User talk:R. Baley

Previous comments/messages in Archive1.

mfd

the editor who started this mfd (not understanding it was a joke) has deleted my comment (not understanding it was a joke). I don't actually love justin timberlake, and that isn't my password. I cannot revert it (the comment was placed there by someone else for me) as the conversation is too large for my phone to edit. I have just moved and have no computer access. would you mind uncensoring my comment, and yours as well? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Done by me. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

dammit, too late. I didn't look to see who had deleted it. Just assumed you were feeling misunderstood (clearly a joke, I mean Justin? That part was actually funny). R. Baley 03:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Any time!

Sorry about the late reply, dear R, but I didn't want to leave your lovely message unreplied, because it's rare these days to be thanked for a deletion instead of being systamtically bashed for it instead ;) Please, any time you encounter a similar copyright problem, don't hesitate to message me for a second opinion and a quick deletion if necessary, k? Love, Phaedriel - 19:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you R. Baley!!

Thanks for your excellent photo essay. It helped me secure two photos for Athabasca University. Your essay is a moment to good procedure and practice, and should be featured if that's possible for a user space essay. You're my favourite person of the moment. Thanks again! Me-123567-Me 14:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to leave feedback. Me-123567-Me 22:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WMC, evidence and guilt by association

Your commentary on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#The_nth_repetition... puzzled me. Did you actually read the page before you supported the deletion? There's an exception to the "no personal attacks" rule in wp:user and I was trying to place my page smack dab in the middle of that exception. So how should it have been done right?

Separately, I'm of the opinion that a complainant's actual complaints deserve consideration independent of previous cases not involving the complainant. You seem to differ. Am I misreading you? TMLutas 15:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope didn't get a chance to read it, I was trusting the judgment of admins who did. If indeed you are trying to get a dispute resolved, you should keep the issues raised related to content rather than than trying to build a case for bad conduct. In the event you know where he has clearly violated a policy you should probably take it to WP:AN (though I should warn you, it needs to be very clear to get anywhere, and "clear cases" do not require a separate page to "build up" evidence). So with regard to user sub-pages, they're probably ok where they are devoted to resolving content disputes where the actions of an editor are incidental to the content which is in dispute. But probably not ok when focused mainly on a particular editor unless the dispute is long term and in such desperate need of a resolution, that a CSN or ArbCom case is clearly coming up real soon. Since none of the dispute resolution methods have been tried up to this point (making CSN and Arbcom extremely unlikely), building a case against an editor, is inappropriate. R. Baley 16:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald

I reviewed the article according to the good article criteria, and my analysis is on the talk page. Thanks for your nomination! GreenJoe 21:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

hey, thanks!

Luckily he didn't ask me anything about images.....Tvoz |talk 05:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard closure

I only did the one closure, which I picked up on the talk page (I think it's a new template). But it worked fine on the Tammy Duckworth discussion, save for the same problem I had which is that it puts an extra "----" on the bottom and therefore shows an unnecessary additional section break. I've removed it. Perhaps the {{blpb}} template can be fixed to remove it. Sam Blacketer 23:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars kid issue at WP:BLPN

Hi R. Baley. I do thank you for your comments on this issue, and for your obvious interest in seeing this issue resolved rather than prolonged. However it may appear, I am sincerely not interested in escalating this dispute either. I would like to share with you my current thoughts and then, if you're willing, get your input as to how, if at all, I should proceed in light of these thoughts. If you'd rather stay completely out of this dispute, I'll certainly understand that, but please understand that I'm sincerely looking for guidance rather than validation of my position. In any event, my thoughts are as follows:

• The comment in question was stupid, and added very little to the debate. So why fight to restore it? Well, I hate to invoke Voltaire, because the quote gets bandied about so often and because (as User:FCYTravis correctly points out) Wikipedia talk pages are not unrestrained free speech zones, but it's less about restoring the specific comment and more about standing up for the principle that editors can't delete each others' comments just because they're dumb and don't add much to the debate - "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to ArbComm your right to say it."
• More seriously still, User:FCYTravis's conduct in this dispute has made me question his willingness to abide by WP:CONSENSUS. When the combined consensus at WP:WQA and WP:BLPN (where he explicitly told me to list the dispute after he refused to abide by the WP:WQA consensus) has been (rightly or wrongly) that he was incorrect to delete the material, and when he tells me, in effect, that it doesn't matter how overwhelming a consensus I can garner, he won't agree to restore the material...well, I have trouble letting something like that slide. When he tells me that the only way he's going to abide by a consensus is on the orders of ArbComm, I have trouble letting that slide. I'm prepared to accept that it may be in the best interests of the project to let it slide, but it will take some convincing.
• Overall, he's clearly a good editor. This isn't a case where you've got a problem editor and you think to yourself "Well, this is ultimately going to have to end with him being banned, but I need to go through the proper dispute resolution channels first." I would dearly love for us to be able to declare a consensus, act in accordance with it, and move on. But at the same time I feel like I went into this process quite prepared to let the issue drop if that's the way consensus went and that, since consensus went the other way, the onus is now on him to give in.

I would welcome an attempt on your part to convince me, in light of my thoughts above, that letting this drop is the right course of action. Further, I promise to listen completely open-mindedly to any such attempt you make. But if you'd rather take no further role in the dispute, that's completely understandable as well. In any event, thank you for your intervention thus far. Sarcasticidealist 08:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll comment in a moment, still trying to clean up troll stuff (maybe you saw the top of my page?) Patiently, R. Baley 08:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi SI, for the purposes of this post, I assume that everything you say is exactly how it went down (I don't really know, but I think I can make a convincing argument anyway). I have seen enough on this site to know that some users have achieved enough "status" to bully their way through a lot of things. I don't care for it either (generally, this is especially true of late with BLP, though, not to my knowledge, with FCYT specifically). With regard to your first principle: lose the battle, not the war (metaphorically speaking, WP is not a battlefield of course). I agree that people should be able to make points and not have one person be the arbitor of whether it's OK or not. Whether FCYT is right on the technicalities of policy doesn't matter because you can't possibly put your whole self behind a principle, when your defending (simultaneously) the godwinning of a thread and a blowjob comment (w/Nixon thrown in). And seriously, if you've compared the article/kid to hitler, you've greatly undermined/negated any point made. (I know it wasn't yours, but someone else's point).

I'm thinking you might want to wait for a better comment to be made, to make your case for this principle (One that can be shown to help improve the article, for instance). It might never come (and in that case, all is well). Because while you may be right "technically", in the end it's just a really bad comment.

Finally, it doesn't have to be your argument. If there is a strong consensus (with a will behind it) it will probably exert itself, regardless of what any one editor does. Oh, and another final point, has anybody tried just archiving the thread, in it's entirety? Would that alleviate everyone's concerns? The issue of whether to include the name is settled, right?

Hope this helps,

R. Baley 09:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'll sleep on it before I decide what to do (it's 3:26 in the morning here, and I nominally have a day job). I'm still a little disturbed by his approach to consensus, but I'll certainly take what you say under advisement - thanks again for posting your thoughts. Sarcasticidealist 09:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sleeping on it is almost always advisable in these situations. There's never a hurry and it's just a wiki :-)

Best,

R. Baley 09:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And therein lies the rub, guys - if a better comment was made, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't have an issue with reasonable and rational discussion. But I feel that the comparisons in question were unnecessary, insulting and completely out-of-line for describing the actions of some 14-year-old kid dancing in a home movie. Put yourself in the shoes of someone or someone's family who ends up with a Wikipedia article for something that a bunch of stupid people saw on the Interwebs and laughed at. It's bad enough that we have an article on him - to allow anonymous Internet jokers to compare him with Hitler is beyond the pale. There is nothing which obligates us to accept the lowest common denominator in speech and thought. We can be and should be above that. Indeed, we have a policy which explicitly states that we must live up to a higher standard when discussing living people, in articlespace or talkspace. There are millions of ways to rationally make an argument about SWK - many of them are already on display on that talk page. I have removed none of them, and will remove none of them - except for the one which invoked Godwin's Law. It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Scan that entire userpage. There are many debates and many viewpoints from all sides. None of the others resorted to such tabloidesque sensationalism. If they can do it, why not him?

As for consensus, it cannot override WP:BLP. BLP was explicitly created because "consensus" decisions far too often failed to live up to our legal and moral obligations with regards to living people. Consensus cannot allow violations of BLP, any more than a consensus can decide that Wikipedia should host blogs in violation of what Wikipedia is not. The BLP explicitly states Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material – whether negative, positive, or just questionable – about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia. It is unquestionably negative and contentious for anyone to describe SWK's actions as analogous to Hitler's. Demand higher standards in thought and words, Sarcasticidealist. Disagreements and good-faith debates can and should take place without juvenile resort to hateful false analogies. FCYTravis 22:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I think there is still some question on the policy part, due in no small part, to the fact that it subject to interpretation of BLP. Probably, the consensus that developed was because people perceived that you were asserting control over the discussion in a way that can seem less legitimate when done alone. It's too bad there isn't a quick way to determine these things as a group, because I think it might not have led to arguments if everybody felt they had a say in the matter (and I also think that the consensus would have been to 'remove', but perhaps I'm too optimistic). Well, I hope that didn't come across as too critical, from what I remember, you're a good editor (as is SI) and I wish you well. Happy editing, R. Baley 23:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Eleemosynary

This regards the recent back-and-forth revertions of my friendly reminder to not engage in personal attacks on User talk:Eleemosynary. According to WP:TALK, a user can remove any comments from his or her own talk page for any reason, although doing so for no reason is generally regarded as uncivil, so it would have been good for Eleemosynary to provide a good faith explanation. Eleemosynary's lying about my comments in his edit summary — calling the comments nonsense and me a troll — are uncivil, but there's nothing that can (or should) be done to undo them via simple edits. Happily, his (or her) edit summary underscores my point, that Eleemosynary engages in personal attacks within edit summaries (although it may be open to interpretation whether calling a non-troll a troll violates WP:NPA). In any event, the comments were meant for Eleemosynary, and he obviously read them and chose to scrub his talk page of them. It's a tad dishonest, but I can live with it. Perhaps he will heed my warnings and refrain from further personal attacks. If not, next time he engages in personal attacks, my comments in his talk page history can be used to illustrate that his attacks are part of a consistent pattern made in the face of reminders of the policy he continues to violate. Calbaer 17:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Calbaer, I had no problem with you leaving a comment. And I have no opinion to offer (no knowledge) on the dispute which you two are engaged in. The only thing I objected to was a supposedly new user with no contribs, being so confrontational about re-adding text to a talk page. I think you've hit the nail on the head about talk page history, and that's why we allow users to delete comments if they want to -it establishes that they've seen it, and in the future, should it become necessary, can be used to illustrate a point/make a case.

Hope you two can work it out (like the above section), I really would rather see the more established editors getting along better. Well, take care, and best wishes for happier editing in the future,

R. Baley 18:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure "confrontational" was the right word, but I thought the way that user was handled quite odd. Restoring a deleted comment may not be great, but it's hardly "vandalism." Also, the indefinite block seemed a bit odd, especially since the template cited the contributions, which were pretty much limited to the two reversions. How these show that the user is a sockpuppet is beyond me. It would have been good of the blocker to state the real reason for the block, e.g., a common IP address. As it is, I'm a bit mystified about a block involving my words but not me! Calbaer 03:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

David M. Spindel

Hi R.B., I have been fortunate enough to speak with David Spindel on the phone and recieved a treasure trove of info on him and his career. He gave me full permission to use whatever I deem fit for Wikipedia. He's even sending a picture. His page is going to be reformatted in the near future. I wanted to thank you by sticking with me on this. Sixstring1965 20:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sixstring1965File:Applecorps.jpg^{The Beatles Wikiproject}

Your welcome. Make sure the pic has the appropriate license info (not to pimp my own material, but you might want to look at my guide to acquire a free image). As for any other material, use stuff that has been published first. For right now, you want to try and make his notability solid. R. Baley 21:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please block me properly

This is viran. And I can still edit pages. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sairiliyan (talk • contribs) 10:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) OK (thanks SQL) R. Baley 10:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done, sorry for the delay. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 10:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, I was going to a bit ago, and, got distracted. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 10:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User viran

I have declared all my sockpuppets on user:viran page. Please block them. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishka (talk • contribs) 11:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Deja Vu!

please block properly. I can still edit. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishka (talk • contribs) 12:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Bamadude

Thanks for getting involved in this - I was off-Wiki all weekend. And of course I remember you - your advice was one of several factors leading me to de-escalate on the User:FCYTravis comment deletion issue. It looks like it's escalated to beyond the level that non-admins are needed, but I've left a note on Cheeser's page asking him to let me know if I can be of any use. Sarcasticidealist 00:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi SI! You're welcome, I'm a little sorry I didn't get involved sooner, but I was worried about inflaming the situation (my prior interaction and all). I hope you had a great weekend, after all, nobody can be 'on-wiki' all the time. I'm keeping an eye on the situation (which hopefully has waned) but in case I miss something, let me know, and I'll do whatever I can to help. Oh and thanks for leaving a comment a C1's (and in general for your work at WA). Talk to ya later, R. Baley 09:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Lennon Picture

Hi R, I wanted to run this by you quickly. After laboring over getting the picture correct for John Lennon, I wanted to make sure I did everything to spec. take a look. It's the opening picture. Thanks in advance.Sixstring1965 22:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sixstring, I'm glad you received the the appropriate license, the pic looks good (I'm assuming it's this one. What you need to do to finish up is send an email, or permissions request, to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" (as per this link. It might take a little time for them to respond, they get a lot of requests. Once you've forwarded to them the permission you obtained for the licenses used, add "{{Otrs pending}}" to the image page (in the licensing section).

Sorry it took me a little while to get to this, I've been away from the wiki for the last couple of days. Try to read over the Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission article, I linked to earlier, and it's usually safest to send that email so that the license can be confirmed as soon as possible. Otherwise, an image might be in danger of getting deleted. Let me know when you send the email. Take care, R. Baley 05:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Smile

NHRHS2010 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

NHRHS2010 talk 01:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

My First Vandal

R., I was vandalized for the first time by 216.165.22.115 and don't know what to do next besides revert. Any suggestions? Sixstring1965 15:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)