User talk:Unitanode

Because of certain family health concerns, Unitanode will not be on Wikipedia nearly as often, for an indefinite period of time.

---

About My PROD tagging

The discretion I use when deciding whether or not to place a PROD tag on a BLP is simple: is it referenced? If not, I place a tag. If it's poorly referenced, I look a bit deeper, and either place the tag, or stub-ify. I never take much more than a minute or so, and I'm not going to research 50K+ unreferenced BLPs. The tagging has worked, as several of the articles are now being sourced. I'm not going to stop doing it, so I respectfully ask that any notifications that someone has removed the PROD (while adding references) leave out any lectures on that issue. It's not going to change.

---

Here is where I will be manually archiving any DYK or ITN notices.

---

---

I edit some political articles; please read this before accusing me of bias.

My votes in the last four presidential elections: Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama. I do not have a bias for (or against) any political party.

---

my de prods

Are you following my de prods and stubbifying them? Just asking, I hope you can accept a friendly hello from me and allow me to post here, if not sorry, Off2riorob (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Those are PRODs that I placed, so I'm simply following up on the changes that were made, as far as references go, and reducing them down to what has been sourced. I'm also updating my workpage with the results of the PRODs I placed as well. UnitAnode 05:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll take that as an acceptance of my friendly hello then, cool. Off2riorob (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as you reference the BLPs, I have no problem with a PROD removal. At first glance, it appears that my PRODing campaign has been at least mildly successful. Most people that removed them at least placed a source. I can't say that for everyone, but for those that did, it's good work. UnitAnode 05:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, yea..but its desperate measures, one citation and a stub is close to worthless to the reader, a bit of a waste of energy really, might as well of just deleted it without the disruption. (my new position)Off2riorob (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter to me which happens. But everything in this barely-notable BLPs needs to be carefully sourced. UnitAnode 06:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, to be inline with policy, we have become soft in our acceptance of uncited content. I have not voted but, how it the main leader of choice going to be? and when will it be started? Off2riorob (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking. UnitAnode 06:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, they are discussing various options and voting for their preference, I just thought you might know how the consensus forming is going and when the process will begin again? Off2riorob (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt very seriously that anything resembling "consensus" will result from the RFC. Thus, as SirFozzie has stated, I assume it will revert back to where it stood after the Arbcom motion. UnitAnode 06:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I went there and it was so confusing I had no idea what was going on and left, thanks for the chat..see you later. Off2riorob (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I am suprised that he didn't mention this edit on his talkpagefrom yesterday in the report, talking about other editors as idiots. Off2riorob (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You should post that diff there, with your explanation. UnitAnode 08:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am starting to think that a second opinion may be necessary, what I see as clear cut violation of restrictions are being ignored. Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

All I ask for is cards from the top of the pack, that is not too much to expect is it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Incivility, edit warring

This kind of behavior[1][2] is unacceptable. Please stop now, or we're going back to WP:AN/I where this belongs. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As I commented at my talk page, Unitanode should not characterize restoration of unsourced material as "vandalism". He can characterize it as unacceptable, as against policy, as disruptive, as something that could lead to a block if it's repeated... those are all accurate descriptions. But, it's not vandalism. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 18:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• My apologies, then, for describing the addition of unsourced material -- and the attenuating refusal to provide sources -- as vandalism. That said, stop replacing unsourced material in BLPs without providing sources. UnitAnode 19:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Cut it out, now. Consider this a final warning. I am editing this article. One more harassment like this,[3] or any further disruption on the BLP front, and I will file an AN/I report without further ado. I also note that you seem to be at WP:3RR on this article. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You readded a lot of unsourced material. I have no problem with the readdition, if and when you've sourced it. Save your "final warnings" and other posturing for someone else. Placing a CONSTRUCTION tag isn't an excuse to leave unsourced material in while you "work." UnitAnode 21:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not your place to tell me what to do. Again, stop harassing me. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please. How is removing unsourced material from an article "harassing" you? You've readded it in a lot of places. Removing such material is the only acceptable option, per BLP.

Let's not play childish games here. You know you were just being vexatious, wikilawyering aside. You knew I was actively editing an article, with an inuse tag, and you gutted it to try to prove your silly point. I don't have much desire to discuss this with you, particularly given your hostile way of going about this. I'm cleaning up messes that you are creating. The really strange part is that you seem to have convinced yourself you're doing the right thing. Just back off, or we will be before AN/I again. Last time there you did not have a whole lot of support. I doubt people will think highly of ongoing edit warring or harassment. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not "just being vexatious." You readded a lot of unsourced material, and then placed the INUSE tag. Why did you not simply readd the material after sourcing it? I'm very tired of your accusations. If either of us is "harassing" the other, it's you harassing me, and it needs to stop. UnitAnode 22:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I edit as I best see fit. You're holding me up to a ridiculous standard, and you've taken it upon yourself to correct me when I don't please that whim. I shouldn't have to explain to you why people save articles several times in intermediate form while working on them. You must know that when you edit an article while someone has an inuse tag you are going to cause edit conflicts, which is exactly what you did. Between that, and having to tell you to get off my case, fixing the article to meet your silly standard too several times longer than it should have. You're setting up a lose-lose situation. Ignore you and you go out destroying articles by removing uncontroversial easily verifiable information. Try to source them and you interfere. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, cut the bullshit. You readded a bunch of unsourced material before you had sourced it. You shouldn't have done that. I fixed it. You placed your edit a full 13 minutes after I removed the unsourced portions. I'm not going to allow you to get away with claiming that I "go out destroying articles." That's utter bullshit. I remove unsourced material from BLPs. I place PROD tags, or AFD other unsourced BLPs. You may not like that, but you will not continue casting aspersions on my motives in this way. At least not at this page. The next time you do, it will simply be rolled back as I would someone who placed graffiti here. Any outsider watching this back-and-forth can tell from where the harassment originates. I have ONE thread on this talkpage currently that is in any way contentious. You're it. Perhaps a mirror would be in order, Wikidemon. UnitAnode 22:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That is very rude. I've told you what I need to tell you - if any of this continues we can talk about it at AN/I. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't particularly care what you find "rude" at this point. You're the only person offering such harangues at my talkpage right now. As I said, perhaps a look in the mirror would be in order. And your vague threats of taking me to ANI are getting quite old. ANI is a dramapit, and little more than that.

Joe Connelly (writer)

As I said on Lar's page, I'm not interested in any animosity between you and other users. However even in his defense of you in the AFD Lar says the article as it stands should be kept. You said that when you are wrong you withdraw. Even if you had every reason to create the AFD in the first place, I think you should consider this. Does it look better for you and your cause to fight for deletion of this article? Not as the article once was, but as it stands now at this moment.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• It may well deserve to be kept. With that said, what I was interested in was a fuller discussion of why, before either a premature SNOW close, or my eventual withdrawal of the nom. UnitAnode 19:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case have you considered expanding on why you question why it should be kept. Your nomination only mentions two things. One that it was de-prodded. A statement of procedure, not a reason for deletion. The second that it was an unsourced BLP. It was unsourced, but Eastmain added sources. This sourcing answers all the concerns you've expressed. I'm unsure what to discuss, your concern was answered and even when you reopened it you haven't given any additional reasons. Just this vague desire for more discussion.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked it over again, and have withdrawn the nomination, conditional to the sources being kept. UnitAnode 20:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for considering this. I know there's a bit of a rift at the moment regarding BLP's. I can't imagine though that any reasonable person, regardless of viewpoints on how to handle BLP's, would prefer the unsourced version to the sourced version. Naturaly I'm not online 24-7, but it's on my watchlist now. If I see anyone taking that bizzare step of removing the references, I'll do my part to revert.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I wouldn't be surprised by anything anymore, though. I've seen PRODs removed, with no sources added and unsourced information put back in articles, with no sourcing provided, so nothing would really surprise me anymore. UnitAnode 20:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Mistake?

You reverted Wikidemon's edit to the Michèle Fitoussi with a summary that sources were needed, but they actually did provide sources when they added the info back in. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. Because of WD's previous edits, which simply restored unsourced material to articles, I didn't check it like I should have. My apologies, and thanks for the note. UnitAnode 20:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool - thanks for the quick revert. I saw things going pear shaped in short order; glad you don't mind my jumping in to say something. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. We are, the lot of us, here for the same reason. UnitAnode 21:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Correction, most, not all, of us are here for the same reason. ;) --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 21:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

True, true. UnitAnode 21:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Who put you in charge?

Just so we are clear: I don't take orders from you, and you don't have the authority to mess around with the comments of others. Try that crap again and I'll be off to WP:ANI faster than you can say "disruptive prodding". -- Scjessey (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Do your damndest. I asked a question, and now I've simply sub-sectioned the other commentary. There's absolutely nothing out of process in that. You'll be laughed off of even the ANI dramapit if you take this there. UnitAnode 19:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Are you going to take me to the dramapit, too? I know you can dish it out and I respect that, frankly, but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.--Milowent (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  I won't take it there, unless you persist in these antagonistic personal attacks. I hate that place with a fiery burning passion. But your juvenile name-calling and accusations about "book burning" are completely inappropriate. You'll either stop this kind of thing, or you'll most likely be blocked. UnitAnode 21:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Trout

{{trout}} for trouting an admin for correctly applying CSD whilst simultaneously misinterpreting both G4 and G7 and overlooking G11. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's been deleted FOUR FRIGGIN' TIMES!!! So often, that the original landing page had to be SALTed. It's a clear SPEEDY. UnitAnode 19:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:CSD -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read the speedy guidelines. It's both G4 and G11. What's your issue here? UnitAnode 19:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

" ... deleted via a deletion discussion ... This criterion also excludes content deleted via ... speedy deletion". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"...although in that case the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply...", which would seem to provide rationale for simply shooting it onsite, which the admin refused to do for some reason. UnitAnode 19:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

[4][5] ("as a substantial recreation of previously deleted material") is a misapplication of G4. Accept your trout for inappropriate trouting. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not yet, I won't, since the main point of the trout was due to the fact that the article should have been shot on sight. How it gets there is a poe-tay-toe poe-tah-toe argument, as far as I'm concerned. We have enough chaff to clean up using PRODs and AFDs without this kind of nonsense making it past a SPEEDY nom. UnitAnode 19:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point that whether or not the article should have been deleted, you tagged it as G7 despite it asserting notability and trouted an admin for not G4'ing it as well as voted in AfD under G4, despite it not qualifying under G4. After all that it was a G11. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't place any of the speedy tags. I simply offered my opinion that it was an easy speedy call after it was brought to AFD. I was right about that. UnitAnode 15:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverting Admins...

... is really not a good idea for non-admins when the admin was exercising administrative functions to close a discussion or thread. Until you have passed an RFA yourself you really have no place replacing your view with the view of someone who has been specifically trusted by the community to make these calls. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Administrators are no more "important" than anyone else. I undid a non-administrative action of his, that was very inappropriately done in the first place. UnitAnode 15:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed were the admin acting in an editorial capacity then they count no more or less then anyone but my message specifically referenced admins acting as admins and I'm sure you already know better then that.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

  Hi, I happen to have your user talk page on a watchlist since our discussion on Lar's talk page on the subject of using automation to create a log of articles tagged for BLPPROD. Looking at the page referenced by Spartaz, I notice that you are now edit warring on an article probation enforcement page. This strikes me as unwise. I suggest you self-revert and, as Scjessey suggested,[6] take up the matter with the person you reverted. --TS 15:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

  I undid the close because it was inappropriate. I've left a message at Prodego's talkpage informing him of what I've done. I'm done with allowing people to sweep how WMC treats people under the rug. Done with it. UnitAnode 15:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

2 comments

• I clarified my indentation on Prodego's talk and removed your comment requesting clarification
• I think you should self-rv the close of the WMC section. This problem will not be solved here where unwatched biased admins have taken control. It must be escalated, and in that case, your revert of a close will only be used to discredit you. I would self-rv with a comment of protest, and deal with directly with Prodego. ATren (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And you can see they are all coming out of the woodwork to pile on against you. See, that's how it works: it starts with the baiting -- e.g. WMC's smears -- then when editors complain, aligned editors show up and seed the complaint thread with endless argumentation which blurs the issue; then an admin shows up and closes it as unparseable; and as soon as you respond with the slightest bit of frustration, they use your single moment of frustration against you and misrepresent the entire ordeal. Look at the way ChrisO, MathSci, and SBHB came out of the woodwork to attack you at AN/I. Soon others will arrive and pile on. I've seen this at least half a dozen times, against good editors, and it always goes the same way. They all converge on the kill, and another opponent is vanquished, preserving their dominance. That's why you never do anything remotely crossing the line in this debate. ATren (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I really hope some admin blocks me for it. It will be at Arbcom the next minute, and that person would lose their tools. It probably needs to be at Arbcom anyways. There's nothing approaching fairness at that "enforcement" board. UnitAnode 16:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me ATren. coming out of the woodwork? That would be a reference to those who, like you, asked UnitAnode to self-revert. a single moment of frustration? That would be UnitAnode's two successive reverts. Please don't make things worse. Let's try to avoid the battleground mentality. --TS 16:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Your request to "try to avoid the battleground mentality" is just a bit ironic, given both your participation at ANI in this regard, as well as your history. UnitAnode 17:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back to the fray tony :) guys i did post something similar to this. This is a tactic and one these lads excel at. The thread becomes full of argument and is near impossible to read. Hell it the last case WMC did not even bother to defend himself, he left it to his pals to create chaos, and they in turn were helped by you. If you feel the need to make your voice heard in the next RFE then say your piece and leave it at that. All you need do is ignore their attacks and keep the thread clear for the actual op to sort out mark nutley (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"and one these lads excel at","left it to his pals to create chaos","ignore their attacks" ... is that the higher ground? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Weird, i don`t recall mentioning taking the higher ground? However ignoring attacks actually is taking the higher ground :) mark nutley (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)