User talk:Bigtimepeace

Archives

1751—April 2008 May 1, 2008—May 23, 2009 May 23, 2009—January 5, 2010

In the interest of keeping conversations in one place, if you leave me a message here I will reply here (and possibly on your page as well if it's an urgent matter). Likewise if I have left a message on your talk page, I will check back for a reply.

Excellent ...

rag mana - Excuse my delayed response — never heard of "rag mana" before (have now LoL will learn today). I don't yet know if you win or not, but that was an excellent rhetorical move. Bravo. -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 20:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, but unfortunately I only make 2-3 excellent rhetorical moves per calendar year (that's if I'm lucky!), and I'm a bit disappointed to have used one so quickly in 2010. I was hoping to save all of them for my upcoming appearance on the soon-to-be-a-disastrous-failure reality television show Americas's Got Excellent (Rhetorical) Moves. Shit...I think I just wasted another one. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

ROFL! (yep, you sure did!!! That's three asterisks.) ... Still haven't had time to figure out if you won yet ... But I'll figure it out eventually. [Busy delightful day today.] :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 02:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Related aside: Practice for reality show? :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 02:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

... fear ore prod 77

..fear ore prod ...

Tell me about ore? (infinite possibilities LoL) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 21:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Films about suburbia

I have nominated Category:Films about suburbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Ikip 03:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello. Would you be so kind as to revisit an article you had been involved in the past? We are having some problems and going back in the history I see these are some old problems that were solved before. There is one editor who you worked out some agreement about the use of some references that is a point of contention again. I think if you can review the situation, you would be best able to help sort out the conflict we are having with this one editor. The article in question is Mao The Unknown Story. Thank you.76.14.42.191 (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Currently it's you and me. John Smith's (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Ihaveteeth.

Please block this user, his IP and his sockpuppet account. He is trying to get more views for his stupid YouTube video. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The sock was already blocked for a week by another admin and I won't mess with that for now, but I have blocked Ihaveteeth. indefinitely. The IP does not appear to be doing anything right now so let's just leave that alone, but if it crops up again just report it to WP:AIV. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I would have brought it to WP:SPI but the user was editing too quickly and I could not take the time to start up an investigation. Thanks again, Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Pssst

Seems like a good DYK candidate. Grsz¹¹ 04:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought about that, though I once nominated a "current events" article for DYK and was told it would be better for "in the news." I've already nominated one Haitian-related article for DYK, but I might see if the editor who significantly expanded National Palace (Haiti) would be interested in nominating it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Haiti Palace Destruction

Per your concern re OR: the photographs I have examined have been posted on the news blogs of The New York Times (which I cited originally). Further photographs were posted today on the New York Times, showing the damage from a different angle. I also have looked at Reuters images as well as well Agence-France Press images. No OR has been done, ie seeking out unofficial images not posted on official news sites. By comparing these approximately 12 photographs, it is clear that the three rear wings of the palace still appear, in some sections, to contain uncollapsed sections of second floor. Therefore it seems best to err on the side of caution, ie stating that some sections of the second floor have been fully collapsed, not that ALL the second floor has collapsed.Kitchawan (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The two Times references you removed showed clear photographs of the damage to the National Palace. Since it a blog and the individual sections of that blog cannot be cited clearly, one must go to the blog and scroll down to the located the time entry about that damage and the photographs of that damage.Kitchawan (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I might have missed something, but a search of the blog entries did not reveal any text about the palace. Daily blog entries on the NYT do have specific links, so you should be able to direct me right to the appropriate link that discusses the palace if I indeed missed it.

As to the photos, there might just be a policy misunderstanding here. My concern is with original research, and what you are doing in terms of the photos is indeed that. Namely, we cannot simply look at a photograph, draw a conclusion about it, and then put that conclusion in an article. This is a textbook case of original research and is not appropriate, particularly when drawing extremely specific conclusions. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so we do not do our own primary research (as an historian or journalist might) and then publish the results. For the most part we only report what secondary sources say. What we need in order to describe the damage of the palace is some secondary source—a newspaper or magazine account for example—that details the way in which the building was damaged. This might not exist right now, in which case we will just have to wait. What we absolutely cannot do is say "you can tell what's going on from these photos, just look at them" and then put that in the text. This is a pretty firm rule. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this not however an obvious visual statement, ie the White House is painted white? News organization photographs make it clear as to the damage inflicted. Perhaps it would be best to delete any and all specific mention of the damage that has occurred in favor of a simple "seriously damaged" and let the posted photograph tell the rest.Kitchawan (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not nearly as obvious as "the White House is painted white." The phrasing I removed was "with its attic story and most of its second floor fully collapsing into the first," which is not I think something that can automatically be inferred from the photograph. I fully agree that simply saying "seriously damaged" (adding "partially collapsed" is probably okay too, as I'm certain the word "collapsed" has been used in news reports) and letting readers look at the photo is the way to go for now. Eventually we'll have exact information explaining precisely what happened to the palace and what will be done about it, it's just that we might have to wait. It's obvious from the article text and the photo that the building is in dire straights, but we can't provide the full info at this point. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Syrians

FYI, I left a message for you on my talk page re use of term Syrians. The immigrants then actually were "Syrians" in the sense of citizenship. Lebanon was then part of the French Mandate of Syria and the people born there were Syrian by nationality. Should the sentence you added to Cincinnatus Leconte be adjusted slightly to reflect this or have it merely footnoted? Syrian wasn't just a general Haitian term for people from the Middle East; it is what those people had on their passports as their country of origin. I have seen the passports and visas of Lebanese friends' grandparents and great-grandparents and their passports call them Syrian. And they never went anywhere near Haiti. This use of the word Syrian was also explained to me i an interview I had with Najeeb Halaby, the father of Queen Noor of Jordan; his family was the same, Lebanese Christian by culture and geography but Syrian by nationality, thanks to the French Mandate of Syria.Kitchawan (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just going off what the article by Plummer said, which is the main source for the entire bit about Syrians. She said "most of them were not true Syrians, but Lebanese Christians...Haitians and others commonly called them Syrians, however, and made no distinction among people of Middle Easter origin." I don't see a reason to not believe Plummer (she is well regarded as a historian) but I should probably shorten that a bit and leave out the part about Syrian being a general word for Middle Easterners. The imperial policies in the Middle East (or anywhere else) do not necessarily define one's background—i.e. just because the French say you are "Syrian" and put that on your passport does not mean that you don't identify as a Lebanese Christian. I think we should stick with what Plummer says since she is the main source on this, and since if we do not say that readers will assume they were "from Syria" which is simply not correct. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Plummer the sole authority on this? Just wondering if he can be challenged in any way by anyone else, say Edward Said's work on the subject. Also According to New York Times reports of the day, the Syrian community took their grievances to the American consulate and threw themselves, as a community, under its protection.Kitchawan (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Also I guess all I'm trying to point out, re Syrians, is that whatever country they immigrated to, they would have been commonly described as Syrians for their country of origin. I'm just hopeful that would be made perfectly clear, either in a footnote or in actual text.Kitchawan (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Plummer is definitely not the sole authority (it's Brenda and therefore a "she"), but it's the source we have right now. I'm not sure what Said has to do with this, I doubt he wrote much of anything about Middle Easterners in Haiti. You might want to look at the recent edit I made and see if it works for you. Basically I just said they were called "Syrians" but were actually Lebanese Christians without explaining why—I think the why is too much info for a bio article on a Haitian president, but would be it great for the article Middle Easterners in Haiti or something similar. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

New York Times citations removed/National Palace Haiti

"a low straggling house" whose rooms were "pretty and decorated à la française" ...two of the 19th-century NYTimes citations you removed are the sources for the quotations cited here ... now the quotations don't have references. Would you please put them back?Kitchawan (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're confusing references here. The source removal I did happened in this edit, which were two recent NYT sources about the earthquake. I'm pretty certain I did not remove any 19th century NYT articles, and indeed what you are looking for seems to be there in footnotes 11 and 12. Let me know if I'm missing something. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I just added the two back; one from 1900, once from much earlier. all set!Kitchawan (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

They were probably just lost in the shuffle. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day NYC

Wikipedia 9th birthday coin

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA/2

Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! --Jayron32 01:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

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

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

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your PROD Proposal at ANI

Hi Bigtimepeace. In your proposal you say, “unreferenced BLPs cannot be removed until the article is adequately referenced.” [Italics added.] The way that reads, it suggests that merely moving an article from a state of {{Unreferenced BLP}} to a state of {{Refimprove BLP}} would not be sufficient since, by definition, an article with {{Refimprove BLP}} is not adequately referenced.

Later, you use the word properly, which again suggests that the article must be better than {{Refimprove BLP}}.

With either wording, that would require all BLPs with either {{Unreferenced BLP}} or {{Refimprove BLP}} to be PRODed and deleted in one week. Is that your intention? Thanks for any clarification you can give! — SpikeToronto 08:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

My intention would be for only unreferenced BLPs to be deleted, though the definition of "unreferenced" would sometimes be up for debate. For example if there are two terrible references added to "save" a prodded article, that may still count for some as "unreferenced." On the ANI thread User:Sandstein suggested the the following language be added: "in the event of any disagreement about whether an article is adequately referenced, it shall be referred to AfD." I think that makes sense. What this change would let us do is delete a ton of unreferenced BLPs where no one is willing or able to provide sources and where there's really no dispute about that. If there's a question about whether something "makes the grade" in terms of sourcing I think going to AfD is the right way to go. I don't think articles that have the "refimprove" tag should be included in this proposal and language I tried adding to the policy page (which was reverted) did express that. Hope that answers your question, I'll be going offline soon but can followup tomorrow if need be. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You have clarified it, thank you. As I said, I think a bulk way of dealing with unsourced BLPs is a grand idea, especially when there are 50,000+ of them, but not if it sweeps up under-sourced BLPs in the net, and not if it is done outside of policy. I also think that Sandstein’s corollary — go to AfD if there is doubt — really fleshes out your proposal. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 08:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Rollback request

Hi! :) Wondering if you can provide me with rollback privileges? I am getting increasingly annoyed with having to manually revert vandalism and non-productive edits, and I saw your name on the list of admins willing to grant rollback privileges. I appreciate you help. By the way, I've been an editor since 2004. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 02:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think you can be trusted so I've granted you rollback. Just be sure to read through WP:ROLL, especially when to use and not use. Usually you'll just want to use this for overt vandalism, not edits that are merely "non-productive" in some sense. As the guideline says you should err on the side of caution and not use the rollback button if it's unclear whether or not it's appropriate. Happy vandal fighting. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for granting me rollback, and thanks for the advice! Cheers. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 13:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

PROD

I fully endorse some sort of solution, but asserting that there's consensus for what is being inserted into PROD is entirely false. I would have no trouble throwing my support behind something like what is being proposed at WP:Deletion_of_unreferenced_BLPs. Having clear, direct policy is what I care about and cramming in a poorly thought out stop-gap just to have something there isn't helpful, in my opinion. But do whatever the fuck you want. I'm tired of trying to improve this place. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I support WP:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs too—I think it's better than my original proposal on WT:PROD though I'm also fine with the latter. So it seems like we're in agreement, and if consensus develops for that former alternative I'll undo the change to WP:PROD myself. I have no idea why you feel the need to get hostile. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Just frustrated. Just seems like every time I try to make a return to Wikipedia, I get caught up in some bullshit drama where people act in the heat of the moment instead of taking some time to actually stop and craft some well written policy. Not that different from real life, really. Poorly written policies inevitably have unintended consequences, and I do think that it is poorly written. I would have liked the oppotunity to at least discuss the wording that was being inserted. Wikipedia policies have an inordinate amount of momentum. If you can get something into the policy, for a couple days or more, it'll suddenly become etched in stone and changing it becomes very difficult, regardless of how much or how little support it had. That's why I prefer to get it right the first time. But I seem to be alone on that point. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with you, but this is a peculiar circumstance where acting quickly is almost required. The ArbCom motion (which I agree with in spirit, but which I think faltered severely by not formally enjoining deleting admins to chill for awhile) basically gave a license to admins to delete unsourced BLPs at will, which is extremely unfortunate given that there are useful discussions happening about how to fix the problem in a more organized fashion. The deleting admins have argued that nothing will change, so by actually coming up (quickly) with an approach that is a positive change we remove any reason for them to be doing deletions. As I said somewhere else, to someone of your view this would probably seem like (and be) a fait accompli but it's just sort of where we are right now. I think they key now is to kick start some sort of process for dealing with with the unreferenced BLPs and then tweak it as we go. For all of the vitriol in the discussions, I think most parties are a lot close than they think, so that actually might not be that hard. Also my apologies if my original comment to you on your talk page was too harshly worded as was probably the case. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

CoM

You're probably aware that just shortly after his RFC was closed CoM was blocked for the same kind of behavior that was laid out there. Also I could've commented in the RFC directly as an involved party I chose not to do so but rather gave him some kind of slack (on the RFC's talk page) as he pretty much stopped his behavior in question [I don't count little slips]. The closure statement of the RFC makes clear, that he is a good and valuable contributor when not in a "misbehaving mood" (as I would call it) and I agree, yet it seems to me that he thinks that this gives him a free-card to "crap-around-as-long-as-his-article-work-compensates-for-it". I have no clue what steps can and/or should be taken or if they're possible already in work. Just getting out my thoughts on this. Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk)

Actually I did not know that but I'll take a look at the situation at some point I suppose. I'll be out for the evening within the hour and probably won't have much to add if a block has already occurred, but obviously if the problems continue something will have to be done. The RfC was useful in that regard in at least establishing the pattern and the fact that a lot of people have a problem with it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh? You really didn't know? Not trying to be a smartass but you should pay more attention to RFC's you've started even if they take about 4 weeks to get at least some result.  ;) BTW, the block he got wasn't imposed because of his RFC (I don't think the blocking admin is even aware of this) so that is on of the reasons I thought to give you a heads-up; And as it turned out, it was a good idea. Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny, but as I'm going over responses from comments I posted today I came to this one where CoM is commenting on a post I made on Grundle's page and I didn't mentioned him at all over there as he had nothing to do with it, till now of course and by his own choice. Guess there might be even more to come, just having a hard time catching up with "crap". So anyways, cheers and have a good night, best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC) PS: I made clear to CoM that as long as he doesn't comment on me I will not "bother" him on his talk page and this was our last talk page "conversation" we had besides one at Obama's talk (I guess) which was on subject. Anyways, on one side I couldn't care less but on the other side he's going on and on with the same behavior and not only "trying" to attack me but pretty much every editor HE doesn't agree with, although he usually tries to "tweak" it[his favorite word] to the opposite and his favor.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually after looking at it I don't think I would have blocked C of M for making that comment, which is not to say it was acceptable (it wasn't), just that he should have been told to knock it off first and then probably blocked if he didn't. It's obviously problematic behavior though. And I must say that your behavior on Grundle's talk page was quite problematic as well. Obviously you two disagree and don't get along super well, so pestering him about a link he left on someone else's talk page (whether or not it's offensive, I did not watch the video) is a pretty terrible idea. You might want to try disengaging from C of M and Grundle completely, because frankly the latter would have cause to say that you were harassing him on his talk page (also, as I've had cause to say recently, telling another editor they don't or can't read is basically always a bad idea and sounds more like a way to pick a fight than have a serious conversation). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

1. I already disengaged from CoM 99.9% a while ago and I couldn't care less about him.
2. I won't disengage from Grundle and I shouldn't (unless he tells me to do so) as there is no real problem from my side and I think neither from his side. Sure, my last posts at his talk page weren't phrased in a very polite way but those had nothing to do with "the other editor" and if Grundle has a problem with it he will let me know and I will respect it.
3. You sure got the wrong picture about what I wrote and my intent was but that was my mistake as I didn't lay it out as I could and should've. All I really meant to tell you was to give you an update about an issue you might be interested since you're involved [bc of the RFC]. My apologies for that.

I could say more but I leave it there since less is usually more. One last thing though: I didn't contact you as an admin but as an editor who might want to know about something going on (at the time).

Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's fine, there was no problem with letting me know about the C of M situation. And if Grundle doesn't care about you writing pointed barbs at his talk page then I guess it's okay (kinda), but it just struck me as a completely unconstructive form of communication, and sometimes when editors leave notes like that it means they need to take a break from interacting with the other person. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was "a completely unconstructive form of communication" and I did take a brake from his talk page and not only because of the week-end  :) . Hope I cleared some more .... out. ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• (Might fit into the "Related" section below too but I'll keep it here for the flow.)

BTW: There you go. Slapstick as pure as it gets [I've quit watching the show at 23.08. Have fun making it your problem if you choose so or even better, just enjoy the soap opera as I do [pay attention to the re-factoring and his response when ask to provide diffs]. Isn't it funny? Well, if not for you then still for me *LOL*. And no, no response to me from your side expected or needed. Just writing and sharing for fun. Sincerely, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Related

The new battleground. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to not getting involved with any of that! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For sourcing restored articles Thomas T. Matteson, Leo A. Berg, and Guðmundur Gunnarsson. Thanks! Milowent (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for the barnstar! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice work

Great to see some proper attention being given to "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense". Cheers,  Skomorokh  19:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I might try to do a bit more at some point (the article would probably be best served by including reactions to the essay from prominent modern philosophers), but at least I was able to add in the bit about "Truth and Lies" influence on postmodern thought, which is usually the way it's talked about. Though it's far afield from what I do now, I studied Nietzsche pretty intensely as an undergrad and have always meant to do some work on articles about his thought. Lots of serious Nietzsche scholars don't care much for "Truth and Lies" (and it's definitely nowhere near his best work), but it's still an interesting and fairly accessible essay. It seems that the article had been filled with a bunch of OR in the past. In a similar vein I recently had to strip out a large essay someone stuck in our article on Fear and Trembling. Apparently encountering these 19th century semi-existentialist thinkers leads a lot of folks to want to write their own essays in Wikipedia article space, though I guess in a way that's encouraging in the grand scheme of things! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Very true, that. I too recall encountering "Truth and Lies" as an undergrad, and having my confidently rationalist education quite shaken by its epistemological novelty. If you're ever inclined to put some serious effort towards getting one of these articles up to scratch do drop me a note; Kierkegaard has looked rather lonely for quite a while.  Skomorokh  19:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Will definitely do that if I ever decide to put in some heavier work, obviously our coverage of philosophy is less than stellar, to say the least. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Cincinnatus Leconte

On January 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cincinnatus Leconte, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible "Family of Andrew Jackson" page

I carried out the merge of Andrew Jackson, Sr. to Andrew Jackson before reading your comment at Talk:Andrew Jackson, Sr. I'm sorry for any apparent slight of your opinion; I have made further comments at that talk page.

I have begun a discussion at Talk:Elizabeth Hutchinson Jackson on the possibility of creating a Family of Andrew Jackson page. Your opinions are most welcome at that discussion. Cnilep (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and no problem in terms of doing the merge, it was the outcome of the AfD. I'm responding over on the talk page now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

BLPs

How exactly are you dealing with the various problems? It would be useful to know. Gatoclass (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

For example, I don't want to be trying to reference articles that someone has already been unable to ref. Don't you have a page to co-ordinate the activities of people trying to clean up the backlog? I think you could use one. Gatoclass (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree, and I answered here in greater detail just so it would be on a page that more people would read. Speaking just for myself, any of the unreferenced BLPs I did anything with I logged here (whether I could reference them or not). If I could not reference something I put it up for deletion, and probably that should be the standard in any coordinated cleanup effort (assuming the editor who looked at the article really made an effort to add references and simply could not, or otherwise felt the article does not warrant inclusion given our policies). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Nexx page

Hi there! Having noticed that I had a message here on wikipedia, and then finding out that the Nexx page was removed, I'm writing this now. I am in no way affiliated with Nexx nor have I any sort of connection with the company, its owners, relatives, friends or foes. I am a motorcycle user and regular member of a few internet forums on scooters, and decided to create the Nexx wikipage based on the fact that it it a popular brand here in Portugal, and that has managed to make its products well known abroad, and had no wikipage. Being an avid wikipedia user, and because I do tend to create pages of things that I'm interested in, decided to create one for Nexx.

Although sad to see it deleted, I can understand the views you might have had on rule infringment, and thus can only ask you to allow me to re-write it on a neutral point of view, as I have no interest in the brand other than the fact that it is a sucessful company from my Contry, and would like to see it having a wikipedia page. The portuguese page, that I have also written at the same time, is still online, from which I can see as a possible error from my side some unintentional language use that was not neutral enough. In-apt (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Best Regards Pedro

Hi Pedro, what I've done is userfied the deleted page such that it now appears out of article space and in your userspace at User:In-apt/Nexx. This will give you the chance to work on it, writing the article from a neutral point of view. Be sure to remove some of the more advertorial sounding language, for example phrases like "trendy and popular line of motorcycle helmets" and "an innovative and quality-oriented brand" as those are part of the reason why this was deleted. You also need to make sure that you can find reliable secondary sources which discuss this company/brand (it's actually not clear if the article is about the company Nexxpro, Lda, or their "Nexx" brand and that probably needs to be clarified—I'm guessing the former makes more sense). This obviously means sources beyond the company's web site. The second source cited might be an example of that but I'm not sure if it's reliable and neutral, and you'll need more than that.

Assuming you are able to rewrite the article and source it to at least some degree, we can probably move it back into the article space (though it's still possible someone will challenge its notability as a topic). If you do end up working on this, maybe drop me a note when you're done and I'll come take a quick look before you consider moving it back to a live article. Hope this helps and let me know if you have any questions. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Political candidates

Hi there. I noticed you participated in the Articles for Deletion discussion for Graham Jones (politician). I have started a discussion regarding a consensus position for candidates in legislative elections (by way of amending WP:POLITICIAN, in case you are interested in putting forward your views there. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Chill out dude

C'mon BTP, you are taking things a little too personally here.[1] I think User:Geo Swan tends to "think out-loud" via his keyboard and gets to rambling a lot, and there's nothing terribly wrong with that, as once in a rare while I imagine he stumbles upon something profound, just not in the example you replied to, of course. Oftentimes besides, editors who want to have the last word might have nothing left relevant to say and might just say something just to say something purely off the top of their heads, which is probably all that prompted Geo's musings on academia. As an editor who has flown off the handle myself now and again due to getting just a tad over invested, my sage advice is you shouldn't let such ramblings get to you on some visceral level. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm done with the discussion, and a one-off comment would not have been a problem, but being accused (without any justification) of wanting to whitewash articles about WWII internment camps (???) and then accused of somehow lording status as a grad student over other editors is not something which I can abide. Possibly GS doesn't even realize comments like that are rather disruptive to a discussion, and calling them on it seemed to me to be a good idea. In any case I've said my piece. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, he specifically said on the WWII thing, that "I am not trying to put words in your mouth." Of course, to take a literal reading, he went on to do just that, but you might want to consider that English possibly isn't this chap's first language, and he might be using the accusative case by default to simply try and get a more general point across (there's technically no plural of "you" in English). I dunno, try reading what he wrote again in a funny accent and see if it's still that bad. On top of that, his talk page is stuffed with endless prod's, many of which are extremely dubious, imo, so he's probably a little frustrated and paranoid. I'm working on a note to him too. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Lies and abuse

You know you've promised to disengage from me several times now BTP. Yet you're still coming after me. YOU were the one who launched that RfC bullshit and you've never once addressed any of the abuse I've suffered by Tarc and others.

In fact, the AGW article space is similar to the Obama dispute. We have abusive administrators pushing their point of view and going after those they disagree with. Remember how Reverend Wright was removed completely along with anything else controversial? How when Obama's lack of foreign policy experience was an issue every leader he'd ever shook hands with got added? I remember. I remember how you and your ilk turned the article into unencyclopedic spam.

And stop lying about me and what I've said. I did not "disregard" or whatever word you used the RfC YOU initatiated to pursue me. I acknowledged I'm not perfect, but tried to put it in context. And I pointed out the many comments identifying problems with the actions of other editors. These were WHOLLY IGNORED in the closing. Funny thing that.

I'd like to tell you what I think of you, but I'd most certainly be blocked for it. But obviously promising something repeatedly and then violating those promises repeatedly makes you big fat liar, does it not? I have no interest in interacting with abusive, disruptive, or dishonest admins. Your utter disregard for keeping your word and your contempt for appropriate conduct is disgusting and despicable. I can't stop anyone for blocking me for having the audacity to point out the truth. You and I know what it is, and it's much harsher than what I've layed out here. You should be ashamed of yourself, your conduct in pursuit of conflict and aggression towards me is sickening. STOP IT ALREADY. We don't work on any articles together. It wouldn't surprise me at all if you were involved in the socking that goes on here to push propaganda. See if you can't find a little integrity would you? Leave me alone and stop acting like malicious bully. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly dude, I feel sorry for you. I really do. This is a website, and no one should ever get as worked up as you do above. Almost nothing you are saying is true, and really it's the kind of comment you should be blocked for, but it just makes me feel bad for you so I hope that doesn't happen. If you want to tell me exactly what you think of me (beyond being abusive, disruptive, dishonest, a liar, disgusting, despicable, probably a sockpuppeteer, malicous bully, etc.) then please send me an e-mail and lay it all on the table. I'm serious about that, I won't mind and if you need to get it off your chest then by all means do so.

For what it's worth, I haven't had much to do with the Obama articles for quite awhile. When I did I never removed anything about Wright (which definitely belongs there) or a lack of foreign policy experience (I didn't even participate in a discussion like that). You might be confusing me with someone else. My recent comments on the Obama talk page were ones like the following [2] [3] [4] where I said we need to discuss the criticism of the awarding of the Nobel to Obama and his falling approval numbers. I'm guessing we would have been in agreement there. As to working on articles, hopefully Nathan Glazer (which I recently expanded significantly while sourcing some BLP articles) will be on the main page via DYK soon. Feel free to take a look at it. It might help you to remember that I'm here in good faith to help improve things around here just like you are, and that I'm not automatically an evil bad guy just because I think you need to work on the way you interact with your fellow editors. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

KEEP YOUR WORD AND LEAVE ME ALONE! We don't work on articles together and if there should be an occasion to cross paths I'm sure there won't be any problemas long as you don't come after me with abusive and intimidating threats like you have in the past. If you just steer clear I don't think we will have a problem. You can say I'm lying all you want, but you know the truth about your promises. Nuff said. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see here, particularly the first paragraph, where I first replied to your "you promised to leave me alone and stop harassing me" fiction. That never happened. I said I was done interacting with you after you likened a number of other editors (including me, implicitly) to Nazis (surely you remember that). That statement was out of disgust at the fact that you could seriously claim that Wikipedians were acting like Nazi storm troopers—I never said I would not comment about you, so please stop making that claim, and no one has ever commented that I've treated you unfairly and inappropriately except for you. It's not insignificant that 30 people signed-on to my summary of the RfC, and surely if I was treating you as shabbily as you suggest that would not have happened. I'm disappointed that you ignore the substance of what I said above about the Obama articles—it would be nice to at least get an acknowledgment from you that I was never a POV-warrior admin over there (or anywhere else). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

e-mail?

Are you sure you sent something? I just checked, but see nothing flagged "wikipedia". But either way, as I said in the response at WP:AN, interaction bans are pointless and a drain on everyone's time. If there is conduct of mine or CoM's that you feel is unbecoming in any interaction we have had, then do what you feel you must to address it. CoM routinely name-drops me in the "OMG LIEZ AND ABUSEZ!" novels of his across the project..and you too at times y'know...and so far they have resulted in failure. One AN/I report that was so thorough rejected a few months ago that someone expunged it before the section reached the archives. One silly bit that originated with Noroton trawling through my edit history a few days ago and CoM chiming in wound up as a "no admin action needed" by Atama, with an odd after-the-fact "suggestion" of a warning by Trusilver. Anyways, let's deal with the problem editor himself, which certainly is not me. Tarc (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I started a sub-thread on figuring out a way to address the issues with C of M here, so we'll see what if anything comes of that. I did definitely send you an e-mail, but who knows if it went through properly (I did get a copy). The basic gist was a suggestion that you just avoid talking to or about C of M. Interaction bans definitely have mixed success (sometimes they work) and that's not what I was suggesting in the e-mail, but I think it would be better if you and C of M avoided each other. Basically I don't think you need to turn up at practically every thread (it does seem to be pretty close to that) where C of M is being discussed and/or tossing around heated comments. It's not that you're violating a rule or anything per say, it's just that I don't think it adds much since you two really don't get along, and since C of M is bothered by it, so taking a bit of a break would maybe be reasonable. Speaking for myself I'm just trying to follow through on the ending of the RfC since I started that process, but I'm hoping others can come up with some ways to deal with these problems going forward. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The only ones I weigh in on are general-population places like AN/I or RfC/U. If I were to tagalong now over to this Climate sanction thing then, yea, that would be definitely crossing a line as I have had only the slightest input into global warming issues, and only one 1 article. I hear what you're saying and I respect your opinion. If a full-blown ArbCom case develops, I'd have to chime in there of course, but apart from that, I think I've said my piece for now.

Sorry to hear we're no longer BFFs though...worst Valentine's Day gift ever! :( Tarc (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's just a shitty corporate holiday anyway, so no one can ever truly be happy on it. Luckily, me and my girlfriend's anniversary is a week later so I don't really have to deal with it, plus she pretty much agrees it's a shitty corporate holiday, which is probably part of why we get along. Seriously though I hope you weren't bothered by the "not buddies" comment—'twasn't meant as a slight on you at all (I'm not really "buddies" with anyone around here, it's hard enough staying in touch with my real life friends!), rather as a means to knock down the silly notion that I colluded with you to draft an RfC, which obviously is untrue. Anyhow, Happy Valentine's Day (tomorrow)! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, was kidding about the buddy bit, no worries. The "OMG RfC collusion" bit was odd, as I obviously had no hand in the creation of that. WP:CABAL to a T. Tarc (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP HOUNDING ME

On this very page in one of your many discussions with my stalkers and harassers who you're in league with you say "I already disengaged from CoM 99.9% a while ago and I couldn't care less about him." So stop lying and just leave me alone. You promised repeatedly that you would disengage and leave me alone, but you seem to have a very very serious problem. I hope further remedies won't be necessary. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Facts are stubborn things, as a smart fellow once said, and in this case the fact is that I never said "I already disengaged from CoM 99.9% a while ago and I couldn't care less about him," another editor did (check further up the page and see for yourself). You ought to read more carefully before railing against people for supposed hypocrisy. And you seem to be studiously ignoring my point above (see my last comment there) about the notion that I "promised repeatedly that you would disengage and leave me alone." Again, facts are stubborn things, and I really think you need to drop this point of yours because it has no relation with reality. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom statement

Just a point of order - I did not cite a lack of consensus for overturning the indef block. I think there was no consensus for anything found; blocking or unblocking. My reasoning for the reversal was the lack of reasoning by Gwen Gale, even under pressure from several editors to give an explanation. I'm not here to debate that with you, but to ask you to clarify on the ArbCom page. Thanks! Tan | 39 04:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement amended accordingly, sorry for the mischaracterization. Obviously had consensus been strongly in favor of the block you would not have unblocked though, so the lack of any consensus played at least a partial role, but still the reworded version of the statement is more accurate. Anyway the issue of the block is closed now as far as I'm concerned and I'm sure the Arbs won't take the case. I asked Hell in a Bucket to withdraw the request but we'll see. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nathan Glazer

Hello Bigtimepeace, I have reviewed your recent submission at DYK... and have some questions regarding it before promotion. Thanks in advance. Kindly Calmer Waters 08:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, replied here with a couple of alternative hooks. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Akron politicians

I went ahead and merged the unique information from List of Akron politicians into List of people from Akron, Ohio, and left a redirect behind. Regards, PDCook (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Nathan Glazer

On February 17, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nathan Glazer, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 18:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Accused again

I am accused again on the Arbcom case request page of "repeated violations of Arbcom's restrictions", "a long history of stalking and antagonizing", and "trying to harasms... via proxy since [I'm] no longer able to do so directly". This is at least the fourth or fifth baseless accusation arising from discussions that occurred on this talk page on December 3-19, 2009 and January 2-3, 2010. This puts me in a bind, because I do not wish to be a party to the new case, nor do I want my editing history and good faith sullied like that before ArbCom. I don't need any advice on this - I just want it to end. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I just saw it, but really no one would even know what he is talking about without knowing the full background. I really don't think anyone is going to take it seriously, and I don't think you are going to be a party to an ArbCom case if there is one. The specific accusations made against you (implicitly, again most people won't understand that) are largely bound up with accusations about me, so if a case proceeds I'll be sure to speak to those points, i.e. to say that they're not based in reality. I'm quite certain that the Arbs will see the notion that you (and others) were using me and my talk page to harass C of M by proxy as patent nonsense, meaning we should not worry about it. These absurd accusations by C of M are exactly why we had an RfC and might well have an ArbCom case now, and we have to expect that more will be forthcoming against you, me, and 45 other people before this is all over, but hopefully we are on our way to a remedy at this point. I think I may have linked to this before in a conversation we had, but I would argue that the first sentences here are particularly appropriate advice (though I know you said you don't need any) right now. Again I don't think you have anything to worry about. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the accusation could just as easily have been referring to me, rather than Wikidemon. The lack of specificity/diffs makes it hard to know for sure. The editor in question has recently taken a more active position in the topic of climate change, of which I'm an occasional participant (I only edit on one particular article, rather than the entire topic), although we have avoided each other (with perhaps one exception). Certainly the editor in question is constructing a defense that attempts to deflect ArbCom's attention from the behavioral problems by attacking good faith editors within that realm. I think the recent RfC/U makes it clear where the real focus should be, however. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite certain that the accusation is meant to refer to you both. And I don't think it will work in terms of deflecting attention away from what the case is really to be about—indeed two arbs have already specifically said they want to "restrict to CoM's behavior." If this case proceeds as it now almost certainly will, you can count on more accusations being thrown out, but they are not going to have much (or even any) credibility and since I can participate I will make a point of disputing any inaccuracies, which is largely a matter of linking to previous statements. "Water off a duck's back" is the appropriate response to further comments, at least in my view. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice work on Nathan Glazer

I've got his Beyond the Melting Pot three feet from me right now. I was going to use it as a source when I was thinking about expanding Political machine over a year ago, but never got around to it. Skimming through it, I saw it would be a joy to read (lots of entertaining passages on the Irish-American experience), but never got around to that, either. Anyway, great write-up. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad someone read it! I actually came by his article completely by chance when working on cleaning some unsourced BLPs and decided to turn it into a proper article instead of just throwing in a source or two and moving on (he's considerably more important than the minor athletes and musicians that populate much of the unsourced BLP category). I'd come across mentions of him all over the place in the past but have never actually read anything by him. I don't know that I agree with Glazer about much of anything really, but he's been quite an important figure in the recent history of mainstream policy and sociological debate and strikes me as a pretty honest intellectual, from what I can gather. One thing I definitely want to check out is this documentary on Glazer and his buddies at CCNY, a school I used to live a couple blocks from and which is quite different today than it was in the 1940s when he was eating soup and talking Trotsky in an alcove of the cafeteria. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's always extraordinary when you find concentrations of very talented people in the same place, seemingly at random. (Even when it isn't at random, it's fascinating, but just not as much). Now, it's a bit less random that they would all be there, because that generation of Jews (was Bell Jewish?) was often shut out from other universities, and CCNY was free, and New York City is big -- but it's still fascinating. Fifth century Athens is probably the best-known example, but there's late-19th/early 20th century Vienna (maybe a lot of that that is just what goes with being one of the major cities of the world -- when did London or Paris not have a lot of talent, or New York after about 1850?). Jefferson, Adams and Franklin were all on the drafting committee for the Declaration of Independence (no one biographer has ever really comprehended all of Franklin's intellectual contributions, according to Walter Isaacson, one of the biographers who tried), and there was George Washington's administration. Maybe the only bigger concentration of political talent was in the late Roman Republic (Caesar, Pompey, Cato, Cicero, Augustus; but the first two may be more military geniuses, and Cicero's genius wasn't really in politics). It isn't all that fascinating that certain classes of major universities like Harvard or Oxford would have a lot of well-known talent graduating at the same time (although Yale Law School had both Bill and Hillary Clinton, Robert Reich(?), Clarence Thomas and maybe Robert Bork at the same time, often in the same classes; I think Bork was teaching). Emile Zola and Paul Cezanne were childhood friends, and neither Paul Gaugin nor Vincent Van Gogh were famous or even successful when they were rooming together; of course, a bunch of Impressionist artists became famous together. I think I remember Robert Duvall saying somewhere that it wasn't quite true that he was rooming with both Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman at the same time, before any of them were really successful, but they came close. David Frum once said that his father, a dentist, worked on Howie Mandel's teeth back in Toronto. There's a well-known movie actress in my hometown who was the babysitter for another actor, but I think connections sometimes account for young people getting acting roles. List of people from Greenwich, Connecticut is huge, but for the most part it just means that wealthy people move to the nearest spot to New York City that's got relatively low income taxes. The American expat community in Paris in the early 20th century had a lot of literary and artistic talent, and there were connections with Picasso and Joyce, I think. Look at how much of 19th century American literature might have been in the same room at the same time (well, probably not quite that close) in Concord, Mass.: Hawthorne, Emerson, Thoreau, maybe Longfellow, just possibly Louisa Alcott. Probably the most amazing connection of any three people in all of history was Plato knowing both Socrates and Aristotle. The article Weston, Connecticut is about a town of 10,000, with at least 28 people in the "Notable residents" list with articles (not all of them living, but almost all of them with footnotes). That's, what, one per every 400 people (like Greenwich, it's a wealth thing, but still...). And Samuel Johnson knew David Garrick when they were both poor and obscure. Sorry this is so long, but it was too interesting and I couldn't stop. I love trivia. And part of the fascination with this type of thing is that we always wonder: Can we isolate the circumstances, recreate them, bottle them and spread them around? Freedom seems to explain some of it, and local inspiration, and maybe some kind of other tension that creates an urge to excel. And, of course, chance. (I think if you open up Glazer's "Beyond the Melting Pot" to any page, you'll find it interesting and well-written, and much of it is actually (still) surprising.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Getting the page source of an old deleted article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Curtis_Loftis

Is there anyway I can get this emailed to me again. My email account erased it from last time.

ForrrestMaster (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

E-mailed again. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Comments on Giano's talk

Hey Bigtimepeace. Thank you for your kinds words on Giano's talk. It's very hard to tell sometimes what the "general attitude" is among Wikipedia users... especially when even asking seems to be enough to anger some. Like so many areas in life, it's more common for people with strong opinions to comment, making it a difficult question to gauge. I wish that some of these processes were more documented and more standardized, so rather than trying to guess how people "feel" I could apply some framework. Even the recent thread on Roger Davies highlights that there is no consistent way these issues are handled. Tis the nature of the beast, I suppose. Your summary of the thread is, I think, an accurate one. As for the harassment concerns... I'm not sure how to judge that either. Much of what went on in that vein was off Wikipedia itself, making the situation sticky. Assumedly people who looked up my details still have them, and could use them again. It's a shame that the anarchy of the internet - which gives it its beauty - also means that violations of privacy are unpoliced, and justice is often kangaroo-court style. I'm thinking especially of things like hivemind at this point - such an unfortunate and unwarranted attack on people's real lives. Well, now I'm rambling, so I should close up. As ever, I appreciate your advice and consistently level head. FlyingToaster 22:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, and you're right that there is a fuzzy line when it comes to plagiarism both on Wikipedia and in the real-world, and I was actually commenting on the Roger Davies situation as you wrote the above note (basically I think we still need more info on that, but there is cause for concern). However often it's pretty clear cut when it comes to determining whether or not the line was crossed between drawing info from a source and plagiarizing from it.

Hopefully the harassment you faced before was a product (obviously an utterly unacceptable one) of the previous situation and will not crop up again, though I guess there's no telling what some people will do, unfortunately. As I've said I sincerely hope you continue editing here, though of course that's up to you and I would understand it if you found it to be not the best choice for you at this time. Best. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Unbecoming approach

Your entire approach throughout this discussion has been unbecoming of your position. You chose to further your unsubstantiated claims at AN, and completely ignore the misconduct that occurred from the only user in the entire discussion who supported your witchhunt. You also chose not to politely asking Durova or Ironholds personally and preferred the controversial and high drama venue. It is no wonder that the community wanted a desysop method of its own. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Gonna have to disagree with you there. I don't think I'm the one (or ones) who turned this into high drama, I just continued a conversation where it was already happening. Obviously you and I have a small amount of history (just a couple of incidents from what I can recall) and I gather you do not care for me all that much given how personally you seem to have taken this whole matter. As to community desysop you've surely noticed I'm available for recall. I'm not sure how exactly you think I've "abused the tools or authority granted to administrators" (per my criteria and process for recall) but you could start by explaining that to me here (more specifically) and then pursuing recall if you are not satisfied with my response. I think the better option is to step back and realize you're pretty invested in this issue for whatever reason and maybe you are a little over the top in your response (for starters "witchhunt" is not really a word most objective observers would use to describe the question, "can you give me the gist of what was said in IRC? if it's no big deal we'll drop it."). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Recall is not a satisfactory desysop system by any stretch of my imagination, and in any case, you not responding to the concern doesn't really inspire confidence. You made no effort to personally ask Durova or Ironholds for more information - especially for a conversation that did not involve you, nor was particularly any of your business for that matter. Still, as a legitimate question, that would've been the ideal way to proceed - if admins want things discussed with them rather than taken straight to a noticeboard, they need to practice what they preach and take it to a user's talk. Given that the rest of the discussion was closed completely, "continuing a conversation" doesn't cut it - the motion to close was not for everything except your and Unitanode's curiosity. It's called judgement, and if you genuinely weren't after a witchhunt, you miserably failed to exercise your judgement satisfactorily - admins who lack judgement may not be fit to retain their position; tools and usage of tools is only one component of that. Incidentally, Unitanode was also in no position to close or maintain his close of the discussion as he was strongly opinionated on the matter and dominating the discussion, and I'm sure an independent body would seriously consider whether rollbacking during a content dispute was accidental. I also note that you made no mention of his edit-warring, and that was quite deliberate given that he was acting in a manner that advanced your own position here. You really have no basis to claim that I'm invested in any of this, anymore than you can nonsensically suggest that an IRC conversation might've took place to get at an arbitrator. And in the event some of your comments/actions were unintentional, reconsider your approach and you might find you should take (even) more care with what you choose to say and do. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not you think recall is satisfactory, I assure you I am indeed open to recall. I support a community process of some kind and it's not particularly my fault that we do not have one. I am trying to address your concerns both above and below, despite some rather nasty comments about me on WP:AN.

It might have been better to talk to Durova first, but she did not participate in the conversation on IRC so I did not expect to get any more information from her. I think it was a valid question to ask on WP:AN (and like every other volunteer here there are any number of things that are "my business" including discussions about Arbitrators and copyright), but given that it ended up in a huge, acrimonious discussion I very much regret asking it—I seriously thought the reply might be "there was some chatter about it but nothing really came of it" (this kind of reply has been given before re: IRC) and I absolutely would have left it there. Unitanode was indeed wrong to edit war (as were you, which you have not admitted), but I see no need to doubt the fact that the rollback was unintentional, particularly since it was promptly reverted. You could use a healthy dose of good faith when it comes to this whole matter and your assumption that the rollback was malicious is just one example.

You made a number of serious accusations against me on WP:AN and I responded here (scroll down as there are two replies there). I have no idea how you could possibly get so worked up over a question on a noticeboard to the point that you make completely unfounded accusations about editors acting as "agents" and me intentionally maximizing drama, apparently in some self-serving effort to get my concerns addressed since they are more important given my admin status (or something). The fact that you start throwing in comments like "ChildofMidnight might have a point after all" (importing a completely unrelated dispute) suggests you just wanted to be in a fight, or at least make your "opponent" look bad. I'm not interested in a fight, and am completely astounded that you have reacted the way you have to this entire affair. I mean that quite seriously—you're reaction seems way over the top to me and I do not get it. Perhaps I could have asked the question in a different fashion or forum, but you ought to be open to the possibility that your responses to it have been less than edifying and have indeed dramatically escalated the situation.

As you know this is the second time (the other one being an interaction ban discussion relating to Obama articles many months ago) that you have lit into me on a noticeboard for some perceived malfeasance (the other time you did not even bother to discuss it with me first, you were proceeding from false assumptions, and you actually technically "undid" an administrative action even though you are not an administrator). I don't know where this vitriol comes from, and I do not think it's warranted, but if you feel you have a dispute with me then please pursue dispute resolution. I do not feel that I have a dispute with you, and I consider the immediate matter relating to the IRC issue closed, despite the fact that no one was willing to answer my question. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If I thought the recall system was unsatisfactory, what would possibly make you think I would care if you are open to recall or not? I'm not blaming you for us not having a desysop system, but I do think it's this sort of approach employed here that has led to the need for editors feel the need to seriously create one.

"might have been better"? It's pretty obvious that it would have been better had you contacted both of those users directly and personally; especially if it was not clear. Had any other user seen you lecturing others about not discussing your comments/actions with you personally first, and then seen the way you'd went about this issue, you would've been deemed something to the effect of "hypocrite". You were greeted with a predictable response after singling my name out for an edit war where I did not support your position. I don't consider it an overreaction at all. This is not my first interaction with Unitanode, and this is not the first time he's "accidentally" used rollback in the way that he did either, btw. The lack of apology was enough for me.

Having read more into the CoM case, I see that you have had quite a few other squabbles with him and I can understand why you think I might've referred to a separate dispute, and apologise if I accidentally gave that impression, as it was unintentional. ChildofMidnight made a comment regarding the approach of administrators on a number of occasions at the same noticeboards, and your approach seemed to fit the description in part - that he did not make a comment to that effect in this particular discussion does not make the point any less relevant or different, or so I considered. I'm quite confident that your approach would not have been any different had my responses been any different, and even now, it's taking a lot of good faith to let me contemplate that you might just 'get' the issues with your approach and be open to the possibility of taking steps to fix them to avoid a repeat in the future. I'm not interested in games or fights, but if you want to think so, knock yourself out - it really undermines any point in me talking to you directly though, especially given our history. I also find it quite sad how you remember our negative interactions but don't seem to have recalled or mentioned any positive - maybe I shouldn't be shocked by that though. I think any suspicions I considered (or what you term as accusations) weren't any different to the sort you seemed to be considering, but now that you have responded to them, I guess I believe you. I do not feel I have a dispute with you any longer; based on your responses, even with the indirect digs/disclaimers, I think you might've finally had a taste of the sort of damage a wrong approach can have on individuals and the project, and just might appreciate why more care should be taken to employ the right approach. Perhaps if you enquire in the right fashion, in the right forum, and with the right sort of motivations, you'd find what you're looking for - though either way, I can only guide someone to the well; I can't force them to drink. Ironically, the one positive interaction I can remember with you involved you coming to the wrong forum. It seems we're done. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I think we are done, and in general I don't really agree with most of your comments above, at least those which are not so vague that I simply do not understand what you are saying. The "something to the effect of 'hypocrite'" jab is not at all appreciated by the way (actually it's completely out of line), and I'd ask you to leave off commenting here for now, though feel free to bring other issues to my attention in the future, hopefully with more civility than you have done here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Curious

Hi, Bigtimepeace. Out of curiosity, seeing your comment at Roger Davies' talk page, do you mind saying what the issue here is with BLPs? It seems potentially there is a concern that Roger did not put some material sufficiently into his own words, although it isn't clear to me that it is widely considered to be an issue that should have been treated at all in the way that it was. Either way, I'm just wondering if there is something obvious I am missing as to why this would be a reason to look over BLPs in particular. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

My comment there might have been unclear, but what I was referring to was a completely separate issue from the plagiarism concerns. I looked over a number of articles Roger had created or expanded including a number of BLPs (not in particular, it's just that there were a decent number of them). A few of these were unsourced and I tagged those as such. Since they were created a few years ago (and had not been tagged as unsourced during recent efforts to tag those sort of articles) I figured Roger probably had not looked at them in awhile and had not really even remembered that they were unsourced originally (we did not really have a problem with that, or much of one, back then). Obviously the issue of unsourced BLPs has become a major concern of late, and it was completely by chance I noticed Roger had a few of these in his "back catalog" so to speak. In my note to him I was actually pointing out that I did not really see issues with plagiarism (or even borderline plagiarism) in the articles I looked at, but that he should check on BLPs he's created to make sure they are at least minimally sourced, an issue quite distinct from plagiarism problems. Hope that clears it up and sorry for any confusion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok good, maybe I read too quickly. I don't even know how to look through all of the claims, which is a bit annoying, but I agree what I saw did not look at all like what I would have expected for such a strong initial claim. Thanks in any case for clarifying. Mackan79 (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

re: Articles

Hello, Bigtimepeace. You have new messages at Roger Davies's talk page.
Message added 06:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Climate change exaggeration

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climate change exaggeration, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 16:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Grundle2600

• With the exception of duration (obviously) and the ability to edit discussions or talk pages, the community sanction in force is pretty much identical to Thatcher's expired sanction. This means Thatcher's comment remains largely relevant to the sanction in force, but Grundle has misused it or gone beyond its limits for whatever reason. You may wish to refactor the first part of your comment in light of this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine, my point was that in referring to Thatcher's comment Grundle could have given the impression to some that his topic ban had expired months ago when this was not the case (he knows this, but for clarity's sake we should be citing the more recent, indefinite ban). Thatcher's comment still gives a general sense of the matter, but the latter community ban was in fact different, particularly as it related to any pages rather than just articles as the first one did, which is to say Grundle cannot currently edit talk pages relating to politics either. This is a significant distinction given Grundle's tendency during the first topic ban to be disruptive even on talk pages. Actually I probably should have mentioned this on ANI. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of User:Parasane

Afternoon, Bigtimepeace. Today's the first time I've logged into Wikipedia in quite some time, and was surprised to see that my user page had been deleted. Come to think of it, aside from perhaps a couple of messages back-and-forth with editors, I don't even think I knew I had ever created a user page. Any chance you might be able to send me a copy of the deleted content? I'm rather curious to know what was being advertised there in the first place, since I don't especially like things attached to myself or my name without my knowledge (call me weird). You can reply back on my talk page when you get the chance. Thanks! (Dan/Parasane) 20:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, okay. I do remember that stuff. Hadn't intended it as promotion, only as a user profile, but that's fine. Thanks for checking into it so quickly. Very much appreciated! (Dan/Parasane) 01:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

James Powell (basketball) deletion

Big Time, I completely agree with you that this page is unencyclopedic and is a good candidate for deletion. I went back into the history because I didn't remember creating the page. It looks like I created James Powell as a redirect page pending adding a golfer with the same name. The current article somehow took over the name.--Hokeman (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, no problem, it was actually an editor named TylerDrohan who created the substantive article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Other venues

That is funny. Clearly a mistake; as anyone could tell you, I have a poor sense of humor. I've revised the rationale.[5] Cool Hand Luke 21:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix, though I'll miss the previous version. :-) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for help

I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

Request to WP:AN

"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:

• User:Peter Damian (old)
• User:HistorianofLogic
• User:Logicist
• User:Here today, gone tomorrow
• User:Renamed user 4

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP sticky PROD

Hi Bigtimepeace!. Every attempt to rescue a Wikipedia article is a noble gesture. However, there may be occasions when, with the best will in the world, it is just not possible to accord even a minimum of notability to an article or stub, or find a proper source for it. Most regrettably, even the most dedicated inclusionists will have to concede that the article may have to go if the creator or major contributors cannot justify their work.
For new and recent unsourced BLPs, some users are now working at WT:BLP PROD TPL on the development of templates that are designed to encourage contributors to source new BLPs, without scaring away the newbies who might not be aware of the rules. This template is certainly not another a licence to kill for the deletionists, in fact the very idea of it is to ensure that you are not fighting a losing battle. It would be great if you could look in at the prgogress and maybe leave a word of encouragement. The workshop page is essentially a template development taskforce, and is not a place to engage in a hefty debate on incusion/deletion policy. See you at WT:BLP PROD TPL?--Kudpung (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Politeness

Hi. I don't know why I read so much of that thread, but your 10:26, 7 March comment at AN/I (about needing basic levels of civility in any civilisation) were spot-on. I'm dismayed there wasn't a sea of agreement following. That's all, no reply needed. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm generally dismayed by the way we deal with questions of "civility" around here. Some people think being polite is not important, which would be ridiculous were it not such a commonly held view. Others feel that we can block our way into an enforcement of civility, but that has not really worked, and often civility blocks themselves do much more harm than good. It's quite an unfortunate situation and has been an ongoing problem since forever, it's just that the cast of characters changes with time. I've often thought that if editors who freely fling vitriol at one another could simply sit down and have a conversation in the real world it would make their on-wiki interactions much more pleasant, but of course it's difficult or impossible for that to happen. Anyhow thanks again for your note. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The terrorists have won (2nd nomination).Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Malleus/ANI/threats

I didn't want to re-inflame that thread, but I did want to reply to your remarks there. The main thing I think I did wrong here was taking the bait and talking to Malleus at all. Usually I just ignore him but I thought it was so lacking in class for him to keep commenting on Chillum's talk page that I let it get the better of me and I responded to it. As you correctly pointed out, he had made a rather threatening remark already, so it's somewhat ironic that he responded to my pointing out that he was in more danger of being blocked that Bugs or myself by going to ANI and trying to get me "busted." I imagine Malleus feels the same about me as I do about him, namely that Wikipedia would be better off without him, I'll try to take my own advice and just ignore him in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for avoiding further comment in the thread, which I know cannot be easy in those circumstances. Really the only reason I commented over there was that I think Malleus does have a point in general—namely that incivility in admins is generally more tolerated that it is in non-admin users. While your comments were hardly egregious, they were (as I think you would admit) not really civil, but in the ANI thread folks were basically ignoring that (perhaps because of feelings about the person who filed the "report"). I guess my goal was to simply say, "Malleus is right, that was not appropriate," but then of course point out that Malleus had made inappropriate comments as well, and that none of it required action other than the parties just dropping the matter. That observation about Malleus obviously fell on deaf ears which is not surprising, but it was worth a try and was indeed an effort to treat the comments of admins and non-admins equally. Overall this was a minor incident, and of course everyone can get carried away with their rhetoric from time to time. If that happens more for you with Malleus then generally trying to ignore him is probably for the best. Thanks for dropping me a note about the matter. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 21st, Columbia University area Last: 11/15/2009

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Crossing sweeper

On March 16, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Crossing sweeper, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Computhink and ViewWise

Excuse me, but why would Computhink and ViewWise be deleted? This is no different than Laserfiche having it's own page. I demand an answer. Your policing techniques are poor at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharnden (talk • contribs) 19:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sharnden, these articles were deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computhink which happened in January (you were notified about it on your talk page here). I cannot say whether the situation with Laserfiche is analogous or not, but there was in my view a consensus to delete the articles on Computhink and ViewWise. If you disagree with that assessment you can put the articles up for deletion review where it would be discussed whether or not Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computhink was closed correctly.

Alternatively, if you want I can restore both articles to pages in your userspace, what we call userfication. This would not appear in the Wikipedia article space, but it might give you a chance to improve the articles such that they could again go "live" as articles (or perhaps at least one of them). In the discussion the main problem expressed was that the topics seemed to lack notability given that they were not covered extensively in reliable sources. If you can establish that this was not the case, significantly reworking one or both of the articles in the process, then it might be possible for them to be restored, though I cannot guarantee that.

While I understand your frustration, please note that we deal with these kind of issues at articles for deletion all of them time and administrators who close discussion there are simply trying to implement the consensus decision of a group of editors. It's certainly not a perfect process, but it is one of the primary means we have available to weed out articles on subjects deemed unworthy of encyclopedic coverage, which is a necessary component of maintaining Wikipedia.

Please let me know if you have additional questions or if you are interested in having these articles "userfied" so you can work on them further. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Mlpearc

Message received and understood, My apologizes, won't happen again Mlpearc MESSAGE 15:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I want all involved to know that all and I mean ever single edit I made was in good faith. I misunderstood the overlinking. Mlpearc MESSAGE 17:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

IAR

thanks for giving us the best explanation of IAR yet, at the Deletion Review page. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and I'm glad it made sense. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I also found it quite insightful. Thanks. –xeno^talk 18:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Brews ohare appeal

I believe you understood my arguments, but felt that I had not proved myself well enough to take the great risk to WP of lifting these sanctions. I don't understand your reservations, considering I have a rather clean record, especially where namespace discussion is concerned. It is my view that there is no evidence of disruption on my part, and all the sturm und drang is due to Wikilawyering by Headbomb, unfortunately supported by Sandstein and Ucheda. However, you don't see it that way.

You have at least expressed the reasons for your support for sanctions, a courtesy not observed by others. Thank you. Brews ohare (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and I'll elaborate a little bit here with some advice that you can obviously take or leave as you see fit. From what I've seen you've crossed the line (or danced near it) when it comes to your restrictions on at least a couple of occasions. Your reaction afterward (and even more so the reaction of some of your most vocal defenders) was to cast aspersions on others and question the whole basis for the restrictions in the first place. It was hardly the end of the world, but given that you were already under sanctions it certainly did not look good. Given that, I think the best way forward is to simply show that you are willing to abide by the restrictions rather than arguing against their legitimacy and violating them in admittedly minor ways. There's nothing complex about it at all really (basically it's asking for what could be deemed a "good faith" gesture on your part, even if you think that ought not be required of you) and as I said it should not be difficult. If you decide to appeal again down the road I for one will be much more inclined to support if there have been no issues in the interim.

If you do appeal the restrictions later, I advise against re-litigating their origins or calling out what you perceive to be the misbehavior of other editors, even if you still think they were in the wrong. Simply say you've held to the restrictions imposed by Tznkai for x number of months with no problems and would like the community to consider rescinding them. I think a lack of drama (forget about whose fault it was) for a considerable amount of time will make people much more amenable to your appeal and more likely to focus on the fact that you've obviously done very good work to help the project, rather than the fact that your name keeps cropping up in drama-filled venues of late. Hope that helps. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe my present appeal is phrased this time exactly as you have suggested above. There is a tendency of the mind to lump past and present, and to meld all the statements by all parties supporting me as what was said by myself, and as what is operative on the present occasion. That is human, but it is also inaccurate. Brews ohare (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there was nothing wrong with the way you phrased the appeal, and my apologies if my previous comment seemed to suggest otherwise. However your first and particularly your second comment in this subthread on the same page were more problematic and evinced the "re-litigating their [the restrictions] origins or calling out what you perceive to be the misbehavior of other editors" kind of response. That's what I had in mind in writing the above, and you'll have better luck if you avoid those kind of comments in the future, even when frustrated by the actions of others. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have your viewpoint in mind now. I would point out that my appeal was in place with zero comment from me for a week, and already had led to the kind of confusion I have just mentioned despite its very innocuous and neutral tone. The subthread you mention was my response only after very impolite comments had already been made by several administrators, and SirFozzie had glided over the point of the appeal, and made a count of (trivially based) blocks the entire basis for a decision, ignoring the appeal in its entirety as well as some very cogent points in the comments by others.

Although your advice to me is clear, it is not germane to my behavior in this appeal. Brews ohare (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Panic

• I saw your mention of this on Jimbo's talk page. Nice work! Twitter is great for gauging the immediate reaction of the world to an event, but its quite difficult to recreate a work like this even a day after the event. (I don't know about you, but searching for tweets on anything even slightly dated is very laborious, assuming its even still searchable.) Great job.--Milowent (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I stumbled across the comments quite by accident while doing a google search; I'm not a Twitterer myself (except during the Iranian Green Revolution last summer). I guess it was the historian's instinct in me to capture some of those remarks (what I would deem "primary sources") before they vanished into web obsolescence. I thought the level of freakout was pretty striking (even for Twitter), though one could draw a pretty wide range of conclusions about Wikipedia and its effects on our society from the reactions. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bigtimepeace. You have new messages at Hell in a Bucket's talk page.
Message added 04:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bigtimepeace. You have new messages at Hell in a Bucket's talk page.
Message added 14:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

April Fools

Just want to say, this made me crack up. Thanks for the laugh, and the assist with the block. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 03:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the user blocked is apparently an alternate account of User:KyleRGiggs. Probably a good idea extend the block to that account, or at least to keep an eye on him. Not sure if blocks are transitive in cases like these. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 03:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I left a note for KyleRGiggs. It's possible that the alternate account was compromised, though I'm guessing this user just thought they were being funny. The main account might need to be blocked too but we'll see. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw. He's in a sticky position there. If he says the account is compromised, he loses it forever. If it isn't, then the main account might get blocked. I'm betting he doesn't respond. Any takers? —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 03:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, if it actually is compromised and the password changed by the new "owner", then he's got nothing to lose. Guess we'll see. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 03:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Giggs for Temporary indefinitely and KyleRGiggs for the original duration you'd blocked the alternate account for - it seems fairly clear from the articles being targeted and the edits by the alternate account that is was being used for bad-hand socking. If necessary, we can use checkuser to confirm the connection, but I don't think it's needed just now. I just wanted to let you know. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem and thanks for the notification, I agree that it was almost certainly bad-hand socking but was erring on the side of caution (perhaps more than necessary) in waiting for a response from KyleRGiggs. Oddly, I think it's possible that that editor thought that some April 1st vandalism was perfectly kosher and an example of getting into the spirit of April Fools' Day tomfoolery. It could be that a language barrier is part of the problem and the editor genuinely did not think they were doing anything wrong, but regardless a block was obviously needed and extending it to the main account a reasonable precaution. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification

As an user who commented at this discussion, you may wish to weigh in on Grundle2600's topic ban modification request. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

I wanted to thank you for the detailed explanation you gave to User:JohnsoKr at Talk:Donner Party regarding original research and the use of primary sources. I thought you did an excellent job of explaining the issues in a cool, dispassionate way. Also, your suggestion of creating a list of issues was wonderful - thank you for introducing a new editor to Wikipedia's often confusing rules! Perhaps we could both continue these conversations at her user talk page? People feel more welcome that way, I think. Awadewit (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem at all, and I actually wanted to ask Ms. Johnson about an issue I brought up at the FAC page so I'll be dropping her a note at her talk page at some point in the near future. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for userfying deleted page

Hi Bigtimepeace, would you mind emailing me the text of these two "speedily" deleted pages?

• Tsutomu Chida
• Aikido Renshinkai

My address is paul /at# justlikeswimming.com

I found you on the cat page for admins who have this privilege. Thank you in advance

peace

paul 06:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've e-mailed you the deleted text via the Wikipedia e-mail feature meaning it will have gone to whatever e-mail address you associated with your Wikipedia account—if you do not get it for some reason just let me know. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday May 22nd, OpenPlans in Lower Manhattan Last: 03/21/2010

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bigtimepeace. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minister for the Civil Service.
Message added 08:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bigtimepeace. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minister of State for Security.
Message added 08:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 08:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

quoted

Hi ... I've quoted you here, and wanted to pay you the courtesy of letting you know.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up—I just scanned the request and take no position on whether or not the point I had previously made applies in this particular context or not. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries -- it was just an fyi, and no request was made or implied that you get involved. Your words spoke for themselves. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Dramaout

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd#Participating_Wikipedians

and also a mention on WP:ANI. I would love to have you participate! Remember July 5th, the starting date! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The 3rd Great Wikipedia Dramaout

Coming soon to a Wiki near you...The Third Great Wikipedia Dramaout will be July 5-9. Please join us for serious content creation! Signup is here. You have received this message because you participated in The Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout.

RFC

I noticed that you participated in a previous RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events). I was wondering if you might share your opinion here: RFC: Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Thanks! Location (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The return of CoM

Looks like you've been a bit inactive lately, but on the off-chance you check in soon, take a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_ChildofMidnight and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChildofMidnight/Archive#24_August_2010. You're probably the most familiar with CoM's style and brand of hostility, do you think Freakshownerd here is his sock? Tarc (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)