Jump to content

User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10


Merge discussion

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas K. Dye as merge. User:Barberio disputed this close and opened a deletion review, which was closed as the admin argued that merge closes are not considered at DRV. I merged the material to Newshounds and redirected the article; Barberio has reverted the redirect, though the material remains merged. A discussion on the merge is at Talk:Newshounds#Merge of Thomas K. Dye; your participation would be welcome. Fences&Windows 01:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

notability guideline

What do you think about the guideline evolving into policy? Although I am asking questions on the talk page, don't think that I am opposed to the guideline. I am actually for it but want to make it work! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This sort of page was always meant to be a guideline, not a policy. Notability guidelines are a special subset of guidelines, and there is no precedent for making it into a policy. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I think its fine staying a notability guideline. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Boldy redirect

Hi there, I just stopped by to let you know that I appreciate the redirect of Günter Parche‎ to Monica Seles. I don't think every 'little' criminal should have a wikipedia page, but I was never so bold to do this redirect myself. So I say 'Thank You' Sebastian scha. (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome. I was surprised that this was an independent article, and BLP1E suggests that it probably shouldn't be. Sometimes, a full serving of bold (with some [[WP:AGF|faith) sprinkled in there) is exactly what's needed to get things done. If you feel that something needs to be done, sometimes what's best is to just do it (especially with BLPs). The worst that happens is that it gets reverted and discussed. The WordsmithCommunicate 14:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

notability guideline

I agree. The best way to see how it works in practice is to find AFDs where it applies and use it. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

How does this fit in with the guideline?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2009_Barack_Obama_visit_to_China

Juicy, tabloid style news of the day: No

Depth of coverage: Yes, but not as much as some sensational tabloid news.

Duration of coverage: Fails

Geographical scope: National coverage but more of a routine presidential trip.

Lasting effects: Fails

If this article qualifies, then about 500 articles per year probably qualify. 5 trips, 100 heads of state. Some take 10 trips but some take 2. This is not too borderline but really isn't a big trip either. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. The trip isn't anywhere near as notable as, say, 1972 Nixon trip to China, but I think it might be enough to pass as an independent article. Or, maybe its not. Either way, the trip happened relatively recently, and the guideline suggests that we wait a while before starting a deletion discussion to see what it becomes. The WordsmithCommunicate 00:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not looking for articles to delete, just seeing how the guideline works in real life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_blizzard_of_2009 I agree that this article has lots of coverage. I also agree that it is even covered in other countries, such as the UK. I see that there is a footnote type of fact that U.S. President Obama left a U.N. conference early in order to beat the snowstorm. Yet, this also borders on a weather event within the range of normal. It is not a huge hurricane. There are such snowstorms often, the ones that bring a region to a stop for a few days. My overall feeling is that the article qualifies for retention but it may not qualify as being very encyclopedic. It is very much a wikipedia kind of article. Any thoughts about this article? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Happy holidays!

Best wishes for the holiday season and the upcoming new year! –Juliancolton | Talk 16:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy the season!

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Amy Pond

Responded, at T:TDYK. Cirt (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! ;) Cirt (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem, excellent work with not only saving the article, but expanding it 5x. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Aw shucks, thanks very much. :P Cirt (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Request your ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#BLP1E_problems

You seem wise so I am writing to you. Request that you put your ideas either there or, if you want a more low keyed approach here or my user talk page.

I thought of this because of the recent attempted terrorist attack to blow up the plane. The terrorist has an article but not the rescuer. I am neutral on this issue of who needs an article. Jasper Schuringa's role is certainly well documented (so meets the requirement) but I can see why some may be opposed. It's clarity that we need, I believe. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, i'll take a look at it and comment over there. The WordsmithCommunicate 05:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: DYK queues

I was actually watching you reviewing (and checking myself) and waiting until you're done with most of the bottom ones :-) Thanks a lot. Materialscientist (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm fairly new to DYK, but the backlog in suggestions is terrible. Two weeks? Really? The WordsmithCommunicate 08:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is longer than usual because of two reasons: holidays and number of hooks we put on the main page per day - it was usually 32, we shortened it to 24, and then got an increase in submissions. Things should normalize in a week. Materialscientist (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure it will. I actually only started doing DYK becvause I submitted one (Council on Religion and the Homosexual) on December 20 and it still hasn't been reviewed. I started reviewing the older ones so that people would get to mine quicker. Then, I found out that its actually sort of fun getting to read all these new and interesting articles. The WordsmithCommunicate 08:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I started the same way, and think many other reviewers too. Yes, it is fun, and we get all kind of users (from beginners to bureaucracts, both as nominators and reviewers) and topics, though some topics repeat circularly because of the regulars. Materialscientist (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, i'm just happy to have knocked four days off the back end of the suggestions page. The WordsmithCommunicate 09:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Thanks

Hello Wordsmith. I wanted to stop by and thank you for your valuable contributions over at DYK lately. Assisting with the "behind the scene" vetting process of reviewing submissions is IMO an important role to ensure that any possible issues within an article are correctly addressed before making their way to the main page. Quality assessments, as you are doing, are very appreciated. Keep up the great work! Kindly Calmer Waters 19:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Its always nice to have my work appreciated. Too often, the ordinary work Wikipedians do goes unnoticed, which is a shame because that's what keeps the wiki running. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Here you are

Just for asking kindly Take care, Prodego talk 04:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A copy of my first barnstar, and certainly you deserve it more than I did. Prodego talk 04:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Council on Religion and the Homosexual

Updated DYK query On January 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Council on Religion and the Homosexual, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 11:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

opinion

We worked on the notability (events) to make it a guideline. Actually, you worked on it more. Remember when I said that the guideline was nicely written but may not solve much because very specific examples might be needed to guide Wikipedia users?

Here's a new example in AFD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Barack_Obama_visit_to_China

Can you think of any modifications that the notability (events) guidelines could use to address this article. I'm not thinking in terms of "I want to delete this article so I will re-write the guidelines to be a deletionist" or "I want to keep this article so I will re-write the guidelines to be a inclusionist". Instead, I'm thinking "is there a clearer way to write the guidelines so that there will be few questions on what to include and what to delete?". Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Suomi, this guideline is fine, it's your reading that is faulty: "Editors should evaluate various aspects of the coverage: the depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage, as well whether the coverage is routine and the impact of the event. In addition to the general notability guideline, a news event must meet all of the following criteria to qualify for an independent Wikipedia article". Fences&Windows 00:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that the change to the notability guideline, especially with the new bolding is too stringent and would violate actual practice. The key roadmap question is if we follow actual practice or have Wikipedia follow the new guideline?

I think it's a little of both but mainly that we follow actual practice and possibly use the guideline to clarify to prevent straying. The current new way is bad because following it would disqualify lots of news articles that have minor historical significance.

What we see too much of in Wikipedia is the hot tabloid news of the day. I think there is a way to try to fix this.

I'm discussing this with you first, not in the notability (events) talk page because I want to get some early feedback from you first.

Problem: To have all (says MUST MEET ALL)...depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity of sources, lasting effect excludes many, many historical events. Not the best example but one that comes to mind is Hurricane Alicia. The duration is just not there. There is no coverage of this giant hurricane of 30 years ago. Simply having lasting effect and duration is significant for a historical event but diversity of sources only is what many of the tabloid news stories that become Wikipedia articles have.

Brainstorming solution: Duration and lasting effect should be noted as having leading the event to become historical under most circumstances. Depth, duration, and geographical scope considerations are important but in the internet era, a blast of coverage, sometimes of a news or tabloid news story does not automatically show notability and historical significance as well the other criteria should be assessed.

Comments or ideas?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Suomi Finland 2009 (talk • contribs)

Number one, Hurricane Alicia is a weather pattern, so WP:EVENT isn't the best guideline for it. There's a WikiProject somewhere that has guidelines for storms. In addition, if it was a giant hurricane, and just 30 years ago, sources must exist. Just because they haven't been added to the article doesn't mean anything, because logically something as big as that must have been written about.
Anyway, the guideline we made was an attempt to fix the tabloid problem. We're still slowly gaining exposure for it, so its going to be a while before it has the same effect as, say, WP:WEB. The Guideline is fine, its just a matter of how people interpret it. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the Wuwang fire. The AFD might show that the notability guidelines are too strict that nobody follows them. That's why I suggested a modified guideline in the notability events talk page. The suggestion still doesn't allow tabloid news of the day but is reasonable enough to follow actual Wikipedia practice and tighten it up some. Your comments would be appreciated since you're an expert in the matter. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Mediation Cabal

I would like to ask you why didn't you ask during mediation to the users that continuously accused me about sock puppetry and "forum shopping to get my way" a thing that are clear personal attacks to stop? Actually one user just made the same attack right now, again accusing me of "forum shopping". I asked your eye for that see here, [1], continuose accusations where made and were not adressed by you, e.g. [2] [3] [4], [5]. Even other user was accused to be me, see here: [6]. And to end it all you went and accused me of the samething. You as a mediator should have stoped the accusations and try to keep a civil environment, but you did not do that, you gave strenght to the accusations and showed that such accusations are welcome and so they still continue. I'm writing this cause i belive people can understandeach other by talking and i also don't want to drag all this to administrators bord since i already am feed up about confusions, but if the same acusations are again made by you or you allow other users to do personal attacks in a page you are mediating i will have to do so. Peace Tacv (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Those IP addresses made references to comments directed at you, Tacv. They used the exact same style of writing, and they had exactly the same level of proficiency in English. Plus, they all hailed from the same country as you. If it was just a few comments, and you admitted it, I would be willing to AGF that the comments were made by you when you had accidentally logged out. That you continue to deny the obvious means that my good faith has run out (AGF is not a suicide pact).
Regarding the forum shopping, its true. There were two talk page discussions and an RFC that decided against your version. Instead of accepting the consensus, you opened a MedCab case. I would have been well within my rights to reject the case on behalf of the Mediation Cabal, but instead I assumed good faith and let you make your case. I'm going to close it now, and your threats of taking it to ANI are further proof that you won't accept that consensus is against you. By all means, feel free to take it there. Just be sure you're not shooting yourself in the foot as you do. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

three two? It does seem to have been a waste of typing time, there were three clear editors in strong support of the result, I didn't realise that would be how the result would be calculated, I will in future not waste my time, if I knew that was the way it worked I would have opted out at the start, there was clearly three strong votes that would not change so all of my comments and time was a total waste, all of this type of mediation appears to be worthless at wikipedia, I will not waste my time again. Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of mediation is for parties to be able to understand each other and negotiate. It is voluntary. If the parties go into it without any intention of budging from their position, then it is indeed pointless. Its generally not decided by a simple majority, but by consensus. Here, there was never going to be any consensus to overturn the RFC. When that became obvious to me, I closed it. However, i've also conducted several successful mediations where the parties actually did give and take, and came to a solution that is agreeable to all. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, as I said I know how it works now and I won't get fooled again and I won't waste my time in future. Thanks for your efforts anyhow. Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome, and I hope that this doesn't put you off mediation in the future. The attitude of people going into it is reflected in the progress (or lack thereof) that is made. In addition, you might want to see WP:MEDCABNOT, an essay that I started writing yesterday. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

First i said that i did not creat many IP addresses or Accounts and so i cannot be accused of Sock Puppetry, if people think that they should use the proper ways not keep accusing me of such over and over again. Thats a personal attack and its uncivil. I i undertand what you are saying is I cannot defend my views just because 5 people say they do not agree with me? (consensus 5/1). Mediation is used to resolve disputes and I don’t think a consensus by 5 people can be used to accuse me of “forum shopping”. I cannot agree with you when you say that the fact that 5 people agree with each other allows them to protect an article as if those people own it. To act if someone owns and article is also against Wikipedia. Other users opinions and sources are always welcome and if something is suggested it must be taken in consideration. Just because I’m a new user does not means my “voice” cannot be heard. Other users before me also defended the same thing I’m saying, this discussion is not new and was not created by me. Also in mediation it was 3 users against 2 (3/2). Not a forum shopping i guess. I went to mediation to resolv a disput not to take my way. If that was the case i wouldnt agree in a compromise nor would present one. If someone has opinions supported by sources I think it’s a fair reason to present them. Mediation exist for this, I cannot be accused of forum shopping just because I used it. Bottom line is that constant and continuous accusations like “forum shopping” and “sock puppetry” are uncivil and are clear personal attacks that do not prove anything and do not help the resolution of the discussion. You as a mediator should have stopped them and you did not do that. You even agree with them and even say I do not have the right to go to Mediation. Is this normal? I agree with User:Off2riorob. I do not know why mediation was accepted by those users if they were cleary not open to mediate. It was a total waste of time and on top of it i was accused of all this stuff. Totally pointless. I will consider to take this to ArbCom, if they accept it. Nevertheless thank you for your time Tacv (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I can say that Tacv failed to convince me that "Portugese-Brazilian" was the appropriate way to characterize Carmen Miranda. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

opinion on notability

What's your opinion about the Murder of Leonard (Chuck) Skwarok ?

As you can see there is no article on this. Let me summarize the story.

Skwarok was mistakenly thought to be a child molester and 3 people, including an award winning female author, winner of the Governor General's award, killed the man. That was in 1989. For the past 20 years, there has been persistent coverage of the case. If you are from the area between Edmonton and Calgary, this is huge news.

However, the story was before the internet so you will find it very hard to find international coverage unlike some of the tabloid news stories that are in Wikipedia.

By strenthening the notability (events) guidelines but making it practical, there might be fewer tabloid news stories as articles but events like Skwarok might be covered. If we look at depth of coverage, it's there, particularly in print. Duration, absolutely, even after 20 years. Most of the tabloid news stories will fail on duration. Diversity, too. I'm not so sure about lasting effects and I know that it did not get international coverage.

Skwarok is not the best example but it's more notable and historical in my mind that the 2009 Richmond gang rapes and the Murder of Emily Sander but Skwarok fails on international coverage yet Emily Sanders was kept after two AFDs. A better and realistically written guideline may standardize Wikipedia better. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sent you an email

Just following instructions in FAQ to let you know here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimijye (talk • contribs) 06:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

notification

You're one of 2 others actively participating in the notability (events) discussion. There seems to be clear agreement that historical events as demonstrated by lasting events is automatically notable without having to consider the other criteria. In practice, those lasting events will meet most criteria easily.

Since this is a little tweak with all in agreement, I've made the change. I also notified the other editor but not one editor who prefers not to be contacted directed.

I've also created a link to 2 possibilities to solve the contradictions, one stricted, one still strict but a little looser (allows one criteria not to be met if all the others are solidly met). Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

R&I mediation

How do you file a request for formal mediation by MedCom? Aprock (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Instructions can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide to filing a case. If you do file an RFM, please don't list me as a party, as I believe i've done all I can for the case (plus, I have no opinion on the actual topic). I wish you all the best of luck with your issue, and I hope the good people at Medcom can resolve your dispute. The WordsmithCommunicate 03:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Congrats in taking on Global Warming

Wordsmith, sir, I wanted to congratulate you on taking on the Global Warming mediation. Good luck, and I'll be interested in the outcome. Madman (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. To be clear I have no interest in participating and not sure why I have been named as involved (my last non trivial edit to GW was mid Sep 09 and on talk I regard myself as acting as an uninvolved admin in general). Nor do I remotely recognise that the issue described exists. I guess nor will anyone of the other serious editors. Before taking this on did you have a serious look at the complainants? --BozMo talk 22:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
If you don't wish to participate, you are not required to. I gave users a courtesy notice that they had been named in the case. If they wish to participate they may, but if they don't then we'll discuss the issue amongst those who agree to it. The WordsmithCommunicate 03:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that you can disclaim responsibility like this. To be blunt, this med request looks like a waste of time, and I am not at all convinced that you did your "due diligence" before accepting it William M. Connolley (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
If I see a dispute that I think I can help, i'll accept it. Especially if its a case that nobody else would touch. If it turns out that there is no dispute, or the parties don't want mediation, I can close it at any time. It appears that's what is happening here, so I may just IAR close it soon, or at the very least remove the parties that don't want mediation. That's the beauty of the cabal, anything done can be undone. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
And no damage has been done, other than you wasting a pile of people's time. Still, no problem for you, eh? Our time is free to you, we'd only be blowing it otherwise on improving articles William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I really don't see what your issue is. If you feel it was a waste of time, you were free to completely ignore the message and carry on as you were (as many do when they don't want mediation). MedCab is not compulsory. The WordsmithCommunicate 22:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Request regarding User:TreasuryTag

The Wordsmith, I wonder if I could prevail upon you to intervene regarding a recent disturbing behavior pattern by TreasuryTag (talk · contribs). As one of the MedCab coordinators I think you would be a good person to go to for this.

TreasuryTag has had prior conflict with me, on the topic of Doctor Who. Unfortunately, his interactions with me were less than positive, and did not have a polite or constructive outcome. Subsequently, TreasuryTag has admitted his "dislike" for me, and admitted to the prior conflict, as well as monitoring my user talkpage and interjecting himself into a wholly unrelated issue to prior conflicts with me, see [7].

I offered a request to TreasuryTag, that we both avoid interacting with each other [8]. He refused this request [9]. I honestly think mutually avoiding each other, at least for a while, is the best option - and (hopefully) might even lead to positive interactions in the future in a more polite manner - after a bit of time has gone by. If you have ideas for an alternative solution, I am certainly open to hearing it. But I think this might be the best way to go, and I could use your help in expressing that to TreasuryTag.

Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, i'd be willing to discuss the issue with the two of you. Both of you are valuable contributors to the project, and i'd hate to see anything get in the way of that. Just give me a few days (i'm on holiday at the moment) and i'll figure something out. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. As soon as possible would be best, but please keep me posted. Yours, Cirt (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll go post on his User talkpage now. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day NYC

Wikipedia 9th birthday coin

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Case closure

Hey Wordsmith. I spoke with you before regarding this casefile on the MedCab. At the moment, it appears we've gained a consensus by other means as you suggested. Are you able to close the file and remove it from the list? Night w (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i'll do that right now. Glad you got that taken care of! The WordsmithCommunicate 18:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks mate! Night w (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

goatse mediation

sorry, wasn't sure where to answer the question you posed n the mediation page, so I brought it here. should I have responded in the 'mediator notes' section? The mediation has been discussed on the talk page, most (if not all) of the participants listed have explicitly agreed, and the mediation page has been listed in talk. I have not notified editors individually because I assume that they are all following the discussion. I can do that if you like. --Ludwigs2 17:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If any named parties have not given their consent, then please notify them. I'll open the case in a few hours. For future reference, you may reply to statements that I make in the Mediator Notes section, as it just makes for easier reading. We try to keep formal process to a minimum in MedCab. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration comment

Are you sure you meant to comment on Craigy's case and not the BLP one above it? :) (If not, don't worry, it's not something I haven't done a few times before.) Orderinchaos 09:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I commented in the wrong section. Thanks for fixing it. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't fix it (someone else did), but no worries :) Orderinchaos 01:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your BLP list

Should/could it become more of a project than a list? I've done my first one after signing up, it took me two hours whereas it probably took Unitanode two seconds to prod it... 499 to go. Fences&Windows 23:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It very well could, yes. I'm absolutely open to suggestions. The WordsmithCommunicate 03:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I've added some notes to the talk page. I think a tally of our progress would help keep us all competitive. Fences&Windows 16:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Goatse mediation

Things are becoming rather uncivil again on the talk page. Any thoughts on when we can begin? Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Once all the interested parties give their opening statements, i'll be ready to begin immediately. I'll wait another 48 hours for statements, and then start the discussion. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I've notified Jolly and Sceptre. --Ludwigs2 21:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that there is a credibility issue here: claiming that I started an edit war when my single revert was the fifth revert on the page is out of line. I'd like you make a formal retraction on the mediation page.

If you would like to step down as mediator and list yourself as a participant on the page, please do so; I have no objection. otherwise, please restrict yourself to mediating the dispute. thanks. --Ludwigs2 20:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The user that began to remove the image is known to be an edit warrior and no not discuss his reasons. Throwaway rightly reverted him, and then he reverted again without discussion. Sceptre restored it again and warned the vandal. The vandal has not participated in any of the discussions, and likely has no interest in doing so (in fact, he has a habit of blanking warnings from his user talk page). So, that part of it is simple vandalism and reversion of it. You, on the other hand, are participating in the mediation and unilaterally removed the image. That was wrong. If one of the other parties had restored it, that would have been equally wrong. I asked you to self-revert, and you did not, so I restored the page to what it has been throughout this mediation and then had it protected. Until a consensus forms, the status quo shall be maintained. You have some valid points on the mediation page, and I don't want you to shoot yourself in the foot by starting an edit war.
To sum it up: I have provided clarification here. I will not be retracting my statements, and I will not become a party to this dispute. The WordsmithCommunicate 20:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
that's fine with me. I just wanted the apparent conflict of interest you're expressing noted in writing. I don't personally care whether you use the mediator position as a pulpit to advocate for the inclusion of the image. All I care about is that the matter be decided by proper discussion and a proper examination of the reasons for and against including the image, and I won't allow the issue to be decided by a steadfast refusal to discuss the matter (which has been the case to date). If you want to advocate for them, that might be helpful. I can't seem to get them to discuss the matter rationally, and you might make a better case for their side than they do. --Ludwigs2 20:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

given your statements to me of just a couple of days ago, I request that you give an equal warning to throwaway for the blatant insults he slapped me with in his last post. I mean dude..! it's one thing to make indirect assertions, but he's trying to get right up in my face with it. very poor form... --Ludwigs2 04:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP sourcing

I've got a suggestion; that we encourage people to watchlist their 500 articles, to protect them in the future. Most of these articles will receive very few edits, but nonetheless watchlisting is an extra and effective layer of security. WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 20:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a good suggestion, i'll add it to the page immediately. The WordsmithCommunicate 01:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

notability

I made some comments about the WP:EVENT and asked people to wrap up the discussion (if this is possible).

Also see 2010 State of the Union Address. Is this notable? It is an annual speech. No question, there will be hundreds of articles about it today. Next month and next year, probably zero. I have doubts but I am not an expert about American politics despite reading the news everyday. The article also mentions the Republican opposition party speech but, to be unbiased, some description of that should be made too. I don't know enough to do it. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion and later rewriting my invitation

Nice job on the barnstar :) those are always nice.

Just thought you may want to know, an alternate account deleted my invitation on your talk page. Some editors disagreed about these deletions.[10] and went to ANI about it.

I actually appreciate this deletion because I completely rewrote the template later. The template was inviting you here: here. Ikip 04:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP Sourcing page

Thanks for starting that, I learned about it in the course of this discussion on the RfC talk page. I also wanted to draw your attention to my comment here on the talk page of your userspace page. In addition to that, I'm wondering if it might make sense to use your page as a starting point for a more formal WikiProject along the lines of what was discussed at the above RFC talk page link. Just some thoughts. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a sensible idea. If you would like to make some sort of formal Project out of it, then feel free to write up some sort of proposal and we'll see what the participants in the sourcing drive want to do. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

My RfA

I am touched that you broke your semi-wikibreak to !vote on my RfA. It's not the kind of thing that I would have expected anyone to do, and I don't have the words to express how I'm feeling! Thank you -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No thanks necessary, just prove that you deserve it by being an excellent admin. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

now i know why

Now I know why articles of questionable notability are written. I am interested in this event but am unsure that it is notable. If WP allowed for any article, I would write it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8515855.stm Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there's already an article! I didn't do it. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

opinion requested

I'd like your valued opinion. I don't want to bring it up on the WP:EVENT policy page or on the article talk page. Both are GA candidates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Huang_Na

This is a local murders. Do you think high publicity local murders qualify? Just a quick, informal opinion, not a long wordy defense or criticism needed. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

opinion requested

I'd like your valued opinion. I don't want to bring it up on the WP:EVENT policy page or on the article talk page. Both are GA candidates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Huang_Na

This is a local murder. Do you think high publicity local murders qualify? Just a quick, informal opinion, not a long wordy defense or criticism needed. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A barnstar

The BLP Barnstar
For your numerous contributions at (and creation of) User:The Wordsmith/BLP sourcing.--Father Goose (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your kindness. I haven't done nearly as much as I want to (classes started up at a rather unfortunate time) but I hope to do more in the future. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom Adams

Just in case you're not watching the talk page, I have managed to find sources for almost everything at Tom Adams. Best wishes, Rje (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Q4

JFYI - the create account page actually says Prove you're human (you must be logged out to see it), but I guess you can IAR and let other intelligent primates in. ;)  7  03:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that. Though to be fair, if monkeys learned to use the Internet, I think we'd have bigger problems on our hands. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Notable?

What is your opinion on the notability of court cases? Is the High Court or Supreme Court decision of any country automatically notable? Strawbridge v. Curtiss. Is this just a technical issue? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that all SCOTUS cases are probably notable (though I would hesitate to say "automatically"), because it is very likely that sources exist that discuss them. Examples of this would be law textbooks, academic journal articles, and other court cases that reference SCOTUS decisions. I don't know how the high courts of other nations are set up, so I don't know if this applies to them. There's no real rule about it, I think, but for SCOTUS it is highly likely that enough sources exist. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Your RFA

Just want to wish you good luck on your RFA, which already has over 85 votes of support. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts on my question above?

You have a RFA going? Why didn't you tell me! Keeping secrets from my Wikipedia notability friend? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I will not offer congratulations since your RfA has not yet closed, but I feel very confident in your even-handedness and temperament, particularly your desire not to protect your fellow admins, so I'm quite hopeful that with 98% support and less than an hour left, that Wikipedia will soon have an excellent new admin.--~TPW stands for (trade passing words?) or Transparent Proof of Writing 16:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I just hope I can live up to the expectations people have of me. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on your mop-hood

First! Premature, but those bureaucrats are soooo slow. It should've been closed 15 minutes ago!1!!! Fences&Windows 18:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeedy, another beat the crat congratulations. Well done. PhilKnight (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Another 'beat the 'crat' congrats from me too - I wonder how many of these there will be before your RfA is actually closed! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Just butting my head in here... "beat the crat" means congratulating after the RfA is closed and before the crat posts to the talk page. Just saying. But congrats anyway, Wordsmith! (X! · talk)  · @850  ·  19:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


Thou shalt not beat the crat! Congratulations! Your RfA has demonstrated sufficient consensus to allow you gain access to the administrative maintenance tool set. Use it wisely :) -- Avi (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for all the support, guys. Just a note that this will be a no-thankspam RFA, since I know most people hate spam. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! If you need any mopping advice, sing out! GedUK  21:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, congrats on getting onto WP:100! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations, excellent to see you jumping right in! Happy editing, --Taelus (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice to see the mop being put to good use by another new admin. Congrats. —LedgendGamer 01:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Declined Speedy Deletion

Hello, The Wordsmith. You have new messages at Newportm's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please review upcoming Signpost article

The upcoming 1 March 2010 issue of the Wikipedia Signpost contains an article that touches on the controversy over victors/vanquished in the War of 1812. Could you quickly review the Signpost article for accuracy? Thanks - Draeco (talk) 05:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be especially good to have your authority behind the last sentence, supposing you agree. It could read something like Your reporter and the mediating admin (The Wordsmith) find no evidence that opinion strictly reflected the nationality of editors (nor of historians for that matter). - Draeco (talk) 05:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The article, as well as the above sentence, seen accurate. If you want any morr assistance or information, please feel free to ask. The WordsmithCommunicate 05:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Speedy deletion declined: Rohit-Surname

Hello, The Wordsmith. You have new messages at Arjun024's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alliance Française de Chicago

Did this article really meet the speedy deletion criterion? Didn't I add reliable sources to it (I have the article on my watchlist so I assume I did)? Theleftorium 15:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The only source was a link to its official website. If you have other reliable sources, I will be happy to undelete it for you. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I guess my memory must be a bit rusty :-) Anyway, sources are here and here. Theleftorium 16:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Good enough for me, i've restored it. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

re:BLP sourcing

Thank you for the kind message. I didn't know how to transclude information, so thank you for the tip, it's very helpful. I'm glad you set up the page so people can see that many editors are willing to act constructively to deal with the backlog. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

TheResurgence

Can you please explain what claims of notability TheResurgence contains? Woogee (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Its borderline, but since it appears to have been founded by notable people and associated with a notable megachurch, I waswilling to give it the benefit of the doubt. I think it probably should be deleted, but its more suitable for an AFD than an A7. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I edited your link here. The former is red, deleted per MFD. –xenotalk 17:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the thought, but I intended the link to be red, as if to say that an MFD can't negate a Wikipedia meme or force it to be redirected. People were referencing the Plaxico effect before that page was created, and an MFD won't change that. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, so you will continue to ridicule a living person on a central noticeboard even though community consensus was against supporting such behaviour? I have redacted that portion of your comment, per WP:BLP. Please do not restore it. –xenotalk 18:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I have placed no unsourced negative information about a living person on any page. I have not added any information, unsourced or not, about a living person to any page. I will not revert, but I strongly suggest you reread the BLP policy and take a serious look at what it actually says. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Then I'll just refer to WP:ADMIN, then: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner...". Ignoring community consensus and continuing to ridicule a living person by invoking their name as a pejorative is not respectful nor does it lead by example. –xenotalk 18:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate content

Regarding your edit summary "I fail to see how the button violates any guidelines, and this is within my userspace. Please do not revert this.."

The polemic statement/attack image is not appropriate for userspace. See WP:SOAP and WP:UP#NOT, in particular #9: "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons; these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive."

I would like to remind you that you are now an administrator and you are expected to comport yourself in such a manner as to not bring the project into disrepute.

Please remove the image. It does not enhance collaboration. –xenotalk 19:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

How exactly is displaying campaign material from the 70s even potentially "bring[ing] the project into disrepute"?  f o x  (formerly garden) 19:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
It openly disparages a living person, the user displaying it is (recently) an administrator. Their personal beliefs should be checked at the door. –xenotalk 19:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Does anybody dispute that Anita Bryant did suck oranges? I've seen TV commercials where she did just that. I'm sure that they're floating around Youtube or something. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
If you aren't aware of the meaning of the button, please see Save Our Children#Outside help. –xenotalk 19:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am familiar with the context. I am also aware that displaying a rather small, quiet political statement in one's own userspace is allowed, and material from a 1970s political campaign with significant historic value is not harmful. I view it the same as if I was displaying a Harvey Milk campaign button. However, I am willing to consider replacing the image with something less potentially offensive.
Incidentally, here is a recording of one of her old commercials, demonstrating that she did, in fact, suck juice out of oranges ;) The WordsmithCommunicate 19:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, please do consider it. I would prefer to avoid taking your talk page to MFD on your wikibirthday. (Happy birthday, by the way - sincerely =) –xenotalk 19:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleting a user talk page over a picture of a button?  f o x  (formerly garden) 19:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
No, the MFD would be specifically focused to determine if the display of the image was acceptable per WP:UP, WP:SOAP, WP:ADMIN, etc. No revisions would actually be deleted one way or the other. –xenotalk 19:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and fwiw I think that displaying a statement/image supportive of Harvey Milk would not be as (or at all) problematic vs. displaying a statement/image disparaging Anita Bryant. –xenotalk 19:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC) (And for the record, I've never heard of either of these folks before today and do not necessarily support or oppose either of them - though if I did, I probably wouldn't say so on my userpage, but ymmv!)
I have replaced it with something more appropriate. The WordsmithCommunicate 20:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
DEAR GOD NO!!!!! Anything but the peeking Jimmy! –xenotalk 20:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. The WordsmithCommunicate 20:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


Happy The Wordsmith's Day!

User:The Wordsmith has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as The Wordsmith's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear The Wordsmith!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Closing BLP RFC

Just saw it, haven't read it, thank you. Maurreen (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi The Wordsmith/Archive 3! Thanks for wrapping it up. If there was any consensus at all, it was that the entire discussion had become a tangled confusion, and as a result both proponents and opponents of the issues under discussion were jumping off. Let's hope that the consensus you have drawn will be read and understood, and action taken accordingly. In an attempt to implement this, some users have already decided to start the ball rolling for clarity by creating a special workshop pages. The first of these is for the technical development of a template at WT:BLP PROD TPL. --Kudpung (talk) 08:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Excellent, I wish you the best of luck with that. You might want to advertise this with the editors taking part in User:The Wordsmith/BLP sourcing, they've been taking a leading role in reducing the backlog. The WordsmithCommunicate 08:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip - i'll do precisely that.--Kudpung (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, i can only commend your initiative to close this RFC and your readiness to be blamed for it. You can't satisfy everyone unfortunately. Let hope that we will progress enough to reach the point where the initiative will not return to ArbCom or the Foundation. --KrebMarkt 21:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP sticky PROD template

Hi The Wordsmith/Archive 3!. Every attempt to rescue a Wikipedia article is a noble gesture. However, there may be occasions when, with the best will in the world, it is just not possible to accord even a minimum of notability to an article or stub, or find a proper source for it. Most regrettably, even the most dedicated inclusionists will have to concede that the article may have to go if the creator or major contributors cannot justify their work.
For new and recent unsourced BLPs, some users are now working at WT:BLP PROD TPL on the development of templates that are designed to encourage contributors to source new BLPs, without scaring away the newbies who might not be aware of the rules. This template is certainly not another a licence to kill for the deletionists, in fact the very idea of it is to ensure that you are not fighting a losing battle. It would be great if you could look in at the prgogress and maybe leave a word of encouragement. The worshop page is essentially a template development taskforce, ans is not a place to engage in a hefty debate on incusion/deletion policy. See you at WT:BLP PROD TPL?--Kudpung (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, The Wordsmith. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.
Message added 17:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NW (Talk) 17:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect I'm not the only person who found that close unsatisfactory. I suggest you redo it without the part that places the onus on the wrong person. ++Lar: t/c 18:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I grow tired of editors who feel that consensus should only be followed if it supports their own position. Although I disagree with your closing wordsmith, unlike other editors, I will respect it, and not pressure you to change it, just as I respect the consensus for a sticky BLP which was formed here, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of_living_people#Part 1:_Items where consensus_seems to_be_clear which I strongly disagreed with. Okip 18:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Just noting here that I have changed the wording of that particular statement upon further review and analysis of the discussion. It has been changed to:

In addition, there appears to be a consensus significant minority who feel that the nominator should make a good faith effort to look for sources before nominating. The community will have to determine whether or not this is a valid part of the new process.

The WordsmithCommunicate 18:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Lord Wordsmith, I see you caved.[11] I don't know which is worse, the behavior of the pushy editors, who never back down, or the admins who are bullied, who comprimise away everything to appease these editors. Okip 18:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
To clarify, I wasn't bullied. After I discovered that people were unhappy with that part of the close, I took another look at the relevant parts of the RFC and talk page, and found that it wasn't strong enough to be called a consensus. I came to the conclusion that I may have misjudged what was there, so I softened the wording. While I couldn't say that there was consensus against WP:BEFORE, neither was there consensus in favor of it. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to review this and revise. ++Lar: t/c 03:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome, I think you'll find i'm a reasonable person. Anyway, it seems it was all for naught anyway, as Coffee has undone my closure. The WordsmithCommunicate 03:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


I applaud your effort, especially the final bullet point arguing that no final decision should be taken for three months, so we can see how our existing methods work. (Your phrasing is somewhat vague; if I have undersood you, clearer wording would be nice; if I have misunderstood you, it is necessary.) I must, however, ask you to reconsider some points.

  • The final bullet point could stand being first; otherwise those who have brought us to this point may not see it, and bull ahead now.
  • There is no mention of the absence of evidence that sourced BLPs are significantly more accurate than unsourced.
  • There is no consensus for new machinery; a third of us expressly opposed "any new bureaucracy". Therefore While some extra process is clearly necessary, is your opinion, not consensus, and should be struck. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. To respond to them in order: The order of the bullet points doesn't matter, they're all equally valid. If some people don't read it and go ahead with doing things rashly, they will have to face the consequences. For your second point, I did mention that "Even many of them that actually are unsourced are factual and neutral, but overwhelming consensus is that BLPs have a higher expectation of sourcing, in the interest of preventing potential harm to living people." for the third point, i'm sorry, but this is a minority position and the consensus for a BLP PROD was stronger. So no, thank you, I will not be further modifying the consensus. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, upon consideration; yes, it is a minority position. But we are not a democracy, and we do not run by majority vote. This removes an essential point of [[WP:CONSENSUS}}: the requirement on any majority to compromise to bring significant minorities into a genuine consensus. For myself, there are conditions under which I could support a sticky BLP; and I will spend three months arguing for them - but it should not be claimed that consensus already exists when it does not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Compromise only really works if both sides are willing to compromise. In this case, there a core group of well organized editors which refuse to compromise, stating that change is inevitable, and repeatedly telling editors to either get on board or shut up. In response, the community, which is much more flexible and willing to compromise, has attempted to accommodate these repeated demands. What we are left with something much less than real compromise, which will further disrupt wikipedia.
I understand Wordsmith. By their very nature, administrators are adapt and pragmatic (if they are not, they are eventually dysoped, which gives me real hope with some of these administrators). Arbitration wants these changes, Jimmy Wales wants these changes, and many veteran editors want these changes. You would be going against your very nature which made you an admin to fight against such overwhelming forces. In other words, a bad peace (with long term bad consequences) is better than a longterm war which puts you in the cross hairs. Okip 19:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales is under considerable temptation to endorse any proposal that will look good to an illiterate Washington Post reporter (but I repeat myself), whether or not it will work; he should be cut some slack. ArbCom is our fault, for better or worse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wordsmith, there is one substantive more issue on which I would like your opinion:

The "consensus" for a Sticky prod is 78%, not enough to promote a bureaucrat. While there is more than enough interest in the idea to work out a proposal, which may in fact limit the harm of this ill-considered and useless idea, that is not the sort of general agreement on which we are supposed to work.

This is my last comment; but I hope that your response above does not mean that you are prepared to review the evidence only for those lucky enough to be online when you closed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well then, I think that we are fortunate that an RFC is not, in fact, a bureaucrat. 78% is more than enough to promote a sysop (which an RFC also is not), so comparisons to other processes are not tenable. with regards to my last comment, it doesn't mean that I won't review the closure any more, just that I don't believe the change you ask for is supported by consensus. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Neither is the present text; where there is no consensus, there should be silence.
The old dodge by which any passing 51% claim that their way is "consensus" and requires consensus (to whcih they will not agree) is one favorite device of POV-pushers and bullies across Wikipedia; admins are supposed to suppress this, not abet it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Doing nothing is not an option. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
To preempt Sept...'s objection, I would like to note that doing nothing is not an option primarily because there is consensus to do something, whether or not Sept personally agrees. In real-world contexts, 78% is a landslide, and in no event should be equated to 50%+1, which Sept seem to be doing. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
No, 63% is not consensus to do anything. What happens in the real world depends on the context: Either A or B must be President, because someone must be, so 51% decides; but 51% is not enough to modify the Consitution of the United States, or of most countries, because it requires general agreement to change the mechanisms of government; we don't have to do something different - we can, as Wordsmith has already stated, do what we already do for three months. If that proves successful, there's no reason not to do it for years; if it is not successful, it will finally be evidence for action, so far lacking. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Septentrionalis/User:Pmanderson you are a vocal yet powerless editor, who came late to this RFC, whose views are against the wishes of the majority of the arbitration committee, Jimmy Wales, and several veteran editors/administrators. In other words, you ideas will be ignored, and your pleas will fall on deaf ears. Soon you will be threatened by these editors who oppose you, with real or fabricated violations of rules, and if you don't have the connections which all veteran editors have fostered, you will be blocked and permanently silenced.
I disagree with Wordsmith, but if he didn't revert the closing conclusion, another administrator would have, and that would have resulted in Wordsmith either starting a wheel war and risking his admininship. Smart, long term administrators are pragmatic administrators, they know when to reverse their original positions. Okip 19:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, but politics and reasoning is a better answer to politicking than politics alone. Let others network, and let me do what I can. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your help is needed

Hey. I need your help with something. There has been an arbitration case over the Asmahan article, I am now not allowed to change the ethnicity or nationality of a person, but I am allowed to propose changes at a talkpage.

An arb explained this situation pretty good: [12] I have now talked with the drafter of the arbitration case, User talk:Wizardman, he has told me that a third part is needed and that I am allowed to invite a neutral editor to take a look at points of corrections I have presented at the talkpage.

The article is in desperate need of neutral editors. I have pointed out 7 points of correction at the talkpage: [13]

I would like you to take a look at them and see if changes to the article are needed.

Do you think you can get involved in this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

closure

I hope you understand I do not mean in what I said on FG's page that you did inadequately--there is no individuals close everyone would have agreed on as being correct in all respects. I mean that he having done it as he did was the best way to end ambiguity about where we stand as a group. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I take no offense at anything you said. No close is perfect but I believe my closure to be a reasonable expression of consensus. Thanks for clarifying. The WordsmithCommunicate 03:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

with all deliberate speed

heh heh. I see what you did there. Gigs (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

My actual intention was that we should proceed quickly but carefully, so we get it right. So, not quite the same as the original usage. That phrase just appealed to the history buff in me. Still, nice to see that somebody got the reference. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You may want to reconsider

In light of these diffs ([14], [15]), I wonder if you might wish to reconsider your latest comment on my talk page. It seems that Coffee is confirming exactly what I interpreted his comments as being: that even if the community decides that I am permitted to participate on certain AfDs in certain circumstances (and I'm not even saying that that decision has been made, though it appears that it very well might), he is going to insist that a "formal review" is necessary despite a community decision to the contrary; and that if I participate in AfDs in line with this consensus (should it arise), he is going to block me anyway (despite consensus to the contrary) and is going to block anyone who removes a block he places on me under those circumstances. In essence, he is threatening to wheel-war to ensure he gets his way despite community consensus to the contrary. This is very, very troubling. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 15:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If it is as you interpret his comments, then yes, it is troubling. However, I interpret it as him stating that until a firm consensus is reached, the ban remains fully in effect and is subject to enforcement as is any other community ban. If my interpretation of his comment is accurate, then this would appear to be the correct thing to do. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday March 21st, Columbia University area
Last: 11/15/2009
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for ruining Wikipedia by deleting good articles with good content, get a life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBHoss (talk • contribs) 06:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome. Ruining Wikipedia is what I live for! The WordsmithCommunicate 13:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Thanks

For unblocking me early but you messed up my excuse for being absent tomorrow! NancyHeise talk 01:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Will Buckley (Deletion)

I'm struggling to understand as to why you do not find the man as noteworthy. Was the topic put up for discussion before you chose to delete it ? You were the subject of much mirth on BBC Radio Five's Fighting Talk programme today btw cf. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/radio/bbc_radio_five_live/2010-03-2080.222.132.98 (talk) 11:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I wanted to let you know that this under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Can someone have a look at Will Buckley (journalist)? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
After additional review, I'm not entirely sure why you A7ed this, either. To me, it seems to have contained sufficient indication of encyclopedic significance or importance to have merited additional review. I wonder if you would reconsider your deletion and restore the history. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I speedily deleted it because it gave no sources that indicate that he meets our notability criteria. Merely being a writer for a newspaper (even if it is a large one) is not enough, and a quick Google search showed things that he had written, not things that had been written about him. In addition, I looked through the history and saw a startling number of edits that were blatant BLP violations, even potential libel. So, I erred on the side of caution and deleted the page under what I felt was the most suitable criteria. Since most of the previous revisions are BLP vios and rollbacks of BLP vios, I will not restore them.
As WP:CSD#A7 says, "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." An article does not have to give sources to indicate it meets our notability criteria to survive A7; it merely has to indicate plausibly that the subject is important. It may be your opinion that being a writer for a newspaper is not enough, but that's what AfD is for. Deletion review would be a waste of time here, as the article has already been created again, but I believe your deletion of this was outside of policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at some of your other recent A7 deletions, I wonder if you are deleting these articles not because of lack of suggestion of importance but because they are unsourced BLPs. Félix Acosta-Núñez included an assertion that its subject was "one of the most famous sports commentators, not only in the Dominican Republic, but in Latin America". A quick check would seem to support some notability. Ghazi Salah al-Din al-Atabani asserted he was a prominent politician, giving specific titles, and it certainly seems that he is. (Under the first alternate spelling given: [16]) How on earth is that an A7?

I understand that perhaps it was your opinion that journalists and sports commentators are not of encyclopedic significance (though I still maintain this is a matter for AfD, since speedy deletion does not say so), but you surely wouldn't think that prominent politicians are of no encyclopedic significance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Upon further review, I have restored the article on that politician. It appears that it does give a credible assertion of importance, and I don't actually recall deleting it, so it is quite possible that I made a mistake. The other article I will not restore, as I feel it qualifies as A7. I can write a BLP that says I am Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico, but that doesn't mean it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. If you have sources for it, though, I will be more than happy to undelete and/or userify it for you. It may be that the deletions weren't strictly A7, but I'm more than happy to be a bit more liberal with CSD deletions for BLPs in the interest of doing no harm. However, i'm also not trying to be indiscriminate with deletions, so if you come across more that should not have been deleted, I am also happy to review and possibly undelete. The WordsmithCommunicate 20:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
As an administrator, I can userfy it for myself if I choose to do so. I encourage you to stop being a bit more liberal with CSD than policy permits. Our admin tools do not give us authority to delete articles outside of the provenance of policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to get all in the middle here (especially since I haven't been involved here at all up to now, and I just happened across this), but I feel compelled to point out this ongoing request for clarification. Everyone involved may want to make themselves aware on ongoing discussions in this area, in order to avoid being blindsided.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 12:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Strange coincidence?

Hi Wordsmith. I wonder if you could take a moment to look at Wikipedia talk:Sticky prod policy#Length of time before deletion
After no movement on this thread for nearly five days we sudxdenly get four postings within one minute (somtimes less) of each other, all expressing exactly the same opinion. Seems rather odd to me. What do you make of it?--Kudpung (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was me. I figured that lots of people probably didn't know where the discussion was taking place (this entire situation has been so confusing), so I posted notices that the discussion was ending on WP:VPP, on wikiEN-l, and in #wikipedia-en on IRC. The IRC notice was the earliest, so looking at the timestamp I believe the users that commented did so after seeing the IRC notice. All three were substantially identical to the one I posted on VPP, if you don't have access to the other forms. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Hello,

Sorry to bother you, but since the thread is closed, how can i ask for help(advice) with the problem (Hungarian names in Romania) ? Thank you.iadrian (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have an issue with a user that may require Admin intervention, go to WP:ANI and fill out a report. The WordsmithCommunicate 00:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

TB

Hello, The Wordsmith. You have new messages at VernoWhitney's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Catholic Church RfC

Hi Wordsmith, NancyHeise has said she would like to open an RfC on the Catholic Church issues, so I've created a structure at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church, in case she wants to use it. I'm letting you know about it because you're an admin who's been involved in this issue before, so it would be great if you could help to keep an eye on the RfC if she does indeed initiate one. Best, SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Clifford Geary

Is this the right place to ask about a deletion? Appears you deleted the Clifford Geary page, for reason A7. His illustrations in the well-known series of juvenile novels by Heinlein would seem notable to me. He also illustrated related non-fiction material, such as "The Real Book About Space Travel," (by Hal Goodwin, 1952)[17], a copy of which I bought for its slight collectible value, and particularly because it includes some of Geary's work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevensrmiller (talk • contribs) 12:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the article was a biography of a living person, which is held to a higher standard than other types of articles. Being an illustrator isn't really an assertion of notability. If you can provide me with at least one reliable source that meets this standard (which Blogspot doesn't meet), i'll be more than willing to undelete it and even help you improve the article if you wish. The source should discuss him and why he is important, not just discussing a book that he worked on. The WordsmithCommunicate 14:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Can't be 100% sure it's him, but this obituary suggests he has died. I didn't cite blogspot as an assertion of his significance, but to show you a picture of one of the books Geary illustrated outside the Heinlein juveniles. I would think his being the artist to illustrate a number of the books in that series (and the only such artist, I believe), amounts to evidence of notability by direct citation to the source material. However, Alexei Panshin's "Heinlein in Dimension," (a controversial work that Heinlein is said to have disavowed) acknowledges Geary's contribution to this important element of the Heinlein oeuvre, calling his work "quite unusual and quite striking." --Stevens 18:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
That obituary doesn't appear to be a reliable source (so we have to assume he is living), but your other links do give a suggestion of notability. I'll undelete it for you, on the condition that you add those sources to the article as quickly as possible. I'll undelete it now and tag it as under construction, so you'll have about a week to add sources/work on it. Assuming you do, i'll leave it restored. Good luck!
Thanks. I'll see what I can do. His first illustration for a Heinlein work was in 1948. If that Web obit is him (making him 92 in 2008), then he was 32 at the time. That's at least feasible, but not conclusive, I grant you. --Stevens 22:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification required for G7

I've asked for clarification of CSD G7 following your rejecting my request as I was the only provider of "substantial" content and there was no talk page. -- samj inout 21:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

re: Volkan Dikmen

Hello Wordsmith. I wanted to let you know I removed the stickyprod from this article. I've added some reliable sources and believe that Dikmen is notable (marginally at this point since he is just beginning his career as a pro footballer). If you disagree, I won't mind if you send it to AfD. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The sources satisfy me. I think that most footballer stubs need to die a horrible death, but that's just me and not supported by policy. Good luck with the article, if you continue working on it. The WordsmithCommunicate 02:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll plan on updating it after the current season ends. Jogurney (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed again

Hi, I really don't think there is any evidence of broader consensus for the details of this change. I've started a discussion on the talk page in question, I think that might be the best place for this. Hobit (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:STICKY

Could you clarify what you meant by "The finer points of a BLP PROD process must be hashed out and the exact details discussed with all deliberate speed. In the interest of getting it done as quickly as possible, an official proposal should be prepared in a maximum of two weeks from closure of this RFC."? As I read it at the time, I figured there would be an official proposal that would be discussed later (I assumed in an RfC). Did you mean something else? Your later comments implied you did, but I can't figure out what. Hobit (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, i'll clarify. I was (and still am) very much against the idea of a third RFC. We've already had two, and there is broad consensus for BLP PROD. With my closure, I handed things to the workshop, to figure out the details and logistics. By an "official proposal" I meant that I hoped that all the details could be worked out by then, and we can say "is this good? Can we start using it now?" and everybody who had worked on it would more or less agree. When one of the more contentious discussions (PROD duration) was closing, I even advertised it everywhere, with the understanding that once it was decided it would go live. Numerous invitations were made for participation, at all points during the process. It was my understanding that the Workshop page would be the continuation of the RFC. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
That was at best unclear. Usually a proposal is proposed to someone. Someone other than the group that developed the proposal. I don't think it's too outrageous that some of us assumed there would be an actual discussion of an official proposal before it became policy. Heck, I'm still not sure exactly what the "official" proposal is (7 days or 10? Unsourced only can get the sticky or "poorly sourced"?) let alone where this final proposal was proposed to. Is the policy now unchangeable without a huge consensus because someone stuck a "policy" tag on it? It's a bit frustrating... Hobit (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
To the people who continued to participate from the RfC into the workshop, everything was clear enough. I hate to repeat my elf yet again, but unclarity appears to be only in the eyes of those who did not participate in the earlier stages. A third RfC wold be counter productive: the whole project would lose impetus and would probably end up getting shelved indefinitely. That will not help either the encouragement to work on the backlog or to partly relieve the workload for AfD which would remain as the only way of getting rid of unwanted BLPs. The sticky prod gives all new unsourced BLPs the possibility of a fair chance to be either rescued, or deleted without furher deletion after 10 days.--Kudpung (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
A talkback notice was posted on my page linking to here so I thought I'd respond. Sorry for the delay, lost power for 8 hours (windstorm) and then family came back from Easter vacation (I had to work (and work, and work)). In any case, I disagree with the notion that the first RfC provided such a large amount of room to add new stuff. But it is what it is at this point. If a new RfC shows up, I'll voice my rather strong opinion of course... Hobit (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Tadija

Just out of interest, what happened to discussing the unblock with the blocking admin? Had you consulted me, I would have been opposed to your unblock on the grounds that Tadija has been blocked before for the same thing. Could you point me to where there is a clear, substantial and active consensus among uninvolved editors that he should be unblocked or written authorization from ArbCom? Per the motion here, there should be at least one of those things present. To quote; "Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee." If you weren't following the Trusilver case, he was desysopped for exactly the same thing as you did a couple of weeks back - that led to the Arbitration Committee tightening up the enforcement motion to make it explicitly clear that those kind of actions will result in desysopping. An explanation before I take this to the committee would be much appreciated. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, mea culpa. They were looking for someone to handle the request in #wikipedia-en-unblock, and a former Arb was watching and even applauded my handling of it, so I assumed I was in the clear. If you do have issue with how I handled it, we can discuss it and I would be willing to re-block. Please be assured that it was not my intention to step on anybody's toes. The WordsmithCommunicate 15:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm more frustrated with his unblock request to be honest - "I forgot" strikes me as a ridiculously bad reason to request unblocking when it was clear he had previously violated the restriction. He talked his way out of the last block as well by the looks of things (I can't see anything wrong with the previous 1 week block, but he was unblocked for it). He was clearly gaming the system by going to the unblock channel and unfortunately, a good faith admin stepped up and was willing to listen to him. Apologies for piling all the blame on you above - Looking back now, I see that I let my frustration with Tadija spill over as blame towards you which was wrong. Leave him unblocked - he can dig his own grave now. I fully expect him to edit an article in the Balkan topic area in the next two weeks - I'll keep an eye out on his contributions and I'll reblock it necessary. Just for future reference, it's always a good idea to at least leave a note with another admin if you're changing one of their actions - sometimes there's more to it than meets the eye. I think in this situation - a combination of a block and topic ban would have been the best idea here - it's just unfortunate our ideas couldn't have been merged into one from the beginning. Regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Just try to look on the bright side. Instead of having him back editing the article within a day or two, you've got two whole weeks. Looking at his contribs and wikiprojects, he seems to be mostly interested in architecture anyway, so I really do hope that he won't be a problem. Also, as a fairly new admin, now I know how to better handle it. I do appreciate your choosing not to involve the Committee in this matter. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation?

Are you too busy to possibly do a little light mediation? See Hungary–Slovakia relations, the last two sections on User_talk:Emika22, my talk's March archive, my talk, and to a lesser extent Košice for details. Don't worry, the dispute isn't too bad, but maybe a little mediation wouldn't be unwarranted given that attempts to get certain editors to discuss don't seem to be going anywhere. —what a crazy random happenstance 02:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ick, I smell a nationalism debate. Still, my studies in International Relations may be useful here. Alright, i'll do it. Have the other people involved agreed that mediation would help them? The WordsmithCommunicate 03:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing to mediate, and I hear you - nationalism is ever-so-fun. Not yet, I wanted to see if you'd be interested first. I've now asked if everyone would be OK with mediation on my talk, where most of the discussion has happened thus far. I believe much of the problem lies in miscommunication and bad-faith assumptions, so a mediator should be of help. —what a crazy random happenstance 09:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The discussion could still use mediation, if you're not too busy. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to mediate, by the way, even if it didn't pan out. It is greatly appreciated. —what a crazy random happenstance 06:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

Regarding an earlier comment of yours

Well, unfortunately, the goatse image was deleted. But I recall a comment you made back in the initial DRV of March 22nd; Just a note - I have found and sent a message to the person whose anus we all know and love, seeing if he would be willing to license the image under a compatible license, to eliminate the NFCC concerns. Did you ever receive a response? Tarc (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I have not yet received a response. I found him through an...erm...adult-oriented image website, so there's no telling how often he checks his messages. As soon as I hear back from him, i'll figure it out. If I can get it relicensed through OTRS and uploaded to Commons, i'll make sure people know about it. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk page stalker. Good luck with that and let me know if you need help. Hobit (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Hopper deletion

Hi. I notice that yesterday you deleted Christopher Hopper, stating it had no sources and didn't assert his notability. I gather that's you performing a speedy deletion. Though i don't fully follow the process, i would have said that "All improperly sourced articles about living people may be subject to deletion per the standard deletion processes" from here was relevant, and that doesn't suggest immediate deletion. Can i ask you to restore it, please, and maybe start a deletion discussion? Cheers, LindsayHi 03:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was unsourced and didn't indicate why the person is notable. This fits speedy deletion criteria A7 (An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.) If you can provide sources for it, I will undelete it for you. The WordsmithCommunicate 03:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Could you undelete to my userspace, then, please, and i will see about finding sources. I don't know exactly how that userspace stuff works, but i know i've seen people talking about it. Cheers, LindsayHi 16:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I won't restore unreferenced BLPs to userspace. With other articles its okay, but for BLPs userfication is frowned upon, because once they're in userspace, they get much harder to track and, if necessary, delete. There are probably over a thousand unreferenced BLPs in userspace, and we have no way of finding out where they are and getting rid of them. If you can provide me just one source that meets WP:RS, i'll undelete it for you though. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What_Mediation_Cabal_is_not

Hi there Wordsmith, I was trying to look into mediation and I found the following:

Simple vandalism or user conduct
MedCab mostly handles content disputes. While there is often overlap between content and conduct, simple user conduct disputes should be taken elsewhere.
If you have a problem editor who is simply vandalizing, and not discussing the issue, take your dispute to AIV; if operating multiple accounts in a manner inconsistent with policy, take it to Sockpuppet Investigations. If an editor is operating against consensus or otherwise simply being disruptive, we've got a place for that, too.

I think the case is mostly user conduct based and the proof for this is simple. By reviewing the last ~100 edits to the page [18] most of them are disruptive reverts that attempt to force a mass blanking without consensus. Happenstance also readily admits that he filed a baseless Afd, where he "never intended to delete the article" just to make a WP:POINT and use it as a soapbox [19]. It would be easier to sort out the conduct issues first at ANI as the recommendation above says, because after this amount of reverting against consensus, the amount of ignorance of , WP:POINT, WP:BRD, WP:3RR, (not just from Happenstance but others as well) and I think other issues will need to be resolved first. What's your opinion on this, is it better to sort out conduct first? Hobartimus (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, this is good. *grabs a bucket of popcorn* I've said my piece, I have nothing more to add. —what a crazy random happenstance 09:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Hobartimus, what abou WP:BURO and "A procedural error made in posting anything, such as a proposal or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post." . You are trying to protect a sub-par article from being improved because you want to cement your own POV. Wladthemlat (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Got time for IRC?

Time right now is 18:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Having discussion with Ludwigs, would like you to join. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

Dispute that could use your touch

See Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Christ myth theory, Talk:Christ myth theory, and ANI. Do you think this is something you and/or MedCab could help out with? NW (Talk) 21:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh gods, that's...insane. I really don't think that mercantile can help, and my own very strong biases towards Christianity means I should stay away from that area. My applause for your work with it though, it looks like you did a great job. The WordsmithCommunicate 13:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi, Wordsmith. You may remember me from here. Just to let you know that our agreement expires today, so i hope that i fulfilled you expectation. :) Anyway, thanks for your helpful eye during those two weeks, and i hope that i can ask for you in the future. All best! --Tadijaspeaks 15:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Thank you

Really thanks for blocking Tadija, he is always spamming Albanian people. We want to ignore it, but he threat us with reports. You really make me happy! --Vinie007 20:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

just know that I'm not taking sides on this. If anyone else steps over the line they will be blocked as well. That topic is a notorious problem here. The WordsmithCommunicate 00:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes i understand, but still thanks!

Dell Schanze

I was surprised you deleted Dell Schanze. I don't recall ever seeing an article deleted because of BLP problems, but WP:BLPDEL is there for a reason. Thanks for intervening with that mess. --Ronz (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It has happened before. We even have a speedy deletion criteria for attack pages (G11), but it is rarely used with established articles such as this one. I have a good faith belief that deleting that hatchet job was in the best interests of the encyclopedia, but I am sure it will be controversial. To other editors who wish to complain here: constructive criticism is welcome, but I will not restore the article history. I will not object to a sourced stub on this person, but if you want to re-add that mess of BLP violations, DRV is over this way. The WordsmithCommunicate 03:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Nitpick: It's G10 NW (Talk) 03:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
In response to a question about this article, I have made a rather negative comment about your deletion on my talk page, [20] and it is only fair that you should be aware of it. I agree that the article should be deleted, but you should have relied on the community to do it, not over-ridden a community decision. You and I and NW are correct that it is not fit for Wikipedia, but we need to convince others of that, not assume they will follow us. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Why not just reinstate and send to AfD to avoid drama? Eric Ely was properly resolved that way.--Milowent (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The article has been in much the same form for the past three years. Why the grandstanding emergency? Is Mr. Schanze going to be defamed in the next three minutes? Mr. Schanze regularly edits the article himself and apparently has no objections to it since his edits are typically to add material, not to remove it. Who exactly is being protected here? This is a pretty bad call. Reswobslc (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
How do we know that the edits in question are Mr. Schanze himself, and not an imposter? Has he confirmed through OTRS? Either way, the article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and to our BLP policy. It appears to be a onesided hatchet-job, and thus fell within admin discretion as allowed by WP:BLPDEL. I took swift action in the interest of doing no harm. The result at AFD probably would have been to delete. Hell, even DGG wanted it gone (though he objects that I didn't use the AFD process). Doing the right thing in the wrong way is still the right thing. Constructive discussion is allowed here, otherwise you know where to find DRV. The WordsmithCommunicate 05:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Could you userfy it for me? I'm looking at pretty extensive non-trivial sources from multiple newspapers and TV, over a number of years (since 2001 fairly steady through today), and highly tempted to recreate. The arrests aren't the important thing, the man is a self-made millionaire, a daredevil, and a repeated candidate for fairly high office (including as we speak).[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] --GRuban (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for being civil. I do have a general policy of not userfying articles with BLP issues, because they become much harder to track and delete once they're in userspace. Especially in this case, the entire article history violates our policies. However, what I can do for you is email you a copy of the article. You can work on it offline (much, if not most, of the content will probably need to be removed), and then upload a new article that is fully compliant with our policies. Does that sound like an acceptable compromise? The WordsmithCommunicate 18:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Certainly, sounds quite fair. Thank you. And thank you for being civil as well. :-) --GRuban (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't seem to have gotten anything yet, though I did email you. Did the Interwebs eat it? --GRuban (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I re-sent it, hopefully you've gotten it. The WordsmithCommunicate 15:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Got something now, thanks! --GRuban (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Defense & Strategic Studies

I notice that you recently deleted this article under CSD G11. I removed the G11 tag because I found it very unlikely that West Point would be spamming Wikipedia. In any case the article didn't look like blatant promotion but it did need work. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010


Vladimir Luxuria

Look at these links: for Theirrulez ([32] [33]) and Grifter72. By --Dispe (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

... at this moment you have blocked a page that is contrasting with sources: http://legxv.camera.it/cartellecomuni/leg15/include/contenitore_dati.asp?tipopagina=&deputato=d301519&source=/deputatism/240/documentoxml.asp&position=Deputati\La%20Scheda%20Personale&Pagina=Deputati/Composizione/SchedeDeputati/SchedeDeputati.asp%3Fdeputato=d301519

--Grifter72 (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Propose a change, get consensus for it, and then use {{editprotected}} on the article talkpage. I didn't check to see which version it was one before I protected it. The WordsmithCommunicate 20:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the other part is not participating... I wait --Grifter72 (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


Civility

Ref [34] I would be delighted if you could give me examples of where I have been uncivil, it would help me to improve. --BozMo talk 18:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I was referring specifically to you, but i'm sure you have at some point. Every single long-term Wikipedia editor, including myself, has been uncivil at some point or another. Doesn't mean its right, but it is something we have all done sometime. If you like though, I can check through your contribs to look for examples. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You have e-mail

Sent a message your way. I've watchlisted your talk page, in case you prefer to respond on-wiki. Regards, AGK 23:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Back at you. AGK 00:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

unblock offer

I extended your offer (that you made dave souza and Cla68) to ChrisO as well, seemed reasonable to me. ++Lar: t/c 14:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me, I must have missed that one. The WordsmithCommunicate 15:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Good deal. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Wordsmith/Archive_3&oldid=1184695194"