This is an archive of past discussions with User:Alsee. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello Alsee! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- LittleOldMe11:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Untritrium, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Untribium. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
And, in fact, some of those pages that currently exist shouldn't exist, and soon won't. I'll be cleaning them out later today. DS (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thanks for the notification. Any of the proposed solutions is good, just make sure that we don't end up with deleting something relevant, sourced and reliable in a hope that some time in the future somebody will do something. Edit boldly :) Pundit|utter15:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Your edit as it is, if not followed by additional editorial work, is wrong - for the aesthetic visual beauty of the list it reduces the informational value of the article, and removes valid sources. I'm fine with the list as it was, it is you who insists that it didn't look well. If you believe the info should be moved elsewhere, feel free to do so, but just deleting a portion of text is not a solution and the simplest restoration technique for bringing the lost information is indeed a reversal. I do hope though that you will take the additional step and make the article better with keeping its informational value. There are no by-editors here - I myself am no expert in cannabis, I am not into this culture etc., the only way I got involved was by trying to make the article better and protecting the valuable information it contained from deletionist and, possibly, ideological removal. Pundit|utter18:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I restored the information below the list. I hope it is in line with your intent to keep the list clean, and at the same time it saves the information. Pundit|utter01:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Misdirected Copyvio notice. Article has been restored, mistaken Copyvio rescinded
If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Greg Garcia and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Greg Garcia with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.orgor a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Greg Garcia.
However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey Alsee. I have looked into this issue for you. The material deemed to be infringing does not relate to your original contributions, so I have restored them with immediate effect. They instead relate to later additions made by the user (rather suspiciously) named GtGarcia. (I endorse the call that the material added by that user was indeed infringing.) I apologise for the confusion caused by the above template, which clearly did not apply in your case and wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year. - Jarry1250[Weasel?Discuss.]20:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
About the changes you've made on Fields medal page
Hi,I'm really glad that you are interested in editing Fields Medal page. There are some notes on your edits. If you look at the talk page, you can see that there is a considerable consensus about the Fields Medalists table format,which in fact,includes "Birthplace" column. Is there any specific reason in which you remove that column?And,safe to say, all of the users which have been involved in the discussion, were aware of difficulties of putting that column on the table.So,I suggest joining our discussion will help us all.And please revert your edit,because you did not get any consensus.CheersRezameyqani (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of B Verkin Institute for Low Temperature Physics and Engineering
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Re your "How about watchlisting edits affecting existing sections?", please follow (e.g. vote for) this bug report. --Nemo10:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
A beer for you!
Alsee, your post on the Federalist.com talk page regarding the notability guidelines was one of the most helpful, constructive, and informative tips to a new editor, for which I am very grateful. Many thanks! Mlcorcoran (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Template:CENT
See my edit summary upon re-editing the template a few minutes ago — I never meant to remove the Media Viewer RFC. Thank you for restoring it. Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to fight the good fight, but more than that, thank you for taking the time to articulate a position, run an RFC, and then challenge the frankly baffling "closure" of said RFC. Keep it up!
69.140.0.55 (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
It says you patrolled my page? What does it mean, does it mean something similar to when a police patrolls someone? Tudorttt (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Tudorttt It means an experienced editor looked at the new-page and saw nothing wrong with it. It's just a way for us to keep an eye on all the new stuff that shows up, and clean up any garbage as fast as possible. Some volunteers will look over a list of pages that haven't been patrolled yet. When I marked it patrolled, all it did was take your new page off of the "un-reviewed" page list. Alsee (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks!
I want to thank you Alsee. For your active engagement in the conversation around Gather Collections, and for being keen to voice out the concerns you see, and for clearly listing your suggestions. I know that trust takes time and process to build, but I hope the team's current engagement is already making it easy to assume good faith that we listen and we appreciate and we change accordingly, I hope. I, also, appreciate the time you spend in our lengthy conversations --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Melamrawy (WMF), I regret that my latest comment at Gather/Moderation_Criteria has facilitated a misimpression of successful engagement. Just because I was willing to talk about your topic doesn't mean there has been any engagement of my topic. As I explained at "What works / What doesn't work", the WMF builds a train with zero Community input, the WMF offers a "Community Consultation" restricted to hanging bells and whistles on that train, but ignores attempts to discuss the train itself.
My earlier comment is still awaiting a response. We don't have cross-site notifications yet, so I'll assume you hadn't seen it yet.
Fixing the old problems, actual engagement, trust building, would be a willingness to participate in public discussion that includes whether or not Gather itself should remain active. Bugfixes and possible upgrades would be part of that discussion. Outcomes could be generic Keep, Keep & needed fix-list, Disable. Alsee (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. It is quite confusing here. The communication. the policies i guess most of everything. I hope to get used to things here. Tb kol (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Tb kol, yeah. People are welcome to jump in and learn as they go. The wiki-idea is that mistakes are OK because they are easy to revert. We don't expect newcomers to know the policies, we don't even expect veterans to know everything. We just expect people to not-fight after an appropriate policy or guideline has been pointed out. People aren't always as polite as they should be: WP:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. Being polite and explaining stuff takes time, and people are lazy. People will often make a change, briefly name or link a policy to back up their edit, expect the rule to be respected, and just go back to their own work. Or they may put ugly template-messages on your talk page because it's the quickest way to notify you of something, to justify their action, and get back to what they were doing.
We let new people jump right into the deep end of the pool. We encourage people to be bold: WP:BOLD. Immediately finding Village Pump and proposing changes was definitely bold, grin. In theory it could have led to a rule change, but in this case the proposal will get a few critical comments and then disappear into the archives. I suggest you don't try to argue it. Our policies have good reasons behind them, even if they seem mysterious or wrong at first. Take some time to figure out how things work, do some general editing, it will start to make more sense. Alsee (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
user:Alsee There is no such thing as a newcomer and old timer. It is a little ridiculous to say when policies are pointed out, quit the idea of change. I never meant to be rude and dont try to be polite. For what. Criticism and stonewalling has helped me get an idea of the real problem here. I just thought of passing by, if you read the Idea, i had mailed Wiki for a suggestion, they said should be in Idea Lab. And I thought it would be taken up and people are going to look at the point etc. But here I see people falling quite uneasy even at the mention of a rightfull change.
I mean, to have external links where justified, to be pari passu with internal links. They cannot be differentiated here in Wiki. It does not belong to any one man. It needs to be considered. Thank you. Tb kol (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Tb kol, let me clarify. I just meant don't edit-war when someone cites a rule. The other editor isn't at fault. They can't change the rule. The rule needs to be "fixed" before the article can be "fixed".
Wikipedia is similar to a Democracy. You suggested a change at Village_pump_(idea_lab). If your (idea_lab) post gets support then we can make it a formal Proposal. Then you could vote for it in our rule-change discussions. You posted at Village Pump 5 days ago. Zero people have supported it.
Maybe you can write a better proposal when you know our policies and methods better. If you keep editing, if you learn more about how we work, you can try again in a few months. Alsee (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Well this page now be the community portal so if I have questions or concerns I can discuss it with the community on this page so I can add it to my watchlist ? And another question to get in touch with my project manager I was trying to find the link to her page and I could not find it if I could get her information I know that she could be a good source for me to talk to on concerns about the project . WP.NICKNAME.22 WP.NICKNAME.22 10:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WP.NICKNAME.22 (talk • contribs)
Cantor edit request
Alsee
I have clearly stated my historical relevant and mathematical critical reason for stating that Cantor was and is Russian - the impact that had on his career and life cannot be understated in respect to the German school that was so overly critical of his work - failure to acknowledge that by claiming he was German completely misses this subtle but highly significant point - it was PIVOTAL in his life - you rely on Encyclopedia Britannica? - a pop-knowledge source? - I am a degreed Historian who also happens to be a degreed Mathematician - it is not about claiming Cantor for Russia - he was Russian there is nothing to claim - and yes - you are where you are born - regardless of passports - Cantor was Russian through and through whether in Germany or anywhere else - it behooves you to leave the correction as I made it because it is factually correct - had Cantor been born German his work and life would have turned out far differently - period — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.101.123 (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Everyone agrees Cantor was born in Russia. The issue is that there are different ways to define what someone's "nationality" is. Many people say their own nationality is something different from where they were born.
There are endless issues where one person argues "X" and another person argues "Y". On Wikipedia we can't deal with all those arguments, they would never end. So we have a rule, we don't argue it. Our solution is that Wikipedia will accurately reflect what most reliable sources say. If reliable sources says the moon is made of green cheese, then Wikipedia will say the moon is made of green cheese. That's what we will say, even if it's wrong. Then the problem isn't Wikipedia... then the problem would be that the sources are wrong. We can't fix that. We don't try to fix that.
When I saw your edit request, I knew nothing about the subject. I didn't need to know anything about the subject. I checked whether the article cites good sources for the claim that Cantor's nationality is German. It looks like it does. I then checked further, I did a Google search. I found many excellent sources saying Cantor's nationality is German. Encyclopedia Britannica was just one of many excellent sources I found. As far as I looked, I didn't see any Google results saying Cantor's nationality was Russian. That's why I declined your edit request.
It doesn't matter what the "truth" is. We don't allow arguments about "truth". If you want the article changed, then you need to show us that a substantial percentage of high-quality sources say Cantor's nationality is Russian. If you do that, then our rule is to reflect ALL of the sources, in a balanced manner. Then the article would be re-written to include both claims. It would say that his nationality is controversial, it would say some sources say his nationality is German, it would say some sources say his nationality is Russian. But you can't just cite sources that say he was born in Russia. You have to show that high quality sources say his nationality is Russian.
As a final note, I also checked the Russian Wikipedia. Russian Wikipedia is independently written by Russians and other Russian-speaking editors. Russian Wikipedia says Cantor's nationality is German. There's no bias here - even our Russian editors agree that reliable sources overwhelmingly say Cantor's nationality is German. Alsee (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
What does this mean?
"(Page curation log); 19:04 . . Alsee (talk | contribs | block) marked Kuki State Demand Committee as reviewed"
Kuki State Demand Committee is a redirect that I've protected due to persistent copyvio. I'm not sure what you've actually done.
Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Doug Weller, it showed up in New Page Patrol. (Some types of "old" pages deliberately show up there so that people can't bypass NewPagePatrol by abusing an existing page name.) All I did was review whether the page needed to be Speedydeleted or AFDed or cleaned up. The page is currently a simple and apparently(?) valid redirect, so I marked it reviewed. The only effect was to take it off the list of "new pages no one has looked at yet". Alsee (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate an article for deletion, but can't because I'm not a registered user. The Critical Badger is an article about a local interest blog that's been defunct for 6 years. It seems non-notable to me. Can you help? 32.218.40.73 (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying that there is no blog that is considered a reliable source? I'm not trying to argue, just asking an objective question, because I don't know if all blogs are excluded. Personally, I have found they have a wide range of reliability, from scrupulously professional to "are you kidding us?," just like newspapers.
When this question was posed in the last week by another editor, I looked up the article's subject with the terms, "Dominionist" and "Dominionism," and stopped reading at 100 citations.
I'll check them again.
A great many of them are blogs, and many linked to the video of a long speech given by Cruz at a Texas evangelical megachurch, appearing with pastor Larry Huch. Rafael Bienvenido Cruz is introduced an hour into the video and begins speaking a few minutes later. Many of those blogs quoted various segments from the speech and the transcriptions, no matter from religious or secular sources, politically left right or neutral, repeated identical content.
There are a number of Wikipedia articles on or referencing the subject of Dominionism, on the New Apostolic Reformation, that reference the theology, even mentioning Cruz.
Besides the Crooks and Liars (a blog which has won honors, including a "best 25 of the year" from Time Magazine), there is also one from the Huffington Post, an AOL blog publication.
I just looked at two citations, in one of those WP articles, but wasn't comfortable enough with them. A third was a two year old journal article on Dominionism from the University of Toronto, a peer reviewed publication. It's behind a paywall, so I'm writing to a professor friend whose institution has access. I'm not sure if it has what I'm looking for:
Here's the cite: "Let them have Dominion”: “Dominion Theology” and the Construction of Religious Extremism in the US Media
Michael J. McVicar From: Journal of Religion and Popular Culture Volume 25, Number 1, Spring 2013 pp. 120-145
Abstract:
In the last decade, media coverage of “dominionism” and “dominion theology” and their supposed influence on conservative politicians has become increasingly visible in the US news press. Popular exposés using “dominionism” to frame the religio-political convictions of everyone from President George W. Bush to Congresswoman Michele Bachmann have proliferated even as journalists, pundits, and preachers have struggled to define the concept of dominion. This essay offers a critical history of dominion discourse as it has evolved over the last three decades in the evangelical and secular presses in the United States. It situates the emergence of dominion discourse within evangelical efforts to define the proper limits of their political activism during the 1980s and the progressive backlash against the Christian Right in the 1990s. Through close readings of material produced in the evangelical and secular presses this essay argues that dominion discourse reflects certain normative but unexplored assumptions about the nature and meaning of the place of religion in the American public sphere.
I'll check further and get back to you. If I find a cite that seems more suitable, I'll substitute it. Thanks for your inquiry. Feel free to erase this of course. Activist (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I've answered my own question, my reading WP pertinent guidelines precipitated by your comment. Blog cites are generally not acceptable, save i.e., when they're published by a reliable news organization. However, the guidelines refer to recording being an acceptable source. So when bloggers quote from an audio or video, as in the case of a great many commenting on and quoting from RBC's linked or embedded speech at Larry Huch's church in 2012, I am assuming those quotes are okay. I finally found a cite for the date of the second divorce, by the way, which had escaped my previous diligent search. Activist (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I spent a couple of hours searching and at URL #147 I found this Austin Ameican-Statesman article, where Cruz apparently for the first time simply claims he was "misquoted," about his dominionist urgings at the 8/26/12 Larry Huch New Beginnings megachurch talk. However, a great many sites have quoted verbatim what he said which speech is posted and available on many websites (the A A-S article had a link to the video posted by the church on YouTube ), and it's clear what he said. Per WP guidelines, the video recording is a legitimate source for what he said. http://projects.statesman.com/news/ted-cruz-rafael-cruz/ I'll try to get around to posting the content in acceptable form when I have time. Thanks for your input. Activist (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Cordless Larry: Hopefully we can reduce the work, and avoid some deletion nominations, if we can bring in an expert on them:
Pinging Jcstanley: Would you be interested in going over your articles? We could help clarify any Wikipedia Policies, and help with what is required for an article to avoid deletion. If you point out new or existing evidence of notability for various articles, we can check that evidence and scratch those articles from the list of possible deletions. Either specific criteria at Professor Notability Guideline or general evidence to support General Notability Guideline, as I mentioned on your talk page.
If there are articles that you agree do not meet our Notability requirements, we have alternate processes (PROD or CSD:G7) that can resolve them with less work than opening an ArticleForDeletion nomination. Alsee (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Activist, Thanx! Saved. I'll have to review it later. BTW, most editors dislike using paywalled sources because they don't serve readers as well, and because they are more difficult to Verify, but they are still reliable and still usable. Alsee (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
November 2015
Hello, I'm Winkelvi. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page.
Salon is not a reliable source. The edit was also reverted because of WP:UNDUE. The opinion of a blog writer at Salon is not the right kind of sourcing nor does it prove Cruz is a Dominionist. In order to support such a claim, there would need to be a reliable source quoting Cruz or his son as saying he is a Dominionist. -- WV ● ✉✓17:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:DTTR is an essay, it's not policy. There's nothing wrong with templating "regulars" -- there's no real caste system in Wikipedia, therefore, regular contributors can and should be templated when necessary just like new or once-in-awhile editors. -- WV ● ✉✓17:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
WV - you just said "regular contributors can and should be templated when necessary" - after Reliable Source Noticeboard unanimously said your template was wrong. You really need to stop digging. Alsee (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
WV, I appreciate and share your concern to be very careful with biographies.
WV, sounds good to me. I've already backed you up on several of those points.
I understand you may not fully agree with my policy interpretations on that. I understand you were trying to protect a BLP. But there was an on-going article talk and we could have constructively and respectfully discussed any policy disagreements.
We're on the same team trying to improve the encyclopedia.
Hopefully things aren't too tense
please
Please
WV, I've really been trying to work with you. You overreached calling Salon bloggers, fine, a mistake. I was irked when you impolitely templated me (WP:DTTR isn't policy, but it's still good advice), and I admitted I was a bit pointy when I tossed a template back at you. I'm fine with calling the mutual templates a wash, fine with calling it over and done. But I'm getting worried that you seem to be digging in.
I would also like to emphasize that when I said "Sounds good to me" I was responding to this comment of yours:
We also don't allow undue weight. As long as there is no undue weight, the content is worded NPOV, doesn't try to lead a reader to a conclusion via insinuation, and it is clear the writers of the articles are claiming Cruz is a Dominionist and Cruz has never said he is a Dominionist, there should be no issue(s). If the content, however is attempted to be used subjectively to paint the article subject and his son as fringe religionists, we will have problem.
I could have written something similar myself. My only concern is the possibility you might interpret what you wrote as prohibiting an accurate NPOV Due Weight summary of Reliable Sources coverage. The Wall Street Journal says Cruz could alienate swing voters. It is possible some middle-of-the-road readers may feel "alienated" after reading a NPOV summary. It would be a violation of NPOV to try to cause that, but it's equally a violation of NPOV to try to prevent that.
I have no intent in not being "good" with you. For whatever reason, you continue to bring up things you believe I've said or done wrong. Sorry, but, that's not the hallmark of someone truly interested in a "truce". We simply see things differently. So what and who cares? At the end of the day, it's just Wikipedia, it's just the internet, and none of this really matters. -- WV ● ✉✓20:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hatted response at Salon RS/N
I attempted to unhat my response to your rather uncivil comment and then realized you had edited your original comment and responded to mine which was actually the RSN tangent you referred to in your edit summary. I reverted my undo but wanted you to know that I object to your hatting of my comment and the way you modified your own and left it in the discussion. Are you not aware that you cannot edit and/or move another editor's comments without their permission, except under certain circumstances? I advise you to read WP:CIVILITY#Removing uncivil comments and WP:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments, the latter of which also applies to noticeboards. You should have struck your PA and explained what you meant but left my comment alone. What you did was disruptive, and it will be to your advantage to avoid such behavior in the future. Atsme📞📧13:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Atsme, I can understand how the link could have been interpreted as directed at you personally, and I believed the PA issue had been cleared up when I explained it. I'm confused why you are still accusing me of making a PA. I was astonished that you tried to justify redflag by calling the sources partisan... when Encyclopedia Britannica was the second source mentioned. It was a bit of obvious hyperbole when I equated Britannica to a left-wing rag, I struck it and wrote more precisely because you objected. But I don't see how that qualifies as a Personal Attack. Alsee (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I've undone your removal of the link from Ingress_(video_game)#Split_from_Google. As I wrote in the edit comment, contrary to your expressed suspicion that "Section =Split from Google= looks like a dubious blockquote",
I inserted that blockquote less than an hour after its release. I took care to quote the message accurately, including the direct link.
I apologize if my summary miscommunicated. I assume you copied the quote with 100% accuracy. The first sentence of WP:EL says external links should not normally be placed in the body of an article. Then it says No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link. Later in a footnote it explains what is considered a valid exception: Exceptions are rare. Links to Wiktionary and Wikisource can sometimes be useful. Other exceptions include use of templates like {{external media}}, which is used only when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia. This case isn't anywhere near a valid exception.
I'm not going to quibble that you immediately reverted, but technically you were supposed to talk to me before restoring the link to the article: Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. Policy and general community consensus come down firmly on excluding disputed external links because external links are extremely prone to promotional abuse, and because we don't want to get bogged down in endless arguments when some editors want to link weird or dubious sites. The solution is to shut down disputes with a "No". External links are optional extras, they only get tossed in when they are uncontentious. And that's really talking about links in an External Links section, links in the body just get nuked.
The "dubious" part of my summary was that the block quote felt waaaay too promotional and out of place, especially with a section solely devoted to hosting it. A section =Split from Google= should describe the significant information about the split, and ref it. Not copy-paste their advertising.
The tone of article as a whole feels a bit too promotional, but I don't plan to get involved beyond the external link and the advertisement-blockquote. Alsee (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar
Thank you for your diligent and thorough explanation, and your patience with me over what I now see clearly to have been some out-of-line content. I've removed the external link and severely edited the text down to what's strictly informative. Later today I will research and add appropriate refs. Thnidu (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see Village pump (technical) about Flow on Mediawiki.org site
Please see section called something like "Flow is driving people away from Mediawiki.org reporting. This tech board is also inadequate." --Timeshifter (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Can you explain this to me? Who do you believe withdrew the close? How do you justify IAR for your NAC closure of this MR? Please consider reverting your errant close of this matter. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Motion to close this is getting nowhere. I welcome a non-involved admin to review and make an appropriate closure. Enough time and bytes have been spent on this issue, and we're no further closure now than a week ago. Pinging the last four admins who closed MRs: SilkTork, Cuchullain, Explicit, and Jenks24. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I read it as saying the whole thing was becoming a waste of time, and suggesting an admin simply make a new close over there, then I glanced back at the bold part and must have thought "Motion to reclose". I then I got sucked into the discussion of pinging closers which pulled my attention off of the line I misinterpreted.
When I originally started looking at the discussion I immediately saw there was no way in hell I was going to close it, but I kept reading because it was interesting. When I (thought) I saw it was withdrawn I thought "Oh wow, THAT work I can process". So I overeagerly jumped in. Alsee (talk) 09:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
No problem at all. Sorry if I came across as biting in my email last night when I saw this. :) It is certainly a convoluted situation. Thanks for all you do! Tiggerjay (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Tiggerjay, actually I appreciate that you kept cool in your comments here. (Or at least it appeared calm under the circumstances.) And that it didn't go past my Talk page :) Alsee (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Compromise
How about we compromise on not using the visual editor as a fake preview because I beleive it's a bad idea, no matter what effect that might or might not have on the Parsoid service?
I've never worked on Flow, so I have no role in that product except frequently demanding that my less-lucky teammates report my complaints as bugs. I hear that you and I are definitely not the first people to complain about the absence of a true Preview in Flow. I don't expect that to change any time soon (the team's attention is cross-wiki notifications, which is wonderful in its own right and needed for some of Flow's long-term goals), but the complaints are persistent, so they will probably look at it again, whenever they start making visible changes to Flow again. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
If you'd drop the three "fucks" and "shit" then I'm happy for you to remove my reply about it. We can firmly disagree with the proposal without being verbally abusive about it. Thanx. Alsee (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that we will need to have an RfC at Debbie Does Dallas, but let's wait until the RfC at A Free Ride has finished. As you say, they are essentially the same situation, so there's no point in having the same discussion in two places. I've gone ahead an closed the RfC you opened, hope that's ok with you. Right Hand Drive (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Use of "not english" template
Hi, last month you added the "not English" template to Villa del Rosario, Entre Ríos, but you did not add it to Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English (shortcut is WP:PNT). If you follow the instructions in the template to add it to the list, it improves the chances of a native language speaker translating the article. On this occasion, I have detected that the article is a copy of the Spanish Wikipedia's article, so have nominated it for speedy deletion instead. Please drop me a line if you have any questions. Thanks, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see what has happened. Until 2013, there was a short English article at the page. In January 2014 an IP copy and pasted the text from the Spanish article. Perhaps Jac16888 intended to revert the article back to the 2013 version but missed doing it. I have done it now, so all's well that ends well. Thanks for pointing it out. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey Alsee. Boy, you sure were mean and hateful to me at ANI a while back. Hopefully you just had your back up and don't generally go about trying to hurt people's feelings over trivial stuff. I'm gonna assume that and hopefull we can work together constructively in future should the occasion arise. But whatever. Anyway, I had to laugh cos in that diff you had this (bolding in original!):
With the the Free Ride}} RFC going against Herost, they proposed The person closing should go to Random.org and generate a random number to impose a random outcome.[5] It exemplifies the pattern of their disruptive behavior, an utter disregard for consensus&policy and seeking by hook or by crook any means to reach their goal of forcibly removing content against consensus. I really wish Herostratus would run for Admin again, just so I can cite that one diff as utterly disqualifying them from ever holding the position.
In that edit[6] I was certainly critical of your violations or disregarded for policies and guidelines and reverting my talk page comments etc., but I hope that "critical" can be distinguished from "mean and hateful". I'm fine with working together.
I understand that you sincerely believe you're you're trying to help Wikipedia, but I wish you'd have a little more respect for policy and consensus. I hope you can understand that people who support NOTCENSORED policy aren't "trolls" and don't have some "darker purpose of actually embarrassing and damaging the project". The policy says Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia, and many of us very sincerely believe that. We do not believe it benefits our readers to censor Wikipedia according to arbitrary social or religious norms. Images of Muhammad are historically important artworks, The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife is a historically important artwork, Michelangelo's Statue of David is a historically important artwork, Virgin Killer is a historically important artwork, A Free Ride and Debbie Does Dallas are historically important artworks. As editors we have no business passing judgement on them. It is a harmful waste of time to debate which of them constitute "porn". Anything a student can find at Wikipedia pales in comparison to what they can find in ten seconds with any search engine, and here they find it in an educational context.
Regarding your proposal to impose a random close on an RFC, I see no connection with Create tool for random-jury selection. Trying to get a random/impartial pool of !voters to evaluate an issue is nothing like hoping a closer favorable to your position will impose random coin flip result when you see that policy and consensus are going against you. Such a close would easily be obliterated at Close Review. Alsee (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, erm. WP:NOTCENSORED is a lot like the 2nd Amendment. It was stuck in a long time ago by someone with little or no debate, it turned out to be a very bad idea, but now we're stuck with it forever. Just like the 2nd Amendment, there's no getting rid of it now -- the procedure for doing so makes it nearly impossible, even if 80%+ of the people don't like it. It's not something that in any way shape or form is good for the project, and people who can't see that lack intelligence and IMO. I don't have a lot of patience for people who, after Sandy Hook and so forth are like "Oh well, sucks to be those kids, but 2nd Amendment!". I consider those people to be disreputable and they're not welcome in my house or my neighborhood. I have a similar disdain for people who are pornographers (look it up: "One who is involved in the... dissemination of pornography", it's a simple dictionary definition) -- who hang around publications which are, like this one, oriented toward people who use encyclopedias, which means schoolchildren in particular. Above and beyond whatever rules we have inherited and are stuck with, one might want to look in the mirror and ask oneself "What in heck have have I become?". But that's up to the individual I suppose. Herostratus (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Herostratus the policy is almost as old as Wikipedia and has been been abundantly debated over the years with no reversal. If you truly believe 80%+ of the people [editors?] don't like it then I will happy help you start a WP:Village_pump_(policy) RFC seeking to overturn it. An 80% result would border on SNOW support to change it.
I am disappointed to see you still asserting that those who disagree with you "lack intelligence". That is an extremely unconstructive approach. I suggest you use care to avoid that attitude leading you into ill considered personal attacks or disruptive behavior. I respect that you have made extensive valuable contributions in other areas.
Hi, re this edit - there is no "RFC Bot", there is Legobot (talk·contribs), which removes a {{rfc}} template after thirty days. That period is not measured from the time the template was added, nor from the time that Legobot publicised the RfC, but is relative to the next timestamp that Legobot finds on the page after the {{rfc}} template. In this case the template was added in this edit (it's the one immediately below the "RfC: Placement of video" heading), and the next timestamp after that point reads "05:01, 14 February 2016", so the RfC expires at 05:01, 15 March 2016. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Redrose64, yeah, I deliberately avoided saying "Legobot" because other people might not recognize the name. There was edit warring over an RFC template on that page, including the nowiki-rfc-template problem that had to be fixed. It was very anomalous that there were zero outside responses for several days. Either Legobot got confused by the mess and/or people were confused by multiple notifications - where the initial notifications led to a mangled and withdrawn RFC. Alsee (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Dbrodbeck I'm still pulling out more of them. I see about 12 left. Maybe your search was too narrow? My search was on "galaxy world", my search has 21 hits remaining with about 9 false positives. Alsee (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps. I sorta wish it were true, Dire Straits, Cate Blanchett, it would rival America a Call to Greatness, a fine film by Warren Chaney...... Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Alsee, I've been meaning to ask you for a week whether they ever figured out why the visual editor crashes on your computer. Did that get sorted? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Whatamidoing (WMF) it doesn't crash, it takes a very random amount of time for VE to load. The fastest load is a few seconds, the longest probably between a half a minute and a minute. The wiki editor is not noticeably slower than a plain webpage.. Alsee (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. Your earlier comments had sounded like your browser actually froze up.
The visual editor is actually faster, on average, than the wikitext for most editors in Europe and Africa. In North America, it's more equal. (These editors use different servers.) But it also depends upon your computer; people sitting side-by-side in a coffee shop can have identical server and network experiences but different subjective experiences, as some computers are slower to draw the page and pictures. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Whatamidoing (WMF) How is VE faster in Europe/Africa? For me Wikitext simply loads the page, VE has to run through a blue-loading bar.
P.S. You seem to have missed ongoing discussion at Pump Technical One Edit Tab. Hopefully this is an innocent very ugly bug, but you need to head over there ASAP. If this doesn't get a reasonable response soon the WMF is going to be getting a lot of flack for flat out lying and bad faith abuse. I was really trying to prevent exactly this unnecessary WMF-Community conflict when I made multiple attempts to ask you and Forester about this prior to deployment. It is extremely frustrating that I literally apologized for being paranoid when I initially asked about it, and it turns out that all of my worst concerns were 100% accurate. Alsee (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
For me, opening a page in VE is considerably slower than opening a page in Wikitext as well, and I'm in Europe. Wikitext opens nearly immediately, with the edit tools (the things above the edit box) coming half a second or so later. VE always takes a few seconds, with the blue bar, and often the page changes font size inbetween, which is weird. And when I use section editing in wikitext, and then want to switch to VE, I have to discard my changes to do so. No, thanks, back to wikitext it is! Fram (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The above was with random pages, I have now tested it with a long page I made, Exposition des primitifs flamands à Bruges. Wikitext: nearly immediately opens, no noticeable difference with short pages. VE: takes half a minute or so, and then gives me
If I choose continue, the page eventually loads in VE. Trying to edit the table is risky and often again produces a script error. I still see no reason to make VE my editor of choice, as the benefits are as always clearly outweighed by the problems. Fram (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how it's faster in Europe and Africa; I only know that it is faster, on average, as measured by network statistics and by individual user reports.
My, my, you lot patrolling need an automatic delay to let dust settle! In this case, unless you're stepping in, I'd have left the notice with the Underconstruction state. But kudos on the speed! Hope I didn't create an edit conflict with my follow up edit! // FrankB17:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
VPP collapse
Re [7], I smelled either trolling or a poor attempt at satirical humor from the start. When I got to the 293 words about national holidays, I had little doubt left. I don't think they were at all serious. But either way, a quick collapse was the obvious move. ―Mandruss☎15:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Hiya! Just a small note: on your AFD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surf Dive N Ski, you only quoted a portion of the WP:CORPDEPTH section about mergers. You quoted it as "announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business", but the full line is "brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business". Leaving out the word "brief" significantly changes the meaning of what is in the guideline. Perhaps it would be good for you to post a note at the AFD concerning this. Cheers! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
