User talk:Samsara

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

Archives[edit]

Threads  Dates Archive
1 to 39  September 2003 to February 20 2006 0
40 to 82  February 20 2006 to March 19 2006 1
83 to 101  up to and all of May 2006 2
102 to 121  June 2006 3
122 to 169  July 2006 4
170 to 203  1 to August 19 2006 5
204 to 234  19 August to 30 September 2006 6
235 to 266  October 2006 7
267 to 305  November 2006 8
306 to 344 December 2006 9
345 to 384 January to April 2007 10
385 to 440 May to December 2007 11
441 to 471 December 2007 to February 2008 12
472 to 544 2008-2012 13
14
RfC invites 00

Typo[edit]

Regarding this. Thanks for catching that. I'm pretty sure when I went to search for "animal reproduction science" , I forgot to hit Ctrl-F first. I had no idea it actually entered something in the edit box. :S clpo13(talk) 07:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No worries. The article is clearly in need of a good scrub, being relatively unstructured at several levels and having the feel of a loose collection of a bag of things that happen to fall under one heading rather than a coherent rigorous treatment of a notable topic. So if you want to chip away at it, it's probably a really good candidate. Samsara 08:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

"meaning it"[edit]

Hi Samsara. I do mean it genuinely. If there was a chance that I could not nominate candidates as a crat, then I'd hand in my crat bit immediately. I am firmly of the belief that there are not enough administrators and that nomination is the best way to increase them - therefore that role is far more important to me than flagging / deflagging admins (which is pretty much all I do as a crat). WormTT(talk) 10:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Oly EPL7[edit]

I switched from Canon to Olympus last year, and although my main camera is the EM1, the EPL7 is such a sweetie that I often put it in a belt pouch as a walk-around camera. Can't say as I use the 14-42 much, but I love the Panasonic 20mm ƒ1.7. I might hunt up some more material. Olympus was promoting it as a blogger's camera, and I'll see if I can find a good shot of it with the "selfie-screen" showing. --Pete (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Indian vulture nest[edit]

Vultures in the nest, Orchha, MP, India edit.jpg
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, File:Vultures in the nest, Orchha, MP, India edit.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 00:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Photo finish[edit]

Photographer Barnstar.png The Photographer's Barnstar
Thanks for your contributions in the recent close race. You did well to get multiple entries in the final shot. Andrew D. (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
For almost making 5 millionth article. It shouldn't really matter who "won", but somehow, apparently, it does... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed that you were one of the contributors to the 5 million mark so you deserve one too haha!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Camera lens stubs[edit]

happy for anyone to come to my talk page with a collaborative spirit Hey Samsara—I'm sorry if I missed something, but I came here "with a collaborative spirit". My question was whether you have additional sources for the camera lenses that we can use to expand the article, and if not, if you have any suggestions for perhaps a list where the lens topics could be merged. czar 17:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to help, you can find sources using Google. Additionally, photographic gear is covered in considerable depth in photography magazines. I may eventually try to draft a guide on what sources are generally reliable as this is now the second time that this question has come up. Online sources generally fall into two categories - hard technical test data (e.g. slrgear, photozone, lenstip, dxomark) and more subjective "user experience" reviews. An ideal article would draw on both of these - magazine articles usually cover that breadth. The real gems are the articles that discuss the fine points of optical design and other engineering aspects - FA material if we can get it. Have fun! :) Samsara 18:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
And feel free to express a preference for which article you'd like to work on, then I'll focus my attention elsewhere in the lot. Samsara 18:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Half of the battle is matching the sources with the articles, I find. I don't want to trouble you with making a source guide (though it sounds like a good idea and I don't see one at WP:FOTO), but it'd be helpful if you could point me towards the magazines and sites you normally use to expand a lens article. (Or even an existing lens article that I could use as a model.) czar 18:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
As for examples, Panasonic Lumix 20mm lens and Pentax FA 31mm Limited lens are nicely developed stubs. The general structure puts technical details at the beginning, followed by anything that can be said about reception (reviews, popularity). The target market is usually indicated by a short remark in the lede (e.g. "is a pro-level wide-angle lens" or some such). I don't have strong views on including such remarks - it's much better imo than giving lengthy price histories, but not really necessary either (we don't want to overly reproduce the manufacturer's voice, and product classification can be a contentious issue between different editors). Popular Photography is a magazine that may be available through Google Books, while my personal favourite is ColorFoto, which may not have an English edition. Printed magazines are better in that they generally review each lens as it comes out, whereas online publications are more resource-strapped and will focus on a few that they find interesting. So using online sources, one has to shop around more than if one had a magazine subscription. I may have more thoughts on this later. Samsara 19:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Responding to reports at RFPP[edit]

Hello! Not sure how often you work at RFPP, but in order for the bot process the page we have to use notation templates when responding to reports. See the edit notice for instructions. It can kind of be a pain the ass the have to remember and copy/paste the code, so I made a script that assists with this: User:MusikAnimal/responseHelper. Perhaps you'll find that useful. Cheers! MusikAnimal talk 20:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You'll see that I left a few cases open deliberately. Cheers. Samsara 20:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh sorry! That was not clear to me. I closed at least two of them in agreeance with your assessment. Hope that was OK MusikAnimal talk 22:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
No problem - you saved me coming back later and doing it myself. :) Samsara 22:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Murder of Anni Dewani[edit]

I note that you have been an active participant in discussions on Talk:Murder of Anni Dewani about changes to be made to the article, and as such, I deem that you are WP:INVOLVED, and should not take any admin actions in connection with the article. Please consider this to be a formal warning. BMK (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Helmut Schmidt may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:
  • (26 June 1944 – February 1945, died of meningitis), and Susanne (b. 1947), who works in London for [[Bloomberg Television

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Samsara 00:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

List of selfie-related injuries and deaths[edit]

Hello Samsara. Regarding the use of the word "subsequently" is the above article, I think you are confused as to the issue. The corrected version which I twice added, and the version to which you reverted on grounds of "accurate content", both had exactly the same content. I'm not sure why you thought the timeline was somehow altered by the grammatically correct version, but it wasn't. They both said exactly the same thing - it's just that your version was not in accurate English syntax. In alternative wording, both versions said "A person was taken to hospital, and was later reported to be in a serious condition". There is nothing in the article to say whether the casualty's condition improved or worsened - the fact is that his condition (i.e. "serious") was reported later. Therefore the word "subsequently" (here used as a conjunctive adverb) is related to the verb "to report", and must be located with that verb within the sentence. You were moving it to associate it with the word "was", which didn't make sense. There was no disagreement over what happened in this incident, and I'm sorry that you somehow seem to have got the wrong impression about that. I'm not sure exactly where the confusion was arising, unless you were confusing the words "subsequently" and "consequently", which might explain your comments. I see that you have now further revised the entry, by stating the precise date of the subsequent report. I'm quite happy with your latest revision, which has the accurate facts, and maintains the grammar. Best wishes, Timothy Titus Talk To TT 10:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

New User[edit]

User:Jarret66 seems to be playing here. I found him adding and removing text from today's featured article Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence. His other edits are only adding and removing text from Wikipedia sandbox. --Galaxy Kid (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Following that self-revert, (s)he seems to be painting within the lines for now. Samsara 16:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFPP[edit]

Please check the pending reports. --Galaxy Kid (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen[edit]

Hey there. I've added in the HIV diagnosis from a source in the Guardian. I'll leave it up to you when to unprotect it, but I suspect it's fine now. GedUK  13:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ged UK, have done so, back to the original indefinite semi-protection (by Acalamari). Samsara 17:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

plese see this other talk[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NeilN#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations.2FSpliff_Joint_Blunt.2FArchive subsection: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spliff Joint Blunt/Archive --68.231.26.111 (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me know once you have something conclusive - I just stopped the flood per request. Thanks. Samsara 18:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you![edit]

Bubble Tea.png Thank you for stopping the edit war at the November 17th current events page. Eteethan (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Cheers Eteethan - much appreciated! *slurp* Samsara 19:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Skyfall[edit]

Hi. I see you recently protected the Skyfall article after a request to do so that complained of "vandalism" by "socks". That is not the case. In the infobox on that page, the box office has been noted in an unusual manner that has become quite problematic. There is a discussion about this currently taking place on the WikiProject Film talk page. What you are seeing is not "vandalism", but rather what I believe to be honest attempts by numerous well-intentioned people to fix what they perceive to be an error or typo. Every page on Wikipedia that uses any number in the range 1,000,000,000 to 999,999,999,999 denotes it in the billion form as "billion". Every article that is, except for Skyfall, where it is denoted as "1,000 million". Even though wiki-policy states that the short form is to be used, there is a couple of editors who insist on using "1,000 million" instead and constantly revert any attempt to change it (this has been going on for over a year). It's important for people to know the confusion this is causing and therefore you should immediately remove the template. It is not "protecting" the article, it is serving a POV agenda. Thanks. - theWOLFchild 14:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you also have editors who take this opportunity to "get it wrong" as well as previous protection for disruptive editing, which suggests that this is not an isolated incident for this article. There also seems to be a classic case here of meta:The Wrong Version.[1] I can't in good conscience unprotect when strong emotions are still flying over this issue. In fact, full protection may be required if this keeps going the way it seems to be. The point to unprotect is when there's a clear consensus and a certain amount of calm over this issue. That point clearly has not been reached. Samsara 15:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect, you seem to be missing the point. Any time the page has been edited from "million" to "billion", it is not only correct, but conforms to wiki-policy, so it cannot, by definition, be "the wrong version". I invite you to read the discussion mentioned above on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film talk page, ("Billion vs 1,000 million"). The fact that the page is constantly being edited to read "billion" is evidence that the current term is problematic and confusing. By protecting the page, you are basically hiding that fact - a fact that is important to the current debate. - theWOLFchild 20:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Samsara, regarding your warning to Steelpillow at [2]: please note the diff you link was in fact restoring the same content as this edit, which could not be made after semi-protection. Your accusation is the opposite of the truth. Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Perhaps it was innappropriate of me to post on Steelpillow's talk page given the circumstances, but for the record I wasn't trying to usurp your authority because I did not actually realize you had already issued him with a warning. I simply pressed the "new section" button at the top of his page. However, I will refrain from posting on the talk pages of editors involved in the dispute from now on to keep the peace. Betty Logan (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Request I notice you have placed a request to have the discusion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Billion_vs_1.2C000_million formally closed. While I appreciate the efforts of an admin to bring some resolution to the dispute I was wondering if you could amend your request to include the discussion at Talk:Skyfall#Box_Office too. The reason for this is because the discussion at the actual article talk page is the more extensive one with the more thorough arguments. It was improperly closed by an editor involved in the dispute who subsequently started the same discussion at the Film project in an extremely non-neutral way. Quite a few editors did not bother to post at the Film project discussion because we didn't want to retread the same ground. Therefore I don't feel the discussion at the Film project conveys all the arguments put forward in the debate nor does it reflect all the sentiments of the editors involved either. Therefore I am asking a favor of you: i) to reopen the improperly "closed" debate at Talk:Skyfall#Box_Office; ii) to amend your request at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film.23Billion_vs_1.2C000_million so that both discussions are considered in conjunction and then closed together. I feel this would be fairest outcome to both sides of the debate. In return for this I give you my word I will not make any million/billion alterations until the formal closure. Betty Logan (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC) ps. That last sentence maybe sounds like I am threatening edit-war. I didn't mean it like that, I was just trying to express my commitment to the proper process. Betty Logan (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
[3] As for re-opening the earlier debate, I don't see the need for that - it can be continued in the new venue and the closure can be a joint (re-)closure. Samsara 18:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
First, can we keep all discussion related to this dispute at one place? Namely the current discussion at the WikiProject Film talk page. I am only now, by happenstance, finding out about all the requests and exchanges taking place on other various user talk and project pages. Second, we are no where near the point of closing the current discussion. The comments behind the request are somewhat disingenuous. The opposing editors have all but refused to engage in any discussion and there has been clear gaming of the system. There is also wide-spread consensus that the current term needs to be changed. And lastly, that pesky little thing called wiki-policy needs to be followed. Thanks. - theWOLFchild 21:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
It looks to me like the person responsible for creating multiple venues is you, Wolf - nobody else. Samsara 22:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Is this what I can expect from you going forward? Little snipes at minor matters and no real guidance on the issues at hand? Again, if you actually bothered to read the discussions, you would be making better-informed comments. Something a capable and impartial admin should be doing. - theWOLFchild 23:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

On another note[edit]

Samsara, would you mind adding a {{discuss}} notice to the infobox next to $1,109 million? A link there to the talk page discussion might be helpful. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done [4] Samsara 22:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Another editor moved the straw poll discussion back to its original page at Talk:Skyfall#Straw_poll: billion vs millions yesterday. Could you amend the discussion link accordingly? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent and suspicious editing on Skyfall[edit]

Hi Samsara, I think it's fairly obvious to most that there has been some IP-hopping sock that has been involved in the recent disturbances on the page. These have been very frequent in the last couple of weeks, with new SPA accounts and IP-hopping going on. Is there anything that can be done to,track down who is behind the disruption? I strongly suspect it may be a more established editor that has been at work (I have no idea who and I apportion no.blame to anyone at all), but the coincidence of the disruption coinciding with the discussions are deeply into WP:DUCK territory. Thanks. – SchroCat (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Requests for sock puppet investigations are this way --> WP:SPI. - theWOLFchild 22:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'd endorse the suggestion to raise it at SPI if you are concerned. However you will need to have some carefully gathered evidence to back up your claim, such as diffs showing specific coincidences of timing and/or editing style. (Apart from anything else, discovering only weak evidence should help allay your concerns in the first place). I'd also suggest you select the CheckUser option to try and identify any "master" user account. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

SPA tagging[edit]

Would you be able to take a look at this restoration of an SPA tag against an editor whose history shows they have made occasional edits to assorted articles? As I understand WP:SPATG, this tag is unwarranted. So I deleted it with an appropriately informative edit comment but that was reverted. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Steelpillow. Sorry - I got a bit behind with replies on various issues the last few days. I see that two accounts were marked, one of which is clearly justified. PZ is a tough call. They have so little activity that they could easily be a sock without this being easily detectable. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to cast aspersions on an account that hasn't done any obvious wrong (which is also why I'm not going to ping them). Since I've said that previous parts of the discussion should not be weighed for consensus-finding, it's probably fair to just leave that there and remove it in two weeks' time when hopefully there won't be animosity about any of this any more. I hope that makes sense. Regards, Samsara 16:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for remembering, that is good of you. If you think that SPA tagging an account who has made six harmless edits to date elsewhere and only one in the putative debate is not intended to cast aspersions, then I'll accept that. I am old and ugly enough to deal with the animosity, it's just that I didn't see why PZ should be caught in the crossfire. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI and EW[edit]

It has all boiled over to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Multiple_warriors_at_Talk:Skyfall and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Thewolfchild_reported_by_User:Cassianto_.28Result:_.29. You might want to contribute. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Will you please hold off on unprotecting Skyfall for half an hour? I have some new evidence regarding Steelpillow's involvement in the dispute and was in the middle of typing it up as I got pinged. I would like you to read it before taking any decision. Thanks. Betty Logan (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Hi Betty, thanks for your message. There's no rush. If you have evidence, I will look at it. Samsara 17:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment I have been suspicious of Steelpillow's involvement in the dispute since that start. He turned up at the Film project and immediately supported the stance taken by Thewolfchild in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Billion_vs_1.2C000_million despite Film not being an area he typically edits in. In a report at ANI today Steelpillow commented that he had received a "request to help out in the dispute": [5]. Given that this is not an area he typically edits in it is a mystery as to why someone would contact him to "help out". There is no evidence of a neutral request on his talk page. However, there is an interesting sequence of events that stinks to high heaven:

  • The new discussion at the Film project was started by Thewolfchild at 7.39 UTC on November 13: [6]
  • Steelpillow posted a "you've got mail" message on Thewolfchild's talk page at 12.16 on November 13: [7]
  • Thewolfchild quickly deleted the message at 13.04 on November 13: [8]

This looks very much like off-site canvassing to me. Even if Steelpillow was "canvassed", he is not at fault for that; however, it is disingenuous to pass yourself off as a completely independent opinion if your opinion is solicited. Also, when the correspondence takes place off Wikipedia there is no record of it. I do wonder far beyond Steelpillow this canvassing extends: considering that that the first debate opinion was evenly split, opinion in the second discussion at the Film project markedly favors Thewolfchild's position. Fair enough if those are legitimate opinions, but the huge swing is suspicious in itself. I also had suspicions that the surge in the anonymous alterations was co-ordinated too: despite being spread all over the world it was always the same change by random unconnected IPs. A central point of the argument put forward by Thewolfchild was that "dozens" of editors keep changing it. At the very least it looks like there may have been some off-site canvassing, and at worst the whole thing could be a co-ordinated effort by a group of editors organizing their efforts offsite. It seems to me that a debate where honest opinion was evenly split has now been unduly influenced and I don't really know how to deal with that. I think the discussion still needs closure but I believe Steelpillow's and Thewolfchild's position in it has become untenable and they should no longer be permitted to participate. I think the article should remain protected until the debate is formally closed too. I also think that a very experienced admin should perform the closure and they should be made aware that opinion has been canvassed offsite, so the resolution should be based purely on the arguments, not on the strength of opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for the detailed post. Before I get into the nitty-gritty of reviewing this, I want to quickly clarify that the intention was not to fully unprotect, but rather, to lower protection to semi. Full protection is a rather unusual state that we don't like maintaining for long. Semi could be a problem if we anticipated sleeper accounts, but I'd hesitate to suspect something like that in the current case. Certainly, the suspected network of IPs would not be a problem if we semi. Samsara 18:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
If you think semi-protection is best I will leave that to your judgement. I guess you'll be monitoring the situation anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Samsara, before you dive in too far, you might like to check out Talk:Skyfall#Shortcut and see just how many new voices are voting against Betty Logan's choice but with me and Thewolfchild and.... Some conspiracy, huh? Let me know if you still have any serious concerns. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there any hard evidence to support Betty's allegations? Sounds more like a bunch of unsubstantiated suspicions and innuendo. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
SonOfThornhill The evidence is essentially a confession: if Steelpillow received a "request for help" as he claims then who was it by and what form did it take? Per WP:STEALTH opinion should not be canvassed off-site, yet there is no evidence of such a request at his talk page. I have asked him to elaborate on this request he received but the silence is deafening. If there is any innuendo it has been created by Steelpillow himself. The whole point of not having private messaging on Wikipedia is so that our actions and comments are open to review. Betty Logan (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Still sounds like innuendo to me without any hard objective evidence to back it up. SonOfThornhill (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, how should an editor interpret this statement in the context of WP:STEALTH: [9]? 01:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
So what? It's not like they were trying to hide it. And WP:STEALTH states "off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged", the key word being discouraged not forbidden. As someone who has engaged in canvasing yourself, I find this very hypocritical. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi SOT, can you include a diff for that claim? Thanks. Samsara 16:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for my ignorance, but what is a diff? And what claim? SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The claim that Betty was also involved in canvassing. If that's so, it might be relevant for me to know and see what the extent of the problem was. Betty has submitted evidence for her claims, so it's only fair to ask you to do the same. Evidence is usually submitted in the form of "diffs", which can be generated from the history tab of any page. See Help:Diff and let me know if you need further advice. If you want to submit your evidence in a different format, that's fine too, as long as I can find where I should be looking. Regards, Samsara 16:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot what page I was posting on. My intent was not to make formal complaint on the issue of canvassing, just point out to Betty her hypocrisy on the issue. My apologies, did not mean to stir up a hornet's nest. SonOfThornhill (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
A diff is the difference between the before and after versions of a page when an edit is made. If you click the View history tab they are confusingly labelled "prev". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks SP1 SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I believe the real problem is that this isn't a proper RfC with a neutrally worded opening statement. The landslide is easily explained by the one-sided opening statement at WT:WikiProject Film. In light of this, I'll withdraw my request for closure and recommend a proper RfC, which I note was another user's first response to the posting as well. To be clear, following my assessment, the malformed motion at WT:WikiProject Film should not be further used to claim consensus or motivate editing of articles. It is regrettable that much effort has been spent contributing to that discussion in good faith, but NinjaRobotPirate's suggestion should have been followed from the start. Samsara 12:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps WP:SNOW is relevant here? The "millions" option has had just one new vote, while the "billions" option has pulled way further ahead. I cannot believe this can be explained by the propaganda power of one obviously partisan post. Why waste everybody's time all over again? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
This is very good feedback, so thank you for taking the time to assess the situation. I would like to mention that WP:RFC does recommend using the article's talk page as the first venue for resolution, but when that doesn't work out, it suggests taking the discussion to the WikiProject as another option. It doesn't specifically state why, but I assume that's because it will have greater visibility there and will attract the attention of additional editors (such as myself). Obviously an RfC will attract an even wider audience, but I'm not sure it was completely necessary from the get-go as the RfC instructions page seems to imply. So correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume it's better to work your way up the chain as each stage fails to form a clear consensus on the matter. While one may not have been technically reached yet, I would consider it very close at this point. My 2 cents. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The hope would be that particularly because RfCs get advertised through the feedback request service, new editors would be recruited to respond that were not exposed to the earlier non-neutral message. Kind of like finding jury members that haven't watched the news coverage. If the RfC is to be conducted on the same page as one of the earlier debates I would additionally recommend archiving that debate to ensure neutrality at the get-go. It would also seem a good idea for participants to the earlier debates to either agree not to contribute, or not to contribute during the first X days for some value of X. A good value of X would be such that the first Sunday is fully covered by X and begins no earlier than three full days into X (as Sunday is our most active day by far, and notifications via Feedback Request Service are rather slow). Samsara 16:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
That sounds like a reasonable approach for future reference. Should the current discussion not reach an adequate consensus, which will hopefully be decided by an uninvolved admin, I would be happy to bring that suggestion to the floor for the RfC escalation. Thanks again! --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Samsara: I notice you have withdrawn the close request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure noting it is "not worth relying on for consensus". While I appreciate the sentiment the problem is it will keep rumbling on regardless unless it is closed in some manner. Could you not close it yourself with the conclusion it is an illegitimate discussion, or ask another admin to do so with the same recommendation? I think it has to be closed by an admin because I doubt a non-admin close would be accepted at this stage. For the record I would be more than happy to participate in a neutrally worded RFC and to abstain from the initial stages if the other "heavy" participants agreed to the same condition. I do appreciate that the previous discussions have become too "expansive" for editors to read through due to the heated debate between a small group of editors. Betty Logan (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Here's the deal. There were some questionable circumstances that led up to the predicament we're in now, but not all of which are entirely conclusive. Early on, these circumstances – conclusive or not – would have probably been enough to close the 3rd discussion, reopen the 2nd, or make some other change outing the actions of certain editors. I agree with that much. However, it seems we're too far into the most recent discussion and poll to illegitimatize it. A significant number of uninvolved editors joined the 3rd discussion including myself, and even more added their opinions to the straw poll, including an admin (and another one that has been closely watching). I think we're beyond the canvassing or multiple venue concerns, especially now that legitimate arguments have been raised that were previously unconsidered (in the spirit of WP:CCC). Instead of one or two deciding its fate, it might be better if the call was left up to a larger group of admins and/or uninvolved editors, should the decision be made to pursue this further. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The most recent poll has a neutral opening statement. It's therefore not clear that it should be killed in the manner described, even though it's not a proper RfC either. If there were consensus in favour of having an RfC, then obviously it would make sense to close the previous discussion and let it be superseded by the RfC. Samsara 08:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The fact the an RfC has only been mentioned once, on either page, and that that single time solicited no response what-so-ever, is a clear indication that there is virtually no interest in an RfC. In reading this page, it seems clear to me that some people are so caught up in how the debate should be handled, that they've lost sight as to what the debate was about. - theWOLFchild 19:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Wolf, I will not tolerate any discussion of the subject matter on my talk page. My sole concern is to ensure that the current business concludes in an orderly manner. Please restrict your comments to that. Samsara 20:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, forgive my confusion, but I was only contributing to the rather lengthy conversation that you have not only "tolerated", but took part in as well. In fact it's so long, that I must've missed where you similarly scolded all the other editors for also taking part. - theWOLFchild 07:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

My actions at Metrojet Flight 9268[edit]

Hi Samsara. I would be interested in your take on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Metrojet Flight 9268. Especially as it might seem that I was contradicting a determination you made that the page would not benefit from an editing restriction (although you turned down pending changes, and I have enacted semiprotection). I believe the bad edits made by IPs enormously outweigh the good, and although I am an involved editor I have semiprotected the article after it sat at RFPP for 48 hours without action. I believe it is especially important on a high-profile article like this that we err on the side of being conservative. Obviously my actions are unusual and could be viewed as irregular, hence my asking for the input of others. Very grateful for your input. --John (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I see that NeilN essentially answered that query in my stead. The editing pattern now looks different than when I turned down the request, so no objections from me. Samsara 20:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Camera lens articles[edit]

Hi Samsara. You've said that there is a consensus that we should have articles on specific camera lenses. I'll take your word for that for the moment, although I would appreciate a pointer to somewhere where this has been discussed.

That consensus will not excuse these articles from the standard rules on notability and sourcing. It must be possible to find reliable sources for article topics. Please don't delete the notability and one source tags until these problems are fixed. --Srleffler (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I was about to post here myself when I noticed this. Could you point me to a consensus that all lenses are inherently notable and should have standalone articles? It seems rather counterintuitive to me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Greetings once again! I just wanted to make sure that you had seen my message; I would be really curious to see this consensus. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
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) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Huccha Venkat[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Huccha Venkat. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. draft version is here-> Draft:Huccha Venkat Rajannamysore (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Template?[edit]

"Eye" can see that Eye article is not a template. It appears that you accidentally did template protection. Can you please change back to semi, not template protection? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 03:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Samsara 04:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Eikonal[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kst (software)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Kst (software) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Samsara 08:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sigs and logos[edit]

Hi, Samsara - you certainly raised a valid question that needs discussion and resolution, but at the same time, TRM made a good point about first getting confirmation that it is an error. Sounds a little like wikilawyering, but....Atsme📞📧 14:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, and Samsara should know far better than to claim "tradition" equals "rule" (equals "policy" or "guideline"?). Until this is resolved at the featured picture project, this has no place at all at ERRORS, and I'm glad to see it's been removed for the third (or fourth) time. Fix the issue by clarifying the guidelines at FPC, not by claiming there's been some error at the main page, that way you may actually gain something from the discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure you realise, Samsara, but you've now restored the discussion three times after it's been removed. One more restoration of the discussion by you and you would be liable to be blocked for breach of the three-revert rule. If you want a discussion of principles, find somewhere to hold that discussion - but WP:ERRORS is not the place for that discussion. Your complaint is effectively that WP:FPC got it wrong, but that's not a decision that WP:ERRORS is set up to consider. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 14:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It's almost here!![edit]

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)
Time To Spread Some Happy Holiday Cheer!!
I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season.

What's especially nice about the digitized version is that it doesn't need water,

and it won't catch fire.
Wishing you a joyous holiday season...
...and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Atsme📞📧 15:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Pure pun-ishment. [10]

Happy New Year, Samsara![edit]

Charles R. Knight New Years's Card.jpg
Godt Nytaar! 1916.jpg
(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

Nomination of List of selfie-related injuries and deaths for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of selfie-related injuries and deaths 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/List of selfie-related injuries and deaths (2nd nomination) 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. Fiachaire (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)