User talk:Risker/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive #4 - August 1/08 to



Contents

Thank god its friday..[edit]

And thanks for the backup :) SirFozzie (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Tell me about it. You should see the history of this page. On second thought, I think I might just use those shiny tools to clean it up.... Risker (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection[edit]

I semi'd your talk page due to some vandalism. Hope that's okay. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Seresin. I'd hoped we'd gotten past that, but it seems I may now become a perennial target. Well, we will see. Risker (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
wholey crap. as a tps, that was a busy time in the old watchlist....--Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


Deletion review for Laurence Baxter[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Laurence Baxter. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. RMHED (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

PJ Morton[edit]

Hi there, thanks for the feedback. It's nice to be noticed in a good way :) I like to keep an eye on my speedy deletes to see what happens to them. If a bunch get declined I know I'm doing something wrong! justinfr (talk/contribs) 22:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Your abuse of rollback[edit]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. 63.46.33.196 (talk) 06:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(Subsequently that post was redeleted by another editor, as it was clearly trolling.) Risker (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

RfD[edit]

Just an FYI, but I've nominated for deletion a number of sockpuppet category redirects you recently created here. VegaDark (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

user page deletion request[edit]

Hi Risker, In the past you were so kind as to delete some of my user pages when I asked. Could I ask you now to delete User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js? Here's the catch: can you delete the user page but not the talk page associated with it? Thanks. (I am putting a script out of its misery for the benefit of all wikipedia, if you must know. :-) –Outriggr § 00:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Got it right this time, I think, Outriggr. It should be deleted, and I have left the talk page in place. Poor script, I am sure it is in a better place now.  ;-) Risker (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
That was fast! You better believe it. Thanks, –Outriggr § 01:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Risker, I'm Outriggr's dog's cousin Whiskeydog. Master voted for your RFA largely to obtain a deletion servant ;-), and we are requesting a deletion of my User: and User talk: pages (the latter only if allowed by policy, of course. We aren't that keen on deleting other users' edits, but nevertheless would prefer the talk page deleted). Thanks in advance for your service to wikipedians, including to stubborn doggies. Whiskeydog (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Whiskeydog, I'll work on this in a few hours when I'm on the better computer - but check your email as well. I wish this didn't mean what I suspect it means. Risker (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Jay's cries of "Ditto Risker" echo across the cavernous abyss--where Whiskeydog once frolicked--now a suddenly poignant metaphor for his empty, shattered heart. --JayHenry (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, Jay, I plan to pick up a good supply of doggie biscuits to try and entice our friends back at some point. I am pretty sure they will be appreciated by Whiskeydog and Dogriggr, but perhaps I should think of an alternative for Outriggr. Any suggestions? [Debates what size MilkBone would be best] Hmm...these are good... Risker (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, our poor whiskeypup has a nasty little hangover and he needs more than coffee and a cold shower to cure it. It's not too much whiskey that he's been forced to swallow--he's had to swallow too many frivolous citation requests, too much meaningless metadata, too many editors who interject opinions on subjects they know nothing about, and too many editors who edit for the rules instead of for the readers because they've forgotten the readers exist. So how to get him--and the silent horde like him--to return is to do more to turn back that crimson tide. But how that's done I don't know. --JayHenry (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Nor do I, Jay. I am but one editor, and you another. And yet I keep bumping into editors who feel very much as we do. No, they aren't as active as they once were; the demoralisation has continued. I can recall one time when I was discussing image placement on the main page article, pointing out that on my small screen before I logged on, the pictures were completely out of alignment and interfered with the text. Someone plopped a mysterious guideline in front of me that justified this ridiculous situation - "No, you change your preferences to get the image size right!" Well, duh. And how many casual, non-logged-in readers is that supposed to help? You know, the kind who click on the main page article because it looks interesting...
Intellectually, I can rationalise some of the demands for consistency; it strikes me, however, that many of the metrics are off. Not every page needs an image, and a well written page should be able to qualify for at least a "B" level assessment without one. Infoboxes are useful for some types of articles, but not others, and should never be mandatory. Joopercoopers and Wetman have been working on some alternatives that satisfy both the "Quick Facts" set and the "but it messes up the images/takes up too much space" group. Inline citations are the biggest challenge in my mind. I do agree that contentious information needs to be referenced directly; on the other hand, a huge number of the cite requests I see are for noncontroversial information. Maybe it's just me, but from what I see, the better the article is, the less likely it is to need inline cites. And article assessment! Oh geez, what a debacle that has turned into. Again, it made sense to sort out what articles needed most work, but it seems many wikiprojects are dedicated to assessing but completely useless on the improving part. Conflicting demands from project to project don't help. It's going to get worse, too: some of these projects are reclassifying articles now that we have a "C" class, and I've seen a few pages where the article is rated Start, C, and B by different projects, and even one that was rated both B and Stub! At this stage, as our exponential growth has radically slowed, it's time for people to improve the articles we already have. Putting pretty tags on their talk page doesn't do a darn thing for the reader.
In any case, enough ranting for one night. I shall ensure there is a nice fluffy cushion beside the fireplace for our doggie friends, in the hope that they will return refreshed and reinvigorated, perhaps a few weeks or months from now. To heck with all the meta stuff. It would just be nice to see a page edited by any one of them. Maybe that's what I should ask Santa for... Risker (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: FYI[edit]

Thank you, although I don't know what good it will do? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection[edit]

Hello. As per the (now archived) AN/I discussion Unprotection review, I have been unprotecting the talk pages of anonymous editors that former admin Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) indefinitely protected back in 2006. I see that in early August you decreased the edit permissions on many of them, but I am now going through and removing all protection from these pages. Regardless, I wanted to let you know what was going on now (just in case the talk pages are on your watchlist) and thank you for your unprotection work of five weeks ago. Kudos to you! --Kralizec! (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Wikipe-tan mopping.png Thank you for your participation at my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to act in ways that earn your full confidence, even though I don't have it now. Cirt (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIV[edit]

Hi Risker, I think your cart before the horse comment is the most sensible one of all given at the civility restriction RfC. I started a discussion at WP:CIV's talk page. Please take a look at the note I left at the Newyorkbrad's page. I would most appreciate your thoughts on how we can improve the situation. Regards, --Irpen 02:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Janeyryan[edit]

Hi Risker - I saw your post on Lar's talk page, and I hope you don't mind my butting in. I agree that the account looks suspicious, but there's already been a checkuser run on it. The conclusions don't make any more sense to me than they likely do to you, but I wanted to make sure you were aware of it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarcasticidealist. Those results actually do make a fair amount of sense, but I'll invoke WP:BEANS on why that is. One also has to bear in mind that what was seen seven weeks ago and what would be seen today could well be different things; it's best not to enter into such explorations with anticipation of a specific result. As a matter of course, I am quite hesitant to publicly name the account I suspect, because it could cause harm to the reputation of an innocent editor, while the CU result could potentially identify someone else as being linked to this account. Risker (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment[edit]

I am so sorry. I have never used that template before and made an error in nor providing the correct information to assist you. If you'd be kind enough to look in again at [[1]] I have made the request again in the hope that I've got it right this time. The Thunderer (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I really am sorry. Although I'm a reasonably experienced editor I've not had to do this before and I'm not sure where I'm going wrong. I gave the link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ulster_Defence_Regiment&diff=239848422&oldid=239848419 to show the information which had been removed. It is the text on the left hand side which is highlighted in yellow. BigDunc requested (as can be seen) that I provide citations for this text. Unfortunately I was too busy through the week because of work and I have spent the entire day going through the article trying to satisfy dozens of similar requests as there has been a lot of activity on it this week. Another admin Rockpocket had already reviewed this material during the week as part of a request for 3rd party intervention. He didn't feel it warranted removal and that's why I would respectfully asked that it be returned until it can be properly dealt with when the editprotect is lifted. What should I do now? The Thunderer (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The text you indicated is currently in the article, reference request tags and all. There's nothing for me to add there, since it is already there. I can't add your references because you haven't said what they are. I'm not trying to be confusing here, but the text you want me to insert is already there.
I suggest that you copy that section onto a subpage for the article, add your references in the subpage copy, and discuss that section with your fellow editors. When there is consensus that the section, complete with references, is ready for the article, then an admin can paste it over to the main article. Given that this seems to be the very text over which the edit war has occurred, I'm not going to be mucking about with it. Risker (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you know something - you are absolutely and totally correct. That shows how confused I had become. I have looked at that article three times now to find that information and I couldn't. Who was it who said, "sometimes you can't see the wood for the trees"? Because never a truer word was spoken and now I feel like the biggest eejit on Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your patience and your help and I'm sorry to have been a nuisance. I'm sure you've got better things to be getting on with. The Thunderer (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
No worries, The Thunderer. Sometimes another pair of eyes is what is needed. I will be AFK for the next hour or so, but if you are uncertain of how to set up the subpage, I'll be happy to do it when I get back online. In the interim, this might be the right time for a late night snack?  :-) Risker (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


Your question[edit]

I think this may reflect a misunderstanding. Most bots run through independent frameworks (e.g. pyWikipedia), and not through browsers. Even though a bot may be active, in many cases there is no "logged-in browser" at all. In which case there is no risk that someone could walk up to an unattended browser and simply co-opt an admin account. Dragons flight (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely. The block involved in this case was to the admin account for the purpose of stopping the bot being operated under it, and it had exactly that effect. (Expanding) To be clear, in order for the bot to carry out administrative functions, it requires an admin flag. Since one is not issued legitimately (i.e., through BRFA), the only available flag for the unauthorised accounts belongs to the admin him/herself. Risker (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Risker, your response makes little sense to me. So I can only assume that I am misunderstanding what you are intending to communicate. You asked a question about unattended bots. Most bots run unattended (including adminbots) that is simply the nature of the business. At the same time when most bots run, no one is "logged-in" in the traditional sense, i.e. there is generally no web browser or active Wikipedian, except via coincidence that the admin happens to be working at the same time the bot is scheduled to run. A flagged account must exist, but there is no greater risk of that account being comprised than if I had access to your computer after all windows were closed. I'm not at all sure what "effect" you are refering to or what you were trying to get at with your question. Dragons flight (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
As it has been explained to me, Dragons flight, the unauthorised adminbots specifically (not bots generally) must be linked to a logged-in administrative account and derive their abilities to carry out admin-restricted tasks from that logged-in administrative account. It is my understanding that if the admin account is logged out, its flag is not available for the bot to use. Perhaps I have completely misunderstood the explanation given to me by two separate bot operators. As to the "effect" point - the effect sought by Prodego was to stop the unauthorised bot. He achieved that effect by blocking Misza13; I assume that is because the needed tools were no longer available to the bot. It strikes me that blocking the admin account is effectively the stop button for these bots. Just one more reason for the admins to get them properly flagged, so that they don't get blocked if their bots go awry for some reason. Risker (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Adminbots running under an admin's account are utilizing the admin's +sysop flag to perform their actions, and will be affected if that admin is blocked. So, yes, blocking the admin account is effectively the "stop button" for adminbots operating on that account. (With the technical caveat, that the ability to block or unblock is unaffected regardless of whether an admin has been blocked, so a blocking bot could only be stopped via desysoping.) But no, the admin does not need to be "logged-in" in the sense that a lay person would understand it. In most cases the bot communicates directly with Wikipedia without using a browser. The admin can log out and close all browsers, but the bot will continue to operate. From a technical point of view, Wikipedia sees the admin as "logged-in" while the bot is communicating, but if you were sitting at the computer there would be no browser or active interface. Dragons flight (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

For taking the trouble. John Nevard (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI: [2] --172.191.112.66 (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
what does it mean? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Pay it no heed, Rocksanddirt. You know the drill. ;-) Risker (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I know, but sometimes I do want to know what they are thinking. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah well, I believe it has something to do with enabling and footwear and the strange desire to develop very odd templates. Hmm...templates.... Risker (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
sigh - to deep for me I think. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Now it all makes sense, and like i suspected is to stupid to comment on directly. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Giano II[edit]

If Giano gets in more trouble because of me?, I'll do my best to defend him. In fact, I'll take the heat for'em. I had forgotten that he was under sanctions; I'll follow your advice. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

PS- When is Giano's probation due to expire? GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, GoodDay. I know you meant no harm. Giano, it appears, has called it a night; probably wise under the circumstances. The Buck House article, I think, sticks in his craw to the point that he actually removed it from his watchlist at one point. What people forget is, when this article comes up for review, someone will stick a templated message (probably unsigned) on Giano's talk page, fully expecting him to defend the article. Many people do not understand that there is far more to a featured article than inline citations and grammatically correct prose. The best FAs are well-designed pages, with the various elements present in balance in such a way as to have the reader's eye flow from one element to another. But I digress. I'm not entirely certain, but I believe the civility sanction is to expire in early February. Risker (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
03:56 on 9 Feb 2009. That day's posts should make interesting reading. – iridescent 23:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
No it wont make interesting reading, because the sanction is not existent, only in the minds of those who passed it and their sycophantic friends. It was uncalled for illegal unenforceable and a pure act of malice and spite by those who voted for it. It has made them look ridiculous and damaged the project. 9 Feb 2009 will be no different to any other day in my Wikipedia life, as was 10 Feb 2008. Giano (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, my comment wasn't aimed at you – I don't think you ever change (everyone will have their own opinions on whether that's a good or a bad thing) – but at the Angry Mob who'll gather (on both sides). – iridescent 19:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hijack away, Iridescent, I do it on your page often enough. It is an interesting question, though. Would it be harder or easier to block Giano after the civility patrol expires? For that matter, how has it worked out in the past? I'm not sure what the precedents are. The community seems to be very undecided about what it means when it comes to civility anymore; the policy is in the middle of rewriting and is every bit as muddy now as it was to start with, it just reflects ever so slightly different views. What with this new proposal for being able to block people from specific pages or areas,. I have a feeling we will be seeing wild blocking sprees of anyone who argues points anywhere. Anything that makes it easier to block people is a bad thing, in my books. Risker (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I am quite sure by the time the "parole" expires the Arbcom, IRC and the Peanut Gallery (one body) will have found to some further way of making themselves appear ridiculous and malicious and extended it. Giano (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Something Giano once said in a very different context works just as well as a civility policy IMO; assume that everyone reading whatever you're writing is a bright 14 year old unless you have evidence to the contrary. Would whatever you're posting be something you'd say to a 14 year old child if you were having a similar conversation face to face? It works surprisingly well. (Says someone with a talkpage full of complaints about my "abusive actions", a lengthy history of adding semi-pornographic images to talkpages and a reputation for foul-tempered sulking and the subject of two recent civility RFCs rivalling Giano's in fatuousness if not length, but you get my drift). – iridescent 19:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Would it be harder or easier to block Giano? It's not really anyone's goal, to block Giano, I hope. Therefore, instrumentalities are kind of... well, too overtly evil for my taste in discussion. I would say that Giano is as blockable as I am or you are, and for the same reasons. I don't think "civility" is grounds for blocking anyone, as any blocking rationale needs to be comprehensible, precise, and clear, and no one who has invoked 'civility' has ever been any of those things about the block. "Disruption" is clearer, in that it requires actions and responses on the part of the affected few, but "civility" is a reason to talk to someone or not talk to someone, not to block or allow someone. Therefore, blocking me or you can be done, if you or I violate policy. If either of us behaves in a manner that causes displeasure to some third party, well, that makes us unpleasant. Sic transit gloria mundi. Geogre (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Per User talk:Giano II[edit]

Anyways, I'm kind of stuck on it for the time being, and would appreciate whatever can be done. WilyD 17:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Revert to Iredescent's page[edit]

Lol, well thanks, I guess. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

AE sanctions concerning Ireland related articles[edit]

Wowsers, the boom was lowered on five editors, simultaneously. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks, that is honestly the first edit I've made that I knew should be deleted. But I saved it for the right guy! Joshdboz (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Joshbod's edit[edit]

Hi Cojoco, just to let you know, even Joshbod agreed that his comment should be removed, per his message on my talk page. He was voicing his negative personal opinion about a living person, which is generally frowned on in our policy on biographical information about living people. It's especially important to do that on the talk pages of articles that have already seen very heated editing, to keep the temperature down and keep the focus on the article itself. Hope this explanation helps. Risker (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Risker, thanks for your explanation; I only saw your note on Joshbod's talk page after I added my comment to his page. By the way, is this the correct way to carry on a conversation across two user's talk pages? I'm not sure if I should be adding this note here or to my own talk page. Thanks. cojoco (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
It can be done many ways, Cojoco. I usually answer on my talk page, unless I have a message that I want to absolutely ensure will be seen and I am not familiar with the editor. I watch all talk pages I post on for a minimum of a week after I post there. The way you have done it works too, although you will see I am answering here and not going back to your talk page. (I figure you have mine on your watchlist now, since you just posted here.) It's good to keep conversations together. Many users will outline their talk page practices at the top of their talk page, you might find that helpful. Risker (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Info boxes[edit]

If the parameters set the list of iboes required category can then be used to go and systimaticaly add them to articles. People can ignore it, the statement that the primary editor would have added if they wanted it sounds very WP:OWN. My current 'project' is assessing articles tagged with WP Derbyshire, (having previously had a taging period) then going back systematicly fix / expand things, as its more productive thank you. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Bulldozer, no article "needs" an infobox. If you were to actually look at the article you are assessing, and consider what the effect of a userbox would be, you would know that article should not have an infobox. Architectural images are normally larger than that which infoboxes can support, but the larger image is essential for detail, which is described in the article. Further, the infobox would visually unbalance the article. If it is considered essential that all articles within the WP Derbyshire have an infobox, then I suggest you leave the article out of the wikiproject, which also does not WP:OWN the article. Risker (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree projects dont own articles, it was the implication that the primary editor has the right to decide wether an article has somthing or not, that implies ownership. So we scrap all the stub articles then as they look unbalanced etc. The project box has been set with the parameter which ime using. Articles grow if people edit them espicaly if they can see a gap in the coverage. If its your pet project you can have it, theres plenty more and i'v got a list of plenty of new ones to creat, was just doing a bit of house keeping with the tag list and resulting articles with no importance assigned. Its too small to worry about for me. Bye - BulldozerD11 (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Um, yes. There are very few stub articles that benefit from an infobox; I have seen several that have more information in the infobox than the article, which is absolutely the wrong way to do things. The one exception may be something like the near-earth asteroid project, which is bot-created, but even still the article with its refs is pretty well as long as the infobox; in any case, those are more very short but essentially complete articles than stubs. Risker (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of {{prod}} from Citot[edit]

By an IP address no less (not prohibited by the guidelines, mind you). I would certainly add my d to your AfD. Bongomatic (talk) 08:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

restoral of same BLP stuff[edit]

User:MediaLawyer has restored part of the BLP content that was deleted per a OTRS ticket, insisting on inserting the Walmart lawsuit and using low quality sources. He made no prior discussion on the talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for the reply's on my talk page. I saw that blp discussion somewhere (lar's?, AN/I?) and just went to delete the blp stuff. The whole article really blows, but I was tired and didn't have the energy to really fix it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC) and the vandalism revert...I didn't even see that....--Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a PC[edit]

Risker, can you change your protection to full or remove it and block the IP? We don't use semi protection to block out IP users from edit wars. If there's a legitimate 3RR report then the user can be blocked, we shouldn't stop every single IP or autoconfirmed user from editing the page just because one is edit warring with the page creator. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, Ryan; thanks for the advice. Will review quickly and change to one or the other. Risker (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Cheers Risker. I'm planning on bringing all the parties together so we can try and settle the dispute but there's just so much going on that I don't know where to start. There's a 3RR report here that you might find useful. I've had a chat with Arcayne because he's hit three reverts and I think he's fairly frustrated that the IP won't discuss its edits. Arcayne is making a good effort to get some discussion going on the talk page. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
On looking at it, the anonymous editor is so far over 3RR, with multiple editors reverting him/her, that I have elected to block rather than fully protect. As well, I note some other beneficial editing happening that does not appear to be related to the dispute, and don't want to pour cold water on that. If you can persuade the IP editor to participate in talk page discussion rather than returning to edit warring, I would have absolutely no problem with you unblocking. Risker (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Nor would I, but I am thinking that, judging from the responses in the 3RR complaint, the anon might need to distance himself from the article for a bit, so as to gain some perspective. Granted, I'm no princess here, but not being able to take the hit for your bad behavior is a pretty clear sign that perspective is needed. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, were you going to conclude the AN/3RR report, as you've blocked the IP? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I posted the result, but I have to log off in a minute; if there are fancy templates to be added please feel free. Ryan, by the way, check your email. Risker (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

User:MediaLawyer[edit]

I have been reviewing his case due to his recent unblock request. As far as I can tell, the information added to the Richie Ramone article was referenced to reliable sources, and fairly neutrally presented. Could you perhaps elaborate more fully how his October 1st edit: [4], led you to block him 3 days later: [5]. I am quite confused, and if you have additional information that led to the block, to which is not obvious, please post it on his talk page so that I or another admin can act on his unblock request. Thank you! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Stand by please, Jayron32, I am conferring with the OTRS person who took the ticket to clarify the situation and make sure my memory is correct. I see the other editor who was previously involved seems to be back as well, and that will have to be addressed as well. In the interim, you might want to read the archived talk page. Risker (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I have been reading up on it. It looks like he only made a single edit since the OTRS deletion; could we not just warn him not to return the information to the article? This may be a deeper issue, and I await your info on the OTRS situation. Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Seth Finkelstein article[edit]

Hi Risker: Can I take the issue of the Seth Finkelstein article to a higher court? Are there other options other than re-listing the article at DRV?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Manhattan Samurai. DRV is the last port of call for reviewing deletion decisions. As the most recent discussion has just been closed within the last few hours, it would not serve you well to relist at DRV at this time; you'd need an awful lot more "additional references" on Finkelstein before you have enough to successfully challenge the current status at DRV. I was becoming a bit concerned about your responses on the now-closed one, as you were growing more and more accusatory in your tone, and suggesting allegiances that simply do not exist. (I had to do some research to find out who this Tony Fox was that you thought I sounded like, for instance. I thought you were referring to some late-night positive-attitude lifestyle coach, not another Wikipedia editor.) Before initiating a further DRV, I'd suggest you do some serious introspection about what motivated you to pursue this so vigorously, to the point where you maligned almost everyone who disagreed with you. Seth Finkelstein is a pretty good writer, and he's made some interesting points, but I could say the same thing of hundreds of other marginally notable columnists and commentators, many of whom have a much larger readership than Finkelstein and are quoted more frequently. In the interim, there is the article you have been working on, and which you've been encouraged to continue to develop. There is plenty of room for improvement there, even if there is no link to Seth Finkelstein's name. The redlink to the book is infinitely more important to resolve, and I wish you luck with that. Risker (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have been distracted from my other work by this DRV debacle. I will have to get back to that.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Article sanctions[edit]

Since that page has a lot of noise at it, I wanted to point you at the bottom 2 templates at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log/Templates which I made in response to our discussion on article special sanctions, are they what you were thinking I meant? MBisanz talk 06:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I don't own them, feel free to make whatever changes you think are appropriate, I just wanted to get something "on the ground" when the case closed. MBisanz talk 05:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey stalker[edit]

I need some input.

I've recently been attempting to correct some problems with inappropriate citations in some fairly contentious articles. (Correction, make that "probably as contentious as any article is likely to be, ever.") There are some editors (and admins) involved who are far to free with the "you're pro-pedophilia" smears of other editors, which is very unfortunate. However, there's also the trend for anyone attempting to be neutral to be accused of a militant anti-homosexual bias. While I'm used to "hey poofta why did you delete my article," I'm unused to be accused of being a "fag-bashr" [sic] as per one of the lovely emails I received...

Wait, I'm rambling again, aren't I?

Back to the point: I believe that accusations of this nature are highly disruptive, and that they drive middle-of-the-road editors away from controversial topics. This is clearly sub-optimal. However, as soon as an administrator becomes "involved" with the article, then even the issuing of warnings for this behaviour is problematic. (I recently withdrew just such a warning.)

Thoughts? brenneman 04:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should ask. I was thinking about this just the other day. I find it rather amazing that people make assumptions about each other's sexual orientation; if someone isn't a member of the LGBT wikiproject or doesn't have a telltale userbox, that could simply be because they detest wikiprojects or don't like userboxen. (I fall into both categories.) And sometimes people forget we're here to write a general knowledge encyclopedia; that problem isn't confined to one or two particular groups of articles. I do notice, however, that the biggies tend to be articles related to sex, money, nationalism and belief systems...just like the real world.
It would be my inclination to keep working on things based strictly on policy and quality of references, insisting on scholarly references for everything that is potentially controversial, and not to take the anti-whatever labels seriously at all. Bottom line, there is very little in the field of sexual orientation that has not been studied to death and there should be a plethora of choices for reference sources. One might give consideration to suggesting article probation for one or two of the highest-profile articles to start with, with an admin (or small group of admins) who has no particular motivation other than scholarship assuming a sort of mentorship responsibility for the probation and assisting in identifying problem areas. That way, other admins can participate in their role as editors and not have to worry about the adminny stuff. (In other words...if editing, no adminning and vice versa.) The more I think about it, the better it strikes me that a small group of admins be asked to mentor such articles through, with at least one having experience working with the wikiproject but also having demonstrated a high level of scholarship, and the clear objective of improving the quality of the article (i.e., no agenda to delete the article). I see that Keeper76 and Moni3 seem to have struck up an agreement to try to develop inclusion criteria to determine when to add the LGBT wikiproject tag to an article, and that might be a good example to follow.
Finally...this all takes time and an open mind. I would strongly urge all editors and admins working on these articles to keep the big picture in mind—that being a high quality, well written, carefully referenced article that meets and exceeds our quality standards.
I would be willing to work on this from an admin angle rather than an editorial angle (I simply am not in a position to do the requisite research), but not until later next week when I have slain some real-world dragons that have largely kept me away from doing anything significant on-wiki for the last month.
Does this sound like it has any potential? It's kinda hard for me to tell, it being the wee hours of the morning here. Oh. And I suppose I probably rambled once or twice in there. Sorry. Risker (talk) 05:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
+_+ Thank you. - brenneman 02:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Belated follow-up: Can you please look at my statement here, and slap me around if I'm being a prat. - brenneman 07:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you SO much![edit]

Glad you caught me; I was still lurking about and I was just about to log off. Can you make it a double? Oh, and I'll pass on your compliment to my decorator.  :)) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to question[edit]

The answer to your questions is 'confirmed' and 'no' 'yes' to the query as to previous user identities of any kind. I am reassured that you plan to even-handedly enforce the rules on that talk page, not just against editors with whom you disagree, as that is not happening and I look forward to seeing that happen.--Janeyryan (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

SPAM: Content fork about to be spooned[edit]

I've stated at LDV's personal life talk that I'm going to redirect and merge back into the parent article as it is a clear content fork. I'll be leaving this notice for all recent editors to the article and its talk page.
brenneman 02:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your vigilance and interest in the well being of my user page. I hope you don't spend too much time on that vandal. It was drive-by stuff and not worth feeding. If it becomes a pattern, I may implore you or some other fine administrator to semi-protect my page.--Janeyryan (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka[edit]

I appreciate your comments on the tag team essay. Could you go over this [6] and tell me if it makes sense or add your own more developed commnts if you see fit to do so? Slrubenstein | Talk 03:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Lost articles of England[edit]

Nice one Risker - is this the same guy as yesterday? He's only got 20 odd edits and then starts moving G's page? --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Different account, at least, Joopercoopers. Both are obviously alternate accounts. I didn't ask for a checkuser yesterday, but given the repeated behavioural pattern (they both used the same move name), it strikes me that things are getting outside of the bounds of acceptable uses for an alternative account here. I will consult with CU to see if this can be straightened out. Risker (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks[edit]

/me thinks of all the comments I could make involving your username... No problem. I like reverting people who attack good users and admins more than almost anything else. Being able slam the lid shut myself rather than reporting to WP:AIV is also very nice. Cheers! J.delanoygabsadds 00:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about the stain...[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
I think you know why you get this. ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Aww, thank you Lar! It is always a pleasure to pop by and mess up your talk page and stuff your email inbox. Risker (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

'Zilla admin problem[edit]

'Zilla restore User:Bishapod history. Hrair revisions. See page deletion log. Not work! Revisions still gone, why? ['Zilla is upset. Lift little Risker in scaly fist and shake gently, for emphasis. At least, fairly gently. ] bishzilla ROARR!! 21:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC).

Hi 'Zilla, I am truly honoured that my humble little talk page has been graced by your august presence. I'm not quite sure where the problem is, but then it is very early in the morning here and it may simply be that my pitifully tiny brain is still asleep. I will look again once my caffeine levels have been suitably replenished to see if I can work things out. Your humble servant, Risker (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I have now managed to remain alert long enough to review the histories of both the User:Bishapod and User talk:Bishapod pages. They both appear to be in order; User:Bishapod shows your restoration of the deleted edits, whereas User talk:Bishapod was not deleted. Perhaps you want to revert to an older version of the Bishapod user page? I don't remember it well enough from before deletion to notice if anything is missing, but it appears to be more or less in order - lovely userboxen and all. I trust this will be helpful, Your Mightiness. Risker (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, history miraculously re-appeared! 'Zilla complaint was history gone. No, not wish revert other version, Yomangan physical amusing. (Stupidity level normal, haha!) Maybe revert userboxen later. Thank you little Risquée. ('Zilla fine language skills, speak good French.) bishzilla ROARR!! 18:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC).

Puny 'shonen upset! Bad Risker![edit]

Bad Risker! All Risker fault! [7] bishzilla ROARR!! 21:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

No, no, Bishzilla! Not Risker's fault! Misunderstanding! Sheesh, if you're planning to run for arbcom, try to get a little smarter! Bishonen | talk 21:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC).
Oh dear, what have we here. Poor Bishzilla, I am sorry you are so distressed. Unfortunately, I am incapable of finding all of the crummy articles amongst the 2.5 million on Wikipedia; your help is much appreciated in identifying such dreck. It seems to me that some serious questions need to be raised about this article. First I must feed my pets..er..family, and then I can take a good look and figure out next steps. Will that help? 'Zilla not angry with little Risker anymore? Risker (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Breathes sigh of relief that Bishonen came to help out.
Hmmpff. [Bishzilla tries to get a little smarter. Gives up. ] How smart need to be for arbcom? bishzilla ROARR!! 23:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC).
As Utgard Loki said, in the brain garden, it's the bonsai that go for ArbCom.
You can talk about dreck in the 2.5 million, but how could the world survive without "self-hating jew," a thousand one line articles saying that X is a place (and nothing else, but it helps with round one of twenty questions), and the Philippino fantasy miniseries that has its own portal for every character and every super power by every character on it. These, you see, help overcome Wikipedia's systemic bias. The blob has mobbed. Geogre (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Helpful phrase[edit]

"Þæs ofereode þisses swa mægh." (It's from the superbly written Deor, not the poorly written Deor.) Geogre (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Translation: (This is Original Research, I've been told, as we must never translate things ourselves, no matter how obvious they are): "That passed away (with respect to this), and so might this pass away (with respect to that)" -- or without the dative of respect, "That passed away, and so may this." (Suggested because of the line at the very top of this user talk page, and because Deor rocks.) Geogre (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What a lovely image, Geogre, thank you! I have always loved being in the garden, your gift of a brain garden is incredibly thoughtful. As to Deor, well...I am only hoping it is true, I am determined to make it to be bottom of this four-inch pile of paperwork before the end of the evening so that I can regain my wiki-freedom. Risker (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Just a hello note, because Jameson is going to forward you an email from me. Again, hello!--Xp54321 (Hello!Contribs) 02:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Received and read, thanks! Risker (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Astrotrain[edit]

Are you going to inform the other editors who reverted this IP, or do you want me to do it. But seen as you have some inside knowledge maybe it would be better if you did. BigDuncTalk 20:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I just caught your revert because his page is on my watchlist, and the timing was just so. Let me look into things, it is probably better coming from me (i.e., someone with whom none of you have much history, and who has not participated in "Troubles" related articles). Thanks for letting me know that this was not a one-off. Risker (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

i before e[edit]

How about, for example, weird? No c. Simply south (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

the little ryhme I use goes like this...i before e except after c and words that are weird like neighbor and weigh. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh I learned it differently, the version I knew went:
..."and others for a change
like "weird", which is strange..."
If I remember correctly, there were a few more rhyming couplets, but Grade 3 was a very very very long time ago for me. Risker (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
yes, well....having a third grader and an english teacher in the house, one get's exposed regularly to these little gems....--Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
My version is, "i before e in Anglo-Saxon and Latin derived terms, but those which have Greek etymology will violate it for a diphthong, and certain Germanic terms with the 'ei' diphthong will retain that spelling." You should see the music notation I use for it. It's sort of a Harry Partch score. Geogre (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

1995 Pacific Grand Prix[edit]

Hi Risker. I noticed your name on the peer review volunteers list. I was wondering whether you could review the 1995 Pacific Grand Prix article, leaving comments on the peer review page. Kind regards, D.M.N. (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No Index tags[edit]

Adding those tags makes it harder to search the archives along and reduces general levels of transparency. Searching the archives is something that we frequently need to do. There is a discussion on the talk page for AN about this. I suggest you join in there rather than continue to add these piecemeal (and yes, I used rollback on your edits. This wasn't due to their being vandalism or anything of that sort but merely because it would be time consuming to do by hand and because I was of the opinion that it should be removed quickly before any search engine de-indexes these pages without consensus). JoshuaZ (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Responded on WP:AN. And it was too time-consuming to hand-revert 14 edits? Geez, it only took me about 30 seconds each to make the edits, and I was doing a pile of other things at the same time. Risker (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Not that time-consuming but more efficient and as I explained, I was worried that a sudden search engine search could remove our searching ability for idefinite period of time even if the tags were removed shortly. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

regarding your thoughtful comments[edit]

on cla68's talk page. As an inveterate TPS, I really think you hit and DanT hit the nail on the head regarding joshz's statements. I feel that cla goes overboard in his characterization of folks in the 'cabal', but he's also not wrong regarding the calous disregard some users show towards those who facilitate criticism of their own actions. I'm not a wr'er and likely will never be (waaaaaaay to much navel gazing, injoke style commentary for me to even understand a few of the more prolific posters over there). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Rocksanddirt. Like you, I have no intention or desire to join Wikipedia Review. My name shows up there from time to time, and I appreciate that the efforts of some longtime, respected Wikipedians have opened the channels of communication; it's just not my cup of tea. I'm not a big fan of the "cabal" view of things; from my perspective, we're generally talking about people who hold a range of views but agree on some specific points. Sometimes, though, it is important to highlight that the facts of a matter are different than the remembered history. To quote an old standard: "We met at nine / We met at eight / I was on time / No, you were late / Ah yes, I remember it well...." Okay...must do some real work today. Risker (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

email[edit]

!ping! LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Waiting patiently, but nothing seems to have made it to my mailbox as of yet. I wonder if there are problems with the interface today? Risker (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, I wonder why the "!ping!" is coloured blue...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
ROFL!!! The scary part of it is...I clicked on the link and thought "now why would LHvU think I should copy edit this page?" It's clearly too early in the morning over here! Thanks for the laugh, it's a great way to start the day. Risker (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Tabbed articles[edit]

I've started setting out some of my thinking here‎. If you get a chance, your thoughts or questions would be gratefully received. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Emil Gilels[edit]

Hi Risker, Thanks for unblocking me. I have virtually no experience editing pages on Wikipedia, and have a few questions/concerns. Is there an email address to which I may I write you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomsalam (talkcontribs) 01:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Repllied on your talk. Risker (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok[edit]

Thanks for all your help! --eric (mailbox) 01:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.[8] Thanks. Risker (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

For your perusal[edit]

Hey honeypot, what do you think of this? - brenneman 04:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the content is good, and clearly demonstrates your positions. It's darn hard to get to where people can see it, though. The primary link to the Arbitration Committee election page confused me, and I wondered why you were linking me there instead of to your platform, forgetting that I would need to click "show" to see what was under the secret magic bar. Perhaps linking to your own page in the bar might be worthwhile. I think I know some folks who are making "Support candidate X" userboxes and other campaign spam notices, if you are interested. :-) Risker (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

New Messages![edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Risker. You have new messages at EricV89's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ok[edit]

Ok, I understand your message. Ignore that last part becuase I got my message from Xeno yesterday. Thanks --eric (mailbox) 03:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC) }}

Monty's love for youths[edit]

I have, and I hope that the new reference is up to snuff. Haiduc (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Haiduc. Responded on your page. Risker (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you comfortable with the doings at Historical pederastic couples re the Monty piece? Haiduc (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Did I miss your reply? Haiduc (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
No, you didn't, Haiduc. In my mind, the disputes on this page relate to two points: the definition of "pederastic couple", and the quality and use of sources. I am not in a position to personally research the non-web sources, so am not commenting on them. As to the definition, my perspective is that first the two individuals must be viewed by themselves (and preferably by others as well) as being in a romantic/sexual relationship to be a couple, and that further there must be a sexual element for there to be consideration of the use of the term "pederasty". Some guy having a crush on a younger male with whom he comes in contact does not equal pederasty to me, even if that crush is returned, unless there is actual sexual contact. To quote a favourite songstress of mine, "wish and love are not the same thing". Since you have defined the term differently in the article, I am hard pressed to contribute. Risker (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Pro Se[edit]

Risker: I am leaving this message because I know you have stopped by the above-named article. The other day, I dropped this proposal on the talk page the other day intending to be a request for urgent action, but no one seems to have noticed. Feel free to leave any thoughts you might have - if you feel like it. Thanks. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Risker

I looked up Wikipedia policies and I don't see any source there for the "proposal" and "put downs" and vague references to quality being included on a talk page. There was only one instance I can think of in which my summarizing a source was less than perfect (not clarifying the difference between all pro se litigants and those participating in a court program).

I do not believe that Non Curat Lex has added even a single reference to the article. I have no problems with anyone rewriting my text to be more clear or suggesting improvements in my style such as putting quotations in footnotes instead of in the body of the article. I do have a problem with deletion of references and unsupported statements.

Since this is obviously a controversial subject and some of the editors have expressed worry as to how it might affect their income, I think that we should all scrupulously follow all the Wikipedia rules and policies. If you observe that I have violated a particular policy, please provide a link to that policy, so that I can take care to avoid repetition. kay sieverding (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect. In fact, I have added sources, although in your unabated effort to remake the article into an opinion essage, you have deleted several. You have also ignored many other references which might be informative to you. I am not going to add anymore until you agree to stop experimenting on the article, or are prevented from doing same. Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Addendum re: Block of Kay/Kay's IP: I believe your actions were completely justified. You have my full support. Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I think; mostly, thank you (and the other editors) for having patience while Lar and I tried to find less drastic solutions. I do believe that, somewhere in that huge morass of information that Kay has tried to add to the article, there is some information that would be worth including into the article. I hope you and the other editors will try to do so, although I recognise that it may be a rather tedious task. (While I might be able to make it readable, I don't have the background knowledge to accord it proper weight.) It is unfortunate that the situation has come to this; I wish that Kay had been able to step away from her personal goals enough to understand that they were outside of the scope of the encyclopedia. A line was crossed yesterday, when she added personal insults about editors into the article proper. I will continue to monitor the situation. Risker (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree -- we'll do our best. Non Curat Lex (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC).


Are you taking sides?[edit]

What kind of game are you playing, when you overlook Nandesuka's accusations against me and let those accusations stand, even though they are clear and systematic personal attacks?

And how do you have the nerve to interfere and take sides, after refusing to hold up your end of the agreement regarding sourcing on the Monty piece, and chickening out on discussing it. Haiduc (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have just now realised that my message to Nandesuka, asking him/her to tone down the personalisation, didn't actually get through. There have been many server problems in the last few days, and I've lost a couple of edits; unfortunately that appears to have been one of them. I shall repeat my message to Nandesuka. I do not believe Nandesuka's comments are symmetrical to yours, however; to me, calling another editor a liar in those exact words crosses a very definite line in the sand.
As to "interfering", I had suggested that you bring your discovery of this source to the talk page of the article, and you did not do that. I do not have access to the book in question; it is not available in the libraries I have access to, and I do not intend to pay a healthy sum out of pocket to obtain a copy of a book about someone in whom I have no real interest. Therefore, I do not have the information available from which to take part in the discussion of the source text. That's not "chickening out", that is being responsible enough not to spout off on a contentious topic without having the facts. Risker (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Having that explanation earlier would have defused my disappointment at your lack of response. I am sorry, for some reason your request for the verbatim text had not registered in my mind. Let me see what I can do the next time I have a free moment.
As for the Nandesuka saga, it goes back along way, and I can only hope that he will mend his behavior. I have tolerated it long enough, and have only myself to blame for not bringing him to the attention of the authorities. It just happens to be a distasteful task. Haiduc (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Route choice (orienteering)[edit]

Ah, I am somewhat new at main page patrol, and was not looking at times of creation. I simply saw that the page was basically a dictdef with no real content, hence the speedy. I'll try to be a bit more judicious in future. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page[edit]

Thank you for the warning. I will take it to heart. Personalizing the debate never accomplishes anything good. Nandesuka (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, if you've got one editor pushing for changes that are opposed by multiple editors, isn't it an example of defying consensus for private views? Further, if we want to investigate WP:COI, wouldn't we need to ask the editor if he is a member of NAMBLA or other organization like that? In fact, doesn't the person and personality come to the fore the moment the individual accuses the community of "gangbanging" him? That is a personal and nasty choice of words. It is better to be dispassionate, of course, but dispassion becomes irresponsibility when the subject is one of core law and morality.
By the way, just checked out the longish article on homosexuality in the Spaworth ed. Oxford Classical Dictionary, and it largely backs up what Foucault said. These "relationships" can hardly be called loving. Any young man who enjoyed, in any way, or desired, in any way, the sexual activity of the lover was a social reject... an extreme reject -- not a man, not a woman. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


Misquoting sources[edit]

Please take a look at this and advise. It appears to me that someone has directly misquoted a source, substituting one word for another, yet still attributing it to the source. I haven't looked through the article history to figure out who did this, and perhaps there's some other innocent explanation. But if this is the sort of thing that passes for research on this topic, I despair of ever getting this topic area cleaned up. Nandesuka (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nandesuka, taking information out of context for the purpose of referencing, or misquoting a reference, bothers me on any article regardless of subject, as does deliberate use of poor reference sources when better ones exist. It seems the Arbitration Committee agrees on this point, based on their decisions in the Franco-Mongol alliance and Sathya Sai Baba 2 cases. I've looked at that particular discussion and checked some online sources (Wikisource should get a copy of that book, it is public domain and could be used for a lot of articles), and a few refer to later emendations by other scholars, so it may be a quote from a later version as revised; unfortunately, the pages that referred to this did not include the quote being discussed, as they were of other sections of the book. We shall have to give other editors the opportunity to try to locate this and then properly notate the reference. If that cannot be done, it does raise some serious questions about sourcing on this and other articles. Risker (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


FACR[edit]

Risker, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comment[edit]

Thanks for your explanation, and let us both hope that this thread, and its conclusion, helps remove any unjustified stigma that people were, deliberately or otherwise, attaching to the account. Jayjg (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The "I Kill You" barnstar[edit]

Risker, remember the "I kill you" barnstar? That editor just pulled a good one at FAC, adding a Support to his FAC over someone's else's signature. [9] [10] [11] [12] Should I take this to AN/I for further community followup, or is it best left with you? I'd rather not drag FAC business through AN/I, but I'm unaware of policy in this area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The vote (and my follow up comment) have since been removed; I'd like to let it drop but understand if others wish to do otherwise. Giggy (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm perfectly OK with letting it drop if others agree, but we let it drop last time, so we may be breeding a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that Jbmurray has blocked Hadrianos1990 for a week, which seems entirely appropriate to me. You may wish to delist the Real Madrid article from FAC, since obviously he (as nominator) will not be in a position to respond to the comments, but I will leave that to you, Sandy. Definitely another editor to watch closely, though; thanks for the heads-up. Risker (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. - Sandy, do you ever sleep? ;-)

Thanks for following up there, Risker. Sleep? One of the perks of the aging process :/ Growing Old Ain't for Sissies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

More abuse.[edit]

In this talk page post, Haiduc calls an editor with whom he is in a content dispute (and who has been scrupulously civil) a "fag basher" and compares him to an anti-semite. He has been warned about this countless times. When is enough enough? Nandesuka (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Email[edit]

You have an email. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have received it. I encourage you to do your best to keep the discussion on-wiki, as I don't see anything in the content of the email that has not or could not be said here. While I strongly believe that Haiduc has overstepped the mark with his allegations about you (and other editors, in similar situations), it is very clear that he feels isolated and beleaguered. There is no benefit in playing into that perception by being unnecessarily secretive. As per our existing standards, I will not publish your email, but I ask you to consider confirming that it is largely an extension of your commentary in the thread from the Nicolò Giraud talk page. This isn't in any way to question your thoughts on the matter, but rather to dispel any notion that there is scheming going on in the background. Thanks. Risker (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"Smear"[edit]

Risker, for the past half year or so I have been the target of a small coterie of saboteurs who have been systematically gutting my work while directing ad hominem attacks at me in a campaign that has tried to depict me as someone who misuses sources to insert false information in Wikipedia, a campaign that usually blows up in their faces as it just did at the Historical pederastic relationships article, but which they keep up anyway, like Ottava Rima has now done at the Nicolo Giraud article.

Every now and then the masks of these characters slip a little bit, so we can see the true face behind the mask, as was the case with this fellow's comment that documenting the homosexuality of a personage is a "smear." That, my dear, IS homophobia, and don't you mistake it for anything else. And do not expect me to close my eyes and my mouth to sexist abuse of this nature. This is not something that should be appeased and tolerated, but denounced and stamped out as soon as it rears its ugly head, or else Wikipedia culture itself will be corrupted. Now I am all for putting polemics aside and getting on with the work of editing. But how do you think I will take it if I see these individuals run unchecked, supporting each other and misusing their administratorial privileges when they have them, while my own responses are subjected to the closest scrutiny?

Go back through Nandeska's edits since mid-summer, and of the other pilers-on in this gang, and put them in their place, as they richly deserve, and then I will consider that this space is properly and fairly policed, and I will respect your contribution. But as of now your involvement is of the too little and too late variety, and does not show anything near a full understanding of the nature and scope of the abuse that has been going on, and which I have tolerated long enough. Haiduc (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to argue on another person's talk page, but there is a difference between homosexuality and pedophilia. Since the standard definition of pederasty (notice the common linguistic origins of the words) deals with anal sex between an older man and a male child, it would seem that this is pedophilia and not homosexuality. There are few mainstream "queer theorists" who conflate the two, and, when they do, they follow Foucault's path to say that pederasty was strictly non-sexual and represented a love for a younger male that was based on education and encouragement. Thus, it would seem that by clinging to claims of homophobia, you have distorted traditional sexuality studies in order to posit mainstream homosexuality with relationships that are unwelcome within the gay community. I'm sure NAMBLA would be in support of such terminology, but I could not say the same for any others. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I find your insinuations of pedophilia and your focus on NAMBLA in the context of homosexual behavior revolting, intellectually bankrupt, and beneath contempt or discussion. Your ideations about child sex are frightening, and totally out of place here. Please keep these matters to yourself in the future, and try to focus on editing, if you are able. Haiduc (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Pederasty: "A man who has sexual relations, especially anal intercourse, with a boy." "[Greek paiderastēs : pais, paid-, child; see pedo-2 +" Pedophile: "an adult who is sexually attracted to young children. "[Origin: 1950–55; pedo-1 + -phile, or directly < Gk paidóphilos loving children]". It is hard to deny the relationship between these two words, even though Haiduc tries to hide from this. The mainstream homosexual community does not tolerate either. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Risker, without getting down in the muck here, I think there's an observation to be made about Haiduc's rhetoric here. Specifically, his claim that Ottava believes that "documenting the homosexuality of a personage is a 'smear.'" This isn't true, as near as I can tell. It is, however, indicative of one of the two central problems I have with many of Haiduc's edits. The first is his use of sources, which I've catalogued elsewhere and won't get in to now. The second, however, is his pervasive and habitual conflating of homosexuality and pederasty. Based on his edits, as near as I can tell, Haiduc believes the two terms are interchangeable. This is an astonishingly non-mainstream definition of the term "pederasty", and lies at the root of much of the back-and-forth. I think that if one asked the editors of Wikproject:LGBT to comment on the statement "Pederasty is the normative form of homosexuality," a view that Haiduc seems to promote, you would be find broad-based, widespread disagreement. I understand that you are not involved in the content dispute, and I do not expect (or want) you to take sides in this. But I wanted to observe that along with the sourcing problems, this is the central content dispute, and the various squabbles over specific content are rather expressions of that fringe view. Just my $0.02. Nandesuka (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth, least of all false ones warped to suit your agenda. Haiduc (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Risker, I've recently noticed this. There is no use of the term "pederast" in the article, and I feel that this is just indicative of the problems with these categories as a whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


Haiduc just claimed this, which suggests that he wants to make an illegal act seem perfectly acceptable and normal on Wikipedia by posting only sources that agree with this. This is highly inappropriate for an encyclopedia to promote an illegal act, and these are fringe sources at best. I would recommend taking this to AN, or ANI. I would take it myself, but I tend not to be that great with such opening introductions and am always biased in the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. This is getting ridiculous. I think this needs larger community attention because Haiduc is intent in just spinning whatever is said and continues to try and rationalize his constant pushing of labels without any standards or greater consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

More edit warring and pushing a POV on the page without consensus. I really can't take this. These two are destroying a page and exhibit no understanding or respect for encyclopedic integrity. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima (and Haiduc too, for that matter), please take a deep breath. Remember that there is no deadline. Giraud died many years ago, so his life and well-being is not affected in the way that it could be if he was alive. There is plenty of time for intelligent, civilised discussion focused on the quality of references, finding the best sources to support the information. Frankly, the personal opinions of any editor about pederasty, Byron, Giraud, or Maltese monasteries is completely irrelevant to getting the article right.
One question that I don't actually see anyone asking, though: Is Giraud even a notable person? Aside from his relationship with Byron, was there anything else notable about him? Spouses and significant others of literary figures, even the larger-than-life ones like Byron, usually have to have some form of accomplishment of their own to justify their own article. Was this discussed earlier on the talk page? If so, how was it resolved? Risker (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Giraud should be notable enough in terms for Wikipedia inclusion, but not notable enough to be claimed as any historical relevance. The reason why he is notable enough is the same that certain characters from fiction are notable enough - he appears in many different letters, accounts, biographies, histories, etc, and had a satirical poem based around him (although he was used as a metaphor to mock English society). This issue was resolved in the deletion review, and I added 12k worth of more information from various sources to further verify his notability (although minor). As you can see, his notability also comes from him being a topic of controversy, as some fringe scholars are trying to use him to justify a greater view of Byron as a whole, although there are no historical documents beyond what Byron wrote about the boy (the rest is all later accounts, hearsay, rumors, etc). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

please observe these Wiki guidelines on the Pro se page[edit]

In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion."

"But the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information: the potential readership or subjective usefulness of each item does not have to be justified if the material is notable."

" while some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the information is "unencyclopedic" (see #Just unencyclopedic, above). Such claims require an explanation of whichpolicy the content fails and and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion. (See also #Pointing at policy.)"

"Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals, and potentially, any subject or topic may be liked or disliked by some editor somewhere. However, personal preference is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article." "It is insufficient to simply assert that an article (or the subject of an article) is not appropriate for Wikipedia." "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments" and the same applies to all deletion debates. Any statement that just consists of "Keep" or "Delete" with a signature can easily be dismissed by the admin making the final decision, and changing "Keep" to "Strong keep" will not make it any more relevant. Try to present persuasive reasons in line with policy or consensus as to why the article/template/category/whatever should be kept/deleted, and try to make sure it is an argument based on the right reasons." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions kay sieverding (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Kay, nobody is proposing that the article be deleted. Every other editor of the article is proposing that it stay on topic and not be the page where you outline everything you believe to be wrong with the American justice system. There is a difference. Risker (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Manual archive of Talk:Pro se[edit]

Your manual archive to Archive 4 lost the header of the first section, and encouraged Kay's seriously broken archiving of active discussions to "Archive 5". I think your manual archiving probably broke the automatic archiving, as well, but I'm not sure how the bot works. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Arthur, I will look into it. The talk page had become so terribly cluttered with repetitious threads that it was nearly unreadable, hence my manual archiving, splitting off into subpages and compression of the archives. By the way, I was impressed with your sorting of Kay's various large edits. Thanks for your continued patience. Risker (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

User RfC - Kay Sieverding[edit]

Risker, at Arthur Rubin's suggestion, I have started a User RfC for Kay Sieverding, who is continuing to do exactly what she did before the block. Please feel free to participate hhere Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?[edit]

You have been informed. Haiduc (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Informed of what? And as to where I am...well, I have a life that does not permit me being present on Wikipedia around the clock; much as it may seem that I am here all the time, I have actually spent less than half an hour actively logged into the encyclopedia today. Please tell me precisely what you wish me to be informed about, and I will try to address it in a way that best meets the needs of the encyclopedia. Thanks. Risker (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be so laconic. I assumed you would assume . . . etc, etc.
I thought the exchanges last night at the Nicolo Giraud article were over the top. Haiduc (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Am I mistaken or does that Latin phrase translate as, "Who's watching the watchmen?" Cla68 (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
You are not mistaken, Cla68. The implication of the original post, to my mind, was that I was not where I should be, which was "watching the watchmen". I'm pretty upfront about what my Wikipedia agenda is: it's right there, top left corner of my userpage. So when editors are talking about how to get something right, even if they're a bit high-spirited, I'll generally stay out of the way. But I expect that they will, indeed, work to get things right. Controversial material needs to be properly referenced, and the sources need to support unequivocally what is written in the encyclopedia. They can't hint at it, or allude to it. The sad thing is that, often as not, there is a very acceptable source that does indeed state what the editor wants to include. That is what I watch for. Risker (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't implying any criticism with my question. I was just wondering if you had interpreted what was said the same way. Cla68 (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Vk[edit]

"A post on your talk page from an obviously uninvolved administrator will cover you far better than a poorly defined topic ban will." [13] That is exactly what Will Beback did, and copped abuse because it wasn't what he wanted to hear. The only suitably uninvolved administrator is one who agrees with Vk's POV, others simply have it in for him.

If you are attempting to keep things calm, then would you consider taking care of the personal attacks [14]? It was this sort of thing (with the accompanying stalking and emailed threats of violence etc) that got Vk indef blocked last time, and I have little appetite for it starting again. I don't think that sort of personal abuse is acceptable from anyone, much less someone on a last chance saloon civility probation. If it continues (along with the sly threats: "it will not be forgotten", "there will be trouble") then I will go to ANI and ask for the block to be re-instated, irrespective of the topic ban issue. I would much prefer someone had a stern word about civility instead. Rockpocket 02:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break, Rockpocket. WillBeBack is uninvolved, yes. His post was also premature and nonspecific. Unless some miracle has happened in the last 40 minutes, there is ongoing discussion in the WP:AE thread about what is and is not covered by the topic ban. There are some good ideas to make things more specific. There is one thing you can do that will really make a difference, though, Rockpocket, and that is to understand that your continued interest in Vintagekits is more likely to exacerbate the situation than to bring relief. Am I saying you shouldn't care? No. What I am saying is that, since the two of you obviously don't see eye to eye, it shouldn't be you adjusting his terms of editing (I'm disappointed Ryan didn't do it, as he was the admin who closed the previous AE thread). Discussing with him on his talk page is always going to be a bad idea; I hope he stays away from yours too, because I would say the same thing to him. The two of you bring out the worst in each other, and it is extremely frustrating to see the two of you taking swipes at each other; you're both better than that. Much as I hate to say it, if you have a concern about VK editing outside the topic ban, it would be better to just take it right to WP:AE with a very simple link on his talk page ("I have started a thread about your edits to Article X on WP:AE [link]"). Heck, bug me if you're worried about a specific article. I will speak with VK about his colourful language. But I tell you what, Rockpocket - if I thought someone had actively campaigned to get me banned, I wouldn't forget it, and I bet you wouldn't either. Risker (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you forgetting, Risker, that it was I that embraced Giano's plan to get Vk unblocked and presented it to the community? It was he and I that did most of the work drafting the conditions. It was my continuing interest that helped get him back to a position where he can edit. Vk (and Giano) were more than happy to have my input when he thought it would get him unblocked, but now the conditions are not to Vk's liking - despite what he agreed at the time - suddenly the accusations against me start again. What is really sad is that you seem to buy into it.
I strongly resent your implication that I want him banned. I supported a ban in the past, true, along with many other editors. But the accusation makes absolutely no sense, considering how was already banned (twice) and both times I worked to get it lifted, this despite some atrocious personal abuse from Vk in the past. So I'll tell you what, I may not forget how editors responded to me, but I don't hold it against them to the detriment of the project. Rockpocket 04:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Rockpocket, I am just too tired to give your comment the thoughtful response it deserves; I've messed it up three times so far. Let me just say that you have worked very hard on dispute resolution within this area for a very long time. You have earned the right to step back and throw the torch to others. I will post more tomorrow, and apologise for not being more complete in my response now. Risker (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thats fine, Risker. I too am tired and have over-invested in this already today. My annoyance is probably beginning to tell - not at you but at the situation. A sure sign its a good idea for me to walk away now. I do appreciate your advice, though. Rockpocket 06:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion[edit]

Hi. Guyver85 (talk · contribs) (sock of TopGun) is still actively evading his block as 89.216.235.26 (talk · contribs) (he has confessed himself that this ip belongs to him, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Top Gun). Colchicum (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Colchicum. I'll address this later on, as I'd like to get some technical information that I don't have available to me at this moment. Risker (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Essjay Controversy[edit]

It seems that you agreed at one point that the Cornell Daily Sun citation was accurately summarized in the body text. Another editor disagreed on a few occassions. I tried to discuss with him what his objections were, but apparently it comes down to this. I replied, but I suspect that the user is not interested in discussing matters further. Do you have any objections to me re-adding the sentence as it was originally worded? J Readings (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi J Readings - I would be absolutely fine with you re-adding that sentence. The article is about the response to this specific event, and the student response probably more notable than the professor's; after all, the students were the ones using the encyclopedia before the revelation. Risker (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Very good. I'll re-add the sentence. Thanks for the quick reply. J Readings (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The guy with the long name[edit]

You might like to opine here [15].--Scott MacDonald (talk) 08:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: AfD[edit]

Oreet man. As far as I can gather, the AfD was done normally and without any special ways or means. I'm always hyper-nervous with the scripts needed to nominate so I follow the process letter-by-letter. If the page didn't flash up on your watchlist that sounds more like glitch than anything I have done. I can't think of any reason, other than if your watchlist (like mine) is pushing 350 pages, heh....doktorb wordsdeeds 16:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Heya, thanks for the reply. I am a little upset that - and this is one for irony corner - the AfD review was not brought to my attention given that I was the nominator. I do have some concerns that the notabilty rules have been bent for him; that there is no distinction between being notable IN HIMSELF and being notable BECAUSE OF HIS NAME. However I know Wiki well enough now to know that WP:POINT is but a click away, especially with AfDs, so I won't keep on about it.
On the matter of the watchlist glitch, I cannot offer any explanation, even after a few days of thinking about it. doktorb wordsdeeds 01:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Query[edit]

Hi Risker, I just wanted to contact you directly on your talkpage, since we seem to be having trouble communicating on Lar's talkpage. I have to admit that I'm scratching my head here, because I'm not understanding what it is that you're trying to say. On the one hand you seem to be saying to give KS another chance, on the other you seem to be saying no, don't give her another chance. Can you please clarify? I have great respect for your opinion, but I'm really not understanding which way you would like to proceed here. --Elonka 20:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite simply, Elonka, if Kay wants to edit about flowers or polar bears or beautiful Minnesota lakes, I am all for it. But she has demonstrated repeatedly that she is not able to edit appropriately on any subject that touches, even peripherally, on her personal legal situation. It's pretty clear from her history, not only here but in the parts of her history that she has posted on her own page, that she is not able to be neutral on this subject area at all. Now, I don't like having this discussion chopped up so I am going to copy both your post and my response to Lar's page so everything is on one place. Risker (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hockey season[edit]

You are allowed to talk trash about my Kings or in support of your les Canadien.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I drove home in a snowstorm the other day. It bloody well better be hockey season. Risker (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Lets hear it for the Red Wings! Eh! (no snow til Monday here) - Epousesquecido (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It's 80 degrees outside here now. What the hell is this snow thing? Never heard of it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
And THAT is why you are currently unfit to be a hockey fan, OM. You should have to wear a coat, gloves, hat and a scarf to at least 40% of the home games (face mask optional) or it's really just not Hockeytown. Move back to the North where you belong, my friend. As for the Habs... they are Habs-beens. ++Lar: t/c 12:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
40% of home games? You're all a bunch of southerners. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I said at LEAST. At da tech it was 100%, the 40% referred to when you had to wear full face masks to avoid frostbite. I think we may have set the record for most consecutive days that were more than 40 below in the continental US but [citation needed] ... Go Huskies! ++Lar: t/c 13:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


Damn Canucks fans[edit]

THAT was funny. Made my evening. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

OM, I tell ya....I read those opposes and just shook my head. Doesn't report to AN3??? From the Israel/Palestine pages??? I am afraid some people need to get out a bit more. Glad to have made your night. Got another one of those umbrella drinks there? Risker (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I think if I read those opposes again, I'd have at least five of those umbrellas sitting on my desk. I get some of the opposes in some RfA's (cough, like when I opposed you, LOL), but the opposes in this case are somewhat desperate, like "I'm in a cranky mood, so let me find something to oppose. He didn't pet his dog today." But yes, he is a hockey fan, so that makes how many hockey admins? 2? 3? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

silly[edit]

Mmmmm... Whatever, I suppose. There was a message in there, somewhere. Don't worry about my sensibilities, though, even if you are likely far more sensible than I could hope to be. Truly, thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

LHVU, I don't believe that message was directed at you, just FYI. Risker (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Small "v", but
Antiflame-barnstar.png The Anti-Flame Barnstar
you get this, anyhow LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you, LessHeard vanU! I shall cherish this! Risker (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


Thanks[edit]

Hi there Risker. Thanks for replying to the users query from my message on User_talk:Vintagekits. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 16:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, friend.[edit]

Just letting you know that I'll be hanging around the project a bit more in the coming days and weeks. You're doing fine work as an administrator as well. There should be more like you. S.D.D.J.Jameson 13:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA (2)[edit]

Hi Risker! Thank you very much for your support and warm comments in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down, and use the tools for the benefit of the project. On a side note, the Canucks rock :D awesome team. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 21:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

ANB[edit]

Just come from there. Has everyone suddenly run mad? DGG (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea whatsoever where that thread came from. There haven't been mass reports of SPAs taking over the encyclopedia, nothing spectacular seems to be happening on the noticeboards. I wonder if Wikipedia is starting to have its own pre-election silly season. Well, this one needs to be nipped in the bud. Risker (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Projectors[edit]

At A Tale of a Tub, a person is concerned that the proper review forms have not been filled out in proper triplicate for the article to "have been assessed" as A class. It was an FA, went through FAR, and now, according to this person, must receive proper B ratings. I'd rather have absolutely none of that junk littering the page, myself, than have to spend more time playing games with the unlearned. If I wouldn't devote weeks of my life to trying to prove the obvious to FAR reviewers, I'm damn sure not going to spend days trying to please some projector's fetish for forms. However, trouble will be brewing after this. Geogre (talk) 10:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was amusing. I've got the page watchlisted. Risker (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Hi Risker, I wonder if I could solicit your help and advice about what is transpiring on the Fathers' rights movement page and talkpage. Unfortunately it is a very long and tedious read, but I am sure you can get the flavour of things by starting right at the bottom: though if you want to know why my tone is a bit testy at times then fell free to rove further up for why! I have had longstanding concerns about the editor involved, and have compiled an overview of the history on this page [16]. It is not, perhaps, a model of what it could be, and is certainly not complete. I am at my wit's end, and the discussion between the two of us is going nowhere at all. I don't doubt that I haven't handled this as well as I should, and would be glad of any suggestions. --Slp1 (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Slp1 - I've taken a quick look at the situation, and have a pretty good idea of what is going on here. The focus on content and reliable sources is very appropriate. It will be a few days before I am in a position to jump in with both feet, but would be happy to look more closely at this issue in the near future. Risker (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I am and will be grateful, since he's deleting well-sourced information again as I type this! [17], --Slp1 (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Risker. It looks like you are busy with all sort of things at present, but if you possibly had the time to weigh in once again I would be grateful. The two threads that are most currently active are 1. continuing to claim that a newspaper article unavailable on the web is not verifiable source,[18] despite clear opinions from the WP:RSN to the contrary[19], and 2. adding unverifiable information quoting IAR in justification as discussed here [20]. Once again, I am open to any suggestions regarding changes in my approach too, if you have any.--Slp1 (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for watchful eyes[edit]

Hi. I just made the changes described here. While in a just universe these changes would be uncontroversial, I fully expect this to turn into a foofaraw. I therefore think it would probably be good to have some administrative eyes on the page for a while. Nandesuka (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


Logs[edit]

Nope. I have today's from 15:52 UTC complete - and a fair bit from the hours before that. Nothing on that subject by name. I'm a little confused, but I'm staying off the page, as I've had enough drama for today. And he's got rather defensive and calling me a liar.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you might want to link your user page to your previous user page. Slim's question is quite legitimate. Nobody is going to force you to have your administrative rights transferred, but the fact you could make the request pretty well falls within right-to-know. I may discuss further when I have access to my own logs. Risker (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I've not hidden anything. But I'm not seeing the relevance.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
You openly admit to access to #wikipedia-en-admins, an IRC channel restricted to current administrators and those who have stepped down while in good standing and who could request return of the privileges without a new RFA. (I assume you could, and that bureaucrats would have a method of confirming that this username is being used by the same person as the admin one.) However, there is no RFA associated with User:Scott MacDonald, so it is a reasonable question why you would have access to the channel, and whether or not you are genuinely entitled to request administrator privileges. You could ask for the privileges to be transferred to this account at any time. It is highly disconcerting for editors to see someone suddenly show up with additional privileges; every time it happens, there is a very big to-do. Better to be upfront. Risker (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Risker. Running a /whois on Scott (while in channel) will pretty quickly sort out that the access is legit. But I can vouch for his bonafides as an admin in good standing who only has to ask for the bit to be transferred if so desired... Hope that helps. Anyone who has access to the channel can do so. Of course, those with purloined logs don't have that ability which might explain the confusion. ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Lar, I am not worried about Scott having access to the channel; his writing is distinctive, and I recognised him immediately. What has been bothering me is the fact that he has made it pretty clear in his posts that he does have access, but it is well known that only current admins or those who stepped down in good standing are permitted access. Since there was no obvious connection between his former username and his current one, questions are reasonable. And given the threats that often wind up on people's user pages should they attempt to link accounts to apparently retired usernames, the problem is accentuated. Scott was obviously not a new account from his very first edit. That usually arouses suspicion, not support. Let's not kid ourselves here. Risker (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I had already counseled Scott that he should crosslink on his user page prior to this. It's a good idea all right. However I don't think it's mandatory, so he's free to disregard my counsel. ++Lar: t/c 21:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I see that he has mentioned his previous account on his userpage, and I tip my hat to him for that. Risker (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Not seeing it. #admins is not governed on wiki. I have had access to it for years, no status has changed. I'm just using a new account on wiki, not on IRC (do a "who is" and it is the same old me). I'm happy to confirm anything to the #admins ops on request - but since they've never changed my access since I left and returned, I don't see why they would ask. Anyway, I have indicated the previous account on wiki already (and gosh, how many admins have reincarnated doing much less than that). If, and only if, I ever request my sysop powers restored, I will need to confirm things to a crat.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
What a very sad convesation. Why draw such attention to yourself in the first place? Giano (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, because I am a fool, in many ways.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)