User talk:Avt tor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  1. 2006 - Mar 2007
  2. May 2007 - Dec 2008
  3. Jan 2009 - May 2010
  4. Talk: June 2010 - current

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Science fiction short story collections by Ursula K. Le Guin[edit]

Category:Science fiction short story collections by Ursula K. Le Guin, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Short story collections by Stanislaw Lem[edit]

Category:Short story collections by Stanislaw Lem, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Dune on film and television[edit]

Category:Dune on film and television, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

April - National Contribution Month[edit]

Good day Avt tor,

During the month of April, Wikimedia Canada is preparing the National Contribution Month, and we are looking for experienced contributors to organize a contribution day (or half-day) in their region.

Contribution days are activities where Wikipedia's contributors, students, or anybody interested in contributing to Wikipedia meets together to collectively improve a predetermined theme. This meetings generally take place in library where references are easy of access, but can be organized in any communal room. Beside improving articles, a goal of this participatory workshops is to initiate neophyte in the cooperative contribution of Wikipedia.

If you are interested in organizing or participating in a contribution day in your region, communicate witht he national team on the project's talk page. The exact agenda of each local event is left to the discretion of the organizer. Help is available for the organization from contributors who already organized these type of days, so don't be worried. If you have any questions or want more information, don't hesitate to contact us.

Amqui (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bunch of Seven[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Bunch of Seven has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable group, no references.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JayJayWhat did I do? 02:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove categories that apply that are under discussion[edit]

The person you removed from Category:American men novelists clearly was a man, an American, and a novelist. You may think this category is unneeded, however the way to deal with that is express you opinion at the discussion on deleting the category, not to unilaterally remove the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Lol, what bollocks. Category:American men novelists was created as a mockery of the defenders.--Milowenthasspoken 04:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm following the guideline Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality and the clear majority view expressed on the Category:American novelists page. Gender is not an appropriate attribute for categorization. I have not seen any (academic) foundation for defining "Men" as a relevant subset somehow different from the majority of novelists. Please discuss this on the category talk page. Avt tor (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • If you dislike the category, express those views at the deletion discussion. Do not remove the category from articles just because you feel it is inapropriate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • If you're right, the community will support your view. Please don't make the situation worse by adding the category to create a false balance. Your mistakes have already put "Wikipedia" into the New York Times and The Guardian as an example of sexism; you need to step back and let other people clean up your mistakes. Avt tor (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Avt Tor, this is not complicated. If a consensus is reached to delete or upmerge a category, then a bot will do all the necessary recategorisation.

However, if a consensus is reached to keep a category, then that decision cannot be implemented if the category has already been depopulated. So the only way of ensuring that a consensus decision can be made and implemented is to ensure that a category is not depopulated unless and until there is a consensus to delete it.

So in the case of the two categories being discussed here, please do not impede the work of from populating them. If they are upmerged (as you apparently want), a bot will do all the edits for you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  • The "men" category was only created since the drama started; it should not be populated. Its a goddamn joke.--Milowenthasspoken 17:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Final warning If there is a consensus to delete it or merge it, then it will be depopulated. If you think that it is "a goddamn joke", then argue your case at the CFD discussion.
      Avt Tor has continued to depopulate the category, despite the presence on the category of a clear notice: "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress".
      I will now revert all of Avt Tor's depopulation edits, again. Avt Tor has now been warned 3 times to stop this depopulation, which is quite enough warnings. So if there is any more of this disruption of the consensus-forming process, I will seek sanctions to stop it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Again, the category has only been populated since the contoversy arose to promote gender-based marginalization. (I saw two articles listed when I first looked at it.) You're in the wrong here. If you persist in supporting _new_ sexist categorization here, Wikipedia's reputation will suffer. The community is not supporting your approach here. Avt tor (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
        • When a consensus is reached, I will respect it. All that is required here is that you do the same: respect the decision-making process, rather than trying to impose your view. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
          • You are not following consensus, you are supporting one side. I've attempted to restore the status quo to the situation prior to the media controversy this week. You're using the admin stick to violate WP:NPOV. Avt tor (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
            • I am running out of way to repeat the same simple point to you, but I'll try again.
              Restoring the status quo ante is one possible outcome of the CFD discussion; please await the outcome of that discussion. If you believe that the existence of the categ violates WP:NPOV, then make your case at CFD.
              The closing admin will weigh the consensus of the discussion, and it's not for either of us at this stage to predict what that consensus will be. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
              • You are missing the point. This isn't a question of the CFD, it is about edits to individual articles. Whether the category violates WP:NPOV is not the issue. You are adding the category to articles that did not have the category prior to the discussion. You are the one violating WP:NPOV with your actions. Framing this as being about the CFD discussion is derailing. Avt tor (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
              • Clarifying the sequence of events here:
1. Category is empty.
2. CFD discussion starts.
3. One editor then starts adding the category to articles.
4. I revert those edits.
5. You step in with admin stick and revert the reverts.
Step 4 is an appropriate neutral response to prevent someone from creating "facts on the ground" to support an argument that was not supportable prior to the CFD. Step 5 is not. That's the problem here. My only input regarding the CFD arises from this broken process. Avt tor (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
                • Avt, you are confusing the procedural issues with the substantive ones. The question of populating or depopulating the category is a procedural point. I dunno whether the categ was empty when the discussion started, but that's not relevant. It is quite routine at CFD for a categ to be populated while discussion is underway, and in many cases it is actively encouraged. As above, the aim of the exercise is to reach a consensus on what to do, and so long as articles are not removed from the category, the consensus can be implemented by the closing admin.
                  That's why the notice on the category page says "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress". Which part of that do you not understand?
                  NPOV is a substantive issue, not a procedural one. If you have concerns about NPOV, raise them at CFD.
                  The edits to individual articles are directly relevant to CFD if they effect the contents of the category under discussion. If you object to a writer being categorised as an "American female novelist", where's the NPOV issue? If you believe that there is a POV dispute about whether the person is actually female, then you have an article issue ... but if your objection is to applying that category to a novelist who you agree is American and female, then your concern is with the categ as a whole, and that's a CFD issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
                  • I am not persuaded that adding the category is uncontroversial, but restoring the situation to what it was at the start of the discussion is not. Again the CFD is not the issue, it's the individual edits.
Has nothing to do with removing the "women novelist" category. The complaint was about removing the "novelist" category. The consensus on the page was that it should not be removed. If someone ignored this consensus, occasionally it was just less work to hit "Undo" than to accommodate the anti-consensus edits. Avt tor (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
                    • Enough of this nonsense about "anti-consenus edits". The CFD discussion is still underway; consenus will be ddetermined by the closer.
                      You say that "the CFD is not the issue, it's the individual edits". No it isn't the individual edits. The issue is that unless and until there is a consensus at CFD that a category should be deleted or merged, it must not be depopulated (tho its contentrs may be diffused to sub-categories).
                      The "less work" argumeht is also nonsense, because none of that work is appropriate. If a consensus emerges that articles in Caegory:American women novelists should also be Category:American novelists, then a bot can add that with no effort. However, if the articles have been removed from the more specific category, then a bot cannot select them from the general one. Once again, your out-of-process category-emptying has only one effect: to impede the implementation of a CFD conclusion you don't like. It has no other benefit.
                      Anyway, you've had enough of my time, so I won't explain any of this to you again. Just stop, I'll escalate this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
                      • Re "anti-consensus edits": The consensus at Category:American novelists was clearly to leave articles in this category. You have removed articles from this category, against the consensus. That's the fact.
Notwithstanding any discussion in whatever CFD, the category was added to several articles subsequent to the controversy, and the discussion at Category:American novelists. That's all that was reverted. That's a fact, regardless of your denial.
Per the discussion at Category:American novelists people (users, subjects, and editors) don't want articles removed from this category. When this occurred, I reverted it. That's all. It's not related to any CFD.
You should be looking at the facts and the context, and the community discussion and the stated guideline. You seem to be making a non-factual assumption about my intent, which is neither relevant nor appropriate, and you are allowing this assumption to guide your actions. The problem of marginalizing the women authors by removing them from the "novelists" category has been clearly identified by several parties. This is bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. I'm trying to fix that. You should be too. Avt tor (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
The facts are simple: there are different views about what to do with these categories, so a discussion is underway, and a consensus has not yet been reached. "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress" applies to you as well as to every other editor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── BHG,

The issue involves more than just American novelists: John Pack Lambert has depopulated all the women entries from category: novelists (and more). This applies to ALL women cats -not only the American ones - see for example: Category:Argentine women novelists.

You said above that a bot can merge the contents of a category, but cannot re-populate it, correct? So I guess there is no way re-populate all the categories John Pack Lambert emptied of articles about women? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  • It does seem ridiculous that depoluating an established category and populating discriminatory subcategories is okay, but doing the opposite is not, or in Wiki-speak, prioritizing WP:SUBCAT over WP:EGRS and WP:NPOV. It's hard to reassure users that the actions of one or two bad editors is not representative of Wikipedia as a whole when this kind of stuff happens.
Obviously, in the meantime, the solution is to fix the problem. Avt tor (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It looks like Johnpacklambert is now fixing some of the problems he created – see for example this history page. What I cannot figure out is why he now uses HotCat which provides an automatic edit summary, but did not use it back on 8 April 2013‎ when he removed her from Category:Argentine novelists with no edit summary. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The men's category is a goddamn joke, I will not be bullied into speaking out against that idiocy. The category SHOULD NOT be populated, its a waste of everybody's goddamn time to populate it. When it comes to the ghettoization of a group, WP:IAR applies on the grounds of basic human decency.--Milowenthasspoken 19:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)