User talk:TenOfAllTrades

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

Comment committee[edit]

You had previously commented on the possibility of a "comment" committee at the idea lab. At Talk:Landmark Worldwide, I have started a discussion regarding possibly starting a "trial run" of such an idea. Your input in the discussion would of course be welcome. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A drive-by thank you...[edit]

Your description of RS was superb in its generality, specifically....A second misconception is that a source can be declared "reliable", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgement. Reliability depends both on the source itself and on how it is used. This board cannot provide a blanket approval that a source is reliable for all purposes. Some of the most important guidelines for evaluating the use of specific sources to support specific claims can be found in WP:MEDRS. (Of course, a source can be reliable for a particular claim and yet still be omitted from an article for reasons of (ir)relevance, undue weight, or to avoid implying conclusions not actually supported. The greater context of the article matters.) Is it ok with you if I modify it to achieve a tad more generality so that it doesn't apply only to MEDRS? Just wondering what other important guidelines we could use? I think you've presented the most intelligible, comprehensive and succinctly presented response that I've ever read. AtsmeConsult 22:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

ancient (and recurring) RD history[edit]

Hi, Ten. In this edit (in a thread seven years ago, which was already titled "Medical and legal questions (for the nth time)"; I wonder which time we're up to by now?), you wrote: "Mike Godwin was asked for comments on the [RD] guideline back in August 2007; as far as I know he has offered no objection then or since." By any chance do you remember where that discussion took place? I couldn't find any mention of it in the RD talk page archives; the closest I could find was this edit of Theresa Knott's a few months later, in which she mentions Brad Patrick. (But please don't spend a lot of time looking. The current discussion, if you haven't come across it and if you care, is here.) —Steve Summit (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Poking quickly through the respective talk pages, it looks like Mike Godwin was invited (User talk:MGodwin#Medical advice guideline) to comment on the medical advice guidelines in August 2007. As far as I am aware, he offered no response or objection in that thread (Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice/Archive 1#Serious concerns with this content) or anywhere else. I'm afraid that's all I can come up with.
To be honest, I took WT:RD off my watchlist ages ago, and I'm seldom active on the Desks themselves. The Science desk used to be a remarkable resource, where editors made a serious effort to find useful sources and references and citations. Now it's mostly just StuRat bullshitting off the top of his head. (The problem with StuRat is that he's almost as smart as he thinks he is, and he trusts his own best guesses a little too much. His answers are often correct, but it's impossible for the poor sods reading his 'wisdom' to tell what's based on real knowledge, what's a guess, and what's a wildly inaccurate but clever-sounding stab in the dark. And prolific as he is, he sets a bad example for the ever-decreasing number of new editors who might volunteer there.)
Meanwhile, the talk page is a cesspit of bickering among certain 'regulars', interspersed with libertarian bleating about having a right to spout whatever nonsense dribbles out of people's imagination, actual references be damned. Just not worth it anymore, and it's little wonder that the traffic on the Desks is so much slower than it used to be. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! (Can't argue with much you've said; the decline of the RDs since their golden age has certainly been sizeable and sad.) —Steve Summit (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty, thanks.[edit]

While we often disagree about things, I appreciate your honesty when you stated:

I will, in the interest of full disclosure, acknowledge that I've run into Insertcleverphrasehere recently at these articles, and been impressed by his thoroughly disingenuous approach

in the recent arbitration case. This comment actually means a lot to me, as I have really made an effort to be as nonpartisan as possible, especially recently as I have begun editing, I'm actually quite honoured that you noticed. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

To avoid any misunderstanding, "disingenuous" is not a compliment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Dammit, I guess people don't like me as much as I thought. Another good word is mendacious. You can say that to somebody's face and they won't know they've been insulted until they have had time to look it up. Jehochman Talk 14:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
For some reason, I'm reminded of my favorite George W. Bush press conference, where, in the course of explaining why waterboarding people is an essential component of freedom, he reminded us that we were dealing with people who had "been trained, in some instances, to disassemble!" Perceiving the audience's confusion, Bush helpfully explained: "That means not tell the truth." Ah, here it is. MastCell Talk 17:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's go[edit]

Come on, take it to ArbCom, let's see how far we can go. Dreadstar 02:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Going around shopping for fights is no way to be. You made a really ill-considered unblock to try to override a clear community-imposed ban, and it reflects poorly on you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Then take it to ArbCom. Dreadstar 02:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you genuinely believe that if a poorly-judged act isn't taken immediately to ArbCom, it can't be criticized? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't know where you're getting that. I'm saying if my judgment is so poor as you indicate, then removal of the bit and banning by ArbCom is the real path. Dreadstar 02:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Good god, get a grip. Wait until tomorrow or next week, and re-read this thread. I'm not going to spend any more time on you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you spent enough time digging up an old diff from an article I accidentally recreated in your attempt to undermine what I was trying to do. Read your own diffs bucko. Dreadstar 02:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
[1], [2]. Childish and embarrassing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Further vicious attacks noted. Glad to see you eventually reconsidered. Still very concerned if this is your approach to concerns about, and use of, your admin tools. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, my comments did get out of hand. I let some personal issues affect my editing, you were just posting what you thought was right. Dreadstar 15:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology. We all go through times when our heads aren't in a good place for editing Wikipedia. Hopefully going forward you'll be able to recognize those times before you pick up the tools or hit 'Save page'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Probable sock[edit]

[3] --NeilN talk to me 19:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's get some spirit[edit]

You say in this edit, "Trying to come up with a blanket statement or rule often creates as many problems as it solves—you tend to end up with a subset of editors who are determined to enforce the literal and specific wording of the rule, rather than considering what the rule is actually meant to accomplish." But the Policy policy (not a typo) says, as a matter of policy, that "Policy and guideline pages should ... Be clear [and] ... Emphasize the spirit of the rule. Expect editors to use common sense. If the spirit of the rule is clear, say no more." (Emphasis added.) Thus, by policy mature policies should be considered to plainly express the spirit of the rule in the literal and specific wording of the rule. Therefore, there should be no need to inquire further into the spirit or purpose of the rule, the literal and specific wording of the rule should control, and common sense should be applied to properly determine how that wording is to be applied in the particular case. Face-devil-grin.svg Yer friendly neighborhood rule-enforcer, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


Hi, would you mind clarifying your comment on AN/I? I'm trying to make sure that none of the comments are ambiguous so that we get a clear result. I interpret your post as: support ban from all human biomedical and animal altmed, but not from animal biomedical in general. Is that correct? Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement[edit]

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
  1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened[edit]

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
  1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case[edit]

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction[edit]

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

  1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
  2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
    1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
    2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.