User talk:Thorncrag/Archive/Sep 2009

AbuseBot BRfA

As per your request, I've withdrawn the BRfA for now. Hopefully once things have settled down with your revamp at Abuse Reports you will consider re-opening it or opening a second one. It's great that you want to have a bot to help out, at the lower-activity locations on the 'pedia they definitely help keep things moving. So I hope to see you at BRfA again soon :). Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Kate McMillan

Hi. I'm planning to do a bit of work on this article, as I've discussed on the talk page. I'd appreciate you checking my work, and telling me where I go wrong (or, even better, just fixing my mistakes).

We'll have to careful about WP:BLP issues. McMillan and SDA get lots of nasty stuff hurled at them via the internet, and some of the hurlers have edited Wikipedia. Also, we need to be especially careful about privacy, given the possibility of meatspace harassment.

Cheers, CWC 07:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely your revision looks good, though bear in mind that I know nothing of Ms. McMillan so I am not a good judge on accuracy. POV perspective looks to be a step in the right direction though.   bsmithme  04:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I would point out is that you shouldn't remove information, even if it is controversial, if it is verifiable by reliable sources. In many cases, particularly political figures, they are more known for the controversies which is an argument for noting those controversies in a WP article so long as it is pursuant to WP policy (not-libelous, verifiable by reliable sources, etc) even if you happen to disagree with it. Remember that WP content notability is not whether something is True, but that it is as a matter for discussion/debate amongst people.   bsmithme  04:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

True, but we also have to keep WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH in mind, especially in WP:BLPs. I have found that sometimes the best solution with articles about controversial people (eg., Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair, Michelle Malkin) is to aim to show readers what a person is like, as opposed to telling them everything controversial a person has done (or written, or said). This probably does not apply to the Kate McMillan article — it's just a general principle. Cheers, CWC 06:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that if you block the person who is vandalizing this article (User_talk:12.10.219.162) you will block everyone at this company (I'll leave it to you to run a lookup on the IP to figure out which company), so please don't do it unless you cannot counter it with a soft block of the article space itself. I would help you but I have no idea who it is, I just notice the "New messages" banner coming up every third page I load. Thanks. 12.10.219.162 (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Requesting deletion for pages you created

For your information, any page which you created and no one else has edited, such as Category:Abuse response, can be deleted under CSD G7 - just add a {{db-author}} (or {{db-g7}}) tag on the page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Abuse response

Hi Bsmithme. Sorry I haven't been in contact with you recently. Holidays are approaching next weekend so I will be able to get back to some part-time wiki work. I'd like to ask you what your current status with the transition for Abuse reports/Abuse response is going and whether I can be of any assistance. Bot work will probably need to wait now, I have had no luck in finding the latest revision of code to adjust, so I will leave that for now, but if there is anything you need help with regarding the transition, feel free to let me know and where I can put my hand up. I've joined the #wikipedia-en-ar channel on freenode, and was also wondering if my bot, similarly named AbuseBot (on freenode), was able to join that channel. At the present time, it relays recent changes feed for all edit abuse pages on the English Wikipedia to the #cvn-wp-en-abuse channel, and we can always tweak it a little to suit :) Please let me know. — JamesR ^(talk) 01:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey JamesR. Transition is going great. FYI, we've eliminated most of the need for a bot... at this point a bot would really only be a luxury. We've got thing setup so everything is basically category-based, and archiving is now done by the closing investigator for cases. Regarding the IRC bot, that sounds good--I was actually thinking about that before.   bsmithme  01:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I can move the bot across at any time. What pages would you like the bot to report on particularly? e.g. Wikipedia:Abuse reports/* or Wikipedia:Abuse response/*, etc. — JamesR ^(talk) 02:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Abuse Reports

I don't think you understand that I am in favour of this project, but I am in favour of it being done effectively. Your continued stance of ignoring everything I have said is, however, unlikely to earn you any further support. → ROUX ₪ 21:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel that you are being ignored and if you feel I am being rude, it is not intentional. But to be blunt, my time to spend on Wikipedia projects lately is limited and I simply don't have time to formulate and articulate responses to your complex questions which quite frankly come off as inquisitory, not supportive. It is easier to pose tough questions than to answer them. Why not try to help answer those questions you've asked then continue to keep asking them? Furthermore, you should seriously examine the language you choose. It does not set people at ease, it makes them defensive, and this does not make them receptive to your ideas.   bsmithme  05:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My language? I get blunter as I am ignored. You have clearly done the analysis--no?--why would it make any sense to duplicate that work? Have you contacted Godwin or Cary? Do you intend to? → ROUX ₪ 10:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)