Jump to content

User talk:TParis

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thincat (talk | contribs) at 10:01, 17 October 2014 (→‎Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad: TY). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

USER PAGE | TALK PAGE | CONTRIBUTIONS | AWARDS | DASHBOARD | RECALL | MOTIVES | POLITICS | RTRC


Image

Please restore the link and first sentence of my comment removed at [1]. It is part of my comment: It is the first sentence. It is not a polemical statement meant to piss people off. There is no comparison with drunk driving. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. It is a major ad campaign against drunk driving and you've tailored it to COI editing.--v/r - TP 04:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tailored a major ad campaign to COI editing? That's impossible—I've never seen this ad campaign. Maybe it is major in some locales, but not in mine. Please return my comment, or let me return my comment, to the state I left it as per WP:TPO. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've never seen it? It's been a major ad campaign since 1983. Well now you know. I'm sure now that you know, the idea of writing anything that associates COI editing to drunk driving and killing people should be reprehensible to you.--v/r - TP 05:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not seen it. May I return my comment to its original state now? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. Why don't you come up with some other clever insult that isn't related to drunk driving and use that instead with your picture?--v/r - TP 05:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest comment regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC) 06:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

30 year old campaign and still running.

So. Fucking. What.

Please explain to me what prevents Atethnekos from coming up with some other non-drunken-child-killing insult, which violates WP:NPA anyway, to use against COI editors and why this particular insult is needed

Please explain to me how you overlooked the following: "...a thirty-year-old phrasal construction -- imitated, parodied, and reused countless times of the last three decades -- automatically implies that the user meant the thirty-year-distant original reference?" Please also explain how you managed to draw that direct connection to conjure up your imaginary comparison when there is not the slightest context that even hints at such a thing,
And to repeat, since you probably missed this, too: " I don't know about "too young", but there's someone in this conversation in need of growing up -- and it's not User:Atethnekos. If you want to be taken seriously, try to not pretend to be upset at imaginary slights. --Calton | Talk 13:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me if I don't find your insults persuasive. That phrase has a root and the root isn't thirty years old - it is still used in commercials today. If you want to address my question, then address it. Try a DH3 argument at the very least. Your insults say much more about you than me.--v/r - TP 13:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)I think the "friends don't let friends" thing has gone through a cultural osmosis. Its a meme used in many contexts now - I grew up with the drunk driving version, but I don't think ive seen in anywhere in years or decades. One of the more common takes on it I see these days is friends don't let friends skip leg day, but there are many many more [2] I agree with you on many things TP, but I think you may have taken a wrong turn on this one. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of topic ban

that you imposed on Zambelo (that didn't take long). I just reverted it and given that I am on his list of evil POV editors (on his user page), I guess I should consider myself involved. This is the edit (sorry that is not a diff, but for some reason my browser gets blocked when I look at diffs of large edits...). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Landmark Worldwide isn't a New Religious movement. Zambelo; talk 11:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) "Landmark has also been studied as a New Religious Movement, or as "New Age" and has been referred to as a "cult" - and not to forget - Werner Erhard was influenced by Hinduism." (statement made by Zambelo in reference to the question on if Landmark Worldwide was a religion). Coffeepusher (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More like a stalker fullstop huh? Coffeepusher. So you are saying Landmark is a NRM? Just to clarify. Zambelo; talk 09:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zambelo: I'm going to give you a break on my talk page being that you are supposed to be able to talk to the imposing admin about your topic ban. But be sure to direct comments about your topic ban toward me, and not others on my talk page, in the future. As far as your topic ban is concerned, Landmark is a NRM. You can call it whatever you like off Wikipedia, but you are not allowed to talk about it at all on Wikipedia unless you are appealing to WP:AN or filing an Arbcom case to appeal your topic ban.--v/r - TP 18:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that this is all too typical of the "shell game" style special pleading that Zambelo and Astynax indulge in. After arguing strenuously that Landmark is a New Religious Movement - and edit warring to keep a completely undue weight section to that effect in the article, they want to argue that it is not when that suits their purposes! DaveApter (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input, but Zambelo has already acknowledged that Landmark falls within the scope of the topic ban and so it's not really constructive to continue talking about him. Intentional or not, it comes off as baiting.--v/r - TP 15:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't aware of that admission, and there was no intention of baiting. btw I'm sorry to hear of your frustrations with Wkipedia, and your semi-retirement. From the little I've seen of you, you will be missed. DaveApter (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. User:Yunshui explained to him on his talk page that as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is within the scope of his topic ban and he said that was "fair enough." So, now it's time to move on and let it rest. Thanks for the kind comments.--v/r - TP 17:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

copy of deleted article?

hi tp. you are in the category of admins willing to provide copies of deleted material.

an inexperienced user got in too deep too fast and has lost one of his articles. i helped him save the other two in user space (they will likely and rightfully deleted from mainspace) and set up an empty page for the deleted one.

so could you please retrieve the deleted content from Diagnosoft, Inc. and paste it here: User:Naelosman/Diagnosoft,_Inc.?

Not sure if that is the appropriate way to ask - never did this before. but thanks!

Sorry to see that you are retiring, and in a 'walking into the sunset sad cowboy' kind of way. it has been good interacting with you. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've enjoyed working on this project with a lot of people and you are certainly one of them. I've restored the page and userfied it.--v/r - TP 18:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
double thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oh crap. that diagnosoft article was just a stub? not a much longer thing in the history? i thought i looked at it a couple of days ago and there was more content (bad content, but stuff to work with). sorry for not being more specific i hate wasting people's time... sorry. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there are only 3 other edits. Once adds an A7 tag, one adds a COI tag, and the last is a bot adding a date to the COI tag.--v/r - TP 20:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ach in that case i am sorry i bothered you! i misremembered. sorry. Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IN RE: Centrism

I'm bringing this here, after finding your commentary, including your linking to WP:MPOV, at a different user's talkpage interesting. First, that essay doesn't seem particularly useful, as linking to it in conversation would tend to make the person to whom you were addressing it feel attacked. With that said, however, your point about centrism is a good one. I for one have never known a true "centrist." I've known people who hold a mix of what would be called conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc. positions on various issues, but those type of people aren't "centrist", at least in my view. There are some people who hold almost universally liberal or universally conservative ideals, but those people are quite rare, in my experience. I, for one, hold a wild mix of strongly liberal and strongly conservative ideas. (For example, who has ever heard of a person who is anti-gun control, but also pro-drug legalization?) Anyways, just wanted to drop you a quick note to let you know I thought your comments regarding centrism were very on-point, although the linking to the MPOV was a bit less so. Regards, LHMask me a question 21:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost like linking WP:CIR to a user with a competence problem, then? Perhaps - though I wasn't trying to say Factchecker has a MPOV, only that it is frequent enough to warrant a meta page. In any case, I find my views change often based on what I learn all the time. But I could most often be called a social libertarian economic conservative. I'd say I'm an Objectivist with a heart for helping others (with my own hands of course). In any case, I'd say the only centrists are the apathetics and they are unlikely to argue anyway. I'm entirely fed up with the biases here. Wikipedia isn't one way or another, but each individual topic has a particular slant. What that slant is depends on the topic. Tired of it. Just tired of it. And it's not just disputes with political leanings. Things related to Malleus/Eric, COIs, AFD/BEFORE, Arbcom itself, Jimbo himself, deletionism...no body cares what we actually do here anymore. (sigh) It doesn't matter what side of the drama anyone is on, all of them treat it like an MMORPG. Just so tired of it. And tired of people saying the other side is the MMORPG side - and none of them realize they all are. I got off an a tangent here, but yeah, centrism is rare if it even exists at all.--v/r - TP 21:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess because my particular biases are on the content-creators side of the discussion, I have little patience for Jimbo, or for people who value esoteric "civility" above all else. Should people be kind to each other? Sure. If they're not, should they be blocked from editing? In my view, no. It is my personal perspective that if blocks were limited only to vandals, blatant POV-pushers (i.e. Church of Scientology-types), and those who stalk and harass people in real life, the dramaboard would go out of business, and editors and admins whose wikilives revolve around those boards would eventually leave the project. And in my opinion, that would not be a bad thing at all. LHMask me a question 21:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting perspective and it might work - though I doubt it has any chance of happening. My views are that I'd rather that everyone just bite their tongue so we could focus on what will actually matter in 50 years. What people write will matter, how we treated each other will only matter insofar as it distracted us from the goal. Who is responsible for that distraction doesn't matter as much as the fact that we were distracted does.--v/r - TP 21:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × This is a reply to your earlier version)Over the 8 years I've spent on the project, I've found Malleus/Eric to be extremely helpful and quite easy to get along with. I can understand why others might have a different perspective, but I have no patience for the way Jimbo (and those who frequent Jimbo's page) treats him. Jimbo has forgotten what this project is supposed to be, and in my opinion, the project would be better were he to be removed from having any influence on it. In my perfect world, his talkpage would be deleted, salted, and put down a memory hole. I apologize for how "rant-y" this post is, but I just can't get past my anger at how he treats some of our best content creators. Are you familiar with his insults against both Bishonen and Giano? LHMask me a question 21:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the multiple versions. After I wrote the first post, I decided I didn't want to make the issue personal by mentioning names. Then as I read what I wrote, I realized I had several caveats and tangents that I wanted addressed. It spiraled out of control from there. I haven't had the best interactions with Giano. One in fact. I made an innocent (and funny) joke and he got very angry and made threats. I can't imagine anyone having a problem with Bishzilla, though. But to answer your question, no I have not seen either. I have seen Jimbo make some comments that fall far outside community culture. I've seen several WMF staffers do the same to include Sue. I think our problems could not be easily solved by taking Jimbo out of the picture though. We'd by cutting off an arm of a greater monster created out of our own culture. Our monster is all of us and no one knows how to fight it.--v/r - TP 21:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He blocked her, for no other reason than to be vindictive, and referred to her as a "toxic personality." As for removing Jimbo from any and all governance of the project, it wouldn't completely solve the problems, but it would begin the process. He has utterly lost the plot on what makes this project what it is, and I can't foresee any way back for him. That said, I don't think any of the powers-that-be have it in them to block him, and really start a discussion about what ails the project. And I don't think the arbs would be willing to sanction him for how he treats people who directly challenge his bullshit. Long story short(er), nothing will change, and eventually Wikipedia will stagnate. LHMask me a question 00:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Xtools down?

Hello TParis. I am from ptwiki and I noticed that Xtools is currently down (=504 Gateway Time-out). Did something happened? Or someone just tripped over the cable? :P Thank you in advance. --Diego Queiroz (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like tools lab is down altogether. It's usually just a hiccup when this stuff happens.--v/r - TP 22:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh great. :( So thank you again. Should I file a bug on bugzilla or just wait? --Diego Queiroz (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, give it a bit and it'll work itself out. Can you give me an exact link you are trying?--v/r - TP 23:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, any link does not work (like this: [3]). Anyway, people from the chat instructed me to file a bug, so I did ==> Template:Bug :( --Diego Queiroz (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 30, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, S Philbrick(Talk) 01:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad

Hi TParis. Thank you for your detailed close at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad that summarized the arguments well.

You wrote at User talk:Randykitty#Are you around? (permanent link, bullet points changed to numbers for easier reference):

  • So, I see you're not around so I'll lay out some thoughts I had:
  1. You could just restore the edit history. Sure, you are technically on solid ground and you are not required to. But, it doesn't harm the encyclopedia to have a redirect with edit history behind it and it would be an easy way to solve the drama. The advantages of appeasing the people upset over this far outweigh the nonexistent disadvantages.
  2. You could restore the page and then userify it or move it to WP:Draft namespace. Then leave a redirect at the article space link. The draft or userfied page could still have a redirect on it.
  3. Perhaps Cunard would be happy with receiving an emailed copy of the page.
  • What are your thoughts? I personally like #2 best.--v/r - TP 22:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts:

  1. This is the best option. I hope Randykitty will agree with this, but he did not change his position at the DRV, so I don't know if he would do that now.
  2. I would not support userfication or moving it to the draft namespace. The content as preserved at http://web.archive.org/web/20131021185643/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VideoPad could be merged selectively into NCH Software#Software products. Giving attribution for a selective merge is required by the guideline Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright. I would rather link to the article rather than a draft, which if not worked on would eventually would violate WP:STALEDRAFT.
  3. An emailed copy of the page would leave the history hidden to other non-admins and would not satisfy the attribution requirements of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright.

I understand that this was a difficult close to make. I would have preferred a close of "restore the history" since no one opposing restoration in the DRV could answer Unscintillating (talk · contribs)'s question: "How does keeping the edit history deleted improve the encyclopedia?"

But that would have been a controversial close since the community was divided, so "no consensus to overturn" close is understandable.

I propose a fourth option:

  1. Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing reviews states:

    If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

    Would you consider using your discretion as DRV closer to revise your close to "no consensus to overturn, default to relist"?

    Reasons in support of a relist:

    • Paraphrasing from the eloquent November 2011 close of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence:

      At this level of abstraction, we are far removed from considering the actual underlying question (whether keeping the edit history deleted improves the encyclopedia). The purpose of AfD is to establish consensus, and consensus is found through discussion and collaboration. The five commenters here who expressed opinions related to retaining the redirect's history should have done so (and should have had the opportunity to do so) during that original discussion; they would have caused a nearly 50% increase in its level of participation, and probably an increase in its clarity. In a relatively low-participation discussion such as that (or this, for that matter) an obvious way to gather more data is to extend and advertise the discussion. There is no value to the project in extending this discussion, we need to get down off our meta pedastal and get back to the coal face where the actual issue is. To benefit the project, the original AfD needs the opportunity for more editors to get involved, and with the prominence this discussion has given it, it stands every chance of doing so. To benefit the project, this discussion needs to get out of its way.

    • As SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) noted, "there is no evidence that the earlier participants even read Cunard's 11:28, 28 September 2014 post. I guess that 5 minutes just wasn't long enough?" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VideoPad was closed at 11:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC).

If Randykitty disagrees with option #1, I hope you will consider option #4.

Thank you for taking the time to review and close this contentious discussion.

As a side note, would you consider closing some of the discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, which currently does not have a regular closer? Your diplomacy and aplomb in contentious discussions would be very helpful in resolving disputes.

Cunard (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what a relist would do. I think what has happened here is that you've found a hole in policy that should be addressed somewhat. I think the next step, and perhaps RandyKitty would agree, is to hold an RFC on Wikipedia talk:AFD about whether defaulting to keeping the history for a redirect is desirable except in cases of copyright vioations or BLP issues.--v/r - TP 23:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The DRV discussed two questions:
  1. Was deleting the article's history an accurate assessment of the AfD's consensus?
  2. Does undeleting the edit history under the redirect improve the encyclopedia?
At the DRV, "endorse" participants found (1) correct so did not feel the need to address (2). If only (2) was considered at the DRV, there would be a clear consensus to restore the redirect.

A relist would allow the community to answer (2) without (1) being in the way (paraphrasing from the close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence).

The issue of a redirect's history has been discussed at an RfC in the past. It was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect in January 2011, where the closer wrote:

There is no consensus for automatic deletion of page history when an outcome is "redirect" (though there's also no consensus against that deletion when appropriate)

The close indicates that there is no consensus against history deletion when appropriate, which I interpret as referring to the "cases of copyright violations or BLP issues" you mention above. It was also discussed at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#History undeletion underneath redirect (permanent link) earlier this year.

Cunard (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The January 2011 RFC is old and not definitive and so it's pretty weak in making your argument. Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#History undeletion underneath redirect looks a lot better. Is RandyKitty aware of that discussion? If I were to read that in his position, I'd probably be convinced to change my stance. There are a lot of respected users giving very informed opinions there. In any case, I think an RFC on the desirability would be most beneficial. Even King of Hearts question is about what should happen and the answer is that it is dependent on the situation. So, then it's a matter of what is the desired outcome in case by case situations when there is no overwhelming reason to delete the history.--v/r - TP 00:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for your thoughtful (re)close. When I commented at DRV I was unaware of the discussion you linked to immediately above. Thincat (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A curious query

Hello TParis. I noticed your edit regarding discretionary sanctions at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and observed the talk page notice as well. Both places link to WP:ARBEE and I trust it is a valid link. I am curious as to why the article itself is not listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Log of article-level discretionary sanctions; wondering: should it be? I also noticed on the linked page that while it allows edits to be made to the closed case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Log of blocks and bans, it does not mention allowing edits to add new articles. Is that an omission that perhaps should be corrected? Thank you for indulging my curiosity in this regard.—John Cline (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There log of article sanctions discusses actual editing restrictions. Other than the discretionary sanctions themselves, there arn't any article-level restrictions that I am aware of - though you should keep in mind that I have not been following this topic at all and there may be things I am unaware of. The authority to place an article under discretionary sanctions comes from here. Essentially, articles in the scope of Eastern Europe are automatically placed under discretionary sanctions whether someone comes along and officially points it out or not. If the article had a WP:1RR restriction or page protection of some sort, it would be listed under articles in that case.--v/r - TP 01:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand; thank you.—John Cline (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice

I just realized that I mentioned you on this report but I forgot to ping you. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TParis&oldid=629965037"