User talk:Tznkai

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Question

If you're reading this, and you're waiting on me for a response to something, please remind me of it. I've had family in and out of the hospital recently on top of computer problems, so some balls got dropped.--Tznkai (talk)

Also, if anyone is disturbed by my constant self depreciating reference to the Judgement of Solomon, please let me know.--Tznkai (talk)

Are you free on Sunday? Join us for a special Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for a special WikiSalon at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library's Digital Commons Center. We will gather at 3 PM on Sunday, October 13, 2013 to discuss an important topic: what can Wikipedia and the DC area do to help each other? We hope to hear your thoughts and suggestions; if you have an idea you would like to pursue, please let us know and we will help!

Following the WikiSalon, we will be having dinner at a nearby restaurant, Ella's Wood Fired Pizza.

If you're interested in attending, please sign up at the event page. We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill ^[talk] 02:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Berthold of Calabria

Hi - would you please explain your rationale for finding consensus to move here? I'd appreciate it - thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 06:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done so in detail on the page. I'm not sure what the proper procedure is for appeal, but you are welcome to do so if you find the rationale unsustainable.--Tznkai (talk) 07:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barleybannocks

I apologize if my comments to Callnecc in any way interfered with your position. I happened to be up early and saw that he was about to act even while another, more humane suggestion was on the table, when you, another admin seemed to indicate you might move that way, and during the time when many because of the hour would not be available to object. I have a strong interest in supporting a fair AE for other editors, so my comments had nothing to do with Barley or his position on Sheldrake but with the thought and hope that the one- admin sanction, a kind of wild west mentality could be moved towards more thoughtful actions in the future. I'm sorry if for some reason Callanecc saw my questions as somehow implicating Barley further. Odd that. At any rate I now have some hope that in the future more enlightened actions may come out of AE, and I do thank you so much for involving yourself there and for your thoughtful responses to the situation. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

(e/c with Barleybannocks below) No need to apologize. I recognize your pseudonym, although I do not recall why, and I am certain we have disagreed often - but your peacemaker's instinct does you great credit. I agree there does seem to be a little bit of a wild-west dynamic at AE, but I would more characterize it as the Untouchables ala "you want Capone? He pulls a knife, you pull a gun." I have been away too long, and it seems like a tough-on-crime attitude has prevailed with little counterweight.

At the same time, I have to admit I am a little bit that old-west sheriff, rarin' to go half-cocked and shooting the hats off of bad guys, even if I prefer putting the town troublemaker in the drunk tank over handing him over to the judge. AE is a tough beat, and I think we need the leeway to occasionally apply creative solutions or come down hard when it is in fact necessary - of course that just makes it more incumbent for admins to do the right thing well. At any rate, thank you for the kind words, and I hope that I don't disappoint your hope, even when we disagree in the future.--Tznkai (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We disagreed only once, that I remember, on the Martinphi sanction. I am never disappointed with honesty and integrity, admire thoughtfulness, and I don't need people to agree with me. I want fairness, and I like to think there are lots of ways to eat a banana.:O) Thanks and Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Tznkai, hi, I'm not screaming myself hoarse at some administrators (proverbially or otherwise). I am asking a simple question about the nature of wikipedia. Is Wikipedia a reference source that endeavours to the best of the ability of its users to provide factual information, neutrally presented, in its articles, or is all content in reality simply the views and opinions of Wikipedia editors (such that articles may misrepresent, exclude, or otherwise distort facts as recorded in hundreds of reliable sources). This is a straightforward question about the extent to Wikipedia's core policies are actual working documents or simply window dressing. You can refer in your answer, if you like, to the test case involving the biologist Rupert Sheldrake, and the suppression of the fact he is a biologist - a fact established in hundreds of reliable sources and disputed nowhere off-wiki. Thanks. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barleybannocks, the correct answer to your question is wu. Wikipedia is a reference source, as you described, with the goal of neutrality and reliability and our method in achieving that is broad participation collaborative editing under certain practices rules and norms. I reject the notion that how you were treated is a test case of our mission, even if it is may be another example of a failure to acculturate - for which I am not blaming you. I reject your stake-raising - you ran afoul of our methodology, and this does not implicate the whole conceit, even if it is unfortunate. To go too far down the logic you present is to turn your work on Sheldrake into a battleground on which you defend some greater and outside principle, and that ends swiftly in your exile, with me shutting the same door I will almost always otherwise try to keep wedged open.

If I may turn to practical advice, I believe that you are passionate about making Wikipedia a better source, and if you still wish to contribute, find a less controversial but still interesting article to work on (or as they say in the movies, go West young man) and observe how the best Wikipedia editors make their changes and arguments. Editing Wikipedia at anything resembling a sophisticated level is actually very hard, which is unfortunate but true. Compile your sources, find ways to improve articles in low stakes ways as well as high stakes ways, and find ways to compromise on those low stakes changes to build up trust for bigger more difficult changes. Wikipedia has a culture all of its' own, but I think in the end, despite the absurd barriers to entry, it can be intensely rewarding.--Tznkai (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really interested in life-advice thanks. I am asking you, as a (fairly) senior representative of wikipedia, whether the policies, such as those outlines in BLP, are for real or mainly for show. (One point about your advice above, when you say "compile sources" do you mean like 1000 for any basic fact, because my previous offer to supply 100 for such a well-known fact was ignored and/or rejected because some editors don't want the readers to know it.) Thanks again. Barleybannocks (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a representative. I am a self-selected volunteer, and I answered your question. I will answer it again. They are for real, even if there are imperfections along the way, or just disagreements on how best to apply the policies. I believe I have been been both charitable and evenhanded towards you. Please do not make me feel foolish for having done so.--Tznkai (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the policies are for real then why not apply them. I note, for example, numerous blp violations on certain talk pages (violation as outlined in the appropriate policy) where users are, to your knowledge, using that page engage in defamatory attacks on living people. You're an administrator - administrate.Barleybannocks (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barleybannocks, I am, for both of our sakes, going to stop engaging with you for the time being.--Tznkai (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is your right, and I shall respect it, but when things come to a head, don't say you weren't informed. [1]Barleybannocks (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absence

I noticed that, prior to the last few days, you had made only two article edits (plus one to your userpage) in the last year. Of course, we're all volunteers and edit according to our own desires, but it's striking to me that someone would be gone for so long and then immediately leap back into combat on various noticeboards. If you've been gone for a year, is that really appropriate? Don't you need some time to refresh your memory and catch up on everything that's happened since last December? I think it would be best to ease more gradually back into the administrative side of things. Everyking (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am generally a believer in (re)learn by doing, and I have held off I think on any major or solo actions except maybe a move. Just discussions as far as controversial article stuff. So I'm taking it relatively slow. Is there a specific problem you think I have caused or handled badly, or is this a general cautionary note?

I hope you are doing well.--Tznkai (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trout: Bad vote

You have voted voted a disambiguation page mu. I'm wondering if you're trying to convey a nuance of meaning other than "no"? (Or at least a Western / American "no"). NE Ent 10:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused why I'm being trouted, is it because I didn't link correctly? No matter, I'm using wu in the sense that it is used to answer koans and other loaded questions, that is, to reject the inquiry as ill-founded.--Tznkai (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. The primary reason you were trouted is because you have the open to trouting user box on your use page. Practice I was referring to is WP:INTDAB. Per WP:TROUT such things are not meant to be taken seriously. NE Ent 12:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is floundering. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NE Ent, thanks, I was just concerned I had missed something more serious. George, there is a special circle of hell reserved for child molesters, punsters, and people who talk at the theater.--Tznkai (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding appeal Cihsai

Hi Tznkai, upon your advice I have informed the three editors on their talk pages. I was not aware that such notice was my responsibility, therefore thank you for your advice. I wish to inform the editor Omer182 as well who had taken a lead role in discussion back in 2007-2008. Would he be allowed to contribute under the "uninvolved editors" section, if he prefers to interfere?

I wish to make some further statements in view of the comments of "uninvolved editors" as well as possibly "involved editors". Can you please advise where I can insert such new statements?Cihsai (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cihsai, you would add comments under "statement by Cihsai", other editors will add their comments where they will in their best judgement.--Tznkai (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A new policy

Maybe Wikipedia should adopt a new (old) policy - that people who have been accused of doing pseudoscience are, in virtue of that, deemed sub-human. That way you can treat them anyway you like and since they're not really people, BLP doesn't apply. Or maybe Wikipedia, and its wikistrators, could show some human decency. The choice is yours. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barleybannocks, I have a couple pet peeves when it comes to Wikipedia. The first is lazy allusions to Orwell. The second is what you are doing here, asking rhetorical and loaded questions, and otherwise using mendacious framing. (Really, these are the same pet peeve). Either way, I don't appreciate it, and your polite language in no way lessens the fact that you are accusing me of being inhumanly indecent.

You act like someone who is looking for a fight, and I am not interested in having that fight. I in fact, have Christmas and family events this week, and I don't wish to inflict on my loved ones the bad mood that inevitably results when I've spent my day trying to be reasonable on Wikipedia with no chance of success. I have no interest in playing the villain in the narrative you have constructed above. Wikipedia isn't perfect. Sometimes, I doubt it is even good, but it certainly isn't this black or white nonsense of your way or we're all monsters. I'm not buying it.

I believe you have, behind the bluster, valid points. This is why I pushed against an indefinite topic ban. I would be interested in helping you return to unrestricted editing, but not at the cost of you heaping abuse on me and the community I have chosen to serve, especially if only to see you rightfully banned again for your behavior.

If what you remain interested in is the argument you tried to start above, I will now grant you the last word. If later wish to find me for constructive purposes, you know where to find me.--Tznkai (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other people have lives too. Lives that should be free from public abuse. No?Barleybannocks (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]