Jump to content

User talk:Ikip: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Ikip (talk | contribs)
59,234 edits
Line 142: Line 142:
* You know it's something that inspired strong feelings at the time and was wilfully misrepresented with malicious intent to the extent of changing main space content to include the false version reported verbatim from the main source of the fabrication. You know that, I know that. We can't change it, but you can do what you have done which is to demonstrate that it is simply no longer relevant to you or your work on Wikipedia. It's clear to me that Ikip has seen that, and has recognised that the comment was ill-judged. I don't tink Ikip is the only one who has believed the false and malicious version of events, what's important is that the comment was redacted and the error acknowledged. I suspect the arbitration is going to get messy and vitriolic, and I have no doubt that the past will be raked up by the usual suspects, so it's best to maintain calm where possible, and I think in this case it is possible. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
* You know it's something that inspired strong feelings at the time and was wilfully misrepresented with malicious intent to the extent of changing main space content to include the false version reported verbatim from the main source of the fabrication. You know that, I know that. We can't change it, but you can do what you have done which is to demonstrate that it is simply no longer relevant to you or your work on Wikipedia. It's clear to me that Ikip has seen that, and has recognised that the comment was ill-judged. I don't tink Ikip is the only one who has believed the false and malicious version of events, what's important is that the comment was redacted and the error acknowledged. I suspect the arbitration is going to get messy and vitriolic, and I have no doubt that the past will be raked up by the usual suspects, so it's best to maintain calm where possible, and I think in this case it is possible. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
**Durova, I am sorry, I was not comparing you to a cockroach. If it was seen as such, that was not my intention. I removed the edit. [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 22:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
**Durova, I am sorry, I was not comparing you to a cockroach. If it was seen as such, that was not my intention. I removed the edit. [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 22:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
***Thank you. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|319]]''</sup> 23:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:18, 19 September 2009

Click here to leave me a message

"Disagreeable and closed to new ideas - that's the picture that emerges of contributors to...Wikipedia from a survey of their psychological attributes." Aldhous, Peter (January 03, 2009). "Psychologist finds Wikipedians grumpy and closed-minded". NewScientist. Retrieved 2009-05-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Source: "Personality Characteristics of Wikipedia Members" CyberPsychology & Behavior (DOI: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0225)

This project does not exist to help editors grow a thicker skin. Our mission is to build an encyclopedia, not establish limits for low-level abuse that we think our volunteer editors should be willing to suffer. If we drive away more people than we attract, then it's a genuine loss to the project and we should fix it rather than label those who would prefer to work in a civil environment as "thin skinned." -- User:Cool Hand Luke [2]

The problem is that our enforcement of civility and NPA has historically been quite selective. If you're unpopular or unpowerful and criticizing somebody popular or powerful, you are likely to be blocked. The other way around, not so much. We ought to come up with objective standards and stick to them. -- User:Jehochman[3]

A reliable measure of prejudice is how many mistakes a person gets forgiven. --Durova

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/RfA_Report

...as an approximate guide, you are likely to pass if you achieve at least 75% support. Nominations which receive less than 70% support are unlikely to be successful, except in exceptional circumstances.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
HouseBlaster 144 22 7 87 Open 00:50, 23 June 2024 7 hours no report

Best welcome template: User:AxG/WikiWelcome1

wikipediareview: History of wikipedia

A suggestion

I know you're up to your eyeballs with a couple of projects and the last thing you need is one more.......but I have a suggestion anyway. :) User:ADM recently authored a series of articles such as Catholic sexual abuse scandal in France. They are of varying lengths, just changing country (or city) names. Most can be found in Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal. The articles, by themselves, seem like they'd be likely targets for AfD's in the near future. Perhaps you'd be interested in merging many of them into a single article that would appear more substantial, thus lessening the chance of multiple AfD's and quite possibly deletions. Just a suggestion. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, ADM (talk · contribs) has a history of removing information about sexual abuse from Catholic articles. (See Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Fairbanks.) A recent tack has been to erase from main articles and incompletely restore on summary pages. I wouldn't necessarily AfD most of these articles—while this seems like an abuse of WP:SUMMARY that hides embarrasing information, some of the Catholic sexual abuse articles are unwieldy in length—but some sort of dispute resolution or (Admin intervention) may be needed specifically for this user's actions. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me talk to him, maybe we can userfy the entire bunch for now, and he can merge them himself. Thanks for the wonderful idea. Ikip (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per what I wrote there: If you allow me, I can userfy these articles immediately, and this will allow you time to merge them, otherwise these editors appear to want to put them up for deletion. This is a temporary solution only, which will give you time to merge them.
I don't think any of them deserve deletion, I would instead suggest that we have a vote, which ideally should decide for a keep. I think you are probably talking about the following entries : Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Italy, Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the Netherlands, Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Belgium, Catholic sexual scandal in the United Kingdom and Catholic sexual abuse scandal in France. It would be very easy to add many details for each of them, there are already many sources and writings on the subject. ADM (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. Ikip (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another possibility would be to create an article entitled Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Europe which would combine all the information from the previous articles, the latter being together through a #REDIRECT. I find this to be a better solution, given the fact that no European country can really compare to the United States because of the USA's population. ADM (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which would be more impervious to deletion, even better would be Catholic sexual abuse scandal with all scandals throughout the world. Looking at the french article, this is a mere stub, and it is definitely vulnerable to deletion. Ikip (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certain countries have more problems than others, but you could divide it four or five zones : United States, Ireland, continental Europe outside Ireland, Australia-New Zealand, and parts of Latin America. There are very few problems reported in all of Africa and Asia, that's why we decided to expose it per region or per country. ADM (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying I have any intention of nominating them. I'm simply saying that some of the short ones seem like a likely target. I'm actually trying to think of a way to avoid AfD's for them. I like the idea of combining them by continent (or something similar). I also think that the suggestion to change the name of the category from Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal to Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases is a good one and should probably be considered for the title of these articles as well. Scandal is pretty POV sounding and simply changing it to "cases" would probably cut down on some of the flack the articles could take. Again, just suggestions. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Niteshift, it is awesome you are trying to think outside the box and be creative. Thank you for asking my opinion on this. As i wrote above, I agree 100% that some of the short ones seem a target. I will help ADM merge these. I still feel like they should be merged into one, but the continent wide idea seems like a good interm decision. Ikip (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
wow, ADM sure took the ball and ran with it, it appears like they are already finished. Ikip (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He ran with it alright. Where did all this information go? / edg ☺ ☭ 15:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Europe I will fix. Ikip (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

opps, he is two steps ahead of me. :) Ikip (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do I become an admin then?

Hi Thanks for your email yesterday - how do I become an admin then? Steve-Ho (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks a lot. I'll have a good read through on the link. Probably a step too far at the moment :-) Steve-Ho (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfying

The Original Barnstar
For cutting process, getting crap out of mainspace and helping newbies not to feel bitten all at the same time, a singular achievement. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you beat me to it sir. I was planning on giving you a barnstar of peace. I owe that to you. :) Ikip (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theo

Apparently... Pastor Theo...

this is difficult to say.

He was not.... being completely truthful about certain things. I'm not fully up to speed on the details myself, but he's no longer an admin.

Sorry to bring bad news. DS (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, I found this link: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Removal_of_administrative_access. Ikip (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARS

Thanks for the heads up. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a candidate

The article Eddie Kilroy (producer) was tagged for speedy, speedy was denied. Then it was prodded and the author blanked the page (I'm guessing he was getting frustrated). I initially tagged ot for a speedy G7, since the author blanked it, but then I thought about the incubator thing. If what was said in the short article was true, the guy is probably notable enough for an article. But that article had no sources and didn't assert notability very strongly. I'm not going to pretend like I'm going to try to rescue the article, but someone else might want to take a stab at it. If nobody does, then a G7 is probably in order. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I will try to deserve it :-) Guy (Help!) 21:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied articles

Ikip, hi.

Of the articles that you've successfully convinced AFD nominators to have userfied, do you think most of them are good incubation candidates? I suppose they're now in various people's user spaces, where they might or might not be under development. Why don't we farm some of those into the incubator? Whaddya think? Nobody will complain that we're taking content out of mainspace, because it's already out. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I love that quotation from Cool Hand Luke at the top of your talk page! I may steal it later...  :) -GTBacchus(talk) 15:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, he is a real nice guy. We started out on opposite ends, but things seem to have turned around.
I thought we decided not to get controversial articles yet? I actually saw a lot of logic in this. But it you have changed your mind, please let me know. It is about 6 articles only.Ikip (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have I grabbed anything controversial? Based on comments so far, it's taking from mainspace that's controversial. All I'm doing so far is robbing graves, no? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No your are not controversial at all. But my AFD nominators to have userfied are controversial. SoWhy made a veiled reference to me on WT:INCUBATE and of course Wikipedia_talk:AFD#Userification_without_creators_consent_but_with_nominators_consent. You decide. I trust your judgement. Here is the list of most of them: User_talk:Ikip/w (the ones with userfied next to the nominators name) Ikip (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our safest strategy is grave-robbing. That means pages that have already been userfied, and pages that have already been deleted. Even suggesting that pages about to be userfied or deleted seems to really get under people's skin. That makes no sense, but as I indicated in my reply to whatsisname, waiting for Wikipedians to make sense will make your hair grey. I'm off with my shovel and bible to the cemetery you linked. La, la, lala, la, la... -GTBacchus(talk) 20:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so we will hold off. thanks. this inquiry caught me by suprise, especially after:Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator#Lets_start_today in which I confused Fritzpoll with you.Ikip (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked {{Suggest incubation}} to make it less controversial. Perhaps you'd like to try it? Its proper use is {{Suggest incubation|NameOfEditorWhoSuggestedUserfying}}, and it's only for articles where userfying seems a likely option. I think it's safe, but I'm probably wrong. I think I'm right, though, that approaching the nominator to userfy or incubate without consensus determination to do that will be controversial. No bypassing the community, y'know? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the problem is the majority of articles in AFD are either deleted or kept, with a small minority merged or redirected. Usefying rarely comes up. But when it does, I will use your wonderful template. Nice job.

I only approached nominators whose nominations had no !votes yet. Once there was a !vote, I dropped the suggestion. Ikip (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted articles, we can work with. I'll dig up a churchyard; no shame. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 20:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck. I have a fast and dirty way of preliminarily seeing if these articles are worth digging up: google hits, Wikipedia:Sandbox/tool_test eventually we will have all days from here on out accounted for on a similar page. Ikip (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Is there a way to interface that with the Incubator, so it's easy for me to see where to plant the spade? My trouble is that I'm lazy as hell, you see. Pathologically so. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't live yet really, but just make it one template, {{Wikipedia:Sandbox/tool_test}}
If you like I can have the program modified to were you could scrape any AFD day that you want, with customized features, and e-mail the program as a stand alone exe file, which requires no other programs for it to work. But this will have to be in the future,
There is a BIG concern that I brought up on the INCUBATOR talk page. Part of the sucess of the ARS is the deadline factor, there is tension, there is a common enemy: deletion. This is something that Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit never had, saving articles that might be deleted is not as fun as rescuing articles from the clutches of deletion. Without somekind of friction or excitment, I don't see INCUBATE as being much different that ICU. Ikip (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I'll meditate on that; it's something I hadn't thought about. You're right that friction is exciting, and motivating. I once kissed a girl, so I know. ;) I think 1 month of incubation is absurdly long. Sound like a good deadline? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You guys discuss back and forth on the details, I would just like to start editing incubated articles, and prove that this system works. I say in a month, we discuss how long the articles should be in the incubator. Right now our primary concern should be how and when to put articles in the incubation.

In regards to bad articles, I personally think that if the article fails, we simply speedy delete it, or put it up for regular deletion. If editors argue about an article being ready, (ie not notable enough) after it has been in the incubation for a while, we put it up for deletion. No reason to create new rules. Ikip (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. There's a grip of 'em in there, waiting for someone's attention. I thank you for your excellent dedication to the project, and your good work. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 21:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
great, I am going there now. thanks. Ikip (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. You incubated the userfied articles :) KEWL I hope you contacted the editors. I think fully 3/4 of those are not salvagable. We will see. Ikip (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contacted 'em? I made a template just to do it! {{Incubate from userfied}}. I'm lovin' it. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 21:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I've proposed three minor changes – could you stop by Template talk:Incubate from userfied and review them? - Pointillist (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

Are you able to fix your eleventh entry at User:A_Nobody#List_of_editors_who_have_agreed_with_my_arguments_or_made_other_nice_observations_about_my_efforts, i.e. to make it conistent with the others? Thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 14:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama Joker poster

On the original talk page you posted a link to a video which you felt could be included in the article. Do you still have that video? I've lost the link and can't find it in my history! Also, you may be interested in This. Metty 15:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have me confused with someone else. Sorry. Ikip (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You have been named as one of the parties to this case. Please take note of the explanations given in italics at the top of that section; if you have any further questions about the list of parties, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Kilroy

This user played a significant role in helping Eddie Kilroy graduate from incubation.

Congrats on getting Eddie Kilroy ready for mainspace. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user played a significant role in helping Downtown Emergency Service Center graduate from incubation.

Ditto on Downtown Emergency Service Center --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arrr, that be good work, matey! -GTBacchus(talk) 02:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you guys are both geniuses. Ikip (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durova

I am sure I am wasting my time here but [4] is unhelpful and a mis-statement of what went on. Durova's error was to ask a group of people a question, assume that they understood the question to imply a particular conclusion, and then mistake silence for assent. This could have happened on-wiki just as easily. It was a silly error, but there was no cabal, just a group of hurt people trying to work out how to handle harassment. It's also unkind dragging it up. Durova is a hard worker, a nice person and has worked hard to put the error behind her. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitated to bring it up, and I should not have. I removed it.[5] Thank you. Ikip (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the wise course. Thanks. I've no doubt people will continue to bring it up, but I'm really hoping not since I've never seen a discussion of that case that did not immediately descend into unpleasantness. I think Durova has earned the right to put it behind her by now, and I think you agree if I read your comment right. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sir, I agree. I really didn't know all the particulars of the case, and I was not involved, so I trust your judgment on the case. Ikip (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to discuss something? Two years and over 300 featured credits later, has enough water has gone under the bridge to move past a mistake that I corrected with apologies in 75 minutes? Whether you compare me to a cockroach at a public noticeboard and then amend the statement days later after it's already archived, or just think it, I'd like to have an opportunity at dialog. I don't leap from a neglected sandwich to dance on the keyboard with six legs: I'm a human being. I can speak for myself. And you seem to be sweeping something under a rug. Durova319 21:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You know it's something that inspired strong feelings at the time and was wilfully misrepresented with malicious intent to the extent of changing main space content to include the false version reported verbatim from the main source of the fabrication. You know that, I know that. We can't change it, but you can do what you have done which is to demonstrate that it is simply no longer relevant to you or your work on Wikipedia. It's clear to me that Ikip has seen that, and has recognised that the comment was ill-judged. I don't tink Ikip is the only one who has believed the false and malicious version of events, what's important is that the comment was redacted and the error acknowledged. I suspect the arbitration is going to get messy and vitriolic, and I have no doubt that the past will be raked up by the usual suspects, so it's best to maintain calm where possible, and I think in this case it is possible. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Durova, I am sorry, I was not comparing you to a cockroach. If it was seen as such, that was not my intention. I removed the edit. Ikip (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ikip&oldid=314999075"