User talk:Timeshifter

Please leave a .

	I am one of many editors on full or partial strike until the Wikimedia Foundation deals with editor retention problems: Unchecked abuse by admins, arbitrary guideline interpretation, unresolved content disputes, not enough arbitrators, rude or speedy deletions, etc.. See also.

User:Timeshifter/Userboxes. User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors.
User:Timeshifter/Unresolved content disputes.

AWW DMBJ AWGC AWAI FDSP BATD MTAD This user is a member of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists.

This user is a member of the AWWDMBJAWGCA WAIFDSPBATDMTAD. Unresolved content disputes combined with abusive admins and policies drive away editors and donations. See also. The lack of enough arbitrators (many more are needed) drives away editors and donations. More info. Rude or speedy deletions of articles and categories drive away editors and donations. See also. Non-admin closures of articles and categories drive away editors and donations. See also.

Just another guy with a PC. :)
I support on/off buttons for opt-in ads on a nonprofit Wikipedia for all readers (via cookies).	This user supports integrated, interwiki, global watchlists.	This user is a WikiSloth. 23,000+ This user has made over 23,000 contributions to Wikipedia.

---

I am the proud owner of a TUSC account!

---

Wikipedia and the Commons need more charts and graphs. See: commons:Commons:Chart and graph resources

The United States is the world's leading jailer. Inmates per 100,000 population. See: Incarceration in the United States and List of countries by incarceration rate.

"On June 30, 2006, an estimated 4.8% of black men were in prison or jail, compared to 1.9% of Hispanic men and 0.7% of white men." U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Source.

---

Device to Root Out Evil (1997) sculpture by Dennis Oppenheim at its former location in Vancouver, Canada.

File:Parque de la Memoria - Buenos Aires - Dennis Oppenheim - Monumento al escape.jpg

A statue, Monument to the Escape, by Dennis Oppenheim in Memory Park in Buenos Aires, Argentina. It was dedicated in October 2006. It is a memorial to the victims of the military regime during the Argentine Dirty War, a period of Argentinian state-sponsored violence, disappearances, murder, and torture from 1976 to 1983. Part of Operation Condor. See: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Parque de la Memoria - Buenos Aires - Dennis Oppenheim - Monumento al escape.jpg

For more images like the 2 on the left below see
Commons:Picture of the day.

Centralized discussion
Proposals	Discussions	Recurring proposals
An RfC on the Arbitration Committee and how to deal with good-editing sockpuppets. A new proposal to trial pending changes on wikipedia. RfC on the conflict of interest guideline, as requested by the Arbitration Committee. RfC on adding a more prominent link to Special:MyContributions for IP editors RfC about allowing watchlisting of user contributions Binding community discussion on the Abortion article titles, as requested by the Arbitration Committee. RfC on the proposed cessation of selective delete (other than history merge fixes) and resulting changes to deletion policies, including the removal of a Revision Deletion criterion. RfC on how files from non-copyright states should be treated and used on Wikipedia Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive · talk · edit · history · watch

User talk here is not archived. Old talk is deleted. Users are allowed to remove anything from their talk pages. See WP:TALK and other wikipedia guidelines/policies. Like Wikipedia articles over time, people change, and there is little point in referring to past stale arguments and discussions.

To keep the discussion in one thread some comments added here are moved to the user talk page of the author. I reply there. I also watchlist that talk page for awhile in order to note when the user there replies. Harassing comments are also sometimes moved off this talk page. Sometimes the original author is offended by their own harassing comments, and my reply, on their user talk page. They then remove both from their talk page. I guess the light from their own verbal reflection offends them. One can find removed comments by using the history link on a talk page. Inappropriately-applied warning templates, etc.. are also removed from this talk page. Sometimes I remove stuff from my talk page for no particular reason, or for many varied reasons. Removal of comments from my talk page implies nothing. Don't take it personally. Unless I have requested otherwise, feel free to leave new messages on my talk page.

---

---

---

---

User:Pristino/List of countries by income quintiles of GNI (PPP) per capita

Hi, thanks for your comments. I'm not sure though if I should turn this into a Wikipedia article, as the numbers there are not truly the average income per quintile. If you were able to find that data then it would make a great Wikipedia article. My table is just original research to show how GNI would theoretically be distributed across the population based on current household income distribution patterns. In reality, average household income per capita tends to be much lower than GDP or GNI per capita for reasons that might seem obvious to an economist but that I do not yet understand. Cheers. Pristino (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

American RadioWorks page

Dear Timeshifter,

I noticed the Wikipedia entry for APM's American RadioWorks was up for deletion last year and then there was a debate about whether it should be merged with the APM page. You seem to have a reasonable opinion about this subject. I'm affiliated with American RadioWorks, and not allowed (I don't think) to add anything to the article. But I do have information on what we're up to these days, and wondering how to get an independent wikipedia user to update our entry.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks!

SBP1980 (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC) SBP1980

I replied on your talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Category tree

Template:Category tree has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC on the inclusion of a table comparing SI units and Binary prefixes

Notice: An RFC is being conducted here at Talk:Hard diskdrive#RFC on the use of the IEC prefixes. The debate concerns this table which includes columns comparing SI and Binary prefixes to describe storage capacity. We welcome your input

You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Computing --RaptorHunter (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Drug control history

Category:Drug control history, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Idea

Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/HistoryBioLife. Might need a new name, but check it out... Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Research survey invitation

Greetings Timeshifter-

My name is Randall Livingstone, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Oregon, studying digital media and online community. I am posting to invite you to participate in my research study exploring the work of Wikipedia editors who are members of WikiProject: Countering Systemic Bias. The online survey should take 20 to 25 minutes to complete and can be found here:

https://oregon.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cSHzuwaQovaZ6ss

Your responses will help online communication researchers like me to better understand the collaborations, challenges, and purposeful work of Wikipedia editors like you. In addition, at the end of the survey you will have the opportunity to express your interest in a follow-up online interview with the researcher.

This research project has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Research Committee as well as the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon. For a detailed description of the project, please visit its Meta page. This survey is voluntary, and your confidentiality will be protected. You will have the choice of using your Wikipedia User Name during the research or creating a unique pseudonym. You may skip any question you choose, and you may withdraw at any time. By completing the survey, you are providing consent to participate in the research.

If you have any questions about the study, please contact me via my Talk Page (UOJComm) or via email. My faculty advisor is Dr. Ryan Light. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Randall Livingstone School of Journalism & Communication University of Oregon UOJComm (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Need help

Please see the biography of Bobby Tench. The photo in the infobox needs two things that at present, I can not do. The first is the removal of the watermark, or whatever you call it, of the photographer's copyright logo and name. The other is to move the photo, which is licensed as a CC-BY-SA photo to Commons. I'd really appreciate it if you'd do it or find someone to do it... aside from my other issues I haven't been well lately. Thanks! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Suicide rates

Category:Suicide rates, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:WorldWarII-DeathsByAlliance-Piechart.png

A tag has been placed on File:WorldWarII-DeathsByAlliance-Piechart.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Of interest? Some info about Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin

• User_talk:Geofferybard#Thank_you_Geofferybard_for_your_addition_to_Water_crisis_of_Water_resource_policy
• User_talk:Gabriel_Kielland#thank_you_for_your_contributions_to_Planetary_boundaries
• User_talk:Orangemarlin/Archives_June-July_2011#Given_the_history_.28Special:Contributions.2FArthur_Rubin.29_will_likely_attempt_Edit_warring_with_me.2C_on_Iain_Stewart_.28geologist.29.2C_anything_you_can_do.3F
• User_talk:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris#Anything_to_stop_User:Arthur_Rubin_from_deleting_other.27s_User_Talk.3F
• Seems to have an agenda to hide on Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story. 141.218.36.44 (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• And more ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Addicted_to_oil&diff=449668386&oldid=449655386
• User_talk:Bazonka/Archive_5#Thank_you_Bazonka_for_your_attention_to_Environment_Agency.
• User_talk:Epipelagic#Thank_you_Epipelagic_for_your_attention_to_Planetary_boundaries., also see User_talk:Epipelagic#No_Planetary_boundaries_offense_intending_on_my_part._You_have_done_great_work_there.2C_thank_you.
• User_talk:AstroHurricane001/Archive_57#Thank_you_for_you_attempted_addition_to_Environmental_migrant_of_Bangladesh_-_India_border.2C_agreed_related.3B_but_need_reference.

141.218.36.144 (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Occupy/Indignants protest locations

There were more refs than necessary in the intro. I've kept two (BBC and CNN) that should be enough for verifiability. I've fixed other refs in the article that were damaged by this removal. Pristino (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the BBC and CBS, the 15 October protests were inspired by and called by Spanish protesters, yet you cannot ignore the amplifying power of the "Occupy" New York protests. That's why I've decided to credit both movements in the title, as both seem to have acted as catalysts for protests worldwide. Pristino (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:CITEKILL:

Less is more when it comes to footnotes. Basically, if you can cite it sufficiently in three citations, four and more citations that essentially parrot that information don't necessarily help the cause.

Pristino (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 Global Economic and Democracy Protests

2011 Global Economic and Democracy Protests

What do you think of that name?

I like it, to at least start with. As soon as I get the nod for you, I'll get started on it. I think it is going to take me 2-3 hours to get the article looking reasonable. ;)

Thanks Xacobi (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

RM bot problems

Please join the discussion at User talk:RM bot#RM bot and out-of-process redirections. If you want to talk about the problem with RFC bot, post a comment on User talk:RFC bot. As I haven't tried to invoke the bot, I don't know whether the bot or your invocation is in error. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of "Occupy" protest locations/Table 2

Moved discussion to User talk:Timeshifter/Table 2. Now we have a talk page specific to the tables.

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Cannabis-related films

Category:Cannabis-related films, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Chamber Made blocked

Note: I, Timeshifter, am not involved with any of this. I don't know why the original message ended up here. Moved to User talk:58.108.219.156

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Neda Agha-Soltan

Category:Neda Agha-Soltan, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Timeshifter editwarring. Thank you. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at List of countries by income equality. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Timeshifter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

Active wikipedians, Actual versus Strategy. Active wikipedians contribute 5 times or more in a given month.

I did not edit war. I did not break WP:3RR. In fact the last time I edited the page was over 24 hours after the previous edit. I am the only person currently engaging in constructive discussion. Only one other editor was discussing things presently, and was refusing to discuss my points. This is an arbitrary block, and if it stands I will no longer edit on Wikipedia. I have over 23,000 edits on Wikipedia. I now understand more why so many editors are leaving Wikipedia. See some recent articles on editor retention from some of the latest editions of the signpost: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-02/Interview and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-12-26/Opinion essay. See my userboxes: User:Timeshifter/Userboxes. I have seen completely arbitrary non-admin closures that did not follow Wikipedia guidelines, and were enforced by admins. Then after they were overturned by a deletion review the admins did not revert the changes made by the non-admin closure. See: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 27. I have seen abuse by admins such as my block. The lack of enough arbitrators allows content disputes to continue unresolved, and admin abuse to increase and continue unchecked. Timeshifter (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Although the edit-warring was somewhat minor, as an editor with sooo many edits, you know better. I might have been somewhat more willing to consider unblock until I saw very false claims of "admin abuse" - this block is, indeed, valid and does not appear to be punitive in any manner. Your ultimatums are an unfortunately immature way of dealing with things ("if I don't get my way I'll take my ball and go home"). I'm a huge proponent of editor retention, but only the editors who recognize that the rules apply to them as well (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you abuse this procedure by making too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page as long as you are blocked.

This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Timeshifter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

Basically I am being blocked because I called admin abuse what it is: "abuse". So having an opinion is now a reason to be blocked. It seems that the rules are whatever admins decide they are. And you wonder why so many editors are leaving. As to "the rules apply to them as well." I see that the rules do not apply to admins, as in punitive blocks for having an opinion. My decision to go on strike, if it happens, is not an "immature way of dealing with things." That is you being insulting because you think that having the admin tin-star (the sheriff) gives you a free pass to be insulting. See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. My decision will be a logical decision based on the accumulation of abuse by admins I see lately throughout Wikipedia. Such as "Although the edit-warring was somewhat minor" you go ahead and enforce a block. Well, the accusation of edit warring is false, and even if it is minor as you say, you did not address the specific points I made above in my first unblock request. Please see info below, too. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you had simply agreed to stop the edit warring (yes, you were edit warring, because multiple editors disagreed with you, using policy-compliant reasons), you could probably have been unblocked. But your unblock requests fall entirely under WP:NOTTHEM. Note that, after your block expires, if you start edit warring on that article again, you'll probably get blocked again. Take this time to figure out which form of dispute resolution you plan to pursue upon returning, and remind yourself that edit warring is never good (even if you're certain you're right). There is no abuse here, merely an admin exercising their community given ability to decide what is and what is not edit warring--a decision which appears to be entirely accurate to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you abuse this procedure by making too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page as long as you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Timeshifter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

Qwyrxian, you are the first admin to actually try to describe specifically how I edit warred: "multiple editors disagreed with you, using policy-compliant reasons." The fact is that those policy compliant reasons did not apply. The reason of not meeting WP:NPOV was removed by the last editor to disagree with me. He did not use that reason. It was obviously a ridiculous reason because how can the statistics info in question have a POV. He also did not claim the initial reason (WP:Undue weight) in his last comment. The person who was making the undue weight argument stopped participating in the discussion. It was a ridiculous reason anyway after the info was shortened to 3 or 4 lines. The last reason was "Do you understand that this article is a list article? An article whose purpose it is to contain a list?" That was not a "policy-compliant reason". That was a rhetorical question, and the editor ignored my twice-repeated question about: "It is common in lists and tables to inform the readers of the margins of error, the missing data, etc.. I can show you many examples." I asked twice, he continued to ignore me. I waited a reasonable period of time, and returned the info. That is not edit warring. That is a content dispute. The most that should have been done is page protection. You know, I see now why so many editors are leaving Wikipedia. Edit warring accusations and blocks are completely arbitrary in many cases. I can see why admins may be hesitant to impose page protection. But blocks for such a vague guideline as WP:Edit warring are worse. There is a simple solution. Instead of blocking someone an admin could leave a warning on the talk page of the editor(s) saying that no more reversions will be allowed at all. Then the editor knows that WP:3RR is not the guideline being used. A warning by an admin is enforceable, and therefore will be respected. A warning by other editors is oftentimes just harassment, and subject to the understanding, or lack of understanding, of the guidelines by the editor leaving the warning. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

OK, I'll unblock on the grounds that this was due to unfamiliarity with the edit-warring guidelines. But please have a read of WP:EW, and don't revert the removal of any additions you make without discussing it and getting a consensus on the talk page first - even being right is not a justification for edit-warring -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

You were not blocked for violation of WP:3RR, you were blocked for violation of WP:EW (where it says "The three revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three revert rule, or even coming close to doing so"). There is no right to 3RR, and edit-warring in general is not restricted to a 24 hour period - that is, you can be considered to be edit-warring with fewer than 3 reverts, or with reverts spread over a longer period than 24 hours -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It is an arbitrary rule, made more arbitrary by admins such as yourself. My last block was almost 5 years ago. You also ignored what I wrote. I also further edited what I added to the page. The person kneejerk-reverted what I wrote each time, and ignored my attempts at discussion by not responding to my latest points. So according to admins such as yourself content disputes spread over weeks (a common occurrence) can be called edit wars by any admin. Even when the material in question has been edited down to 4 lines from around 8 lines, and multiple changes made over those weeks. That is the definition of arbitrary. Here is the diff of when the info was first added November 8, 2011 by an anonymous IP. Note the length of the info at that time. I shortened it gradually, hardly edit warring. By the way, I am an admin/bureaucrat on Wikia and so I am not impressed just because someone is an admin. I am only impressed by non-arbitrary guidelines and admins that respect them. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Re "Instead of blocking someone an admin could leave a warning on the talk page of the editor(s) saying that no more reversions will be allowed at all. Then the editor knows that WP:3RR is not the guideline being used." As you've been here for 5 years and have been blocked for edit-warring before, I would hope you were already aware of that.

Re "A warning by an admin is enforceable, and therefore will be respected". Admins have no seniority at all when it comes to warnings - they're just as valid from anyone -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I am saying that concerning WP:Edit warring admin warnings should have seniority since WP:Edit warring is so vague. I was last blocked for WP:3RR. That was in 2007. I was also blocked for "revert warring" in some cases before that but the technical reason in those cases was listed as WP:3RR. Here is a handy link to my block log for those who need it quickly. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Editor retention

Here is discussion about editor retention: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-02/Interview. It links to other threads, too. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

	I am one of many editors on full or partial strike until the Wikimedia Foundation deals with editor retention problems: Unchecked abuse by admins, arbitrary guideline interpretation, unresolved content disputes, not enough arbitrators, rude or speedy deletions, etc.. See also.

So, you're on strike until your block expires. How convenient. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I might just edit on the Commons for awhile. And talk pages about editor retention and admin abuse. Hey, you're an admin. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 27. Maybe you can return those categories back to the way they were before they were incorrectly renamed according the deletion review. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting problem. Looking only at the deletion review, there's no reason to revert to the status quo ante when there was a supermajority in favor of the renames, even if there wasn't a consensus; it's quite probable that the relisting would result in the rename being approved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You need to read the deletion review again. For example; this comment by Jenks24: "Although I think there was consensus for the "Death-related art" categories (and, if possible, they should not be relisted), I do not think there was consensus for the others ("(X)-related songs", "Race-related works", "Cancer-related works", "Category:Drug-related works", "Category:Adoption-related works") where the only two commentators are the nominator and the opposer (Timeshifer), and both have reasonable arguments (i.e. neither !vote should be discounted by the closer)."

So there was no "supermajority in favor of the renames." --Timeshifter (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Was it relisted? If it was, restoring the status quo ante shouldn't be done until that result is established? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is it that a non-admin closer gets to decide category names, and it does not go back automatically to the original category names? The deletion review said it was a bad close. This is an example of abuse of guidelines that frustrates editors. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights, December 2011

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for December 2011, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement

• Wikimedia Foundation Highlights
  • Visual editor prototype
  • Fundraiser ends with record-breaking donations
  • Annual Report published, for the first time with translations
  • Collaborative drafting process for Terms of Use update completed
• Data and Trends
• Financials
• Other movement highlights
  • Winter picture of Chiajna Monastery wins Wiki Loves Monuments
  • German chapter announces winners of free knowledge project contest
  • GLAMcamp Amsterdam discusses cultural collaborations

Read these Wikimedia Highlights in full · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 02:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Volume I, Issue III February 2012 Front cover | Feature | News and announcements | Humor | Want ads To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page. ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.

Wikimedia Highlights, January 2012

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for January 2012, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement

• Wikimedia Foundation Highlights
  • Foundation supports historic anti-SOPA Wikipedia blackout
  • San Francisco Hackathon
  • Mobile announcements: Official Android app, and Orange partnership for free Wikipedia access in Africa/Middle East
• Data and Trends
• Financials
• Other movement highlights
  • RecentChangesCamp2012
  • The Netherlands' oldest museum starts editing challenge
  • Zagreb trip explores future Croatian chapter
  • Australian Paralympic Committee and Wikimedia chapter send "Wikimedians to the Games"
  • First "Public Domain Day" celebration in France

About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 02:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar

Hei Timeshifter, I've found your userboxes and just wanted to thank you for that (also on Meta and not only here). I'm now using some of them also, here and on Meta, cause I don't bear German Wikipedia any longer at the time, and don't like to edit there anymore and therefore, I try to edit there as few as I can (so I don't have a home wiki any longer). Don't know if the Foundation possibly can do anything about these Community problems especially on all the big wikis (en, de, es, pt, …), but they have the money to spend for better arbitration processes and basic discussions on- and off-wiki, for analysis of the whole situation and for professionals who could help with the conflicts. I think it's getting worse all the time. If there's not going to be done anything about it soon, then even more people will go away. Right now, I'm watching out for other wikis, and it seems to me that the situation is better on much smaller wikis. For that purpose, it would be great to have an integrated, interwiki, global watchlist, where I could switch off the German Wikipedia (with that wiki, the global watchlist would be fully unuseable for me – it's too big to use or edit and I don't want to use it anymore). Do you think it could be possible some day to use such a global watchlist and switch off any wiki you want by default? Perhaps, it would be an idea to discuss very basic things at Meta multilingually (how to interact with other persons in a polite way, especially in situations where the positions are very controverse, and what to do, if someone doesn't …) to put forward new ideas to change interaction behaviour basically (i.g. especially in deletion processes/discussions, …). But on Meta, there will never be such a discussion with more than just the English community taking part most of the time, if there won't be paid professionals who care about translating comments into other languages and back into English (at least for the languages of the bigger communities and for such basic discussions), so it would be possible for more people of other communities to participate in Meta discussions who don't have en-5, en-4 or en-3 (en-2 just isn't enough to participate in difficult, long English-only discussions). There should also be put more money in developing new features for better, multilingual communication on Meta (and Commons, …). There still are basic problems with that, and I don't see any change for that in the future, if there ain't no will to improve that. Enough written for now, just a bit feedback for you and input for further discussions anywhere. ;-) Greetings Geitost 03:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. And you are welcome concerning the userboxes. There are working interwiki watchlist addons here and here. They both need much more work. See their talk pages. You can only really know if they meet your needs by trying them out in my opinion. The volunteer working on them could probably use more feedback, too. As for languages on Meta, the Commons, etc. I agree there is a lot of work to do.

If you want to participate in some starting attempts to deal with arbitration, admins, etc. you might comment at this discussion I started: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#A noticeboard about rude, abusive, or policy-abusing admins. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I should try the watchlists (and first take a look at them) and see if one of these addons fits (hopefully better than nothing at all). ;-) And I'll take a look at the village pump (but I don't know much about the specific en.wiki editors problems by now, cause I'm not that often here). --Geitost 23:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an honor for me:

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		You know, aside from wanting you to know I strongly supported your idea for an admin complaint board, I strongly support your whole philosophy. A huge problem here is the ignoring of content dispute plus admins who will not get involved in anything. Much of the opposition to your board proposition are childish whiners, I noticed. They claim a new notice board will decrease editing time. Don't let them get you down with such fallacious 'reasoning'. Keep at it! Godspeed, and drop me a line anytime.--Djathinkimacowboy 14:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! It has been a learning experience. That is for sure. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Timeshifter - I love that name. What is interesting is I've been on a similar crusade for a while. Your views are spot-on and it is somewhat disappointing to see how few agree with us on these issues.

I have a particular problem with admins saying, "I don't do this, I don't do that," as if it were dereliction of duty. An admin of limited knowledge or one specifically oriented I can understand, but every admin, every time? When there's content dispute, or a disagreement between editors of other sorts- admins vanish.

You're right: editors are fleeing Wikipedia in anger. I was almost one of them and I saw some good ones simply leave. You know, I have started a couple of proposals that fell though, one close to yours but I never thought of an admin complaint board.

They didn't even bother to laugh at me- they just didn't reply or comment or vote. You know one thing that is a surefire killer? When admins cover the malfeasances of certain editors at the expense of everyone else. That is their biggest offense.--Djathinkimacowboy 16:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the groupthink is one of the biggest problems. That is one reason I want a separate noticeboard for admin problems. Groupthink will be more obvious to everyone on such a dedicated noticeboard. Therefore, there will be less and less of the kneejerk "admins-rarely-do-wrong" groupthink there over time. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to have to point out: the 'admins can do no wrong' mentality is already showing at the proposal page. Though as I said over there, I think the village pump is a joke anyway. Only take it seriously because of the few admins who may actually think about proposals made there. Another thing I advise: admins are only editors with a few more buttons. Oh, they have it sweet here, my friend. Few will support anything that jeopardises that.--Djathinkimacowboy 16:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I came here to say, I think it is possible that in about a month's time (hopefully less!) I think they may go for your idea. I wish you the best in this endeavour. I REALLY want to see it become a reality. It occurs to me that editors being able to defend themselves with a simple warning to an admin about going to the board is good. We have so many ANI threats, and threads, have you noticed? And they get nowhere fast. Your idea has got to win the day.--Djathinkimacowboy 16:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that WP:ANI threats, and threads, do little to deal with the overall problem. Mostly because there is no overall goal of accountability of admins. Also, there is no archive just for ANI threads concerning admins. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)