User talk:Tiptoety: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:13, 19 August 2009

12:32 am, 14 May 2024 (PDT)

Important: This talk page is becoming very boring. Please consider leaving hilarious knock-knock jokes so as to spruce things up a little. Thanks!

Wikipedia:Don't Feed the Divas

Our environment, the world in which we live and work, is a mirror of our attitudes and expectations.

Wikimood

[purge]	[edit]

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

Delete

Can you delete Talk:J Dilla/GA1? It seems to just be vandalism or something along the lines. The article had a GA template on it, but was never placed on WP:GAN it seems plus was never reviewed.--WillC 10:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Tiptoety ^talk 20:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:MatthewCenance

Could you explain this block? I looked through the user's edit history and almost all of it seems to be messing around with the sandbox and/or other testing. Is there some larger context I'm missing? Mango juice^talk 00:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have a pretty good feeling he is a sock, based upon his deleted edits, specifically those to the IPs userpage, and VSS Monitoring, Inc (talk · contribs)'s userpage (whom was blocked no more than 24 hours ago). Tiptoety ^talk 00:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Albany, Western Australia

Hello,

You recently deleted List of people from Albany, Western Australia as an expired PROD. Unfortunately, the content from this article had been merged to another location (as stated in the prod nomination) and so the article shouldn't have been deleted. (I have restored it.)

When ever a merge is performed, a redirect has to be left behind (along with certain other steps outlined in Help:Merge) to allow for proper attribution.

As such, consider this a friendly reminder to read prod nominations (and also check the history) to be sure you aren't deleting something you shouldn't be. (Per the instructions, the deleting admin is supposed to make an independent judgment call about the article's validity.)

Thank you and have a nice day, ThaddeusB (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am very well aware of all that, but thanks for the reminder. When I looked at the article, this is what I saw, which did not really indicate it had been merged to the other article. That said, thanks for fixing my mistake. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 00:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation?

So, did you resign as a clerk for sockpuppet investigations? --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 05:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I did not resign, but am taking an indefinite break, so I am not really sure when I will be back. I could have added myself to the away list, but it is really intended for clerks who are on a period of temporary absence from clerking. Tiptoety ^talk 00:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, though I would put myself in the "away" list if I was a clerk, even if I was taking an indefinite break from clerking. According to the Checkuser election statistics of August 2009, you have 67.6% support for the tool, Hersfold having 95.5%, J.delanoy having 97.7%, Bjweeks having 92.4%, and VirtualSteve having 67.3%. You and VirtualSteve are highlighted yellow, while the other three are highlighted green. Whether you'll get to be a checkuser or not, I don't know, since the results haven't been officially announced yet, and won't be announced later than August 17 according to the election page. It appears that you're taking a break in preparation to get the tools, or it is for some other reason? --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 02:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not blind. I can read the results just as well as you can. As for my reasons for taking a step back, to be honest they are personal and none of your business. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 03:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 03:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, welcome back, welcome back, Mr. COTW

Howdy after a long message absence to those of WikiProject Oregon. To answer a common question, no you did not get removed from the COTW notification list, I was just too busy to send out the notification for the last change. So, thank you to all those who helped improve Central Oregon and Mount Jefferson, as well as those who added infoboxes and adopted a governor. For this edition of the COTW, we have partly by request and in honor of the return of college football, Duck football and Beaver football. If you are a fan of neither, maybe go back and work on a governor or add infoboxes this time around. As always, click here to opt out of these messages, or click here to make a suggestion for a future COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of Power

Sir, this user User:Exit2DOS2000 who has been given the rollback rights has been misusing his powers. He keeps deleting a picture that cites all the sources to prove its authenticity. Here is the article Malik Ambar.

My reply can be found here. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 16:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

per TP header ...

Knock - Knock — Ched : ? 09:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who's there? Tiptoety ^talk 16:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emma — Ched : ? 18:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emma who? Tiptoety ^talk 21:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Emma no givea da crapola no moea." Sorry for the lousy accent. More to the point, sorry you've had a couple crappy weeks buddy. Don't pay it no nevermind. You're one of the best we have here - and there's plenty of folks that'll back me up on that! Hope things get better quickly for ya. Cheers. ;-) — Ched : ? 23:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

/me chuckles. Thanks for noticing Ched. All that said, I will probably be limiting my time here significantly. Tiptoety ^talk 23:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

understood. And thanks to you for all the help you've given me here. Best of luck in all you do, and I look forward to seeing you here and there when time and inclination permits. — Ched : ? 23:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Process question re arbitration remedies

Pure curiosity only, so apologies in advance if I end up being one of a stream of people knocking at your door today, but I'm genuinely wondering. I noticed that the remedies in the date delinking case were updated based on the revisions that were passed recently. I'm just wondering if there's a usual way that the case page is updated for something like this? It appears that you overwrote the new remedies on top of the old ones, with the original date and vote totals remaining in place — as a result, without checking the history, it looks as though that were the original remedy. In a different remedy revised earlier, the new remedy was entered with the current date and vote total, and the original remedy was placed into a collapse box. It's probably as simple as different clerks, different approaches, but I guess I was a little surprised there's no defined process for something like this. Regards, Mlaffs (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mlaffs. Good question by the way, I did sit for a few minutes before enacting and closing to motion trying to decide how I was going to go about doing it. Like you said, there is really not "defined process" that clerks must follow when archiving a motion, as each motion is so very different. That said, there is a kind of SOP, or unwritten process which guides us when closing motions. Because of this, each clerk has there own slight variation on how they do things.

In this specific case, I decided not to place the old remedies in collapse boxes because of how the motion was written (note the section I placed in bold below):

All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is topic-banned from editing or discussing "style and editing guidelines" (or similar wording) are modified by replacing these words with the words "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates".

While on the other hand, the John amendment (the one what was placed in collapse boxes) was written like this:

The ruling restricting User:John, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#John_restricted, is vacated and replaced with "John (talk · contribs) is admonished for edit-warring to remove the linking of dates."

Note the differences in the wording here, and I think you will understand why I went about it the way I did. That said, it may be a good idea to add something like "Amended by a X to X motion on ~~~~~" below each amended remedy, just for clarity's sake. Tiptoety ^talk 21:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Perfectly logical explanation when you put it that way. I'd agree though — for the sake of transparency, adding an explanatory note like that would be a great idea. Thanks again, Mlaffs (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian of the Day

Congratulations, Tiptoety! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, August 18, 2009! Keep up the great work!
Note: You could also receive the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!
If you wish, you can add {{User:Midnight Comet/WOTD/UBX|August 18, 2009}} to your userpage.

Happy editing!

[midnight comet] [talk] 00:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Tiptoety ^talk 00:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goramon

Well, that was fast. I wasn't even done formatting it before you blocked. Impressive efficiency. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I needed was a link to the article in question, and well the rest is history. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 02:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undo

I'd be inclined to use the undo feature moreso if there was some form of giving the user more room to type in the edit summary. I find that even with the preferences feature to add 50 characters, undoing edits by IP addresses which can take up to 134 characters of the edit summary (and users with fairly long usernames make hat worse) hinders the purpose of allowing the edit summary to not be automated.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have to leave the automatic undo summary. You can remove that and write your own: "Undid edit by User:X because...". Tiptoety ^talk 16:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though this may be a bit off-topic of a post, at Arbitration Enforcement, you stated that if you weren't "somewhat involved", that you would block both of us yourself. I asked you why you would block Ryulong, but you did not respond. My guess is that you would block me for violating the probation, though no response for that is needed. I am still awaiting an answer about your wish that Ryulong was blocked. Could you please respond? You can either respond here, or at the Arbitration Enforcement request—your choice. Thanks! Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because of his continued misuse of the rollback tool. Tiptoety ^talk 04:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which I have no argument against. I'm glad that Viridae took it away, exactly for that reason. If Ryulong can not use rollback appropriately after alternatives have been repeatedly pointed to him, then I think there's no other choice but to topic ban him from rollback—not being allowed to request the rollback permission, have rollback, or use rollback. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, with such a blatant misuse like this, I am sure that if I took it to WP:ANI, that he would lose the rollback tool without any single warning, regard to the history, or who's filing the complaint. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

I would have left the AfD on Janet Allison run the full time, to get a wider exchange of views and decrease the likelihood of a deletion review. The result may be the same, but there is a case to be made that the subject has a claim to significant international attention and relevance to national policy. . People who would defend the article need a chance to get there. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to know what you would have done, DGG; and suggests that the best thing for the project was for Ty to handle it. That article did not need to exist in its current form for any amount of time. It was a blatant policy violation. Extreme inclusionist views or not, there was no justifiable reason to leave that shameful mess in public reach. Lara 16:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lara, I am not an extreme inclusionist (although I do have some wikifriends who might be so described), and this has nothing to do with inclusionism in general. We are talking about BLP. The discussion was closed under BLP, not the general rules about notability, which were met perfectly well under the GNG. You said there it did not meet WP:BLP, and I invite you to specify exactly why. There were excellent sources; there was international coverage over a period of time; that was matter of permanent interest beyond the immediate news value; there was no harm to any individual. There was a series of continuing events over a period. With which of these do you disagree? What exactly was shameful? What was unfit for public reading? If it's too shameful to even explain here, you can email me. the criterion for BLP violation is not "it's obvious to me" which is exactly = in value to "I don't like it". Can you to discuss the issue in specific terms? DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a clear 100% violation of BLP1E. It was written like a Wikinews article, it gave nothing but the basic details of the matter, and "there was no harm to any individual" is highly debatable. The potential for harm was surely there, as I noted in the AFD. The simple fact of the matter is that it was a poorly written BLP that was in complete violation of policy. Lara 04:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that merely asserting something doesn't make it true, right? DGG challenged you to explain why it is a BLP violation and your response was "it is 100% clear that it is one." Clearly that statement is false, as if it was 100% clear DGG would not be asking you why you think it is one. So can you actually explain your position or not? --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(place-holder post). I tend to agree with DGG on 99% of the AfD discussions, but agree with the decision to delete on this. My rationale would have been "snow", "common sense", "harm", unable to be NPOV, and the BLP1E arguments. I am reluctant to discuss some of my reasoning on-wiki here due to my personal circumstances and the fact that I edit under my real name. I would like to see further discussion on this however. — Ched : ? 05:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toiréasa Ferris

At last, thank you for PP on this article the vandalism and personal attacks against myself have been ongoing for quiet a while now and it is good that the article is now protected for a while. BigDunc 08:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Tiptoety ^talk 16:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someting about the block of user:Ragusino

Good morning, I would know something more about the block of user Ragusino. I have followed some articles on en.Wikipedia because we have had different vandalism in it.wikipedia (I am sysop of it.wikipedia). Ragusino seemed to have a different vision to that of Direktor but not so bad considering some concerns.

The position of Ragusino seemed to be correct and I have asked some justifications in the talk page of Talk:House_of_Kabužić/Caboga because the concerns of Ragusino are also my concerns considering that in the header of page we can read the coat of army of the house (taken from a croatian book) and the name is Caboga and any historical book reports the name of Caboga (which is not the italian name but the dalmatian name and dalmatian was the official language of Republic of Ragusa until XVIII century).

Reading at the block of Ragusino I don't understand the justification for his block because the check user has not displayed any "clear" proof for his sockpuppeteer. It seemed to me that a war edit has been in favor of one part instead of investigate in detail the problem.

In my opinion the difference of vision should be solved in another way considering that the other part is strongly oriented in a vision not shared by a big part of the historical literature.

What I understand is that Ragusino=Cristian.Bilicic but it's only a suspect.

I would suggest a more detailed investigation not only by check user side but also a more "neutral" resolution of conflict.

Thank you

--Ilario (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are getting at. My block was based upon the users misuses of multiple accounts, which was confirmed via a CheckUser. Tiptoety ^talk 16:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Please see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong (5). Thank you. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tiptoety, check your email please.Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The Janet Allison article has been speedy deleted as a violation of BLP.

I agree with the article creator that BLP1E is one the most problematic clauses in the wikipedia policies. I have no problem authorizing administrators to take extreme action to remove slanderous material. Truly slanderous material is a genuine emergency. That part of the BLP policy is solid.

But I question whether the emergency authorization to delete on sight should apply to concerns over "one event" biographies. "One event" biographies are not emergencies. If they are neutrally written, they don't damage anyone. I see no value in allowing them to be deleted on sight.

Unfortunately, I find, there are some wikipedia contributors who represent themselves as concerned over the subject of articles they represent as BLP1e, whose later comments reveal their initial position was an insincere one, and that they had no concern the subject of the article, and were merely using the BLP1e clause to suppress discussion of a topic they didn't care for -- classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

IMO the "one event" clauses should be removed from the BLP, and placed in some policy or guideline that does not authorize deletion on sight, without prior warning or discussion. I wrote a couple of essays in response to another administrator exceeding reasonable interpretations of what BLP authorized: "False Geber" and what a biography should contain and The earliest sockpuppet to be unmasked....

Several years ago one wag claimed that the Tony Blair article should be deleted, as a BLPe1 violation, and redirected to the George W. Bush article -- because no one would have ever heard of him if he hadn't supported the Bush war policy. This joke illustrates a serious weakness to the BLP1e interpretations. What is a "one event"? It is not defined and is interpreted in wildly divergent ways depending on the political agenda of the interpreter.

I know nothing of the Allison case, beyond what is written in the {{afd}}. But it seems to me that she is, at minimum, a 2 event person. (1) Listed as a sexual offender; (2) then profiled in the Economist.

I suggest that, unless you truly think emergency deletion was justified because the article was irredeemably slanderous, the {{afd}} discussion should run its full course.

Candidly Geo Swan (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 183: / Line 183: @@
 Hi Tiptoety, check your email please.[[User:Knight Prince - Sage Veritas|Knight Prince - Sage Veritas]] ([[User talk:Knight Prince - Sage Veritas|talk]]) 10:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
+== Comment ==
+The [[Janet Allison]] article has been speedy deleted as a violation of BLP.
+I agree with the article creator that BLP1E is one the most problematic clauses in the wikipedia policies.  I have no problem authorizing administrators to take extreme action to remove slanderous material.  Truly slanderous material is a genuine emergency.  That part of the BLP policy is solid.
+But I question whether the emergency authorization to delete on sight should apply to concerns over "one event" biographies.  "One event" biographies are not emergencies.  If they are neutrally written, they don't damage anyone.  I see no value in allowing them to be deleted on sight.
+Unfortunately, I find, there are some wikipedia contributors who represent themselves as concerned over the subject of articles they represent as BLP1e, whose later comments reveal their initial position was an insincere one, and that they had no concern the subject of the article, and were merely using the BLP1e clause to suppress discussion of a topic they didn't care for -- classic [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]].
+IMO the "one event" clauses should be removed from the BLP, and placed in some policy or guideline that does not authorize deletion on sight, without prior warning or discussion.
+I wrote a couple of essays in response to another administrator exceeding reasonable interpretations of what BLP authorized: [[User:Geo Swan/opinions/"False Geber" and what a biography should contain|"False Geber" and what a biography should contain]] and [[User:Geo Swan/The earliest sockpuppet to be unmasked...|The earliest sockpuppet to be unmasked...]].
+Several years ago one wag claimed that the [[Tony Blair]] article should be deleted, as a BLPe1 violation, and redirected to the [[George W. Bush]] article -- because no one would have ever heard of him if he hadn't supported the Bush war policy.  This joke illustrates a serious weakness to the BLP1e interpretations.  What is a "one event"?  It is not defined and is interpreted in wildly divergent ways depending on the political agenda of the interpreter.
+I know nothing of the Allison case, beyond what is written in the {{tl|afd}}.  But it seems to me that she is, at minimum, a 2 event person.  (1) Listed as a sexual offender; (2) then profiled in the Economist.
+I suggest that, unless you truly think emergency deletion was justified because the article was irredeemably slanderous, the {{tl|afd}} discussion should run its full course.
+Candidly  [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 12:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)