This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Don't forget...
..."principle", unless you were talking about a favorite saying of a headmaster in a computer science school. ;) Writ Keeper⚇♔ 22:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
You realize that if Firefox didn't have built in spell check that I'd be even worse off? When will spell check be able to tell me when I am using an improper "your" or "than"?--v/r - TP 22:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Resilient Barnstar
You handed me one of these before, when I survived an onslaught of criticism. You surviving the meat cleaver with those meat puppets takes nerve. —cyberpowerChatLimited Access 22:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the support.--v/r - TP 22:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
"I still think it's meatpuppetry and I won't be retracting a damned thing"
I think you are out of line here. Allow me to point out that John Valeron's May 3 comment in the ANI thread about him "Well, now, isn't this enlightening? Following the link provided by Choess, I just read User:Petrarchan47 Serial COI Accusations as Battlegrounding posted to ANI less than a month ago by User:Geogene.'' clearly indicates that John was not even aware of Geogene prior to May 3 never mind having any prior interaction with Geogene. I had, myself, been the first in that ANI thread to provide "the link provided by Choess" (on April 28) but John evidently didn't take note of it when I linked to it. Why would John canvas someone he has had nothing to do with instead of canvassing, say, myself, to weigh in on Binksternet's new sub-thread calling for John's ban when Binksternet, John, and I have a long history? In the same vein of asking why known, predictably reliable support was not canvassed, may I also point out that earlier in this ANI thread Petrarchan claimed DrFleischman as her ally, citing when Doc has agreed with her against me? I find it ironic you weigh in to point a finger at John but in order to do so side against his antagonist, Petrarchan, in the dispute over who Doc supports. You don't trust John except when you do, apparently.
As for off-wiki discussions, I look forward to your taking issue with the practice when it is quite openly engaged in by Wikipedia's most powerful users, such as ArbCom/Oversighters. In any case, I am quite certain there was none of that here, not least because it means several editors here are shameless liars in not only denying your accusation, but taking offence. John, Doc, and Geogene are all lying to you, are they? What strikes me is that you actually take the denials as evidence your charge was that much the better founded! I am astounded by the extent to which you are prepared to believe that so many editors have lied to you in order to continue with your conviction that your accusation was accurate. It's one thing to decline to assume good faith, and quite another to go such lengths to preserve one's assumption of bad faith. It's not your initial suspicion that I take issue which, which was merely baseless, but your ratcheting up your accusations from off-wiki collaboration to dishonesty. Sure, there are shameless liars are on Wikipedia, but in my experience they are a relatively rare form of problem editor. To have so many at once here is would be well nigh to a cosmic miracle. What isn't miraculous is someone declining to edit the mainspace for weeks but jumping into a discussion where their name comes up.
The biggest issue here is your sense of priorities. I could frankly care less what happens off-wiki if there is no collusion. Here, the collusion between Coretheapple, Binksternet, and Petrarchan is outrageous, and it's outrageous because it is so absolutely unconditional and unthinking. The fact it's all on-wiki does not make it any the less collusive. Binksternet frequently reverts editors who have the chutzpah to undo Petrarchan's edits without any consideration for the content and that absence of independent behaviour is far more problematic than Geogene or Doc showing up to given mere opinions that could surely have been readily dismissed on their own merits if those opinions should not have been given. Yet you decide that the real problem is on the other side, amongst editors that have documented differences with each other and in Geogene's case no connection at all beyond being yet another party accused by Petrarchan of holding a conflict of interest.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to sum up your post in three sentences. You are upset because I pointed out an obvious coincidence which is unexplained other than coincidence. You have a gripe with Arbcom's mandated and community endorsed need to handle private matters and are elected to do so by the community in a very intense vetting process, and finally, you think I could in anyway or shape be supportive of User:Coretheapple. I guarantee you that I feel confident in #1. Just because John only just met someone a month ago does not mean he hasn't had any contact with him. Editors frequently send out sympathy emails to others who 'leave the project' in rage and I'm not surprised if John had done so and promised to let both of those editors know if anything comes up worth their input. The second one, I can't solve what Arbcom does in private. I've fought that battle and lost. See my 2013 bid for BASC appointment. My entire platform was on bringing more transparency. Third, Coretheapple is a rotten one. He is idealistic and naive. He thinks he can change the spin of the earth by his simple willpower. I've only ever stood up for him once, in some random unblock request, and it wasn't in any way motivated by some kind of like for the guy. Fact is, Brian, I'm completely neutral here. I have no other motivation. Two editors who have been gone for weeks suddenly show up within less than an hour of each other. Either explain it with something other than magic or get off your high horse.--v/r - TP 06:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
As for high horses, when you say you'd "love for editors in the topic area to opine" don't be surprised if someone like me "opines." I'd also note if that I am not the party claiming some sort of Wikipedia hierarchy. That would be you, by saying the "vetting process" that ArbCom members went through relieves them of the transparency requirements demanded of mere content builders. There is a pretty easy explanation other than "magic" for what happened here and that's human psychology. Editors pay attention to when their names come up. It was not until after that that Geogene and Doc showed up. Doc in particular had a strong motivation to set the record straight by speaking out without any prompting or coaching to do so. John sent out a "sympathy email" to Geogene weeks ago did he? Despite zero evidence (and in fact contrary evidence) that he was aware of Geogene's existence at the time? And Doc quit the project as opposed to just been inactive for a few weeks? In the face of all the opposition to your conspiracy theory creating, now from at least four different editors, instead of reviewing it you add elaborations to it. I might as well sign off here since you are not about to revisit your presumptions about what happened just because several non-admins have asked you to do so, right? Like I said, it's not your initial suspicion that I take issue with, but the logic of your "[your] defense is a pretty good sign that I'm right and you're afraid someone is going to dig deeper" response (emphasis on "logic" - your snappy tone was understandable) and the fact your fixation here moreover misses the point as to why collusion is a problem. Binksternet shows up unfailingly to back up Petrarchan when Petrarchan gets into yet another dispute with other editors and you cry "collusion!" not with respect to that but to the other side, because those Petrarchan gets entangled with are more disparate and disconnected and would need to canvas each other in order to get participation closer to (but still far short of) a Binksternet level.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Opposition by four different editors? You mean, the three accused and you? It's not hard to defend a meatpuppetry accusation. Throwing accusations back isn't one of them. When editors throw accusations at their accusers instead of explaining the odd behavior, that is an indication of their guilt. It's not a proper defense. A proper defense would be, "Ohh, look at that. What a wierd coincidence. Actually, I arrived here because I was reading this article on Snowden and it peaked my interest to see what the goings on on Wikipedia looked like. Can't speak for the other gent." That's a defense.--v/r - TP 22:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
That's how you defend against a meat puppetry accusation? "Weird coincidence?" You've already said that coincidences must be explained (they don't, and that sort of thinking is where superstitions come from, but nevermind). Geogene (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
That's funny how you cherry-pick a sentence to criticize. No, the way to defend is the "Actually, I arrived here because I was reading this article on Snowden and it peaked my interest to see what the goings on on Wikipedia looked like" part. Have a good day.--v/r - TP 01:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, that'll come in handy for the future, since apparently these accusations seem to be a fairly common part of the experience around here. You left a remark in the AN/I thread that you don't have ill will towards anyone. That looks like an olive branch to me, unless I'm mistaken. Or close enough anyway. You haven't done anything that has actually inconvenienced me in any way. So, sorry about going ballistic on you for it. Geogene (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
(shrug) It is what it is. I don't edit in ya'all's topic area so I can't say I've ever heard of any of ya'all.--v/r - TP 01:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Which is what's so offensive about your accusations. If you knew the people involved here you would realize how laughable your accusations are. Yet this sort of behaviour gets you a barnstar. What a farce.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
What's laughable is that not a single person, including you, has ever done anything more than assert that I'm wrong. You haven't done a single thing to prove it. That's what's laughable. I've got contribs and timestamps to support the accusation, what do you have?--v/r - TP 03:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Changing your protection
Hi TP - After taking a look at the Russell Targ article and some offsite comments, I went ahead and extended your previously placed protection by 3 extra days, and will probably semiprotect the page for a bit afterwards. There looks to be pretty extensive offsite canvassing so I figured it was for the best. Feel free to undo the change if you have an issue with it. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Nope, I'm perfectly okay with whatever you think is best.--v/r - TP 22:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
FYI
Greetings, TP. fyi, EdJohnston is not an Arbcom member. I made the mistake, from the authoritative tone of his statement, of assuming that he was. Just in case you did as well. SPECIFICOtalk 17:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Yup - I'm aware. I just don't understand his comments. I don't patrol WP:AE at all so I've no idea how that place worked. This would be the first time I've heard that two people with topic bans cannot comment on each other at WP:AE.--v/r - TP 18:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
It's pretty clear to me that his interpretation is incorrect and that it would lead to clearly unintended applications. It's also not clear to me why non-Arbcom members' opinions are useful in proceedings which are decided only by Arbcom according to its own analysis. I can understand that editors and Admins may have useful facts or event-specific context to offer, but not policy views in that venue. SPECIFICOtalk 21:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Arbs don't patrol WP:AE. That's an admin board.--v/r - TP 23:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
OH! Got it. That means Admins, not Arbcom, are the ones who decide on appeals of Arbcom actions? Interesting twist. SPECIFICOtalk 23:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know. Arbs only handle cases and clarifications and amendments.--v/r - TP 00:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:MR - "Prior to requesting a review, you should attempt to resolve any issues with the closer on their talk page." - This is notification on your talk page that resolution is being sought over the closing of the Hillary Clinton RM7 discussion in which you were involved. The "issues" with the closing are obviously extensively discussed on the Hillary Clinton talk page. Do you feel you can offer resolution to the issues discussed? Thank you. NickCT (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, I believe appropriate efforts were already sought on the talk page immediately following the closure and you can move forward having adequately followed the process ;) --v/r - TP 16:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks TParis! NickCT (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear, TP, have you seen the move review draft lately? We want to be sure these issues cannot be resolved with the panel in the hopes that we can spare the community a move review, if possible. Thanks! --В²C☎ 14:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I haven't been ignoring you. I saw your post, was on the way out the door, intended to reply later - and then completely forgot about it. I'll address this when I get home now, you can ping me again if I forget again.--v/r - TP 21:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
No problem. If you don't mind, please also read the discussion at User_talk:Adjwilley#Pending_move_review_notification. After reading that and the move review draft, as much as I'd like to understand how you weighted what how much and why, please don't feel the need to explain yourself any further if you still don't think the panel made any serious errors in reaching the "no consensus" decision. Just let us know you're still good with your decision and we'll proceed with the Move Review process. Thanks! --В²C☎ 22:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!
Hello TParis,
I much appreciate your taking the time to review the Yin Yoga article. Great points. I need to remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or magazine (or a how-to manual). I'll get to work on it as soon as RL work eases up a bit. Thanks again. EMP (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Let me know if you need another look. I found it interesting.--v/r - TP 00:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pacific Aviation Museum Pearl Harbor you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Secret -- Secret (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for being willing to make difficult decisions and for your effort to stem systemic bias on Wikipedia. USchick (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but I really didn't do much in that dispute.--v/r - TP 05:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you kidding? You reverted a close that left a lot of people very disillusioned with the process of Wikipedia. When another admin actually said out loud that it was too much trouble to do anything, you stepped up and singlehandedly did something that other admins weren't willing to do. When you claim you "didn't do much," you're right, it doesn't take much to do the right thing, but for some reason very few people are willing to do it. You restored people's faith in the project, and we thank you! :-) USchick (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I think someone else reverted the close. I didnt know it had been closed by someone else until afterwards.--v/r - TP 16:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
In that case the other person also deserves a barnstar. I will research further. You took the time to seriously think about it, while other admins said it was too much trouble, and then after you thought about it, you decided it was more serious than you originally thought. Your willingness to think about it restored people's faith in the process. Thank you! USchick (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, TParis. You have new messages at Bwmoll3's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, I moved it to Prep 3, but I'm confused by the timing. Prep 2 is scheduled to move into Queue 4, which will appear between 10 pm and 10 am in Hawaii. Prep 3 appears from 10 am to 10 pm. Is the latter what you wanted? Yoninah (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Did they change DYK to a 12 hour schedule? Huh, I didn't know that. Yes, I'd rather have it visible during the day here. Thanks.--v/r - TP 22:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.
Sorry for the delay! NickCT (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi TParis. It's fine if you want to substitute "Doctor of Philosophy" for D.Phil.[1], but it's not "slang", any more than Ph.D. is slang. D.Phil. is the standard abbreviation used by Oxford and Cambridge for Doctor of Philosophy. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Slang isn't the right word, but let me put it this way: would anyone outside of Philosophy know the abbreviation? I certainly don't.--v/r - TP 21:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Physicist at Sussex do DPhils, not PhDs. (I'm neither a physicist nor am I or have I ever been a student at Sussex). DuncanHill (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
(Shrug) What are more people going to understand upon reading it?--v/r - TP 22:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I think more people will be familiar with DPhil than with Doctor of Philosophy, to be honest. The abbreviation is almost never expanded in text or in speech. The context makes it clear that it is an academic degree, and it can be linked. DuncanHill (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
What? Are you serious? Doctor in Philosophy isn't familiar? I was willing to talk this over with you, but now I just think you're trolling because you're pissed off at ANI.--v/r - TP 22:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
It depends what you mean by familiar - I was amazed that you weren't familiar with DPhil. Pretty much anyone who has studied at 6th Form level will have encountered it. And in this case the degree is in history, it's only called philosophy by historical accident. DuncanHill (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Is it a UK-centric abbreviation? I'm on the exact opposite side of the world. I've encountered Philosophy, I've never seen D.Phil. I thought it was Dr. Phil for a moment, actually.--v/r - TP 22:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
"Dr. Phil" is US-centric. D.Phil is widely recognised. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying Dr. Phil isn't US centric. I'm saying I've never heard of D.Phil. I really don't know why we're arguing this. No one has reverted me, and even if they were to I haven't reverted back or started an edit war. So, why so much energy here? If you disagree, do it your way. I think more people will understand it my way.--v/r - TP 22:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
(editconflict) Who's Dr Phil? ;) I don't think it's UK-centric - maybe Commonwealth, but certainly it's what you do at Oxford, Cambridge, and Sussex. I think York used to use it too. Our Doctor of Philosophy article does include the abbreviations in the lead paragraph. Anyway, it's certainly not a big thing to get worked up about either way, as long as the wording is accurate and properly linked I think we can accept that different people prefer different styles. All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm more worked up about the deal at ANI than this. If it seems I'm worked up over this, it's only because you and I are also arguing something else at ANI.--v/r - TP 22:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
D.Phil is more common than Doctor of Philosophy. I, myself, have an M.Phil which is a Masters of Philosophy. LizRead!Talk! 00:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Haven't heard of M.Phil either.--v/r - TP 00:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Methinks that there is confusion from multiple sides of the pond as I have never heard of anyone in the states (at least the South) refer to these degrees as M.Phil and D.Phil and both my spouse and I work in higher education. It's probably best to just not shorten these so that anyone who speaks English has a better chance of understanding. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, TParis. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is RFA. Message added 21:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hey TP, would you mind confirming whether or not you have received the email; half the time, for some reason, Wikipedia emails I send don't go through. Please take your time responding, I just wanted to make sure you got it. Thanks. GoPhightins! 19:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Yup, I got it. Started reviewing your edits and ended up on Jimbo's page.--v/r - TP 19:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Just wanted to make sure. GoPhightins! 19:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I will be in this IRC channel off-and-on tonight if you have anything you want to discuss. thanks. GoPhightins! 22:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, TParis. You have new messages at JustBerry's talk page. Message added 07:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, TParis. You have new messages at Bwmoll3's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, TParis. You have new messages at Bwmoll3's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ford Island 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:
*{{cite book|title=Sugar Islands: The 165-year story of sugar in Hawai'i|author1=William H. Dorrance|
Mind doing an editor review of me? I understand that you have been upset at some of my edits in the past, and that's partly why I would most value your feedback. Here's the link: Wikipedia:Editor_review/JustBerry. Thanks! --JustBerry (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
As part of finishing the migration of xtools from toolserver to toollabs, I gave xtools' code a general overhaul, while Cyberpower678 is working on the new supercount tool. Now that state is close to release, I want to inform you, as one of the main coders, about the upcoming relaunch. Comments and suggestions appreciated.
My contribution to the tools have been greatly exaggerated by a lot of people. I added very little code to it. I only ever adopted the tools under urgent conditions and only ever did emergency maintenance to it. Cyberpower and X! are the main coders. Thanks for notifying me though.--v/r - TP 01:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Hedonil has actually been doing extraordinary work to it while I continue to develop the new tool. He's a definite asset to xtools.—cyberpowerChatOnline 01:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Problem account
This needs blocked and user pages deleted immediately. I don't know if further action is needed. I am One of Many (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Done. I hate making myself a target for hackers, though.--v/r - TP 01:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, you are one of the admins willing to take on these kinds of jobs. :) I am One of Many (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Yea, I am listed in that difficult blocks category but I generally hackers are a different subject.--v/r - TP 01:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I see that they are a pretty serious group [2], but I never heard of them before now. I am One of Many (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Well if this is who I think it was, they are part of an ethnic group that the Russians brutally murdered several hundred years ago and they still face serious racism. At least, that's what I read during the Sochi games. That would be some good reasons to be pissed off, unfortunately Wikipedia isnt the place for it.--v/r - TP 01:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Yup, I agree. And it is good to have the page deleted, since Google had already indexed it and it came up on the second or third page of hits. I am One of Many (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Have a look?
Hello TParis, Would you be so kind as to have a look at my edits in response to your expert advice at Yin Yoga? I cut down the Objectives section, but am wondering if it might be better to simply remove it? Thanks! EMP (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, TParis. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 10:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I have seriously considered your suggestion on writing content on Wikipedia and certainly agree with your suggestion. I would like to work with you on the article you said you were currently writing on - which article was it? May I work with you? I feel that it might be a rewarding experience, in that I will learn a substantial amount from working with you and your fellow editors. Thanks (please ping me or leave me a talkback on my talk page). --JustBerry (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I reinstated the last good version of this page as it has been extensively edited since last worked on in WW2Censor's userspace. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I must have forgotten to do the final rollback step when histmerging. Thanks.--v/r - TP 17:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I saw it last night and dropped a note to the CUs.--v/r - TP 17:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Rollback Rights
Hello TParis,
I would like to request rollback rights to use Wikipedia:HG. I feel I have proven to be significantly competent at anti-vandalism. --JustBerry (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I really think you should spend more time writing content instead of maintenance tasks such as huggle. Have you been able to find a topic on the 'articles needed' page that interests you? Or perhaps my advice about editing current events?--v/r - TP 17:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
No, thank you. Draft namespace has already been rolled out.--v/r - TP 17:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Number of watchers of a page
Hello. I cannot for the life of me remember for certain, but did you not used to have a tool that would return the count of watchers of a given page on any Wikimedia project? I know I have used such a tool before, but I can't find it via queries to toolserver, tools.wmflabs, or even Google. If it wasn't your tool, are you familiar with it? JohnShandy` • talk 08:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
You dont need a tool anymore. Click "Page Information" under the Tools heading on your sidebar.--v/r - TP 08:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, excellent! Thanks for the hint. Cheers, JohnShandy` • talk 08:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Honolulu_Rifles
Yes, it appears that article is a bit off. I found a good source and will at least make the needed changes and add that source to the article. I will then expand it as time permits.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
OK...more than a bit it seems. Too difficult to try to "fix" so I am blanking everything and starting over as a stub.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
There were two separate organizations with this name. The first group was disbanded after Kalakaua came to power but the first group is not really that notable so a slight mention is all that is needed. The time between the two groups is about 12 years. --Mark Miller (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
A7 deleted sandbox
Hello TParis. User:GreenLips started a help request because his article draft was deleted. Upon checking the logs, I saw that you deleted the article in his sandbox, stating an A7 speedy as the reason. I thought A7 speedies in a user sandboxes were unusual, so I figured it may have been a mistake (or was there something grizzly in the article that made you delete it?). I told the user I'd notify you and leave it in your hands, so there you go. Cheers! ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 14:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The sandbox has zero references and had been stale for over 7 days. We don't keep junk on living people without references.--v/r - TP 16:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Request for analysis of my edits, etc re:: potential adminship run
Hi TP. I wonder if you would be kind enough to take a general overview/snapshot of my present attitudes, quality of edits and commitment to project. My article creation is non-existent at mo, though I have 3 in the pipeline. British and Canadian field rations of WW2. The subjects are not covered at all on WP so its new ground. I am thinking of a year to learn more about WP procedures etc. I have a clean block log and contribute actively in the community. Any advice or guidance would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll email you.--v/r - TP 05:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
YY copyedits
Hello TParis, Not sure if I should be troubling you with this added info, but I have today gone over the Yin yoga article and have made numerous copyedits to improve the writing and make the terms used more consistent. I also removed some more language that was a promotional-sounding. Thanks for your help with this, as is conveniently possible. EMP (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll give it a read.--v/r - TP 22:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
It's better but it still has a lot of elements of "How to do..." You should probably remove the objectives section altogether. You also use a lot of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Such as: "mainly", "systematic loading", "often", "drawing from a variety of wisdom sources", " less dynamic manner", "which features Yin yoga"
This whole part seems promotional: "Sarah Power's Insight Yoga system includes active, Yang sequences to balance Yin sequences. These may be practiced immediately following a Yin yoga sequence, or at a separate time. Both Powers and Paul Grilley sometimes integrate more active poses even within Yin sequences. Paulie Zink's approach to Yin includes more than 100 postures, both active and passive, including ones that work the upper body." I wouldn't be surprised to see that in an advertisement in a magazine.
You also need to be careful not to give medical advice when not from a WP:MEDRS. For example, "In order to lengthen the connective tissue, the practitioner holds an asana, engaging in static stretching. This applies stress, in the form of tension, to the muscle and connective tissue in the targeted region. The muscle, more elastic than the connective tissue, responds immediately, lengthening to its limit. When the muscle is fully stretched, the stress reaches the connective tissue, which is not elastic and does not immediately lengthen. In order to affect the connective tissue, stress must be applied for several minutes at a time." and "who say that loading the connective tissue during yin or yang yoga stimulates fibroblasts to produce more hyaluronic acid (HA)."
Also, anytime you write something that could be challenged, such as people's credentials ("Japanese scholar and yoga adept", "Paulie Zink, a martial arts champion and Taoist yoga teacher"), it needs to be supported by an inline citation.--v/r - TP 22:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, TParis. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page. Message added 19:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Userfication request that does not seem automatic
You are listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles and since I don't want to inundate the people whose names start with the letter a, I have jumped to the Ts (given my username). I have made a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive262#Userfication of deleted and salted content. The article has been deleted through AFD twice and the first time was upheld at DRV. The first version was 49KB readable prose, while the second version was 33KB readable prose. Although many have argued the second was a recreation of the first, two separate admins reversed their own WP:G4 deletions upon further review. It seems that a third admin speedily declined another G4 although I am unable to see the history right now and did not notice this during the second AFD. I have a long history at successful recreations (12 articles now at WP:GA are formerly deleted articles that I have recreated, including "Cat Daddy" which was deleted 4 previous times). The second AFD seems to be an indictment against any future recreation of the article, which is befuddling to me. I would like to learn something from this seemingly odd result. I have requested a userfication that includes history and talk page so that I can investigate policy/guidelines. So far the best userfication offer was by Floquenbeam to restore it for a fixed 2 week expiry. I have stated that 2 months would be more appropriate than 2 weeks because no policy discussion can be guaranteed to conclude within 2 weeks and I have several that I would like to pursue. Floquenbeam, has stated his hesitance is based on assumptions of bad faith regarding my intentions and that I have made a phantom "refusal to agree not to bug people about tagging or edits they made to the article prior to deletion" which I never made (I was actually concerned about the 2 week expiry and forgot to assent to the request). I am unable to discuss things with Floquenbeam who has not edited in 3 days (since 20:43, 28 May 2014). As a frequent recreator of content, I would like a chance to become a better editor by examining the various policies related to this outcome with the content available for illustration and instruction.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Would you have a look at (and possibly protect) this page please? Seems an zealous I.P. fan from Ecuador keeps re-adding the same un-sourced content, after I remove it. Thanks. - theWOLFchild 00:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, TParis. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page. Message added 23:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
TParis, I would like to take this moment and thank you for the trust you had placed in me and for your support in my RfA that happened a while ago. Although it didn't turn out as I had planned, I certainly appreciated all the comments and suggestions given by you and other people. I will learn from all of them and will hopefully run again someday when I'm fully ready. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Appreciation for recent communication
Hi TP. I greatly appreciate your detailed and insightful analysis, and equally recognise the time and research you put into it. Such is the level of detail that I am taking some time to examine the many areas of weakness and concern which you perfectly correctly pointed out to me, in a direct and positive manner which I greatly respect. I will be working on major areas, and will be answering the comm in more detail in a timely manner. Once again, thanks for taking the time to assist in your busy professional and private life. With respect. Irondome (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 6 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
I am not looking to do an RfA myself, just thought that I would finally be able to contribute to one. It's kind of neat, being able to give your !vote to let someone the privileges to ban, block, delete, and delete revisions. Though a review of my account is welcomed, as I'm sure there are areas I need to improve on, and certain editing habits I need to stop. Tutelary (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I try to pay attention to what folks do and it seemed to me that you might be setting yourself up for an RfA. I can certainly give you a review anyway if you'd like.--19:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I would, very much. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Could you please help?
Hi, I recently posted an article and you rejected it because it was incorrect language. You also mentioned my username was incorrect. Which I desperately need to change. Which page would I submit the request to?
Hi James. Well first things first. Yes, your name does need to change. Us Wikipedians have been talking about it and the best thing for someone in your position is a name like "James at Catan". You can file the name change request at WP:CHU/S. The instructions are at the top.
As far as you're userpage, no that isn't an article. And no, it wasn't me that removed it, and no, it wasn't 'rejected' technically. All pages on Wikipedia are editable. Some random editor saw yours, realized it was an inappropriate use of a user page and removed the content. According to the log, it was User:John from Idegon. Userpages are meant to describe what your Wikipedia activities will be. Some personalization is allowed as long as it is primarily about your Wikipedia activities. The way you used it was entirely related to your work and not Wikipedia. Sorry, but we don't allow that. In any case, what sort of plans do you have for Wikipedia once your username is changes?--v/r - TP 23:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
TParis
Thank you for you comments, I have taken notice of them. I wish to create an informative page on my micronation, named the Republic of Catan. I know numerous people previous to me have tried to make it in my name. I do not wish to go straight in there, I would rather take time and get the percision correct, have good support from fellow wikipedians than mess up and be disliked by many.
Hope this awnsers your question, if not please do not hesitate to contact me.
So you're a micronation and not a board game? An article on your micronation wouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia until it is covered by third party reliable sources such as the press. We're not like Wikia or Webs, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and what can be included on Wikipedia is limited to what can be verified by sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking.--v/r - TP 23:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes we are a micronation no we find it hard to stop people commenting how we share the name of the board game. Until I have the references I am going to keep it on my user page only :)
Regards, TParis. Thank you for identifying yourself as an uninvolved administrator. That makes you just the person to whom I was told by OTRS I should appeal with my concerns. My affirmation of ground rules (which I understand your reasons for archiving) resulted in this comment by User:Nagle. It appears to me that there are several violations of no original research (rumors), no personal attacks, biography protection, verifiability, and reliable sources. I had hoped to preclude this sort of thing from discussion, as it is not my intent to demonstrate point by point every talkpage violation that arises, but to demonstrate how the article should be improved. Should this editor receive a mild or severe warning, based on the need for civil, mediated discussion? BDBIsrael (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
You're mixing content guidelines with behavioral guidelines. WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:V are content guidelines. WP:BLP can be a behavioral guideline to a point but that point stretches far into defamation and libel grounds which the threshold has not been met here. WP:NPA is the guideline you'll want to refer to and specifically the line that says "Serious accusations require serious evidence." The ANI post you're complaining about is supposed by a diff to a discussion you've started. That discussion exactly supports the complain on ANI. So I'm not sure what you'd like to happen. It is not a personal attack to describe a user's behavior and support it with diffs.--v/r - TP 20:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying, TParis. The NPA concern is statements about criminality, such as "The CFTC told them in 2013 they were operating illegally in the US", which is not the case, nor could it be. The BLP concern (BLP is also a talkpage guideline) is similar, in that it unequivocally reflects negatively on the Board of BDB to state that "they were operating illegally", when this rumor has not been established. The other policies such as NOR should also be recognized as applying, because much OR on talkpages results in OR in the article, such as the OR claim (made three times in the article!) of our having "no physical presence". For this reason, editors should not engage in free talkpage OR, as it harms the encyclopedia.
Further, BDB has identified a pattern of such talkpage rumors that goes back almost a year and contributes to harming BDB's goodwill and public perception, to say nothing of what the article itself does for us. The two types of rumors are also linked, because unchecked rumors tend to dispose editors against unbiased content. My intent was that it should be established that rumor-mongering and throwing about criminal charges and legal conclusions should be dealt with harshly: they give the appearance of discussing improvement of the article but actually "poison the well" against even considering improving the article. It appears that the core policy remaining on the core policy pages is not enough in this case. BDBIsrael (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
That's a content dispute that requires discussion and consensus to determine how Wikipedia will cover it. However, keep in mind, whether CFTC has the ability or not, if they were to say "X is operating illegally" then it is a fact to say "CFTC said X is operating illegally". They did, in fact, say such a thing. It wouldn't be appropriate, though to say "X is operating illegally" until, as you said, a court of law determines that it is so. This is covered in WP:CRIME. I'm making no particular determination in this case, and using "X" deliberately, to retain my independence from the issue and my uninvolvement. As I said earlier, administrators cannot dictate content. Only consensus can. Discussing sources, and our own interpretation of sources, is highly appropriate for an article talk page and entirely within guidelines. It'd be within your prerogative to explicitly refute the argument with your own counter argument. Regarding content, as User:Atama has decided to get involved, you'll want to refer to their judgement. They may be involved, but they also appear to be taking an impartial/neutral tone to try to mediate the dispute. As an uninvolved administrator, I can only address conduct and BLP issues. I can also perform edit requests which have consensus. That's it.--v/r - TP 21:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I do beg your pardon, TParis. I have been dealing with the "X is operating illegally" version of it for months and neglected to note the subtle difference that took place here. However, the issue of the accumulation of accurate but improperly weighted statements and inaccurate biased statements remains to be dealt with, and it is not immediately clear to me how subtle accumulation can be resolved. BDBIsrael (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Through mediation. I take no stance on content. You'll need to address your version of the events on the talk page. As suggested to your other BDB counter part, a press release stating your position on the matter could be used. "CFTC says X is operating illegally and has filed suit to prevent X from operating in Y country at all, however X says that CFTC's statement is inaccurate and that they do not have the authority to make such a statement."--v/r - TP 22:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Mail call
Hello, TParis. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Doesn't matter anyway at this point, I've given up. There are much better subjects that I can make a stand against irrational hatred of COIs. It would have helped if I realized this was a battleground before I offered to help, I only realized it at the end which was way too late to make a difference.--v/r - TP 20:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's irrational, and I don't think it's hate. You may want to consider the possibility that it's your viewpoint that is fringe and unsupportable, as well as out of the mainstream. In the discussion that we've just had, you repeatedly downplayed the disruption caused by this company, and they had to literally rub your nose in their own cluelessness before you yourself got a clue about them. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstand 'vocal' for mainstream. Opposition is vocal, but it's not mainstream. My viewpoint is supported by WP:PAY and WP:NOPAY. Theirs is not. I have plenty of clue about them, I've been following this much longer than I've offered to help. BDB has never had anyone 'on their side', and so the effects of which could not have been known, and I felt that by offering a hand they might take it. Clearly I didn't extend it far enough their direction. I only offered to help when Atama stepped down from an 'uninvolved' position and someone new was needed. And you'd be surprised, I've been following this trend much longer than you have. There is an irrational hatred against paid editing because Wikipedia is founded on the 'free culture'. Free culture isn't a bad thing, but paid editing isn't either. We've laid out rules for paid editing, and like all newbs, we can't expect companies to find them on day 1. We don't expect newbies to find WP:V and WP:N on day one, why do we expect anything different from COI editors? But that's not even the big deal. The big deal is that the tactics used arn't going to do away with paid editing at all. You will never solve paid editing by telling people paid editing isn't allowed. All you'll do is drive it underground and make it harder to detect and less obvious. I'd rather have paid editing open so the edits can be more easily judged on the merits of the edit, and not the editor.--v/r - TP 20:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, TParis. You have spoken well and boldly. I regret your view that I was not taking your hand in help; I may have contributed that view by my early mistake confusing allegation with quoting of allegation. I don't wish to "not get" anything. It seemed that last week you were in favor of mediation, during which I was asked to present a full list of issues. If you believe that extreme limited editing is the answer and it has community support, I will convey that to the Board. If the community believes that we should be banned when we have been in compliance for some time, with an admitted self-disclosed exception, then I will convey that. But, as you observe, Banc De Binary's options for obtaining basic, verifiable, neutral statements in the article about its identity and other facts are running low. BDBIsrael (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
To me, User:Smallbones comment about the amount of commenting BDB does is rather relevant. You get paid to push your point here, while these guys are all doing it out of the goodness of their own heart because they want to be part of a free knowledge project. That gives you quite a bit deal more motivation than they have and it's exhausting work for them. You need to be respectful of their volunteer time. That means that the amount of responses, the insistance on changes, and the socks & additional accounts is wearing people's willingness to cooperate with you down. For me, my motivation is to encourage Wikipedians to regulate instead of outright ban COI editing. You're not helping me make my case. You're treating this as if you're speaking to another business and as if we are in negotiations. We're not in negotiation with your company. You are a guest on this project and we're trying to be good hosts.--v/r - TP 21:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I seek to be a good guest and to respect volunteer time. I speak at length only because it seems the only way to ensure Banc De Binary's right to politely discuss what it considers content policy violations; the degree to which that right appears in jeopardy is the degree to which I hope I have responded. I do not seek to push points, I do not insist on changes, as an internal policy matter we do not use sockpuppets, and I only stepped in with a second account because it became evident that BDBJack's requests based in core policy were (and still are) being ignored. If I do not have the right to discuss politely even the most basic corrections and to resolve concerns about past noncompliance, I am misreading Wikipedia policy myself; but if not, I hope you will continue to affirm that right. BDBIsrael (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Sure, except that your reading of the CFTS source completely differs from someone who is objective and no connected and it seriously undermines your assertions about trying to edit collaboratively when we can't even get you to accept what a source plainly says. That wears down on editors patience and good faith.--v/r - TP 21:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for being specific. As repeatedly pointed out, the CFTC source in the article was corrected by the CFTC in May at [3]. Prior to this self-correction, there was some reasonable discussion between whether BDB's self-identification should interact with the CFTC's misidentification; after the self-correction, there was no disagreement between BDB and the CFTC. However, I can understand why the confusion might have left an appearance of noncollaboration. BDBIsrael (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Just a note TP, but I revdeled some content on the BDB talk page because your own last editsum seemed to suggest you saw it as a potential issue too. I'm not worried enough about it given the circumstances to request OS or to worry about stuff buried in your talk page history, but felt like RD'ing the issue on BDB was probably a good idea. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I've already asked for oversight. A tool I trusted for SUL wasn't so clear as I had thought. It had made me think some accounts were linked with SUL when they were not.--v/r - TP 23:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Even though you felt in good faith that it wasn't outing because of some technical reason, what you did was gratuitous. Or do you feel it wasn't? Do you feel it was OK to identify someone's real life identity and then use that as a basis for making a wisecrack remark, responding to a comment not addressed to you? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi FON: I don't always agree with TP, but I'm confident that the situation did not arise out of intentional malice and that he's unlikely to do the same thing in the future. Given the nature of situations like this, it's usually better to let them drop rapidly rather than have continued discussion about them - continued discussion about them tends to just bring attention back to the original issue, which is undesirable (since there's a reason such situations call for revdel/oversight to begin with.) Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
My rationale is articulated in a similar case here. It is supported by the WP:Outing policy. Other than that, I've got nothing else to add because Kevin's comments are as much directed at me as they are directed at you.--v/r - TP 23:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Just one thing I wanted to mention: Kevin, you deleted TParis' comment, which is unrelated to this outing business but significant, in which he stated as follows: "They, and apparently I, also have a conflict of interest now because I've been pro-COI editing given conditions such as disclosure." He then went on to name specific editors. I'm raising this because TParis has been acting as an uninvolved administrator in the BDB dispute, and this was the only place he put on the record that (as I interpret it) he wasn't going to do that anymore. And now it's deleted. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Couldn't those remarks be restored, but edited to cure them of policy violations? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll just state it again. I have no intention to participate in the BDB dispute as an uninvolved administrator or otherwise. I wasn't interested in the first place, was just trying to fill in for Atama.--v/r - TP 00:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
They are certainly disruptive to you. I'm disrupting your ability slide the COI policy toward your preferred direction under the radar. Because you don't like me pointing out where you've been inappropriate. And yet, you continue to make gratuitous and disruptive comments toward me on Jimbo's talk page, the COI talk page, and elsewhere. I suggest you stop. That, or we could agree to self-imposed IBANs. You stop talking to and about me, I'll stop talking to and about you. That's the only option I see here.--v/r - TP 01:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
No, go on and continue talking about me. I'm just suggesting that others may not like the disruption. Evidently they don't But if you want to continue disrupting the page with ad hominems, that's your judgment. Hell, you're the administrator and I'm not. What do I know? It makes you look bad, not me. Coretheapple (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Roger, you're on the record of turning down a voluntary IBAN.--v/r - TP 03:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I hatted the discussion because it is off-topic and disruptive. But if you want to unhat it and continue, you just go ahead and keep it up. Coretheapple (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
You do whatever it is that you want. I've draw attention to a change in policy and now there are sufficient heads there to give it a decent discussion. You might feel your hat is a victory and I'll let you have it. But I'm going to be here for awhile, and as far as I am concerned you have been harassing me. Carrite may be calling for cooler heads for now, and I'll take his advice, but in the long run the more you attack me will just be more diffs that I'll have at my disposal. Good day.--v/r - TP 05:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm similarly concerned about your behaviour on the COI guideline talk page. At the least, your arguments seem to be tending towards ad hominems, and that's not good for discussion no matter one's position. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 02:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd much rather talk to you about it than Coretheapple. You say I am using ad hominems. I'm not sure how. I haven't gone after traits about Coretheapple, I've brought up his actions. An ad hominem is "about the person" or in latin "to the person". Using their traits to undermine their opinion. I haven't used Coretheapple's traits, I have no idea who they are. I've brought up their actions in regards to COI to show that they have misstated the facts and then gone around the community to bring about their goals. Ad hominems have been made about me, though. Coretheapple has routinely used the fact that I have been paid in regards to Wikipedia, not to edit but to advise, and he has used that to undermine my opinion instead of addressing it. Those are traits about me. In other words, because I have been paid in a way that is associated with Wikipedia, that my opinion is worthless. Do you care for diffs?--v/r - TP 02:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
@Nihiltres: Just curious if you caught how he is trying to bait me in his last message on my talk page?--v/r - TP 05:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Everyone wants to know this and the number of edits per day are wildly discussed all over Wikipedia. --David Hedlund (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
typo
On Russavia's thread, WP:ANI, "him him", I would've edited but I am not sure what you actually meant to say. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
RfC on COI
Would you please withdraw the RfC so we can do this in a way that will be productive? I described my objections here. Please - we shouldn't put the community through another unproductive sturm und drang. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC) I see you did engage with me there. I responded. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I think I broke teh UTRS!
Ok that may be an overstatement, however I was working through the backlog when connectivity to Labs seems to have been cut off. Sorry for adding to your already overflowing plate... --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Spoke too soon. I can get to the login page, but can't actually log in. Error message = "Failed to connect to database server!".--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Can we talk over IRC, I have some personal stuff I'd like to discuss.--v/r - TP 21:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
My old computer that had chatzilla set up with all of my nicks and whatnot crashed some time ago. Logging onto IRC without leaving my IP data exposed to all and sundry will require some serious digging into the recesses of my brain to retrieve all of the relevant logins and such. I'll see what I can do in a couple of hours, but it is Friday and I do have a bottle of wine chilling awaiting my arrival home, so no promises! You can always email me though. And yeah for Crazycomputers!--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I notice that you're edit warring over a "disputed" tag on the guideline. The problem with that "disputed" tag is that it leaves us with no guideline. Now, that's problematic in itself, I'm sure you'd agree. But this is also problematic. That guideline you keep invalidating has a clause that reads as follows:
Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Wikipedia.
As you know, you said on Jimbo's talk page in November 2013[4] that you've done a "a form of paid editing" in which you wrote an article and it was posted by someone else. Now, I suppose your position may be "oh no! I'm not proposing changes to the guideline, all I'm doing is putting a disputed tag on it, which invalidates it, but gosh and golly, that's not proposing a change is it?" I guess you could say that. But please don't. Please self-revert. Thanks in advance. Coretheapple (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Since I was not the one who placed the tag, nor am I the only one who is disputing the changes you and Smallbones have added without seeking consensus, I see no reason to remove it. The matter is simply, per the policy Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines:
"Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia."
"Because Wikipedia practice exists in the community through consensus, editing a policy/guideline/essay page does not in itself imply an immediate change to accepted practice. It is, naturally, bad practice to recommend a rejected practice on a policy or guideline page. To update best practices, you may change the practice directly (you are permitted to deviate from practice for the purposes of such change) and/or set about building widespread consensus for your change or implementation through discussion. When such a change is accepted, you can then edit the page to reflect the new situation."
The changes you are suggesting have not been adopted by the community. I checked on the 'consensus' for that sentence you keep quoting and there were only 10 editors participating. Regardless, as you admit, I've only said I did a 'form' of paid editing. I've never actually edited this project for money. Finally, and your inner-monolgue should be very calm, poised, and soft spoken when you read this, please find something else to do than coming to my talk page. My talk page edit notice very clearly states: "If you have come to change my opinion, understand that I refuse to change my opinion unless your own opinion is available for change as well. If you cannot agree to that, don't bother trying." Since you've shown zero evidence that you are here to 'discuss' anything, but rather to push your point of view, you're not welcome.--v/r - TP 02:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Obiwankenobi
I have to say, that this[[5]] is a little depressing. I've always had some reservations about the MRM sanctions, and the way the last point on how to avoid being subject to sanctions is ignored. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
A table showing the old Toolserver tool and its replacement
I started this table, and was wondering if you'd be so kind as to help fill it in a bit.
If it exists already somewhere, please say and I'll delete it. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't exist as far as I'm aware - this is an awesome idea. I'll see what I can do later.--v/r - TP 17:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Round of edits to YY
Hello TParis,
Thanks for the great comments on the Yin Yoga article here: [6] I finally carved out some time to act on them in the article. I believe I addressed your specific points (but correct me if I'm wrong), and I also read WP:MOS/words, and looked at the article again with that in mind. If, as your time allows, you could again turn on the laser beam to see if it could be improved further, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, EMP (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
UTRS review
Happy Fourth. I'm new (as you know :-)) to UTRS, but it looks like this may be a filter false-positive that's fallen through the cracks. Okay to unblock? All the best, Miniapolis 17:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
None of us know the reason for the block and overturning checkuser blocks w/o good reason isn't a good thing to do. Waiting for RE to return.--v/r - TP 18:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, and thanks for the advice. All the best, Miniapolis 00:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
Hi TP, would you please comment on this? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with the proposal as long as it is not used to harass editors as a polemic list. There needs to be some level of enforcement.--v/r - TP 21:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I am so, so with you there. Thanks for replying. Jytdog (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thank you for your support of me during a recent situation regarding another editor. I really appreciate it, Daniellagreen(talk)(cont) 00:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
@Daniellagreen: Just make sure to keep yourself on the straight and narrow and don't make any of us eat our words.--v/r - TP 00:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Lol, I always govern myself accordingly. Thanks again, Daniellagreen(talk)(cont) 00:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Re:MH17
Thanks. Why is nothing ever simple? Reedy (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
(shrug). I don't know. Thousands of different people from different parts of the world of different cultures is probably a contributing factor.--v/r - TP 19:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
TP, Your use of derogatory comments to label those who oppose your viewpoint with the EpithetHomophobes is unacceptable. It attempts to simply strereotype an opposing viewpoint to diminish the validity of their argument. It is no different than the use of the Epithet Fag to discredit their life style choice or political viewpoint. Both are wrong and you would likely be on them like a fly on Horse shit if someone started slinging that epithet around. It is uncivil to use either. People often toss out civility when they are with a group whose norms allow that behavior. Please be more considerate with your choice of contentious words. Thanks 172.56.11.89 (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Your post in question is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy&oldid=618841958#Proxy_editing_for_banned_users
Although in most circumstances I would likely agree with you, the example I gave "LGBT people spread diseases" is very much a homophobic remark based in fear and myth. There is no science to support it, and yet it gets thrown around many times on this project. The fact is, this project attracts a wide assortment of personalities and it does indeed attract the homophobic. With appropriate evidence in the form of diffs, identifying the behavior is appropriate and supported by Wikipedia policy. Now, as I demonstrated in the Manning naming Arbcom case, casting aspersions without solid evidence is, as you said, inappropriate. However, my comments were not directed explicitly nor implicitly at anyone. It was a comment in general as an example to demonstrate my point. Either you failed to understand it, or you have some weird belief that everyone in the world acts rationally. Either way, I think the misunderstanding it on your end. P.S. The only reason I responded to you is because you claim to be a Marine. You came off more like a troll when I read it the first time than someone legitimately concerned but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because you're a Marine.--v/r - TP 06:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the professional courtesy. I will tell a leadership experiece I had. One of my Corporals liked to use the N word when joking around. In his culture that was acceptable but in the Marine Corps that was not. His explanation was he was black and had a right to use it. He also thought it was not right that a white man told him not use it. I explained it was regulation, was not being civil and I could not pick and choose who could use it as I had to be impartial. Yes wiki has people who hate but disagreeing with a sexual preference does not mean someone is hateful or deserve mockery for their religious beliefs or social norms. I also find it difficult to tell someone to respect diversity and diverse viewpoints unless I do so myself. The use of the word has become a derisive slur. It may be appropriate if someone was actually demonstrating hatred but in that case it would likely be ineffective. Many times it is used to shame someone for having a disenting opinion. I cannot judge your intentions, only you can do that. However the word does not do the user any favors and in the mixed wiki environment it is contentious. Professional etiquette in writing is much more beneficial. As a NCO you are held to a higher standard and that should apply to admins as well. I hope that helps to make you reconsider the use of such a contentious word. I do agree with the point you were trying to illustrate but not the word choice. Thanks for the response. 172.56.11.89 (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. In the context that I used the word, to illustrate inappropriate behaviors, it was an appropriate use. There is a difference between calling someone a name and discussing a type of behavior.--v/r - TP 16:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Well we diagree, but thanks for being civil and discussing it. Again, I agree with the point of not accepting discrimination. I just do not believe choosing a word that has been often used indiscriminately is the best way to make that point. I also believe words can create a hostile environment. It can also be disruptive to creating a balanced encyclopedia. Opposing views are neccessary when they are done with respect and credible documentation. Wikipedia has already gained a reputation for leaning hard left and that destroys the projects reputation and credibility as a balanced encyclopedia. MY Soap Box Below: I often take the controversial middle path and get beat up by the left and right. Moderates by nature tend to steer clear of the extremes but being a Marine I do not fear standing up to either. I also support the goal of a balanced encyclopedia that welcomes a diversity of editors. I do not want an environment that turns off editors because they feel they are receiving undue discrimination. Thanks for serving. 172.56.11.89 (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm a moderate as well. We just disagree on this particular issue.--v/r - TP 23:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Reverting your closure
This may have just ruined or collaboration and for that I extend an apology, but I feel strongy that if no one is qualified to close, that would include you and the discussion is very relevant to the very core of Wikipedia and civility. I cannot stress how important it is that this remain open for now. Please understand that I respect your decisions and that includes if you feel strongly enough to re-revert that.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Mark - it doesn't ruin our collaboration at all. I try not to take these things personally. But I think you've made a mistake. The discussion isn't leading anywhere, will not lead anywhere, and there is no component of it that can end constructively. If there were any part of it that was capable of resolution, I would agree with you. But there isn't a single side-discussion or otherwise which has the potential to come to any sort of result at all. I think you should revert yourself and let the matter be handled in more appropriate places like on Panda's talk page where they are discussing him reverting himself. That, at the moment, is the only place where progress can be made.--v/r - TP 23:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I somewhat agree with you here. Not entirely, but that would be enough. I will revert myself per your explanation above.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I think this is also becoming a venue for editors to attack both Dennis and Panda and that is unacceptable.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Both of those them are tough. To be fair, Eric is receiving at least as much criticism as they are and just as harshly. It's a very tough thing and I find myself feeling like Dennis is usually the one emailing me when I'm the one who is in the role he finds himself in right now.--v/r - TP 23:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I was following the situation as 3RR is on my watch list. I have to say though...I agree with Dennis in as much that Scotty seemed to be crossing a few lines, but...this is for them to hash out.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps - and that is not to say I disagree with you or agree. I'm withholding my opinion not because I don't have one or it's unfavorable, but because this dispute has had far too many opinions thrown about and little else.--v/r - TP 23:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep...no arguing there.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I tend to think the discussion should have been allowed to progress a bit more, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to revert the closing. Discussion on Panda's page has been fruitless. Arbcom seems to be the only possible venue for resolving this long term issue of admins reversing blocks because they, or factions of the community, disagree with the interpretation or application of the NPA policy.- MrX
On the matter of NPA, and only about policy, I think the issue is the ambiguous definition. We like our policies to be fluid and ambiguous - that's our culture here. But with regard to NPA, that culture cannot come up with a consistent definition other than 4-letter words are bad. (Shrug). I'm convinced that context is what matters in NPA and context doesn't care whether you use a 4-letter words or a thesaurus. We also need to determine whether we care of someone was provoked or baited into whatever behavior we're concerned about, or if we believe that everyone is responsible for themselves no matter the actions of others. These issues have to be tackled and they have to be tackled without regard to specific editors. Anytime you use an editor as an example, it's going to get heated. Unfortunately, any discussion of the policy always ends up being about editors themselves. Ohh well.--v/r - TP 23:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
FYI. There are now several editors asking that this discussion be re-opened so that they can participate in consensus building relative to BHG's block/Panda's unblock. I would urge you to consider re-opening it, so that these folks can weigh in. - MrX 01:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
No, that discussion was not headed anywhere. Good or bad block doesn't matter anymore, no admin is going to risk reinstating the block and ending up at Arbcom when this case could easily end up at Arbcom without that bit of drama.--v/r - TP 02:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Seems that Panda closed the discussion on their talk page, the ANI is closed (as is the talk page discussion) and the 3RR discussion has been closed as stale. I am not a happy camper about any of this. This does appear to be about trying to keep discussion closed down. Wikipedia works by having discussion, the message I got is...edit and don't use the talk page. I don't know what to think anymore, but at least Jimbo has allowed the discussion to continue on his talk page. I myself...think I need to get back to content.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
We also work on a process. ANI doesn't have the structure for an issue like this. If Panda isn't willing to talk, and I honestly hate to suggest this because I think Panda is a pretty good admin on the whole, the next steps in the process is a RFC/U or Arbcom. Perhaps even as an amendment to the previous civility Arbcom case. Honestly, though, if either of you can explain what ANI can do, I'm willing to reopen it. But right now, no admin is going to break WP:WHEEL based on the consensus of ~10 people. You'd need at least a supermajority of 20+ editors before I'd be willing to come near that with a 10-foot pole.--v/r - TP 02:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I have no issue with Panda closing a discussion on his own talk page. Yes, he is a good admin. I actually just noticed the other night he had blocked me once (I should mention that as I hold no grudges). I also don't think the community can forse an admin to reverse themselves...but do think that the community does have the right and ability to then act to come to a consensus themselves. So in a manner of speaking I am torn between the two...not trying to force the admin to submit to anyone will, but that the community can and has overridden unblocks before on AN/I. I am not arguing for you to re-open that. I just noted that all venues are now closed but Jimbos (unless the revert as mentioned below stuck)--Mark Miller (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Just an FYI, an IP editor has reversed your close of this. Monty845 02:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@TP: That's convenient in that it virtually ensures that DangerousPanda will not be held accountable for running roughshod over the community consensus building process and WP:RAAA.- MrX 02:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Bad, bad Panda. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how, MrX. ANI is only one step in the process. Getting shut out there isn't the end of it. @Monty - I'm not going to edit war over the close. If the community wants to draw more blood - it's free to do it without me causing more by throwing an edit war into the mix. Too many hot heads in this mess, I'm not going to be another one.--v/r - TP 02:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps. As Mark suggested, discussion is important. Even if it doesn't result in concrete solutions, allowing the community to freely participate in the governance of the project is essential to its health.- MrX 02:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There are too many subjects of Hawaii needing content...I'm going back to that. OK...maybe a glass of wine first.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@Mark - Did you see I found another source for Honolulu Rifles? @MrX - I read that as "Venting makes people feel better". Which is probably true, but let's call it what it is.--v/r - TP 02:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I missed that. Thanks. I need to do some serious research about this and need a trip to the main branch of the library out here.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
User:The Devil's Advocate
Hi. I'm wondering how this edit from User:The Devil's Advocate is in any way acceptable, and whether it should result in a short block. Not only was it clear and explicit trolling, it deliberately poked a user who complained about gender bias by posting a video using the c-word in a song. Furthermore, the user changed their sig and pretended to be a woman while doing this. I don't see how Wikipedia can possibly condone this behavior. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
In what I do not believe is a coincidence, after I complained about TDA's comment on Jimbo's page, User:Malerooster, one of TDA's supporters, came over to Paul Conrad and appears to be attempting to deliberately disrupt an active GA I nominated by making a series of unsupported edits to destabilize the review.[7]Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
one of TDA's supporters Do I know you? Do you know me? --Malerooster (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
You stalked me from Jimbo's talk page to Paul Conrad, and you are now intentionally trying to destabilize the article. Please use the article talk page to argue for your changes. You've been asked twice now. Viriditas (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Viriditas, please get a grip of yourself and stop the personal attacks. --Malerooster (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't know why it happens, but every now and then my browser throws my cursor to the wrong spot. I was typing where you eventually put it, but when I hit submit it moved it back up. So I apologize if my computer machine acts fucky, don't let it spike your blood pressure.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I was a bit more bitey than I should have been, sorry.--v/r - TP 21:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
No worries, it happens to all of us. Remember, this isn't a job, we're supposed to be doing this to help people and have fun.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't even mad at it, it was an off the cuff remark that just came out and I hit submit.--v/r - TP 21:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem, I actually get mad at myself and the PC when it happens. We're cool.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Haha, I'm like the Hulk in regard to my PC. I'm always mad at my computer.--v/r - TP 21:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, based on what I primarily edit and what I did to a PC that crapped out on me 20 years ago, while in College, i'm either Deadpool or the Punisher! :) --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Re: Civility RfC
I'm definitely not the right guy to do this - I've made my opinions too widely known.
Usually when someone says that, that means they are the right person. :) Stay safe! Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey you, what are you doing on the internet? Don't you know you got a hurricane knocking on your door?--v/r - TP 03:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Literally minutes after you wrote that we got the first, strong smell of ozone (rain) as the clouds came over Haleakala. Winds haven't really picked up yet but the clouds are moving in fast. Iselle is tracking southeast of us (but presently hitting the Big Island) while Julio is tracking to the north. I would love to get some photographs, but I'm not sure if we'll get anything to write home about on Maui. We'll see. Viriditas (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Well if you don't get hit on Maui then I don't think I have anything to look forward to on O'ahu.--v/r - TP 03:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
One thing people are concerned about are the solar panels on all of the houses and if the wind could be strong enough to loosen them up. Flood control on south Maui is OK except for the beach road which everyone has to avoid and is currently under construction anyway. Julio seems to be potentially tracking closer to Oahu than Iselle, but that could change in the next day or so and completely change course. I don't know why I'm telling you this since the Air Force has all of the information before anyone else. I think the AF is flying planes into the storm as we speak. Viriditas (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
That's true, but I'm not part of that part of the Air Force. That part of the Air Force is visiting here from Keesler AFB Mississippi with their special hurricane hunter C-130s. So, I get my news just like you do :D. Anyway, we're thinking Iselle is going to be the greater threat to O'ahu because the strongest parts of these storms are usually the northeast side. We'll see. Either way, I have to do clean-up Saturday. I guess that's better than being on watch Friday morning like a buddy of mine has to do.--v/r - TP 05:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Clarification of topic ban
As I have not even filed the appeal yet, I need to make sure I am not violating the topic ban in the mean time. Your explanation of the autism topic ban was vague in scope. I am asking for clarification on your page just in case you haven't watchlisted mine:
Yes, to all of those things. With the exception of an appeal, and certainly seeking clarification, you are prohibited from making any edit on Wikipedia related to autism. It's broad in scope, that is the unfortunate method this community has chosen to enact these sorts of things. I strongly advise you to wait 6 months, unless you have exceptional evidence of wrong doing on my part, appeals earlier than 6 months tend to boomerang - hard. What other topics do you have an interest in?--v/r - TP 21:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I am a member of WikiProject Disability, which would be difficult to contribute to while avoiding autism - a disability. A perfect example is Spoon theory, an article I wrote that was coincidentally accepted from AfC today. In the latest revision, one sentence mentions autism. I want to work towards removing the orphan tag, but doing so could be interpreted as violating the topic ban. I had other plans for what to focus on after completing the bulk of the necessary work I identified RE:autism, but I have no interest in pursuing those topics just to disprove WP:SPA, since I never gave that appearance in the first place (SPA doesn't just mean takes an interest in one topic). A ban is pretty crushing to the morale and motivation of a well-intentioned person and leads to the use of WP:NOTCOMPULSORY.
What is the appropriate place to appeal the ban? The ban appeals subcommittee states that it is ONLY for those standing for 6 months. It links to Wikipedia:UTRS and Template:Unblock, which state that they are for blocks, not bans. I'm really lost here. Muffinator (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Arbcom itself, and not BASC, is one location in the form of an Arbcom case. They would likely decline a case that hasn't gone through other appropriate channels, so the other option is to email them. You could also start a community discussion. The issue of other topics isn't limited to SPAs. The issue here has been your argumentative behavior and finger pointing in this topic area. That, specifically, is what you were banned for. You also gave yourself quite a bit of slack in what your perceived to be personal attacks but you pulled the rope quite short for others - a demonstration of inconsistency in what you expect for yourself and what you expect for others. Any appeal to the ban should address your behavior, if it has a chance of being successful, but you are welcome to form it on whatever grounds you choose including to address any improprieties of mine. However, and I cannot stress this enough, the best course of action is to abide by the topic ban and appeal it in 6 months. If this doesn't seem like a wise course of action right now, then you should sleep on it until you come to that conclusion yourself. I know what I am talking about. If you cannot take my word for it, find another uninvolved admin (a list of some for your convenience but feel free to ask others: User:Dennis Brown, User:Drmies, User:Bbb23, User:TLSuda, User:BrownHairedGirl) and ask them what they think you should do. I'm telling you all of this for your own good. It doesn't make a whiff of difference to me - I don't edit in that topic area.--v/r - TP 23:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
X! Tools
Hey TParis,
I was recently trying to use the range contribution section of the X! Tools and ran into an internal error. I used a variety of CIDR ranges and none of them worked. When you have the time, would you mind taking a look? Thanks, Mike V • Talk 19:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been trying a variety of tools this morning including Edits by User tool and the Editor interaction analyzer and it seems nothing on labs is working.--v/r - TP 20:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Any update on this? Range contributions are still not working today. If it is affecting other tools shouldn't a bug be raised somewhere for Labs? SpinningSpark 11:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, TParis! Sorry if I’m butting in, but the section title fits my reason for coming here … I wanted to report that the user script isn’t doing anything for me today. Seeing the above, though, I’m guessing you’ve taken the engine offline for tinkering. Anyway, I installed it recently and was finding it very useful until now—thanks to all concerned BTW!—and indeed I recommended it to someone just yesterday. So if it‘ll be down for a while please reply, with an estimate of when it will resume if possible, so I can keep the other editor up to date; otherwise, never mind. Thanks!—Odysseus1479 00:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
BLPCRIME
Hey TP, I can't seem to find the wording in WP:BLPCRIME policy forbidding reliably sourced content describing the penalties for crimes the subject has been charged with, would you mind showing that to me? Also, I don't know that it's so much a 'prediction' as it is just a statement of fact. Thanks! Dreadstar☥ 22:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Has the BLP subject been given those punishments? If not, why would they be in an article about the BLP? They arn't about the subject. When - and if - the subject gets convicted by a court of law, and then goes to sentencing, and then after the sentence has passed - then and only then is it appropriate to put in a biography of a living person what that punishment is.--v/r - TP 23:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the potential penalty is mentioned in regard to the subject and the crime they are charged with, so it indeed is about the subject; and per policy, the whole "editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured" is "For people who are relatively unknown" - which does not apply to Rick Perry. So I don't believe including the penalty in this case violates BLP. Dreadstar☥ 23:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, President Obama is being sued for violating the constitution by the GOP. Do you think it's appropriate to say that the President has the potential to be jailed?
It is not about the subject at all, it's tabloid journalism. They are filling blank space or air time. It has nothing to do with the subject.--v/r - TP 23:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I can't see a problem with saying something like "Obama has been charged with x crime which carries a max penalty of x years in a thumb rack' or what not. Even so, would that be a violation of BLP that exempts one from EW? Dreadstar☥ 23:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
TP: I hope that you mind me commenting here. As the person who added the content, and have edited many hundreds of BLPs, I really have to question the validity of your interpretation of the policy. You would be correct if someone wrote that Perry is going to prison for 99 years, but what was written was that the charges carry a potential penalty of up to 99 years. This is almost verbatim what out journalistic sources say (MSNBC, Fox News, New york Times, The Guardian, Chicago Tribune and Newsweek). There's nothing sensationalistic about it. If Obama is ever impeached, then the potential penalties reported in reliable sources would be equally relevant and could be included in his bio according to our policies.- MrX 23:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not a BLP violation, but let's try Bold, Revert, Discuss, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and undue weight/NPOV. Those issues should be worked out on the Talk page, consensus formed for an entry(or not) after the first revert of contentious material. So we should stop claiming BLP exemptions for edit warring, and stop inserting contentious material without consensus. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, it's a matter for consensus, not 'EW with a claim of BLP exemption.' The matter should have been brought to a noticeboard or admin before it devolved into the edit warring that it did. I would be inclined to unblock if the editor recognizes this, admits it and says they won't do it again. Dreadstar☥ 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
When a claim of BLP is made, the material is supposed to be removed until there is a consensus to insert it. Not the other way around.--v/r - TP 01:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I like that, where is that in policy? Does any "claim of BLP" exempt you from EW or 3RR? And that's not what happened here, the claim of BLP came after the editwarring, it should have been brought up right away instead of almost as an afterthought. And there was edit warring over clearly non-BLP-Violating material in this case. Dreadstar☥ 01:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Here*:
WP:BLP: "This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion."
WP:BLP: "This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism."
(ec) I found it at WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, but unfortunately the claim of BLP was made after the fact and the supposed, specific BLP violations were not even provided on the talk page. So really, none of that provides an exemption from edit warring or 3RR. Dreadstar☥ 01:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I never said it did. The block was a good block - I wasn't saying I'd unblock at all.--v/r - TP 01:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, gosh, sorry, I misunderstood. Thanks, I appreciate the conversation tho, definitely enlightening and interesting! Many thanks TP! Dreadstar☥ 01:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Probably my fault, I can see how my replying on his talk page could give off that impression but I was only commenting on what you guys were commenting on - the content itself.--v/r - TP 01:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Christian-hating rhetoric
You have no idea. HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I could make several comments about how I have plenty of idea and how I am well aware of the hateful rhetoric that has been spilled in the name of Christianity and how you arn't some kind of guru of sekrits that no one else knows, but instead I'm just going to laugh at your ridiculous attempt to sound threatening and patronizing.--v/r - TP 07:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Threatening? That you see hate and threats in what I have said is sad. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
That you have such a terrible opinion of two billion people is sad. That you insist on acting on that opinion on Wikipedia and ABF about Christian Wikipedians is wrong.--v/r - TP 17:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, it sounds like blatant trolling, but if you really feel this way you should not be allowed to participate in Christianity-related topics, broadly construed, because you are unable to assume good faith of every editor who is Christian or will be interpreted as Christian. I'm sure there is plenty of policies to go on here, but your inability to be rationale, let alone impartial, represents a major concern about your involvement in the area. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I have to say that I am extremely frustrated by this topic. I've been accused of saying all kinds of horrible things, as has Hilo48. I certainly haven't said such things, and I don't believe that Hilo48 has either. Every group in the world has its biases, and those biases need to be weighed when evaluating statements they make. I don't view Muslim pronouncements about what a wondrous person Muhammad was uncritically, and if I find there's some statement that Muslims predominantly believe and others tend not to support, I think that needs to be labeled. Rastafarian statements about Haile Selassie need to be weighed differently than other opinions on Haile Selassie. Similarly, statements by Christians and Muslims about Jesus of Nazareth need to be weighed differently than the opinions of others (and differently than each other: note that Muslims believe that Jesus still lives in the flesh, having been taken by God prior to the crucifixion and his living body maintained in perpetuity).
That doesn't mean that any of these groups is bad, evil, stupid, or anything: it simply means that they possess a strong tendency to view things in a certain way that needs to be taken into account. When any of them make statements that aren't supported by people outside the group, those statements become highly suspect. That is completely differently from assuming that someone is operating in bad faith: I don't think, nor have I ever claimed, that there is a conspiracy among Christian and Muslim historians to deceive or trick others, nor do I think that any of them is actually misrepresenting evidence. I do think that the weight they give to things is different than the weight other groups would apply, and I think that when it comes to making judgement calls about uncertain things, they are likely to make those judgement calls differently than others. That's what a bias is: not a weakness, not stupidity, not a moral failure, but a tendency to view things and judge things in one fashion more often than another.—Kww(talk) 18:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Kww - Anytime you judge an entire group of people based on stereotypes, you've generalized and discriminated. Read your comments on ANI and see how many times you've made sweeping statements about what Christians are capable of. You have been pretty mild, but you've lumped your hat in with HiLo48 who has been seriously discriminative. Some folks, like me, might be more inclined to try to cooperate with you if you weren't teamed up with HiLo48.--v/r - TP 18:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I haven't relied on stereotypes, unless you believe that "people are more likely to decide that there is evidence that the things they worship exist than they are to decide that there is not evidence that the things they worship exist" is a stereotype. For some reason, people read statements like that as "absolutely incapable of using objective reasoning". I haven't said the latter, and it's frustrating to see people respond to my statements as if I had. I haven't seen Hilo48 say such things either: if he has, please point one out.—Kww(talk) 18:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, please. I have certainly said that Christians cannot possibly believe that Jesus didn't exist, and that makes their contributions to a discussion on whether he did or not fairly pointless, but I certainly don't believe I expressed hatred towards Christians. If you knew more about my life beyond the Internet, you would understand how ridiculous that allegation is. Hence my initial comment above. HiLo48 (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
If I say the sky is blue, I'm not saying the sky doesn't turn shades of red in the evenings. And yet, by leaving it out, I'm only communicating that the sky is blue and I'm not sharing my understanding that the sky is capable of being red. If it is true that you say "A" but you don't mean "Always A" then you need to say that and not expect it to be implied. As far as HiLo48 goes:
"Obviously Christians are biased when it comes to the question of whether Jesus existed. By definition, they believe that he did. A non-Christian can take an objective view."
"A Christian who says Jesus existed has added nothing of value to the discussion, because a Christian must believe that Jesus existed. Any source written by a Christian can therefore be safely ignored in this discussion."
"But Christians believe he did, so their opinion isn't really of any value in the discussion. Christians are, by definition, biased on the question of the existence of Jesus."
"An atheist can believe that Jesus existed, or didn't exist. A Christian cannot make such choice."
"Suitable evidence could convince an atheist that Jesus existed. By definition, nothing can convince a Christian that he didn't exist."
"A Christian should not require concrete evidence of Jesus' existence. That's what faith is about. On the other hand, a Christian cannot believe that Jesus did not exist."
This compromised a majority of HiLo48's comments. I'll reserve my judgement for how you respond to the evidence presented here. There is no possible way to say that HiLo48's uses of "never", "nothing can", "cannot" ect is definitive and not meant to read as "absolutely incapable of using objective reasoning".
HiLo48's comments are ad hominem - about the person - and do not have anything to do with content of articles. Whether or not a source is from a Christian doesn't matter - what matters is if it is valid science and academics by the definition of science that we weigh every other type of academia. Whether the author was objective, whether it was peer reviewed, is the journal it was published in known for academic integrity, was the scientific method followed, was the sample size large enough, what was the margin for error, ect. No other criteria, such as religion, is necessary. Any concerns that someone would have stemming from religion is dealt with by the other questions. And so, using religion as the basis for objection to a source is discrimination.--v/r - TP 19:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I see that HiLo48 has blurred two issues together. I still don't see any form of hate speech there. I believe that a Christian is fully capable of coming to the conclusion that there isn't sufficient historical evidence that Jesus existed and that he must take the issue of Christ's existence on faith alone. He's less likely to come to the conclusion that the evidence is insufficient than others, but he may well be capable of it. It is true that a Christian, by definition, believes that Christ existed, but that is a different thing than believing that there is adequate historical evidence to justify the belief on an objective basis. The rest of your argument is simply incorrect: when the topic is a cornerstone of some religions, the religion of the source needs to be taken into account when evaluating bias. In this case, we have an article dominated by Christian sources being presented as if it represents a worldwide consensus of historians, and the bias isn't adequately addressed in the article.—Kww(talk) 19:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
[After edit conflict] To TP - There's a lot of words there, and I cannot guarantee that I will interpret all of them in the way you intend (we obviously come from different cultures and language variants), so can you answer a simple question? Can a Christian believe that Jesus did not exist?
Oh, and where is the hate in my words? HiLo48 (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
A Christian can believe that there is no scientific evidence that Jesus existed. In fact, that fits just dandy with our 'faith' requirement. The hate speech is your smears that Christians are incapable of being objective. As if we are drones.--v/r - TP 20:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
There are plenty of people in every religion who do not consider their scriptures or foundational myths to be literally true, or particularly reliable in a historical or scientific sense. Some may treat them as conveying only figurative or allegorical messages about the human condition, or assign them to a ‘spiritual plane’ that’s distinct from the world we normally experience. Others may belong for cultural, social, or political reasons that have little or nothing to do with what they think of the doctrine. So I think it is indeed stereotyping to make assumptions about what people actually believe, let alone how these supposed beliefs may influence their behaviour, merely from their self-identification as a member of a religion—especially when it’s a ‘top-level’ designation like Christianity, Buddhism, or Islam, each of which comprises a broad range of denominations, sects, & cults that can differ enormously. To the specific question, IIANM there are even some Christian clergy who deny the historicity of Jesus, so the answer must be yes.—Odysseus1479 20:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll tell you one ting that bothers me here. The fact that people can't indent properly! The indenting above is so confusing, I've given up. As often seems to happen with religion, we have two answers above, only one of them a direct Yes or No, but I think I can deal with that.
To TP, could you ever, as a Christian, say that Jesus didn't exist? If not, you are coming from a position of bias on this subject. There is one conclusion in this discussion that you could never arrive at. I don't have that bias. (I have plenty of others.) I don't hate you for that, but it would be nice if you could simply acknowledge it.
To Odysseus, I can accept from what you have said that some people who call themselves Christian don't really believe all the details that more hard core adherents believe. Many are nothing more than cultural Christians, never think about religion, and don't really believe any of it. That makes a nonsense of some of our articles about Christianity and what it is, and of those who post as if 2 billion people think just like them. HiLo48 (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
What I believe and what science can prove are two different things - as Kww said above. You are the only person here who cannot separate them.--v/r - TP 22:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
While I certainly don't hate you, I am getting frustrated with your unwillingness or inability to face and answer a simple question. It adds to my growing impressions about your thinking processes and biases here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Your question is a false dilemma fallacy. Even Kww has said, pretty directly, that a belief in something and accepting that science can prove it are not the same things. That you continue to WP:IDHT really demonstrates something about your thinking process and your biases. Even Kww, who has the same general opinion as you, has clearly said that you "[have] blurred two issues together". You should take a hint. @Kww: Perhaps now that you comprehend the issue that I've identified, you can explain it to him?--v/r - TP 22:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Must be a cultural difference. I believe it always makes things clearer if you answer the simple question first, then qualify your answer. When you only give the qualification, I tend put you in the same basket as politicians who never answer the question. This is the Internet. We are from different cultures and language variants. Language must be 100% clear. It's obvious you have failed to understand my position. (I don't hate anyone, hence the title of this thread.) Hiding real positions behind qualification and obfuscation is guaranteed to lead to confusion and annoyance. Could you ever, as a Christian, say that Jesus didn't exist? HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, your question is a false dilemma which makes it inappropriate. It assumes a belief and a belief that science can prove the belief are one and the same. They are not. It is a false dilemma because it assumes that you can only believe or disbelieve that Jesus existed and fails to account for a third option of believing that he existed but disbelieving that science can or has proven he existed. If you want an answer, ask an appropriate question. If you can't get that, you shouldn't be editing articles where the distinction is relevant.--v/r - TP 23:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, now there's a perfect example. I would never assume that a belief and a belief that science can prove the belief are one and the same. If you have been working from that premise, it means that there's even more about my position that you don't understand, and that YOU are the one making assumptions. Perhaps if you asked me some simple questions for clarification... HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48, as I said, you are conflating two issues. Yes, you are right that it's not possible to be a Christian or Muslim and believe in the non-existence of Christ. However, it is possible to be a Christian or Muslim and believe that the historical record is too incomplete to demonstrate his existence through analysis of historical records. The issue is one of bias: it's most certainly true that Christians and Muslims are less likely to come to the conclusion that the historical record is inadequate than other people, not that it is impossible for them to do so. By taking it to the extreme of saying that Christian opinion needs to be completely discounted (as opposed to being appropriately labeled, counterbalanced, and segregated), you are making an issue that it is hard to find agreement on impossible to find agreement on.—Kww(talk) 23:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I can separate the two issues. I'm not convinced that all here who call themselves Christian can. And as for those faceless Biblical scholars, who will ever know? Oh, and I still insist that I don't hate anybody. (I do find some very confusing.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
There are undoubtedly Christians that cannot separate the two. That doesn't mean there aren't Christians that can. When discussing bias, it doesn't cause anything but trouble to overstate things or overgeneralize, especially when you are trying to persuade people that their own biases might be getting in the way, because it's difficult for people to recognize their own biases. That's part of their very nature. If you are trying to get someone to have an epiphany about their own biases, clear, logical, and sympathetic statements are the key.—Kww(talk) 00:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
^^ What this guy said. Written perfectly.--v/r - TP 01:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you still think I hate Christians? HiLo48 (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Depends, do you still think sweeping statements about any group of people is appropriate?--v/r - TP 01:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you think making generalizations about a demographic is appropriate?--v/r - TP 01:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes. It could be argued that some of my wording you objected to above was inappropriate, but, depending on one's definition of a Christian, I think it's still true to say that a Christian cannot believe that Jesus did not exist. And that was certainly the gist of most of my comments. I still also believe that most, if not all Christians will approach this topic with bias because of that. But that wasn't why I came here. None of what I have just said involves hate. I still don't understand your use of the word against me. HiLo48 (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi TParis! Since you closed the previous discussion on this topic, and we currently are looking for an uninvolved admin to assess the discussion, I thought I would ask you if you were available to take on the burden of closing this AN discussion. Your assistance would be invaluable but if you can't or don't want to, there is no reason that you would have to, so it's no problem. Thanks, ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I closed the thread, but would welcome a closure review :-) GoPhightins! 02:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I meant to ask you if you would. I didn't feel right closing both the topic ban and the thread about a violation of the topic ban.--v/r - TP 03:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
You deleted ThinkingRock page a while back because there was not enough external links included. We have since produced a new version of the software product, re-built our website and have received more reviews. Could you please re-instate the page so that I can add the missing information.
Thank you.
Best regards from Australia,
Claire Lemarechal (user id ClaireLem) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaireLem (talk • contribs) 03:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Claire - can you show me examples of the third party independent reliable sources that you'd use?--v/r - TP 05:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Checking back on what happened after I logged off, no, this is not correct, not quoting me at all, no wonder there was no diff presented for it. In fact, considering this, it was a misrepresentation of my views. —Neotarf (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
You've lost credibility in this matter. I'm willing to discuss this with you, but not while you are ignoring the arguments by the vast majority of the community, to include Arbcom, that you have egregiously misrepresented others (including Hell in Bucket). "Good for you" doesn't work in the context you claimed to have used it. We're not stupid and you treating us like we are isn't at all going to convince anyone. "Go fuck yourself" isn't a big deal to begin with, but trying to play word game is just pissing everyone off. The minimum required for any further response from me is your acknowledgement that you pushed a misguided effort concerning Hell in Bucket's original comments or at least that the community strongly disagrees with you and it's time to drop the issue. Other than a response that contains that message, I'm simply going to move on - like the rest of the community has done, appropriately because the issue is not what you made it out to be.--v/r - TP 20:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
No, typing an ambiguous edit summary on your own user page that will not be seen by anyone who is not stalking your edit history is not the same as splashing a four-letter word across drama boards that are watchlisted by hundreds of people, after refusing to have a meaningful discussion on the question. But I agree that further public discussion is counterproductive. —Neotarf (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Not interested in revenge reviews
You removed my administrative review, because according to you, you are "Not interested in revenge reviews". That is extremely sad. My review was my honest thoughts on your performance. If you aren't interested in points of views, why even open up your administrative review? It's no wonder you haven't learned anything about being and administrator despite all your criticisms. You will remove this, as you do with all criticisms of your abuse of administrative power. Good day, and I hope you can grow, but you probably wont. Jahgro (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Support removal of comment that seems to be a repeated attempt at harassment by the above editor.John Carter (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Jahgro, I would recommend that you read the guidelines section of Wikipedia:Administrator review before commenting at any administrator review. Per these guidelines an administrator has all rights to remove comments that are not beneficial to the review. If you have unresolved issues with any administrator, that should be brought up on their talk page. Making complaints on an review that is used to gauge the community's overall feelings for an administrator and his or her actions is not helpful and does not get situations resolved. I'm not going to comment on whether or not there are issues or if they are just, but if you have issues, handle it through the correct methods. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not just not interested in the review of people directly involved in disputes with me. You're very unlikely to take full appreciation of your own participation in the dispute. You are free to discuss whatever you want to right here.--v/r - TP 20:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:SqueakBox/BLP. 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. ♫ SqueakBoxtalkcontribs 02:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Historicity of Jesus
TP - History and Historicity are related, but separate concepts. Historicity is that which “defines history and thus distinguishes it from ‘nature’ or from the ‘economy’” and “signifies the meaning we intend when we say of something that is ‘historical’.”
I've found authoritative sources to show that religious and secular historians generally have different research agendas, and use differing methodologies -- which, in the case of religious historians, often include submerged value considerations (That is, they often start with some presuppositions that secular historians wouldn't, and often are more interested in "religious truth" than "historical truth."
But, despite these common differences, I've seen no research to suggest that we can disambiguate between secular and religious historicity in a way that wouldn't be a POV fork. So, I think the only solution is to, where possible, explicitly cite a sources presuppositions. For example, James Dunn is quite forthright that he accepts, as a starting point, the reliability of the gospels -- unless otherwise proven unreliable. So, when he says that the baptism and crucifixion are historical certainty, he's probably speaking of a religious truth, rather than a historical truth. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Tom, probably Thursday but maybe Friday as I've said repeatedly now this past week I will be getting a copy of the six year old Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus which should be a good indicator of how the academic community defines the term. Worldcat indicates that there is a more recent four year old The Routledge encyclopedia of the historical Jesus from the same editor and publisher but the nearest copy is about 200 miles away from me. If yo can access it that would be very helpful, particularly in terms of any differences in content which could be reflected in the page similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles which I will create from that list. I will also I hope copy out the full length of its overview article and email it out at request and my receiving an email address to send it to. I have a feeling it will probably provide a better more accurate view on the academic consensus definition of the term than works which seem to be advancing individual academics' theses would be. It generally takes at least a few days to convert the raw data to a finished list. But I would have no reservations whatever to have your input or anyone else's regarding the structuring of the content based on both the definitions as per multiple academic sources and the relative weight to give each. I'll also try to see what the reviews of the works say and make them available as well. If I'd ever seen clearly stated who the "authoritative sources" referred to actually are I could find indicators of the academic opinion on them and their work is but I haven't been able to see them ever clearly identified. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I am curious now, can a Christian accept the Bayesian possibility that there was no Jesus, or that absence of effective evidence of a particular Jesus doing particular things at particular times would point to a different theology being true? DeistCosmos (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't the evidence to support the existence of such Christians be in the variety of denominations?--v/r - TP 21:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I would put it more in the existence of Islam, of Hindu sects which class Jesus as simply another guru in the great spectrum of them, and in Jeffersonian Deists of the sort who take as true Jesus' teachings of how we ought to treat each other, while rejecting the metaphysical claims as fabulism. DeistCosmos (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The first time I read your reply, I read 'metaphysical claims as fabulousism'. lol--v/r - TP 21:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
And I would retort that some metaphysical claims are fabulist, but others are fabulous!! DeistCosmos (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Haha, good times good times.--v/r - TP 22:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
(tps) I would say there are probably as many flavors of Christian as there are any other religion. But the "historicity" question I tend to associate with a particular political orientation. For example, you don't see much interest in the Historicity of Moses or the Historicity of Buddha, although there is an (infrequently edited) article for Historicity of Muhammad. For reference, it may be helpful to talk in terms of literalists. An example of a biblical literalist would be Manfred Brauch, who is Baptist, and as might be expected from someone whose denomination subscribes to the literal truth of the Bible, takes a huge interest in exegesis, so if you want to wade into, say, his book Hard Sayings of Paul, get ready for lots of Greek linguistics, with plenty of references to their Hebrew Old Testament counterparts. Mainline Protestants (what an awful article that one is), including the reconciling congregations, would not be regarded as literalist, although an author like Marcus Borg, while not piling on quite as much Greek, would also require tall wading boots; Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time is sometimes recommended. The hands-down bad boy of Christian scholarship has to be Bishop Spong. If you meet someone carrying one of his books, this will be an interesting person to talk to--about some other topic! Some seem to consider him to be a heretic of some sort, and his website seems to have been toned down some from what I remember of the last time I looked at it, but for anyone looking for "historicity" background for WP, this essay might be of interest. As for existence of God arguments, scholars have been debating that one from Anshelm on down, and no one has found any proof yet. Doesn't seem to bother the churches any. Oh, and for some pre-Christian roots, don't forget Frazer's The Golden Bough. Cheers, —Neotarf (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
FWIW I do remember seeing one of the encyclopedias I assembled lists of articles from had an article on the historicity of Buddha who like Jesus is I think only really known from sources written shortly after his death. But Buddha never had John Allegro calling him a narcotic dream and is counter-culture enough in the west so that those people who are more or less described in Civilization and its Discontents and the sensationalist press don't pay any particular attention to that subject. John Carter (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
In serpentis veritas?From what I know, religions with long periods of nothing but oral history are pretty much par for the course. The only exception I can think of is LDS, which has a contemporary record. Allegro's theories don't seem to have been very well received academically. I'm not familiar with it, but just offhand I can't say it rings very true. For one thing, cannabis is the big thing in that region, not mushroom (think of the etymology for the word "assassin", plus it doesn't answer any questions that can't be answered more simply. Other intersections between religion and chemistry have gotten a better reception: for example, underground fumes at the Oracle at Delphi, serpent venom at Crete, or the botanical basis for zombies. Are there any Freudians still left? At this point there are probably more people who believe in Jesus than believe in Freud. I really don't understand the popcorn value of any of this, but abrasive individuals like Richard Dawkins seem to be laughing all the way to the bank. —Neotarf (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Allegro did get a lot of attention at the time though and seems to have been one of the big, well, instigators of the "Jesus never existed" movement and CaiD is one of the few books by Freud still well regarded in part because it is more sociological than psychological. I had to read it in school for a sociology of religion class myself.John Carter (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
It goes back that far? I should probably read the article. Something like the "God is Dead" revival back in the 60s, just an echo of Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra, but of course without its original context of secularization, and so popularly misunderstood. —Neotarf (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Hm, here it is, although I doubt if you can use is as a RS. According to something called the Sunday Times Rich List, Richard Dawkins is worth over £100 Million. And here we are editing Wikipedia for free. Cheers. —Neotarf (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Speaking for myself and I think most of the religion students I went to school with, and based on what I've heard of Bart Ehrman's classes where believer students are assigned to argue Jesus didn't exist or be (god or whatever) and nonbelievers to argue that he was, most students of religion including believers of pretty much any sort are certainly able to accept the possibility that the evidence that they might be wrong or that they aren't right is in many cases good enough for reasonable people to believe that it is creditable. While it is kind of logically impossible for anyone to believe they as individuals are wrong about anything they actively believe, they very easily can believe that their beliefs are simply a matter of belief and there is functionally very little difference between those two thoughts. John Carter (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Speaking for myself I haven't really found a Christian denomination that I agree with. My faith has been bouncing around between Churches that get close to my beliefs but not quite. I grew up Catholic but I disagree strongly with Catholics. As far as protestant denominations, I've found good churches that were close to my beliefs and I just had to bite my tounge for the rest. Until my recent move, I attended an Assemblies of God church though I disagree with their beliefs on LGBT rights and in tongues being proof of baptism. Funny how someone always started speaking in tongues right on queue at church. Anyway, I guess my inability to settle with any doctrine of any particular denomination makes me abnormal (or perhaps more normal - depending on your POV) than others. I think many Christians do this. First soul searching, and then trying to find a church they agree with. I have problems with certain parts of the bible that don't resonate the same way as other parts. I think most of the non-church going Christians are in the same boat and feel stuck and don't know what to do. But a lot of those folks are probably the type DeistCosmos is referring to.--v/r - TP 23:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
From what I've read over the years and from what I've learned talking to some individuals who are basically professional counsellors for priests and religious it is basically standard for anyone who actively believes anything that cannot be "scientifically" proven and gives it some priority in their lives to fairly frequently wonder whether they're wrong. Ask any dating couple about the "does s/he really love me?" questions and how often they're asked. It may have been different and be different in cultures which have really strong ties to certain beliefs but the western world today is not such a place. And even high ranking church officials are known to have really serious reservations about numerous disciplinary practices. BTW feel free to take part in the discussion on the above page. The more eyes the better. John Carter (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
No thanks, religion topics don't interest me.--v/r - TP 23:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
DR
I intend to dispute your speedy deletion of a page in my user space at Deletion review but it says <I should talk to you first. Can you please explain why linking to diffs is an attack page, and also why you believe it is a BLP violation. ♫ SqueakBoxtalkcontribs 01:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Have you read Wikipedia:UP#POLEMIC? If you give me a timeline for dispute resolution, I'll consider restoring the material.--v/r - TP 01:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I could of course file a report about these persistent BLP violators at AN/I myself as the diffs is the evidence of BLP violations. It wouldnt be considered a personal attack there but evidence of wrong doing. But I dont want to do that, I want mediation. I did not attack anybody, I merely linked to a set of diffs and mentioned the person who made the diff, each of which seriously violates our BLP policy. How else would you suggest I build up my case for mediation? I havent even started with the personal attacks, which have been abundant against me. I have no idea about the timeline for mediation, all I know is the mediation bot seems to have accepted the case but unless you can give me a firm idea of when you will restore the page I am better off going to DR sooner rather than later, as IMO Mfd was the right forum if people wanted to see this page deleted. ♫ SqueakBoxtalkcontribs 01:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:USER says "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." This is exactly why I created the page and would be the entire basis of my DR. I need to be able to compile evidence in order to prepare for a dispute resolution at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Porn and BLP. Are you preventing me from doign this and if so why? ♫ SqueakBoxtalkcontribs 01:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
If it's for dispute resolution, simply set a timeline. When do you plan to file for dispute resolution?--v/r - TP 04:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
FYI - Official mediation notices went out about 3 hours before he first posted on your talk page here. It was already underway, and it appears as if most parties have declined. Dcs002 (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
And it doesn't look as if the diffs were used or needed. So my question is, what are his plans for them? The threshold for WP:POLEMIC is that diffs of behaviors of other editors kept in this fashion will be used for dispute resolution in a timely manner. Simply tell me how and when they will be used and they will be restored.--v/r - TP 05:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I want you to know I truly am a neutral here. I have been involved in none of the previous discussions (though I've read up). I'm just uncomfortable about the timing of everything here. I think SqueakBox is getting some rough handling for a guy who just requested mediation. I can't speak for him/her, but that entire AN/I discussion began AFTER he had initiated mediation, and one of the parties he named in his request for mediation was the user who started that entire AN/I discussion. I think a few users are upset with SqueakBox and really might be undermining his attempts to seek resolution. The timing of everything AFTER his request for mediation really smells bad to me. I don't envy your position being in the middle and having to make difficult decisions, but you might want to look closely at the timing of how all this came about. It seems this could all be the reactions of a few people to his (documented) attempts at dispute resolution. That's how the timing works out. Dcs002 (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
As you are referring to me, I mentioned the mediation request from the start, just read my text at ANI. Saying some users are upset with SqueakBox is just the opposite of what is actually happening, at best I am just tired of his drama-catching attitude. The timing shows we had forgot about him and working on other topics, he today restarted from the scratch with the same three-weeks-old accusations, not offering any new argument. The same three-weeks-old accusations which were already dealt 1) with an extensive ANI discussion in which a bare majority requested him topic banned, 2) with an AfD which was closed in a few hours and led to the restoration of the article, 3) with an RfC which among other things said "editors are asked not to go through the pre-existing lists making large-scale and unilateral challenges, as this will overwhelm the people who maintain these lists with work, and there is a legitimate concern that this is unfair. If you do intend to remove unsourced entries, please proceed at a reasonable, non-disruptive speed dealing with what you judge to be the highest-priority cases first. If you could easily source an entry yourself, then removing it as unsourced is rather unhelpful." I understand he had not liked the outcome, but THIS is the timing and the context in which he is announcing/starting new dispute resolutions. Cavarrone 06:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It sounds like he's made some unfortunate and unwise decisions that have raised opinions against him. I get that. But now you have access to a proper forum for dealing with all of that. I hope you will reconsider participation. Mediation can help - I've used it twice, and have been pleased both times. Best of luck to you! Dcs002 (talk) 07:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The notice time was received on one user's talk page at 22:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC), and you said on the AN/I page that you had just deleted the page at 01:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC), so his dispute resolution process was already underway when you deleted the page. I think that's why he was confused when you asked him about a timeline for dispute resolution. Dcs002 (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, I've looked at the dispute resolution page. And in that, as you point out, three hour window that he was creating the dispute resolution page he never once used the diffs. WP:POLEMIC requires that they be used. If he intends to use them, I invite him to tell me where and when. He obviously didn't use them on that page.--v/r - TP 05:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Take this as me playing devil's advocate, but maybe he wanted to give the examples only of people who were involved (i.e., agreed to) in the mediation? Conjecture, I know, but I'm just trying to point out that there are viable possibilities. Maybe he had plans to use it if mediation failed? (And it sounds like it has.) WP:POLEMIC says "provided it will be used in a timely manner," not that it must be used now. What is a timely manner? I can see wiggle room in that interpretation. My bias here is to make sure everyone gets treated fairly. It sounds like he's made some unwise decisions in the past and annoyed several people (in which case I think we still need to assume good faith), but he's not likely to get a fair hearing in mediation or elsewhere if he is judged to have made an attack page against the other parties to the dispute. (I mean, if he is initiating the dispute resolution, it would be profoundly foolish to make an attack page against the other parties, and I don't think that's what happened.) I just think he should be given the benefit of a doubt for doing what he thinks id right (his BLP actions) and following the dispute resolution procedures we encourage people to follow. Dcs002 (talk) 05:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
There is an easier way that doesn't require you to play devil's advocate. He can come here and tell me himself.--v/r - TP 06:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Very true. I might well have been giving him too much credit, but that's the side I'd rather err on. Thank you for making the content available for mediation. That completely satisfies my concern with this case. This way it can only be used properly. Thank you again for doing your difficult (and probably thankless) job. Dcs002 (talk) 07:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I am not entirely happy with the outcome but thanks for restoring the material anyway, albeit in a more public place. We can certainly move on from this and all the best (after all you did unblock me a few years back and that is still much apreciated). ♫ SqueakBoxtalkcontribs 00:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Newspapers.com
You received a Wikipedia email about access to Newspapers.com about 2.5 weeks ago about access to WP:Newspapers.com access through the The Wikipedia Library. We currently don't have record of your response on the Google doc. Please make sure to follow the instructions in that email for obtaining access, Sadads (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@Sadads: I'm concerned about the privacy of anyone who posts to that google doc. How do I know every troll online won't see my username and email address?--v/r - TP 16:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
TParis, that is a concern. Also, when you create a clipping, essentially, your email address will be available. I created an email address on Yahoo with my user name here and used that in the Google doc and of course to sign up with newspapers.com --I am One of Many (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
That's a good idea, I might do that.--v/r - TP 18:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey TParis: that is a valid concern: it should have said a Google form. The information is behind a privacy wall which only Ocaasi and I have access to. We are in the process of investigating a technical solution through the WMF, so that we can have a more secure and more streamlined application/approval process. But until then we are stuck using this process, sorry, Sadads (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Alright, it's done.--v/r - TP 02:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
feel better
Feel better, there is no rush, and there is no deadline for this kind of stuff. I agree the mugshot has received considerable attention, but I don't think it should be the infobox picture. it just seems like the page is pushing a POV, and does not add any additional information. Arzel (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Good Humor
Regardless of the ensuing confusion, I was just reading the list o' ice bucket challenge participants AfD, and I chuckled at your vote (and the drama it caused). GoPhightins! 11:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement warning: Decorum in enforcement proceedings.
Hi. At WP:AE, you recently commented that "For the morons who can't read...". Using such language towards other Wikipedians is unacceptable conduct on an arbitration enforcement (or indeed any other) page. As an administrator, in particular, you should be aware of this. See, generally, WP:CIVIL and WP:AC/DS#Decorum. I am suppressing that comment and am warning you that you will be blocked if such conduct reoccurs. Regards, Sandstein 16:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Roger, we have no expectations that people can read when they participate here.--v/r - TP 16:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
You could have made the exact same point without name calling. To pretend that a NPA warning means that we don't expect people to read is such faulty logic I suspect it is sophistry. Chillum 16:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Considering that the comment was about people specifically not reading both what I said and the instructions for how to comment at AE - no, I don't think my comment was out of line.--v/r - TP 16:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
If you don't see how calling editors "morons" is not out of line then you really re-read WP:ADMIN. It says "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others."
You are suppose enforce these policies not violate them. Chillum 16:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Considering the sorry state our WP:CIVILITY policy is in, calling people morons is far above the expected behavior around here. What is uncivil is two separate accusations of personal attacks against me by saying I accused Int21h of calling Chelsea a pig when I made no such comment. Why don't you deal with that incivility. WP:NPA, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." Not my fault editors can't read and have no idea what it means to contrast. Nor my fault they can't figure out how to edit their own sections. Nor my fault that after the first time, the second guy didn't get a clue from the edit summary. These are all failures on other editors not to meet a certain level of competence when editing here.--v/r - TP 17:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Um excuse me what do you mean by "meet a certain level of competence when editing here" ? I admit I was half awake editing when I made the comment and only after you mentioned the contrast bit did I see it. The problem I see is that you without thinking leapt to the conclusion that I was a moron who did not understand how Wikipedia works or what words mean. As an admin you should know this and WP:AGF when dealing with other editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Were you offended by the moron statement or did it snap you awake that you missed something relevant and important? Besides missing the contrast, you also missed the AE instructions, AND my edit summary to someone else regarding the same thing.--v/r - TP 19:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion TParis's "moron" statement was not to or about anyone in particular, so was not an attack, let alone a personal one. Let me put it this way: if you can't identify a victim there is no attack. Taking him to task for making such a statement, on that page rather than here, is a personal attack (on TParis, the obvious victim).
Letting true personal attacks go, and going after innocuous victim-less statements like this one, is one of the things that's ruining Wikipedia. --В²C☎ 23:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I've finished the copyedit. Although I always learn something from the articles I copyedit, this one was a particular pleasure. Good luck with FA, A-class or whatever :-) and all the best, Miniapolis 22:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much for all that you have done. I saw the one "not in ref" tag you placed and I've been looking all afternoon to find the ref for that. I found a few for the HAARP conspiracies but I don't see the cell phone one anywhere. I know there was a video I watched about it as well, perhaps that's where I got it. Either way, I'll correct it as soon as I can before it goes to FA review. You've done substantial work on this article, I'll be sure to include your name as one of the submitters in the FA nom.--v/r - TP 23:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Draft TParis for Arbcom
[8] and many others ... where do I sign up for the "Draft TParis for Arbcom" committee? --GRuban (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually I should probably expound. You seem to be dedicated, intelligent, civil, and tough. There are plenty people with one or two of these qualities, but the combination of all four is highly rare, and outright needed on our highest court. --GRuban (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll second that. Memills (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I don't have the temperament for Arbcom. I appreciate it, though.--v/r - TP 03:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
GG project
I just saw that someone proposed TBing two others and myself from the project. I said I wouldn't respond there, and unless someone thinks its needed I probably still won't. I'm kinda miffed at this whole thing. The only reason I even learned about this project is because Carol posted a query at RSN about "TERFS". I gave an opinion then went to take a look at the context in which it was being used. That's where I saw the proposal that I labeled asinine. This has now turned into a coordinated attack to ban people she thinks are opposed to the project. In my case nothing could be further from the truth. I'm opposed to some of the claims being made on projects discussion space that are not backed up by a modicum of evidence. I'm opposed to remedies suggested that will never ever get implemented. Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
(shrug) Anytime you are dealing with a controversial social topic area, you have to be sensitive and delicate whether you agree with the platform or not. It can be frustrating, but everyone here is on the same side. Gotta remember that when things get rough.--v/r - TP 18:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
TP, the logic is flawed, I assure you. "You never 'see' evidence IBAN that is working; you only 'see' when isn't working." (Paraphrase.) That standard can be true under a twisted/unhealthy def of "working". (Patient goes to doctor due to sore throat. Patient leaves clinic no longer w/ sore throat. Treatment "worked"! [The treatment? Surgical removal of throat.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
That's a red herring. A doesn't work because B doesn't work. In the context of an IBAN the logic is correct. You will not see a topic ban that is working because it's nature when working is to be unseen. The only IBANs you will see on ANI are the ones that are not working.--v/r - TP 06:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
There's an implied presumption that if one doesn't 'see', that's indicative of "working". (What if IBAN is applied, but was falsely/inappropriately applied? Silence. Is it 'working'? We don't know. But it's behaving as though it is from within limited idea/def of 'working'.) There's more attention to the end result than gauging (or even considering) collateral damage of imposing a technique. My post questions the wisdom of tunnel vision re the limited goal/value of "working" which drives thinking and application of the technique. (I think your response reverted to that limited def.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
It probably took someone 2 seconds to conceive of the current IBAN. ("You break that, you pay for it. Editor X or Y refer to one another directly or 'indirectly', we sanction them for it." Simple solutions to complex problems. Implemented and even institutionalized because easy for the implementors. Who cares to give a thought about affect on editors on whom imposed. They have about as much respect or thought as people in prisons. ["Just make sure it doesn't happen to 'me', otherwise I don't care."]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
This isn't therapy. We are here to build an encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 08:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I never suggested "therapy". If you read my meaning instead of offering cliches, you'll see I'm talking about under-cover editor loss or retention, and various grays in-between those points. (Might makes right on the WP. ["No justice only solutions."] This is an example. And there are many others.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
"Who cares to give a thought about affect on editors on whom imposed." Priority 1 is the encyclopedia, it's content, and it's stability. Editor retention is important, but not when compared to the encyclopedia itself.--v/r - TP 17:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that's too black & white. The encyclopedia doesn't make itself. Raising the stakes of IBAN universally to "without it, the very encyclopeida itself is at risk" is hyperbolic exaggeration to rationalize black & white. I've tried to make a point but unsuccessful here, sorry to irritate you, I'm out. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
It's already going through an A-class review, which is a higher standard.--v/r - TP 17:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I've removed the GA nomination template from the article's talk page and notified significant contributors to the article (User:Miniapolis, User:Dank) about the A-class review that's occurring. NorthAmerica1000 04:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
IBAN question
TP, you and Newyorkbrad are two admins whose opinions usually seem logical and fair to me, but your position on one-way interaction bans - can you revisit your thinking on that, please?
If you remember, I have been hounded by two editors, and when two-way bans were suggested it really upset me because banning the victim of harassment just seems unfair. (IRL, if someone is being stalked and seeks a restraining order, do judges typically make them 2-way? I honestly don't know.)
Also, 2-way is an exception to your own good advice about "least amount of sanctions." For someone who has been harassed, a 1-way ban is an acknowledgement of their suffering, not "idealistic nonsense." I especially think this would help with retention of editors who have been stalked IRL and are sensitive about harassment.
If, after issuing a 1-way ban, the originally harassed editor exploits the situation, they could then be added to the ban. That would be an AGF reaction to such situations.
It is because I respect your ability to consider a problem fairly that I ask you to reconsider your opinion on this issue.
I'm not outright opposed to one way interaction bans and I don't know who what is giving anyone that opinion. I'm opposed to one in this case. Though I do think my "two way or no way" would make a great userbox for those who do opposed 1-ban bans altogether.--v/r - TP 17:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
First, thanks for the reply. I'm working from my phone and didn't see that a similar discussion was already started here. Sorry. Maybe the reason some think you are opposed to the 1-way is because, in the current case, there is no evidence that the hounding/harassment has been anything other than 1-way - unless one considers asking the harasser to stop, or bringing the problem to ANI, an act of harassment in itself. Having gone through this myself with two different editors, it seems that objecting to being harassed and asking for help is considered just as offensive as the harassment itself. As if ignoring unacceptable behavior (which is ostensibly forbidden by policy) is not really the suggested, preferred response, but in fact the de facto,expected response... Subject to sanction if you choose not to use it - even if it isn't the published policy. Lightbreather (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
The loudest is not always the victim. CarolmooreDC is not a victim at all. The evidence is every ANI complaint CarolmooreDC has ever opened. Do you need links? I don't dislike CMDC, I just don't think she's a victim. She has participated in this feud happily. Imagine if EllenCT were to bring you to ANI, would you feel it were one sided? You're SPECIFICO. Except CMDC hasn't ignored SPECIFICO nearly as well as EllenCT tries to do with you.--v/r - TP 20:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I'm not getting something here, but I've never heard of EllenCT. Sorry I've irritated you. I'll go away now. Lightbreather (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't like commenting just because you disagree with something I feel strongly about and I am sure you do not condone the actions of Sitush (although that is something you decide for yourself), but seriously....this is something I truly don't understand your thinking on. To me this is not about Carol, this is about an editor that used their talk page to post off Wiki content in a dubious fashion under circumstances that make Wikipedia a far more hostile environment by allowing this behavior. I am only disappointed in your !vote for the reason that I can't accept that editors can simply begin creating articles on each other when they don't get along. This is the true issue here. This begins something that I feel very strongly will become far worse than drama. This is going to create chaos where there should be solid and firm policy against it. Editors should not be posting off wiki content about editors they are having issues with. But I will respect your opinion even though I truly hope you will reconsider it.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
By the way...it took my less than 3 minutes to find the identity of Sitush off Wikipedia and they seem notable enough for an article. Should Carol simply counter the behavior of Sitush? (of course not) --Mark Miller (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
If you think Sitush is notable, by all means, you or Carol should create an article. To me, this is about an editor systematically removing her opponents. Carol has abused ANI to an obscene degree. Essentially, she's been flinging mud and this time it managed to stick. I'm not going to support that behavior.--v/r - TP 03:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
There is absolutely no way I am going to create an article on another editor for any reason. But this does show that editors need to begin researching everyone they interact with now. I understand what you are saying above, but past abuse should not cloud the fact that Sitush is in the wrong here. But I am not going to try to convince you further. This is your choice and you feel strongly about it. For that reason alone I will not argue any point at ANI against it.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
We have dozens and dozens of articles on Wikipedians. Unless you can point to something in that article that violates a policy, we cannot sanction an editor ex post facto for something we just don't like.--v/r - TP 03:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
In and of itself...no, there is nothing wrong with creating an article...but that is not exactly what is going on. User talk:Sitush#Away again was an uncalled for posting of off Wikipedia content about a user for no other reason than to draw attention to it. It violates NPA and was a very horrible way for an editor to kick off their new creation, only proving their intent was not to improve the project. The fact that they are in a conflict with that editor while they are creating the article is a horrible precedence to support. That is what I am trying to get across. I am not sure how that is not outing or doxing unless carol had previously posted the content and even if so, they entire way that Sitush did that was not within the spirit or the policy of Wikipedia. I am not forming an opinion because I just don't like it. Heck...I don't like a lot of things but I can easily accept them.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Let's be clear here: Carol Moore from DC edits with the username Carolmooredc. What part of this is doxxing?--v/r - TP 04:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Well I did say I was not clear on that TP but the rest I see as a real issue. However... did Carol point to this off Wiki content herself? (by the way, if I am beginning to piss you off just say so and I can certainly stop the discussion. I don't have that strong an opinion to make you bitter with me).--Mark Miller (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Is Carol Moore from DC a notable person? If she is, and she meets Wikipedia's guidelines, then an article about her is not doxxing. Unless, you mean to say that a living person need only register an account on Wikipedia to be immune from our content policies? The question is, are we causing real life harm to Carol? Has Sitush done "opposition research" to use against Carol. I haven't seen this information used against her. This is especially true after Carol Moore includes a picture of herself advocating at a rally connecting her to a advocacy group. You're not pissing me off, Mark, reasonable people disagree.--v/r - TP 04:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Did Carol ever point to this Wikipedia page that Sitush published on their talk page? If not that was indeed inappropriate and against Wikipedia policy. Has Carol asked that her off Wiki activity not mentioned by her be kept off Wikipedia?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
You used to use your real name here. Now you do not. I would assume you do not wish that information to be disclosed or you would not have changed it. Just asking to not disclose that information is enough. How is that different here? If carol was not the source to that content as self identified than it was outing. If Carol asks for it to be redacted it should...as an editor. As a notable author anyone may have an article if notable enough. That is not an issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I've never used my real name on Wikipedia - nonetheless I was doxxed. The WP:Outing policy says, "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums." So, my question is, has Sitush used this information to challenge her edits other than regarding conflicts of interest?--v/r - TP 04:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Wow, sorry you were outed....I thought you once said that you had used your real name before changing to TParis when we were discussing that the name came from Star trek Voyager a long time ago. Sorry...my memory is going.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
But yes, the link I left above to Sitush's talk page was not a challenge to anything and was outing with no COI content that I can see.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, this discussion has helped to distill things down to one important point to me. If it can be demonstrated that Sitush placing that off Wiki information was because Carol had already disclosed the site on Wikipedia, or that Sitush had a legitimate reasoning to add that to their talk page per policy and without any violation to any policy or guideline, I will change my !vote in both places.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
It has come down to one important thing for me as well. The outing policy says that you cannot post information of people who use their real name for the sole purpose to challenge them. You said "Sitush's talk page was not a challenge to anything." To me, and according to my quote above from WP:Outing, that means that Stiush has not violated the outing policy.--v/r - TP 05:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, there is other criteria. Before it says that it says:
Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia; although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing.
Also...this part:
The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research".
That appears to make it clear that just because I actually use my real name, linking to my off Wikipdia activity is no excuse for their "opposing" research. We can't stop the "research" but it can't be posted. But more important to me is this:
If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts for the same reason. When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information. Outing should usually be described as "an attempted outing" or similar, to make it clear that the information may or may not be true, and it should be made clear to the users blocked for outing that the block log and notice does not confirm the information.
And:
...attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block.
So now I will cross out my !votes for interaction ban and change to block.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you're misreading that. Why would the outing policy explicitly state the conditions for editors using their real name if there is no functional difference? The truth is there is a functional difference. Posting about editors information who edit under their real name is allowed by policy providing the conditions that it is not used to challenge another editor outside of a COI complaint. This falls within that scope, as Carolmooredc is not being challenged. If you cannot explain why else the policy would explicitly state these conditions, if your first quote makes it functionally indifferent, then you have to accept that you've misread it.--v/r - TP 06:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
That is not what it says. It says that even if I use my real name, my off wiki activity is not to be posted regardless of a suspected COI. In these cases those off Wiki activities should be e-mailed to an admin.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
That is not what it says at all. It says that if you use your real name, it can be used in a COI case against you. It's pretty clear and explicit on that matter. WP:OUTING, "However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. ".--v/r - TP 06:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I just want to make sure you know, you do realize that Carol Moore posted her websites at Carol Moore, right? She never asked for it to be redacted or oversighted per the policy you are quoting.--v/r - TP 06:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Uhm....its been over sighted. So.....we have an issue here, do we not? I asked if they had posted the content before. But now it is clear that even if they did, it is not there now by request.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
It hasn't been oversighted. The article has been deleted, that's not the same as oversighting. If it was oversighted, then only oversighters who have identified to the WMF can see it. It hasn't, and anyone, identified or not, can see it if they have the admin bit. Besides, that list of links at the AfD is still public.--v/r - TP 07:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't have the bit. I see nothing but a list of people that can see it and oversight was one. So I did assume it had been scrubbed. Thanks for correcting that...but why show me something I can't see? Anyway.....this is something we certainly will not agree on. I see that and that I have indeed pissed you off. Sorry. I should have stopped a long time ago when I began to think I was beginning to annoy you.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not poissed off. Reasonable people disagree. I do think you block suggestion means you ant listening to what I'm trying to say but I'm not mad. I don't expect to always agree with people. --v/r - TP 07:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
OK cool, but I am listening to you....very much. I just found the argument to be different from what I was reading. I have posed a simple question to Carol and I hope she will answer directly and honestly.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi TParis. I've nominated a bunch of expired editnotices related to the 2012 US elections, which you created, for deletion. You are invited to participate in the deletion discussion. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
A small favor
Hey TParis, can I ask you to do a small favor? I can't close it since it could be argued that I'm not as neutral a party as I should be. Can you please assess the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#lukeisback_and_sexherald_dot_com and close it? It shouldn't take long. (Any of your talk page stalkers can do so as well, of course.) Thanks in advance, Drmies (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Sure, no problem.--v/r - TP 17:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
All done.--v/r - TP 17:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Hey there. Just a word, I don't think we ever had conflict. We had disagreements and mutual concerns but I saw you respond with principle, diligence, and clarity and that's all that counts in my book. SPECIFICOtalk 20:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate the comments.--v/r - TP 20:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed[talk][majestic titan] 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi!
Oh, hi TParis! How are you? And keep up the good work on Wikipedia, I agree with the administrators are helping the encyclopedia very clean and not vandalized! :) --Allentalk 22:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Double Block?
GB Fan blocked Synthwave for 36 hours, and then you increased the block length to indefinite with no intervening edits by Synthwave: [9]. I agree the block was necessary, but you extended the length without due cause from what the first blocking admin did. Perhaps you could return it to the original block length? --Jayron32 18:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
GB Fan stated the block was only for redacting talk page edits. I'm not sure he's aware of all the other crap. The user is continuing to make threats of libel, hounding and harassment. They should not edit until they make a clear and unambiguous statement that they will no longer make those statements.--v/r - TP 18:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Not to bust your balls or anything, but wouldn't the usual next step be to talk to GB Fan about it and ask if they're aware? Writ Keeper⚇♔ 18:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I would've thought it was a clear-as-day any-admin-would-do-it uncontroversial action.--v/r - TP 18:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Clearly the 3-day block wasn't long enough - looking at the user's unblock request and subsequent paragraph, they still blame others for their actions.--v/r - TP 18:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying it wasn't, which is why I don't really mean to bust your balls over it. But on the other hand, they're already blocked, so it's not like there's any urgency. There was nothing to be lost by waiting for a discussion, and possibly something to be gained, if--strictly hypothetically--GB fan was aware of the other issues but had reasons to only block for 36 hours. I'm just of the mindset that we should plump for discussion when there's nothing to be lost by it is all, and here, there was nothing to be lost by it. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 18:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
You're right, again, I only thought it was uncontroversial at the time and something anyone would do. But yes, there was no urgency.--v/r - TP 18:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Arright, coo. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 19:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
HELP!!!!
I want article Sant Jagjit Singh Harkhowal to be undeleted as he is regarding an important and famous religious leader--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeep7422 (talk • contribs)
Sorry to keep passing the buck, but the appropriate person to speak to is User:Slakr who closed the AFD and then after that to go to WP:DRV.--v/r - TP 19:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi TP. Since (having read his talkpage) I've concluded that this user has learned his lesson, I've undone your block. Just dropping by to let you know, though I'm sure you've already noticed. All the best, Yunshui雲水 08:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for the note.--v/r - TP 16:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Your recent talk page notice changes
Instead of leaving, why don't you do something about the stuff that is making you want to leave. [10] Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Because, as you know through our emails, while I support a lot of social movements I strongly disapprove of the advocacy related to them which I think is counter to the ideals of the movements themselves. While I would enjoy going through this training, I don't enjoy Wikipedia anymore and I've lost faith in our ability to respect each other despite our differences. I think our habit of giving out interaction bans instead of encouraging appropriate behavior is running amock. I'm tired and have no more enthusiasm. I just want to get my pet projects up to a level reflecting their importance in US and world history and then I think I'll be done. The only reason I am posting now is I do not want to seem like I am leaving in an angry fit come February.--v/r - TP 00:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Then this would be your opportunity to strip them of whatever you see as "advocacy", and make it more pragmatic. (Or are you talking about paid editing.) Because this would not just effect the interactions of one user, it would be a template for the answer to Sue's "endless September" problem. But if you are truly burnt out, I am the last person to try to discourage you from taking a rest, I was worn down long ago, and the retirement banner on my own talk page is way past its freshness date. —Neotarf (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Cause advocacy. People with good ideas and bad implementation. At this point, I've seen too much. The Sitush/Carolmooredc is one example. Two great editors in isolation who just cannot get along despite all efforts. Gender gap task force, paid editing, Chelsea Manning, Historicity of Jesus, Eric Corbett (as a topic, not as a person), ect...it's just too many people who are more concerned with making things reflect their "right way" and vilifying those who disagree rather than trying to have dialogues and find compromises, agreements, and changing opinions. The cancer on Wikipedia is the inability of it's editors to look outside their worldview. I'm done with it.--v/r - TP 01:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
First of all, I highly endorse your taking a break and temporarily turning in the mop. I've taken a couple long breaks the past few months and real life is clearly the best antidote to wiki-stupidity. That said, when I get frustrated with what I see in the dispute resolution forums, I used the Help:Magic words to remind myself there are 123,717 users maintaining 6,817,147 articles, and we never seen most of them in any dispute forum. And obviously the "morons can read" fiasco is the type of ridiculous kerfuffle we see far too often around here. While I probably haven't agreed with every decision you've ever made, there's never been any doubt regarding your dedication to the project, and I wish you the best both on and off-wiki. NE Ent 22:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Hehe, well thanks. It's actually not so temporary. Let's just call it "indefinite" by Wikipedia terms. The morons fiasco actually hasn't had any part in it, Sandstein has been very professional and polite and it seems like the whole thing is going to get resolved soon anyway. If anything, some things I haven't commented on had more of a part to play than anything I have commented on. I'm frustrated by the civil POV pushing on the encyclopedia whether it's for a good cause or a bad one. Advocacy in general is my pet peeve. It wouldn't bother me so much except for those times when I feel like if I step away from the computer I'll miss something, my heart is pounding all day, and when I am with my kids all I can think about is the drama on Wikipedia. Time to cut this out of my life. I'm going to focus on my pet projects and let the rest of it go. No one person or one event plays into any of this. My biggest opponents on this project have mostly left me alone the past 6 months or longer. I chose now to make the announcement because I felt I was involved in the least amount of drama at this point and it was a good time to announce the upcoming retirement without it seeming like there was a cause I am running away from. I'm not running away from anything, just tired. I wanted to announce it now because if I were to encounter something between now and when the 2014 Hawaii edit-a-thon is over, I didn't want anyone to think that thing was the reason I left. Sandstein definitely isn't the reason I'm leaving, he's on good terms with me as far as I am concerned.--v/r - TP 23:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
To put simply, I cannot handle the level of righteousness here. I hear you on that. Be well. Begoontalk 23:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Whenever I find myself saying "I didn't do it because of 'X', I have to stop and wonder why I feel the need to make special mention of 'X'". No, no, it wasn't "X" at all, you see, but when things are going well, you can postpone your departure one more day. When "X" happens, your "not today" excuse evaporates, and you can do what, yes, you must have intended to do all along. And then it is someone else's turn to carry the world on their shoulders.
Odd, but I came to Wikipedia to _get away_ from polemics elsewhere, and there is certainly enough of that elsewhere. Humans have a terrible need to be part of something larger, to immerse themselves in some "ism" that gives their lives meaning and immortality. And too often change does not come by accepting ambiguity and living inside the gray areas, but by making sweeping and definitive assertions, and using over-stated talking points to convince any stragglers. Not to worry, once all opposition has been swept away, someone will still be needed to poke at the gray areas, to see what is in them so that things can be made to work. —Neotarf (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Trust me, Sandstein is not it. If there were any one thing, it'd have to relate to the editors at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest who believe it's okay to bash long standing editors without any evidence and despite not a single paid edit to this project and the harassment and hounding that they support against any editor that disagrees with them. But that amounts for maybe 30% of it. Sanstein amounts to 0% of it - the experience with him has not been a bad one. As I said, he's been professional and polite.
Neotarf, we've been on pretty good terms for the most part though we disagree on the degree of our agreement in certain things. You've been a much stronger supporter of gender equality than I have been - or rather you're a stronger ally where I have simply been a supporter. Just keep your comments about sweeping and definitive assertions and talking points in mind. Gender equality is the right thing, but just because its the right thing doesn't mean that we're incapable of taking the wrong actions. Always approach the subject with an attitude toward educating and convincing your opponents rather than bashing and humiliating them. That's all I ever wanted out of Wikipedians. I thought with all the sharp minds we have here that we all could work at a level that excluded humiliating and demonizing others. We're all human beings.--v/r - TP 01:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Notification: RfC on Game of Thrones and chapter-to-episode statements
The RfC: Is Westeros.org a suitable source for this content? was closed with the result that Westeros.org 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:
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)
[Y]ou figure it out?
Grrrr....ARRRRRG!!!!!
Seriously...that is your actual response?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
You're a mad scientist. What sort of help can us peons do when in the presence of your magnanimousness? It was a joke, Mark ;) --v/r - TP 23:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, sorry. I'm just freaking out TParis. My account issues are seriously upsetting me. Suddenly I am told I have two accounts, both global and I am just feeling really screwed right now. (I tried to respond at the location in a similar manner in case it was a joke...but I do really feel like I have created a monster!)--Mark Miller (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
You know....there is some irony that the secondary account named "Amadscientist" is the monster that was created. Kind of a special Halloween surprise for me! LOL! I am going to find whatever humor I can in this!--Mark Miller (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Happy Halloween!--Mark Miller (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Arbcom clarification request:Sexology (Tparis)
The request for clarification you initiated has been closed and archived without action here for the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I made two errors:
I read the email to the clerks, requesting the closure of a request, which normally means no action, and scanned the arb comments too quickly, missing that some action was taken. I now realize that the closure requires no additional action by me (such as notifications to various boards), but not that no action had occurred.
I was closing four open items and used the wrong permalink for the incident involving you, which I have now corrected.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of it. I saw your comment and I saw the archived comments and I assumed nothing had been done at all which would mean I had to open it up at a third venue. But then I saw Salvio removed the log entry - which practically doesn't mean much but it does signify quite a bit - and that cleared it all up.--v/r - TP 18:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help at Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson. I doubt we are going to come to any consensus, but at least the discussion will be a bit more tolerable. Bonewah (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
thefederalist.com afd
Hi! I began a new section since I didn't want to get involved with the discussion above also on this heading. I just wanted to personally apologize, since I made a change to the discussion subsequent to your closing of it. I did not notice the discussion was closed, since there were several changes after you closed it. I always try to play nice, so accept my apology.Onel5969 (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
...and our previous conversation has been swept away. But yeah, I do enjoy disagreeing with you, it's all in the rationales, and defining the issues; when those are laid out, you can get somewhere. Too bad (and surprising) that Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest is worse than WP:AE, are there any corners of civility left? Not sure how I got swept up in the gender thing. I'm not at all interested in the topic and certainly know nothing about it, but when I dropped by that page for some errand and saw what was going on, I could not pass by the other side.
I have to say the gender thing has gotten ugly. If I wasn't officially retired I probably wouldn't have risked it, but since I am already Dead User Walking, what have I got to lose. Being officially non-existent has taken on a life of its own. You do understand talking points in RL are market tested and usually narrowly targeted to a specific population--if you ever work phones for a politician you will see it. As far as I can tell, very little in this world gets accomplished without that basic layer of manipulation, where the issues are simplified and it's always easy to tell truth from lies. If you win, you have to go back to the shades of gray, and begin to understand that you understand nothing. "Educating and convincing"? that would be nice, but all too often, mudslinging works, and the bullies take over the playground. —Neotarf (talk) 06:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there is a single word in those two paragraphs that I could possibly disagree with. Well said.--v/r - TP 08:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Unnecessarily aggressive
Hello, I found your statement here [11] needlessly aggressive. Seeing a report on the user I had just seen edit warring, I pointed out it occurred on other articles as well. When it continued I filed a report on the same page, so the accusation of forumshopping is unfounded. You also removed my saying that the user was disruptive calling it a personal attack, while in the very next edit using the same word about me. If you found my comment irrelevant, I'm sure you could have hatted it while remaining civil. Jeppiz (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't uncivil. Your hounding of the issue in whether venue you have the opportunity to, including my talk page, is disruptive. Move on.--v/r - TP 20:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Of course I'll move on. I brought up Mark Miller in one place WP:ANI and my coming here had nothing do to with him, just to ask for a clarification for your comments about me. Have a nice day.Jeppiz (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@Jeppiz: Your latest ANI comment is a good one. Keep in mind in the future that there is a difference between saying someone "is a" and someone is "behaving" a certain way. You said Mark is a disruptive user. I said you were editing disruptively. Always focus on the edits and not the editor. If you do that, you'll never have a problem. You can point to diffs that support someone is behaving a certain way. But you'll never find a diff where someone "is" something unless they self-identify.--v/r - TP 21:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, the distinction is perfectly clear and very valid. I was out of line this morning and should have taken a time-out instead of being part in escalating things. I have added my support to your suggestion that Mark be unblocked and apologized on his talk page.Jeppiz (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Pacific Aviation Museum Pearl Harbor at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Maile (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Secret -- Secret (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
; see Talk:Pacific Aviation Museum Pearl Harbor for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Secret -- Secret (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Template:LukeFieldAircraft has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 09:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Done Yoninah (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ford Island 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.
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Peaceray's talk page. Peaceray (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Go Phightins! 11:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
Like--Mark Miller (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
