User talk:SpacemanSpiff

Click here to leave me a message.

I'm currently evaluating my participation in the English Wikipedia and am therefore not likely to be very active or respond to messages in a timely manner. While editing Wikipedia is a hobby, it has become an increasingly frustrating one. I don't think my expectations of an encyclopaedia match with that of the community. There will always be issues with large projects such as this but at present there are a few points that highlight the chasm between the two lines of thought. Primarily, the creation of good encyclopaedic content seems to have taken a backseat. Secondly, the Foundation's attitude towards content development in the project, especially that of publicly taking sides in disputes etc, in the process disrupting an already fragile ecosystem here. Over the past few months I haven't been as active as I was earlier, but every time I come back I see examples of why it's no longer enjoyable -- blocks of excellent editors, a resistance to handle POV pushing effectively and such.

Venkatraman Ramakrishnan

SpacemanSpiff, I saw your edit line saying that there is an OTRS request that the FRS letters not be added after his name. I would certainly honor any such request, but I haven't seen it. Perhaps you could prevent further reverts by adding a link to the request on the article's talk page. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that in a short while, I'll just need to find it. The user Riboman is the subject and he'd confirmed this through OTRS along with a request to not add the title ("Sir") or the letters ("FRS" etc). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 02:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done—SpacemanSpiff 03:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the ticket number and got "Request for comment/Legal Fees Assistance Program". RockMagnetist (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you got there, but I just clicked the ticket again and it goes to a ticket with the subject "wikipedia page about me" that I was referring to, created "07/25/2012 18:17:17". As far as the subject's requests go, they are all in the edit summaries on the article history too. It was only much later that I suggested to him that he forward the email he sent me to OTRS instead as that would verify that he is indeed the subject and his request (although he didn't forward the email, he sent a new one). —SpacemanSpiff 04:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is one edit where he has also said that. He very often edits as an IP (which is why I suggested to him that he use his account and verify it) where he's noted the same while reverting. —SpacemanSpiff 04:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't have login access to the OTRS site, but you have convinced me anyway. There might have been fewer reverts if he'd identified himself on the talk page. When I came into it, I saw an edit summary saying "please respect my wishes" and thought it was just some arbitrary editor who was trying to impose his own style on the page. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To gain access to the OTRS site, you'll need to request at meta: m:OTRS/volunteering. There are many OTRS volunteers on en.wiki to verify tickets though, some of them are listed at Category:Wikipedia OTRS volunteers. As for your other point on the edits of "respect my wishes", that's precisely the reason I'd asked him to send the email to OTRS as without a confirmed identity, it just causes confusion and justified distrust. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Indian history FARs

See User:SpacemanSpiff/FAR

Hi Dana, I've been looking through a few articles and whilst Chola dynasty has a few tags, it's probably one of the better ones! Western Ganga Dynasty is a bigger problem as the article does not rely on mainstream sources at all, unlike the Chola dynasty one where use of outdated or fringe sources is in the minority. A bigger problem here is the level of synth in it. While the Chola one deviates from key sources (Stein / Kulke / U Singh / Thapar et al) on occasion, some of the others hardly ever find commonality with them. Our article on the main source doesn't give me any confidence either. There's a cluster of these FAs related to Western Ganga (I think around ten when I counted -- Chalukya, Hoysala, Mysore etc) and they all have this problem. How do you suggest we go about this? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SpacemanSpiff - Thanks for your note, and for taking the time to look through these articles. It sounds like they all need either significant work or FARs. Is there anyone interested in working on these articles to bring them into compliance with FA criteria? Would messages to the relevant project(s) bring any positive response? If so, that would be my first step. If not, I guess just begin posting messages on each articles' talk page outlining your concerns and stating that if they're not addressed, the article will need to go to FAR. If no work is done, they can start being brought to FAR. I don't think we should pile them in there all at one time - maybe one every two weeks or so? Then, if someone pops up who is interested in working on them, we can work with their schedule. I know this means that it will be something like five months, best case scenario, before they're all brought to FAR, but we do try hard to not pile on a bunch of articles from one project at a time, just in case someone is interested in working on them. Thoughts, comments, concerns? Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help you with this - I'm willing, but without a background in the sources, I don't know if I'll be more of a help or a hindrance :) Dana boomer (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask Fowler and RegentsPark (he identified the seriousness of the WG mess, apparently everything online is just a mirror!) to take a look and participate in this conversation. I'll do that at my talk page (and copy my post above) so that it's centralized, hopefully you can watchlist it. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I already had this page (your talk page) watchlisted, and I'll keep abreast of the conversation and give my two cents if I feel I have anything valuable to contribute. Dana boomer (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WG can be salvaged, the article is riddled with POV. There may though be editors interested in saving Chola dynasty. --regentspark (comment) 16:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RP, can you add the problems to that page then? I think one point of discussion ought to be Kamath as a source, another is a comparison with Stein / Kulke / Thapar etc (and I'll review any content related to WG in them sometime during the next week). Meanwhile, perhaps it might be a good option to list Chola at WT:INB for clean up too as it's probably salvageable in comparison. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, the FA status should just be taken away from WG but I'll try. Am busy for a bit but will get to it if fowler doesn't take care of it first - the spouse is away on a long trip and the kids and RL work are simultaneously clamoring for attention! --regentspark (comment) 15:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with RgPk. Not just WG, but really all should be simply de-FA'd. They have strong POV based either on regional nationalism, or on monarchistic, pro-Wodeyar, view of Karnataka history. It would be very difficult to save them. Besides, if someone is going to take the time to do salvage work, they would be spending their time more profitably working on the more vital India-related articles which are languishing in neglect, some even in Start- or C-class. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

I love the dog. Reminds me of one of my family's dogs when I was a boy.

However, that is not what I came here about. At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrpontiac1 you said "This is ABDEVILLIERS alright" ("This" presumably being Shahdaan Khan). If so, is there any reason you don't go ahead and indef-block? Alternatively, would you like to tell me why you are so sure? (By email if you wish to avoid "Beans" problems.) I would have gone ahead and indeffed without an SPI if I had been as sure as you seem to be. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I didn't block is because I'm avoiding any blocks that may require an explanation later as I'm not very active right now and it could be a few days sometimes before I can actually respond with details, so I do only the most straightforward of admin actions currently. I will email you with some behavioral comparisons. That said, I too was of the initial opinion that AB was MrP but there's something a little odd about that. Elockid and I have had our doubts for a while. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 03:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the email. What you pointed out there, together with other evidence, and the fact that I was already 90% sure that Shahdaan Khan was a sockpuppet of someone, has added up to enough for me to indef-block Shahdaan Khan. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

Op-ed: AdminCom: A proposal for changing the way we select admins

In the media: Wikipedia's language nerds hit the front page

Featured content: Second star to the left

News and notes: Chapters ask for big bucks

Technology report: Wikidata is a go: well, almost

WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemicals

User:Priyanku.Phukan's unblock request

Hi SpacemanSpiff. Priyanku.Phukan has posted a fairly reasaonable unblock request (he admits what he did was wrong and undertakes not to do it again) and since his sock account is now blocked the problem shouldn't reoccur. Given his edit history and pages created I have serious doubts about his ability to contribute constructively (and so would probably ask him to find an adopter or mentor as a condition of unblocking) but that's tangential to the reasons for the block, which he's addressed. Can I get your take on the issue before proceeding, please? Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had only blocked one of his accounts (not the main one), so I'd left open the possibility of him editing constructively if he so wished (his copyvios both here and at Commons are worrisome though), so I have no objections at all to unblocking this account now since the other has been blocked as a sock. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 10:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll go let him loose. I share your concerns about copyvios, but he has claimed that he understands the policy now - we'll see what he does with a bit of rope. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Hello, I am so sorry that i gave the title different I didn't Know that but slowly slowly I have come to Know, Sorry & Thank You Greatuser (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]