User talk:TParis

obviously

He can do no wrong. I've lost hope in any hope of engaging with him. Everything he does is right and justified, no mistakes are ever made, and it's always someone else's fault.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ignore him, his delusions are easily proven false. He can write any article he wants, I intend to read it carefully and he will be responsible for whatever he writes about me particularly. Sue gave him a false sense of confidence early in the Arbcom case and when he tried to cash that check, she backed off. He's hurting now. The impartial Arbcom review has found his comments to be wholly unacceptable and his attempt to snatch himself to the crew that only pointed out transphobic comments has failed. Even they avoid the subject of him if not outright condone his actions. Josh is in a sinking ship and right now he'll do whatever he can to drag others down with him. Best thing to do is to ignore him and let him go. He'll be out of this topic area in a week at the most.--v/r - TP 15:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Question

Thanks for the notice of the topic ban. I am curious of the process involved in this. Are administrator topic bans normally made with the consensus of several administrators, or is just one administrator needed to establish administrator 'consensus'? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's actually not a consensus of administrators at all. It's the consensus of the discussion after about 24+ hours. I read the discussion involving you and I see a consensus among editors that you've become disruptive in that topic area. An administrator is used to close those types of discussions per WP:RESTRICT and WP:General sanctions. Appealing these is generally done at the same noticeboard after a reasonable period of time (usually no earlier than 3 months) or at the Arbitration Committee.--v/r - TP 18:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the explanation. I wonder the effect of this policy. Doesn't this allow a majority group of editors to gang up on a minority editor holding a minority viewpoint? I am concerned that NPOV policy in the encyclopedia is intended to reflect a balance of major and minor viewpoints, and in this case the major viewpoint group harassed me incessantly (though I admit to rising to the bait, letting my temper get raised, being 'accidentally' compared to a pig, for instance crossed a line.) It seems that Wikipedia can be gamed in this way to tip NPOV balance points by railroading minority viewpoints out of topics through such a topic ban gambit. I get it that this is probably not a question for you to answer, nor do I expect you to care. But I consider that I have been successfully railroaded here by a POV contingent who skillfully implemented such the tactic of "bait, report, seek a ban". Seems like a defect in the Wikipedia system and frankly I find it discouraging to volunteer my time as an editor here trying to improve Wikipedia under these conditions. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The question your asking has been asked before. Yes, it is entirely possible for the system to be gamed, but it's generally agreed that when an issue opens up at ANI, there is a great enough reader base that any issue should be able to receive the attention of uninvolved editors. Does that mean that gaming doesn't happen? No, I've personally commented on issues where I think one party's concerns have been absolutely pushed aside because they are misunderstood. It's valid criticism, but I've yet to see a single case that this was unquestionably true. More often than not, it's left to the discretion of whomever drives by that particular day. ANI, then, becomes a very poor venue for dispute resolution. As a system, and as you've said, it's very discouraging to the people. However, when put into another perspective, say "Our goal is an encyclopedia, editors are second to that" then it becomes a protective measure. Many of the actions we take are indeed unfair, but article stability is most important. It's entirely discouraging, I understand. I've felt it too. Right now, on an unrelated issue, I'm entirely discouraged because the resolution to bring stability to the project is delayed by a process. But the encyclopedia itself is the primary goal. I know it's rough, but that's what we have.

If I were you, I'd try editing non-controversial topics for awhile and show that you're a team player. Wait 6 months and then ease back into editing the areas that interest you with more of a collaborative mindset instead of a "right" mindset. No one's view is neutral, neutrality comes from recognizing the merits of other points of view.--v/r - TP 19:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The concern I have is the effect of systemic editor bias on the encyclopedia, and the policy goal of NPOV. As long as this ANI gambit remains a tool available to groups of POV editors to suppress viewpoints that threaten their POV, all articles are at risk of domination by coalitions of POV aligned editors. This particular coalition has been POV defending this group of articles for at least six years in my observation, so as long as this rule remains in effect, and this coalition persists, my 'topic' ban is not 6 months, it is effectively permanent. This rule is likely also being exploited by dominant coalitions elsewhere in the encyclopedia. So the encyclopedia suffers by this 'topic ban' rule because it enhances the problem of systemic bias here through dominance of POV collations. Ultimately, this degrades the NPOV integrity here at the encyclopedia through the effect of entrenchment of POV coalitions. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is so large it concurrently contains a liberal and conservative bias, a pro-gun and anti-gun bias, a pro-LGBT and anti-LGBT bias, a pro-abortion and anti-abortion bias, and just about every other polarized issue with the exception of the Holocaust, racism, Scientology, and fringe sciences. You're going to find pockets of it all. Claiming that Wikipedia contains any one of those and not the other is just wrong. But as far as ANI goes, you won't find a more diverse crowd. Your topic ban contained elements of pro and anti-gun editors. It was a pretty bi-partisan decision.--v/r - TP 14:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You can claim that, but I doubt you can show evidence it is true. If you can, I would welcome a chance to see such evidence. I have studied this question and found the opposite. A disproportionate ratio of 'pro-gun' people (mostly men, often of 'Libertarian' lean) volunteer to edit here in gun articles. This phenomena has been scientifically studied in the greater political science context, for some reason there is an enthusiasm gap between the 'pro' and the 'anti' POV in context of gun politics. (ISBN 069113832X, Princeton University Press) "Pro" people are fewer in number, but are more enthusiastic (and likely to volunteer to advocate for their political cause on Wikipedia, write letter to Congress or the newspaper, donate to the pro-gun PACs, and be 'single issue' voters, etc..). Anti- are greater in number, but less enthusiastic, and therefore less likely to be devoted enough to volunteer to edit the topic. Systemic editor bias is a huge problem in Wikipedia gun related articles, and the ANI gambit by pro-gun coalitions of editors (as just seen) to POV dominate those article by 'topic banning' editors advocating for neutral points of view makes this encyclopedia worse. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

pages web-tool

Hello. There's a tool pages which I like a lot. And I have a question. Is there any method to get data from it in any other format like txt, json or xml? And, when is it planned to transfer it to Labs? ~Nirvanchik~ ^⊤άλҟ 20:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's already transferred. We've discussed a json or serialized array (php) export option before but I've never had the time to seriously consider doing it. I didn't develop these tools and never intended to own them, I only brought them back when they were needed as a host with minor tweaks to keep them running. Cyberpower628 has taken over much of the development, you might ask him.--v/r - TP 16:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the information and link. ~Nirvanchik~ ^⊤άλҟ 17:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

بدر بن منيف بن صايل الدلبحي

بدر بن منيف بن صايل الدلبحي العتيبي من الشباعين من قبيلـة الدلابحه. ولد بدر بن منيف في (14 نوفمبر 1985 في محافظة الدوادمي في المملكة العربية السعودية). عاش بدر مرحلـة طفولتـه ودراسـته للمراحل الدراسيه الثلاثه في مدينة جده. وكان بدر متفوقا في دراسـته حيث ان تكريمه عدة مرات من وزارة التربيه والتعليم في انذاك. في اواخـر عام 2004 ألتحق بدر بن منيف بجامعة الملك فهد للبترول والمعادن رغبة منه بالدراسة بكلية الهندسـه وتم اختياره كشخص مؤهل لدخول مجال هندسة البترول. في نوفمبر 2010 تخرج بدر بن منيف من جامعة الملك فهد للبترول والمعادن بشهادة بكالريوس هندسة بترول. كـانت الخيارات كثيره امام بدر لـ الالتحاق والمشارطه بعجلة الاقتصاد في هذا البلد الكريم حفظه الله. وفـضل بدر بن منيف على اختيار شركـة ارامكو ليخدم بلده فيها من خلال مجاله كمهندس بترول. حيث عمل على حفـر عديد من الابار اضافـة على احياء ابار قد مات الانتاج النفطي فيها. حيث عمل في عدة قطاعات في ارامكو منها هندسة الانتاج الشماليه و ادارة انتاج المكامن حتى هذا اليوم.