User talk:Xeno

Notes: I will usually reply where original comments occurred and add notifications if thought necessary. You may email me regarding anything sensitive, private, or confidential. I work for or provide services to the Wikimedia Foundation, but this is my personal account. Edits, statements, or other contributions made from this account are my own, and may not reflect the views of the Foundation. Feel free to post a message or ask a question. Please be sure to [[wikilink]] appropriate subjects. Thanks for visiting! click here to leave a new message...

This user would like to wish you a happy Hallowe'en.

This user is addicted to Texas Hold 'em and is going all in with pocket aces.

Do not archive

Threads in this subheader shall not be archived because my botservant will be confused by this fake timestamp. –xeno^talk 04:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions from...

Transcluded from User talk:Tim1357/adoption

You seem to be getting on fairly well, so I'm going to untransclude this from my talk page. Ask me questions there if anything comes up. Cheers, –xeno^talk 02:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:INDIANA assessment

Hello! Sorry I missed you RfB, I would totally supported that! I wish they would allow cavassing. But then again I am radical! haha!

I think that we can go ahead and try to auto assess WP:INDIANA article with Xenobot whenever you feel up to it. I do have a couple question, it looks like you use one or more assessments from other articles to determine the assessment your bot will make. I would like to only take an assessment if at least two projects have already rated it. If, for example, Project A assessess as stub and Project B assesses as Start, will you apply a Start, Stub, or no class to the article? (Stubwould seem like the correct awnser to me)

Also, is there a paremeter you will add to the project template that will cause it to go into a category or inform the viewer that it was assessed automtatically? User:Betacommandbot (RIP) used to do something like this as I recall, but hunting through the difs I can't find it. So maybe I imagined it. I know it at least put a note on the talk page. If no such paremeter exists, could the bot at minimum add a category on the talk pages where you make an assessment. Something like Category:Auto assessed Indiana articles? I just think that at some point it will be benficial for humans eyes to manually check things, and also to make sure the reader knows it is an auto assessment.

No hurry on anything, and if you are busy I totally understand. Thanks Xeno! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sure, I can instruct the bot to only tag where at least two projects have rated it.
• Thus far, I've just been not tagging in even strength disagreements.
  • What I'll do is generate a report of the disagreements and you can look them over and confirm you want me to tag as the lower class.
• I can use auto=XX where XX is the rating and I can sort out your banner to put them in the category and provide a note about it.
• Do you want me to run the 'default importance' as well? Should I use "autoimport=yes" for the param?

I'll try to start this task in the next couple days. –xeno^talk 14:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes you can run the default importance as well. About half our categories are assigned one now, other half are too complex. I think the importance paremeter is less important, it is really more of an internal thing, but adding a paremter for that would be fine too. In all reality we only have a pretty small core of articles of major importance, and they are already defined as such. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If you looking for an automated alert system to let you know about assessment changes, check out the Version 1.0 Editorial Team's Assessment Bot... You can set up an automated alert system like we use at WP:Micronations, (see it here)... There's no way to flag it as auto assessed, but you at least will know what changes were made to the assessment... Maybe not exactly what you are looking for, but just my attempt to help... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That could be useful, I will take a look at it. Our projects primary problem is manpower. There is only about four of us who are regularly active within the project. Anything we can do to help with that is a good thing. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Literaturegeek is now threatening me with administrative action on my talk page

Has Literaturegeek become an administrator, can she threaten to "block me"?[1] Once again she personalized a discussion [2], and has over reacted to my response, and now harasses me. This is a long standing pattern which I have pointed out to several administrators. Please help.--scuro (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well the first bit is a standard user warning that any editor can issue, and Lg would have to seek action either at a noticeboard, or at WP:AE, I suppose, if there's anything relevant in the case. You have the same avenues - based on my past participation, it would be best to seek an outside opinion.

Forgive my poor memory, has mediation been attempted? –xeno^talk 01:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] I insist scuro that you publicly retract your slur on editors personal character on the ADHD talk page. It was a severe personal attack, which I want retracted immediately.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

scuro, classing your fellow colleague as "anti-psychiatry/scientology" was not productive. Please amend accordingly. You would both do well to argue to your audience rather than at eachother. –xeno^talk 01:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Scuro is meant to have a mentor appointed by the arbcom but it has not happened, so the drama continues.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no desire for mediation with a disruptive editor. Editors have gone down this path before and it turns into game playing. I would like the arbcom ruling of a mentor to be inacted, it was meant to be. Until remedies of the arbcom are exhausted I don't feel going over failed territory is worthwhile. Sorry I am not in a good mood.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It might be best to check directly with an Arb or a clerk what should be done given that they haven't followed thru appointing a mentor. –xeno^talk 01:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• At the heart of this lies a content dispute; has there been progress made into this advisement? –xeno^talk 01:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC) -

7) All editors interested in the topic area are encouraged to seek outside editorial assistance (by way of a request for comment, or by seeking input from relevant WikiProjects) in resolving the editorial disagreements relating to the due weight to be accorded to various points of view on controversies relating to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

There have been a couple of occasions when ADHD was just about to be officially nominated for collaboration project of the week, but scuro each time manages to sabotage it. One would think if his claims were true that he would want doctors and pharmacists reviewing the article?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyway as my talk page says, don't feed the trolls, so I am backing away from this game playing, unless something major needs addressing. Sorry for disruption to your day or evening.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be best if we all refrained from placing our fellow colleagues into adjective categories. Thank you for dropping by. –xeno^talk 01:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it would be, but my bet is that I will see such behaviour over and over again. We have also not discussed the major point of this thread, and that is that Literaturegeek has threatened me with administrative action and she has no right to do so. That is harassment plain and simple and this sort of thing has been going on far too long even though it has been reported to several administrators. No one should have to put up with harassment indefinitely.

Literaturegeek's own words here on the thread once again personalize this way beyond anything that I posted on the talk page. On the other hand stating that, "those who have a similar viewpoint about ADHD to anti-psychiatry/scientology's viewpoint", neither mentions anyone by name nor does it "classify" anyone. It is a description of those who hold minority viewpoint and who have avoided moving the article forward. If my comment is really worthy of an apology, then I would be deserving of many apologies for specific references by name, from SEVERAL of the contributors on the ADHD page. If action will be taken, I would take the time to document this. Consensus and mediation has been sought for YEARS, and those who hold minority opinion have avoided it at every turn...and believe me there have been many opportunities. I am still willing to do so, but you will most likely see that they do not take me up on this offer, nor do they make counter offers. I'd love for them to prove me wrong on this prediction!! If any of them want to start fresh, I'd be very willing to mutually apologize for past transgressions. I do so much want to move forwards, but until that time that they are willing to come to table, please stop the specific harassment directed at me personally by name. By the way I've followed all of my obligations with regards to arbitration, and the mediator was specifically for citations only. I've also taken the time to learn how to reference properly.--scuro (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to ask someone else to comment here. –xeno^talk 03:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I shall be greatly limiting any interaction with you scuro on talk pages. I like to develop wikipedia articles. I shall address concerns raised by you on talk pages via editing the article, using whenever possible meta-analysis and review (preferably systematic review) articles. You are as always welcome to contribute constructively to the encylopedia using peer reviewed literature. You are also welcome to seek help from the wik pharm and wiki med projects. I really do recommend that you vote for the med collaboration of the week for the ADHD article and stop blocking it. Lets get lots of doctors and pharmacologists onboard. Engaging with you and your original research and personal attacks is tiring. I have used secondary peer reviewed sources but yet you continue to attack my edits (and essentially the scientific literature) as fringe using original research articles. I am off to edit the wikipedia articles. Bye bye.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Not meaning to interup anything, but I see that Xeno asked for someone else to comment here, so I am doing so. Based on what I've looked at on the ADHD talk page and others, Apparently Scuro said that Leteraturegeek or some user was cherry picking. Literaturegeek responded to that, Then a disscussion which Scuro was not involved in at the beginning, but returns to accuse LG of cherrypicking again. LG asks Scuro to stop calling her that, to which Scuro responds, "I have not personally accused you of anything. Stating that my position is irrelevant speaks volumes."

Before that, Scuro starts a new section, and the disscusion that follow, "Many issues are still unresolved, see archives 12-16. Contributors have had plenty of time to respond to these unresolved issues but they have been ignored.--scuro (talk)7:06 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5) On what grounds do you have to dictate to me what I do with my time? Shall I assign you tasks on wikipedia to do and insist you perform them? Last time I checked I was not getting paid for my work on wikipedia. I have responded non-stop to those hundreds of kilobytes of drama churned out on these ADHD articles but apparently I am not working (for free) hard enough!?! If you like we could do a deal, I can find you work to do on wikipedia, when you have performed appropriately then I will consider "working harder", spending dozens more hours per week on ADHD pages.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 7:20 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Agree completely accusing others of not working hard and fast enough is not productive.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 1:55 am, Today (UTC−5)

The fact is that all of those holding minority viewpoint on key issues, have largely ignored many significant undue weight issues. It is my impression that the article is biased and other contributors have commented on this, and the "snail pace" of change. That certain contributors pull off NPOV tags, is poor optics. If these contributors don't have the time, then why do they have the time to pull off NPOV tags repeatedly? You folks wanted to hear what was wrong with the article and that information has been provided. Why are you complaining that someone asks for change, even though these requests are over a month old? Tell me exactly how you envision forward progress on these long standing undue weight issues and issues of bias?--scuro (talk) 2:44 pm, Today (UTC−5)"

Based on what I've found, Scuro seems to not want to let go the fact that he/she thinks LG is cherrypicking and other things, bringing them up multiple times.Abce2|This isnot a test 04:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but I am using reviews, systematic reviews of the literature and meta-analysis. People respond with "opinions", which can't be cited. All that I and other editors ask for is to provide refs. I am now going to address scuro's viewpoints via editing the article. The article wasn't "biased" before but it probably will be after I have addressed all of his points because the literature does not back up most of his original research on talk pages.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I struck out my comment because I got mixed up and thought the last copy and paste post of scuro was written by Abce, my apologies. I just woke up after a sleep and will be going back to sleep soon.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No where have I mentioned anyone by name. There are A NUMBER of contributors on the ADHD page who cherry pick information and do other things not in the best interest of wikipedia, most notably... totally avoid mediation, and avoiding dealing with undue weight and bias issues on the talk pages. LG has assumed the discussion was all about her, and it's not. We can spend a lot of time here trying to "mind read" personal motives and distribute blame, or those with minority viewpoint can deal with the long standing undue weight issues on the talk page. Have I mentioned that mediation is another option?--scuro (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What about this, ":::::::Simply because something is well referenced doesn't mean it belongs as posted. Undue weight issues are a major problem with this article. When one focuses on a narrow band of information, and you ignore, or play short shrift to majority opinion...you are cherry picking.--scuro(talk) 23:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)"Abce2|This isnot a test 12:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There are "academics" who cherry pick data. Information is perfectly referenced in their "reviews" or "research papers", yet it doesn't properly convey the general understanding in the field. Sometimes such information is mixed in with bogus info to draw unsupported conclusions that stray far majority opinion. Hyperion has been highly disappointed in this regard with the ADHD article. Recently he stated, "The number of times that I have had to correct gross misrepresentations of Zametkin's findings alone is heartbreaking". So simply put, you can cite material/data but miss the key findings or general consensus held on a notion. When fringe or minority viewpoint is given undue weight, we have bias. Check archives #12-16. Examples have been pointed out over a month ago, much of what has been post has been ignored.--scuro (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Please feel free to continue using my talk page to hash out this issue (as long as all parties strive to remain civil and constructive) but I am going to recuse. I have asked two other admins to take a look and also appreciate Abce's lending an outside opinion. –xeno^talk 16:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hyperion is a meat puppet of scuro, they are both members of a POV online discussion forum. I can prove this but will NOT as I do not want to be accused of any "outing". The so called statement of "misrepresenting" an author is actually citing a medical review article which raised concerns regarding methodology of the study, only a couple of sentences were given to this review so no undue weight. It was not I but the medical literature which raised some concerns with methodology. I think that it is unfair scuro that I and other editors are attacked for what review articles say. I cannot help differences of opinion in the medical literature. I am getting sick and tired of constantly having to refute misleading statements about I and other editors on admin talk pages. I think we need to go back to arbcom as clearly nothing has changed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that one party won't drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass, but I won't say who until I do a little more research about this. But a question for both parties. In your opinion, when did the dispute start?Abce2|This isnot a test 21:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The dispute started years ago has involved numerous editors, I only became involved a couple of months ago when I added some review articles about stimulants, which led to scuro trying to force me off of page by ironically intimidating me with a 3rr block warning for doing a single revert. Scuro's "attack" was probably more aimed at Doc James than I I feel anyway. I think my first edit was the most recent meta-analysis of the literature on stimulants to ADHD articles which scuro opposed but can't be sure without checking edit history. I recommend reading the arbcom for a detailed description of the situation. I am just getting tired of these accusations. This is NOT an isolated problem but is constant. This has been spilling out onto noticeboards, admin talk pages for years on end, involving a large number of editors over the years. Recently scuro managed to go on a tirade on the wiki fringe noticeboard (which I did not become involved in, other editors joined that discussion there) where he denounced several sections of the article as fringe based on nothing but his original research accusations. To my shock, the fringe noticeboard then bought into scuro's original research false accusations of literature and and accepted it as "truth". They then came making original research judgements without knowing anything about the subject matter. I then had to get the latest review articles from the medical literature and add it to the article to refute scuro's original research accusations. Scuro repeatedly denounces literature, editors as extremist fringe using original research (never or extremely rarely ever produces citations for his POV). Unfortunately a lot of people take his original research at face value and form negative opinions of editors. His REPEATED attacks on multiple editors stretching back years is cumulatively hostile and not a minor issue as one admin believes. This admin now has a negative opinion of me. I cannot help this and will continue to defend myself against scuro's belittling of other editors.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I am guessing that some editors in general look at how long the editors been on Wikipedia and the number of edits they have, and then call it based on that on which ever notice board you meant. I see that my thought was right, and Scuro has been poking the dead horse, and rather harsly. PA are unnacceptable by any editor, so Scuro does not have an excuse for attacking. Abce2|This isnot a test 21:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I am giving Scuro a chance to respond under this message. Any comments about the disscusion above should be placed above this.Abce2|This isnot a test 22:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

LG often makes many accusations and a good number of them don't hold water. As in the past she makes as many accusations as possible to dirty the water. Simply go to LG's link below and my response to her to see what I mean. But all that is all besides the point. Lets deal with the here and now, and not the past. Do you think I was wrong not to have responded to her personalized post in citation #2 at the top of the thread? Is such a post acceptable? Is the threat of administrative blocking from an a regular contributor acceptable? Do you mean I am poking a dead horse by bringing up this continued personalization of talk pages? I'm also not sure what you mean by the notice board? Are you referring to Hyperion and how does this all connect? Let me tell you this. To date over this lengthy period of time, there is only one party who wants to move forward. I'm ready to resolve differences at any point. That all the others never attempt to do so, should tell you something.--scuro (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

For all of those who are interested, the background to this dispute can be read here where the community inputted evidence.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The issues are simple. Arbitration made several rulings. One ruling was not to personalize issues. Yet all through arbitration and after arbitration, this personalization continues. This thread is peppered with personalized comments and it strays from the acceptable standards of wikipedia. My recent complaint started with this quote from LG, "You seem to really not want doctors or pharmacologists to review the article". [3] Why was it necessary to personally falsely accuse me of something? What was your motive? From my vantage point it seemed like you were trying to make look bad. From there we got my response, and then LG's administrative threat on my talk page, and now we are back to this endless rehashing, peppered with numerous false accusations.

The question I have to ask you is why can't we focus on content and not the contributor? When there is a problem why can't we mediate instead of making loads of false accusations to frame a debate and create huge drama? Do we really want to rehash things out again, and again, and again? Can we not move forward and understand that the past is the past, so lets correct our errors, and get on the same page. LG I'm asking you point blank, do you think that it is possible that we can start a process to resolve long standing differences? I'll tell you right now that the continued personalization of the talk pages is a major impediment to positive editing. Do you agree? Do you have further opinions about how to move forward, and are you willing to commit to positive change?--scuro (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For superlative talk page lurking, and for being a good sport about the subject. :) Hamlet, Prince of Trollmarkbugs and goblins 02:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Durova's sockpuppet account

Chicago tagging

Pknkly (talk · contribs) has added several cats to WP:CHIBOTCATS. Could you rerun the bot over these cats to check for new articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, after I complete the Indiana request above. –xeno^talk 16:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you want me to inherit assessments at the same time? –xeno^talk 16:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes please, if it is not too much trouble.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Warning

I finally got angry at one user. Did I use the vandalism templates correctly? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine but try not to use the word "useless" when referring to others contributions which are in good faith, even if wrongheaded. –xeno^talk 16:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

WHOA!!!! Ace got angry; must have been real annoying to make you angry. 'The Ninjalemming'' 18:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hello there, i was recommended to you by my good friend user:thejadefalcon, and i've been having trouble with getting a table to store information about myself on my user page. Please may you try and help?--Doughnuthead (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried reading through help:Table? You can also look at other users that have tables and try and adapt it to your own. E.g. User:Xenocidic/listgames. –xeno^talk 16:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you should update that their table of yours xeno, 4^th april 2008, mes thinks that be some time ago. 'The Ninjalemming'' 18:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - not really on my list of priorities =) See http://profile.mygamercard.net/xenocidic if you're interested in what I've been playing. –xeno^talk 19:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Muuuuuuuuuuuhhh! You have Batman, yay, Batman = Awesome. Anyway I may update it for you if I hve nothing else to do; while trying to not include the demos. Hehe 'The Ninjalemming'' 19:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't even think that page is linked anywhere from my userpages anymore. Just keeping it around for historical purposes. –xeno^talk 19:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

ADHD

Thank you so much for the background reading. :) I'll take a look later. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Xeno says cheers. or will, and that I can be sure of. =) 'The Ninjalemming'' 19:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I forgot what it was like having a talk page layabout! You making up for lost time? Try not to end a sentence with a preposition - this is Wikipedia after all! –xeno^talk 19:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Prepo-wha? 'The Ninjalemming'' 19:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, Google seems to indicate this isn't as much a problem as I previously thought. –xeno^talk 19:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... You shoulda known better than ta do what you just done did... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

mythdon

you have no right to archive mythdon talk page at all. Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It is considered impolite to carry a conversation on a talk page where the host is unable to respond due to the block settings. –xeno^talk 21:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, excuse me, I didn't know that there was an issue there. Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Admittedly, it's a custom that isn't yet widely recognized (given that we've only recently been able to use such a setting). –xeno^talk 22:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for lifting my autoblock :) DVD 00:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing =) –xeno^talk 00:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking me twice. These updates are making everything go wacky, I suppose... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem =) –xeno^talk 00:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

The bar above says that some articles don't display correctly. That's not the only thing... Anyway, thanks!Abce2|This isnot a test 00:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, something went horribly wrong with the latest mediawiki software update. –xeno^talk 00:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And this day will forever be known as, "The day autoblocks went bad" Abce2|This isnot a test 03:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Autoblocks

Hey there. Do you think you can hold off for a bit with unblocking falsely autoblocked users? I'm trying to work with Werdna to resolve the whole issue, but he needs to extra some data from the cases. If you could hold off for just a little while, it would be much appreciated. Regards, NW (Talk) 00:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure... I better go amend the AN thread I just made... –xeno^talk 00:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've warned people off of using the autoblocker for now. Please clear it when its fixed.--Tznkai (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Xeno

First of all, thank you for lifting my autoblock :)

I'm just wondering, how can I prevent this from happening in the future? Many happy months of reverting vandalism on Wikipedia and it's the first time I've been accidentally blocked :) --5 albert square (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry; it wasn't your fault. The new code updates just had some tiny bugs in them, but it should all be fixed now. It shouldn't happen again. NW (Talk) 01:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Issac Kleiner AfD

Could I possibly get this quick closed and the character's article redirected to List of Half-Life universe characters#Issac Kleiner? The article got shoved up for AfD while I was talking with User:S@bre on what articles to merge, and it seems rather unneeded to go through the AfD motions when it's pretty much already heading to that list.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)