User talk:Reaper Eternal: Difference between revisions

	See archiving a talk page for more information.
	Archives

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:50, 29 August 2012

Userpage	Talkpage	Articles Worked On	Current Article	Public Sandbox	Barnstars	Console

Feel free to reverse my administrative actions; however, please let me know why you did it, especially if I made a mistake!

Skip to bottom ►

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for blocking the vandals whom I have reported today. I have also requested protection of the Empire State Building shootings article and will watchlist it until it is protected. Electric Catfish 15:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I rangeblocked for 2 weeks. Left a note here but not sure if your newer block on the single IP will reduce his block time.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't know about the rangeblock. I blocked him for disruptive editing when I saw the edits. I'll clear the block since it is pointless now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you very much for putting through my unblock request. Best wishes! Rob T Firefly (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Filter

Hi Reaper! I requested a few changes to the edit filter a month ago and no changes have been implemented yet. What do you think about...

Unticking the "Flag the edit in the edit filter log" option on the Wikilove filter.
Adding the "Possible spambot" filter to User:Mr.Z-bot/filters.js.
Modifying the regex on the Section blanking filter to make it detect if an edit summary was provided.
Modifying the regex on both the Multiple obscenities filter and filter 460 to disallow "fuckk" (please excuse my language).

Thanks, Electric Catfish 13:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I did. A WMF employee then informed me that this was not allowed and turned it back on. Prodego then did the same thing with the same results.
They're mostly false positives (but still vandalism, so the filter isn't disabled)
Why? The automatically filled-in text that comes from editing a section counts as an edit summary.
Done for filter 380; Already done on filter 460. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Reaper! Electric Catfish 14:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filter 422

Could you take a look at these false positives? Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your support at my RfA. Your advice is duly noted and appreciated.—Bagumba (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The MfD you just closed

I don't know if it's within policy, but User:NUMB3RN7NE/list was created during the deletion discussion as an attempt to "save" it. I have no idea whether WP:CSD#G4 would apply, but it's worth looking at. Achowat (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it per G4, since it falls under content created solely to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy. "This excludes...content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)." Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you. Achowat (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what was the reason for deletion of the original list ? --POVbrigand (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The MFD had a consensus for deletion citing the policies WP:BLP, WP:STALEDRAFT, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and your topic ban. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP issue was raised at the BLPN with no consensus for deletion, and there was no consensus about the BLP issue at the MfD either. Furthermore the scientists that were discussed have explicitely stated that they do not object being on this list. Kindly consider that the BLP issue was not correctly concluded and should not be named as one of the reasons for deletion.

I think it is important to highlight that it is not a BLP issue.

For me, that would leave staledraft and notwebhost as reason for deletion. However, considering that I had worked on the list until my topic ban a few months ago citing those two policies seems a bit over the top to me.

It all looks like a consensus triggered by Wikipedia:Overzealous_deletion.

Every editor is trying his best to do the right thing, but in the end some things go horribly wrong nevertheless. Thank god it's only wikipedia.

Thanks, --POVbrigand (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about there being no consensus to deleted at the BLPN discussion. However, I did not base the consensus on the BLPN discussion; rather, I based it on the MFD discussion which clearly had consensus for deleting your subpage. Furthermore, I highly doubt that every single one of those scientists has expressed his desire to be on this list, given that one at least posted on Talk:Cold fusion. The list also had several unsourced and poorly-sourced claims, hence the delete votes based on WP:BLP. I understand that you did work on it until roughly the date you were topic-banned. However, since you were indefinitely forced to leave it untouched, it eventually became a stale draft. The list also clearly violated WP:LISTPEOPLE, as one of the delete voters mentioned. Taking all the reasons presented for the deletion of the page together, and the clear consensus to delete based upon those policy-based votes, I chose to delete the page. "It all looks like a consensus triggered by Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion." I don't think so, and accusing the people advocating deletion of being eager to "win the game" isn't particularly helping your case. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you based the deletion on the "delete" votes on the MfD and that the consensus was to delete. The problem is that there were many different reasons mentioned why it should be deleted.

"BLP issue"

You did notice that the actual "list of lenr researchers" is only the top section of that page ? That list did not have unsourced claims. The rest of the page is just a working sheet, maybe that section was causing the BLP concern, but it is nowhere claimed that people mentioned on the working sheet are lenr researchers. I should/could have hatted (or deleted) that working sheet section, but I was still collecting references.

Many of the researchers on the list have there own wiki article, where it is clearly stated that they indeed do LENR research. No BLP issue there.

I can poll each of the mentioned researchers if they are ok to be on that list, if that would solve the issue. But I really doubt it is worth the effort. There is probably a policy against polling people somewhere and the consensus is not going to change anyhow regardless of how solid the evidence might be, so why bother ?

I conclude that several editors claim there is a BLP violation and some examples are highlighted. Those examples are clearly shown not to be BLP issues. Yet it is still concluded that there is a BLP issue, in contradiction with the outcome of two separate BLPN discussions. Well, that's strange.

"Listpeople" is an argument I don't understand when I compare to List_of_climate_scientists, List_of_cosmologists, List_of_physicists, and any other of the 102 lists of scientists [1]. Please explain. Have all those scientists expressed their desire to be on such lists ?

Should my list have been cropped to show only the researchers for whom wiki pages exist ? But other lists seem to have a similar situation of "red links" see for instance List of geneticists

"Staledraft" by your rational every indef topic banned user should always immediately get all his subpages deleted. The "staledraft" guideline was certainly not written with that in mind.

--POVbrigand (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

News and notes: Tough journey for new travel guide

Recent research: New influence graph visualizations; NPOV and history; 'low-hanging fruit'

Technology report: Just how bad is the code review backlog?

Featured content: Wikipedia rivals The New Yorker: Mark Arsten

WikiProject report: From sonic screwdrivers to jelly babies: Doctor Who

Discussion report: Sidebar and main page alterations; Recent Deaths; Education Program extension

Read this Signpost in full
Single-page
Unsubscribe
EdwardsBot (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 113: / Line 113: @@
 ::Thanks, --[[User:POVbrigand|POVbrigand]] ([[User talk:POVbrigand|talk]]) 14:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 :::You are correct about there being no consensus to deleted at the [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive139#Cold Fusion Userspace BLP issues|BLPN discussion]]. However, I did not base the consensus on the BLPN discussion; rather, I based it on the MFD discussion which clearly had consensus for deleting your subpage. Furthermore, I ''highly'' doubt that every single one of those scientists has expressed his desire to be on this list, given that one at least posted on [[Talk:Cold fusion]]. The list also had several unsourced and poorly-sourced claims, hence the delete votes based on [[WP:BLP]]. I understand that you did work on it until roughly the date you were topic-banned. However, since you were indefinitely forced to leave it untouched, it eventually became a stale draft. The list also clearly violated [[WP:LISTPEOPLE]], as one of the delete voters mentioned. Taking all the reasons presented for the deletion of the page together, and the clear consensus to delete based upon those policy-based votes, I chose to delete the page. {{xt|"It all looks like a consensus triggered by [[Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion]]."}} I don't think so, and accusing the people advocating deletion of being eager to "win the game" isn't particularly helping your case. [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] ([[User talk:Reaper Eternal#top|talk]]) 15:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
+::::I know you based the deletion on the "delete" votes on the MfD and that the consensus was to delete. The problem is that there were many different reasons mentioned why it should be deleted.
+::::"BLP issue"
+::::You did notice that the actual "list of lenr researchers" is only the top section of that page ? That list did not have unsourced claims. The rest of the page is just a working sheet, maybe that section was causing the BLP concern, but it is nowhere claimed that people mentioned on the working sheet are lenr researchers. I should/could have hatted (or deleted) that working sheet section, but I was still collecting references.
+::::Many of the researchers on the list have there own wiki article, where it is clearly stated that they indeed do LENR research. No BLP issue there.
+::::I can poll each of the mentioned researchers if they are ok to be on that list, if that would solve the issue. But I really doubt it is worth the effort. There is probably a policy against polling people somewhere and the consensus is not going to change anyhow regardless of how solid the  evidence might be, so why bother ?
+::::I conclude that several editors claim there is a BLP violation and some examples are highlighted. Those examples are clearly shown not to be BLP issues. Yet it is still concluded that there is a BLP issue, in contradiction with the outcome of two separate BLPN discussions. Well, that's strange.
+::::"Listpeople" is an argument I don't understand when I compare to [[List_of_climate_scientists]], [[List_of_cosmologists]], [[List_of_physicists]], and any other of the 102 lists of scientists [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_scientists]. Please explain. Have all those scientists expressed their desire to be on such lists ?
+::::Should my list have been cropped to show only the researchers for whom wiki pages exist ? But other lists seem to have a similar situation of "red links" see for instance [[List of geneticists]]
+::::"Staledraft" by your rational every indef topic banned user should always immediately get all his subpages deleted. The "staledraft" guideline was certainly not written with that in mind.
+::::--[[User:POVbrigand|POVbrigand]] ([[User talk:POVbrigand|talk]]) 17:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 == ''The Signpost'': 27 August 2012 ==