User talk:Tim Smith

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

Welcome[edit]

Hi Tim Smith, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions to the coolest online encyclopedia I know of =). I sure hope you stick around; we're always in need of more people to create new articles and improve the ones we already have. You'll probably find it easiest to start with a tutorial of how the wikipedia works, and you can test stuff for yourself in the sandbox. When you're contributing, you'll probably find the manual of style to be helpful, and you'll also want to remember a couple important guidelines. First, write from a neutral point of view, second, be bold in editing pages, and third, use wikiquette. Those are probably the most important ones, and you can take a look at some others at the policies and guidelines page. You might also be interested in how to write a great article and possibly adding some images to your articles.

Be sure to get involved in the community – you can contact me at my talk page if you have any questions, and you can check out the village pump, where lots of wikipedians hang out and discuss things. If you're looking for something to do, check out the community portal. And whenever you ask a question or post something on a talk page, be sure to sign your name by typing ~~~~.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing! --Spangineer (háblame) 15:26, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

3RR[edit]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Byrgenwulf 14:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, Tim Smith, will you also refrain from putting spurious warnings on other users' talk pages. I have gone through the history of the article in question, and as far as my calculations go, the only person who has broken the three revert rule here is you. You have made four reversions in the last 26 hours, of which 3 were in a space of 24 hours, that is why I put the above message on your talk page. I see you have simply "warned" all the other editors who don't happen to agree with you and have wished for the shorter, more intelligible article to remain. I don't think this is a very reasonable thing to do. Byrgenwulf 17:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It's just a warning, and says not that you have already broken the 3RR, but that if you continue to repeatedly undo other people's edits, you may be blocked under it. All of the users I warned have repeatedly undone other people's edits.
I warned you for your recent reverts here (massive deletion of content I had just re-added), here (changing "little" to "no" when it had just been changed from "no" to "little" by DrL), here (re-insertion of content just removed by JKLevine), and here (massive deletion of content I had just re-added).
Additionally, you broke the 3RR last week: [1] [2] [3] [4] Tim Smith 20:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Threats[edit]

Do not threaten me with blocks. linas 15:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This user is referring to my use of {{npa2}} in response to these personal attacks. Tim Smith 20:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not threaten me with blocks, either, especially when they are based on misunderstandings (deliberate or otherwise) of policy. Byrgenwulf 08:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This user is referring to my use of {{npa2}} in response to this remark. Tim Smith 04:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: AFD closure (CTMU)[edit]

Thanks for your comment. I don't think the version of the article affected most of the delete arguments, at least those that I parsed as the most important. I was compelled by a couple of points made by delete voters: (1) the theory is probably not notable outside its connection to a really smart guy, and can be covered completely at the article on him; and (2) this is confirmed by the fact that none of the cites for the article mentioned any other people working on this theory. I agree that it was a difficult decision to make, and I did read the arguments closely and try to watch out for sockpuppets and other very new users. I'm going to stick by my closure, but if you feel that there is more discussion to be had, you might open a discussion at Deletion Review. I can also temporarily undelete the article if you feel that one version contains useful information for a merger into Christopher Michael Langan. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Tim, I am ready to bow out of this discussion (as I just explained at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_20#Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe), but I feel a need to try to clarify one last point which arose during my (clearly inadequate but still rather diligent) "research" into this affair.
In this edit in a reply to you on User:DrL's user talk page, DrL wrote "Chris and I very much appreciated your efforts. It's nice to see that there are people (albeit only a few) who understand and appreciate the CTMU. I hope to meet you one day at a time when we can all look back and laugh". This could easily be taken to imply that you know "DrL"'s IRL identity. I feel that I have to ask: do you?
This mess has gotten quite unpleasant, and I hope you won't take this informational question the wrong way. I am only asking because if I am dead wrong about DrL (if DrL really has no "close connection" with CTMU, Langan, Meta, etc.), then I really need to know that.
Tim, I much appreciate the fact that you have refrained from sarcasm and other minor incivilities during the course of this difficult discussion, and while I was taken aback when I saw the quoted message and noticed its apparent (false?) implications, in your case I would like to say that I still WP:AGF. If I don't get more nastiness from DrL and Asmodeus in my own user talk page (beyond your control, I know!), I think that in a few days I would probably be willing to take a look at the proposed third version of a WP description of CTMU, e.g. User_talk:Tim_Smith/CTMU. ---CH 00:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know DrL or Asmodeus, and I don't know anyone involved with the CTMU in real life. As I said, I have no conflict of interest here. I appreciate your offer to look at a new description of the CTMU, and will consider my options. By the way, in case there's any confusion, I didn't have anything to do with the first CTMU article posted to Wikipedia. Tim Smith 02:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Tim, I appreciate this information. I don't know if you noticed these edits by Asmodeus which tend to confirm that he is indeed [removed] IRL:
  1. tacit admission that he is [removed]
  2. accidently confirms he is using IP geolocated in [removed]
Together with other internal evidence, I feel the case is pretty conclusive that his IRL idenity has been established correctly, and I am also pretty confident that DrL is indeed [removed]. For me, the key point here is that misrepresenting their true identities to cover up their conflict of interest in editing articles such as Christopher Michael Langan-Mega Foundation-The Ultranet is behavior so egregious that this alone ought be grounds for sanctions by the WP community. In any case, I feel their edits reveals a clear portrait of misbehavior sufficient to warrant an RfC, although I don't know whether any of the users concerned about shilling in WP has enough energy for this.---CH 18:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Mega Society[edit]

I have requested that the Mega Society deletion be overturned here. --Michael C. Price talk 16:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tim, as you know the Mega Society article was deleted awhile ago, at the end of an acrimonious AfD/DRV process. There is a wide divergence between deletion policy (as defined by various policy guideline documents) and deletion practice, as implemented by admins (who claim to be following the "spirit" of the law). Consequently there are lessons to be learnt from the experience, which will not be obvious from reading the guidelines. Here are some tips for future conduct:

  • Single purpose users are frowned upon and were a frequent bone of contention during the AfD and DRV processes. So I urge you all to "establish" yourself as Wikipedians: create, edit and even ... delete articles! There are plenty of articles that need attention.
  • It is a very good idea to put something on your user page, (it doesn't matter what) to avoid showing up as redlinked users -- being redlinked will count against you in any debate.
  • When voting, include brief reasons which are grounded in policy (votes not backed by reasoning may be discounted; too much reasoning will be ignored).

Given the bias against soliciting (see judgement) I may not be able to contact you again, so I suggest you put the Mega Society in your watchlists.

The closing admin's comments on the Mega Society:

Within the argumentation of the debate, the most significant point raised by those who supported the article was that a new draft was available. The article is not protected, so this may be posted at any time and (assuming it is not substantially similiar to the older version) it will be judged anew on its merits. This is good news for you.
The bad news for you is that it is well-established practice within Wikipedia to ignore completely floods of newer, obviously "single-issue POV", contributors at all our deletion fora. I'm among the most "process-wonkish" of Wikipedians, believe me, and even process-wonks accept that these sorts of voters are completely discountable. Wikipedia is not a pure democracy; though consensus matters, the opinion of newcomers unfamiliar with policy is given very little weight. Your vote, that of Tim Shell, and that wjhonson were not discounted. The others supporting your view were. I promise you that it is almost always true that, within Wikipedia, any argument supported by a flood of new users will lose, no matter how many of the new users make their voices known. In the digital age, where sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting are as easy as posting to any message board, this is as it should be for the sake of encyclopedic integrity. It is a firm practice within Wikipedia, and it is what every policy and guideline mean to imply, however vaguely they may be worded. (I do agree that our policies, written by laypeople mostly, could do with a once-over from an attorney such as myself; however, most laypeople hate lawyers, so efforts to tighten wording are typically met with dissent.)
If your supporters were more familiar with Wikipedia, they would realize that, invariably, the most effective way to establish an article after it has been deleted in a close AfD is to rewrite it: make it "faster, better, stronger." This is, in fact, what you claim to have done with your draft. Good show. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So the outcome was not entirely negative, although I was disappointed by the admin's rather cavalier approach evidenced by the response to my enquiry:

.... why did you discount the votes of, say, User:GregorB or User:Canon? They are not new users, nor did I solicit them. I presume by Tim Shell you mean Tim Smith? ...... --Michael C. Price talk 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

to which I received this rather off-hand reply:

User:GregorB offered a very brief comment not supported by policy. User:Canon did take the time to offer analysis at DRV, but he had been among the first voters at the AfD to offer a mere "Keep" without explanation; therefore, I assumed he had been solicited by someone. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

which didn't fill me with confidence about Wiki-"due process".

Anyway, my grumpiness aside, the Mega Society article, is presently under userfied open-development at User:MichaelCPrice/mega, and will reappear at some point, when (hopefully) some of the ill-feeling evidenced during the debate has cooled. I am very heartened by the article's continued development, and by the development of associated articles. Thanks for everyone's help!

--Michael C. Price talk 14:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Userfy[edit]

I highly recommend that you take the closing admin of the CTMU article up on their offer to userfy (the version with the most citations). You can then put the article under peer review, or an RfC, seeking comments to its notability. Also, if you find any sources in the future that meet policy (such as WP:V) you can re-post it to the mainspace. This is my best advice for you. Good luck. SynergeticMaggot 23:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll consider my options. Thanks for the advice and for your willingness to mediate. Tim Smith 23:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem. I just wish there was more I could have done before it went to AfD. :/ SynergeticMaggot 23:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

CTMU DRV[edit]

Hi Mr. Smith,

You put forth a noble effort in arguing the best possible case for your position based on the record at hand. Unfortunely for you, I feel even the circumstances as you present them do not warrant a relisting or reconsideration at this time. The guidelines for closer discretion at DRV are more narrow than other deletion fora here at Wikipedia: because DRV merely decides whether continued discussion is useful, "no consensus" closures of DRV debates do not exist, and vote-counting is the typical ultimate factor in deciding close cases. In making DRV tallies, the closer's only real discretion is to discount parties too new or too plainly biased for their opinions to be given full weight. In examining the debate, I saw that -- were I to undertake such discounting -- the advocates of CTMU would likely suffer a heavy burden. Few of them had extensive edit histories outside of CTMU and related topics. Had I discounted these comments, as many closers might have done within the rules, the determination of a final result would have been easy, and to your disadvantage. Sensing that "alternative theories" already endure great stigma, I elected to make an initial tally without discounting any CTMU advocate, to allow your position to be seen in the best possible light. Still, the consensus was against continued consideration of the article.

On the question of whether either the DRV or the AfD were corrupted by irregularities, I'm afraid I'm inclined to adopt the principle of denying relief to those with unclean hands; in other words, without impugning you personally, it is clear that both sides of the discussion were at fault in these irregularities, and also clear that the probability of a debate without flaw, on a topic that inspires this passion, is vanishingly small. It is, thus, both correct on the merits and expeditious in process to accept these discussions as the best that could reasonably be expected.

Finally, even if discretion were mine to exercise, I must confess that (whether the fault lies in the theory or in the article) my own reading of the text did not provoke sympathy. I fail to understand how or why this metaphysical conception ever came to considered alongside, and in comparison to, scientific ideas. Whatever power CTMU may have, the theory is -- by its own stated terms -- "extra/meta-rational"; outside of the empirical realm, it cannot supercede scientific notions, as it does not share any common terms with the scientific "model" by which the two might be evaluated in tandem. Seeing any comparison of science and CTMU as an hopeless endeavor, I can neither understand nor endorse the focus of the now-deleted article on this question. CTMU belongs in a philosophical discourse, not a scientific one, and I don't fathom why anybody (even the disgruntled scientists) would think otherwise. Of course, these personal feelings had only a marginal influence on my closure, if any; however, it is true that I am not inclined to go beyond the bounds of normal procedure for the sake of an article that I feel is fundamentally misguided. Best wishes, Xoloz 01:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Xoloz. By my reckoning, discounting nobody, 12 of the 23 opinions were endorsements. The rules of DRV say to keep the article deleted, but let's call the result what it was: not consensus, but a one-vote majority. The AfD was also close, with just over 60% favoring deletion. Had the article, AfD, and deletion review not been linked and misrepresented at high-traffic project pages (WikiProject Physics and WikiProject Pseudoscience), the AfD would likely have closed as a no-consensus keep, and the review could easily have gone the other way.
As you say, the CTMU is not science, but philosophy, and is not meant to supersede scientific notions, but to interpret them in a self-consistent philosophical framework. That's how it has always been portrayed by its author, and that's how it was portrayed in the article, which expressly distinguished it from scientific theories, focused on philosophical subjects like mind, teleology, and the origin of reality, and had belonged to Category:Metaphysics since its creation in September 2005. That's exactly why the links at WikiProject Physics and WikiProject Pseudoscience, and the addition of the article to List of pseudoscientific theories by the AfD nominator, were so misleading and inappropriate. I don't know which version you saw, but the earlier comprehensive one was corrupted during the AfD by editors who not only didn't understand it, but who reworded it to attribute to Langan positions the opposite of those he actually holds. What remained at the time of deletion was an adulterated fragment of no use at all as an aid to understanding this notable, well-publicized theory. The earlier version was praised by several AfD participants as valuable in that respect. Its deletion is a great pity. Tim Smith 09:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dig pages[edit]

I notice you've created a set of "Dig" pages to track users, and that they contain information you say "may be sensitive and therefore should not be widely publicized." Some of these pages clearly violate the Posting personal details section of the blocking policy, which states that "Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely, depending on the severity of the incident, and whether the blocking admin feels the incident was isolated or is likely to be repeated." I encourage you to remove these pages from Wikipedia as soon as possible. Tim Smith 11:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Tim, I am acutely sensitive to the issues this raises; have you read User:Hillman/Digging or my user page? Did you notice that I have avoided citing those pages in talk page discussions, that they contain only publically available information, and that they do not contain any personal contact information? I'd like to discuss this with by email; can you email User:Jitse Niesen or User:Ems57fcva and ask them to forward your email address to me? I am eager to discuss the issues because the whole point is to help try to formulate and propose some kind of policy on when "digging" is and is not appropriate, as per my unfinished essay! TIA ---CH 11:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... if Jitse has tried to email me yet I haven't gotten it. I am having some problems right now with tweaking my filter while being mailbombed, ughghgh. Please have patience! See User talk:Jitse Niesen if you haven't been there yet for a comment addressed to you which I moved out from my own user talk page. ---CH 12:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Discussion continues where it began, on User_talk:Hillman#Dig pages. Tim Smith 12:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Jitse has replied to my email and he has the links he needs. He and I both need to attend to other matters right now, but I expect he will get back to me in more detail in a day or so. ---CH 13:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Tim, you wrote " If you won't do anything about them, I'll notify someone who will." Please review WP:DR, which says "First step: talk to the other parties involved". That is what I am trying to do: talk to you and other Wikipedians, especially admins familiar with policies/precedents I may not know about, about your concerns. OK? ---CH 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Tim, if you email me with Special:Emailuser/Lethe, I will forward the email to Chris. -lethe talk + 15:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
As I said on CH's talk page, we're not going to have a secret, off-wiki conversation about pages which she's put on one of the highest-traffic sites on the Web, and which show up in Google searches. Other users are concerned about these pages too. Discussion needs to be public. Tim Smith 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, I agree with the last. You misunderstood my request to initiate a private conversation, but never mind. I plan to RfC MfD the pages in question and ask that you give me a day or so to figure out how to do this and to write my statement, OK? ---CH 23:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Give me another eight to ten hours? TIA ---CH 11:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Tim, please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig. ---CH 23:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to comment that the pages either violate WP or they do not. They certainly seem to. Btw, Tim, you I saw you referring to Hillman as "she" but I believe "she" is male. In one online discussion, she linked to this bio and claimed it as her own. Just FYI. DrL 01:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well—something is very weird. See this. Now look at the bottom of User:Hillman; see that "Created by"? See this. Finally, see this. What do you think? Tim Smith 03:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I saw something on the web alluding to that, but then finding Christopher Hillman's page in the math archive led me to think it was actually a real person. I agree that it seems to be a public account. This would explain a number of things regarding his bizarre behavior, disjointed posting, and lack of personal history. It may be time for a dig page on Hillman. DrL 22:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Tim, thanks for your itemized comments in the MfD. Right now it seems the outcome is likely to be inconclusive, but FYI, I am mulling over voluntarily following most of your itemized recommendations. The major exceptions:
  1. In the case of User:Hillman/Dig/Haisch, it seems that there is a case to be made for keeping this documentation someplace at Wikipedia because I and others (see User talk:KSmrq) feel that Haisch misrepresented the context of KSmrq's remarks, etc.
  2. In the ase of User:Hillman/Dig/Langan, it seems that several commentators feel that this documenation is sufficiently interesting to be kept someplace at Wikipedia.
Can you clarify (either here, in the MfD, or in my own user talk page) whether your recommendation re User:Hillman/Dig/Haisch took account of the issue of possibly defending KSmrq against Haisch's mischaracterization of his remarks? TIA ---CH 22:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
KSmrq already made that defense at User talk:KSmrq#You're famous. My recommendation remains to delete both User:Hillman/Dig/Haisch and User:Hillman/Dig/Langan. My concerns are that posting personal information contravenes the Posting personal details section of the blocking policy, and that publically tracking a good-faith user's "bad" edits on a dedicated page is demeaning and disrespectful to them. Tim Smith 03:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Tim, thanks for your efforts to expose conflicts of interest and general nonsense on WP. I will be very surprised if anyone finds a dig page on the Langans sufficiently interesting to keep on Wikipedia, but if they do I may very well be starting some of my own. Conflict of interest is so important to ferret out. I think Asmodeus hit the nail on the head here. DrL 00:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Asmodeus RfC[edit]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Your comments would add much-needed balance. --DrL 17:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. I just might check in over there with the observation that the APE cabal doesn't confine its purgative frenzies to articles categorized as scientific; it also preys on articles which are expressly philosophical, and refuses to acknowledge the difference even when instructed on it. (By the way, I liked your "outside view" on the RfC.) Regards, Asmodeus 14:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: CTMU diffs[edit]

I have restored the article's history, and the current version exists as a redirect as you have suggested. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help ensure this arbitration goes smoothly for all involved. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, you're right, I did miss the talk page. It's there now. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

New RfAr[edit]

Hello, Tim. You might want to check this out. Asmodeus 20:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 21:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

RFARB[edit]

The violation was a technical one which was reported on WP:AN/3RR and I responded to that. I have no stake in any of the events surrounding this case, no interest in the topics of contention, no knowledge of DrL beyond what I have seen in the case itself, and there are no grounds for recusal. Jayjg (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read the comments here, and the comments on my Talk: page. Rather than "possible or perceived" grounds for recusal, this looks like a pretty lame ex-post facto attempt to remove the votes of an uninvolved and neutral arbitrator after he has voted in a way that you don't like. Jayjg (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
(Further discussion here.) Tim Smith 17:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

RFC[edit]

Please respond: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tim Smith FeloniousMonk 19:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Rational Skepticism[edit]

Hi Leon. In case you missed it, I seconded your concern about the apparent entry condition for WikiProject Rational Skepticism, and have now raised the issue at the WikiProject Council. Tim Smith 03:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I kind of meant it as a passing comment, but I reckon it's a reasonable concern. Leon 06:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Good edits on Uncommon Dissent[edit]

I like your most recent edits on Uncommon Dissent, i.e. [5] especially inserting the word "writes" to make it clear that Wikipedia is not directly expressing that POV. I thought about it when I was offline and thought I should insert "adds", but then completely forgot about it. (Would "adds" be better than "writes"? Either one is fine.) --Coppertwig 11:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Coppertwig. I prefer "writes" to "adds"; I think it's a cleaner break from the preceding "points out", and so makes more clear that we are not endorsing the remarks. By the way, I appreciate your efforts to point the other editors toward an atmosphere of constructive collaboration in accordance with policies and guidelines. Tim Smith 17:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest[edit]

In this edit you refer to "Our article". You have been repeatedly told not to POV push on these topics and should know based on what happened in the arbitration case that we take conflicts of interest very seriously. Please explain what your connection is to ISCID and stop editing topics related to it. Thank you. JoshuaZ 23:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What I said was: "described ISCID using introduction from our article". By "our article", I meant Wikipedia's article, and I linked to it to make that clear. In my edit, I used the two-sentence introduction from that article to describe the society. I have no real-life connection to ISCID, and no conflict of interest in editing articles related to it. Tim Smith 06:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Considering your ongoing pattern of promotion of Langan's views documented at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tim Smith and the concerns raised by JoshuaZ of possible WP:COI issues, I think it only appropriate that you step back from Langan-related articles lest your actions prompt others to view them in light of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist#DrL_2 and seek clarification which may not come out in your favor. FeloniousMonk 17:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
There are no WP:COI issues; as I said, I have no real-life connection to ISCID. Per WP:NPOV, Langan's work should not be asserted as being the truth, but neutrally presented. That's what I've tried to do, taking care to use frequent qualifiers (e.g. "According to Langan", "Langan argues that", "describes what he sees as") and footnoted citations. I welcome specific feedback on my edits and suggestions for improvement. I'm trying to engage constructively, and hope we can work together to improve the articles in question. Tim Smith 21:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Adminship survey/Q[edit]

Sorry, your version was right on this. After sorting out misstrikings on RfAs, I've got so used to '#: is good, : is bad' that I forgot that it was the other way round at the start of a list. Sorry! --ais523 16:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

You're welcome. I just hope that I don't become a target for the psuedoscience project as well. These guys were subject to a huge arbitration last year for the same thing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, I've been looking through it but I'm afraid I'm too dense to understand what the conclusions were or even what this process actually does :( User:Asmodeus has a pretty insightful description of what their problems are. If you look at his talk page they keep accusing him of being uncivil because he is a bit of a smart aleck--I think they have IQ point envy. Puddytang 05:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from FNMF[edit]

Thankyou for suggesting to administrator CBDunkerson that he consider my unblock request. See the comment he left on FeloniousMonk's talk page explaining why he unblocked. See also the thanks and comment I left for CBDunkerson. FNMF 15:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. I've appreciated your input at Christopher Michael Langan. Tim Smith 21:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
For an account of what I believe are important policy issues arising from the problems with the Christopher Michael Langan entry, see here. FNMF 03:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

FNMF[edit]

I have nothing to say to people who refuse to be civil and use attacks and insults in every sentence. I learned nothing from his latest comments except that he still has not learned how to communicate in a civil manner. His opinion of me has no bearing on how we should reference the article. Guettarda 12:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for a review process for administrators[edit]

I have a made a proposal at the Village Pump here, arguing that rather than appointing administrators for an indefinite period, there should instead be an automatic review process for all administrators every year or two, run along the same lines as the original WP:RFA. Thus I'm not arguing for a time limit for administrators, but simply a more streamlined and effective mechanism of accountability. I believe this proposal will benefit good editors and Wikipedia. I hope you will take the time to examine the argument, and that you may look favourably upon the idea. Thanks. FNMF 14:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I do think accountability requires not merely that admins earn the trust of the community, but that they keep it, and I favor the creation of a community-based process to see that they do so. However, automatic, periodic review is problematic, at least on a naïve implementation. With annual review of 1100+ admins, there would be 20+ reviews per week. Endorsements of uncontroversial admins would consume much of the schedule, while the "wait time" to review admins who are controversial could be on the order of months.
Better, in my opinion, would be review "on demand", in which an administrator would stand for review when requested to do so by a sufficient number of editors in good standing. That would refocus the process on controversial admins, and eliminate the wait time. Check out Category:Administrators open to recall. Ideally all admins would be open to recall, and we wouldn't need a category. But proposals to force de-adminship have a poor track record. The category is a way to build support gradually by demonstrating that recall is a workable option. The greater its size and the longer it exists without serious abuse, the more it demonstrates the viability of community-based recall, and the easier it will be to institute a recall process which applies to all admins.
For ideas from other Wikipedia editions, see Wikipedia:Adminship in other languages. Tim Smith 21:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Uncommon Dissent.jpg[edit]

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Uncommon Dissent.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Tim. If you need any help with this, let me know. --Northmeister 00:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's taken care of; thanks for the offer! -- Tim Smith (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Alternative Views[edit]

Tim, I noticed you were the original founder of the above project. I recently started a discussion on related projects as I removed one 'related' project which to me seemed contrary to Alternative Views stated goals. However, its the members project and if you and other members disagree with my removal or reasons - then please reverse my decision. Thanks and best wishes. --Northmeister 12:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have responded there. Best regards, Tim Smith 06:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Category talk:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_recall/Past_requests[edit]

Category talk:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_recall/Past_requests, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category talk:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_recall/Past_requests and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Category talk:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_recall/Past_requests during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mercury 01:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

RfB questions[edit]

Tim, thanks for your latest round of questions, I almost missed them! I've responded at the RfB. Cheers again. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your insightful questions, I've responded. :) ~ Riana 01:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you two! Tim Smith (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Marilyn vos Savant[edit]

hello. i kinda restored most of the previous copyediting i made to the Marilyn vos Savant article. i think it was a major improvement over what was there, and it now reads easier, with a more formal and encyclopaedic tone. we can discuss the specifics further if you wish. cheers. --emerson7 00:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've replied at the article's talk page; sorry for the delay. Tim Smith (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge[edit]

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [6] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks[edit]

Hello, Epbr123.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. I explained my rationale vis-a-vis A/B OR as clearly as I could, and while I respect your opinion as to its criticality, we will have to agree to disagree as to whether or not it should be a hard stop for opposition :) It should be noted that Avruch, the creator of the cat supported, and Larry, who opposed for other reasons, also felt that category membership should not be a sure oppose. Nevertheless, thank you for your participation., and I look forward to any comments you may have on anyfuture candidacy I may choose to submit. -- Avi (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Avi. (I'm not Epbr123, though...) For me, it is crucial that potential bureaucrats be favorably disposed towards recall. I respectfully disagree with Lar that recall should be voluntary and in fact must be voluntary to work well. I think it should be mandatory, and apply to all administrators, bureaucrats, and other community-selected Wikipedia functionaries. Voluntary recall is unsatisfactory for the simple reason that controversial functionaries can just not volunteer for it. This is a serious and observable deficiency in the current system. In such cases, de-adminship is left to ArbCom, an appointed body which itself consists entirely of administrators.
Granted, the WP:AOR implementation of recall would not work well mandated for every administrator, because it grants recall subjects too much discretion over the process. But other versions of mandatory recall can be devised. Previous attempts to do so have not achieved consensus, however, and for that reason I support the recall categories as a step in the right direction, helping to legitimize the concept and pave the way for a more universal process. Tim Smith (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
(thanks, Tim, for the ping to bring me here) I think that it's not a good thing to hold candidate feet to the fire on this matter. (and that's a bit of a change from a while back, I used to ask in RfAs what candidates thought of it, with the implied subtext that they ought to commit to join...) Why is it not good? Because I'd rather only have people who are willing to be there be in it. The admin category is gradually growing in popularity. I remember when it was 1%... then 2, then 3, then 5 and now I think it's over 10%... 10% is pretty good, and it's enough to make the voices of the reasonable unsuppressable. So I would not oppose for that reason, as I said. Others may differ, of course. ++Lar: t/c 05:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Rick Rossener[edit]

Oops you are absolutely correct. I feel very silly getting the two mixed up. I am going to delete my contribution from the page to remove any potentially libelous content as well as to avoid eternal embarrasment over the confusion. Thanks Again! WesUGAdawg (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Best Wishes for the Holidays, Jusdafax 07:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal[edit]

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

  • gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
  • ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:RecFAs[edit]

Please condense the latest entry, I was too wordy for this particular page. –xenotalk 19:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. I liked your idea of using years as section headings. Tim Smith (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012[edit]

Ichthus dark yellow.png

ICHTHUS

January 2012

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Disambiguation link notification for June 1[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)