User talk:Hans Adler: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:39, 30 April 2011

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

I do not use "talkback" templates, and it rarely if ever makes sense to leave me such templates. I could never see the point of the stickers I sometimes got in elementary school. Please do not embarrass me with "awards" or "barnstars" or the like.

Mediation Case

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)

Wilhelm von Gottberg

Thank you very much for your help.Xx236 (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC

There seem to be more BillJohnson0003 socks here

It appears to me that soon after BillJohnson0003 and his socks were banned, he started again from scratch. I believe that User:Patric.covey, User:Zedcannon and User:Johntoshiba are all the same blocked user, due to their editing habits, the similarity in userpages (see BillJohnson0003's user page here) and their use of multiple exclamation marks.

They don't seem to have done much harm, yet. Do you think it's worth reporting them?

I was planning to edit the Santa Claus article again in May 2011. I thought it might be long enough between Christmases that I might be able to make a difference but I think I've changed my mind. The page seems to be every bit as controversial as the pseudo-science pages you've edited and just as fiercely defended by the "believers". --Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sock drawer reported for execution, thanks. Hans Adler 08:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your investigation and prompt action. I doubt we've seen the last of that "puppetmaster" if he had the nerve to create two new accounts within hours of being blocked. Oh well, at least he's not difficult to spot. --Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not am member of the Ottoman Dynasty

You are not Ottoman princess

There are only 4 women in Austria, whose native language is German

These can be found on the list.

These 4 women are securing Osman princesses.

In Austria there live this 4 Ottoman Princesse's !!!:

Margot Leyla Sultan 1947 and her daughter Katharina Alia Schnelle Hanımsultan 1980

Iskra Sultan 1949 and her daughter Andrea Schlang Hanımsultan 1974

This four Woman's are Descendant from Abdülhamid II.

Dilek2 (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For my talk page stalkers: I am not sure if this comment is serious or not, but it is a response to this. Hans Adler 15:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems very serious. You may have to change your identity yet again.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is a Stalker, But the List is true....you know thaht

24 Princes are Sehzades today not any more.

and all the other Members: Sultan's Hanim Sultans and Sultanzades are listed.

I can post you from Facebook the Pages from Original Ottoman Members

SO tell me Madama Arabian where is a worng Person in this list? Dilek2 (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dilek, PLEASE read WP:Truth. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No member of the Ottoman dynasty had to change his identity.

They are Public in Facebook and Homepages also in Reportage's on You Tube.

http://www.selimdjem.com/ Dilek2 (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories of contract bridge

See my response to your comment on my user page. Regards. Newwhist (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transformer Warpath deletion review

There is a review of a deletion you might want to voice your opinion on here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_April_21 Mathewignash (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I think your points about the likely effect of a redaction request are accurate. The first paragraph however seems more of a problem. Reconsider perhaps? Ocaasi ^c 21:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first paragraph is the AGF version: Incompetence rather than active malice. It's personal, but it seems relevant enough. If SirFozzie has any problem with it, I am sure he himself is capable of proposing to take that particular aspect to a more appropriate place. As I am not sure where that would be (where do we normally discuss problems with incompetent arbitrators? RfC/U?), I am not doing anything for the moment. Hans Adler 22:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem with it, personally, tempers are running hot (and it comes with the job), except it makes it harder for one to take seriously comments after those that begin with "SirFozzie, you are seriously out of touch with reality. It's amazing how someone with such a poor understanding of social interactions could ever get into your position here. Or maybe you just don't have the time to read diffs and do your job properly?" and then an attempt to try to claim you're AGF.. I think they call that passive-aggressiveness. I feel like one of those old sitcoms. "Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel...." You disagree with the way I see this, fine, but there's a line about disagreeing without being disagreeable, and I think you crossed that line with your comments, which sadly, makes it harder for me to take seriously your other comments on the issue. SirFozzie (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Searching on google

If I type sirfozzie and philknight into google, this is what I get.[1] It could be different in other parts of Europe. Please could you do something about it? Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I have added the noindex magic word. This behaviour of Google is ridiculous. Unfortunately, the last time we had a discussion about the problem, there was no consensus to make user space noindex by default.

The page is meant strictly as a reminder for myself for the next Arbcom election, because I tend to forget such things and then I don't know who to vote for and who not.

While I am very happy that you noticed this problem and notified me, I must say I feel slightly uneasy that you noticed it so quickly. Presumably you are not googling for these two user names every few hours. I guess it's just one of those funny accidents. Hans Adler 21:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. It might be best to keep any list like that off-wiki, unless it is intended for some kind of RfC/U. As to how I found your subpage, if you leave messages on ArbCom case pages that I watch, it's just a click away on the history of that page to see what you have been up to elsewhere. Nothing mysterious. The test on google took less than a second. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes sense. I can't keep such information off-wiki because I would almost certainly forget about it, so I don't really have a choice unless I want to risk voting for people who I now feel very strongly are not qualified. I am just not good enough at having a long-term bad opinion of someone... As soon as Google updates its index it will be completely out of sight, so there should be no harm. Hans Adler 22:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, two things, A) You don't need to worry, I already said that this is my last term, that when my two year term expires in December 2012, I'm not going to be running again, and I intend on honoring it, and as for the link, have you considered that it's because we have a common experience, in working in AE previously, so that we (PhilKnight and myself) would have a similar mindset about actions in that area? SirFozzie (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. My concern is extreme ABF, which is something I have rarely observed from arbitrators. (Maybe because I have rarely paid much attention to a case.) It may or may not be caused by group thinking or even a right-wing authoritarian mindset. [2] In any case the result is blaming the mobbing victim and defending all the culprits. I have extremely low tolerance for everything that even remotely approaches hypocrisy, and this matter is getting so close that I am now trying to disengage in order to restore my balance. This is not a promise, just an explanation why I suddenly stopped communicating (or rather tried to do so). Hans Adler 20:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the lack of communication, I'm just trying to explain where I'm coming from. By your request, I'll drop it after I say one last thing. We disagree about the proximate cause, but hopefully we put things into the decision that will make sure that none of these things happen again with other people. I have concerns that the personal interactions which led to Ludwigs2's initial request to AN (which probably will not be in the final decision) will lead to another case, but that won't have anything to do with AE (which is what we accepted the case on). Anyway, I wish you well with the disengaging, and hope you find your equilibrium. SirFozzie (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ristikontra

On 27 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ristikontra, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in the Finnish card game Ristikontra, a player wins a trick by playing another card of the same rank as the first card in the trick? You are welcome to check how many hits the 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) 12:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Pigeon photographer

I've had a soft spot for this article ever since I helped Jennavecia expand it sufficiently for DYK, ages ago now it seems. (What was it called then, the Bavarian Pigeon Corps?)

You've performed wonders with it since then, and I'd really love to see it get promoted at FAC, so I hope you don't mind my fiddling with it. It may be controversial, but I view FAC in much the same way as gladiatorial combat; fighting on your own is what you have to do sometimes, but it's much safer if you can gather the support of a few allies. Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was extremely lucky that Uncle G drew my attention to the article. I am very happy about your help. So far FAC has been a purely cooperative experience for me, and I hope it's going to stay that way. As it's almost a year until next April Fools Day I am extremely relaxed about it. I wouldn't have minded if other commenters had become a little more active directly in the article, but I guess from their POV it's prudent not to do that.

I am slightly irritated that so far almost all the feedback has been on purely formal things – your style improvements were a very welcome change. At times the GA process, especially the one at the German Wikipedia, felt like a thesis defence. Coming to it with this expectation, the FAC feels like a thesis defence in which I must explain my choice of paper and the lack of capitalisation in chapter titles. Or is it just that the formalities are generally done first because they can lead to a quick fail?

By the way, I would really like to make the article mention the "Bavarian Pigeon Corps", but it's still not clear whether it ever existed. For a long time I thought it was all completely wrong, but recently I found this. This was the first clear evidence that pigeon photography was really used in the Second World War. Maybe those trucks were the Bavarian Pigeon Corps. In the light of this, it seems possible that the German army, and maybe even the French army, had superior pigeon cameras before Christian Adrian Michel. But so far that's all pure speculation.Hans Adler 21:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you could (and perhaps should) shoehorn in the Bavarian Pigeon Corps, as it's mentioned by several apparently reliable sources, whether or not they were correct in what they claimed. It would need to be carefully written though. I had a similar problem with my own FAC on the Green children of Woolpit. The probability of those kids actually appearing as the result of a matter transporter malfunction on a distant planet is vanishingly small, but I suppose not actually zero. It rounds off the story nicely nevertheless and adds a bit of sparkle.

So far as FAC is concerned, yes, reviewers will pick the low-hanging fruit first, looking for reasons to fail: things like sourcing, image licensing, poor writing and the like. Once they're out the way then it's game on. I think that in many ways FAC (and even) GAN is similar to a thesis defence, with the obvious difference that you're allowed to recruit colleagues in the defence. Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see I'm not perfect after all. That was indeed what I intended. Malleus Fatuorum

Template

Is your "invisible template" supposed to do this. Or is it some sort of joke? Perhaps I am too thick to appreciate something. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a joke but a solution to the very real problem described on the template's documentation page. You are not the first editor who added an infobox to one of Giano's articles or to an opera composer article. Editors do this in good faith, but those who care for these articles and don't want infoboxes tend to get rather grumpy when it happens for the umpteenth time. Occasionally this leads to huge escalations, which I hope to prevent with this little trick. The template makes it absolutely clear when no infobox is desired. It may have been my own idea, but when I searched for it I saw that someone else had proposed it before. The idea can be extended to provide microformats, since in the past at least one editor vigorously pushed infoboxes just to get microformats into as many articles as possible. This is the context in which it came up previously. Hans Adler 12:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it normal that all that text appears in the article? Should it be in Template:Infobox_invisible/doc? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It's not a frequently used template (yet), so I guess it doesn't really matter. I don't mind if you want to restructure it in this way, but for the moment it only seems to make things slightly more complicated. Hans Adler 13:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement warning: Pseudoscience

(Warning removed on advice of Risker. Sandstein 20:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Sandstein, since this is a case you are currently a party to, and since tens of other admins and arbitrators are watching the pages actively, and the ruling on the current case hasn't even been finalized...maybe this is one of those situations where it's better to drop the rulebook, or at least to let someone else administer it. I'm not saying Hans' language is ideal, but something doesn't look right about your warning either. Maybe you should get an uninvolved admin in the future. Also, this is a heated arbitration case not a content dispute; a simple request is often less officious and more productive than invoking formal procedures. I'm pretty sure you see these warnings as the very opposite of the Ludwigs-style declaration made at ANI, but I don't think all other editors do. They can appear as threats, in their own way, when they come from involved editors. They raise the tension as much as they seek to squash another problem. Ocaasi ^c 19:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 139: / Line 139: @@
 == Arbitration enforcement warning: Pseudoscience ==
+(Warning removed on advice of {{u|Risker}}. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 20:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC))
-Hello. At [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_Enforcement_sanction_handling/Workshop&diff=426687572&oldid=426676899], you made a personal attack against another editor in the context of a conduct dispute about pseudoscience-related issues, namely: "a disruptive [[WP:IDHT]] artist", "the ''predictable temper tantrums by QG''" (emphasis in original) and "who fails to see the full extent of his own incompetence". <p>In doing so you violated Wikipedia's [[WP:NPA|policy against personal attacks]], which instructs you to "comment on content, not on the contributor", and explains that "it is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior ... as it is to attack any other user." It also notes that attacks that are "''never'' acceptable", emphasis in the original, include "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence", as in this case, and explains that "insulting or disparaging an editor", as you did here, "is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done".<p>As you are aware, according to the Arbitration Committee's decision at [[WP:ARBPS#Discretionary sanctions]], "any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." You are an editor working in the area of conflict and have seriously violated the "no personal attacks" policy, as explained above. <p>I therefore warn you that you may be made subject to, as described in the decision previously mentioned, blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which I believe are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project, <u>unless</u> you promptly remove the personal attack. Furthermore, I warn you that may be made subject to sanctions as described above <u>without another warning</u> should you make personal attacks in the context of disputes about pseudoscience in the future. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 18:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 :Sandstein, since this is a case you are currently a party to, and since tens of other admins and arbitrators are watching the pages actively, and the ruling on the current case hasn't even been finalized...maybe this is one of those situations where it's better to drop the rulebook, or at least to let someone else administer it.  I'm not saying Hans' language is ideal, but something doesn't look right about your warning either.  Maybe you should get an uninvolved admin in the future.  Also, this is a heated arbitration case not a content dispute; a simple request is often less officious and more productive than invoking formal procedures.  I'm pretty sure you see these warnings as the very opposite of the Ludwigs-style declaration made at ANI, but I don't think all other editors do.  They can appear as threats, in their own way, when they come from involved editors.  They raise the tension as much as they seek to squash another problem. [[User talk:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Ocaasi|c]]</sup> 19:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)