Jump to content

User talk:NaymanNoland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Taram (talk | contribs) at 14:01, 18 May 2013 (→May 2013). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, NaymanNoland, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! LadyofShalott 02:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the welcome! I've in fact been here a while, but haven't really made the decision to dive into something this controversial until now (the Filipacchi business). I'll read through those pages - a couple of them are new to me. NaymanNoland (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qworty

I was going to template you to WP:AGF with Qworty, but decided to leave a more personal message. In any case, there are many many people watching the Filpacachi articles so please back away from Qworty for the next few days. You are of course free to ignore my advice, but stepping back might be best for everyone.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the advice. I'll bow out now. I was disturbed to see that Qworty had completely gutted the entry on Filipacchi's father, so I've restored that as well, but I'll leave it at that. You might want to watch that page too, and anything else connected to this controversy. Judging from Qworty's talk page, she has a history of doing this kind of thing. NaymanNoland (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I didn't keep my word. Sorry. I noticed that Qworty has been on a burnt-earth campaign: she demolished entries not simply about Filipacchi and her father, but also Filipacchi's mother, and the company that her father founded - which is the largest magazine publisher in the world. Now, for all I know there are issues with all of these entries. But Qworty sure isn't the person to be dealing with them. (Nor am I. I know nothing about these topics, except that I'm very much aware of Hachette Filipacchi - most people are.) NaymanNoland (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

Hello - in answer to your question, our policy regarding how we talk about living people is quite clear that every space on Wikipedia is ruled by it. See specifically WP:BLPTALK as well, which mentions one exception: The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space... [emphasis added]. Contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced is not allowed, anywhere, period. Unfortunately policies are not always enforced. Welcome to Wikipedia. Tvoz/talk 17:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WHOO HOOO! Wikipedia drama is newsworthy...for salon...no suprise there!!!! Actually the comments are more anti-salon then anti-wikipedia, so I would say that the reception shows that public opinion is not interested in this little drama fest. Must be a really slow news day for andy.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think there certainly are questionable, maybe defamatory, allegations there, and it would seem that BLP policy is not being fully followed. This is a long-time editor who is well aware of policy, so suggesting that he/she step back was appropriate as a first step to diffuse the drama, and I see that the next step I expected, of asking the editor to remove the material him/herself, has been done at User talk:Qworty#BLP concerns by a well-respected admin. But policy calls for the material to be removed either voluntarily by its author or by any editor, as we have an obligation to not defame our subjects, even in the heat of argument. So I expect it to progress in that direction - if not, things like this are regularly taken to the BLP noticeboard. Nice to meet you, by the way - it's always refreshing to read well-reasoned responses to out of control rants. Tvoz/talk 20:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I expected, SlimVirgin's request that Qworty remove the BLP violations seems to have worked - I didn't go line-by-line, but it looks like it's gone, removed by its author. Despite what the off-Wiki peanut gallery is often quick to say, in fact the system does (USUALLY/OFTEN/SOMETIMES) work, when issues like this are raised. And that is not to say you were wrong to raise it because someone else would - I think your raising it was a good thing, and the result - at least insofar as this particular talk page kerfuffle is concerned - is as it should be. The larger issue of slash-and-burn vindictive editing, however, has likely not been laid to rest with this, and I think you should not be put off by this experience, and should continue to call it when you see it. Tvoz/talk 20:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tvoz. You're a gentleman and a scholar. I'm not really put off: calling people out on slander is always a messy business, but it's the right thing to do. (Tangentially, I'll admit to being wary of putting a lot of work into an entry: hours of work on the Sondra Peterson article have been erased, based on false allegations of sock puppetry. Looks as if this may get fixed. I hope so.) NaymanNoland (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if anything I'm a lady not a gentleman - but thanks. No offense taken. Tvoz/talk 02:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Sondra Peterson shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Use of multiple accounts

I've blocked you for 48 hours for using multiple accounts (either yourself or with the assistance of others) to further a content dispute. The alternative account has been blocked indefinitely. When your block expires, do not register additional accounts and do not return to blinding reverting content, discuss it with other editors and reach agreement about how to proceed. Remember this is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia and not Who's Who or Vogue, phrases like "top, one of the best, widely regarded" and the like have no place here, stick to simple writing and you'll be fine. Nick (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you please tell me which "other accounts" you are accusing me of using, or collaborating with? You are mistaken. I have not done this, either as a sock puppet or a meat puppet. I would appreciate it if you would remove the block. NaymanNoland (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Once_more_into_the_breach. I note that despite being informed you were blocked, you have since tried to circumvent the block, triggering an auto block. Given this information, you will not be unblocked at this time. Nick (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight: you are accusing me of being User:Once_more_into_the_breach ? If so, you are completely wrong. I have no idea who this is, but it's not me. And if - as it seems - questioning an unfair block is reason to be blocked, then this is pure Kafka. I have one account: this one. Please unblock me.
I just figured out why you think User:Once_more_into_the_breach might be my sock puppet. Look again. This user (who might well be a sock for someone else) reverted to an edit I completely disagreed with: a version with unsourced information. Not only is this NOT me, but it's someone that I criticized in the history section. And as I say below, you are welcome to check my IP address against any of these alleged sock puppets. You have my permission. (Even if it is an invasion of privacy.) Please do this. Then please unblock me. NaymanNoland (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

If you look at the block log you can probably see some of the offending accounts. You are not the first editor to try and use multiple accounts, in fact it is quite common. So common that it is obvious to most experienced editors. However Nick has special tools not available to the majority of editors and he blocked you and the other accounts you used based upon technical data, notably you sharing the same ip address as the other accounts. Suffice it to say, we ain't stupid and weak denials aren't going to get you anywhere.
I know you feel aggrieved, but the first thing you are going to have to come to grips with is that at Wikipedia (english edition) we are required to work in a collaborative fashion. Please read WP:BRD which will give you the rough outline on how things are supposed to work around here.
Now there are many problems with some of your edits, but nothing that can't be fixed. We are willing to work with you to improve these articles. Even if you have a COI, as many editors probably suspect you are Amanda Filipacchi, or somoene very close to her.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care what editors suspect: I am not Filipacchi. I am in fact trying to save Wikipedia from disgrace by undoing the damage done to every single entry linked to Filipacchi, and will continue to do this until someone else here is wise enough to take over the task. THIS DOES NOT LOOK GOOD. And your problems with my edits thus far have to do with an inadequate comprehension of what a "source" is - as I've tried to explain, again and again. If I'm going to put hours into undoing the damage done to an entry, I'd prefer it if you didn't just erase that work based on unfounded suspicions.
And I am not suggesting that anyone here is "stupid" or "weak". Simply that you happen to be wrong.
In fact, if you do indeed have powerful tools, my guess is that you can check IP addresses. So: please check mine. Tell me whether anyone involved in the Filipacchi controversy has an IP address within 500 miles of me. In particular, check the IP address of this person you're alleging is my sock puppet: Once_more_into_the_breach . I am willing to put money on it that this user is logging in, as I say, from at least 500 miles away. Shall we put $100 on it? (I'm serious - let's make a friendly wager.) NaymanNoland (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you NaymanNoland are saying that you have not created multiple accounts in spite of behavioral and techincical evidence, then I think we are done here until your block expires. However if this behavior continues in the future, you will most certainly be blocked indefinitely.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oy. YOU ARE WRONG. There is no "technical evidence," because there can't be. None. Why? Because it would be technical evidence of something that is NOT THE CASE. Now, please check my IP address, and correct this. NaymanNoland (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are more accounts now involved with the sockpuppetry case - I have asked that additional technical checks are performed to confirm what's going on with all of these additional accounts. If it turns out none of these accounts are connected to you, then you will be unblocked immediately. Nick (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I know you're just doing your job. But if you check IP addresses, I think you'll find that the assertion is comically mistaken. (I'm willing to bet that there's only one other Wikipedia editor within 500 miles of me. And that's my roommate. Who is NOT involved in this discussion.) I don't feel as if I'm being persecuted here - I know that it's a complicated mess, this whole business. NaymanNoland (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've unblocked you, further technical analysis confirms that there are a number of multiple accounts out to cause mischief, but that you're unrelated. I'm sorry you've been caught-up in all the trouble caused by one or two people. Nick (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nick. I appreciate it. I'm not trying to cause mischief - quite the opposite: I'm trying to fix something that is publicly embarrassing Wikipedia (an enterprise that I happen to think very highly of). NaymanNoland (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just catching up here - I have to say my reading of the "behavioral evidence" really made no sense, and the jumping to conclusions and borderline threats here not our finest hour. Glad this was straightened out. Tvoz/talk 00:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it a pretty fine hour. But it's been a lousy couple of days... (Actually, I find this kind of thing heartening: as long as the truth emerges, finally, there's nothing wrong with the rigorous enforcement of policy.) NaymanNoland (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what I see happening here was less rigorous enforcement of policy and more jumping to conclusions on little or no evidence, and some piling on. There is such a thing as due process, even on Wikipedia (more or less), and I think this could have been handled better. I do commend Nick for his fairly rapid reversal of his mistaken block, but I wonder about the rush to judgment, and why this didn't go through normal request for checkuser channels, and why there was no explanation posted here to tell you how you might appeal the block. Maybe things have changed and I haven't noticed, but in all of my experience chasing after destructive socks in the past six years - one master in particular who was extremely disruptive and even became an admin with one of his personas - the usual procedure was rather different from what I see here today. In any case, as I said, I'm glad this was straightened out. I don't know you, and have no idea who you are or aren't, where you are, or what has motivated you to jump into this, but I know clear thinking when I see it, and was impressed by yours. Hope you'll stick around - there are plenty of articles that could use your help. Tvoz/talk 01:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tvoz. You could do me a favor - we could in fact use a neutral voice in this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sondra_Peterson If you don't mind weighing in. Qworty's there (oy), and another editor who may or many not be capable of neutrality - but this is kind of important stuff, concerning matters of policy, so it would be good to have someone that we know is determined to edit in good faith. NaymanNoland (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: seems the article's suddenly in pretty good shape. It would still be nice if you watched it, however. I'm going to try to keep an eye on everything related to this disgraceful business, but it's not easy: this thing is spreading like an oil slick. NaymanNoland (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] This appears to be moot for now, so I will hold off on saying anything more here, other than recommending this. I do have them all on my watchlist. Tvoz/talk 05:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, since we're discussing Wikipedia's notion of due process: I have been blocked AGAIN. For "harassing" a troll. Which is to say: responding to harassment. The block isn't a major hassle, but it's interesting (in that the troll is still cheerfully trolling). I think I've done what the process requires me to do: I've posted a review request at the bottom of this page. Unfortunately, only one person has noticed: the troll. She posted all sorts of faux-sincere bait beneath the request, which I've since erased, but thus far there has been no other response. Thoughts here? (I'll settle for commiseration.) NaymanNoland (talk) 09:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on Sondra Peterson

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Sondra Peterson .

While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.

If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.

Continued edit warring on Sondra Peterson or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Toddst1 (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Todd - thanks for the heads-up. In fact, I was already aware of this, and am working with the other editor involved to solve it amicably. We're dealing with it on the talk page associated with Sondra Peterson . (It was never intended to be a war.) NaymanNoland (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... it's like you two were made for each other... why not just move on and edit something else? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do seem to be a good match. It's time for everyone to cool off and move on, for sure. Qworty (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Talk:Sondra_Peterson. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Toddst1 (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

NaymanNoland (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is the second time that Qworty has succeeded in having me blocked today. The first time proved frivolous (in fact, based on a lie - a false allegation of sock puppetry). This is equally frivolous. Now, if you have chosen to block her as well for insulting/harassing me, I can live with it. But this is a waste of time for all parties involved: I'm trying to do serious work here, on a matter that is damaging Wikipedia. NaymanNoland (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Are you kidding? Did you read what you typed here at all? That's kb of personal attacks and harassment for everyone to read ad nauseum. Perhaps you don't yet understand WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA yet? Maybe you might also wish to read WP:NOTTHEM because this block is about YOUR behaviour, and I honestly feel that 24 hours was way too short based on your screeds (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

  • You do realize that the "screeds" were mostly direct quotations from Salon? Quotations about Qworty, which addressed her by name? Please read the article, and tell me what it is that I said that wasn't either a direct quotation or a synopsis of this: http://www.salon.com/2013/04/29/wikipedias_shame/ Why did I repeat what had already been published widely in the mainstream media? Because I was trying to prevent Qworty from inflicting further damage upon the reputation of Wikipedia. Period. NaymanNoland (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know that I have told you that I have forgiven you in my heart. And it is true; I have. You have said some terrible, terrible things about me, but I want all of it to change into clear-running water beneath the bridges of the past. I am your friend. I trust in your good nature. I am not the one who blocked you, as you twice asserted; in fact, I am not an admin, and I have no power to block. I would like to help you learn how to edit Wikipedia. I think you have the potential to become a good and even an excellent editor, once you have learned policy. I know that the policies are many and they must seem downright Byzantine at first. But of course they can be mastered. And you can use me as a resource, through WP:MENTORSHIP. That is what I would like to offer to you, along with the warm grip of the handshake of friendship. When you have questions, you can come to me. I am the one who will always be there for you. I know, it seems ironic, but there are many great ironies in life. And this is just one of the wonderful ones: You didn't like me at first, but I am now one of your best friends on Wikipedia. And I am here to give you the support that you need. Qworty (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qworty? I feel the same way. Which is to say: I feel that you would benefit hugely from a mentor. I asked you ever so politely to get off my talk page. Now, if you don't want me to hang out on yours -- in a sweet, not retaliatory manner, of course -- you'll leave. Goodbye now. NaymanNoland (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NN, has it occured to you that engaging in an edit war over the article on Amanda Filipacchi's mother might be bad for Wikipedia's reputation at a time when Filipacchi is accusing the community of retaliatory editing for her article on sexist categories? Peter Isotalo 12:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. It hasn't. And I still feel that it's far more important to keep this troll from retaliatory editing. Since that's the issue at hand: Qworty's retaliatory editing. (As well as her unhinged slanderous rants, attacking not simply Filipacchi, but her novels, her father, her mother, her father's business...) When accusations are CORRECT - as they are here - then the way to stop the accusations is to stop the activity that Wikipedia's rightly being accused of. My sense is that Hullabaloo, below, more than agrees with me; and he's watched this troll in action, judging her edits "contemptible." Whereas I expect you've been fooled by her smarmy, venomous baiting above. Clearly administrators have decided, inexplicably, not to ban this vandal from Wikipedia, but the least you can do is get her off my talk page. NaymanNoland (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Nothing is as likely to protect Wikipedia's reputation as allowing malicious, retaliatory editing to stand rather than reversing it, which can only call attention to the original gross misbehaviour. That's why nobody removed Qworty's bizarre and unfounded allegations of criminal actions by Filipacchi until a misguided editor like me came along. Wikipedia's reputation, after all, is more important than its encyclopedic content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't exaggerate. Other users have been involved and managed to achieved positive results without ranting, insulting and edit warring. The main problem here has been users who have couldn't behave or temper themselves. Like Qworty. But also Nayman and the odd pseudo-users who showed up and acted pro-Filipacchi. We don't need talkpage warriors of any persuasion.
Peter Isotalo 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, Peter, nobody's managed any such thing. Unless the slander has finally been removed from her talk page - it hadn't been, last I checked. This isn't "warring" - it's about enforcing Wikipedia's most important policies, such as BLP. NaymanNoland (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


NaymanNoland (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAIT REMOVED

Block review

I am not convinced this is a good block and am going to ask the blocking administrator for further input. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After discussing the matter with NYB, I've unblocked this editor. Reposting others' personal attacks is not necessarily constructive, but it isn't the worst thing that has happened around this complex fiasco. Reducing block to existing time. Toddst1 (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post on this page that she is not welcome and that any further posts will be considered harassment and will likely result in her being blocked from editing or further restrictions. Toddst1 (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done that, but will do it officially here: Qworty, you are not welcome on this talk page - even in your faux amicable form - and any further posts will be considered harassment, and will likely result in your being blocked from editing, or further restrictions. No need to reply: I'll consider that in itself harassment. NaymanNoland (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was worded a bit more harshly than necessary, but I've reinforced your request that Qworty stay off this page. More generally, I hope the two of you can avoid crossing paths anywhere for some time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried the less harsh approach - a number of times - and it didn't work very well. This seems to be doing the trick. Thanks for your help - I appreciate it. NaymanNoland (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, NaymanNoland. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
Message added 16:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Vigyani (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, NaymanNoland. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
Message added 17:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Vigyani (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same here

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Tvoz's talk page. Tvoz/talk 18:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

women journalists

Don't be too hard on JPL - he is actually (now) doing things in the right way - he is actually trying to populate women's categories, while leaving them in their non-gendered equivalent cats. I think if someone tried to delete the cat Category:American women journalists they would lose, so the solution is to populate instead - that's the thing with cats - my view is, either delete them, or fill them to the brim - they shouldn't just sit there with a half-assed set of contents. Now Filipacchi is debatable as to whether she belongs in the journalism tree at all, so that's a different debate, but if she *does* fit in the journalism tree, then she should be in that cat too. As JPL noted, we don't want more articles saying that WP has more articles on female porn stars than female journalists - even if it's untrue, laziness will deem that they just look in the category, so it's got to be either (a) deleted or (b) filled up. Does that make sense to you? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and I understand the reasoning. Still, there are a zillion articles on Wikipedia that could use further category specification, and to concentrate instead on adding as many gender-specific categories as possible to THIS one strikes me as deliberately inflammatory. In fact, politically tone-deaf to the point of lunacy. NaymanNoland (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hehe. yeah, maybe. He's a categorizing machine though - I guarantee you, look at his history, he's probably done a few hundred other bios today alone. she's just one of many. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just one of my mainy edits along these lines were those done to Emily Bavar.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. The main goal is to build an encyclopedia. Leave the management of the media to the WMF. Toddst1 (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll repeat here what I said on the Filipacchi talk page: Wikipedia SHOULD have more articles on female porn stars than female poets. A porn star's gender is in fact a crucial bit of information, isn't it. Defining, even. Whereas I couldn't care less whether Emily Dickinson had a luxurious beard. (I agree that we should probably have more poets than porn stars - simply that the respective sub-categories are not really analogous.) NaymanNoland (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't I, nor JPL, who came up with this (silly) comparison. But we can't control what others do. While you may have a point, I could also point you to umpteen sources of women's poetry, women's poetry studies, women's poetry seminars, etc. We reflect the real world, and in some cases, there are gender divides. As long as such women poets, and women journalists, are also listed in an non-gendered cat, I don't think anyone is harmed therefore.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Women categories

Category:American women journalists has existed since at least some time in 2010. However if you really think it is an inapropriate category the way to respond is to post this:

On the top of the category page, not to attack other users for trying to populate the page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Project Qworty?

All of you who are watching this page, and aware of today's revelations concerning Qworty (a sweet guy who, with the help of Little Green Rosetta, managed to get me banned TWICE for calling him out), might wish to consider a project to undo all of the revenge edits committed by this loser and his teammate. Thoughts? Unless we see a Project Qworty or the like, Wikipedia is going to be riddled with the misinformation planted by this troll over the years. (And the legitimate information pathologically erased.) Thoughts? NaymanNoland (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant article, if you haven't read it, is here: http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/ NaymanNoland (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oy. I feel a bit a fool, as I defended some of the earliest edits he made to the Filipacchi page (a bit brusque, but did eliminate a lot of cruft) - but then they went on a bit of a rampage. I was also taken in by the claims that threats were made against (her/him) and her/his husband and child - which was in hindsight probably bogus. the whole thing now seems to be a piece of performance art. Don't know if I'm up to undoing that stuff yet, am busy with categorization efforts and I really would like to get category intersection working... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't feel too bad: the guy has clearly pulled the wool over a lot of eyes, for years. This project won't be fun, but at the very least I think it's important to look at any of his edits connected to the artistic/literary community. NaymanNoland (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I think it speaks well of you that you are a bit mortified. It's the people who AREN'T embarrassed who are really suspect. Our friend Little Green Rosetta isn't exactly weeping, for instance - not even strategic crocodile tears. I can understand how some people might wish to bow out completely, given Qworty's obsession with vengeance - I wonder if it's possible to deal with this in a less public way, without contravening WP:CANVASSING? It really does have to be done. Might be this a job for senior administrators, working behind the scenes? NaymanNoland (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could start a wikiproject about it, e.g. WP:WikiProject Qworty cleanup. Half kidding...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why half kidding? Honestly: I can't think of any WikiProjects that are genuinely more important than this. In fact, I hope this will move the gods who run this place to reconsider the anonymity policy. Editors involved in BLP, in particular, should be forced to reveal their own identities. Maybe this Qworty business will blow over - but if you care about Wikipedia, you have to hope that it WON'T. Not until serious policy changes are set in motion. NaymanNoland (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Half kidding because I'm not willing to put much effort into starting it. But if you do start it I will help you get the article tracking bot working on it, since I know how to do that from doing it on WikiProject Discrimination.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I appreciate your "hmph", my so-called vendetta is simply to cleanse Wikipedia of years of vandalism by a troll. You want to call that a vendetta? Go ahead. It still has to be done, however, and done rigorously. I'll happily bow out completely if someone else takes on the responsibility. But to just leave this stuff in here is disgraceful. Do we know, for instance, that Barry Hannah is the only writer that Young has falsely accused of things like dying from alcoholism? Do we want to leave that kind of lie just floating around, to tarnish the legacies of important writers? You call it a "blood sport" to get rid of that shit, with great prejudice? Fine: a blood sport is just what's required. I call it "editing". NaymanNoland (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That strikes you as "shit"? Really? Have you looked at Qworty's average edit? What Robert Clark Young did, daily, to god knows how many people, for no reason whatsoever? Take a good look at what I removed from his autobiography. Young's self-composed entry was longer than you find attached to famous and accomplished writers. You're suggesting that we should have left it at that length? Really? Final question: if you looked into the mirror, would you perhaps see Qworty looking back at you? (On the other hand, perhaps you're not Qworty. Perhaps you're just what I ought to expect. I should get used to it - sometimes the collaboration and cowardice here is just nauseating.) NaymanNoland (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
personally I think that WP:BATTLEGROUND covers this quite nicely. It really appears that you are out for revenge instead of improving the encyclopedia ("Project Qworty"?...Really? It reminds me of when wikipedia review issued "Project Cirt"). I would take The Devil's Advocate's advise and let someone who doesn't have a personal interest in attacking the editor in question. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. We should be careful here guys. Let's not sink to Qworty's level either.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Coffeepusher is being discussed as one of Qworty's teammates, along with little green rosetta, so his/her opinion doesn't interest me much. Obi-Wan, on the other hand, is perhaps wise (hence the handle, I guess). I've been giving this some thought: the fact is that I shouldn't do this. I shouldn't HAVE to do this. Frankly, after my brief encounters here with this cockroach, I dislike him too much to edit anything objectively that relates to him or his victims. This whole matter should be dealt with by a senior administrator who has had nothing whatsoever to do with the Qworty scandal, or the Filipacchi mess, or any of this stuff. Just someone who actually cares about the integrity of Wikipedia (which is very different, note, from caring about protecting Wikipedia from outside criticism). I'm going to bow out completely. I suppose that if in a few months time nothing has been done to address this disgusting business, I may reconsider. But let's hope that this community has the guts to actually clean house, despite the likes of Coffeepusher and LGR and Qworty. NaymanNoland (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Where am I being discussed as a teammate of Qworty (and what exactly did this team conspire to do)?Coffeepusher (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You truly want to know? Or are you just hoping perhaps that there's no evidence. This quotation works for me: "I objected heavily to Qworty's deletionism of an article I worked on. Qworty brought in his back up friends Little Green Rosetta and Coffeepusher to support all his deletes. Qworty has a history of deletionism as can be validated by other authors whose articles he has destroyed. When I reverted his edits, I called him a content vandal. He then posted edit war warnings on my talk page."
So I guess you're not so much a "teammate" as a "back up friend"? That sounds real honorable. Conversation here: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2162&sid=bca4bf74b6a3fb8ca1566e8d1939ec63&start=100 NaymanNoland (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
aaah yes, So you are supporting the sockmaster. perhaps you would like to include every editor who supported the decision to delete the material into your "team Qworty" conspiracy, because he brought that complaint to five different forums, and the only people who agreed with him was his sockpuppet and one IP. I see he even took it to wikipediocracy and no one took him seriously enough to come come defend his edits. So lets see...the feverdream conspiracy you have uncovered to now consists of myself, LGR, the Devils Advocate, the dispute resolution committee, the dispute mediation committee, the talk page of wp:video, talk page of the reliable source noticeboard, probably the SPI for the Lightspeedx case...Do you want to add the BLPN as well? Or perhaps we are all socks of Qworty??? Perhaps all of wikipedia is one giant Qworty sock!Coffeepusher (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you bothered to check the history of that article, you would find out that the order of editors was LGR, myself, then a day later Qworty...Lightspeedx was just lying to you making it seem like the guy you hated was the ringleader.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't actually know what you're talking about. "Supporting the sockmaster"? Who and what is the sockmaster? I haven't visited any of the committees you mention - just Wikipediocracy, a group who seem to have a good understanding of how this place works. I find their commentary pretty interesting. As for videos and such, please: provide links. Sounds like fun.
On another tangent: this is what I find most interesting about all of this. It's a Wikipedia disease, it seems: Freudian projection. Qworty goes around calling people bitter, failed writers. You go around accusing people of having a personal interest in Qworty, when in fact you have a personal interest in defending him (since you have an embarrassing history as the good "back up friend"). Etc. (My personal interest in Qworty is this: I despise people like him. Really despise them. They bother me, personally. And I'm not just being sarcastic: this kind of poisonous loser bothers me enough, personally, that I don't feel I can be entirely objective in my dealings with him.) NaymanNoland (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obi, I don't believe Qworty ever removed material that was directly cited to reliable secondary sources, which is what Nayman has done with that article.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should perhaps but that material back in? Every single minor article in every tiny publication that nobody has ever heard of or read? That's what you want this project to be? A place where any clown can link to all sorts of irrelevant stuff, just to pad an autobiography to lengths that would embarrass Updike? I'm sure the links are all real. I can probably link to images of poems he wrote for his mother when he was seven. Hell, I can link to SOMEONE's poems written to mom at seven. Should that person also have a lengthy Wikipedia entry? I cut out garbage. Irrelevant, self-promotional cruft. I couldn't care less whether it's SOURCED irrelevant self-promotional cruft. And it's a bit weird that you do. NaymanNoland (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you say above that you despise him and can't be objective then I think you should really not be involved with anything concerning him.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely right. And since you say that you don't despise him, despite knowing all that we know, I think you should really not be involved with anything concerning him. In fact, you're on much shakier ground than I am. Why DON'T you despise him? What's the matter with you? I can probably answer my own question. Once again, the revolting tendency to back up the revolting Qworty - this time yours - has been nicely analyzed by those clever people at Wikipediocracy: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2162&start=100 NaymanNoland (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just say: it's absolutely mindboggling that there are people here with the gall to defend Qworty after those Salon pieces. Just beyond belief. It's as if there are two worlds: the real one, and Wikipedia. In the real world, Robert Clark Young is, as of today, a complete disgrace: an unredeemable fraud. Here? Oh, just a misunderstood friend, who's being given a totally unfair time by that nasty old mainstream media, when all he meant to do was improve the encyclopedia. Pathetic. NaymanNoland (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're looking at Wikipediocracy, this seems to have just appeared from our lovely Qworty clone, the Devil himself: "Given the nature of these types of public controversies and the already toxic environment of Wikipedia, I don't see any reason to doubt that he received death threats either. The conduct towards him by others was definitely harassment and that Nayman person is clearly continuing it even though he has "won" as it were. Him being such an intemperate personality in the first place probably explains why he went so far over the deep end with some of his remarks in response to said harassment." - The Devil's Advocate
Such an intemperate personality. Rather. I say old chap.
And no question that Qworty's "hubby" and child were threatened. Oh, okay, some question. Since he doesn't have a hubby. Nor, I imagine, a child. But you see no reason to doubt. The problem, really, is that you don't see. You don't see anything. You're refusing to see what Qworty said long before I ever entered the scene, for instance - which I can't really have driven him to say, can I. Those are among the things you're refusing to see. In fact, you're refusing to see YEARS of vengeful, disgusting vandalism. Possibly because you're implicated? I haven't look back to see your history with Qworty, but if it's anything like little green rosetta's, you have a lot to answer for. NaymanNoland (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see on Viriditas' talk page that you have indicated you are withdrawing from leading any matter regarding Qworty, and I am glad you decided to do that, but I still think you should disengage entirely from anything involving him given your personal hostility towards the man.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 09:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do what is necessary. If Wikipedia is capable of keeping little green rosetta and her clones from renovating Qworty's little reputation, then I'm happy to stay clear. Otherwise? No promises. Your lack of personal hostility towards "the man" reflects poorly on you, by the way. It's one thing to be a devil's advocate. It's another to carry water for a vicious zero. NaymanNoland (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NN. Just a quick note (hope you find it here). The comment on Newyorkbrad's talk page was not in relation to anything you've said or done. My only hope is that a proper investigation is carried out and submissions sought from Young and other interested parties to determine the rationale behind Young's edits. The sanctions would depend very much on whether Wikipedia is being used as a platform by a vindictive writer to try and rubbish their critics or whether Young was simply being naive in assuming their edits are acceptable when there's at the very least a perceived conflict of interest. Nick (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

The Original Barnstar
For fighting the good fight on behalf of The Project in the recent Filipacchi Fiasco, suffering unpleasant consequences in the process. While it may be easy for some to second guess whether this or that statement or action of yours was excessive, it remains a fact that you bravely took on a contentious topic in a time of high scrutiny in an effort to minimize damage to Wikipedia in the court of public opinion. You maintained relative calm in the face of aggression. I just want you to know that your work on this matter is appreciated and I hope that your courage proves inspirational to others. Carrite (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. None of the consequences have been that unpleasant. The occasional conversation with someone truly unlikable is just a fact of the internet. I'm really glad that someone appreciates what I've been trying (not very gracefully) to do. One thing that WOULD be unpleasant, however, would be if Qworty were to find out the name or home address of anyone connected with this disgrace. We're dealing with a pathologically vengeful character - in fact, probably a sociopath. So I hope the editors here will have the decency to protect the privacy of everyone involved. The writer for Salon was unbelievably courageous to write that under his real name: I will be amazed if there aren't consequences. NaymanNoland (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Information icon Hello, I'm Little green rosetta. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Robert Clark Young, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC) ETA:BLP applies to talk pages as well.  little green rosetta(talk)[reply]
central scrutinizer  06:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EC?

Hi -- could you please fix this? thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... sorry, I'm not entirely sure how that happened! I was simply responding to little green rosetta's sneaky effort to have me blocked. Not sure how that derailed the whole page... Is there anything I can do to clean it up? NaymanNoland (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to revert back and then add whatever you wanted to add. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Is it okay now? (I think I somehow managed to edit a previous version.) NaymanNoland (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NaymanNoland&oldid=555648988"