User talk:Anarchangel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg

I like improving sourcing on articles, and would do so, but I limit my editing of mainspace articles (working mostly on Articles for Deletion articles and their discussion), in protest against:

  1. In some cases unlimited power given to deletionists: Double (infinite) Jeopardy (2nd and subsequent nominations), the endless Letter-number combinations (A7 et al) that bypass AfD altogether, and the ability of editors to bypass even those means by redirecting articles (see section #User:EEMIV, below). Reams of rules, every WP rule but two in fact, to enable deletion of content, which are routinely wrongly interpreted as rules to enable deletion of articles wholesale. Only two rules actually aiding retention of articles. WP:BIO is the only WP rule to actually support inclusion; attainments on its list allow articles to be included. WP:DEL is a sad and sorry second; its quite sufficient list, which would keep the lawyering and endless misinterpretation of rules down to manageable floodwaters instead of an endless tsunami if it were an absolute list, is almost completely knackered for retention by the phrase, "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following". Consequently, DEL ends up being more of a boon to deletionists than inclusionists; but then, perhaps only the latter can fully appreciate how desperate they would have to be to go looking in a rule about deletion, and the only rule about deleting articles, to find some rationale for including articles, in any case. Meanwhile, the deletionists not only have EVERY OTHER RULE, but none of these other rules they are using are specifically about deleting ARTICLES. They are just used that way.
  2. WP:PRIMARY. A rule that says that the Supreme Court's record of their proceedings has no more validity than a "man on the street" interview, random memory of a Wikipedia editor, or interview with a disaster survivor who is probably suffering from shock. This rule has been vastly improved by the recent addition of the allowance that PRIMARY sources CAN be used. Or maybe it has been made much worse. You decide. Perhaps a better distinction is what is really required?
  3. Cultural imperialism & cultural vampirism. WP sucks up the world and spits out America. More importantly, it sucks up Google and spits that out, too, with everything that does not match the deliberately dry and lifeless style of WP removed. Don't believe me? Take a look at Auld Alliance from Jan 2010, and Auld Alliance now. The first is art, written by an artist, the second is Wikipedia. Why would anyone want to use WP when a Google search gives more options and links to better writing? Blame it on WP:V ; WP is replaceable with an internet search, until it admits that Truthiness is an inevitable hazard, and N and V and consequently, all WP rules, are just another equally dangerous but more insidious form of Truth.
  4. The one reason for using WP instead of Google is science articles. Do grants pave the way for paywalls the way Medicare and stupidly rich people pave the way for forehead-slapping pharmaceuticals prices? Either way, the dribble of actual scientists that take the time to contribute to WP are immediately confronted with a barrage of unnecessary difficulties. Right from the start, the SUPERIOR form of citation that scientists use is not used, let alone enabled, on Wikipedia. The slightly inferior form that some scientists use, without hyperlinks, is A REASON FOR DELETION at AfD. I cannot stress that enough. The deletionists who vote at AfD are SO stupid that I have more than once seen them completely ignore a ream of References at the bottom of an article, and nominate and/or vote based on "lack of citations". Current science is always deemed as "OR" or "too soon", despite lists of Google Scholar hits as long as your arm, and your other arm. The Real Thing, good science, albeit untranslated for beginners, is deleted out of articles as "incomprehensible". Brave Attempts are deleted for the same reason, or because of the knee-jerk assumption that because they are stubs, they must not be notable. Trust me, I have seen way too many bad nominations accompanied by bad rationales for deletion to not know that the REAL REASON things are nominated is oftentimes not written down. There cannot possibly be that many people who are that stupid. Stupid and / or immoral, though, makes up the difference more than plausibly.
  5. Thin end of the wedge arguments. "No, there is nothing so especially wrong with the article now, but we had better do something now, or later, something bad might happen."AfD: anthropomorphic personifications, just to grab the first one on the shelf Well, we can do something about it later, then, should it actually happen. Over and over, "unmaintainable" or "potential target for POV" are offered as though they were certain predictions of unmanageable disaster, when their predicted consequences are neither certain nor unmanageable.
  6. E-Z Mode. "Unmaintainable" and "potential target" arguments are also arguments for not only not doing work, but PREVENTING work. Who the hell died and made these whiners king of Wikipedia, that a red carpet be laid before their every whim? To say nothing of, who asked them to do anything? - don't strain yourself on my behalf. Often, the argument that an article would require work to improve is explicitly given as a reason to delete it, without any trace of irony.
  7. Psychic guidance. WP:POVFORK assumes it knows the intentions of creators of WP:SPINOFF articles, for example.
  8. The WP bureaucracy could easily be replaced with a coin toss, imo, as so many ANI proceedings either take no action or the wrong action. Saboteurs and, excuse the cliche, but partisan hacks, who make nice once they are caught, get a slap and then are back to do it all again. Good actors who stand up for their rights get permanently blocked.

Enough is enough. Clean up this house or I shall not stay again. I am uncomfortably aware that all that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing, but then, I am not doing nothing. I am doing something elsewhere, where my efforts are not wasted.

Updated Anarchangel (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Atmospheric duct[edit]

I've proposed a merge of Atmospheric duct into Anomalous propagation. Could you give your opinion. Pierre cb (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Roger that. Brb to check it, when semi-retirement allows. Note to self: Anomalous propagation Anarchangel (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Update: merge retracted by Pierre cb. I have no objections. My understanding is that the Administrator's Noticeboard is for things that need discussion and consideration, whereas ANI is for immediate problems that need dealt with quickly, which, even in the worst case, this is not. Anarchangel (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited List of slap bass players (electric bass), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dave Allen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

All fixed. Anarchangel (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Anarchangel[edit]

I may be misunderstanding you, but think this needs discussed. 86.** IP (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes you did, but no, it did not. You should have read the article, where you would have found a Template:WPN, which attributes Wikipedia. At worst, you should have discussed it here, first. Anarchangel (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Note to self: this ended up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive234. Anarchangel (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Also Collect > Yaksar > Linda Biggs Anarchangel (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC) -User:Flatscan: "The relevant policy is WP:Reusing Wikipedia content. Reusing content at Wikia is particularly easy, as it has compatible CC-BY-SA licensing (for most of its wikis) and compatible MediaWiki software. Full page histories can be transferred using Special:Export/Special:Import. Histories of deleted articles can be requested at WP:Requests for undeletion." Anarchangel (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Attribution lists[edit]

Hi. :)

So, the first one is easy. Puget trough prairie butterfly was only substantially edited by User:Prairiebutterflies.

Here are the others. Your list of authors doesn't have to look like these. Mine usually do, because it's much easier than tidying them up. But you can simply create a list of each IP or edited author, which would shorten some of these at least to just a couple of items long.

Anyway, if you think of any others, please let me know. I'm "pro" content reuse and happy to help with attribution. :) If material doesn't fit on Wikipedia, I'd much rather have it find a home elsewhere so the work of the editors is not wasted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Nude & Breast Freedom Parade[edit]

Energy Art[edit]

High fibre composting[edit]

Northern California Solar Regatta[edit]

Virginia Good[edit]

Linda Biggs AFD[edit]

The Linda Biggs article has been nominated a second time for deletion. As you were a participant in the first AFD discussion, you may wish to particpate in the second discussion. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


User:EEMIV[edit]

Special:Contributions/EEMIV. 500 edits

  • Redirects without discussion
  • Actions against consensus of discussion
  • Subversion of AfD process
  • Use of redirects to bypass the AfD process
EEMIV seems to think that mentioning proposals at the Star Trek project page gives rights superseding the AfD process. So I guess that makes the others at that project page complicit in this as well. I have seen this sort of behaviour before, but it has always been isolated incidents. This user does it habitually, and seems to have the backing of other editors as well. I think a message needs to be sent, that nowhere in WP:REDIRECT does it say that redirects are what you do with articles you do not like and cannot be bothered to nominate for deletion, or that you think might have a chance of being improved later (as many and various guidelines and essays indicate that stubs are for that purpose).

After the decision to Keep by closer, User:Ron Ritzman, at:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambush (Star Wars: The Clone Wars)

Wholesale redirect of a series of Star Wars The Clone Wars episodes to a list of episodes, against consensus, and without further discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hostage_Crisis&diff=362738005&oldid=362702487

Keeps no record of archives on talk page. He has his TALK PAGE locked so only Users can edit it.

Redirects

Plo Koon, redirected to List of Star Wars characters#K

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plo_Koon&diff=488578144&oldid=488576242
Talk page. Proves he is not doing redirects for the purposes of WP:REDIRECT #13 : "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APlo_Koon&diff=488578097&oldid=477058778

Redirect (two of many, of Star Trek spaceship articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Starfleet_ship_registry_and_classes_in_Star_Trek&diff=484220024&oldid=482393620
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Excelsior&diff=482409508&oldid=478713241
Stubifying, outside of the Star Trek genre

Tropes in Agatha Christie's novels. Made Stub of article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tropes_in_Agatha_Christie%27s_novels&diff=483753776&oldid=478348348

I stopped after less than a week's worth of Edit History. There is no telling how much material this user has removed from mainspace

Copies of this message sent to editors who participated in the Ambush AfD: User:Ron Ritzman, User:DGG, User:Jclemens, User:Peregrine Fisher, User:Torritorri, and added to the Talk page of the Star Trek Project page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek
I forgot to mention on the messages I sent to the above users, that I also added it to the talk page of the user in question as well (and here, of course). Anarchangel (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said over at Wikiproject Star Trek, a "keep" close at AFD does not preclude BOLD merges and redirects as personal editorial decisions. If you disagree with them then per WP:BRD you are welcome to revert them but the issue should be discussed at the relevant wikiproject talk page or on the individual article talk pages. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Seamus (dog)[edit]

There is currently an AfD discussion for the Seamus (dog) article. Based on your participation is previous AfDs, I thought you might be interested. I enjoyed the discussion on your user page about the misuse of Wikipedia policies. HHIAdm (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Twitter issue[edit]

As you had participated in the previous AfD, your views would be welcome here Talk:Use_of_Twitter_by_celebrities_and_politicians#Proposal_to_merge. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Really?[edit]

Did you really re-add un-sourced birth dates of minors to Cimorelli? What were you thinking? Toddst1 (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No, elaborate joke of an admin, what were YOU thinking? I am flabbergasted to see you have abused your admin powers to protect the page, especially when the diff between how you deleted info from the page and how you left it after my edits shows that even you were content to leave the band members section that you previously deleted and I had restored.
The questions themselves are arrogant and presumptive. You would do well to learn that no one can actually read others' intentions through the typeface on a web page or conjecture, as the message from Cimorelli's mom should already have taught you. As she has seen the article and had no problem with it, what interest is it, even, that you think you are protecting?
My edits to the page came nowhere near any violation of WP policy. The birth dates, which are standard information in band articles, are uncontentious information to anyone but shit-stirrers and consequently being verifiable on the band web page would be quite sufficient, but since their ages are printed in the Malibu Times article, your objections are completely without foundation. Furthermore, the only reference to minors on the BLP page is that they themselves should consider whether to add their information...to talk pages (the reference, specifically, is in the WP:BLPTALK section). I daresay the only problem here is entirely in your mind. Anarchangel (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Let's try this a different way. Consider yourself warned on BLP issues. Toddst1 (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
No, let's not. How about this? You say something accurate about BLP issues, and I will agree. Anarchangel (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow[edit]

I really got my head bit off by a certain avuncular fellow in that Frank Rodriguez AfD, even though I was just trying to improve the encyclopedia. I am sorry to see you on boycott, but I think we will meet again on friendlier (i.e. less deletionist) turf. Thanks for adding your wisdom and insight to the discussion. Leucosticte (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a bit of levity to the conversation, by the way. I needed that. :) Leucosticte (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Most welcome, to be sure. But really, I am just tossing the firebombs back through the broken windows :) It is a limited boycott while I am doing other things. Anarchangel (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

AfD[edit]

Please do not insert suggestions that I am a meat puppet into your argument here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Biology_and_political_orientation and here Talk:Biology_and_political_orientation (with your chronology being totally backwards as well, I suggest you check the timestamps of the sequence of events, for example, Fifeloo is an RSN regular and only commented on the topic when I posted there). Accusing or hinting that I am tag teaming with a number of others is uncivil and uncalled for. I suggest you either substantiate things at the correct venue or strike out your comments. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Notes[edit]

There may be a history of the arguments to delete to consider, but is no such thing as a consensus to delete a class of articles, as is assumed here. PRIMARY is good for the existence of documentation, and this was never properly considered at AfD. I stand by my argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sultan Sari Sayel Al Anazi; IAR is obviously required to be considered in these cases. There is really no point in adding a comment to the talk page of anyone who offers the middle finger to each and every contributor. "Due process is not a violation of privacy, and what has been dismissed as PRIMARY is a record of what due process has been afforded." Anarchangel (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Bigotry?[edit]

I read your comment at the AfD. I can honestly claim to be at least somewhat culturally competent, and I do hate bigotry. I am engaged to marry a person of color, and that has opened my eyes to the world. I am not afraid to call a person who died as a casualty of war or terrorism to be a "redshirt", if his officers treated him as cannon fodder. On the other hand, I sympathize with the people he represents. For example, see my work at Palestinian law (although it has been editing into a mishmash by others). I am sorry that the tone of my comment was, on later reading, cold and rude, and for that, I am sorry. By the way, I am fairly in line with the mob here at Wikipedia: I am neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, and thank you for introducing me to a different look at the word 'redshirt'. I always thought of it as literary criticism, as a comment on the use of random deaths as a plot device. I suppose the Federation did not take as good care of their security guys as they might, now that you mention it. Anarchangel (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
Thank you for the notice to help me maintain civility. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

section heading that poisoned the well, removed[edit]

Erroneous blockquotes removed. I almost never use WP templates for quotes. They are replaceable with indentations and italics, but in the case of the AfDs, I used the same asterisk everyone else does, to make comments on the AfD just as everyone else does...Why am I even answering this allegation? I think I may delete the whole thing once I have made my side of the story clear. Anarchangel (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • One of at least six nominations by the same nominator for programming by Revision3 : Web Drifter, Infected by Martin Sargent AfD, GeekBeat.TV AfD, Thebroken AfD, HD Nation AfD, IFanboy AfD. Anarchangel (talk)"

Placing the above on all 6 nominations could be seen as disruptive, canvassing and uncivil. If people wish to find similar AFDs, we already have:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You have File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg on your talk page, why not use it? Your above comment comes in on row two.--Otterathome (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"could be seen as"? If it cannot be proved to have happened, then it is a breach of the logic underpinning AGF to assume it did. Placing nominations to delete on all six articles could be seen as a lot of things, but I did not attempt to assume what they were, let alone "that" they were. My notice was a statement of fact, not an argument; such an uncritical description of actions is the reverse of ad hominem, which is an attempt to color actions by conflating them with personality. WP:COMPETENCE: Understanding of logical reasoning is required to properly criticize logical fallacy. This is not the first time I have seen an editor attempting to rewrite the rules of WP:CANVASS on my talk page. The proper place is the CANVAS rule talk page, and some other editors would have to agree, as well. Anarchangel (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Ironically, the previous time I was lectured about canvassing, the editor was claiming that it was canvassing to use the very same deletion sorting tags that are here proposed as preventing canvassing. The goal posts move about as fast as the players here on WP. Anarchangel (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


Hata clan[edit]

Hello Anarchangel,

I notice that you had contributed the DNA evidence source on the Jewish Common Ancestor Theory article, and I have lifted that to place on related pages. The reference has been removed a couple of times from the page at issue, however, so I'm trying to gather some ideas and input as to how to post genetics references to the page. The people taking them down would seem intent on promoting believability in the debunked doctrines related to descent from the Ten Lost Tribes.

I have posted some information on the Talk page, including one of a number of recently published research reports available online. The reference conclusively refutes the fallacious "theory", but the question of how to source it in a manner that is consistent with Wiki policy is what I would like to explore a bit before posting an edit.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

File:New StatesMen Logo.jpg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 09:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
User:Sfan00 IMG, on April 17th, fixed the error: moving the description to its proper place at the top, and deleting the (correctly formatted) entry below, which was unnecessary and not recognized by the bot. 23:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Right-wing socialism[edit]

An RfC is underway at the talk page for this article, in this thread. I am informing you of this discussion because you participated in the most recent AfD discussion which closed as "no consensus", and this discussion will help decide whether to keep the article in its current form, or to split the content of the article into separate articles and turn the current article into a disambiguation page. Thank you. -- Atama 18:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Trip hop may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diseases and epidemics of the 19th century, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vector (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

I've reverted your edit due to the aforementioned comments on the talk page of the article. See the merge discussion. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Flying Saucers Are Real may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Aliens, Hollywood and Today's News: 1950s Science Fiction Films and 9/11], Melvin E. Matthews]</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=Zgw35KTLOVoC&pg=PT97 UFOs and the National

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)