This is an archive of past discussions with User:Wikidemon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi WD, I think you accidentally called out the wrong person as an SPA. I posted a quick note at ANI. Feel free to remove my note if you want to refactor your own comment there. Kind regards, --guyzero | talk17:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Dreams..Father
Just a heads up, apparantly some obscure blogger claims to have seen Ayers at Reagan Airport and he randomly admitted to writing the book. How anybody could actually believe that is beyond me, but I've already reverted one attempt at Bill Ayers. Grsz1103:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It sounds like it was Ayers' idea of a joke, per the original (unreliable) source and all other (unreliable) sources that seriously comment on it. For a real hoot, take a look at the talk page to the Dreams from My Father article, and the AN/I report I had to start on the subject. It's yet another Obama conspiracy theory. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi- Are you still working on this? If not, I was wondering if it could be deleted or moved to userspace. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Reply re: ACORN/ArbCom
I haven't been involved in any of the discussions you have mentioned, although I am aware of a few of them just because of updates to sanctions and remedies that crop up on my talk page. As the only other person who received that particular topic ban, I feel uniquely qualified to offer my opinion on the matter. I do not believe my comment violates any restrictions, but I do believe that it is important to say my piece. I will, however, go back and slightly refactor my comment. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Presidency of Barack Obama
Regarding your recent removal of the POV tag from Presidency of Barack Obama, would you please answer the following question? Why do you think that having the article mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not also having the same article mention Obama's actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."? Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to take a look at the article again, but I don't have any specific opinion. The point is just that adding a POV tag as a response to having your proposal shot down isn't a great way to go about things, as I said in the edit summary. You're more likely to alienate people, and I don't think it's going to come any closer to getting the thing resolved. Normally that's a last step, and you're sticking your neck out when you do that. If I hadn't removed it someone else might, and given how so many people seem to have it out for you there it might end up with more trouble with the administrators at some point. Also, the "advert" tag is usually reserved for things that literally look like advertisements, normally for products and companies. That usually comes from spammers for the company. It's not meant to simply indicate that there is too much praise in the article. Stay in good spirits, please, and don't let this get you down. That article needs a lot of work! - Wikidemon (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see the earlier discussion "....One Drop Rule" where I lay this all out. We are using an inclusive term of african american to be exclusive and perverting the definition in the process. The sources that say he is of mixed race, do not contend with the ones who say he is black, they simply augment them since the two terms are not mutually exclusive. Do you see what I mean? I'm taking this concept from the wiki African American article that specifically addresses this issue, even going so far as to say that Obama "is obviously biracial". Again, if the two terms were mutually exclusive, then Obama could not, by definition, be african american. It's a sort of catch -22. I hope to have your support because I'm really trying here, and I think this really solid argument, and also common sense. JohnHistory (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
I hear what you're saying. In this case it isn't a question of what is true (or culturally accepted), but rather which among several legitimate conceptions of race to favor. The sources agree that Obama is AA, and also that he's bi/multi-racial. Only, as a matter of frequency most of the sources simply treat him as black. It's a complicated issue. Their omission becomes Wikipedia's omission because Wikipedia is a mirror of current thought. I hope we can sort it out. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Grundle and ANI
I don't know if you're up to this but since you like Grundle so much there is a way to show it by helping him. I wouldn't object to the following and would add it to my "vote" at ANI [1].
"Grundle should be allowed to use Wikidemon as a good faith proxy which would work as following: Grundle can and should discuss proposed edits with Wikidemon who himself then can bring it up on the appropriate talk page for discussion and make an edit on Grundle's behalf if there is consensus on Wikidemon's edited version."
Well, gosh, thanks. I have some concerns about being a mentor for Grundle, even if I enjoy his company as an editor. I tend to agree with people's arguments that he has been obstinate and played games. If he starts playing games with me it will be hard - I haven't had to be in the position of telling him no, not really. I can ignore his more outrageous suggestions, confident that others will reject them so I don't have to. I've only stepped in every once in a while where he's put forth a good idea that others hadn't seen. Plus as a content matter I really disagree with most of what he has proposed. There is a reward in all this. Sometimes it's good to try to see things from the point of view of someone you disagree with on politics, it helps bring perspective and every once in a while you actually change your mind on something. Still, it would be hard to be simultaneously fair to him regarding his edits, and to the community as a whole regarding POV and relevance. Finally, I can't promise to be reliable. Though I do spend far too much time on Wikipedia for my own good I'm not always responsive. I may be gone for days at a time, or procrastinate when something starts feeling like an obligation. Maybe I just need to go to mentorship school. Is there such a thing? Also, I haven't seen that Grundle would be amenable to this. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
With other words, it's too much weight to handle and carry. I don't blame you. Even so I might like Grundle in person I just don't do here on WP (and I made that recently clear on my talk page). Well, it's now up to the community to decide Grundle's further being here. BTW, you did more than most others including me did [see, I give you a slack after that "nasty" e-mail I sent you a while ago]. Anyways, before I start senseless "emotional blabla" I'll leave it where it is. Thanks for responding in such a honest manner.
Wikidemon: Thanks for cleaning up the LinkedIn article -- especially for deleting the "Sites with comparable features" section. I always thought that was pretty useless, especially as it evolved into a spam magnet, but I wasn't WP:BOLD enough to just wipe it out. I'm glad you did. Thanks! -Sme3 (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
And now to something totally different
Since we're discussing editors who are "being obstinate and playing games," how do you feel about LotLE? His behavior, particularly in accusing others of being partisan and pushing a POV, has been nothing less than abrasive. He deleted the ACORN lede edit (final paragraph of the lede) a few weeks ago, then claimed that he "wrote something like it" himself and now supports it. I notice that you deleted my edit on the article's Talk page since it was accusatory; then I deleted LotLE's edit because it was also accusatory; then you reverted me. Is LotLE getting some sort of indulgence here? Or is he subject to the same code of conduct as the rest of us?
What I've noticed about Wikipedia in the years I've been here is that it shouldn't matter who does the editing: a quality contribution from a 15-year-old high school sophomore is valued just as highly as an equally well-written contribution from a 54-year-old Nobel laureate. Jimbo himself said as much: it isn't the name of the editor, but the quality of the edit that should guide us. LotLE takes the opposite approach: it isn't the quality of the edit, but the name of the editor that drives him. When an anon IP editor like me made the edit to the ACORN lede, he reverted it and wrote a less-than-civil edit summary. When Xenophrenic restored the very same edit a couple of weeks later, LotLE claimed authorship and supported it. What gives? 64.208.230.145 (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Blablabla. Since you "know" that much you tell me? And maybe on my own talk page? Not that you can expect an answer for sure but you could give it a try. You know how to copy and paste, do you?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
"LotLE and this The Magnificent Clean-keeper". Where is the connection in your strange thinking mind? I'm not even bother to respond to the rest of your "allegations" but would like to remind you not to grind your axe here [You seemly have to grind one for whatever reason for me and maybe for Wikidemon on the side] on Wikidemon's page but, if at all, do it on my page; Unless you're worried I might kick you out more sooner than later. I rarely feed the trolls although I really love animals. And since in your twisted mind I'm more "provocative" you should start backing this up and report it to the appropriated boards here on WP unless of course, you're just venting meaningless steam.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
No, that's fine. I find it amusing, really. I may put a text box around it. LOTLE and, to a lesser extent, TMCK, are somewhat strong willed, and can be a little more aggressive than I'm comfortable with in reverting what they consider bad edits, and labeling editors they see as problematic. I just happen to agree with them 80% of the time. You can call that a double standard if you wish, but it's a lot easier to deal with a strong-willed editor who (in your thinking) is trying to make a good edit, than a strong-willed editor who repeatedly tries to insert poorly sourced, trivial, irrelevant, and/or opinionated content into the encyclopedia. Grundle just wins me over by being so good natured, so that even if I disagree with him I enjoy editing when he's around. If everyone were that friendly this place would be a lot nicer. And if you (the IP editor) are one of the banned editors back here to lurk, well, whatever. You're obviously pretty familiar with the people and old disputes. If heaven ever goes 2.0 Saint Peter will ask you about your Wikipedia sins :) But back to a more serious question you raise, it's true that it shouldn't matter who we are here. In theory it's completely egalitarian and you're only as good as your edits. It's good to remember that. But those of us with registered accounts, and even unregistered users with stable IP addresses or writing styles that are recognizable, come to be known by the body of our edits. I think that's part of the program too, you develop a reputation and respect. You just get to earn it fresh, and nobody asks where you went to school or what your GPA was. But for pretty obvious reasons that leads to a prejudice against unregistered accounts, new editors, people with a difficult history here, people one's had a dispute with, etc. It's best to resist that, and I try to remind myself. Another thing to remember is that most people who you can't stand on Wikipedia, or anywhere online, are probably great people in real life who are worth respect and treating well. Anyway, I haven't followed your dispute with LotLE and I'm not really interested. Even if you're 100% right about the contradictory statements about the old edit, that looks a lot more like a simple mistake in memory than any sneaky plot. I mean, if one wanted to do something sneaky on Wikipedia, deleting an edit and then later claiming credit for it would be pretty weak in the sneaky department. I'd just let it go and move on to better things. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Certain editors continue to be unnecessarily provocative and disrespectful with their edit summaries and Talk page remarks, and now a new edit warrior and POV pusher, Redthoreau has arrived to ignore Talk page consensus and protect ACORN's image. I'm growing more and more discouraged about this. Choosing to be an IP editor is a valid choice and should not constantly attract sock accusations. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
WD: you said, "You're obviously pretty familiar with the people and old disputes." All it takes is one look at LotLE's block log [2] and SoV's admin review [3] to realize that this is not their first rodeo. I don't care for their conduct. It is not collegial or collaborative. There are other people who don't care for their conduct either: some of them are veteran editors with named accounts (not IP editors), so let's not even allow anyone to hide behind the facade of pretending that IP editors are second class citizens here. The User Talk page histories are also revealing. Then we get TMCK jumping in, calling me a sock and mocking me. I haven't reviewed his history yet, but expect to find much of the same: edit warring, POV pushing, and disrespect for other editors. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
And here we find the same history for RT. [4] I'm not going to speculate about sockpuppetry. No speculation is necessary here. They get into edit wars and get blocked because they're dedicated to removing controversial material from articles about left-wing icons. I don't need to be a named editor with 100,000 edits and 20 barnstars to diagnose their problem and offer a solution. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Like it or not, veteran IP editors are always going to be viewed with suspicion. There's a good reason for this, because many of them are socking. If the IP address is stable it might as well be an account, but it's hard to remember a string of numbers. If not stable it's hard to develop editing relationships, respect, a track record, etc. That's a fact of life, and even if the reason for preferring not to register is completely reasonable that's one of the side-effect. Redthoreau does not seem to be an obvious sock, and if they're a long time POV editor I haven't seen that, not in the range of articles I've edited. The edit warring over ACORN seems to come out of left field. Anyway, I don't see what all that drama has to do with the article. I don't agree with Redthoreau's changes to the lead on a variety of levels. They're incorrect and weaker English, even if you get past the POV issue, which seems to downplay the reasons for ACORN's being controversial. But I don't think it's worth so much fuss. The only one that really matters to my mind is adding "alleged" before embezzlement, which suggests that it's just a claim. Regarding the employee misconduct thing, I don't think either version is perfect whoever originally wrote it (was that me?). But I'd rather discuss that on the talk page. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
TMWDR... Whatever I was trying to say I'll stand by my point that the constant sniping between Fox News and the White House is a series of specific incidents that may better be sliced on different lines than putting them all in an article specifically about that subject. That's just not how I would slice the pie. However, I do agree with you that if there is significant subsequent sourcing the balance may be different. In this case it isn't sourcing of the individual skirmishes or on the broader subject of the white house press relations - it would be sourcing that suggests that Obama v. Fox is a distinct, well defined subject. Think of it this way. The press often strings together things for purposes of writing an article - say, famous athletes that were coached by their mothers, sports equipment manufacturers who were forced to recall faulty footwear, or cats that have found their home after being lost for years. All of these are notable in the sense that they get coverage. But it's just not a clear way to organize the info in an encyclopedia. However, sometimes it can coalesce into a tighter and stronger subject... hypothetically soccer moms, sports liability law, or animal rescue. I guess that when subsequent sources arise I'm more apt to simply recreate the article than go through deletion review. The deletion creates a higher hurdle than for a brand new article but if you can wait a few weeks then write a focused, well-sourced article, throw it up like a trial balloon and see what happens. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
BTW, Wikidemon, here's an interesting policy page(and/or "essay"?) if ya hadn't come across it before. --> WP:TLDR
"Please try to write in as few words as you can, using technical jargon only when unavoidable. When you must write lengthy text please include a summary at the beginning. Try to keep your vocabulary simple so that non-native English readers can understand."
I've explained my position on the article Talk page, and more fully on Lulu's User Talk page. Please review before supporting his edit war. Thanks. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm doing so - it's reasonable to alert people on their own talk page, particularly behavior-things like edit warring, but it's best to centralize the content discussion on the article talk page to avoid duplicating it. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
So everybody thinks I'm a sock. What now? I strongly suspect that if I start an account, five years and 25,000 edits from now I'll still be a second-class citizen, and LotLE will still be edit-warring and writing nasty edit summaries about me. What can be done about that? 64.208.230.145 (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Tell you what. I've just created this account and will use it exclusively. Five years from now (Halloween 2014), if we're both still alive and still editing, let's meet here and compare notes. But the future I've described above seems inevitable, and I do not contemplate it with joy. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Welcome to the world of the undead :) Don't let it get you down, I'll keep an open mind -- if anyone harasses you let me know and I'll do my best to look out for you. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad that you and 64 have made kissy kissy nicey nicey, but that still doesn't excuse his/her outrageous comments directed toward me (and others, for that matter) at WP:ANI. I'm a little less forgiving than you, especially since no effort has been made to retract the aforementioned statements. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Scjessey, 64/Phoenix did apologize for mischaracterizing your topic blockban, and I apologize as well. I haven't seen your apology for calling him a sock of the notorious BFP, nor your apology to me for suggesting that I might also be such a sock.
WD, I've proposed a solution at WP:ANI that goes beyond your "Fuhgeddaboutit." Since you've intervened as a mediator of sorts, please review and comment. Thanks .... 71.57.8.103 (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not apologizing for anything. 64/Phoenix has not retracted his/her bullshit claim that I'm an "attack dog" blah blah blah, so as long as bad faith is assumed why should I apologize? As for you - you're probably a socking IP as well. I'm naturally suspicious of anyone who doesn't register an account. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I never get invited to the big parties. I just read pages and pages of admin noticeboard discussions, and frankly, I'm feeling a little left out. I believe I've edited the contributions of 64/Phoenix, 71.57.8.103 and even Noroton - probably not as agreeably as they would have liked - so I feel I have rightfully earned some disrespect, too. Damn it. Perhaps I'm just not traveling in the right circles. How can I get into this "Like Mind" club I've read about? I doubt I'd qualify for the much vaunted Attack Dog division; I don't think I have the right temperment. I'm more of the "run up - pee on their leg - scamper off" type, but I do have other assets. Just tossing that out there, in case there is ever an opening - but I won't hold my breath. It appears the club isn't hurting for members - it seems everyone is in it, except for the occasional individuals that complain about it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
You're from the Bay area AND you delete every addition to the Yelp criticism section. I understand that some of the previous criticism edits were a little bit dubious (first person view, claiming that the allegations are absolutely true) but I couldn't find any significant flaw within my edit (maybe you should read the referenced article and post an explanation to your reverting back to the version before mine... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.225.27 (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I explained my thinking regarding using that particular free weekly article as a source in my August 4 comments on the Wikipedia article talk page. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I understand that point. But why did you remove the sentence on how "the anonymous nature of the Internet facilitates competitors to befoul each other by spamming negative reviews on their respective profiles."? This is a fact: Everyone (via dyanmic IP's or proxies) can just do that and I feel that this point is legitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.225.27 (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Understood - thanks for the civil discourse here. I've added a version of that back, paraphrased to use slightly less colorful language than "befoul". Also, this fake reviews of competitors is just a small part of the issue. There are also disgruntled employees, trolling reviews, and vendetta reviews (people giving negative reviews to get back at an establishment or its employees for something having nothing to do with its service). And then there are people who simply enjoy complaining or don't know what they're talking about. As far as I can tell Yelp isn't different than other review sites here, although I suppose as one of the biggest examples they get their share of commentary, and each one has its own way of trying to sort out fake or unfair reviews from legitimate ones, and setting the balance between censorship and inclusionism, and balancing pressure from their advertisers against legitimacy. Some of that is discussed in the family of articles about review sites. That one needs some cleaning up. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Apologies, but why should uncivil and disruptive editors be given multiple opportunities to be that way (your suggestion of "again and again")? Why do editors like the one in question (and I could name at least one other) get away with WP:BAITing, etc. Surely it is not just because they write lots of popular articles about, oh food products or whatever? With some frustration, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
You might want to take a look at the pending Ottava Rima arbitration case here for some of the reasons. Everyone is trying to figure out why the most persistently uncivil editors are allowed to get away with it. I think you're observation is right about William B. Saturn, but this particular incident is easy to resolve and therefore not a perfect occasion to convince others to deal with his long-term editing issues. That's probably one of the reasons - noticeboards and administrative intervention are only set up to deal with current problems as a last resort when nothing else can work. They don't deal with long-term behavior very often. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I see that a passing admin warned him over his taunt on your page, which is a good outcome. Usually when I file reports, against the most aggressive of them, they quickly post claims that I'm a POV pusher, one of the most notorious disrupters on Wikipedia, I'm in a cabal that's plotting to get them banned because I disagree with their position, etc., and then some well-meaning but completely uninterested admin warns us both to stop the drama fest. So a lot of it is administrative laziness and rote responses, and the success of mud slinging in these forums. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
As a further comment, I'm familiar with the situation with OR. I believe the situation with productive editors and incivility is simply that they know they can get away with it. If the community stops enabling, the problem will become manageable. Until then, less strong-willed editors are driven away.
I similarly note CoM. Both OR and COM are prodigious contributors. Both can be quite uncivil. In a similar situation as with WSS, I allowed CoM several "free shots" at personal attack and bad faith on my talk page. The difference is, when I asked CoM to stop, he did - and he gets my limited respect for that (although, as I said, I do respect his article additions). With CoM, he seems to operate with 100% projection (referring to those who, even inadvertently, oppose him as POV-pushers), but also seems to acknowledge his own lack of civility.
WSS seems to revel in the "keep asking the same questions game", reminding me of the "doe-eyed naif" editor Gr, but less outwardly innocent-sounding.
One: My talk page clearly says all additions to the page by any user will be deleted.
Two: The CNN article is good and does not violate user policies.
Three: I saw Ritter's arrest because I worked near the location.
Four: The truth will continue to be posted, grow up and stop trying to censor the truth! As long as there is a Ritter article on WIkipedia that does not mention his arrest for trying to masturbate in front of a teenage girl, I will contiunue to post the truth.
Five: Blocking me for posting the truth is bizarre. You are not the judge and jury of Wikipedia. You are completely out of your league in doing so and you should take this specific issue up with Wikipedia, because it will not go away.
Six: Here is your text...NEVER post anything to my talk page again, I do not engage in conversations with moral and ethical cowards...Jango Davis
[removed cut-and-paste of warning messages left to editor's talk page]
I will discuss BLP issues with the Scott Ritter article on the article talk page, and post any further notices regarding your edit warring and civility issues to your talk page. Whether or not you care to erase talk page messages at some point is your business; it is taken to show that you have received them. From time to time I restore messages to show the series of escalating warning that usually preceeds an account block. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not interested in your explanations, stay off my talk page. I have no patience for those who have hidden agendas, such as yours in obfuscating the truth of Scott Ritter's arrest for attempted child molestation and hiding behind Wikipedia's shaky editorial rules. Unless there is a decision from the top regarding Scott Ritter's biographical entry regarding his arrest, and to date there has been done, I will continue to post the truth, which is well-sourced from both CNN and the Times Union, Ritter's own home town newspaper. If you are a Ritter-partisan you should just say so and stop hiding behind someone else's editorial shirt's and pretend you are unbiased, which you clearly are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jango Davis (talk • contribs) 20:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, not agreed. I'm not the issue here. My warnings stand. Do not make personal attacks or insert poorly sourced scandalous information about living people, as you have been doing. If you wish to continue editing the encyclopedia, please find some productive area to contribute and do not use it as a place to advance your own agenda about someone you see as a pedophile. I'll avoid any unnecessary chatter on your page but your page is the place to leave notices and warnings. Your claim that you will delete comments without reading them makes it a lot more likely that you will be blocked if you persist. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
WD, it seems to me that the fact of Ritter's arrest is well-established and well-sourced. CNN is a reliable source. While the technicalities of the court resolution erased it from his record, Ritter had to acknowledge that the crime occurred in order to win that degree of leniency. WP:BLP is satisfied. I suggest that Jango's edit should stand and, if you'd like, we can continue this on the article Talk page. Skoal.Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I strongly (but cordially) disagree. I'll discuss the reasoning on the article talk page. Rather than revert warring, though, I might list it on BLP/N or RfC to get some wider participation. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Appreciation
I appreciate your comments on photogate today. I am just stopping by to let you know that we may have had minor differences in the past, but I respect you as an editor, and hope that we can continue on with the improvement of the project in an amiable fashion. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Eh?
Re: Your note on my talk page [5]. I see I'm on some list. How do you know the mention is favorable? Have you looked through the book? Think I can find it at a local book store? Thanks for the note & the box. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I ordered the book from Amazon and it's right in front of me. There's a half-page mention of your Hotel toilet-paper folding article which, I must say, is a wonder of Wikipedia article-writing. The history of its creation, and your subsequent comments to Jimbo's talk page about Wikipedia's finally being complete with that article's creation (which I noticed at the time, but avoided because you and I were not getting along then) are used as a humorous but sincere illustration of the content creation process, and used as a closing zinger in the author's introductory chapter. So all in all you are portrayed as clever, funny, knowing, and sincere... cant' ask for more than that. I was happy enough to see my username in print at all, even if in a less laudatory way, so I created the userbox and category that those of us immortalized in the book can attach to our pages. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh. Hmmmm. Thanks. Maybe I'll write Dago dazzler after all. Then I quit and leave Wikipedia to rot in hell forever. ... Then there was that American poet, whatsisname, who introduced the Prince of Wales to the Mint Julep, among other, more interesting adventures. But that's it. After that, no more! I'm done with the jackasses here. Well, just as soon as I finish off Fort Stamford, and I swear, that's the end of it and I kick the dust off my sandals and walk away. ... JohnWBarber (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Your are mentioned in passing. Quoth the book on page 14: "The tactics of Scjessey, Grz11, Wikidemon and others defended Obama from..." [and then it goes onto things I'm not supposed to talk about per a certain arbitration body]. However, it does not mention Noroton in this context at all, but rather the toilet paper anecdote. Most of the book is not about the Obama stuff or even American politics, that takes up a chapter or two in total, interspersed throughout the book. It delves into a lot of different editing areas fairly comprehensively, so it's a good introduction for the uninvolved into a lot of heated issues you might not have ever heard of no matter how long you've been around. Anyway, if you want to order it, it'll cost you $20 here. If five Wikipedians order it this week I'll bet the sales rank will go up from 500,000 to maybe 200,000! If you are spending money you might want to tithe a little bit to Jimbo's funny slider button at the top of your page too. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
It says that nobody is allowed to create "Criticism of Barack Obama" articles, and that there are only two ways to insert information about negative perceptions of Obama: creating new articles or inserting information into one of the existing Obama articles. Both approaches don't work, says the book. The new articles rarely survive, and the existing articles are "defended" by the "tactics" of me, Scjessey, Grz11, "and others". I guess he left off Tarc, Lulu, and half a dozen other candidates. The book seems to have been finished in Spring, 2009, before the Arbcom cases and the topic bans. It says you tried both approaches, less skilfully than some: you created "Obama Bear Market", which got merged into US bear market of 2007-2009, and also that you lead 22 mostly unsuccessful "attacks" on the Presidency of Barack Obama and 9 on the Public image of Barack Obama articles. Funny, it doesn't mention the World Net Daily / Aaron Klein meltdown of March 10-11. Well, I can't agree with everything 100% but it's not a bad summary of the mood from back then. You get a little more of a mention than most of the rest of us but the whole thing is only a few pages. The guy must have done a lot of reading because he's got similar descriptions of the editing process of dozens of different topic areas. Please be careful about commenting - does your ban apply to my talk page? I enjoy discussing things with you and hearing what you have to say but I don't want to get you in trouble. Welcome back from Wikmo, by the way. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
And note - the author himself left a comment just below this section. You can talk to him yourself, maybe even reward his efforts by shelling out $20 for the book! - Wikidemon (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that detailed answer. I don't think my topic ban affects other people's talk pages, if the owner of the talk page is OK with the discussion. But there's no need for me to discuss that specific subject on your talk page anyway. Thank you for welcoming me back, and also for defending me during that time period. I am indeed very happy to be able to to edit articles about animals, science, technology, music, movies, etc., so I will do what it takes to not ever get blocked again. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
Sionce I am topic banned, I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that ACORN has recently dumped thousands of sensitive documents into a public dumpster, just days before a planned visit from the Attorney General of California, and Andrew Breitbart has gotten hold of them and will be publishing them. Source 1Source 2Source 3.
Thanks. For now it just looks like someone was rooting around in their trash and found some documents they should have shredded. Well, I'll keep an eye on it if something else happens. So far I can't find any outside sources for it beyond this one.[6] If there's anything truly scandalous in there, or if the fact that they're dumping documents they should be shredding becomes a major issue, maybe it's worth adding. It looks like all that's up to Breitbart. He hasn't said what he's found in the documents yet, only that he considers it a scandal. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Old dog, new tricks. I'll memorize that at some point. I'll probably create a personal for that so I can add it quickly - thanks for noticing. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikidemon, Hi! The Angel investor article could you use some of your input. Things have been going along as usual, until this week when a [to my mind] over-zealous spam assassin with the user name Ronz decided that 100% of the external links on Angel investor were spam, and therefore wholesale deleted them. Since you, I and the other regular editors have been religious about curating those links for several years, I was a bit taken aback, and left a nice note on Ronz's page explaining what we've been doing, and why I reverted the wholesale deletion. Ronz took exception to my explanation, and has tagged the article, posting a note on the article's talk page claiming that we are all wrong, and that none of the links comply with wikipedia policy and they should all be removed. I obviously strongly disagree with Ronz's actions and assessment, particularly because we have worked so hard to come to a consensus over three years as to what links are appropriate for this article and have, among us, done such a good job of keeping that section clean. Given your own anti-spam wiki-cred, I would appreciate it if you could stop by the Angel investor talk page and weigh in with your opinion. Thanks! Yorker (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Angel investor
While I appreciate your comments, and am highly impressed with your clear and reasonable response, I wish you had mentioned that you had been canvassed for your response. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
No worries -- the article is on my watchlist and I would likely have weighed in either way. As you can see I'm not taking sides. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if you are monitoring the big ol' ruckus at WP:ANI. Obviously it would be inappropriate for either of us to comment there, given our editing restrictions. It will be interesting to see what will happen when these expire - in just over two weeks from now. Recommend you buy a large tub of popcorn! -- Scjessey (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer not to comment on that given the interaction restriction, which does not have a time limit. I would suggest giving it a wide berth and some time. Although Arbcom is the logical -- probably the only -- forum, I would email an Arbcom member to get clearance, because there was some sentiment that going before Arbcom for clarification of their sanctions or to request enforcement is itself a violation. That doesn't make sense but at least one administrator took that position. - 19:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The whole system is retarded, to be honest. The interaction restriction prevents me from passing this picture on to our mutual friend with a penchant for baconery, for example. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The Arbcom ruling was slow, arbitrary, and not very thoughtful, indeed. I have a feeling this one can sort itself out without our help. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm just curious about what will happen when the topic ban expires. Personally, I am planning to gradually return to editing Obama-related articles (although I predict it will take a good while to get up to speed) because the topic interests me. I'll probably focus on the low-trafficked articles to start with, restricting myself to non-controversial stuff for a while. Later on, I plan to return to dramatic edit warring with photon torpedoes the main articles. I feel like I can handle it without getting into trouble. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Probably not what you think. They had actually quieted down before the Arbcom ruling. Most likely the partisans here on Wikipedia finally realized Obama won the election, and also whoever was behind all the sockpuppets must have moved onto something else. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Bigtimepeace and I are discussing the interaction restriction problem on his talk page, BTW. He sees the need for a clarification. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, and as I noted on my talk page, I'll talk to an Arb about this at some point. Rather than any formal request for clarification or the like I'm more curious to see how these kind of situations have been dealt with in the past (i.e. two parties prohibited from interacting who are then allowed to return to an article from which they were topic banned, and where discussion is often contentious). Both Scjessey and ChildofMidnight are welcome to return to Obama editing in a couple of weeks, and it would be best to head off any confusion or misinterpretation about what constitutes "interaction" (e.g. if Scjessey starts a thread on Talk:Barack Obama, is it okay for C of M to weigh in without referring to Scjessey directly, or vice versa?). I'll try to clarify this and get back to both of you and C of M regarding this matter, assuming I get any useful information. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs21:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. Everything else aside, the crusty humor in the response to your comment there was rather funny. Always look on the bright side... - Wikidemon (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Eeekster (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I would rather not discuss that here on my talk page, for reasons I am also reluctant to discuss. Thanks for catching that over-eager CSD tagger, by the way. That's the first time anyone has ignored my "in creation" template notice. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
As you wish. If you ever need to share anything sensitive with me, you can always contact me in confidence. You're welcome on the CSD thing, BTW. "PayPal Mafia" is a common term now, and if the tagger had done a basic Google search the notability would've been self evident. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Or a Wikipedia search - the phrase comes up a number of times and I'm having fun tracing down the whole web of things for a new template. It's a fairly important subject not to have its own article yet, a cluster of people who've launched several new industries in a decade (social nets, social gaming, online transactions) and generated tens of billions of dollars of private wealth in the process. It's no wonder that Wikipedia moved its offices to ground zero there in South Park, San Francisco. They're a block or so from Wired Magazine... you could throw a stone out their window and probably hit a dozen dot com companies. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I just stumbled across an accusation such as the one you mentioned, although in this case it is hard to ascertain who the commenter is actually accusing. Frankly, I think this interaction ban is childish and unnecessary. Normal civility and good faith-related policies should be more than adequate to handle this sort of thing. I don't like having to walk on eggs while wearing a blindfold. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I was assuming it is a reference to the 5 or 8 or however many Arbcom motions on the Obama articles case between June and now. Don't worry about the Paypal Mafia. They're mostly apolitical. Their politics is money. Wikidemon (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) I take that back. They're a bunch of libertarians! That's why they are so stubborn and do everything their own way, also where they got the idea of trying to undermine the banking system by creating worldwide private electronic currency. The original idea was for Palm Pilots! Everyone in the world was going to own a palm pilot and beam each other money that way, safe from the prying eyes of the government. - 23:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikidemon, I'm writing this because you reallys deserve a better response than I was able to give on the page. As you will o doubt be very aware, I'm thoroughly pissed off with the situation on climate articles. My first "baptism" in climate was a very simple sentence on the "hockeystick". It took me over a week (and remember at the time I was a believer in global warming) to realise that I was never going to get any kind of intelligable sentence into the article. It took a number of years but finally, the climate had cooled sufficiently for me to think it was reasonable not to talk about global warming as currently happening without also mentioning that suggest the climate is currently cooling. Again, this was resisted at every attempt, and it will be so long as the current editors keep editing. These aren't big things, they are the simplest patently obvious things which any reasonable editor would accept. When it comes to the "science", which is so hopelessly reliant on the "climategate" scientists, then there's not a hope in hell of getting any changes. And of course, having had to sit and watch their deceitful abuse of the wikipedia process all these years to keep their POV in the articles, having to bite my toungue ... you can imagine that however hard I try I'm not going to have the most neutral view when it comes to climate! Isonomia (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
A couple questions
Hi Wikidemon~
I just noticed something you wrote that started me to thinking:
In Churchill's case he was given tenure as a "special opportunity" candidate, i.e. for being Indian. The things he said and did as a self-declared Indian seem particularly troublesome when one adds the fact that he was not really Indian. There is a long history of wannabe Indians (see Impostor#People who "went native" - I wonder if he should be added to that list).
I'll admit to being somewhat less knowledgeable about this gentleman, having only first heard about him through his Wikipedia article, but a couple of things struck me as odd in your comments. Is it, indeed, a fact that he is not really Indian? If so, shouldn't that information be added not just to the "went native" list, but his Wikipedia article as well? I was also under the impression that Churchill was granted his position because of his qualifications and abilities, not his ethnicity -- although it may have played a part in his being included among the 39 candidates they reviewed for the position. The nature of your comments leads me to believe you have seen information that I haven't gotten to yet, so I figured I'd impose upon you for some pointers and a little direction on those particular matters. Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
On the off chance you assumed my questions were rhetorical, let me assure you I was hoping for your input. I've been recently prompted, for some reason, to revisit those pages. I figured I'd prepare myself in advance with whatever information and resources I could, from different persepctives, before tackling any significant edits. If you are busy, I can just raise the issues on the article talk page — but I was really hoping to avoid that shark pit for now, and discuss them with more reasonable editors first. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
A few things are my opinion and/or reading between the lines, but the source for all this is in the articles. There are 3 AFAIK, the main one about Churchill, then child articles about the 9/11 essay and the misconduct investigation. The most obvious explanation, which is backed up by the sources, is that he claimed to be Indian when he wasn't in connection with his political activism (which was part of his professional resume and job activities as a professor), and that he was on a special hiring / tenure track on account of claiming to be Indian. He certainly spoke out as an Indian. I owe you a more detailed response, which I will try to formulate when I have a chance. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Doh - just noticed your last response here. While I do have your talk page watch-listed, I missed this edit notification somehow. Anyway, thank you for the response. You have already answered my most important concern: (i.e.; were you drawing your conclusions from sources that I hadn't seen, or just from those already in the articles). Don't feel obligated to expand on that; our respective views probably aren't all that different, and I suspect we both may have opportunity to revisit the subject as soon as January when the next legal dust-up is expected. I'm going to back-burner my article research until then, seeing as the impetus for my research appears to have been a drive-by provocateur and not a collaborator. I hope this holiday season is finding you in good health and spirits. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello.
Hello.
If you object to me putting this message on your talk page, then you can erase it, and I will understand, and I will not object to your erasing it.
As you know, I have been topic banned from articles and article talk pages relating to U.S. politics. As far as I am aware, my topic ban does not apply to the talk pages of users who are willing to let me discuss U.S. politics on their talk page. If you object to me making this post on your talk page, then you can erase it, and I will understand.
Anyway, I would like to draw your attention to this edit that was made by Newross to the Kevin Jennings article. Specifically, I would like to draw your attention to Newross' removal of Jennings' admission in his autobiography that he had a past history of illegal drug use. Given that Jennings is Obama's Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, this information is extremely noteworthy.
In the comment section, Newross wrote, "rewrite paragraph about Christian right criticism." The word "rewrite" is not accurate. The word Whitewash (censorship) is the most accurate description of Newross's edit.
What do you think of Newross removing that information from the article?
Again, if you object to me making this post on your talk page, you can erase it, and I will understand.
I personally don't see any problem with you (Grundle) posting this here but you might want to take a look at wp:PROXYING. Just wanna make sure you don't get in unneeded trouble again. I'm saying this in good faith and for your own good. The more you know the better, right? Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, Magnificent Clean-keeper. I see we share the same concern about not wanting me to get trouble, and I thank you for that. I just wanted someone at wikipedia to talk to about this, and Wikidemon has always seemed very fair and reasonable. I appreciate your concern. If an administrator was to tell me that my topic ban applied to user talk pages, I would abide by that. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
At that link it says, "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called 'proxying', unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them." Well of course we all know that Wikidemon is perfectly capable of thinking for himself. I'm not even necessarily asking him to change the article back. I just wanted to see if someone was willing to acknowledge my point that that information should not have been removed from the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Appreciated that you took is as a positive good faith advise as I meant it to be. And yes, I know Wikidemon will only edit within the guidelines as s/he always did and I don't have to advise him/her in regards of this at all. As long as you post such things here (at Wikidemon's talk page) there is no concern at all from my side. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Grundle, I don't mind at all. I'll take a look. I enjoy hearing from you and I take your observations seriously even if I disagree. I don't think we'll have to worry about me becoming a proxy editor. If you're concerned about violating the topic ban you might want to ask for a clarification from the administrator who announced it. I certainly don't see any harm. If you just post on my page, I'll let you know if it's getting to be too much. So it's no trouble to anyone but you and me. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I see it was User:Master of Puppets. What an intimidating username! Anyway, why don't I ask him/her myself, that might be better received. I'll be busy for at least several hours but sometime within the next day I'll pose the question. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, the original name was kind of an accident. I started a Wikipedia account as a test - nothing sinister, just trying to figure out how the software and system worked, so I called it "wikidemo", as in a demo / guest / test account on a wiki. During the First Obama Wars someone made a typo in process of complaining about me and called me Wikidemon. I thought it was kind of cute and I liked the double meaning (you know, Daemon (computer software)) so I changed my name accordingly. I forgot to reserve the old account so naturally a doppleganger grabbed it and had some fun. I guess if you're having a dispute with a demon, it could seem a little odd. Most Wikipedia names are odd. Is there a userbox for user pages where you can explain why you chose your name? That would be a fun thing to encourage. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi you demon you. I know all about your history in regards to your username ;) and you're right, most names are odd, just look at mine. But "one has to take what is not already given" (to someone else). Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
As it says on my userpage, my username is a totally G-rated video game reference. However, the word grundle (images at article are not safe for work) also has an X-rated meaning, which I am not too happy about. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course I don't take it the wrong way. I think it's hilarious! I think the game's programmer was trying to make a reference to the character Grendel from Beowulf, and was not familiar with the slang usage of the term. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Based on your work on political articles, I'm hoping you can help out on this one. It's of most importance and interest right now:
http://stats.grok.se/en/200912/United%20Nations%20Climate%20Change%20Conference%202009
I was, as I generally do with politicians, current events and related articles, trying to add links to ongoing coverage from the major news media around the world. 'Arthur Rubin' has been trying to use various (rather non-applicable, imo) rules as excuses to eliminate them. For current controversial events, I think we've all experienced the various 'points of view' which get added and deleted, often with undue weight. So, I've found these sorts of External links to be very helpful to our users, and help prevent Wikipedia from becoming a laughingstock. Once the conference is over and cooler heads prevail, they may or may not be as necessary. Right now, I feel very strongly that eliminating them does a disservice to our readers and I do find myself questioning the good faith of Arthur Rubin. (Skimming his Talk page, I don't appear to be alone.) Anyway, I was hoping you could do something as it's a bit pointless to go through normal channels which wouldn't likely resolve the issue until after the Conference is over. Unless there's something I can do that I don't know about? Anyway, thanks for any help. Flatterworld (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Template:Jimboquote
Hello Wikidemon, I am thinking about nominating Template:Jimboquote for deletion. Have your thoughts on the need for such a template changed since the last TfD nearly two years ago? The template has not been used on policy pages for some time—it appears to be only be used in archives and talk pages—and declarations from Jimbo no longer ipso facto carry weight of policy they once did. A regular quote template for Jimbo quotes will suffice; a special template is unwarranted. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Understood. If it's not in use then I have no objection to its deletion, and in fact I wouldn't mind if you put a speedy tag on it as a general housekeeping / maintenance deletion. Looking back, it was kind of WP:POINTy in the first place. The one thing I'm concerned about is that it would mess up the archive and history pages, and people do often look to historical versions of policy pages. How about deprecating it instead? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Building consensus on copyright issue
You were involved in a discussion regarding the use of copyrighted architectural designs on Wikipedia pages and I'm trying to find community consensus on a gray area. If you can, please let me know at what point you feel these images should be replaced here. Thank you so much! DR04 (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take a look. I know some things about copyright, but engineering / architecture designs is one of my zones of ignorance. It might be fun to bone up on the legal angle, which of course is not the same as non-free use but it's good background. Thanks! - Wikidemon (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Hampster dance.gif
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Hampster dance.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
WGKF
Hi Wikidemon. You're right about your message here. Thanks for cleaning up the article on WGKF. I must say that I am not a native English speaker, so sometimes it "sounds" good to me, but it will hurt an English native speaker's ears. Please, could you also have a look at these articles: GKIF and Genseiryū??? I would be most grateful! Thanks... MarioR12:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Sock?
It wouldn't surprise me at all if User:Róbert Gida turned out to be a sock of Gordon Bleu, or perhaps the infamous Bryan. Patterns are similar. BTW, I'll be rejoining Obama articles on Monday, or possibly Tuesday. I've watchlisted a couple today so I can start getting up to speed on what's going on. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's a distinctive pattern in terms of tone, format, subject matter. Until very recently everything was very calm - the usual vandals, racists, questions over the meaning of African-American, and a few trolls and test edits, but that's all easily dealt with. There was a huge drawn-out debate, not yet settled, on the completely harmless issue of whether we should use the slightly informal terms "overnight" and "rising star" to describe Obama's ascent to power. There seems to be a sudden upsurge of "OMG liberal bias" on the main Obama page in the past few days, and some of this may indeed be socking. We have yet to find a good way to spot and sequester the socks without triggering wikidrama, no progress on that front and because it's been so long I think memories have faded. I think it's more important than ever to assume good faith and give everyone a few chances. Some people who start off looking like POV probems or trolls turn out to be sympathetic editors who simply haven't gotten the hang of Wikipedia or the Obama articles yet. "I think this article is biased and all you guys are protecting the article from negative information", as much of a problem as that has been, is a normal human reaction to someone who is coming from a right of center (or left of center) political viewpoint. Expressing it once, and perhaps missing the discussions, history, FAQs, etc., is an honest good faith mistake, and I do think people are too quick to forget that and jump on the newbies. And then a newbie may see an unexpected attack as confirmation of their suspicions and get a battleground mentality. Kind, respectful, patient discussion is a lot more effective. It's only if they keep at it indefinitely, or are socking or edit warring, or are just out and out beligerant, that the AGF runs out and we have to be firmer, either directly or by asking for administrative help. I know you don't like suffering what you see as foolisness, but if I can offer you one suggestion for returning, it's lay low, avoid doing anything controversial, keep your statements and edit summaries dignified and non-accusatory, and do not edit war past 1RR except clear cases of vandalism (and even there, someone else is sure to spot it and revert). Fairly or not, people will be watching your return, so you want to come in as well as possible. I don't want to see you being the first to get blocked or re-banned. I also see you're getting a little closer to the editor we're not supposed to interact with. I'd continue to give that a wide margin, except in any absolutely necessary meta-discussions where we're basically asking those in authority what we should do. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Once my topic ban expires, I see no reason why I shouldn't edit and contribute as normal. Bear in mind that I will still be under a 1RR restriction (of sorts), and I cannot imagine editing as prolifically as before because I am involved in so many other places now too. Regarding He Who Shall Not Be Named, I am not at all concerned about being "closer". I will not be denied my right to participate based on his proximity. I have done everything I can to avoid him for months, but with the expiration of the topic ban imminent, I will be avoiding interaction (rather than contact) per the sanction. I always thought Wikipedia was big enough to avoid him, but it turns out that it isn't. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The reason is practical. Paragraph length is due to sleepiness and slow Internet connection, both of which facilitate spewing but hamper editing. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Pardon me for kibitzing: I was tipped off to this on my own talk page. Gordon Bleu, yes. Still, I can't get too worked up about that. Me, I'm more worried by some of the defenses against criticisms of the article, and particularly the defenses of one editor (neither of you): they seem about as ideological as what they oppose, worse mannered, and all in all counterproductive, even though I often agree with much of them. A well-meaning editor who I think is too enthusiastic for the good of the talk page or himself. But maybe it's just a passing phase. -- Hoary (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
True, if it is GB that was an easy sock to deal with. I try to urge all to be respectful, I'm not sure what else to do. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I noticed your attempt to refine the categorization of venture capital firms. I think this is an example of Wikipedia:Overcategorization and to my mind a miscategorization for many of these firms. For example, Atlas Venture, Tenaya Capital, M/C Venture Partners just to name a few would not be considered "Boston venture capital firms" as they have very large operations outside of Boston. Charlesbank Capital Partners is not even a venture capital firm. More to the point, separating out the venture capital category based on geography is a mistake in my opinion. the only subcategorization i would really support is based on investment strategy and that is so difficult i have not attempted it. I think there is value in having all of the firms in a single category. But I would like to understand better how you think about the category before I propose undoing this. |►ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK◄|16:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The underlying purpose is not overcategorization at all, but you've spotted the difficulty I found in this. To start, there is already an underpopulated category, Category:Silicon Valley venture capital firms. This is a valid category for a few reasons - although perhaps the best known venture region in the world (at least within computers and information technology) Silicon Valley has a distinct flavor of venture capital, with its own history, personalities, culture, business norms, and most particularly, a narrow focus in terms of investment targets and geography. Most of the celebrated venture firms in Silicon Valley are local, and do not set up significant satellite offices. A reader wanting to understand venture capital would be well informed to be able to navigate quickly among venture firms in the valley. My impetus was that I found some significant tech venture firms in San Francisco, which in many respects is part of the Silicon Valley venture scene, although there are a few differences: SF tends to fund Internet tools, social networks, content, entertainment, and e-commerce, typically at an early stage, but not so much hardware, biotech, or more traditional software. I was considering renaming the cateogry "Bay Area venture capital firms", but that would strike people as odd because that is not the common conception. So I made a new category for San Francisco VC, and made the SF and SV both child categories of this. In process of doing that, I found a similar concentration of VC firms in Boston and, to a lesser extent, New York. There is a family and lineage of VC firms in Boston, as there is in SV, but Boston firms tend to be more national and international in scope with offices in diverse locations, and NY firms even more so. Also, Boston and NY firms tend to be larger and part of broader investment banking portfolios, often involving hedge funds and other public securities investments. This is all impressionistic, I can't be 100% sure these observations are correct, but the point is that there are some clusters of different flavors of firms in different parts of the US. My model here is the companies category, where we have companies by geography, and then detail companies in each city or state. Do you have a suggestion for how these can best be organized so that they allow the reader to get a quick link to venture firms that have a particular regional focus, without detracting from the ability to see all the venture firms? We could do this as a list article, but lists tend to be harder to maintain than categories. Do you know anything about adding parameters to categories, or putting categories into templates, e.g. {{template venutre capital|type=firm|offices=[[Waltham, Massachussets]], [[Menlo Park, California]]|...etc} - ? I could perhaps work on a template, and then deciding on categories or some other categorization scheme would be a lot more automated. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Criticism of Facebook
With the understanding that all the "unsourced" or "poorly" sourced you have mentioned, all information that was considered, "unsourced" or "poorly", have now been restored and more sources have been added. You do not need to to make anymore deletions of the section within this article, "Criticism of Facebook", section, ""Dislike Button" Controversy. All the sources have been added. Please make regards that the section is not intended to make the article a "blog". All the information is factual (as you can see, IF, you follow the sources). If you however would like to improve that section, you may. Otherwise, it is not intended to be marked as an example of violation of guidelines. DSW-X-Groove (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)---.
I hope this resolves many of my Big Time messes. I have spent approximatly 2 1/2 to 3 hours with a lot of effort in attempts to make this section additon accurate and reliable as much as possible while following guidelines. Please read if my revision to see if it violates the guidelines still: Dislike Button Controlversy. DSW-X-Groove (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I do see that the dislike button thing has gotten some wider coverage in mainstream sources amidst all the personal blogs. I do think it's just a technical / usability issue with how to do reputation systems All over the web, different services have thumbs up and sometimes a thumbs down, sometimes not. On all the social nets people are asking the same question. The answer is probably that if people could do a thumbs down it would hurt people's feelings. More negativity would make the services less enjoyable, and therefore hurt business. It might also increase the chances of gaming, incivility, etc. So it's not unique to Facebook. But if that's a sourced criticism / controversy, so be it. Disagreeing with the critics doesn't mean they don't exist, right? Anyway, thanks for all your time and effort, and for a good discussion. BTW, normally you would put a new talk page comment on the bottom of the page with the "new section" button. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: Butting in
Ha! Well I don't know about anyone else, but I don't think it's 'butting in' when an intelligent, long time editor gives their opinion on matters of a contentious issue. So I don't think there is a problem there. As for any sock investigation, I don't believe that was what Jessey was suggesting. I think he was advocating a request for comment about user conduct, which I stated I thought unnecessary at this time. Although I am in disagreement with you about the editor in question(Jzyehoshua)). I don't think adding accusations(eugenics, Infanticide, Hitler innuendos) are either reasonable, thoughtful or polite. On the other hand, the user has shown a willingness to retract at least some of the hyperbole. MY opinion on the matter, as of right now, is known. So I'll just see what happens and hope for the best. Happy Holidays!DD2K (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
"Climategate"
What a gem, I couldn't resist
You are completely wrong on this issue. If "Watergate" isn't used to title the Watergate scandal (a "real" scandal that led to Nixon's resignation), then there is certainly no way "Climategate" can be justified. It's in violation of WP:NPOV because it gives credence to fringe views of scientific fraud. I'm also horrified that you should use Google hits as your justification. The only conclusion I can possibly draw from your bizarre position on this is that you are an anthropogenic climate change skeptic. Is this true? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
If Wikidemon turns out to be an AGW skeptic, I shall have no choice but to use my superpowers to direct all of the Sun's rays to his location. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
What's an anthropogenic climate change skeptic? Perhaps I just own some invetment property in Antarctica and want the world to be warmer. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Someone who disagrees with the scientific evidence that the actions of humanity have contributed to a more-rapid-than-normal sequence of global warming, leading to climate change. This differs from a climate change denier, who just wants to pretend it isn't true so their property in Antarctica can yield a reasonable ROI :) -- Scjessey (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
On an episode of Mythbusters, they confirmed that a higher concentration of carbon dioxide leads to higher temperatures. I believe that our burning of fossil fuels is making the atmosphere warmer. However, I oppose reducing our use of energy, and instead, I want the U.S. to adopt France's policy of getting almost all of its electricity from nuclear power, and I also favor a switch to 100% electric cars. The idea of putting caps on energy usage is scary, because it would reduce our freedom, and our standard of living. I find it interesting that even though the new Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor was designed in the U.S., the first ones being built are being built in China. In order to solve global warming, we need nuclear power, not scaremongering and energy rationing. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Ultimately I think we'll need geostationary solar-collecting satellites but that will take a while. I kind of like Stewart Brand's notion of triggering more Mount Pinotubo-style volcanic events. One a year would create a cooling effect that would offset the carbon-based warning and buy us another 100 years while we develop some better technologies. He's also in favor of nuclear power, and trying to convince his environmentalist buddies to support it too as the lesser of two evils. My favorite pet project is to harvest the earth's rotational energy. There's enough kinetic energy in the planet's rotation to last us hundred of millions of years. It's like getting tidal energy, from the source. I haven't yet been able to work through a good way to harness energy from planetary drag though, much less the climactic and plate tectonic effects. Maybe we could slow down a different planet and beam the energy back here. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Nuclear power is not going to solve everything, particularly as it carries its own pollution price and can (potentially) be a serious danger. Renewable energy from solar, wind, wave, hydro and geothermal are really the only viable options for the next few decades. Electric cars are a waste of effort, because all they do is move the pollution around. We need to use less energy, more efficiently. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
People still want electricity when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. When wind farms in Germany aren't working due to lack of wind, Germany imports its electricity from France's nuclear power plants. Hydro power is great, but it's limited based on geography. According to CBS News, nuclear power gives France the cleanest air in the industrialized world, and the cheapest electricity in Europe. I am not aware of even one person ever dying as a result from exposure to radiation from France's nuclear power plants. Chernobyl was a huge disaster, but that nuclear power plant didn't have containment walls, and it was being operated by people who were trained to run a coal power plant, and had no training in nuclear power plants, because the bureaucrats didn't think it made any difference. When done properly, as in France, nuclear power is very clean and very safe. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The sun is always shining in outer space. Always-on and standby power is more valuable, typically. You can fire up the coal plants as-needed. Nuclear plants can't be started and stopped quickly. My main concern there is practical, not theoretical. Theoretically nuclear waste is so small and concentrated we can put it all in one place and sequester it forever at relatively low cost. Damage from mining and dependence on unreliable sources is an issue, but not nearly as much as oil and coal. The practical problem is that we need to rely on current governments and companies, and their competitors and enemies, not to mess things up for hundreds of years through neglect, accident, sabotage, war, terrorism, bankruptcy, loss of technical expertise, etc. That's a tall order given how much people tend to mess things up. With coal, we know we're messing things up. With nuclear, it's a guess. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
As Lyndon LaRouche used to say, "more people died in the back of Ted Kennedy's car than Three Mile Island". They just don't make climate change skeptic / nuclear enthusiasts like they used to. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem with nuclear power comes with what to do with spent nuclear fuel. Even after reprocessing, the fuel is lethally dangerous. Some countries bury their waste (out of sight, out of mind) while others just toss it into the sea. Until a way can be made for spent nuclear fuel to be safe enough to eat, it should be used sparingly. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Some people would say that a small amount of very dangerous waste is better than a huge amount of slightly toxic waste. That's the principle behind water treatment, right? In theory, caring for a thousand cubic yards of extremely dangerous stuff for the next 500 years would be manageable and not very expensive compared to the value of the power. Certainly cheaper than running a maximum security prison where the inmates are sentient and actively trying to escape. The pyramids have held their mummies for thousands of years. Certainly with today's technology we can design containers to hold reprocessed spent nuclear fuel rods for a thousand. My comment is that you can't trust people to do things right with graft, corruption, sabotage, terrorism, incompetence, etc. There's also the real possibility that human society could suffer a technological / economic slide to the point where we lack the resources or know-how to manage the waste. I think that's all a real concern, you just have to weigh it against the risks and costs of global warming on the one hand, and the effects and practicality of a reduced standard of living on the other (after all the economically advantageous means of improving efficiency have been exhausted). - Wikidemon (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
No, there is no burden to demonstrate that everything we note on a talk page complies with policy - you have that completely backwards
Well that's usually true. The BLP is different. When living persons are concerned, the onus is on us to establish that we're not doing any harm. That's why the BLP was written. In the period prior to the Siegenthaler Incident we were too lax and accepted damaging statements about living persons in articles and nobody took on the responsibility of checking the facts and if they had they would not have had the power to enforce our policies. Now we're extra careful. --TS01:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty familiar with the subject. I recognize the extra deference given to living people, but that does not turn logic on its head. The burden is always on someone objecting to something to explain just what their objection is. You can't just say something is against BLP policy, all of it, and ask people to prove that it isn't. The logical response to being asked to prove a negative would be that there is not a single provision in policy that prohibits it. Further, as I said, protecting admins against external criticism for their administrative action is not the point of BLP. The criticism exists whether we cover our ears or not. It's lame, disingenuous, factually incorrect criticism, but we deserve to know about it. Pretending it doesn't exist makes us weaker as a project, and less able to deal with it. Wikipedia is not going to suffer from its article editors knowing that an agitator claims on a major newspaper blog that one of our admins is a liar and liberal cabal member who abuses his power to shape the encyclopedia to his liking. If those potshots brought us down, the AN/I board would have sunk the project long ago. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia must ensure its editors do not do living people harm. It is our duty to remove anything that violates WP:BLP from any namespace we find it. I have deep concerns, for example, about all the infanticide-related stuff that still inhabits Talk:Barack Obama. As I have recently emerged from a topic ban on the subject, I lack the confidence to do a wholesale removal of that particular material, but that does not change the fact that it should've been removed. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Most do not share your view of BLP that it precludes discussion on talk pages of things that are going on in the real world vis-a-vis their relevance to the article. I've generally agreed with your opinions that certain sections should be closed or deleted, but it's hard to support repeated reversions on BLP grounds, and that risks a finding that you're edit warring. The whole "infanticide" thing is fringey and a bad proposal, if it continues it is bad to the point of being tendentious. But the observation that many conservative blogger types ran with the meme of Obama supporting infanticide is simple truth, it's just not good fodder for an article. The extremist view that anything that reflects badly on a living person cannot be discussed, and claims against living people cannot be mentioned, on talk pages, would if taken literally shut down the entire project. As noted we could not have AN/I reports, for one. The guy we're talking about wrote a hit piece about Wikipedia and singled out a particular admin for abuse. I don't know his readership but probably tens to hundreds of thousands of people read the article and who knows how many agree with him and now believe that Wikipedia is part of the liberal cabal. By contrast, there are 3,000 hits per day on the main Climategate article (down from 24,000 a few days after creation) and 750 hits per day on the talk page (down from 3,000) ... probably the same 50 people returning 15 times a day. I think those 50 people, most of whom are reasonable and can see through this stuff, ought to know what the hundreds of thousands of readers out in the real world are reading about the article, if they want to go about their business. "Harm" to Wikipedia administrators will be a lot worse if those 50 people are uninformed. The other issue is simple disruption on the talk page. There is a lot of hit-and-run soapboxing on the talk page from editors who've just read the piece, a little bit like that nonsense on the Obama article after the World Net Daily piece came out. Everyone things they're the first one in the know and starts a new thread about it, praising the piece and parroting its claims. It's a lot simpler if we can say "yes, we know already - see the news template at the top of this page" than if we erase and close these discussions again and again, and then they accuse us of a cover-up. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Climategate talk page - removal of pressmulti
Hi could you please look into the constant removal of the pressmulti template at the Climategate talkpage and weight in by restoring it after ChrisO again has reverted it ? Nsaa (talk) 12:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Please see the discussion above, and on the talk page - I think that makes my feelings clear on the matter. However, I do not wish to edit war to add something like that even if other parties are doing so, particularly given that there are multiple editors who have given reasoned objections. Better to get some wider input so as to make it clear where consensus lies on the matter. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Removing cn is breach of policy
You just removed my citation needed in the Climategate article. This has even been discussed at the talk page. Its not our job to create history like this by creating a name not used by any realible sources. Thats my consern as discussed at the talk page. Please restore it. Hi could you please look into the constant removal of the pressmulti template at the Climategate talkpage and weight in by restoring it after ChrisO again has reverted it ? Nsaa (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the pressmulti template should be retained. I also believe that the article title is not a very good one, and I think most people agree it should be changed. They just can't agree on what it should be changed to. However, asking for a citation for a title on the article page just makes a mess of things, because article titles are not cited. That whole dispute really needs to be worked out on the talk page, not by attaching dispute tags to the title. I'm not going to add it back, but I'm also not going to edit war over it. Better if we can talk about it on the talk page. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks (i've tried to answer it but my old mobile phone doesn't cooperate)! Just want to say that I'm very disturbed by both the title and the lede were we use one of the main perpetator as a source (for the hacking claim. Where is the leak gone?). See the second ref. This is extremly bad and I hope more independent editors start lokking at this artlike like you do. Thanks for that. Nsaa (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
On your last revert you cited "rm disputed material clearly unfit for lede (poorly sourced, not in body, contains meta-discussion about sources, unwikified"
Leave aside it is well sourced :) what does "not in body mean"?
Being new to this i am making a few mistakes here and there :)
--mark nutley (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for asking, and pleasure to meet you online! Oh... if you look at the style guideline WP:LEDE, the lede (aka "lead") is supposed to be a mini-article that hits the main points of the body. It isn't supposed to have stuff that isn't in the body. Normally the citations go in the body, and the lede doesn't need citations because it's already cited in the body. If you have an article about hummus, for example, the main body should say that it is made of chick peas and other things with a bunch of variants, or that it's popular in the middle east, with an extended run-down of where, why, how long, who likes it, just how popular it is. Maybe a few paragraphs about all that. And then in the lede you would just say briefly that it is a chick pea spread of Arab origin that is popular in the mideast (and throughout the world). The addition I reverted tried to wedge the whole issue over the apparent mistake on the glacier science in the lede without first creating a foundation for the material in the body. There were a lot of other problems with it, too many to mention, but that's the one you asked about. It was just very messy English-wise and in terms of Wikipedia markup. I don't have a final opinion on whether this whole thing is going to be worth mentioning, but if it is, it really ought to be more carefully written. One word of caution, the account that added that particular version is now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of a person who has created 400+ different fake accounts on Wikipedia, and the editor who reverted it looks like another sock. Please be careful about jumping in with socks, best to come up with your own version and discuss it on the talk page rather than risk that people will associate you with a sockpuppet. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Funny story, it was me who added it to begin with :) It is now being discussed on the article talk page though. Thanks for the help mark nutley (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Oops, sorry if I insulted your prose :( I should have noticed that. You did that back on the 23rd and have been discussing it. Two of the intermediate editors today are likely socks, that's a problem. Well, I'm happy to give you pointers anytime to how to do links and stuff. One thing is that you're not supposed to do an inline link like John Nielsen-Gammon who is the [http://atmo.tamu.edu/profile/JNielsen-Gammon state climatologist for Texas] ... in the middle of an article. You would say something like John Nielsen-Gammon, the state climatologist for Texas,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://atmo.tamu.edu/profile/JNielsen-Gammon|publisher=Texas A&M University Department of Atmospheric Sciences|title=Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon, Professor and Texas State Climatologist|accessdate=2009-12-27}}</ref> ... If you do that in an article you'll see how the references come out a lot neater, and in footnotes. It will look like this: 'John Nielsen-Gammon, the state climatologist for Texas,[1] ..., and then the reference comes out below:
Could you explain your edit summary for this edit? Do you have any understanding of the term "Climategate" that relates to anything other than the accusations made against the climatologists? --TS21:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Climategate is the name for the larger controversy. The new language takes us farther and farther away from the mainstream terminology on the subject, and looks rather defensive. If people have decided that this article is only about the hacking incident, then I'll go ahead and create a new article on Climategate itself.- Wikidemon (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The words used by the mainstream sources in describing the incident. We're way out on a limb here in how we're covering it, and drifting farther. If you can't see that forest for the trees, perhaps you've been a little too close to the Wikipedia debate. It's glaringly obvious.- Wikidemon (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: RFPP
Thanks for the link -- I was looking for that but I ended up thinking I had dreamt it up. I moved the request there. Thanks! jheiv (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Climategate scandal, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climategate scandal. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Wikidemon, I know you understand WP:NPOV from all the editing we've done of the last couple of years in the political topics. Creating this non-neutral POV fork "Climategate scandal" article and advocating for this sort of terminology is so out of character for you that I am forced to wonder if your account has been compromised. I'm completely at a loss to explain this apparent anomaly, although I must point out that your recent support for Grundle2600's 937th second chance also gave me pause. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Try a little longer, will you? I haven't had any beer today and I got plenty of sleep, so perhaps that's a compromise. To have an article for something is not to favor the subject matter. If you recall, I also created the article on the Bill Ayers presidential election strategy. That did a whole lot of good diffusing tension on the Obama and Ayers articles, in my opinion. Sometimes it's best to allow a dedicated article about a public fuss rather than allowing that content to permeate the substantive articles. That's not a POV fork - the article about the "scandal" only acknowledges that a public debate / dispute / controversy / whatever exists, not that it's valid. If the Obama/Ayers thing were known by some colorful name, say "Terrorgate", I'm afraid we might have to come to terms with that neologism and address it too. Frankly, calling things "gate" makes them sound less serious, not more, in my opinion. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I totally disagree. Furthermore, I am unable to see how you can justify use of the incredibly POV word "scandal", when there is no evidence of such. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I've explained a few times on the various pages that I used that word in deference to arguments made by several on the hacking article talk page during the rename discussion, regarding naming conventions. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, you're putting yourself outside the pale of rational Wikipedia discussion with that kind of comment. If you wish to engage in in reasonable discussion at some point let me know. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear. Whilst I didn't like the page, I don't think you deserve all this stick. ChrisO, Scj: thanks for your work in general, but over this case in particular please don't try to divide everyone up into camps William M. Connolley (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Having just read DR: Yes I think its a POV fork, no I'm not accusing you of pushing your POV here. I hope those two views are regarded as compatible. I think your motives were as you describe them, but I thik you were wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm working on a version that, hopefully, will not be regarded as a fork. We ought to cover the public scandal (for lack of a better word - "controversy" doesn't quite fit and my preferred term, "fuss", is too informal) either as a separate article, or within the "hacking" article. The hacking and the row over the email content are two very distinct things, and I think that having them both in the same article will make that article harder to write and acerbate editing disputes. The current article not only greatly downplays the scandal by asserting that the hacking is the real issue, but it also contains an over-long treatment of a third issue it takes too seriously, the accusations and denials over each particular scientist's emails. Every public scandal has at least two components, the underlying substance behind the accusations (which is often sparse, as in this case), and the making and handling of the accusations themselves. I'm trying to get to that second issue. Who fomented the dispute, why, how, and with what outcome? What is "climategate", not as a series of actions over ten years by scientists, but as a cultural meme created by climate change skeptics who, having gotten hold of purloined emails, set out to construct a controversy over them? Like it or not, these things occur, and shining the light of inquiry on them is a lot more instructive than ignoring them as mere political games. I had thought that the accusations / denials / counter-accusations section of the exiting article would best be ported over to the new one, but if people have a problem with that we can leave it there and simply address the cultural meme aspect of things. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble finding enough good sourcing to fill out a stand-alone article for that. Precious few reliable sources have weighed in on just how and why the bloggers, pundits, and climate change skeptic camp promoted this particular controversy at this particular time. There are (unsubstantiated?) allegations that it was a deliberate attempt by professionals to derail global warming talks, but surprisingly, no serious journalism that addresses whether that is really the case and, if so, how and by whom. I would have thought that a nonpartisan media observer, like NPR's "on the media", would have done a feature on the making of this controversy, but no such luck. If it never comes out, then either people just don't consider it noteworthy, or the facts are so far hidden nobody finds them. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations regarding the Climategate speedy deletion
If you'd like some help improving the article then let me know. The version I saw had some errors in it. Also, if you can, could you let me know where/when any further discussions for deletion of that article occur? I don't think that would violate WP:CANVASS since I'm asking you for that information, but I may be wrong.TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, yes there were probably lots of errors in the initial version because it's a lot of work to summarize and condense a long article to get to a suitable length for mention in a new parent article. For now I'm waiting to see what goes on with the DrV and AN/I discussion. Right now there aren't very many good reliable sources about the scandal itself ("scandal", meaning the existence of a public debate). Most of the sources are about the scientists themselves, what they say and did, not about the people and organizations raising the alarm. When it comes to it, I think you and I will have pretty opposite opinions about what to put in the article, but it takes all kinds to write an encyclopedia, no? Thanks for the note and the support. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, well I recall we had some heated arguments in the past. I'll try to find some sources for you when you are ready, but I'll likely need a reminder. One of my big annoyances is how a lot of these articles quote the blog "Real Climate," but other blogs aren't allowed to be quoted in refutation - this is especially pertinent to these articles since the authors of Real Climate are directly involved in the Climategate scandal. I just think it should be consistent either way. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The claim about WP:BLP was clearly bogus since that information is still in the main article and has been for quite some time. I think a big problem with the sub-article was the name. It contained two "hot button" terms, "Climagate" and "scandal". A sub-article named "Climate Research Unit e-mail controversy", "Climate Research Unit hacked e-mails", or something would have had a better chance at surviving AfD. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the thought. A lot of stuff was said that is simple nonsense or untrue, e.g. that I introduced discarded blog sources or tried to shoehorn in content that had been rejected from the main article. Plus some out of the blue antagonism and accusations of bad faith and POV pushing. Climategate is the name used to describe the scandal and people will have to come to terms with that. Other than getting people's hackles up the article title should have nothing to do with whether or not the subject itself is encyclopedic, but I may separate those two issues to avoid a repeat of the pile-on. I chose scandal because people were insisting on the talk page that "X scandal" was the proper way to name such things. If they had been insisting on "X controversy" or "X" I would have gone with that, I really was trying to be as uncontroversial as possible. That's why I went with existing text instead of making it up from scratch - the existing text, sources, etc., had already gone through a consensus process. I would think the fork lies in creating two completely differently sourced descriptions of the same thing. Using one long article as the model for a condensed version in a parent article only makes sense. For example, I hope that Pokémon#Anime series is condensed from the main article Pokémon (anime) rather than being its own divergent content. -
Well, let's try and draw a line under this, and move on, shall we? What you say you were trying to do, namely having more content on the broader controversy, and accommodating it in a separate article, is a reasonable thing to propose/discuss/draft. You won't make the mistake again of creating a content fork under a previously-rejected title, so however you go about it (userspace drafts are often helpful, and you have a couple now), I'm sure it'll be fine. Be sure (on this tricky splitting issue) to get WP:Consensus for at least a page title and general content outline before creating the page in mainspace. Use appropriate dispute resolution if necessary, probably WP:RFC on the "hacking incident" talk page. cheers, Rd232talk00:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this to my talk page, which is probably where this should have begun and ended. In general ones does not need prior consensus to split off article content, and this is no exception. I have done many times already with considerable success in topic areas both heated and unheated. It usually improves content presentation and diffuses tense editing environments, e.g. Bill Ayers presidential election controversy from Bill Ayers, List of Internet phenomena from Internet meme, and Foodie from Gourmet. Knowing now that there is some opposition and a lot of misunderstanding regarding this particular article I will not go about this particular task in that way again. More the new "climategate" article will solely on the creation and emergence of the public controversy, a subject not treated to any substantial extent the hacking article. How I go about that depends on what I see happening. Likely, I'll take this one farther down the road as far as being ready to drive before I take it out of the garage. My goal is to improve coverage and reduce tension, not to stir up dispute. Again, I implore you not to involve yourself in using administrative tools or threats on this now that you have taken a content position. That is guaranteed to cause an unnecessary, avoidable dispute. I appreciate and am glad to listen to your experienced views as an editor and an admin, but please leave it to someone previously uninvolved now that your impartiality is under reasonable question. Instead, please feel free to comment on my page whenever you see fit. If anything I have a tendency to discount the seriousness of climate skeptics, not to promote their claims - I just happen to see a political event of substantial importance here that seems it could be covered better. I think most of us can tell when an article is neutral, adequately sourced, and encyclopedically written. That's the goal. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, the latest comment at DrV was something I typed up a fair while ago and just got transmitted thanks to an intermittent Internet connection. I've collapsed it because it was stale in view of the above discussion - if you want we can collapse or remove both of our comments or a wider range of back-and-forth that does not pertain directly to the DrV. Thx, - Wikidemon (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I've done that, moving my reply to be collapsed too. I'm glad this is going somewhere more productive. I would though take issue with your view that I'm "involved" because of my actions here, as I see this very much as a (actually pretty straight-forward, albeit high-visibility) administrative judgement. However I'm not particularly interested in spending the limited time I have for Wikipedia on climate issues, so it's likely to be moot... Anyway, good luck with your endeavours, and do remember the value of userspace drafts, especially in contentious areas. Rd232talk01:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm sure this will all work out well. And sorry about my WP:BITE-y tendencies, it never feels good to be on the receiving end but for the record I do admire an admin who isn't afraid to take action. This particular incident generated a little bit of daily drama and I still think the IAR went too far where discussion might have worked...but overall, the stronger you are on enforcement, the more calm the project gets. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Mm, thanks. I do think that in some ways the reaction to the closure reflects the creeping bureaucratisation of Wikipedia. A few years ago, people would have more readily understood that playing out a week's worth of AFD drama over a fork, with only one possible outcome, has very little value. And that the closure in these circumstances in no way prejudices anyone's attempts to move forward on the content, either under that title or another. This should be obvious, and it's a sad reflection of the bureaucratisation that isn't. There's an interesting split that can be seen in the DRV, I think, between the older, more experienced contributors and the rest on attitudes to IAR, especially if stripping out contributors who do a lot on climate change. Certainly that's the general pattern on Wikipedia, and maybe it's inevitable; older contributors remember how the rules were made - and what's that adage about sausages and laws? You don't want to see either being made... Whereas newer contributors only know the endproduct, and have rather too much respect for it as a result. The fact that the AFD rules don't (currently) have a provision for dealing with such unusual circumstances (clear fork on a contentious topic, endless discussion actively harmful) doesn't mean that either the rules should be amended or that they should be followed blindly. At the end of the day, we're here to make an encyclopedia; the rules are a means to an end. I sincerely hope the DRV doesn't end with a relisting - what a victory for bureaucracy and needless drama that would be! And as I said before, best of luck with moving forward with your content drafts/proposals/etc in the appropriate ways. Since the title seems to be one of the trickier things (both for NPOV and implied scope), it might be worth starting an RFC on that issue on the hacking incident talk page, even before getting into detailed drafting of the content. Rd232talk13:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I think we should draw things to a close by my withdrawing the article and asking that the DrV be closed "at the request of the parties". The article can stay in my user space until and unless I patch it up to the point of being viable. That's the same result as letting the closure stand, and enough people have weighed in and offered constructive advice that keeping it open is just going to result in more of the same, a diminishing return. Overturning the deletion is a worse result because that leaves us debating whether to keep an article that isn't viable in its current form. If that closes as "no consensus" now we have a clunky article that's going to be harder to fix in main space. If it closes as delete we haven't accomplished anything by going through the extra cycles. And finally, even if I get the article in the best possible shape during the DrV / AfD, there's a lot of momentum behind people's opinions right now and they're going to be !voting on principle, probably not on the article as revised. My hope is to re-introduce the article in far more modest form, under a descriptive title that does not include "climategate", limited to coverage of the actual controversy as a political event rather than the substance behind it, something I do not believe is now treated. People can decide later whether they want to rename the article, or to shuffle some of the material about claims and counterclaims from one article to the other... or merge it all into a single article. Right now there isn't a whole lot of reliable secondary sourcing on the unfolding of the controversy, so it may be a little while before that emerges, if ever.
What do you think? Is there a good procedural way for us to ask to close the DrV and allow the deletion to stand as a "removed to user-space"? Do we need to get sign-off from the editor who filed the DrV, or would it be enough to find a neutral admin who's willing to take our word for it?
Incidentally, I do think rules and procedure are important, as the project gets farther reaching and more diverse . That's almost a mathematical law of human society, the bigger it gets, the more structure you need if you're going to keep people from steamrolling each other. That leads to bureaucracy and gradualism. It's always hard for the OG to realize that the good old days of innovation and breakthrough have given way to tiny improvements and realignments. I think your judgment is good and your aims are certainly fair and sincere... but imagine IAR in the hands of someone who isn't, or who thinks they're being reasonable but is in fact a loose cannon. Anyway, I think it's time to move forward! Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that sounds like a very productive direction to go in both on the content and on the proximate issue of the DRV. I suggest you propose this at the DRV itself, and also ask the person who opened the DRV if they would be willing to withdraw it. Rd232talk13:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
<Points upward>. Now that's what I call a very mature, sensible discussion with an outcome satisfactory for all parties and in the best interests of Wikipedia. I don't award barnstars, but I do commend you both. --TS21:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Good idea, on the move
I've placed a small note withdrawing the request, though, as I feel like the active discussion at the Obama talkpage is providing enough movement to show that the request is unnecessary. With the exception of one editor there, I feel like everyone's really working to address the major concerns I raised yesterday. It's gratifying to be able to work collaboratively with people whom I was strenuously disagreeing less than 24 hours ago. Cheers, and Happy New Year! UnitAnode01:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm assuming it's not actually you and yet another sock of that same kid, but I wanted to give you a heads up before reporting it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
This barnstar is awarded to Wikidemon, for his incredibly insightful ideas about mock outrage at Wikipedia:No angry mastodons. You captured a serious problem on wikipedia, and because your eloquent explanation, the project is better because of it. Ikip09:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Clear back in May 2009 I started to try and quantify what I noticed on Wikipedia. Some editors were like professional football/soccer players, with their fake temper tantrums. If you ever have seen European soccer matches, particularly Italian, you know what I mean. I was looking for a word for this tantrum, but never was able to find it. Thankfully months later, I found your section, and it was a "eureka" moment, because what you wrote is so poignant about so many editors behavior here on wikipedia. Sadly, this behavior seems encouraged, because such outbursts are often rewarded.
As a side note, If you have a name for fake professional football/soccer players' temper tantrums, please let me know.
Thanks. I'd objected to the detail before but as I say on the talk page I think it's getting much more coverage now, and also more credible and relevant in light of the new news. It's a pretty sorry situation but we cover all things, right? - Wikidemon (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
yes im going to stop editing it now, lol too many conflicts with your edits. yes i remember reading all about Ritter's allegations in the mid 2000s.. i am shocked about all that has come to light. thanks. Decora (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Your instinct may be right. On the other hand, if he's telling the truth about being a long-time lurker, that could explain it too. We'll know soon enough. But, per WP:BEANS, and WP:DONTTEACHTHESOCKS I'll try not to give them any big ideas until we're clear it's a legitimate good faith account. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting the n00b is a sock. More likely it is just someone with a bit of an agenda. If it does turn out to be a sock, it is more likely to be of the sophisticated species (one thinks of WB74, K4T et al). -- Scjessey (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
If you have a few minutes, could you take a look at the discussion and wording of a section concerning ongoing allegations, investigations and other legal issues? I tried shortening the section while adding current details, but the proposed edits could use expert help. The proposed edits and discussion are at Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)#Investigation ends. Thanks either way. Flowanda | Talk05:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so very much for your quick help and edits. Way beyond my expertise, as is my ability to referee discussions. Flowanda | Talk03:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I guess if the rabbit hole is very long and deep, a baguette might provide nourishment for the trip. Maybe bring a sealed Mason jar of drinking water, too? (P/s I've sent you an e-mail, too, Wikidemon.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 14:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
Template:Logo rationale has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)