User talk:FloNight

Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Spring in Kentucky

Athletics project alert

I recall you mentioning somewhere an interest in this, so thought I'd point out this. Just looking at FAs and GAs, athletics is certainly underrepresented compared with various football codes and cricket. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Strange goings on

[1] looks kind of fishy and Weirdward has virtually no history, but seems to know about previous discussions and who people are, which seems to indicate to me that he's either vandalising or is a sockpuppet. Tweety21's page (which was the subject of the diff) says that the user requested to be blanked, but then kept coming back with sockpuppets and that you should be contacted? I don't know if you wanted to do anything with any of this, but I thought I'd let you know. Banaticus (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The edits have been reverted. Suggest ignoring for now. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You've got mail ...

... from me ;-) Paul August ☎ 16:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Scientology votes

Ah, thanks; I'd missed those. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 07:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientology case Henson

You voted a finding against me. I wouldn't mind that if there was substance and if it was in the context of an action against me, but why was it placed in a case where I have not contributed to the topic for more than a year? (And only twice in my entire history on Wikipedia.) Keith Henson (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It is simply not so that you have only made two edits within the Scientology topic. You have often edited your own BLP which falls within scope as well as other biographies, including the Barbara Schwarz attack page. You have also contributed to discussions within the topic. In, for example, the Barbara Schwarz deletion discussion, to which you contributed considerably, you raised your off-wiki problems with the subject as partial justification for keeping the article. This exemplifies the committee's concerns about the blurring of off- and on-wiki roles and the capacity this has for inflaming on-wiki disputes.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Girl chat

How you been FloNight? Let's have girl chat. — JoJo • Talk • 21:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi :-) I've been having a nice holiday weekend. How are you? FloNight♥♥♥ 22:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I am ok. R, the kids, and I have a quiet life. We made special food for this weekend. R, you know, sometimes he pee baa (crazy) but he very good man. — JoJo • Talk • 22:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, FloNight, that picture, Spring in Kentucky, you take that? It is very good picture. — JoJo • Talk • 22:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

We (my husband and myself) took that photo last May at a Japanese Friendship Garden near our house. Yuko-En on the Elkhorn. We enjoying taking pictures and uploading them to Wikipedia for articles. I stay behind on writing articles for the photos since I have loads of work to do for ArbCom.

This weekend we went to Cincinnati and we took photos of a house that was used as part of the Underground Railroad. So far, I have one good source of information about the house. When I find a few more then I'll start an article about it. What are you writing about lately? FloNight♥♥♥ 16:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I just fix up stuff on Thai articles. Sometimes I vote on things. — JoJo • Talk • 23:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

talkback follow-up

Hi Flo, hope you and the family are doing well. I just wanted to touch base a bit, and perhaps you're already aware of some of this. On the WP:RIP issue, Bibliomatic (sp), has stepped-up and evaluated consensus, and then he/she followed up and created a proposal for a guideline. There's been an effort here and there on it, nothing major, but at least now we have something to work with. I did have my road trip too. On the way down (Pittsburgh PA area to Birmingham AL) we took the 79 South route through VA, rather then down 65: much rain .. lol. Anyway, on the way back, we cut over to Knoxville, and came up into Kentucky (I just love the beauty of your state). While we didn't stop and spend much time at any of the horse farms (apologies if that's not the proper term), we did travel some very beautiful land. Basically we went across 64, but time constraints reduced my photography wishes greatly. I got a couple shots here and there - and I'd like to stitch together some panorama views in the near future - suffice to say, I love the beauty of your state. I definitely appreciate you giving me feedback on both the RIP issues, as well as the personal trip suggestions. Thanks again. — Ched :  ?  15:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

One more question

If my only edit to an article is to remove a WP:POINT action of a disruptive editor ([2], on a featured article), does that make me involved? The Committee has gotten so strict on this, I feel the need to ask. Jehochman ^Talk 20:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

BLP

Hi Flo, I read that you have an interest in BLP issues. I wonder if you would have time to look at Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)? There is a pitch battle going on between COI editors (who on the whole seem to be handling it all quite reasonably) and quite negative inclusionists by their own admission (who are bordering on disruption). Looking for another NPV here, I don't want to see an article whitewash, but I am concerned about violations of BLP and the apparent disregard of it in some cases. Cheers, Amicaveritas (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Rejecting :Locus of dispute as written

In the "Tang Dynasty" ArbCom case, the "locus of dispute" factfinding should be rejected as written.

A new, better locus of dispute should be adduced.

I write to encourage you to consider this when you vote, because the first and last sentences are fundamentally flawed.

NO to 1st sentence. The case originated when Teeninvestor rejected any and all inquiry relating to WP:V, WP:Burden and WP:RSUE, alleging vandalism and disruptive editing instead. This persistent confrontational strategy is endorsed and encouraged by those voting in support Newyorkbrad's locus of dispute. These votes effectively disregard Tenmei's locus, Teeninvestor's locus and, most importantly, Teeninvestor's restatment at Summarizing "more or less the entire dispute". This obfuscation marginalizes even the attempt to pursue a strategy of collaborative editing; and for this very practical reason, I could not disagree more with this sentence

NO to 3rd sentence. In the specific context of this case, it is procedurally unsound to adopt the expanded scope proposed by Teeninvestor and Caspian blue. One of the few areas of agreement acknowledged the initially limited focus of our case when it was opened. I could not disagree more with this sentence.

In support, I highlight a crucial fulcrum or pivot between "A" and "B" below:

• A. Tenmei's analysis here and here paraphrases Coren's measured language here:

"We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes ... informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:

• 1. "What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
• 2. "What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
• 3. "Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
• 4. "Are unsourced assertions being used?

"As others will know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes and are all violations of our core content policies, e.g., verifiability, no original research and neutrality."

• B. Teeninvestor's rejection is entire here and here:

"This guy is out of control, man." [emphasis added]

In this instance, Tenmei's paraphrase of Coren's moderating analysis was posted on the talk pages of all arguably interested participants at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. The "out of control" accusatory phrasing was repeated in diffs on the talk pages of PericlesofAthens and Arilang1234. This suggests a deliberate strategy rather than a merely transient outburst.

In these pivotal diffs, Teeninvestor cannot feign to have misunderstood my writing. These are plainly Coren's paraphrased words; and yet, this modest effort to frame collaborative editing issues was immediately converted into a contrived hostile encounter. This destructive pattern is reflected ad nauseam on the evidence and workshop pages. Despite the cumulative attacks, the edit history confirms my participation focused on issues, but this outcome tells me clearly that I was wrong to take the high road.

In voting to support this awkward "spin", ArbCom's counter-intuitive judgment effectively affirms that the contributions of Teeninvestor and Caspian blue were above reproach and I was not.

This alchemy is difficult to digest. ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good. --Tenmei (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction needed on diffs

Hello, FloNight. I bring in with some pointer for correction. When you deleted "two diffs", you said "removed one".[3] I'm not sure why you removed the User_talk:Teeninvestor#Tenmei. If you want to say about "Teeninvestor's canvassing" to uninvolved editor, that may be a good example. If you concern about Blp user (..part of the cancer that's destroying Wikipedia.), Tenmei's attack page is in the same category (toxic-edit warrior blah blah). And Tenmei "thankfully" deleted his enemy list "today"[4], so that diffs need to be corrected as well with this more correct diffs.[5][6]

Anyway, thank you for your hard work on the case. Best regards.--Caspian blue 16:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Colbert Report

Congratulations, you were mentioned on the Colbert Report on Thursday, June 4th! You're famous now! Congrats, Matt (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Famous or infamous. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 11:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It was also suggested that, perhaps, you are a member of a certain cabal. If you would like to make this official, photo submissions can be made to me via email. ;) لennavecia 12:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

:-) FloNight♥♥♥ 12:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry to bother you. I believe two editors who are uninvolved in the ADHD articles and scuro are going to try and hijack the arbcom to attack me. I have opened up an RfC here.Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence#Requests_for_comment_Is_Skinwalkers_evidence_acceptable_and_can_I_be_allowed_additional_space_to_respond_to_the_accusations.3F--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Tenmei's mentor

Hi, FloNight. I just want to know(since the case will be speedily closed now) who will be Tenmei's mentor? Teeninvestor (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Undetermined at the present time. Will let you know when it is decided. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Will the mentor have any special powers over Tenmei? Because I think that if the mentor doesn't have much power, it will be pretty helpless.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No, a mentor is like a coach mostly. But if they see a new problem they can make it clear to him that they will tell us so that we can promptly handle it. This approach usually works best. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

FloNight -- This brief exchange bothers me; and I think it is seemly for me to say so. These sentences appear to presume that I have accepted ArbCom's decision as confirming some kind of wrong-doer label. NO.

The further presumption that more problems are expected is quite undeserved. NO.

Any expectation that I am prohibited from interacting with Teeninvestor is reasonable; however, the notion that Teeninvestor shall enjoy perfect freedom to further poison this already awkward situation is both unworkable and unreasonable. NO.

Let me repeat anew. I have apologized for nothing -- nor should I have done. Rather, in light of the way this ArbCom case developed, I am assuredly convinced that I'm owed an apology from Teeninvestor precisely because the harm I've endured thus far was so heedlessly inflicted. I don't expect such an expression of contrition to be forthcoming, but that does not in any way affect my appreciation of the travesty which has unfolded in this ArbCom venue.

The finding of fact that my persuasive writing skills are inadequate in a Wikipedia setting is arguably understandable; however, to conclude that, because of a perceived communication skills deficit, it must be also true that each and every one of unchallenged or inadequately rebutted allegations are true, valid or proven is patently wrong. It is quite simply over-reaching. NO.

This is one of those cases in which Teeninvestor and Caspian blue can't have it both ways; nor should ArbCom accept, presume or encourage any notions of anticipated adverse consequences.

Do you not perceive the disjunctive logical patterns which are at play here? --Tenmei (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

Just saw your vote here [7]. The question is: what, in your view, means "related to this topic area"? Since I have never taken admin action on matters pertaining directly to the naming issue itself (other than dealing with socks and vandalism), how far do you take the "related"? Have you seen evidence that my stance on the Macedonia naming issue has ever tainted the trustworthiness of my admin work in other Balkan- or Greece-related areas? As I said to Jayvdb earlier today, I'm open to constructive suggestions on where I should draw the line, and in any case, I've been quite conservative in my use of tools for the last year at least. Have you looked into what I actually do in terms of tool use, and what my relation is with the editors involved? I mean, it's not as if any significant amount of evidence of such activity was ever presented at the Arbcom case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that administrators with Finding of fact and sanctions in an Arbitration case should not use their tools in that topic area indefinately. I don't think that "naming" aspect of the situation is distinct from the other Balkan- or Greece- nationalist discussions, so I think that you would need to abstain in the full Balkan - Greece topic area.

I do not think that you should continue to do what you term "non-controversial admin work" (from you email) because when someone is heavily involved in the issue then they lose perspective about what is non-controversial and what is. That is the one reason that admins need to abstain from working in the area. The other reason is perception. When someone is sanctioned, they will have a harder time getting people in the related topic to see any of their work as routine or "non-controversial."

Passing of time does help if the person distances themselves from the topic. It is a recipe for trouble in highly controversial topics after you have been sanctioned for you to continue to edit articles in the area, make expert opinion type comments, and then also do admin work. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I invite you to look at what I actually do. It figures you haven't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

When someone is sanctioned, they will have a harder time getting people in the related topic to see any of their work as routine or "non-controversial."

Tell me about it! ;) You should see what I went through for informing a user about case restrictions! (click) Never again shall I perform more than 6 reverts in any two week period. It's my special 6 revert rule. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)