesting than most of the rubbish that comes my way... Deb (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Greetings. Some people are truly incorrigible.

Foolishly, I tried yet again to make FA understand what they're doing wrong. No such luck. Thanks for the invite, I'll keep it in mind. -The Gnome (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

List

Hi,

I have started a list here, with the goal of making it easy to read... and hopefully summarize things well enough that there is not a protracted conversation that follows. I'm going to get some sleep right now, so I have a lot of work to do, but how is the format? Feel free to make any changes. Right now it's essentially a shell.–CaroleHenson (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I managed a small contribution. -The Gnome (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I will work on it today. –CaroleHenson (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I see the page has been deleted, CaroleHenson. As far as I'm concerned, I rarely discard notes and memos when they have been collected. But it's your decision. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Faced with lack of balance

What does one do with such editors? -The Gnome (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess one has to take them to the ANI board. -The Gnome (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but you seem to be new to the AN/I reporting process, so here's some truly friendly advice: Let the AN/I proceed on its own merits from here on out. Allow the community along with administrators to view the evidence and decide on their own without interference. Often, editors brought to a noticeboard will do what they can to make the filer look as bad and as much in error as possible in order to detract from their own behavior. In such cases, a boomerang will often be suggested by the party being reported early on. Don't get sucked into that tactic and don't allow it to take your eyes off of why you filed the report to begin with. Most importantly, don't sabotage your own report by getting yourself into a back and forth of verbal gymnastics with the editor you are reporting, no matter who it is. You did your part by bringing the behavior to the attention of others, now let the community to do their part. The more you engage contentiously with the other editor, the more you stand to weaken your case. That's true with pretty much every AN/I I've seen over the years. as that particular noticeboard can quickly turn into a pool of sharks. No need to give them an excuse to start attacking you, correct? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It is true this is my first, and hopefully the last, involvement in the ANI process. I do not envy veterans! And thanks for the advice. Understood. -The Gnome (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Humor

Occasional updates of unintentional humor in Wikipedia:

"Stop the genocide of politicians at the sub-national level!" : Drama in AfD.
Gnome sort; Garden gnome; Gnome; Gnome (disambiguation); Nome, Alaska; Agnomen: Our gnome-curious editor goes on a Wikipedia-wide weird quest.

Page moves

See Wikipedia:Moving a page: "Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so fragments the edit history. (Wikipedia's copyright license requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.)" Seems clear enough. I suggest you revert the copy-paste move you made of Lonnie Swartz, José Rodríguez border incident and do it properly. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Greetings. There was a mistake made somewhere while moving the page. If you can restore the edit history, please go ahead. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but only registered and autoconfirmed accounts can move pages. If you can't do it yourself, I suggest you ask an admin. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Consider this your only warning

If you hat my talk-page comments again, I shall report you to WP:ANI. There is nothing whatsoever in Wikipedia policy which gives you the right to dictate how people reply to threads you start, and it will be obvious to any uninvolved person that my responses are entirely on topic. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Greetings. Irrelevant and distracting commentary can be hidden for convenience, as you already know. Feel free to submit any kind of report about me. Me too, I'd be curious as to how other contributors feel about your persistent attempts to impose biased points of view in an article as well as your efforts to derail good-faith discussions about it. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The hat was improper. SPECIFICO talk 14:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Nothing improper about a billycock. -The Gnome (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Chuckle

Thanks for the laugh! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)