User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3



I think your username might turn out to be most appropriate for mediation at Rick Warren. Good luck! Kevin (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Its the first medcab case i've taken in quite a few years, so I'll take all the luck I can get. This seems to be a complex debate (hence my attempts to concisely state the facts of the case), as well as one that the involved parties feel very strongly about. Hopefully I can help them find a happy medium that will let them get on with the business of building an Encyclopaedia, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it will end up being sent to ARBCOM. Either way, I welcom the opportunity to collaborate with you and attempt to solve this problem. Firestorm Talk 00:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Thx a lot for your efforts and I hope you dont think I have an agenda here. I was just trying to present the facts. Maybe you disagree with my interpretation of the facts but I've never meant to put those interpretations into the article. And excuse my pessimism, but how long do you think I should wait before filing for offical mediation? Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Reading your comment again, I may have misunderstood what you meant to say. When you said something along the lines of "to show the rest of the world that people like this still influence policy in 2009", I interpreted that as you wishing to slant the article that way. If that's not actually what you meant, then I redact my statement about political agendas. As for official mediation, I think we can wait a little longer. I have a feeling that my attempts at compromise will start to show results with a little more work. Firestorm Talk 22:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey again, would you be willing to still help if we go to official mediation? Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I have no problem sticking around if you guys decide that that's what you need. Firestorm Talk 03:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought you should know about this matter I raised at VS's page. [1] - Mike Doughney (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Firestorm, its not that I dont trust your mediation abilities. Its just that I'm very pessimistic about reaching a consensus so I want to reach to a WP:Dispute Resolution stage with enforcement capacity. Arguments in Nonbinding Straw Polls are the same ones that I've been seeing for more than 2 months. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I do understand that, that's why I agreed to be a party to MC mediation. This series of polls is my last attempt to gain a consensus (note that consensus does not need to be unanimous), after which I will close the medcab case and officially hand the reins over to the MC. Firestorm Talk 17:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

proposal 3

I actually think we can get this one through unless Phoenix and Doughey really mean it when they say no compromise ... separating church and pastor seems like a way to clean the whole article up. Collect (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The wording would have to be redone, because as it is I think its too short and concise, but I like the idea. What would you think of my proposal if I struck out the contentious section? Firestorm Talk 21:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Not that bad <g> Reduce number of cites (one of my pet peeves is over-cited stuff), the contentious material (you know what it is) as you proffer, and the unneeded "president elect" bit (we all know who Obama is). Sound close? Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
My feeling is that, as a controversial paragraph in a BLP, it needs to be extremely well-sourced, as I said when I first began mediating. Would you still be willing to support it if I made the other changes, but kept all the sources in? Firestorm Talk 21:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The foreign language one gotta go <g> -- I would hope that is not a sticking point? Can we keep to mainline media? My feeling is that one or two good sources is sufficient. Four max? Collect (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Not including foreign language sources seems to be in line with policy, at least when there are equivalent English-language substitutes available. I have no problem dropping that one. If I do that, are you willing to support my proposal? Firestorm Talk 02:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Deal if you get it down to four! BTW, the "also" about Warren publicly supporting something is superfluous -- clearly if he did it he did it "also" <g>. So contentious section out, four refs for the other bit, and the odd word or two gone -- sound right? Collect (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that sounds pretty reasonable to me. I'll write it up, and then make it into a new proposal on the article's talk page. Thanks again for being willing to negotiate. Firestorm Talk 14:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you tell Mike I am part of no "cohort" and actually do not like being referred to as such? Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(oudent) Is this in reference to the thread on VirtualSteve's talk page? If so, in my comment I already stated that you were willing to negotiate and that I thought you had the wiki's best interests at heart. If you would prefer that I leave a more direct comment to that effect, then let me know and I will certainly be willing to do so. Firestorm Talk 14:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I have it as an IOU that you will tell folks I am not actually an ogre? <g> Collect (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I made my statement, please see VS's user talk page. Again, I really do appreciate your willingness to work with me on a solution that we all can accept. Firestorm Talk 17:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your consideration and comment please

Hello Firestorm - please will you consider this thread on my talk page and give me your opinions?--VS talk 07:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

  • My thanks for your comment and your calmness.--VS talk 07:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your Proposal

Are you going to renew it? Phoenix of9 (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, renew? As far as I know, we're deciding what we do and don't like about the existing proposals, and then we'll try something new. Firestorm Talk 06:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I meant, are you going to renew your proposal per your discussion with Collect above? Phoenix of9 (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I do plan on that. By moving ALL info about the church to the appropriate article, it will be consisyent and avoid [[WP:COAT issues. Other than that, its pretty uncontroversial. Trimming down the sources a bit and getting rid of the foreign language one makes sense.So in the interest of gaining more support, i'm going to propose it. Firestorm Talk 07:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I am looking forward to it for sure! Collect (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Me too, Firestorm. We need you to close the cabal mediation so we can move to the offical one. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I had agreed to a proposal outlined above from Firestorm -- are you agreeing to his proposal as modified as well? Collect (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
No. Thats why I'm hoping we can move to official mediation. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
And if all other than you and Mike acceopt it then will you abide by that consensus? Collect (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Is that a consensus? What about Benccc and Teledildonix and Benjiboi? Thats why I'm hoping Firestorm would make his proposal soon so we can see if theres a consensus or if we should move to official mediation. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) "Official mediation" will likely meet the same brick wall. The purpose of mediation is, in fact, to arrive at something approaching the compromise worked out here. No one gets everything they want. Collect (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think "compromise" is possible in a process that was completely tainted from nearly the beginning by the presence of a paid staffer who worked for the subject of the article. The discussion has followed the same trajectory established by that person and another who also had an admitted conflict of interest with respect to the subject. Ever since then the process has continued under the momentum and tone established by those two editors with an obvious COI, openly acting to polish the reputation of the article's subject. Other editors such as yourself, for whatever reason, are simply continuing to raise the same habitual objections reinforced by editors who shouldn't have been editing here without obvious recognition beforehand of what they were doing.
I have been given zero tangible reasons for "compromise" other than that the proposed text, which completely conforms to every known Wikipedia policy and convention, seems to make you and Lyons feel bad, and that's not a reason. (And a casual reading of Lyons' blog makes it clear that his conflict of interest, if it can even be called that, is a more diffuse problem: it's that he's here to protect the reputation of the whole generalized institution of the modern evangelical church, "emergent" or otherwise, not necessarily associated with a particular building or personality.)
I have edited numerous articles here over the past two years, many of them involving Christian subjects, organizations and personalities, and never have I had to go through what I'm going through here to make the most simple, elementary changes to an article to reflect documented current events. I've even once had my "level headness and fair treatment" be complimented regarding my editing and maintenance of such articles, and I've extensively rewritten one such article involving potentially contentious people, organizations and events that met with zero objection or even significant rewriting. What I find here is a completely different situation, and the only conclusion I can reach about it is that the conflict about this article was deliberately created on purpose by a paid associate of Warren - and remaining editors who found themselves in agreement with that editor working for Warren don't seem to behave any differently after they're gone. Mike Doughney (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Hang on. I will follow WP:Dispute Resolution process. I'm just waiting for Firestorm here. Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec)The "tangible reason for compromise" is that it is how mediation works. Mediation can not work when folks refuse to compromise, and I thought Firestorm and I had reached a viable one. I would still like it presented, as no one should think they can veto consensus building. Thanks! And attacking the other editors does not actually impress mediators. "Dispute Resolution" also looks unkindly at disdain for consensus building compromises. Collect (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I really don't think that a false "compromise" involving the zombie corpse of the tactics and arguments of a paid staffer for Warren legitimately qualifies as a compromise. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
If yoiu are calling me names, please redact immediately. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I said the tactics and arguments had taken on zombie-like form. I don't know why you would take that personally. Mike Doughney (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

Exquisite-folder5.png A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.


Thanks for your imput on the RfC/U on me. I value your opinion highly. There has also been an AN/I and AN3 on me, and I fear it will vastly slow my ability to work in the mediation. Ah well. Collect (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. As I just wrote on the RFC/U's Talk page, I have butted heads with you several times and think that most of your positions are wrong, but I believe that you are here in good faith. Firestorm Talk 03:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Still not a single one of the complainants has shown any dispute resolution attempts in the past <g> and Phoenix seems determined to use the votestacked RfC/U to punish me. Now, of course, he figures you are a secret ally over all this time ... this is the single oddest RfC/U I have ever seen. I refuse to play the votestack game, and this should be noted at some point. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
It is very odd, and it does seem that the RFC is intended to be punitive, rather than preventative as it should be. Of course, you and I know that we have very wide gaps in editing philosophy and are probably the two most unlikely people to be "secret allies" on the wiki. Up until the Rick Warren thing, I had never even heard of you, lol.
As a sidenote, I do suggest you agree to my offer of mentorship. I think you could really benefit from it as an editor. I know you don't think you've done anything wrong, but you do have a tendency to push your idea of what the wiki should be a little too aggressively. Firestorm Talk 20:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Heck, on some things maybe I can cross-mentor you as well -- my 27 years online should be good for something <g>. Did you read my userspace essays? I would, moreover, like this to be an informal understanding, and let the RFC/U officially die -- it is a teensy bit contentious at this point, and I seriously doubt the votestackers would let this go through. Collect (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#edit warring by collect and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,--Brendan19 (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Mentor for Collect

I hope that I was clear that my issue with mentoring Collect was procedural not personal. I'm sure you would make a wonderful mentor. Just not for this particular editor. To me, the fact that you have edited some of the same articles is cause for concern. I'm sure your offer was with the very best of intentions and had the harmony of the WikiPedia community at heart. I would certainly support a co-mentoring with another veteran administrator that is detached from Collect.--Buster7 (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand that what you said was meant in good faith, and I'm not considering it an attack (at least not anything you in particular have said; certain other editors have been rather more aggressive). I understand that you would prefer other editors who are not involved with this dispute, and I respect that opinion. As to the "same articles" I have edited, the only article that I can remember crossing paths with Collect is Rick Warren, and that was because I work for the Mediation Cabal and somebody (might have been Phoenix or another involved editor, I don't remember) filed a case requesting mediation. Even then, I strongly disagreed with the positions of Collect, and I still do.
I just don't think this RfC is going to accomplish anything, and I want it done. I want the entire issue to be finished; between Phoenix/Collect battles, the MedCab mediation, and the Mediation Committee case where the article currently is, its quite enough. All the m:Wikistress is a lot for anyone to handle, and I think that everyone involved is starting to crack. The case has been going on for months, and has had two bans over COI (one was a member of Warren's church, and the other turned out to be an advisor and confidante of Warren himself), several civility blocks, and lots of other issues. So under the circumstances, I can fully understand that both Phoenix and Collect are at the end of their ropes, and I just want the entire issue put to bed so we can all go do more productive things.
I'm really not sure why i'm going into all this detail; I guess it just feels good to write it down. Anyway, now you know the proper context of this entire situation. that said, I'm not holding anything against you or any other editors (except for the smear tactics, but that wasn't you and i'm not getting into that now). I think now would be a goods time to stop typing, so I will. Firestorm Talk 07:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry for my aggressive comments but I was frustrated with you. Your comment about RFC being "a tool in the ongoing content dispute" was totally uncalled for. I believe I'm pretty justified in having concerns about Collect's behaviour so your dismissal...I didnt like it. Besides other reasons, I had left the mediation [2]. I was (and am) done with Rick Warren. And no I didnt file the RFC to get back at him cause I left the mediation, I was thinking about it for a long time [3]. I filed it after Collect's edit warring in Fascism. Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I accept the apology, and I'm not holding any grudges. I acknowledge that you probably had other reasons than the ones i had assumed. However, looking at things from my perspective, i'm sure you can understand how I might have arrived at my viewpoint, yes? Just as I can understand how you arrived at your opinion that Collect was doing it all maliciously. So much of this dispute has been mistaken perception, on all sides. I'm sure you share my opinion, though, that the entire thing needs to be ended. People who haven't been involved in the issue for weeks and months want to push it up to ArbCom. I just want a quick resolution to this, and i'm sure you can agree that that would be better than more months of bickering. Is that goal something we can both agree on? Firestorm Talk 17:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hooray for progress!


Thanks for working out an excellent compromise in the most contentious subsection of that official Mediation! There's more work to be done on the other subsections, but i think that for your success so far, you all deserve some extra whipped~cream and a lovely berry~on~top!

~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 05:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Over, I trust

All the ANIs, WQA, CUs, RFC/Us and RFARs are over, I trust. I sincerely thank you for voicing your position on the RFC/U on me. I did not canvass anyone, and in order to avoid any claims that I canvassd, I waited until now (the request to reopen the RFC/U seems dead). Again, many thanks! Collect (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As i've stated before, all I wanted was for the drama to be over. Months ago I knew it would never get anywhere, so now we can hopefully move on with out lives. Firestorm Talk 17:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


I didn't even know about WillC until about a few months ago. I started using that sig around March or April of last year to show my own made up nick name. My name is William C, hense WillC. Go to my history of my user page and look at the About Me section before I became semi-retired. It states the samething there.--WillC 01:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith that your name is William C, and i'm not trying to accuse you of intentionally impersonating him (if it came across that way, it was unintentional). However, even if that is actually your name, my interpretation of the guideline is that the signature is not allowed because we have an actual User:WillC. If you wanted to change your sig to read WilliamC of something like that, I think it would be perfectly acceptable. Of course, you could also use your actual username, or something completely different. I just don't want other people to be confused when they try to contact you or look at the edit summaries, as I was. Firestorm Talk 01:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
No one is going to confuse the two of us. WillC is not that active. I even contacted him about having the same name. He deleted the section and never replied to me. My full name is William Mark-Howard Chaudoin. Check this. The reason I use WillC is because it sounds like "We'll see".--WillC 01:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer having input from other editors on the matter, but you don't seem to be using it for the purposes of impersonation, so I'm not inclined to pursue it any further. Firestorm Talk 01:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Alright, hey if I sound a little annoying or like a jackass, I'm sorry. I'm just not in a great mood. I would rather not discuss the out of universe format anymore. The discussion on the format has been going on since July because users like the fan's perspective format better. No offense if you do, it is I would like peace with the project. The more discussion takes place the more I have to change the articles I write and it gets really hard after you've finished an article and you have to re-write everything you just wrote. It is really stressful.--WillC 01:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. Every editor is entitled to a bad day once in a while. I can certainly understand your frustration at having your work criticized and having to rewrite it. Be assured that I have no issue with you as a person or as an editor, and I am taking this position solely because I feel it would be for the betterment of the Wiki. Firestorm Talk 01:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I hope you can understand my position at believing the Out of Universe format is helpful to the project as a whole. I also hope you agree with GaryColeFan's idea of a compromise. I believe that is the best action at the moment. Just a small explanation with a link to the move. Just giving the main points. I believe that way, both parties get their way. The OOU stays intacted and articles do not have the long description.--WillC 08:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


Firestorm, your ER has been open past one month (the time limit), I need to archive it due to the backlog at ER. Do you wish to keep it open any longer, if not I need to archive it.--Truco 02:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, I got the feedback I needed. No need to keep it open any longer. Thanks for the heads up, though. Firestorm Talk 04:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on LSM

Hey, I just noticed that you issued a relatively new user (User talk:SinBot) a level 4 vandalism warning for an edit they made to Living Stream Ministry that you apparently thought was inappropriate. Their edit summary, however, would seem to suggest that they were simply removing an unsourced statement, and that's what it looked like their edit did. Incorrectness of their username aside, I don't think it's appropriate to be issuing such warnings to inexperienced users who don't seem to be actually trying to do anything wrong. Do you think you could back off a little bit and assume good faith? Thanks. KhalfaniKhaldun 06:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, i'm not quite sure why Huggle did that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention; I have converted it into a level 1 warning. Firestorm Talk 06:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Gotchya. I've been running into Huggle problems like that a bit lately. Someone left me a warning on my talk page the other day that wasn't even meant for me. =/ KhalfaniKhaldun 07:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, its been problematic lately. Anyways, happy editing! Firestorm Talk 07:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Mistaken vandalism

Sorry about that mistake of mine on [4]. It wasn't vandalism, just a new user who clicked the wrong button while using Lupin :-D TravisAF (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I figured it was something like that. No real harm done. Firestorm Talk 01:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Vampire Lifestyle

You reverted my edits of bringing back the content from Sanguinarian article. The article now is a link. You sure this part was in this article and was removed? Because seems to be a valuable part to enrich the so-far dim article. If it was removed, then my apologies, I have not seen it. I was also thinking about bringing back the content related with Health risks, methodology & life style practices from the old article, in a way to work as a prevention and keep people informed in the related health risks of sanguinarian practices in the vampire lifestyle subculture. That part clearly needs some tweaking, but I find it important in the way to help educate unaware teens reading this article or interested in vampirism. Thank you for your comments on both issues. Cristina Torres (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the content was previously included in the article, as seen in this version from last December. It was removed as part of a larger cleanup effort for the article because most of it was completely unsourced, and the few references were there were to essays written by people that are part of this lifestyle, on websites which do not have a peer review process and are therefore not up to our standards on reliable sources.
As far as writing a part on medical aspects and health risks, I would be in favour of this. However, it has to be well cited to good sources (medical websites, peer-reviewed scientific journals, etc, not just things written by the vampire community). I'm sure several documentaries or news/magazine pieces have been written on the subject, so if you could find them and write a well-referenced section on medical/lifestyle things then that would be appropriate for inclusion. Thanks for the understanding, and good luck! Firestorm Talk 20:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 21 April 2009 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. End of line. DustyBot (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


It's already got 8 references, 5 external links, an entry in List of humorous units of measurement and well over 50 articles which link to it. What more do you want? - Denimadept (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There are still a lot of unsourced statements. {{notability}} might have been a little too harsh, but I stand by the refimprove and suggestion to merge.Firestorm Talk 02:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you point out anything you consider "unsourced". Use the appropriate template, y'know? - Denimadept (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 Done Firestorm Talk 02:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice! I was able to resolve some of those, but not all. The image of the 100 Smoot mark should answer the one about marks on the bridge, BTW. - Denimadept (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you don't mind, please check out User:Denimadept/Harvard Bridge and comment in its talk page. - Denimadept (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, i'd be happy to. Firestorm Talk 03:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 Done Firestorm Talk 03:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Question. Under the "trivia" heading, the bit about the Houdini stunt? It says right in the line what the reference is. That's not sufficient? - Denimadept (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I moved the sentence around to make it more clear where the information came from. Also, WP conventions generally frown on Trivia sections, so you might want to try and incorporate it into the body of the article somewhere. Trivia sections aren't forbidden, but they're discouraged. Other than that, excellent work. Firestorm Talk 06:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I see. The weird thing is that I saw an auction for a set of plates supposedly showing the sequence of Houdini doing the deed. Guy wanted $5000 for the set. Right. They didn't sell. I'd've given maybe $5 each for the 5 of them. Then I'd have scanned them and added the results. :-) So there are photographs, if I can find them. - Denimadept (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been trying to figure out how to incorporate that into the article for months. Could just change the header to something like "events", I suppose. Seems like a cheap fix. - Denimadept (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
That would work, sure. You could even bring in the Smoot thing as a subsection of Events if you like. Firestorm Talk 07:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Chairman of ANSI is notable per se, and cites in NYT confirm absolute claim to notability for the "Smoot." [5] [6] [7] [8] Also in official MBTA press releases, and references on MIT. [9] ITs fame now is partially due to Smoot';s career, but it sure the heck meets notability! (sticking to dealing with rational people instead of Bill the Lizard and the other jurors). Collect (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Also title of a learned tome from Yale University Press [10] and apparently a nice brass plaque. Collect (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I got pictures of the bridge today, with all the Smoot marks. woohoo. Now to figure out what to do with them. - Denimadept (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If I were you, i'd start by looking at which ones are best, and upload those to Commons under a CC-BY-SA license, then figure out how best to incorporate a few of them into the article. Firestorm Talk 03:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, both Smoot and Harvard Bridge should benefit, as well as possibly one or two other articles, such as Longfellow Bridge. - Denimadept (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for reverting all that vandalism on my userpage :)

Oldlaptop321 (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


There is no neutral point of view available when dealing with religions. Those that want to be considered Christian, though whom are clearly not, will try to force themselves into the Christian lists. I believe it is proper to remove those organizations that are viewed as cults and non christian organizations, or at least mention that most protestants or christians view those organizations as "nonchristian cults and not christian organizations". Just because they want to be called one, doesnt make them one. The information that was stated and altered, has been historical fact and is noted by respescted christian historians such as Walter Martin and others. Of which I was updating the reference information when you removed my edits. Which were valid edits.

I did not know how to respond to your message, so I am posting this here.

Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that these denominations are not Christian, then you are, of course free to have that opinion. If you want to put it up on Wikipedia, however, then you need to have references that meet our standard for reliable sources. We here at Wikipedia set the bar at Verifiability, not truth. So if you have sources where notable theologians have said they're not christian, then you can cite them in the articles and people will accept it. Happy editing! Firestorm Talk 02:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: AfD

You're welcome. If you can remove all the sourcing to the primary material (novels) and replace it with slightly better primary (chronologies and encyclopedias, what have you) I think you'll be in much better shape. Another point I didn't bring up at AfD is it's possible that the Chronology could be merged in with the Star Wars canon article to improve both, as there is already some canon information in the chronology lead and the (shorter) list of events could just be an integrated list. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Scientific misconduct mediation

Hi, we've got statements from four editors, including me, for Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-03/Scientific_misconduct. What now? Fences and windows (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...

NYFreiheitsstatue2.jpg New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday May 17th, Columbia University area
Last: 03/29/2009
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for impartial opinion.

I noticed that you have removed most of the promotional material related with Michelle Belanger from the article on Vampire Lifestyle, as well as the assessments made on the lack of WP:N and WP:RS on her published works. Given all the past attempts at promotion I am worried if a bio page on this person has enough notability for an individual article in an encyclopedia or will just open doors for added promotion in the future. I have expressed my personal view at the new AfD, but given your closer involvement in this matter, your impartial opinion on this topic would be appreciated. AfD Link

Note: I am leaving this notification on TheRedPenOfDoom and Firestorm talk pages, since both have been involved in this issue for longer than I did. DianaLeCrois  : 23:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Amanda Grayson (star trek)


you were listed on the project star trek page as "grand admiral" so i thought i'd contact you re: the following...

i'm working on improving the article about Amanda Grayson; the page was blanked & redirected unilaterally by User:EEMIV; who has made a practice of doing this to minor, not well written, unattended articles. typically he blanks, redirects & posts a comment justifying this action, all at hte same time. i don't think that's very good practice myself, my understanding is that one should post a comment on the talk page & at least wait a few days for comments before making that kind of major alteration.

in any case, i've restored the page, & have more or less completed a first draft re-working of the material. would appreciate some feedback on it, as well as suggestions for what to add.

in the meantime EEMIV has nominated it for deletion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amanda_Grayson. could use some help on that one too... XD

Lx 121 (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. However, i'm the Coordinator of WikiProject Star Wars, not Star Trek. I actually know almost nothing about Star Trek, so I have no idea how notable this person is. In our WikiProject, we used to have articles on every single minor character who anyone felt it necessary to write about. Currently, all except the most notable of them have been merged into alphabetical lists of characters. The current consensus at that AfD is along those lines; that the article should be merged into the big list.
As far as EEMIV's actions, they seem to be part of the bold, revert, discuss pattern, which is completely acceptable and even encouraged on Wikipedia. Firestorm Talk 16:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Waterloo Road characters

Im sorry but that edit i made is not unconstructive. The Youth characters have always been listed in alpha order so the other user changing it is in the wrong not me. Harleyamber (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. All I saw was a new user removing information that was referenced, so I assumed it was vandalism. I'll remove the warning from your talk page. Firestorm Talk 21:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverting violations of WP:BLP

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, The Wordsmith. You have new messages at's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Note to socks

[11] - This comment is inappropriate, we have no idea as to the nature or motivation of the socks, the vast majority of which (on this particular page Project Chanology) are socks of community banned user DavidYork71 (talk · contribs). Please keep in mind both WP:RBI, and especially WP:DFTT. It would be best for you to remove that comment. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, i've just been getting very frustrated when the same people try and push their POV over and over again, even though they know it won't work. I can't prove it, but given the nature and persistence of the socking, OSA is a very likely source for the disruption. They do the same thing on countless other websites, as well as alt.religion.scientology. I guess I just got a little too frustrated with them, and i'll remove my comment. Firestorm Talk 05:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Cirt (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


I'm nominating an article you have worked on for deletion. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian cult (2nd nomination). Borock (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, though I didn't actually work on it. All I did was routine Recent Changes patrolling, and I reverted some vandalism. Topic is interesting, though, so I commented there. Firestorm Talk 06:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Philadelphia Public Ledger

I wanted to thank you for your speedy reassessment of the article for the Philadelphia Public Ledger newspaper. Best to you, pmcyclist (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, WikiProject Journalism is in a pretty sorry state. Most of the articles within its scope aren't even tagged as such. I'm putting its reactivation on my list of things to do. Firestorm Talk 17:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Good to know. Based on your comment I just added the journalism template to another article I did a lot of work on, the Pittsburgh Dispatch. Any chance you could look it over and give it a rating? pmcyclist (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 Done It was tough deciding between Start and C on this, and I rated it Start-class because there's a lot of unsourced text in there. Add a few more, or stretch the existing refs further, and it'll have a solid C-class. An external link would help, too. Not sure what's available, but there should be something made by somebody interested in journalism history out there. Firestorm Talk 21:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. I would like to see someone with a journalism background edit the article. Because I'm an investor, I always approach these articles from a business standpoint - who owned the paper, what was their business strategy, and did they make money owning it. The business is about writing and some color on important articles and journalistic awards would round things out a lot. Thanks for your input! pmcyclist (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
As an editor-in-chief, I think I have enough of a background that I can flesh out some of these articles. I'm putting it on my to-do list along with some other tasks, so let me know if you run into any more issues. Firestorm Talk 01:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thought you'd like to know...

...I took care of some things. ;) Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 01:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)

  • Newsletter delivery by xenobot 17:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

reviewers comments on Herman Detzner

Thanks for your comments on Hermann Detzner. By this time I've done so much additional research and fact checking that the article looks quite different from the German one. I've fixed the citations, broken up the lead, etc., and dealt with grammatical issues and redundancies. I think it's clearer now. Would you mind taking another quick look and seeing if that last criterion is met? thanks! --Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

TAR starting?

TAR was supposed to start about 10 minutes ago. Just wondering if you're even around to kick it off? iMatthew talk at  00:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for that. Per User Talk:Shappy/Amazing Race Wikipedia, the race has now begun. Firestorm Talk 01:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

TAR problems

As you asked on IRC, the problems I saw with TAR were as follows:

  • Detours: I didn't feel the detours work to well in the first place. It would be much easier, IMO, to just have everyone do one task. They would all take the same amount of time to complete, and you wouldn't have to worry about how one task would take a week to finish and one task might take a day to finish.
That seems pretty reasonable. I can ask the participants how they would rather do it, and if consensus is that one task per round, plus the Roadblock, would be better, then we can go with that.
  • Roadblocks: They were supposed to be kept secret until a team finished their detour. By placing it out in the open on a submission page, anyone can see it and decided which of the two members were better at doing whatever the task is. That defeats the purpose of the roadblock.
That is something I had thought of, too, but i'm not sure how to implement that. If you have any suggestions on how to do it, then I would be more than happy to consider it.
  • "Who finished first?" - Should the first place team be whoever is reviewed and passed first, or should it be whoever submits first, no matter the order that the articles are reviewed in?
My thinking is that they would be reviewed in the order of submission, and the first team to get a passing submisison would be credited with finishing the leg first.
  • The article judges didn't really seem to know what was going on until after it began, and it seems some of them are still a bit confused. Shouldn't we actually go through with the nomination? We're just relying on the judge's opinion. There are 5 judges, and they all may have a different opinion, so if we're doing it that way, we should get all of their opinions, not just one judges'.
I was under the impression that Shappy had discussed it with the judges. If he didn't, then I can certainly talk to them and clear up any confusion they may have.
  • The rules aren't too well explained on the page. If they were made a bit clearer, contestants and judges may have an easier time understanding what they are supposed to do.
Of course, I can clarify anything that needs to be.

Hope this helped! iMatthew talk at  20:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed and commented on your suggestions, and will see what would work for our purposes. Thank you for the suggestions. Firestorm Talk 22:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia at The Hardy Boys

Hi, I found your name through the LGBT project page. There's a massive amount of homophobia going on at Talk:The Hardy Boys - the article has been purged of all sources that discuss the issue b/c homophobe-editors say the issue is "fringe". I am way outnumbered, so I am trying to raise awareness of the problem. Any help would be appreciated! Ricardiana (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have commented, and offered to bring the dispute through the Mediation Cabal process so we can try and gain a consensus.Firestorm Talk 18:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Much appreciated. I hope we can bring it the Mediation Cabal soon. Ricardiana (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

TAR Personal Details

Jason Rees (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Med cabal reminder

Hey Firestorm, saw your comment here and thought I'd give you a gentle reminder about closing this case. Cheers Manning (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it seems to have slipped my mind. I've closed the case now. Firestorm Talk 15:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Firestorm, Thank You! again for your help with Scientific misconduct. FlagrantUsername (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi, there. I'm not sure of the process (in fact, I doubt that I was supposed to comment under "Mediator notes") but I've left a message over at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-07-19/Boston_College#Mediator_notes. It's a rather trumped-up claim, as I'm sure you'll see, and I'm learning about the process over at WP:RFCU to see if that's needed (see this edit -- the editor stopped after this comment -- and compare it to this edit). --King of the Arverni (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me to separate the potential sock issues from the content issues; I didn't know if it would have any effect on the need for mediation or not, so I thought I'd get that out of the way before we got "down to business." I have some questions before we proceed in light of this comment. First, is it necessary (or advisable) to go through WP:DR before proceeding? I've said that I'm unfamiliar with the process, but I haven't been told much thus far and I'd appreciate being told more other than the fact that it varies. I'm not looking to spend too much time arguing about this and I'm afraid that it'll wind up as some war of attrition. I'm also curious to know what it means to "submit" to a non-binding process, since I'd also prefer not to be "damned if I do and damned if I don't" when it comes to my very participation. I'm taking off for the evening, but I look forward to your response! --King of the Arverni (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
For content issues, sometimes a third opinion is sought first, but those aren't great for complex issues. So, the usual chain of dispute resolution for complicated issues is MedCab ---> MedCom ---> ArbCom, which means you're in the right place.
The issue seems like it can be resolved fairly quickly; i'm not here to pass judgment or sanctions. All i'm going to do is help the parties communicate with each other to develop a consensus. Medcab is usually very friendly and approachable; the process doesn't need to be intimidating. Basically, I have the parties state their positions on the issues, and then I figure out the core problems of the case. We then discuss them collaboratively, to come up with a solution to your problems that all parties can agree on. Medcab mediation is completely voluntary; if, at any point, you feel the mediation isn't working, you are free to withdraw from it. Nobody can hold it against you if you participate in mediation, and many disputes are resolved at this level. I'm going to bed now too, but if you have any more questions about the process, then please feel free to ask them here. Firestorm Talk 04:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks like you've got both statements now. --King of the Arverni (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Just Wondering

I'd like to know why you chose to remove my images, yet you do nothing about the one here, which violates the exact same policy you cite as an excuse to remove mine? Especially since you seem so passionate about unilaterally enforcing that particular policy. I'm personally cool with that image and would not care if it remained, but policy is policy and if you are going to enforce it you should do so with a more even hand.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That image is under CC-BY-SA, which means it is allowed anywhere. The only images that aren't allowed in Project space are nonfree ones (that fall under fair use). Image policy says that non-free images must have a Fair Use Rationale for each page they are used on, and pages in the Wikipedia: namespace, with very few exceptions, do not have a sufficiently strong justification. I love Davros as much as the next guy, but unless there's a free image of him available, he can't be in project space for legal reasons. Hope this answers your questions. Firestorm Talk 14:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh I understand purrrfectly now: Volunteer policing + copywrong paranoia= a desert. Have a nice day and happy editing.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Amazing Race

Hi, Firestorm. I was wondering if you (or someone else) could update Ed's and my submission page so we can go to the next leg? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 09:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


Haha. What's your Facebook name? I always decline if there aren't shared friends. Lara 02:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Recognition of the Armenian Genocide

Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-06-30/Recognition of the Armenian Genocide#Mediator notes --PBS (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ping. --PBS (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Maple Palm

Hello Firestorm, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Maple Palm has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary '(contest prod - film was reviewed by the LA Times (see:,0,310224.story) and other reliable sources - will expand article ASAP)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 03:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


Hey, heads-up: I'm out. I don't have time to deal with WayGoneOr's complaints about capitalisation and completely separate articles; it's clear they only care about this single issue on all of Wikipedia and will throw absolutely anything out there in order to keep it going. If they still have issues, they're welcome to discuss them on the article talk page as should've been done in the first place, and then we'll see what consensus can be reached. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Recognition of the Armenian

In reference to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-06-30/Recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Please see: User talk:Gazifikator#Mediation Cabal: Recognition of the Armenian --PBS (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Closed MedCab Case on Boston College?

Hi, evidently the case is now closed? If I were to erase the comments on my talk page, return to the article, and attempt to contribute constructively--with skills that simply are not demonstrated by the other party--there may be reference to his or her lack of willingness at mediation if needed? It would seem entirely possible that he or she would only show up again and behave in an embarrasing, clumsy and attacking way. One or two other persistent "Editor" users may also be peers with similar traits. WayGoneOr (talk) 08:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the case is now closed and I have nothing more to do with it. You can (and should) contribute constructively to this or any other article you should wish to edit. As to whether or not other users will also participate constructively, I choose to hope that everyone does. If you have further user conduct issues, I suggest you take it to WP:RFC/U or WP:AN/I; they can sort it out properly there. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 03:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind my butting-in, Wordsmith. WayGoneOr, you're welcome to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Boston_College#"Vandalism" if you have concerns. I've invited you to discuss them in the appropriate forum several times, so any "reference to his or her lack of willingness at mediation" re: MedCab might hold far less weight than you clearly would prefer. Thanks for your time, Wordsmith. I hope that our paths cross again! --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I am following The Wordsmith's advice and making a [Request for Comment]. Evidently, a second person's statement, saying that he or she has addressed a dispute with the same user in question about the same issue, is required within 48 hours for action. Hopefully you would be willing to say simply that I attempted to bring issues to MedCab, and pursued them fairly there, but the other party refused to continue? WayGoneOr (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride's RfA

Careful Wordsmith, you just removed nearly 20 supports when you !voted. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)help us! 13:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! Not sure exactly what happened. Oh well, has been fixed now. Thanks for the notice, though. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 13:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...

NYFreiheitsstatue2.jpg New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday September 13th, Columbia University area
Last: 07/25/2009
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 16:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Noticeboard listings

I see you have Wikipedia:Coordination/noticeboards transcluded onto this page. What are your thoughts on it? @harej 00:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It was working fine earlier today, but it looks broken to me now. I added it after your lightning chat at WikiConference NYC. I do think it is extremely useful, but I would like if there was a show/hide button or a way to have it collapsed by default, so it doesn't take up so much space. As far as function, though, its great for letting me keep up with discussions going on all around the wiki. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 02:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think 50 minutes qualifies as "lightning". And it was indeed broken briefly. It should be back to normal. I was trying to add colors but I screwed up and forgot to add in a pipe. @harej 02:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is rendering properly now. Anyway, great idea, it would just be nice if there was an option to make it a bit less obtrusive. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 02:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Conversion therapy case

Hello. I am very involved in the discussion on conversion therapy, but I am not listed as one of the parties involved at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-09-04/Conversion therapy. Can I participate? There are also other parties involved. Can I add my statement to the ones presented by Hyper3 and Born Gay? Born Gay asked me to be a part of it, and he mentioned me in his statement. I would like to respond to his accusations. I'm sure Hyper3 wants me involved as well. I have never been involved in a mediation cabal before, so I'm not sure the procedure. Can I add myself to the list of parties involved? Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can add yourself as a party. Please write a one-paragraph statement of your position on the matter and place it below the other two. the great thing about informal mediation is that the process can be changed or added to when it needs to be, so that's fine. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 18:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

Wordsmith - not sure this mediation will get very far. Are there any more formalised options? Thanks for your time, and being willing to comment. Hyper3 (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am also not very confident with the way the mediation is going, but I think it should be given more of a chance to work. I don't see more formal mediation as being necessary yet. BG talk 20:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


What is that? tommy talk 16:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

MedCab is the Mediation Cabal, a group that performs informal mediation when parties requested it, as one of the first steps in dispute resolution. I am the mediator for Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-09-04/Conversion therapy, the case that is currently determining the scope of both of these articles. It may well be that the article you PRODed will be the parent article to several such as conversion therapy and Ex-gay. Thanks, The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 17:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Got it. Ya, those 2 are essentially the same (SOCE & conversion therapy). tommy talk 17:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Currently, yes, but we're working on determining the relationship between the two. It may well end up that SOCE will be a redirect, but deleting it now is premature. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 17:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read

Please read my and KillerChihuahua's comments — here they are — about a mistake you made on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. Our posts are kind of getting overlaid by various lively discussions, so I thought you might well miss them when you log in next. Regards, Bishonen | talk 16:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC).

Wikis Take Manhattan

Wikis Take Manhattan.png Wikis Take Manhattan

Next: Saturday October 10
This box: view  talk  edit

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.


WINNINGS? The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

148 Lafayette Street
between Grand & Howard Streets


Please watchlist Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.



You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your guidance on Conversion therapy. Hyper3 (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI - Arbitration request

Clerk note: A dispute that you recently mediated is now the subject of an Arbitration request. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conversion_Therapy.

This notice is purely for your information and you are neither a named party to the dispute or obliged to become involved. Manning (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


The Wordsmith, I'm sure that you mean well when you suggest that mediation should be resumed, but I want you to know that there's no way I'm having anything to do with it. The entire exercise struck me as something that could and should have been conducted on talk:conversion therapy, if there were anything worth discussing. Hyper3 has behaved in a rude, boorish, and increasingly childish way, and I think it's pretty clear that he was discussing things in bad faith (look at the last couple of comments he made on the mediation page, and you'll see what I mean). I've got limited patience for people who endlessly announce that they are right and who refuse to give (or respond to) real arguments. BG talk 03:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think that mediation can get anywhere? Its very simple - BG shouldn't be allowed to make up his own rules, and enforce them in the guise that they are wikipedia policy (original research). Even though you were as impartial as possible, you found it difficult not to state the obvious, i.e. that its not original research to make a judgement to include sources that treat the same idea but use different definitions, and that the page should be about more than one word or phrase, but the whole idea. Yet such relatively minor and obvious thoughts seem to be lost on BG, and he claims not to understand me when I've said the same thing many times. Whither hence? Hyper3 (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for commenting here. Yes, I have (had?) faith in the way the mediation was going. I believe that if both of you were to return to it, we could accomplish much. So, I stand by my statement. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 13:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


File:Checkusr sais... SOX!!.png
OMG! Sox confirmed!

Wordsmith - I'm new at this - but would it matter if Born Gay was an editor that had previously been banned and operating under another name? A brief look at the history of Conversion therapy shows another editor with the name Skoojal, (who appears again briefly as Devil Goddess) with a very similar tone. Both these editors get blocked, though I don't know why. Born Gay appears suddenly without any apparent learning curve into editing this article, after Devil Goddess was caught because the pattern of editing was very like Skoojal. Born Gay appears in January 2009, with a name that is designed to fit with the conversion therapy article. Devil Goddess gets discovered as a sock of Skoojal in late November 2008. There is some overlap after Devil Goddess gets discovered. Sigh. Sorry if this is making a needless accusation, as it will probably look bad to be raising this at the is juncture - but could you look into this for me? see this and this and this. Hyper3 (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if somebody was an undisclosed sockpuppet account of a banned editor, that would matter. I can't say whether BG is or is not (because I have no idea), and I won't level any accusations. However, if you believe that there is evidence to determine this, a Checkuser might be able to confirm. If you wish to pursue it, Sockpuppet Investigations is this way. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 13:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
He confessed Hyper3 (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, that was...unexpected. I guess you never can tell. I suggest you withdraw the RFAR now, since the person it is against is now indefinitely blocked. Good luck with your article! The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 01:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Declining speedy deletions

Re, your {{hangon}} placement on Free State of San Francisco ([12]), if you didn't create the article and oppose to the speedy deletion, then you can simply remove the speedy deletion tag. You don't need to place a hangon tag on there, as that's only there for the article's creator. Otherwise, keep up the good work on LGBT-related articles. MuZemike 16:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability of events

I agree that we need guidance on this perennial issue. There is a failed proposal on this topic at Wikipedia:Notability (news events). We could resurrect and revamp it. There's also an essay at Wikipedia:News articles. Fences&Windows 22:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me to be a requirement to define when an ongoing, currently notable event goes beyond the context appropriate to a single news item. When does the background and context become encyclopaedic in nature. See also my comment here Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_CAN_BE_temporary This issue, if resolvable, seems to relate closely to Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary and tangentally to [[13]]. Also the essay at Wikipedia:Recentism could do with some extra focus/cleanup around new notable event-based artcles. --Jaymax (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for the suggestions. This issue is going to keep popping up, so the best thing to do is to rewrite WP:NEWSEVENT and re-propose it. I've begun work on reviving it, and of course I would love to get other editors involved in coming up with a viable solution to what is becoming a perennial problem. The WordsmithCommunicate 06:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

After the most recent AfD page I got involved on, I wrote User:Dlugar/WP:NOTANTINEWS as a sort of generic response for me to use in future AfD pages. Feel free to critique/borrow/etc. --Dlugar (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I've made a start, as you've seen. I think the mistake made by the prior failed guideline was to be too prescriptive for individual types of event, and the essay at Wikipedia:News articles doesn't strike the right tone for me - it's too negative about articles about events, and it is too wordy. We need to bear in mind that we want to try to distill general principles of the community consensus about these articles - and acknowledge where no consensus exists - rather than try to impose new rules, which will never succeed. Fences&Windows 00:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits to the page; I think that together we can make a valid notability guideline. Already, what we have is much better than the original version, which was never officially proposed as far as I can tell. I would like to open the RFC on it in under two weeks, if possible. The WordsmithCommunicate 00:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

This was well said. I especially appreciate that you seem to grasp my attitude on blocking more clearly than most others.—Kww(talk) 16:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I meant every word of it. I don't know you, so I don't particularly care whether or not you get promoted. I just don't like people using evidence as flimsy as that against anybody and claiming it proves something. Especially with a few of the diffs, I think Ikip confuses "edits I disagree with" with "edits that demonstrate Kww would not be a good admin" The WordsmithCommunicate 16:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

FYI  7  01:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In regards to Balloon Incident

I wholeheartedly disagree with the deletions you made to my work. I tried to provide some cited information not generally reported on this silly story and directly related to the incident itself. How easy it must be to say "tangental" to my information as you leave in that he rides a motorcycle, etc, etc.

The whole story is hopelessly disorganized now.

As a new user, I read with amusement the "Dont Bite the New User" advice given to editors and I wonder if the real idea is to get people to give up on trying to contribute, leaving things to the Jedi Wiki masters like yourself. If so, bravo!Lancemoody (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)lancemoody

Thank you for commenting. When two editors disagree, the rational thing to do is discuss it, which we can now do. I believe that what I did was within policy, but I am open to the possibility that I might be wrong. So, I suggest we carry out all further discussion of this on the article's talk page. If the other editors agree that your inclusion is good for the article, then i'll go along with that. What you need to do is tone down your accusations, so we can discuss this like rational adults. The WordsmithCommunicate 02:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am better understanding how things work here now (I think!) and offer my apologies for being so hotheaded. I still think most of my material was still relevant to the actual article but am trying to get opinions on the talk page. Thanks and feel free to delete this entire entry if you so desire. I have removed most of the unproductive discussion I caused elsewhere. Thanks, Lance Lancemoody (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology. I hope you understand that I was only doing what was correct according to my interpretation of the relevant policies, and I hold no grudge. If you have any further questions, feel free to drop me a line. Good luck with your future editing here! The WordsmithCommunicate 02:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:News articles

I undid the hasty bold redirect of this former proposed guideline to the new proposal, There is nothing wrong with having an earlier effort viewable. The redirect was done before anyone had a chance to comment on the desirability of a redirect. In the past, there have been proposals for notability of things like schools, and we did not redirect the older work to the newer. A week or more is a more reasonable interval, since we are not on deadline. It made it hard for even me to find the older work. I plan to cite that essay in AFDs and I see more merit in it than in the new effort. Edison (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Potential hoaxes

I have nominated Category:Potential hoaxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


Hi The Wordsmith, would it be ok if I mediated the U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks case along side you? There's a discussion on Incidents noticeboard about this case, which could be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. Go ahead and add yourself as co-mediator. The WordsmithCommunicate 00:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! PhilKnight (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


Just out of curiosity, why was the anonymous edit deleted from the "History"? I've seen this action numerous times and I've pretty much wondered what was the cause to delete their edit.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Esanchez7587 (talkcontribs)

That edit was Oversighted. The IP posted something on that page that I probably shouldn't discuss, since doing so would negate the reason for oversighting it. Some types of edits are routinely suppressed using this method, such as posting of personal information, libel, or copyright violation. The WordsmithCommunicate 06:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

NYFreiheitsstatue2.jpg New York City Meetup

Next: Sunday November 15th, Columbia University area
Last: 09/13/2009
This box: view  talk  edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Wikipedia Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Wikipedia articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/2010 Signups

I notice you signed up using an older username. Perhaps you would like to update it? J Milburn (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chronology of Star Wars

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Chronology of Star Wars.

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars (2nd nomination). Ikip (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (news events)

Are we about ready for wider comment, such as an RfC? Fences&Windows 17:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so. I made a few small changes, and i've opened the RFC. I also posted on the Village Pump, to attract other editors so we can form a consensus. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The VP post should have a link. The link is only to the proposed policy, not the RFC. Thank you. Or post the RFC link here. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC is at Wikipedia talk:Notability (news events)#Request for Comments. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

proposed policy

Thank you for providing the link to the discussion.

I think the benefit of your policy may settle the constant debate over articles like "Man kills many people using bubble gum" (hypothetical event) or "2010 Human bite attacks at Helsinki dog show". Maybe it should be focused on that because otherwise it may create new battles for non-news articles.

I am not trying to fight but want to help create a very well written policy! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

New idea: Perhaps two policy proposals could be written, roughly the delete people and the keep people. Then merge the two. I feel like making some changes to the proposed policy but that may start a revert episode. What do you think of this? and start one for "draft for deleters". Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on this new link and tell me if it is acceptable. Someone may try to delete it in minutes. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think forking and remerging is the best solution. I really doubt people are going to revert war over a proposed policy, so I would suggest you make the changes you want and then see if they have consensus. The WordsmithCommunicate 02:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, it was just an idea! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

change done

As Supreme Leader of the proposed guideline, I made a change to the proposal. Very minor but helps reinforce a sub-section since it can be quoted. See

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the notice, that seems fine. Just note that I don't own the page, though. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not on a campaign to get a lot of articles deleted or to have an article for every bit of news and trivia. If there's a better understanding of what is acceptable, then the discussion will have been worthwhile.

Could we discuss some borderline articles/events to see how the proposal would address them? List some that come to mind. How about:

Washington Metro crash in 2009. (should qualify)

This one is borderline. The depth of coverage is there, but I'm not sure about its persistence. Nearly all of the sources are from the few days surrounding the incident, so I would lean towards delete.

Balloon boy in America

This one has sufficient depth and breadth, and news sources still follow the case and provide updates, suggesting that coverage is persistent enough. Likely to be a keep.

American officer shoots people in Texas (should qualify)

Too early to be 100% sure, since it happened so recently, but I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that it will be keep under the new guideline.

July 2009 cyber attacks

Doesn't seem to have much variety in the coverage, nor persistance, and it doesn't seem to have affected much outside of itself. I would suggest delete for this one, or possibly merge into something like List of cyberterror incidents.

Mercaz HaRav massacre

This incident apparently fueled protests, riots, etc and may have had a lasting effect on the region. While I would like to see some coverage in recent (i.e. post-March-2008) sources, I think the incidents that it sparked are enough to show that its coverage is sufficient, and would keep it.

Barack Obama speech in Prague, 2009

The only reference is a White House press release, and there is no indication that it meets our standards as they currently exist. It certainly would not meet standards if this guideline were adopted. I would merge into Presidency of Barack Obama, or possibly combine it with some other Obama speeches into Speeches of Barack Obama or something similar.

2007 Chinese slave scandal

While it should have more sources, I suspect that the language barrier is an issue, and should not be held against it. The response it provoked from the government, as well as the persistance of its coverage, seems to mean that it should be a likely keep.

Robert Dziekański Taser incident

Coverage is of sufficient depth and over a span of two years, as well as the public inquiry into the matter and government investigation. This should be a clear and uncontroversial keep.

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have read each of the articles and provided a response as to how I feel they would be treated under the new guideline. If any of them are unclear, please feel free to ask for clarification. The WordsmithCommunicate 05:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The next step, I think, is to see how the proposed guideline can address these articles. The way it is written now looks nice but I don't know if it will solve the no/not news versus yes/many sources. Your reasoning for each article is fine, maybe I might disagree slightly for 1 or 2, but we agree mostly and 100% agree that the main thing is nailing down the language to prevent future conflicts in AFD's. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I made some structural changes to the article so that the inclusion criteria are clear and all in one spot together. Hopefully this helps. The WordsmithCommunicate 20:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the coverage of the 2009 Washington Metro crash has continued to some extent, and the crash changed operating practices:[14]. It's a borderline case. Fences&Windows 21:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
If coverage has persisted and it has influenced practices, it would probably meet the new guideline. It would be likely to end up going to AFD and being closed as Keep after that was demonstrated. The WordsmithCommunicate 03:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Normally, I would discuss what I am about to write on a wikispace talk page. However, it may be too controversial or ignorant so it's here. What if there were even more liberal allowances for articles. Any article would be permitted in Wikipedia if it were news. Would that harm anyone? Would that be a resource found in few other websites? I do not support this but the question has crossed my mind. Can you help answer the question? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Bump. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The question is one that continually crops up, and is at the heart of the inclusionism-versus-deletionism debate. That idea is firmly on the inclusionist side. What we're trying to do here with this guideline is to reflect common practice and consensus at Wikipedia. Current consensus is against your proposal. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Please don't misunderstand. It is not a proposal from me. It is only a question. So I think there is no answer to that question except that more people think it shouldn't be done that way (allow almost anything in the news to be included). That seems ok with me. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick note to say that, while many were involved, the Events Notability guideline is terrific. I was heavily pushing for 'change' after Balloon Boy, but had to dip out shortly after. I think the change that has been guidelined is terrific. Well done. --Jaymax (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, the feedback is appreciated. A few of us worked very hard on it, and I think it will help solve the perennial problem of GNG vs NOTNEWS. The WordsmithCommunicate 20:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

vandalism fixed

You have a vandalism counter on your page. I wanted to see if it advanced by itself but it needs manual updating. Sorry for the test. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

R+I med issue

I saw you would like to assist me in the complex mediation at R+I. This would be helpful and is gladly welcomed. Reubzz (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I did agree to offer assistance, in a fashion. I can help answer your questions and offer advice, as well as watching the discussion. However, I will be more of a silent partner, to avoid having too many cooks in the kitchen. Therefore, it would be best if you discussed your concerns with me here, rather than at the mediation page. I do believe that you are here in good faith, and have researched mediation and the issue heavily. As such, I think you've got a good start, and I hope to help you continue and gain experience as a mediator. Good luck! The WordsmithCommunicate 03:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for stepping in and helping with Sexual orientation change efforts. I must admit, I do not always address problems correctly. I appreciate your help even when I am partially to blame. I want to learn the best way to approach these issues. I seem to be part of a hated minority. Sometimes I get defensive and strike back. I am trying to learn to be more civil. What would be a more appropriate response? I was under the understanding that if there is a debate about the material on a page, that the original material be left in until a consensus can be reached. I have tried to discuss the concerns with him, but he seems more interested in removing the material than reaching a consensus. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading Wikipedia:Edit warring#How experienced editors avoid being dragged into edit wars might help you. In short, the best thing to do is not revert, keeping in mind that Wikipedia has no deadline. Discussing it on the Talk page is the first step, as outlined in Bold, Revert, Discuss. Should that fail to resolve the conflict, you may try dispute resolution again. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

R+I mediation question

I am considering imposing a deadline for any final comments on the discussions currently ongoing to allow a 24-hour window of calm. At the end of the window, I would then post an agenda of the issues to be discussed (from easiest to most controverisal as you earlier recommended) and take part in working to find agreements. I can certainly see the horizon of a compromise/solution, but it is still a long way's away. Reubzz (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That is one way to handle it, but keep in mind that mediators have no formal authority to impose any sort of rules or deadlines. If I were you, I would request that the parties voluntarily agree to put their discussions on hold and proceed with the mediation once you set the agenda and decide on the first issue to be discussed. If you like, you can even make it a condition of continuing mediation. They're free to decline and withdraw from mediation, but in my experience, people generally agree to any reasonable requests by the mediator. The WordsmithCommunicate 03:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 72e5a231224617f5a4685479e67a798a

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Bob Gruen

I've added an EL to a video of a recent presentation by BG at the Brooklyn Museum. Would this be acceptable as a secondary source? It includes some biographical details. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems like it might be acceptable. However, it needs to be used to reference fact in the article (or insert new ones) and cited according to WP:CITE. Good luck! The WordsmithCommunicate 03:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


apologies! I wish they took the edit key away on the closed discussions. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I figured it was accidental. The WordsmithCommunicate 02:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Still leaves me sheepish. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing crusade against furrycruft

You appear to be working your way through Category:Furry fandom. Please bear in mind that it takes a lot more work to deal with deletion requests than it does to list them, and WP:FURRY has limited resources. Many of our editors were heavily involved with Midwest FurFest this past week, and are likely to be recovering from it over the coming days. I appreciate you have been selective, and I do not entirely disagree with most of your actions (just this one ;-), but a little less haste would be appreciated.

More generally, the practice of "boldly redirecting" without attempting to merge any content, or notify editors of the article you are redirecting to - or a WikiProject whose tags you are removing - concerns me. People spent time on that free content; even if we ultimately reach a consensus that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, there may be other worthwhile places to put it. That's less likely to happen if nobody else knows it's gone, and the creators aren't always watching - they may not even be here anymore. GreenReaper (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, here's how this began We were discussing something on IRC, when someone realized that there were 131 furry-related articles. Amazed that there would be that many, I started looking through the stub-class and low-importance ones, and found that there really weren't that many legitimate ones. The ones I felt had absolutely no validity I redirected (or merged if there was some potentially useful content), and the ones I thought might have a chance at being sourced I sent to AFD for wider attention. I made a good faith attempt to look for sources before taking any actions, for all the articles.
Of course, if you feel that some of the articles I merged might be viable, then feel free to revert me, and then we can discuss it. The ones that were pure plot summary, like a half dozen articles on compilations of Newshounds, I don't think we have any hope for. but i'm always willing to be proven wrong.The WordsmithCommunicate 20:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Heh. The majority of articles on Wikipedia are of dubious validity, at least if you judge them by the sources presented. Click random page a few times - I got Bolivia at the 2008 Summer Olympics, Eden Gerick and Alistair King (and then singular value decomposition, which made my head spin). As for number of topics, WikiFur has over 12,000 articles. 131 is a drop in the ocean, especially when the fandom's been around for 30 years. That's not to say we don't have some pruning to do, but I think a larger problem is that we're lacking articles in other worthwhile topic areas.
I think we're ahead of the game in quality - WP:FURRY has seven good articles, or 6% of its total, compared with the 0.5% of GA, A, FA and FL for all assessed topics (plus a million unassessed). This is partly due to prior visitors from AfD. Of course, Wikimedia's vision statement has an anti-furry bias, so perhaps that's not surprising (good thing it's editable). We even have two articles in Version 0.7, furry convention and furry fandom. Yes, children in sub-Saharan Africa may not have a furry convention, but at least they can read about the concept . . .
There's three main classes of articles that have come under review:
  • Works of art and literature, some of which have been around a long time
  • Articles about books which are largely plot summaries
  • Unverifiable biographies of living persons
My main concern is preserving the status of the first, where appropriate - things like T.H.E. Fox have been deleted before, which is kinda sad - and preserving at least the content of the second - if not at Wikipedia, then elsewhere. Wikimedia encourages free content of all kinds, after all; the concept of "notability" is a Wikipedia invention. I have less concern for biographies, as for most you'd need more than verifiable information to write a good article on them anyway. Merging Thomas K. Dye seems appropriate for example (while merging Samuel Conway to Anthrocon would not be; Eric W. Schwartz was borderline, though kept due to prior awards). GreenReaper (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to slow down you AfD nominations if it can give editors a chance to properly address concerns. Overwhelming people might be counter-productive as people might be more inclined to vote keep to give them a chance to look for sources. There is no deadline (unless they are hoaxes or something no one has heard of there is no need to delete anything right away) and there is no harm in tagging your concerns on articles before nominating them, just because you can't find sources doesn't mean there aren't any. (Emperor (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

Sure, i'm willing to slow down and discuss it. What I did was nominate a few of what I saw as the worst of the articles (but ones that still had a chance), then wait the full seven days to see how those discussions went before I nominated a few similar ones when consensus mostly agreed with me. If you would prefer to open a wider discussion on these types of articles, and can provide sources for them other than "Its notable within the fandom" (which more than one person actually gave as a keep rationale), then I am more than willing to stop nominating them. The WordsmithCommunicate 20:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there is any need to come up with some mass notability argument (if one were possible or even desirable) and I think a lot of these do need to be eventually nominated (especially with furry webcomics, as both areas have notability issues which seems to only get worse in combination) but I'd like to see the problems flagged as early as possible to give people time to marshal resources. That way when you (or someone else) does a sweep later and no one has been able to provide sources, it leaves the subsequent AFD in good shape. (Emperor (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC))

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Mediation Cabal request

In closing my request for mediation at Manual of style (text formatting), you wrote: "The mindset that this [context absolutely requires that to refer to mediation] is a prerequisite to arbcom is not the correct attitude to take when requesting mediation." Excuse me? The instructions that I found for arbitration explicitly indicated that to be the case, so it's not a question of "mindset." Now that I've informed you of that indefensible comment, I'll take the problem on to arbcom. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

look here

Please help us understand what to do. Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


I wonder whether you can find out what is going on with this newly arrived and inexperienced editor, who is supposedly acting as a mediator. He hasn't edited WP for about one week. This seems very odd. Has he decided that he needs a wikibreak after his spell of editing from November 5-22? Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)