User talk:Elaqueate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Block site[edit]

I was wondering if the following link may be unblocked. We wrote a pages about education site You can check our site it is normal and help people to teach how to type. You can check site source. It is Google organic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaSivolob (talkcontribs) 10:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

A belated welcome![edit]

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm! Face-smile.svg

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Elaqueate. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Diego (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages[edit]

Do not refactor or edit the content of my posts. --benlisquareTCE 18:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I think we were saving to the same section at the same time. I wasn't trying to prevent you from leaving your message about doing whatever you were trying to do to avoid paywalls. Have a nice day!--Elaqueate (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[edit]

Hi, I noticed you moved back to Chelsea. In the light of this I think it is clear that they are using Bradley though, as this is after the announcement they were using Chelsea, and they explicitly changed the AP release from Chelsea to Bradley. I think that makes it clear that they may have said that they will use Chelsea, they are not actually doing that. How do you view that? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

If I may butt in and offer my 2c, perhaps should be listed in the section "News agencies which haven't clearly chosen one name over the other". I had found an AP article they ran which contained all of "Chelsea", "Bradley" and "she"(!). -sche (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
They didn't announce on August 23, they announced on Sept 5 or later. They added the announcement to an Aug 23 story. I think an explicit message that they have chosen one name over the other should remove doubt, not increase it. __Elaqueate (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Searching on this page reveals " - 54k - 2013-09-06"; this means they added the note on September 6. They started using Chelsea on the radio the day before.

Discretionary Sanctions[edit]

In case you didn't know, there was a remedy at the Sexology arbitration case that resulted in discretionary sanctions being authorized. You are hereby notified that should you fail to abide by the standards normally expected of editors while making edits on any articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification, sanctions can be levied against you by any uninvolved administrator, including but not limited to blocks, topic bans, as well as any other device that is needed to ensure the project can run smoothly. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 08:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Categorization should follow statements in the text of the article[edit]

Since categories do not directly have sources, a categorization should follow statements in the text of an article. That a fact can be verified is not enough, the verification should exist in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded in recognition of your contributions to building the evidence base for the Chelsea Manning move. Well done! Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I hope you enjoyed your cookies[edit]

... and I was glad to see the SPA tagging removed. That really should have been discussed first, and then applied by a neutral editor if warranted. In the now boxed up section you said, "I didn't know that talk page discussions were considerd "edits" or maybe I would have contributed less." I don't quite follow you there. Talk page edits are real edits, but there is nothing wrong with that. They may be counted, but they certainly aren't counted against you. Here is an interesting editing statistics analyzer you might be interested in.

Please stick around and help us improve many parts of this encyclopedia. Cheers. -- ToE

Thanks, I didn't know talk page contributions were also called edits. I had thought that referred to changes to the actual article and was asking there for some clarification. I understand now. And you can see I haven't made many changes to actual articles yet. But it's been educational so far. And thanks for the note. __Elaqueate (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning Arb page[edit]

Did I? If I did, please restore it; I do apologise. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I think I see what happened: Sometimes if two edits happen really close to each other, one overrides the other. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, restored. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: It's all good. I just hadn't seen an edit conflict like that, so I thought you'd want to know in case it was a bug or something. __Elaqueate (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Your sig[edit]

I was just posting over at WP:BLPN, and you had posted in the section above. I thought I'd let you know the color of your signature is completely illegible to me, and I have fairly normal eyesight. You might want to change the color so people can see it. See WP:SIGAPP-- if I have a hard time seeing it, others may not see it at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

incorrect categorization[edit]

EQ, removing a clearly incorrect category is not "emptying" - there is ample precedent that removing items from a cat which clearly do not belong is permitted. What is not permitted is to remove all items, or to remove valid items, from same category. In this case, the category in question is for people, and Category:Women of color by definition excludes people. Even if Category:Women by ethnicity is kept, women of color should never be a sub-set of same, because it doesn't and won't ever contain people. Please stop reverting and just let the removal stand - I added a see-also link instead, which is common in these cases.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As Category:Women of color currently contains individual women, whether it's intended to or not, it was included. If you think the Category:Women of color contains entries it shouldn't, take it up there. It's disputable whether the consensus is that Category:Women of color should never contain individual women, despite the disclaimer. Right now you are emptying a category that you have nominated for deletion and this is premature. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please follow BRD[edit]

You made a bold edit, you were reverted. If you want to discuss why you were reverted, we can do so here. The reason is, tradition - traditionally we classify people by nationality, and in some cases, ethnicity (when that ethnicity is not a recognized nationality) - and then we group those together (e.g. ethnicities and nationalities). If you start adding "X women" where X is a nationality to the "Women by ethnicity" category, then it will eventually end up as a duplicate of Category:Women by nationality which doesn't serve any purposes, as I could argue under the same grounds that Hungarian or Finnish or Chinese or Thai are also ethnicities. This is just the current way these categories are set up, and I don't think it does any good to combine the two, as you end up burying the ethnicities that are not closely identified with a particular nationality. Another problem is the nationality cats themselves - while "Hungarian" is both a nationality and an ethnicity, the way we "use" Hungarian people is to describe people who are either from there, or who have lived there long enough to be considered from that place. You may thus have people who are described as Hungarian, but who in actuality wouldn't identify as "ethnically" Hungarian. The American category is a great example of same - we have many people who are called "American" but who may consider themselves ethnically inuit or whatever. The same applies for your english and welsh categories - as such, adding them is flawed and screws up the logic. Categorization of people by ethnicity and nationality is always a deeply complex and flawed process, but the current rough consensus we have in place to have nationality as the top-level containers (in most cases), and then divide those nationalities by relevant/notable ethnicities (see Rakie_Ayola who is in Category:Welsh_people_of_Sierra_Leonean_descent for an illustration of how the nationality categories intersect with the ethnic ones).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

We're not talking about categorizing individual articles. Don't confuse the issue. Categories can have a place in more than a single hierarchical path of container categories. Category:French jazz musicians happily sits under both Category:Jazz musicians by nationality and Jazz. It has more than one ultimate "top-level" category, leading upwards to both "Musicians" and "French people". Battling every parallel hierarchy is as silly as saying because the French path is useful to someone, the Musician path should be weeded out for cluttering up Wikipedia. A single top-level category is a bit of a fiction, and not an attainable goal. Intersections happen all the time. The ethnicity categories currently contain more also-a-political entities without fuss then you've explained. You're not suggesting that Category:Scottish people be taken out of out of the container category Category:Celtic people because of Scotland's existence as a political entity, are you? __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
technically it should, as there are Scottish people who aren't Celtic (many, in fact). Like I said, there's no perfect solution, but there are better solutions, and for me keeping nationalities out of the top-level lines of people-by-ethnicity gives browsers a sense of the non-national-based cats we have.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Another way we treat ethnicity vs nationality cats differently is in diffusion. Per WP:EGRS, categories based on ethnicity should be non-diffusing, but categories based on nationality are not. This is because nationality is almost always fully diffusing - everyone has a nationality (with rare exceptions), but we don't categorize on all ethnicities - for example, we don't have "Caucasian Americans".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Which is why I'm surprised you're trying to eliminate non-diffusing categories while bringing up "ghettoization" issues that don't apply. Something like the "Women by Ethnicity" cat doesn't remove those sub-cats from other hierarchies, it only gathers those cats where we have a sufficient number of subject-related pages to form groupings. That is, if you weren't trying to empty the categories of useful meaning. It is being used to gather an intersection of pre-existing cats, without any forced or implied diffusion issues. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean 'trying to eliminate non-diffusing categories'? What are you talking about? This particular women-by-ethnicity isn't needed, because I'm not convinced we need 'grouping' categories at various levels of the trees; in my experience they end up being not filled in. Also, plz AGF, accusing me of emptying a category of useful meaning is just spiteful, I've done no such thing. I was bringing up the diffusion issue here to point out a real way in which we treat ethnicities differently than nationalities.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


Look in your talk page history for a nicely worded rant of mine which, unfortunately, was aimed at the wrong editor: my apologies. When I looked closer I saw that you, on Talk:Patrick Califia, were commenting on a rant, and I thought the rant was yours. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem Drmies, I completely understand the confusion. I was confused myself about why two editors were pushing the same policy-offending statement until I figured out the edit history. You were right to be concerned and I hope the editors responsible understand what's appropriate now. Thank you for your work and attention. __ E L A Q U E A T E 09:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote[edit]

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

December 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to TutorVista may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |homepage = []]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sonora Matancera may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • sextetos, and septetos active at this time, but carved out a niche for itself in the Cuban capital.[<ref name="autogenerated1975"/>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Orange Mike | Talk 19:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Closure review[edit]

I agree with you that it is surprising for a closer to switch a closure to its opposite. If nothing else, it makes it seem like the closer did not read the discussion closely — if they came to one conclusion, and then switched to another after receiving feedback/pushback. If you think it would be productive, you could request a WP:Closure review. One outcome of such a review might be to simply re-open the RFC and solicit new comments. (Personally, I don't think I have the time/energy to file such a review.) -sche (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


Hey Elaqueate. You reverted my edit at Arachnophobia. This is fine in principle, but your edit summary justification for doing so doesn't quite satisfy me. Me saying "sorry if I missed something" didn't mean "sorry if I missed your opinion." Again, as far as I can tell from the talk page, there has been a long discussion going on (and even a somewhat silly edit war) about what kind of pic to include in this article. Seems to me that editors there put a lot of energy trying to figure out how to illustrate this article in a proper way and eventually succeeded in reaching consensus. Could you please point me to some evidence that this consensus has since then changed? If not, I shall put the pic up again at some point. Thanks! SalimJah (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, SalimJah thanks for the follow up! I can't speak to a consensus from years ago, but the article has been picture-free for at least the last couple of months. Having a picture seemed to inspire multiple vandalism attempts and I think people collectively chose not to re-instate it after a series of those attempts; it's been that way until your good faith edit. We could re-attempt a consensus more formal than that, but it seems like deciding how to illustrate a mental disorder might lead to similar disagreements as earlier times, over something decorative. And I don't see where there was formal consensus to keep it in or out before, just an exhausted cease-fire. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

hard act to follow[edit]

after your comment above... exhausted cease-fire, there are quite few around the place.

Thanks for putting the cfds there, not sure if many watch - or even the main australian noticeboard might elicit a response even. Silly season and a few heatwaves can keep watching down... and even less and less regular eds around on the ozstralian editing scene these days as well... satusuro 15:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Steve Herrod for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steve Herrod is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Herrod until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Macrophilia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Giants (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

sanctions warnings[edit]

I suggest you read the appropriate wording of how "warnings" are currently logged and note that such warnings do not have to be made by admins, and that discussions are ongoing as to the future of the log pages. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


Check Indomania, and the recent edition. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


Thank you for your reply. As I suspected the reasons given by User:Langus-TxT for removing those cites was bogus (ie WP:PRIMARY and the fact that Weddell is not a historian). I would be grateful if you could comment that the reference is in fact a WP:RS but that previous editors have not reflected what the source had said. I would agree with your assessment in that respect and will do some more research to see if those claims are valid. I am hesitant to remove them immediately as it seems that sources have been removed from that article by User:Langus-TxT with the aim of removing claims he sees as contrary to his own beliefs. I saw that previously at Talk:History of the Falkland Islands. Regards, BedsBookworm (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used, but they cannot be used as a citation for interpretation not in the source. As those sentences had substantial interpretive claims, then it is appropriate to either remove or replace the source per WP:PRIMARY, or to remove the interpretive part of the claim, leaving a more verifiable assertion. It doesn't matter if the claims are against his or your beliefs if they are unsourced. It's not appropriate to give a primary source alone to an interpretive claim as a remedy for its unsourced status. __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree but if you look at the history of multiple articles on this subject, that editor cites WP:PRIMARY alone as a reason for removing sources, claiming you can't use primary sources. This is in cases where the statement made in the sources are quoted verbatim and there is no interpretation. On reflection I think you're right, on the basis of a quick read of Weddell, I thought it was good enough. It clearly isn't. Unless his interpretation of WP:PRIMARY is corrected he'll keep on doing it. BedsBookworm (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
The shortcut WP:PRIMARY is a policy that explains the use of primary sources. If an interpretive claim is being made that is not supported by a primary source, then WP:PRIMARY says not to use it. No source can be considered a reliable source for a claim it doesn't make. And if it's an interpretation of the source, it can't have the source as the citation per WP:PRIMARY. Was there a non-interpretive claim reference that was removed citing WP:PRIMARY? If not, there was no problem citing it as the reason to remove a specific citation. And a source isn't given blanket allowance as a RS, it always depends on the context and the claim it's being used to support. If an editor challenged the use of a primary source because it was being used to support interpretive non-primary material then that editor was correct to cite WP:PRIMARY__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Joe E Ross[edit]

I think you made a mistake. The source of that citation is an extremely legitimate news source, WFMU, not the Examiner. The editor who came over and commented on the talk page said the Examiner, but I can't find any proof it was every published there. In addition, the author of the report is Kliph Nesteroff, a writer considered to be a show-business expert. This discussion was whether or not this blog from a reputable news source counted as a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines. I said it did per Wikipedia Identifying Reliable Sources guidelines, which state "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write." --SouthernNights (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I should add that all of this is irrelevant to Joefromrandb's behavior. I'm happy to discuss the issue of the reliability of this source with any and all editors. But I don't like any editor attacking others, which hurts any attempt to reach consensus. Thanks for taking part in the discussion on the article's talk page.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. Turns out the editor who'd commented about the Examiner introduced the edits to that unreliable source. I'd missed that edit and didn't realize it'd happened, hence my confusion. I've re-inserted the original info and source, which is that WFMU article. So the question then comes down to whether or not that WFMU article is reliable.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
SouthernNights, I agree there are behavior issues to discuss. But as you've figured out the article (as it stood when I encountered it) had material solely sourced to a blacklisted source: Mel Neuhaus (April 7, 2011). "OOOOH! OOOOH!...DVD Takes a Spin With Car 54". New York Examiner. I didn't remove the sentence that was sourced to WFMU and am happy to talk about its reliability on the talk page. I would add that the material I removed wasn't an accurate version of material in the WMFU source, even if we consider it a reliable source. And you should know that the material looked like it was taken more directly from the site than the WMFU site, which would account for the misquotes. We should sort out what WFMU actually says before re-introducing errors of fact taken from the bad source.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me. I thought I'd quoted correctly, but feel free to take out anything I goofed up. I re-inserted because that Examiner issue seemed to be adding unneeded confusion. I'd also like to add more positive info about the subject's life but he's very hard to find personal information on. Not trying to cause you any trouble on all this, and thanks for looking into the issues here.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem, no worries. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the article has reached consensus. Thanks for your help. However, I'm frustrated at how the other admins are taking Joefromrandb's attacks as no big deal. I'm happy to work with people on articles and, if I'm wrong I'll admit it. That WFMU article, while still a reliable source, had issues which I hadn't considered until you pointed them out. If Joefromrandb had simply kept a civil head and not attacked editors, this would have been resolved earlier and painlessly. But it appears the other admins consider his responses appropriate, which is frustrating. Am I misinterpreting what I consider attacks by him? --SouthernNights (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the people I thought were other admins defending him on the Admin Noticeboard are regular editors. My mistake. But that doesn't change my concern. Am I wrong about what I thought of as attacks by him?--SouthernNights (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
SouthernNights, I think you're correct to see the behavior as disruptive and needlessly confrontational. From his history, I see that he's uncivil whether it's a point I agree with or not, so I don't feel it's about content. Here's my opinion on what might be happening: You pointed out that this user has had multiple blocks over past months; this means there are admins who have taken this type of behavior as more than "no big deal" and presumably would for a shown pattern of future incidents. Some editors may be inured to it, in the "belligerent Thanksgiving uncle" sense. Other admins who are concerned about his behavior might be waiting for the clearest possible re-offense so they're not getting into a dispute over sanctions in a borderline case, or waiting for the smaller interactions to pile up into a pattern that can't be argued with per Wikipedia:ROPE. I think many editors recognize the incivility as inappropriate. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mano people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mande (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

David Jewett[edit]

I don't believe you're entirely correct in removing all of the comments on Jewett related to the Uranie. Weddell does comment that the ceremony was calculated to re-inforce the claim on the Uranie. I've added some material back sourced to a secondary source I've found. In addition, I think you've thrown the baby out with the bath water removing the copyvio. It would appear to have removed a significant view that is in the literature; its certainly something that has received a lot of press [1] [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Would it not have been better to copy edit to remove it? Regards, BedsBookworm (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not how copy vio works. You remove it before Wikipedia gets sued, you don't keep it in while you mess around with it. I didn't remove most of that, but I certainly don't think removing Wikipedia-endangering text is a bad thing. I think you can agree that plagiarism is inappropriate, and the editor who added it has been indefinitely blocked.
As for your links, that looks like a series of letters-to-the-editor between an extremely pro-Falkland Island pair of non-peer-reviewed writers and a former member of Argentina's government. Do you want to add them both for balance? __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[edit]

Hi, Elaquaete. Thanks for helping edit You removed several secondary citations because the text for which they were cited did not make specific claims. Instead of deleting the references, could you please consider looking into those secondary sources to see whether the references should be cited for specific claims? Thanks!

--Vindeniträden (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

1. If the only claim is that coverage was had, it's not a notable claim. 2. The point isn't to put in citations you think are interesting; it's to have a neutral and verifiable article. Citations are meant to verify the claims; it's not the responsibility of anyone to pull interesting things out of sources you provide. You have it backwards. 3. If your content has been reverted please discuss before re-inserting, as you have done. __ E L A Q U E A T E 05:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Got it. I’ll take a look into the citations myself and see whether they make any worthwhile claims. --Vindeniträden (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
No problem. (And since sources can always be added in later if a new statement is made, there's never a strong reason to "preserve" them in the mainspace until that happens.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 06:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Dock Ellis[edit]

This is not the first time I've noticed you editing an article right after I have made a change. Is this a coincidence?Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh you comment on the main BLP noticeboard a lot so I sometimes check your history to see if you've actually made a particular change you've discussed. If I see something else interesting I might comment. The incidents aren't related, so I suppose that's the exact definition of coincidental. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
That's a bit creepy,Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think the last time I noticed an edit of yours you were blanking sections in pages. So I remember checking back then to see if vandalism was habitual (which I think is an appropriate thing to check for) but I don't generally care what you do, as long as you're generally within policy. Are you saying you'd like me to stop editing in some way? __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd like for you to stop following me altogether, it's creepy. So stop.20:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't and am not following you. That's an unfair assessment. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Then I trust this will be the last time you ever appear right after me at a low profile article. Ever.
This (and your edit summary) come across as threatening. You might have a problem with WP:AGF. In any case, one intersecting edit over two months is a pretty weak case for whatever you're complaining about.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

always check how the characters are referred to in the articles[edit]

--Niemti (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Something you might find interesting[edit]

Please email me, I have some information to share with you - not sooper-seekrit but probably best considered quietly rather than splashed all over the project. Keep up the good work, Guy (Help!) 10:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Guy, i'm sorry, but I haven't set up email notifications. Of course I'm now very curious and would like to help, but it has been nice not worrying about direct emails popping up when I haven't set aside some Wikipedia time; this might be a selfish attitude. I appreciate the thought and am happy to help look at anything that needs looking at.
As I think about it now, if I stick with total transparency, then any future mistakes I make are my own, and there's no implication of any off-wiki co-ordination, even when done in the best of faith. I wouldn't want another editor open to that accusation if someone didn't like an edit I made. Have I overthought this? You're just wanting to show me something innocuous and I'm rambling. You have more Wikipedia experience than me, if you think it would be of more benefit than this concern, I'll reconsider. I appreciate your good work as well. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Piercy Ravenstone may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ((DEFAULTSORT:Ravenstone, Piercy}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


Thank you, Elaqueate. You're a positive voice in the discussion and improvement of the Falkland Islands article. I hope to keep interacting with you in the article friend. Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pseudonymous sportspeople[edit]

Category:Pseudonymous sportspeople, 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


Actually, I'm not trolling their contributions at all - the nominations come from walking through the tree. I just checked and the categories I've nominated of Ottawas have been created at different times, some more than a year ago. I don't look at who created a cat before sending it to CFD, I just use twinkle which does auto-notifications. It is the case that we seem to disagree on which gendered cats are notable and worth keeping, but I'm not targeting their contributions. Specifically - I just come across too many of these that ghettoize or otherwise violate our guidance and as you can see consensus is usually with me. I don't think these mezzanine cats are good unless the mezzanine subject is itself a subject of study - like women scientists which is very diverse but women scientists is itself spoken of as a group, whereas 'women who are sailors or surfers or windsurfers or pirates' or 'women who either play poker, bridge, or work as video game designers' is not. Such cats must be non-diffusing and it complicates the tree needlessly. Our tree is so deep that the creation of mezzanine categories at every level would add a ton of complication for parenting with little value add - thus only worthy and sourced mezzanines should survive. It's a simple violation of EGRS, even if kept as a container, because it nonetheless suggests that the intersection of those jobs + woman is a subject of study but it's not not not not - even in forestry the correct cat would be Women foresters, not 'women somehow connected to occupations with deal somewhat with trees'.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I never said you were deleting Ottawa's categories the same week they made them, but that your own deletions have been steady. But if, as you say, you're just been targeting gendered categories for deletion, that seems problematic in itself.
The unfair description of Category:women who are sailors or surfers or windsurfers or pirates is clearly silly and a bit of a waste of my time. This is like calling Category:Vegetables Category:Peas and Corn and Random others. People are commenting on these categories as if they weren't container categories, and that seems ignorant to me. It's a grouping of like categories, it's not a direct grouping of a specific pirate article with a specific windsurfer. The structure of this argument could be applied in the same broken way to (chosen at random) Category:Missionaries by saying: "But Jewish missionaries and murdered missionaries are completely different things. Who are we to group them?" I wouldn't call this category Category:Jewish missionaries and medical missionaries and murdered missionaries and linguists just to make it seem like it was randomly grouping unlike things. If Category:People in the games industry groups articles that would look strange together if they weren't sub-categorized (What does this fellow have to do with this guy? It's okay they're clearly subcategorized), then that has nothing to do with creating a cross-category to help navigate Category:Women by occupation.
And I wish you'd read up on what forestry is, because it is a variety of occupations related to resource management and conservation, whatever the gender of the person doing it. It's lumberjacks and scientists and more. This bit about whether the "intersection of those jobs + woman is a subject of study but it's not not not not - even in forestry the...}} is specifically insulting to me, as I gave you examples of where people were studying women in forestry across occupations, looking at the field as a whole.
Your statement "Such cats must be non-diffusing" is wrong if you're saying an EGRS cat must never be diffused itself. WP:EGRS says that the parent cat of an EGRS cat must be non-diffusing. That doesn't mean the "child" EGRS cat can't be diffused in itself normally. Just look at the example: Category:African-American politicians is a sub-cat of Category:American politicians. It says that Category:American politicians must be non-diffusing, and have the articles that are put in Category:African-American politicians. That doesn't, in any way, mean that Category:African-American politicians can't have sub-cats.
I don't see any suggestion that gendered categories should never diffuse into subcategories WP:EGRS says that :Cross-categories are typically used to split larger categories (e.g. Category:LGBT sportspeople is used to reduce the size of Category:LGBT people)." You seem to be saying we should dump as many cross-categories as we can. You're suggesting EGRS cat trees should be less navigable than the parent, which goes against the spirit of WP:EGRS.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding what diffusing means. American politicians is not non-diffusing, African-American politicians is. A non-diffusing cat is one which doesn't remove contents from the parent. A cat can be non-diffusing on one parent and diffusing on another. Secondly, absolutely ergs trees should be 'less navigable' - otherwise you'd have to reproduce the whole generic tree in gender and ethnicity and religion as well, which would cause complications even worse than we have now. There is a limit, we simply disagree on where that line is. Now, of course an EGRS cat can be diffused (ex:by nationality, by job) but the cat itself - and importantly, all of the contents, no matter how deeply nested, - must always be non-diffusing on any neutral parent. Do you understand the difference? One is a description looking up the tree, the other is going down the tree - so obviously Women can be diffused, but it _must_ be non-diffusing on People. Where it gets confusing is where people want to create a subcategory that is diffusing in one tree and non-diffusing in another - like women in forestry is diffusing of women by occupation, but it's non-diffusing of people in forestry - and that's where last rung rule and other ergs guidelines come into play. (Fwiw, i read your cites on forestry and am simply not convinced they cover the broad sweep of that category) these mezzanine cats also pose a big risk because by simply adding them to a new neutral parent you can immediately ghettoize all of their contents without even realizing it. Finally as to your points on peas and corn etc, you seem to think that if we group people by X, we can group women by X. This is really deeply wrong, and I really wish you'd understand why. A gendered or ethnic category -even a container - has a much higher bar, if we could do gender + arbitrary container category this would add thousands of cats to the tree. We should not, we should focus such containers to cases where we can establish that the container is itself an object of study, or utility containers like X by nationality. Otherwise we are implicitly making a claim of importance not backed up by sources. I don't target gender cats, I target all bad cats, it just so happens I have a special eye for useless gender cats having done lots of deghettoization, it frustrates me to see these lying about and I think it's bad for the wiki, and my record is pretty good, the cfd crowd seems to agree with the bulk of my proposals. I also create gendered cats sometimes, or help rearrange trees, I recently did some work unwinding princes and princesses for example, so I'm not against them, I'm just picky, unlike our friend Ottawa who has created many dozens, stuffed one person inside and then gone away. I think care should be taken before creating a gendered cat and the ghettoization potential negative is much worse than any marginal navigational benefit in many cases.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)

Your submission at AfC Emily Howell Warner was accepted[edit]

Emily Howell Warner, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emily Howell Warner, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pilot and Air and Space Museum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

AN discussion[edit]


This was at AN, but I've realized it's better said here. You may get a mystery ping as a result, apologies for any confusion.

I've removed a comment of yours, and part of the one below it, from the discussion, because for the sake of kindness we should try to avoid any discussions of off-wiki events. There have been enough real life difficulties for the person in question already, and they don't have a direct bearing on this discussion. You can revert me if you disagree, but I'd really prefer that you didn't.

Many thanks, — Scott talk 20:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Scott, you realize that you left my responses to those comments hanging with no context, right? And as for "real life difficulties", haven't they all been of his own making? I don't see why we are protecting him from his own actions. Yes, I agree that there's no need to put it in a headline and make a major deal of it, but I disagree with sweeping it in the corner, especially retroactively. I'm not going to undo your deletion, but I wish you would think about reverting it yourself, as I believe it goes too far in the other direction. S I said earlier, what CH did is Wikipedia's version of high treason, and I don't agree with bending over backwards for people who have actively gone out of their way to damage our credibility. BMK (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Scott, I also don't like the implication that I would be "unkind" to point out that the person by this name has a "troubled history". I'm not unkind, I'm concerned for the project. I think it does have a direct bearing on the discussion if the user has done worse than hoax in their real life and that's sourced in the public record. If the reports are true, that person attempted perjured testimony in an attempt to free a convicted murderer, after being convicted of attacking a university student (from the university that we've accepted oodles of articles from this editor's POV). He may have had "real life difficulties" but actions have consequences. If Wikipedia looks like it's covering for an editor discovered to be a known and notorious public fraud, it could risk damaging the project much more than hurt feelings over a public record being noticed by a few more people. I would feel the same way if it was discovered that a sockpuppet editing business articles was discovered to be a financial con artist in real life, or something similar. I didn't say anything cruel, this person does have a troubled and very public history and reputation for falsifying stories in the most serious of circumstances. Maybe it's important that the community understands they're not dealing with someone who has been much more than a casual vandal? I would also like you to consider restoring my comments on your own, as I think that would cause less drama than if it looks like I'm "unkindly" over-ruling your intervention. I know you're navigating competing concerns as much as anyone, but that edit doesn't help. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
None of his criminal record has any direct bearing on his edits to this project. He's been a liar and a fantasist everywhere. First he did it at his college; then here; then in a cell; then here again. So what? Does that make his edits here even worse? Maybe it's important that the community understands they're not dealing with someone who has been much more than a casual vandal? What do you expect us to do, ban him again? Burn him in effigy? His name is mud now; people are swarming all over his editing history. Let that be good enough for us, without scenes of high melodrama. Leave him to stew in whatever misery he brings himself out there. His life is shit enough already, there's no benefit to anyone of us shitting on him even further.
But like I said, if you want to put your comments back, then do it. — Scott talk 23:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Scott: In all fairness. you deleted it, and now that you know that Elaqueate disagrees with your reasoning, you really should be the one to restore it. BMK (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Scott, I'm going to give you a free tip. If your purpose is to avoid "scenes of high melodrama", avoid directly suggesting I want to burn someone in effigy. This isn't about making his life worse; there are other stakeholders here than him. Not everybody may share the opinion that being, in your words, "a liar and a fantasist everywhere" has no bearing on how we appraise his work here. When I said Maybe it's important that the community understands they're not dealing with someone who has been much more than a casual vandal? I meant that it could help those re-evaluating his edits look for evidence of more than hoaxing one esoteric article (what he was caught for), as he has been guilty of more than light-hearted hoaxing in the past. I don't suggest this because I want to make his life worse, but I would like people to have a more complete picture while investigating, so they might see and fix more damage to the project, from angles they might not consider if they're shielded from basic stuff in his public record. As a possible example, he was convicted of assaulting a Rutgers University student, and most of his edits have been to proclaim what a patriotic Rutgers person he was; some in the community might want to evaluate his contribution from that angle for themselves before prejudging all his work "probably top-notch" in this area. I don't know what people will turn up, but it's not like he just stole somebody's lunch money or jaywalked.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've re-removed your comments - you should not be speculating on the real-life identity of an editor, however likely it seems, and certainly not linking them with past crimes committed in real-life. WP:BLP still applies y'know. GiantSnowman 11:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It is an admitted identity, isn't it? And it's in the public record, it's not speculation that the person has a troubled history. I don't quite see how this is different than a COI discussion where it's important to understand where a disruptive editor is coming from.__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Given the editor's long history of lying and hoaxing, we cannot and should not put any reliance in who they claim to be. GiantSnowman 12:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
That, at least, sounds fair and a more valid point than the idea that it is "not kind" to mention a history of major consequence real life lying when assessing someone's credibility, after they've been caught lying. I still think we should evaluate the contributions with the idea that there's the possibility he was truthful there, or we risk looking like fools. Thanks for the response.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Elaqueate, there's another reason that I'd rather not touch on here. I can't email you through Wikipedia (it reports you've not specified a valid email address) but if you'd like to email me, I'd be glad to reply. NebY (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I've not linked my email because I'm okay without Wikipedia showing up in my inbox at odd hours of the night (I could turn off notifications but I know I wouldn't). That means I don't get interesting backstory or get dragged into behind-the-scenes gossip and I'm okay with that. I'll trust that people more in the know are probably acting in good faith, and I won't push it. But even assuming incredibly good faith and good intentions, and whatever the scenario is, Wikipedia should probably still find a way to demonstrate it's not hiding a scandalous editor solely for the purposes of defensive self-protection. Nobody wants a Penn State / Catholic Church situation of authorities trying to make peace through enforced silence, mystery and offender shielding, and we wouldn't be able to set the story straight with private emails if it started getting more outside scrutiny. Not knowing what some know, I couldn't say how to do that, but I can say that it could look off to anyone outside a trusted circle. Hiding negative info for good reasons often backfires on the hider, and transparency is better, for all parties, in the long game. Thanks for the offer of an email, though.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome! And I have a lot of sympathy with everything you're saying. I'm not trying to protect Wikipedia or any editor either, and I've not been exchanging emails or been on IRC or anything like that - I just noticed something, that's all. NebY (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
@NebY: feel free to e-mail me or somebody else, should you wish. GiantSnowman 17:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Elaqueate you will likely find NebY's e-mail very interesting. GiantSnowman 11:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
I award this barnstar in appreciation for your vigorous defense of our policy on Biographies of Living People. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I will not apologize for attacking Filipacci until that privilaged child of rich parents apologizes for attacking me and many other hard working editors of wikipedia. (Redacted) John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Desiree Cousteau[edit]

I thank you for your civility, even though we disagree. Let me say that up front.
And obviously, I agree with everyone that BLP is highly important — look at my history of editing, and you'll see countless instances of my removing uncited claims about celebrities' and others' personal lives.
So given our general agreement about BLP, I ask you do me the courtesy of following my simple argument here with an open mind. I wish to demonstrate that I am not going against BLP.
The policy refers to contentious, defamatory claims. Having the article give an "other" name cited by a major reliable source is not contentious or defamatory.
Can agree that someone's reliably cited name in and other itself is not contentious or defamatory?
So the next part is: The name is cited to a reliably sourced, national report of public information about a public figure. It involves a misdemeanor arrest that factually happened. It's not even mentioned in the article itself. So what is the contentious / defamatory content? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
No problem, Tenebrae. Here's some things to consider.
Can we agree that someone's reliably cited name in and other itself is not contentious or defamatory?
Actually no, since this isn't true in all cases, I can't agree that a name in and other itself is somehow immune from concern. Including a name can be contentious, even in cases with more than one reliable source. "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" I can think of multiple theoretical scenarios where a name wouldn't find consensus for inclusion despite easy sourcing (children's names, victims of crime, a nickname that was considered defamatory and non-notable, basically any situation where there was a consensus that potential harm to a BLP outweighed the perceived value of the content to the encyclopedia).
The name is cited to a reliably sourced, national report...
One story is not enough to cite contentious and challenged material in a BLP where there are presumption of privacy issues. That's policy for the famous and unfamous. We have exactly one story. (I know it ran word-for-word in at least one other paper, but we only have a single written and produced report.) That's not clear evidence that we even have a correct spelling, let alone that it was a significant name for the subject. There seems to be exactly zero evidence that this story was ever corroborated by any other reliable source ever, let alone the subject or possible agents of hers. Stage names in this industry are most generally taken to conceal identities; if we have to choose between presuming she was intentionally protecting her privacy by concealing her identity over decades, or that she had no problem with it, then BLP indicates presuming a desire for privacy. That's the presumption that risks the least harm. Presuming no desire for privacy only from a single report that showed no voluntary cooperation with the subject can be considered contentious. BLP requires multiple reliable sources to back up contentious claims, even in the cases of celebrities. I think we only have a possible one, here.
It doesn't actually matter if the material is negative or positive. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. and please note that here I'm not even talking about the incident of the unconvicted charge, but the allegation that this is her name, We have a single written account, If people think there's even a chance that adding a potentially real name might cause harm to a BLP, then BLP requires us to at least have multiple sources independent of each other. (And even then, there could be a consensus not to include it.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate you taking my points seriously and responding to them thoughtfully and at a reasonable and not-dismissive length. You're editing in good will and your intentions are honorable, albeit, I believe, misguided.
I say this because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanics of journalism — an extreme view that basically challenges some enormous percentage of the cited sources in Wikipedia for no valid reason. You know, of course, that pre-Internet print publications are spotty online; Google bringing old newspaper on is a researcher's godsend, or at least those researchers who don't get expensive subscription databases at work. So while this was one story, this was one story syndicated nationally and probably internationally: AP stories, especially involving celebrities don't just appear in one or two newspapers. It likely appeared the very low hundreds. That's just a fact of the syndicate's (a nonprofit consortium of paper that contribute) economics.
But let's say by some statistically improbably fluke it only appeared in the two 1981 newspapers that happen to be online. The number of places in which it appears in has no bearing whatsoever: It was distributed at the very least nationwide, by editors and writers stake their reputations and livelihoods on their work. And that's not particularly difficult work with basic crime-beat reporting. Here's how it generally works: The assigned reporter(s) show(s) up daily or nightly at the police station or local prosecutor's office where public-information arrest reports are available. Police take IDs from people arrested, photocopying them as evidence. The reporter can't see the evidence files, but 99 times out of a hundred, any literate police officer copies correctly the typed or printed name from an ID. For anyone to suggest, "Oh, maybe they got the name wrong" is to suggest that the vast majority of police and journalists are idiots. Getting a name wrong can have a negative effect on a case. They're careful. And it's a reporter's job to be equally careful. And writing down names isn't rocket science. You know, I'm not an astronautical engineer or a corporate CPA, but if an astronautical engineer says a spacecraft's parts are called this-and-that, or a CPA tells me she's reporting numbers to the SEC for public consumption, then it's reasonable to trust their professional accuracy, skill and integrity and cite their statements as factual. Someone may not like what a reporter reports, but to claim for no realistic reason that it's incorrect is unreasonable. It's similar to right-wing politicians claiming that scientific reports they don't like might be wrong. Yes, anything might be wrong, and a bus might come through my living room. But that's not a reasonable stance.
In any event, Wikipedia's standard is WP:VERIFY, which an Associated Press report reaches. Only someone who has no idea how journalism works, or someone with their own, even well-meaning agenda, would say it does not reach the WP:V standard.
And I respectfully disagree that "Deborah Jane Doe" is contentious or defamatory. No one's falsely claiming her name is "Stinkybreath." We're stating a verified neutral fact — "truth" not being the Wikipedia standard nor philosophically achievable — that "Here is an 'other' name this person verifiably, confirmably used."
I've gone on too long — forgive me; I didn't mean to — but I can't give a four-year-degree study in journalism here, and if one doesn't have that one shouldn't presume to comment on the reliability of the press. This is one of those Wikipedia cases you frequently read about where armchair historians believe their pet theories trump the edits of an actual historian. All it takes is two editors without proper background and training but who believe the same thing. And the end result is a stifling of intellectual freedom, a censoring of factual information, a whitewashing of history and, remarkably, as I saw in the RfC discussion, a maddeningly ignorant attack on the professionalism of the press at journalism's most basic level — reporting publicly available information. It's publicly available for a reason, but I'll never be able to convey how important that reason is. You're probably thinking I'm being corny and melodramatic. And if so, you'll never be able to see how sacred that reason is.
Again, my apology for going on so much. My doctor is the same way about TV medical shows, and my attorney just laughs at screen depictions of lawyers. What some people at the RfC discussion stated about journalism makes me more depressed than angry. In this admittedly very small instance, a great disservice to the world of knowledge has been done. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with my understanding of journalism here. I understand how wire service reporting works and I never implied the AP story only ran in two papers total. That's immaterial to the point that I was making. It's the same report from a single ultimate source running in multiple markets. Wikipedia BLP policy requires more than one sourced report. This is not an indictment of journalism. This is a policy of getting more than one report for certain claims about living people. Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. and If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. A single-sourced report is impossible to corroborate, and corroboration between multiple independent sources is required on Wikipedia for certain claims about living people. You may or may not like or understand the policy, but it's not somehow anti-journalistic to ask that a certain type of claim in an encyclopedia be sourced to more than one report.
For anyone to suggest, "Oh, maybe they got the name wrong" is to suggest that the vast majority of police and journalists are idiots. Did you write this with a straight face? Suggesting the bare possibility that a single isolated AP story might have been one of the 99 times out of a hundred that a name was misspelled (from the original report, the reporter, or the person who transcribed the story) isn't calling all journalists' intelligence into question. I don't doubt that everyone involved has a motivation to be careful and a maintain a professional practice to reduce the chance of error. But occasional errors are a basic fact of daily working journalism, no matter how careful the reporters are, otherwise there'd never be a corrections section in every reputable newspaper ever. Implying that all names are spelled correctly in an individual AP story and that it should be treated as if infallible when there is no second source to check it against? That's bizarre and not what a reasonable person would expect a working journalist to say. We're not talking about denying hundreds of climate change reports; we're talking about a single article. It's the opposite of unreasonable to be skeptical about a claim only made in a single article in 1981. If you feel that the reputation of the profession of journalism has been unfairly impugned by a suggestion that not all of the names in a newspaper story are always spelled correctly every time, then the problem isn't with other editors.
You have provided no other source that verifies this name was ever used anytime or anywhere else. You should understand this is a problem, and it doesn't matter how incredibly rare you think it might be for AP to make a mistake or report someone else's mistake, or how you personally think all police booking procedures work throughout the U.S.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not the one misunderstanding. A name is not an exceptional claim. Saying she was the #1 star of the year or that she holds a record in the hundred-yard dash is an exceptional claim.
Using the word "infallibility" suggests a standard no one in the world can achieve. That's a misunderstanding of WP:VERIFY. Wikipedia doesn't say: "This is truth." It says, "This is the historical record, and here's the reliable source. Judge for yourself."
I could say more, but there's no point. A sad fact of Wikipedia — and I'm speaking in general, not about any one person — are all the armchair historians with no training or perspective outside of Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Using the word "infallibility" suggests a standard... Yes, we agree. Journalists are obviously not infallible. Did anyone say they were or should be? I never suggested infallibility should ever be a standard for anything, only that multiple reliable sources be used for some claims in a BLP.
Do you know why names are usually not exceptional claims? It's because they're usually verifiable by being widely reported. And a claim to know a person's name becomes an exception when it's the only reported instance in history and matches no other source. If it's a part of the person's life that's significant for Wikipedia, it wiIl usually be reported more than once. Corroboration is a good practice, and not just for journalists.__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Ta-Nehisi Coates RfC[edit]


You questioned whether my RfC was tendentious. Perhaps you see the RfC, which I started based on an admin's suggestion, was speedily closed, which is a good example of the problems with this debate. Just some facts you might be interested in: 1. My first RfC was deleted and I was reported to the obvious vandalism board after I deleted the closer's warning about it from my talk page. That was 2. One edit had 2 to 1 in support, with 1 ambiguous. The 1 then reverted the edit 3 times and reported me to the 3RR board. 3. The next edit had 3 to 3 support/oppose. The same editor discussed reverting to the last noncontroversial page, but then suddenly reported me to ANI, which you apparently know about.

So debate is actually me trying to have a debate and others just trying to shut it down, likely due to OWNERSHIP issues. Useitorloseit (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Tedious, not tendentious. I said it looked tedious.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Please don't accuse me of "falsifying" something. The RfC was not listed on the current RfCs page, I assume because opposing editors closed it then reopened it without the RfC tag. I was just trying to get it listed on the main RfC page. Useitorloseit (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
You changed the timestamp on one of your comments to a false time, please don't do that for any reason. RfCs can take up to 24 hours to be listed; it's already been added to the Biography and Media lists. Changing the time on one of your comments does not speed up anything. It specifically has nothing technically to do with getting the RfC picked up on the RfC page. It only confuses the chronology and apparent order of comments. I hope it's something you never try to do it again.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Well the ones who improperly closed then reopened the RfC should have fixed it, so I didn't need to try figuring it out. Maybe you should speak to them. Useitorloseit (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I fixed what you made inaccurate. There's nothing for me to fix at this point about anything anyone else did. It's not your fault you did something wrong, but you can take comfort that everything's correct now.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Right, it wasn't my fault. Useitorloseit (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
No more than others who make good faith mistakes. Don't spend too much time worrying about things that were easily fixed. But a falsified timestamp is one of the few times someone can revert you like that, so you know for the future.__ E L A Q U E A T E 06:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Useitorloseit_and_Ta-Nehisi_Coates_-_request_for_topic_ban. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks at Jefferson Davis[edit]

Thank you for your recent edit at Jefferson Davis reasserting the historical Confederacy 1861-1865.

Beyond efforts to assert the Confederacy still exists, along with a political agenda to secede individuals, counties and states in the modern era, neo-confederates also repeatedly try at Wikipedia Civil War articles to remove the First National Flag of the Confederacy and replace it with their modern banner, the Third National Flag, or the Blood Stained Banner (BSB).

David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi at “Mississippi History Now”, online Mississippi Historical Society observes in his Brief history of Confederate flags, that the “Bood stained banner” was “unlikely” to have flown over “any Confederate troops or civilian agencies”. He quoted the author of “Confederate Military History”, General Bradley T. Johnson, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.” -- the BSB.

In contrast, Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865, published in LSU’s History of the South series, on page 118 notes that beginning in March 1861, the First National Flag was used “all over the Confederacy”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

How about this[edit]

You stop stalking my edits and dropping passive-aggressive diffs alleging past-wiki-crimes. Leave me alone. Striking this. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this a bit cheeky to use as an example? Another example comes from categories, where Category:Men_by_occupation has 23 subcategories, while Category:Women by occupation has 104. The reasons for this are varied, and equality would not be expected due to our rules around such categories, but it is nonetheless a strong difference in coverage that probably does not reflect the current state of scholarship that looks at the intersection of men, women, and work. Most of those subcats are distinguished, which means having more of them is not an indication of bias against men, but the opposite. There are many more instances of a need for a special category like Category:Female football managers because the main category is overwhelmingly populated by male examples. The only way this particular example would achieve parity away from having more women-by-occupation subcats than men-by-occupation subcats is if Wikipedia covered more predominantly women-populated categories. The 23-104 split is caused by less frequent subcats for (or low article populations in) women-dominated occupations, resulting in less instances of Category:Male nurses. Even in occupations where employment is reaching parity in the modern age, the population of women notable enough for an article is less frequent as well. The "by occupation" subcats generally grow in inverse proportion with the amount of Wikipedia coverage (less coverage somehow overall, more mathematical chance of a special distinguished subcat), setting aside paired examples like actors/actresses, of course. I think you know all of this, ultimately.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, we have things like Category:Male_novelists, for example, so it doesn't have to be "only when there is a minority in field X, create a sub cat for that (whatever)" Anyway, I'm dropping that issue.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I acknowledged that. I was talking about how it generally shakes down with the chunk of subcats that remain after ...setting aside paired examples like actors/actresses... but don't worry about it at this point. Good luck. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry if I was nasty above, I was under stress and lashed out unfairly. I apologize.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I hope you are well in your life. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Canadian poets[edit]

The category also already contains subcats for Category:19th-century Canadian poets, Category:20th-century Canadian poets and Category:21st-century Canadian poets, so it's completely diffusable on those grounds. I regularly recat a bunch when I have the time, but there are too many demands on my time (both onwiki and offline) for me to be able to comprehensively recat all of the 362 articles that are still in the parent in just one sitting — but at any rate, we don't require all the diffusion work to already have been done; rather, we merely require the category to be diffusable.

Also, I didn't create the subcategory for women poets — it was created by User:Gareth E Kegg in 2012, alongside 41 other countries that also have their own dedicated subcategories of Category:Women poets by nationality (and thus singling the Canadian one out as some sort of unique issue wouldn't really be accurate.) The only thing I've ever actually done to the category at all, apart from contributing to its population, was to remove a BLP that somebody incorrectly posted directly onto the category page. Bearcat (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Bearcat. I should say I certainly don't think you're responsible for all of it. There's nothing wrong with there being a subcat, and there's nothing wrong with diffusing into the century subcats, but there certainly is something wrong if only women (or all of the women first) were shifted out of the parent cat. Right now Category:Canadian poets and Category:Canadian women poets look like the worst case scenario from the category-gate thing. That's how it will look to anyone researching Canadian poets. I understand how it's "theoretically" diffusable, but the problem is it was only done to women across the board.
This diff is fine, but not if it's done en masse by editors to women alone, leaving a parent section filled with men. I don't think this sort of thing should have been a replacement, but an addition of the subcat. And I absolutely don't think there's any good faith problems here, but if the goal was for everybody to ultimately be sent to century subcats, why was it only done to all of the women? There was (is?) a broad systemic problem of people tucking the women in a subcat and removing them from a parent cat and not doing that to the men. At that point it doesn't matter that it theoretically could have been done to the men as well, right? The point is it wasn't. I can help fix it but I feel like if you're saying that the "requirements" were all met and we still end up with a worst case scenario, then something's wrong with the requirements or their interpretation. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
It would certainly help greatly if you or someone else were willing to assist in getting the men properly diffused into the century categories. But I just can't do 362 articles all by myself in one sitting, especially when it's a complex job that can't be easily automated into a quick-click AWB batch. I get that the current situation may not be ideal even if it is just temporary, but if just killing the women subcategory entirely isn't appropriate, and getting the entire parent category properly diffused in one sitting is an unrealistic expectation to place entirely on one individual, then what exactly do you propose as a functional alternative? Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I would never make claims on your personal labor. I'm just seeing that it's not enough to tell people they can strip out the women (or others) as long it's theoretically possible that a class of people won't be left behind to dominate the main cat. Not if it leads to the exact situation whether there's guidance or not. The answer to what should be done now is probably, editors going through the lists recategorizing and adding non-diffusing templates to the specific women's cats. That's just grunt work, and "fixing a big thing that just happened over time" in manageable and fun little work-pieces. I can probably work on it over weeks myself or with others. It's not a specific responsibility, just a Wikipedia-wide one. And you're right that it's across many nationalities. The Israel-women poets looks like it's not bad, with a co-ed parent section and women's subcat. Others are as bad as the Canadian one.
I don't know how to prevent it in the future. I can try using powerful and useless hindsight. The problem wasn't with the tagging of an article with the Women-specific sub cat, it was specifically with individual decisions to remove the parent cat at the same time without diffusing, and without doing it to articles involving men. I think it is a systemic problem, of the "it's easy to move women first and I'll get around to doing everyone else never" type. But it's a systemic problem that leads to predictable cringes and predictable outcomes.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
EQ is correct this needs to be fixed, Bearcat you should never remove a woman from a neutral category to place her In gendered one - better to keep the neutral parent even if it's not the best destination. Ideally all the poets should be cleaned out of the main cat and put into the by-century equivalents. Pinging @Johnpacklambert: and @Xezbeth: in case they want to help deghettoize this part of the tree.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • For what it is worth, I have been working on trying to fix categorizing problems at Category:American poets. That is a lot more messy, because it seems people want to diffuse it by both state and century. I have reservations about state being a good idea. Too many modern poets are academics who have spent their careers at 4 universities in as many states for this to seem a logical way to link things in my mind. There is still work there, but I have found the worst offenders seem to be in articles on poets who are both women and African-American, that used to be in an African-American women poets cat, and when that was upmerge to its parents no one checked to see that articles in the parent were also in a race and gender neutral cat. In fact, my general guess is that at present Category:African-American poets is a worse case of not putting people in an ERGS neutral parent than Category:Women poets. In general my experience is that race categories are more fully separated than are gender ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
yeah that's true - the ethnicity cats are generally more likely to be ghettoized when I find them. If you have a chance when you're done with American to fix canada (only 300 or so articles) that would be nice. As for states for American poets, yeah it's not ideal, maybe put the state tree up for deletion?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


You seem unclear on the meaning of filibuster (see also wikt:filibuster, and more importantly WP:FILBUSTER WP:FILIBUSTER for its pertinent application at WP). Filibustering is the use of never-ending argument to prevent a process from continuing. "Your response was longer than mine" or "you responded to arguments I might have ignored" is not filibustering, it's just your personal preference. My intent was quite the opposite: Speeding up the process of everyone realizing the ANI filing was frivolous noise and closing it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

"Wanting to accelerate to a close" seems indistinguishable from "just wanting something to stop". 8kb responses can be seen as a way to obstruct further conversation. Maybe WP:CHUNK would have been a better allusion to the principle, but even that might only invite a gargantuan and defensive response where there's no need for it here. My good faith advice to you stands: no matter how right you think you are, giving any appearance of avoiding discussion over page moves will probably lead to more drama, regardless of how legal you perceive it to be, and I say that as someone with no beef of any kind with you. Good luck in your future editing.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll actively solicit more of your input on this. I understand what you mean, "wikipolitically", about appearances and people's assumptions likely being a source of future drama, but my approach to moves has actually changed each time a group of objections has been raised, yet for some it is never enough, because it seems to have become a personal matter instead of focusing on what's best for the encyclopedia. I'm not interested in getting into and WP:WINNING admin noticeboard disputes. You can check how many I've ever filed, how rarely I ever comment in them (or at WP:RFA, or in WP:RFC/Us, or any other editors-as-personal-targets forums). I suppose I am interested a little, procedurally and wiki-culturally, in seeing policies and behavior guidelines applied and enforced fairly, so if I have to keep defending at noticeboards my actually effective and good-faith work (I could list some bullet points of all the pro-WP:ENC/WP:5P results of my recent work in spite of all the drama raised by my detractors, but that would add more length and might just seem defensive), before enough people notice that I'm being scapegoated, by a recurrent faction, who are generating more heat than light as the recent ANI close stated, then I'm not sure what to do about that. No one ever seems to have any answer to this, other than "go away", i.e. stop working on any topic with the same people, stop using features of the system that someone else questions your use of, leave the entire project for a while, or some other variant of "give in to organized bullying and flee". What really are the alternatives? Keeping in mind that some of these people have posted very personally attacking things about me and seem unwilling to collaborate except superficially, so a "Hey, how can we collaborate better?" note on their talk page may not be effective (though I'll be trying that route again with some of them).

Just because I'll defend myself against false accusations of wrongdoing doesn't mean I won't learn anything from what seems to be motivating the complaints, whether I agree or not. Obviously yet another "punish SMcCandlish for daring to even suggest a move I don't like!" ANI fandango would waste far more time (others' as well as mine) than to use the slower of the two RM processes for everything, no matter how trivial. I firmly predict, however, that I'll be accused of engaging in WP:POINT behavior for doing so; it'll be another convenient Catch 22 for those with axes to grind to try to exploit.

Re: WP:CHUNK, I know I'm a bit wordy, but not everyone agrees with that "essay"; it's too frequently just cited to cast aspersions on, and ignore without even skimming the post of, someone who can and does provide rational reasons for a position they've taken, in response to an flippant, assumptive, or emotion-based one with no clear rationale. Almost all of WP is text; we can all handle arguments longer than two lines. Heh.

Re: WP:FILIBUSTER: What I mean is that producing a well-reasoned argument intended to "stop" a dispute by expediently formally resolving it, is the diametric opposite of using "noise" arguments to "stop", i.e., mire and prolong a proceeding and prevent its closure. Those are two completely different senses of the word "stop" that here have opposing meanings in the context. The latter is filibustering, the former is expediency (which, admittedly, is not always a goal, I just consider to usually be one when WP:DRAMA is involved. >;-) Maybe it's just a temperament thing: I don't like pseudo-legalistic proceduralism, generally and have no patience for blatantly anti-collegial "just file a wikilawsuit about it, and you'll probably win because you're more popular" behavior intended to punish me, ironically, for alleged anti-collegial behavior.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a degree in physics?[edit]

You claim that it is controversial to assert what the virtual particles in a vacuum do. Do you have any sources to back this up? Do you have a degree in physics?

jps (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

If we're describing a dispute between highly credentialed physicists, then your claim It's actually a fact that there is no such thing as a quantum virtual plasma. can not be described as a settled and uncontested matter amongst physicists. We're directly describing how it's contested! For contested claims, we attribute the claim to those physicists who said it. Reminding you of this is not the same as claiming personal knowledge about the mechanics of virtual particles in a quantum vacuum. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be missing something. The people who are advocating for EmDrive stuff are not "highly-credentialed physicists". They are engineers. There's a huge difference. The quantum mechanics of the vacuum is a standard subject in undergraduate physics. The virtual particles it contains simply do not behave as a plasma. It's as simple as that. You can even use Wikipedia pages to research the textbook points. WP:REDFLAG is important here. We cannot simply declare something a "controversy" just because some engineer on a NASA grant claims there is a controversy.jps (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Harold G. White is a physicist and not the only one. I wouldn't call John Baez just a mathematician. And engineer is not a pejorative. (The applied vs theoretical debate is especially pointless here as, by the same token, some want to give credence to purely theoretical physicists implying a NASA scientist doesn't understand the concept of an experimental control.) The NASA team are not garage mechanics. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand your point. The question is a simple one: What are the physical characteristics of the vacuum energy? The answer to this is unequivocally includes the point that it does not behave as a plasma. Harold G. White has not demonstrated otherwise in any paper that I've read. Can you point to a source where he shows that the vacuum energy behaves as a plasma? jps (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


As far as I understand, and correct if I'm wrong, there are two major points of view on EmDrive. One, it is contradicting the law of conservation of momentum and thus it cannot work, with positive results are being seen as erroneous. Two, it is contradicting the law of conservation of momentum, but yet it somehow works. From this perceptive the thrust NASA researchers saw can be seen as "anomalous".

Yet, according to the FAQ on question number 4: "The law of conservation of momentum is the basis of Newtons laws and therefore applies to the EmDrive. It is satisfied both theoretically and experimentally."

It seems that the articles like and NASA press releases suggest 2nd position. But, I doubt that it is only the EmDrive staff that see it via position 3. I think there might be more scientists who agree that EmDrive is not contradicting the law of conservation of momentum. I think this point has to be researched more and introduced better on the article. Dmatteng (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Anything that occurred in the experiment can't contradict the law of conservation of momentum, in theory or practice. If anything theoretical or physical relies on a lack of conservation of momentum, it simply won't work. All the theories seem to be based on the idea that momentum could possibly be transferred to virtual particles, not that momentum is not transferred. All the headlines about"breaking" the laws are simply bogus hyperbole. It's unclear whether the anomalous thrust found in tests prove or disprove a particular hypothesis, but framing the dispute as wild-eyed loons throwing darts at pictures of Newton and laughing is not helpful here. It's a testable hypothesis scheduled to be tested in reputable labs. The criticism should be included (and put in context when it was based on insufficient information, i.e. just an abstract) and the claims, actions, motivations etc. of NASA should be presented without weird assumptions or ham-handed attempts to discredit them as amateur fraudsters. At that point it's not science, it's just pop science-drama. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you and support. I also written that I think Cannae Drive should be removed/moved elsewhere and it would be beneficial if the article would be rewritten from a neutral point of view. The focus of the article should be EmDrive and the rest of the information should be introduced in relation to it. Dmatteng (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
Thank you for the immense patience you showed User: This user has been found to be a returning sock puppet and a long term abuse case and has been blocked.

Since it is likely this person will return in another form if you see similar patterns on other articles let me know and I will look into it. Chillum 14:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

My topic ban[edit]

Hi. I was just curious where you saw that I have a topic ban? Is there a centralised place where it's listed? Or did you check my talk page? Cheers.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Gibson Flying V, no problem, I know this probably sounds like a silly answer but I can't remember. I didn't remember it because of your talk page. t think I was participating in a discussion at either the Talk:MOS or RSN or AN/I board and a discussion about you was neighbouring somehow. I know it wasn't a discussion I was actually in because I mostly stay away from the sports articles, but I remember reading it when it happened. I think I only really remembered because you have a great user name and it was for such a super-specific topic. When you popped up with a metric-specific question, it twigged. It doesn't look like you're making the same kind of edits, and maybe I was overcautious, but it seemed like too close a metric/sports question to not actually mention. I'm very happy you weren't asking about that exact subject and that I was more wrong than right in my concern. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah that's fine. You just got me wondering about where people check the wording of bans.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Gibson Flying V, Oh, once I remembered I just looked at the TOC of your talk page and the wording was right there. I don't know where I would have went if I didn't see it right away. I don't think the topic bans are consistently documented. It seems like something they could template, but it's pretty loosey-goosey.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I could have sworn there was a centralised list of current bans somewhere. I just can't for the life of me remember where I saw it now, though. Thanks anyway.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I knew I wasn't imagining it! Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Please have a read of WP:MEDMOS[edit]

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


Sorry - but you know about 3RR, right? I'd hate to see you both end up blocked. I'm going to warn him now formally but you know about it I presume. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm as frustrated as you are, this can't go on. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Dougweller, I stopped when he made his second undiscussed revert, don't worry, he made it clear enough at that point. I appreciate both the spirit of your diplomacy and the essence of your reminder.

Beyond that, the "quote" he was asking me to save was within the citation reference, not the article text. He was basically and impossibly asking me to save the citation without the article content! I'm not frustrated, but the simple fact is he's announced a grand plan to insert self-described conspiracy theories. Fringe theories require multiple sources whether they're english or polish per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. But if no one else helps to revert it, I won't do it alone. It will just be wrong for a while. I appreciate your message, though!__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I think he broke 3RR but too tired to check. Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no deadline. You should sleep when tired. I don't think it'll matter if it's junk-filled short-term, but it is junk-filled, and more than I have keystrokes to describe in full. As long as he's not adding clearly BLP stuff I won't edit any of it today.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Umm, Dougweller, he's started adding stuff about a presumably living person "allegedly" committing criminal acts, sourced to a non-english text. If you're still there, I'll defer to you, but if you're not I should bring it to the BLP noticeboard at least right?__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll leave it for now, as it has a fig leaf "allegedly".__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Now there's questionable sources. I'll put a note on the noticeboard and someone can make their own judgement.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'll look later. Actually 3RR is one thing that does have a deadline. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Espianoage act[edit]

I would say that people only need to be in the most specific category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, JPL... I think you're right. Some historical people were charged without conviction, do you think they should stay in the more general category?__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

"Bathroom" is a euphemism[edit]

Intrigued by your certainty that "bathroom" isn't a euphemism. I'm guessing you're American. (Apologies if I'm wrong.) To we Australians, and I suspect most Brits, when Americans say "I'm going to the bathroom", it's really a euphemism for "I'm going to the toilet". It's what they usually mean. They're certainly not planning to take a bath. Don't worry, I have no intention of Edit warring over it. Just found your Edit summary interesting. HiLo48 (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries, HiLo48, if you look at what was added, it didn't mention anything about "going to"; the edit just said "the bathroom" which is the formal name some people on this planet happen to give it. (On another note, "going to the bathroom" is not a euphemism for "going to the toilet"; they are both often used as euphemisms for "shitting" or "pissing". In context, if we're not privy to the specifics of the subjects actions, then it's just a matter of architecture (See what I did with "privy"?). __ E L A Q U E A T E 11:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
That's funny. I just saw Hilo48 at the last place I edited, about word misuse. Then I saw a seemingly unrelated summary, came here and my exact point's been made (including the "no big deal" part). Not stalking! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:18, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

Danièle Watts[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your edit...Here's the stub as I created it here. I do think there should be some mention of her handcuffing, but perhaps it could be even more neutral than what I'd written...Simply something like, "she was handcuffed for refusing to show her ID after being mistaken for someone else"? It has been all over the news globally, so it looks a bit strange to remove it entirely...Zigzig20s (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

TMZ-style celebrity gossip is global, but that doesn't always make it vital or profoundly important to a BLP. If this is a typical one-off TMZ celebrity story of the day, then it will be forgotten in a week. If the story lasts in a more-serious way, then it should be included at that time. If you have a suggestion, put it on the talk page, find some consensus for a way to make it neutral before it's in article space. Thanks for the message.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't add a TMZ link. Then other users added the TMZ link and also trashed her talkpage. There are article in The Guardian, The Independent, Variety. Not tabloid publications at all. The problem is that there is one person trying to delete the page, and another unregistered IP address only editing this page today with that address, adding TMZ links, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Long-term, I'm sure it will be fine. Right now it looks like a single moment purely sensationalized in an undue way that needs some BLP-discussion on the talk page.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't one sentence with a reference from the Guardian be OK? I don't think we'll be able to reach any consensus with people trying to delete the page or constantly adding allegations from TMZ...Zigzig20s (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Suggest it on the talk page. We'll find some clearer consensus for your suggestion.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Notice posted as you are related to, but not the subject of, the ANI.
Information icon There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding Eric Corbett's behavior. The thread is Personal attacks and incivility by Eric Corbett. Thank you. —EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


Elaqueate, I just looked at my talk page and saw I hadn't responded to your post there. I'm so sorry for the delay – I meant to respond the next day, then forgot. I agree that Wikipedians use different definitions of LQ, which is one of the reasons I wish we would let people use the alternative. But there's a limit to how long I can spend discussing it. I tend to go to MoS occasionally, squeal a little about it, then run away again. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification: RfC on Game of Thrones and chapter-to-episode statements[edit]

The RfC: Is a suitable source for this content? was closed with the result that is reliable but that whether the disputed text was valuable enough to include should be addressed separately. The closing editor recommended that all participants in the RfC and related RSN discussion be informed that such a discussion was under way:

RfC: RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?

If any of you wish to make a statement on this matter, you are welcome to do so and your contribution would be greatly appreciated. If any of you would prefer to stay away from this dispute, I think we can all get that too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:BLPNAME[edit]

Based on this [7] previous discussion, could you please take a look at this [8]? For more insight, this [9] discussion has also been taking place. Thank you. -- Winkelvi 02:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


Following up on the RSN, input would be appreciated on the talk page Talk:Rafah_massacre#RSN_on_Sacco.27s_book. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Vani Hari - Air travel[edit]

I appreciate you consider the now-removed article to be WP:OR, but a Google search has lots of references to the now-removed article. The article was online for up to two years. There are numerous Pintrest mentions of this for example. If we tell Google to exclude results before 2014 then we see a lot of direct links to the article.

I'm in a quandary about this; I found the article via Facebook and was easily able to retrieve the cached version. In addition, many of the results refer to the cached version.

Whilst a regular contributor to Wiki, I'm not really versed in the official rules and whatnot, so please advise. As it stands, I think my addition of the Air Travel section should be re-instated. I see some "helpful soul" then went and removed sources and re-wrote it in something resembling unclear English.

Anyway, I'll wait to hear back from you before re-adding my original section. I believe there's someplace on Wiki these discussions and disputes can be officially resolved; can you point me there?

Thanks for your time and effort :) Mongoletsi (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's clear the blog post existed at some point. But that's not enough reason by itself to put it in a Wikipedia article. She has lots of blog posts; we're currently mentioning some that are covered by other, and reliable, sources. Reading a random blog post of hers, deciding it's wrong in some way, and adding it to a wikipedia page with your own argument about how it's wrong is what's WP:OR, even when your reasoning may be correct. You haven't shown that any reliable source cares about this blog post and what it said. Somebody talking about it on Pinterest and Facebook doesn't count as significant secondary coverage. Your airline sources don't count because they aren't talking about Vani Hari or the blog post at all; you added them because they support your own argument. (I'll copy this response to the talk page, so other editors have a chance to contribute if they want.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm now getting the hang of this. You're right; my additions are more at home at RationalWiki than here. Wikipedia is supposed be neutral and my additions, whilst in good faith, were driven by my shock/horror at seeing that piece. Mongoletsi (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


We are getting terribly off topic, so I'm bringing it here, out of courtesy. LB has played "the victim" many times. I told you were you can find it, WT:WER archives. It is a behavior. My comment wasn't about her one comment, it was about her behavior all over the entirety of Wikipedia. I know LB all too well, and it is always the same thing. Someone disagrees, they are sexist (no matter what the topic), and she can't get ahead at Wikipedia because of men, etc. I wish this was hyperbole, but you can go see for yourself. Just as I could comment that Eric overreacts and won't back down when it would be wiser if he did, and he instead ramps it up. It isn't a statement on his character, it is an educated observation of their long term behavior. The same here. If you disagree, I respect that, but I'm not persuaded. I feel I've made the observation in good faith. I said exactly zero about the merits of her comments, zero about her motives, zero about her character. Dennis - 02:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]


Elaqueate can be very eloquent! Keep up the good work.

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Kanye West[edit]

I can't fight tag-teaming. I do wish you'd answer the questions I've just now posed at the discussion, in as simple and basic terms as I can. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

In the future, if you don't immediately re-insert material that was taken out by an editor on BLP grounds, then you won't have any problems. Please read WP:BLP.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I've read BLP. I've been here nearly 10 years and contributed enormously to this encyclopedia. It's not unreasonable to ask for answers to three pertinent questions I've posed at the discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


Based on this [10], I have a feeling the questions will keep coming from the same individual in order to keep the "discussion" open. Tedious, indeed. Never-ending, possibly (until someone uninvolved does the necessary thing and closes it). -- WV 18:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Enough with the insults. Only people who aren't confident of their positions want to keep reasonable questions from being answered. And I doubt Elaqueate needed a link back to that page, when I've specifically asked him to answer questions on that page.
But why don't you try answering them as well? I suspect because you cannot give reasonable answers to those three questions. BLP doesn't say what you say it means — because if it did, it would say that. Your saying, "Well, everyone knows what it really means is...." is just your interpretation. If the editors who wrote it wanted it to say what you're claiming, then why didn't they write exactly that? Perhaps because someone who understood professional standards of biography was involved.
And, once again, you follow me around Wikipedia. I find that harassing. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Cronica Walliae[edit]

Have you seen Template:Did you know nominations/Cronica Walliae? Thanks very, very much for your good work on the article. Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I was in the middle of a reply there already, without your notice. It's an interesting text, thanks for bringing it to general attention on the NPOV noticeboard....__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Edit-conflicted! I re-wrote what I had earlier.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
It's very interesting. I'm afraid I don't like the writing style and appreciate your efforts to improve it. The "records as historical events" especially grates but I think it's part of the pov. "A comparison to other historical events" is unacceptable and I've tagged the article as NPOV. I don't see the point about the list after the phrase in any case, unless to add veracity to the Madoc story. Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I think there's a basic misunderstanding of what a Wikipedia article is, and what source to use to describe the subject of an article. I'm hopeful though; it will probably work out, as things do. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Self promotion[edit]

Dear Elaqueate, I would appreciate if you quit calling my work on WOT Services self promotion or self-serving and such. I am not connected to that company in any way. Thank you, WeatherFug (talk) 10:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I made no comment about you or "your work" at all. A company-issued press release is self-promotional by definition. You are not the "self" in that description. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
OK point taken, sorry I read it that way. And thank you for your triggering me to do some constructive work. It seems to me the primary sources tag is not really needed. The three two-sentence primary sourced paragraphs in sections History and Rating tool are simply my personal super-short resume of many pages full of information from their site. Written in absolute NPOV, too. I am pretty certain it lies within the scope of what is allowed in descriptions of company information in articles about companies. Regards, WeatherFug (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


Thanks, well said. Your mea culpa is noted and most proper. I will let the others comment and then (hopefully) hat the sub-section. Also, I've commented to Victor about the persistence shown in making arguments. Are you checking my comments, Victor? If so, I hope you accept my words to the wise. – S. Rich (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

All good. And your comment to Victor looks sage. All I had hoped for with my initial comment was that they consider how responding to every point, for five months on a single issue, was making them look. __ E L A Q U E A T E 05:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Co-editor of Cronica Walliae[edit]

Do you want me to add your name to the Cronica Walliae DYK nomination as a co-creator? Then you will receive a DYK for the article also. You don't have to do anything = I'll take care of it all for you.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Now would be a good time to let me know, so I can put you in for credit before it comes out as a DYK. This way you can then add this DYK to your list of DYKs.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Offer withdrawn.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "America: Imagine the World Without Her". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 24 January 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning America: Imagine the World Without Her, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

A request for Arbitration has been made for America: Imagine a World Without her[edit]

The request can be found here: Casprings (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Elaqueate, this is just a courtesy note to let you know that this case has been declined. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC).

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians[edit]

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

WOT Services - ANI[edit]

Please have a look. Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:13, 7 March 2015

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) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings![edit]

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message