This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ceradon. 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.
You left a speedy deletion message on the page. As I'm new to wikipedia, is it possible if you could advise me on how I should change the content so that it will be acceptable for wikipedia's standard? Thank you very much! User:Juniaywq (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@Juniaywq: First, welcome to Wikipedia! Now, Wikipedia has a general principle for notability (or criteria for inclusion into the encyclopedia): "Topics with significant coverage by multiple reliable, independent sources are presumed to be notable enough for inclusion into Wikipedia". You can read more on that here. Furthermore, articles must be written neutrally. You must give equal weight to all viewpoints of a topic: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." In the Peter Tan Organisation(PTO) article, a piece of it looked as if it belonged in a Yellow Pages directory. Wikipedia is not a directory. As a final note, articles should use inline citations. See here for more information on that. I hope this isn't too much for you. Finally, I would recommend that you got here: The Wikipedia Adventure. That's a step-by-step guide through all the big stuff you need to know before creating articles. Go through that guide and you'll be well on your way to becoming an excellent editor. All the best on Wikipedia and hope to see you around. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@Barrettbaffert: when I said "keep the citations intact", I probably wasn't using the correct wording to convey what I was thinking. Please confirm that the information you added to the article is supported by the citations. If not, you should move the citations you had on the talk page to the article to ensure there are no referencing hiccups. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, but no thanks
Your comment on my talk page was unnecessary. Consider yourself, in spite of any positive interaction we may have had in past, added to the extremely short list of users with whom I do not wish to collaborate and who are not welcome on my talk page. Thank you for your comprehension. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@Kudpung: Foolishness. The purpose of a user talkpage is to discuss a user's edits. I did not engage in any personal attacks. I didn't violate any policy. All I wanted to do was discuss the matters at hand, something you seem to be unwilling to do. It seems that any attempt at criticizing you is taken with immediate hostility. Editors, and certainly administrators, should not be intransigent. They should acknowledge constructive criticism, evaluate whether or not they were in the wrong, and discuss the matters at hand with out making undue ad hominem attacks or critiques. They shouldn't ban other people from their talk page because they leave constructive criticism. I'll continue discuss the contentious closing of the RfC. If that leads me to your talkpage, well, so be it. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not willing , either on Wiki or in RL, to have discussion with anyone who cannot approach a topic with a note of civility that encourages further discussion. Ask any Wikipedian that knows me in Rl (and that's a couple of 100) - I just walk out of the door. It says on my tp that I do not suffer fools gladly, that is my prerogativ. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey I noticed you began reviewing this draft 5 days ago but never finished. Normally I would just change it back to pending review but I thought you may be waiting on something in particular. Thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)00:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
@EoRdE6: Thank you for the note. I hadn't really forgotten, just haven't had the time to get around to it. I can probably get cracking on that tomorrow. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 02:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Dumas Brothel
On 23 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dumas Brothel, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Dumas Brothel(pictured), believed to be haunted, was the longest-operating brothel in the United States? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dumas Brothel. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Mhm, nice. "Those who are overly hard will break / those who are overly pointed will pierce / and break off immediately." Words for life, really. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 12:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Yesterday OpenStreetMap.org has included GraphHopper for bike and foot routing which shows the notability of GraphHopper. Although even without this GraphHopper is 'notable' as articles were written in jaxenter and the Java magazine from Oracle (!)
Please review the draft again, including the new references :) !
@Peatar: Articles should conform to the general notability guideline (Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic). I'm afraid that the sources in the draft do not adequately indicate that. I have not been able to find any more coverage for it either -- or else I would have added it myself. You really shouldn't be using their official website as a source. I'd suggest that you find another article to work on. (A good start is here and here for your interests.) You seem to have all the basics down. Don't let this discourage you from Wikipedia. Be bold but not reckless and break things. You'll learn well that way. And remember the golden rule: Articles must have significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (How to identify reliable sources? See here: Guide to identifying reliable sources.) Welcome to Wikipedia, and have fun editing! --ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ceradon: Thanks for taking time again to review this. Although I don't understand the outcome as the source on openstreetmap.org is an independent one (not homepage of GraphHopper). And OpenStreetMap is a very important project. Additionally there was other media like here (German, including mentioning GraphHopper) or here or here (German) or here all writing about the routing on the official OpenStreetMap.org website. Furthermore why does the Oracle Java magazine does not count as noteable source? What is then a notable source? --Peatar (talk) 09:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@Peatar: I should have also mentioned this: The sources you use must give more than passing mentions to a topic. In regards to the Java magazine source, it isn't independent. The magazine covered it in the context of Java; they were trying to promote Java. There needs to be coverage outside of the context of OpenStreetMap and Java. Otherwise, I can't say that the topic is notable enough for an article. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 21:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
Been there, took out 6 books, two of which are books of essay. GMU has a lot of stuff on Vonnegut. I was surprised. I'm away for a week starting Wednesday. I have one project to complete and then Vonnegut is next.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi again, now that Heise wrote about GraphHopper (see link in the article) and GraphHopper is listed as the only open source implementation of Map Matching I think this is could be notable.
@Wehwalt: I know, and I have been looking at articles of the same calibre. I've been looking for books that examine his overarching writing style that is evident in all of his books, but have had little luck. The books on Questia, and on Google Books all seem to do it in a compartmentalized fashion -- one book at a time. I could look for consistencies between the writing style in the sources I have, but I believe that would border on original research. Thoughts? --ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: That's actually not accurate. A deeper search reveals that Questia does have some detail on that. I'l be working in that tonight and tomorrow. You can add and expand as you please :) Cheers, and thank you for collaborating with me. I'm sorry if I inconvenienced you at all. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@B: As much as I would have preferred the image stay in the article, I understand that the ambiguity would run orthogonal to Wikipedia's proper policies and best practices. I have removed it from the article. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 22:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
When you warn a user about a violation of the username policy, and at roughly the same time post a report on WP:UAA you pretty much tie the hands of the admins who patrol UAA. Unlike at WP:AIV, UAA does not act shortly after a warning is posed. Instead the UAA guideliens say that sicne the warnign contains a request to change userename, we have to wait and see if s/he will request the change. So if you are going to warn for username issues, don't bother to report at UAA. And if you think the name is bad enoguh to warrent prompt blocking, don't bother to watn the other editer either. That is just how UAA works, in contrasty to most other notice boards DES(talk)05:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
@DESiegel: In truth, I was going to leave a note there that I warned the user, but then I caught whiff of an 4chan-organized effort to vandalize Wikipedia, and that stole my attention. Either way, it's a useful thing to note and I thank you for it. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 05:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, at WP:UAA, I believe it says either file a report at the noticeboard or leave a notice on their talk page but not both. If you look over UAA, you'll see that most reports turn into conversations with the editor to consider a username change or the admin waits to see if they are actively editing. LizRead!Talk!18:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nicholas Navin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
WereSpielChequers would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact WereSpielChequers to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ceradon. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
Malvern, Chickahominy River
The Chickahominy River article has a far more detailed and comprehensible account of many aspects of the background of the battle than does Battle of Malvern Hill, but none of it is cited. [In particular, your description of how the Union army was split by the atypically swollen river is a bit too hasty and unclear, in my opinion.] If you can find references for info in that article, you could kill two birds with one stone by improving both articles at the same time... Also, perhaps you should mention Pinkerton's faulty intelligence... maybe more comments later... still reading. • Lingzhi♦(talk)21:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Will do. [I may need to stop editing at any moment, but will resume at a later time.] meanwhile:
Over 50 semicolons is probably over 40 too many.
I'm pretty sure periods go inside quotation marks if the quote itself is a whole sentence (even if split by attribution), but outside if it is not. Logical order.
It seems that several casualty counts are for the whole Seven Days campaign. Is that appropriate for an article about one battle within it?
It is not clear to me who is commanding what forces: Longstreet had a division? What division? A.P. Hill had A. P. Hill's Light Division? There's no "order of battle" section; is that deliberate? And it seems to me, looking at sources in Google books, that some details are missing... I'll take this up again later. • Lingzhi♦(talk)23:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
" but captured Confederate soldiers inflated Magruder's numbers to 100,000" Huh? What? Confederates captured Confederates? And there were one hundred freaking thousand of them? • Lingzhi♦(talk)23:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
several sources say there were "three waves" of Confederate attacks, but this is not clearly explained in our article. I personally would strongly suggest that each wave get its own subsection of the article. [our own article,"marking the last front of three Confederate charges".. magruder's was second; I assume Armistead was first..not sure the third yet..]
Yes, Hill made the third assault... "three waves" MALVERN HILL, RUN UP TO GETTYSBURG p. 200 "not just one wave of attacks; there were three"; Union fired first p. 198 "Union gunners greeted"
about 300 or 400 yards Echoes of Thunder: A Guide to the Seven Days Battles Matt Spruill "tier after tier"
"from Malvern Hill, viewed from the area where Magruder's advance was halted, some 300 yards short of the Union lines." Seven Days Battles 1862: Lee's Defense of Richmond
Oh my, wonder why I didn't see that. A reread reveals that Wright's brigade came within 300 yards of the Union line. Ransom's men came the closest. I wonder how close they came. (About 30 or 40 yards, if memory serves. I'll need a source for that though.) --ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
20 yards, it's already in article.
I like the longstreet quote re the ineffectiveness of the confederate artillery in Attack and Die: Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage p. 117 "isolated batteries".
Is this WP:OR? "The battle can be divided into four phases: an initial exchange of artillery fire followed three successive infantry charges, led by Armistead, Magruder and D.H Hill, respectively. In each phase, the effectiveness of the Federal artillery was the deciding factor, destroying Confederate artillery and repulsing attack after attack. The result was a Union victory." • Lingzhi♦(talk)08:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert. FYI, that kind of lunacy can be reported straight to AIV; any experienced admin will recognise it. Or, when (barring a last-minute disaster) you get your own banhammer, it's safe to block the IP without another thought. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Ceradon, with less than 15 minutes remaining on your RfA (and a healthy 84% support margin), I would like to send you an early congratulations. I have no doubt you will be a fine administrator and I look forward to seeing you around the encyclopedia. Best, MJ94 (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I reverted the changes you made here. Ordnance is for guns, and ordinance is for a city law. The word ranch is often used for Mexican and Spanish ranches in California: It is now an accepted English word. Thanks for checking this article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ceradon, I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Congratulations on the positive result; however, while your request was a clear pass, there was significant opposition with regards to whether or not you have enough experience. My advice is to be careful and if you're unsure/need help, feel free to ask someone for advice - there is no shame in doing so. As always, the administrators' reading list is worth reading and the new admin school is most certainly available if you feel that you might require some practice with the tools in a safe environment prior to applying them elsewhere on the project. Good luck with your adminship! Acalamari20:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Very well done, I was delighted to see how well you handled the flak in that one. Hope this fits. When you get bored finding the right block message try looking at my monobook.js, some kind person put some useful code in there that gives admins a block message menu. ϢereSpielChequers21:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations on your successful RFA! Allow me to impart the words of wisdom I received from the puppy, slightly modified (because our RFAs occurred back in the Stone Age):
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. Without exception, you will pick the wrong one to do. (See #5.)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Or a sock of one of these guys.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the creative insults you receive when you do block.
Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. It will not be a personal attack because we are admins and, therefore, we are all rouge anyway.
Finally, remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better. All rights released under GFDL.
Hearty congratulations to you, Ceradon! I only crossed paths with you in your RfA but I hope to see you around as you tend to administrator duties. LizRead!Talk!22:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edwin Stanton may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
turn party members toward the Whig cause, chose to reaccept the dissenters back into the party.{{sfn|Thomas|Hyman|1962|pp=26–
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven!
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 18:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC).
UTRS Account Request
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. ceradon (talk • contribs)
@Peacemaker67: Thank you, and I do hope that too. Further though, I've nominated the article for FAC and, if it won't be a burden, can you throw a review for the article over at the FAC review page. It would be much appreciated, but I understand if it's not what your into/don't have the time/just don't want to. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I want to consolidate the artillery exchange information into a separate section, adding new info. But I dunno when I will have time. Maybe soon. Maybe not. • Lingzhi♦(talk)10:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Alakzi
I see you have blocked Alakzi for 24 hours for "making personal attacks towards other editors". I believe you are mistaken, as I have outlined at User talk:Alakzi #Your ability to use AWB has been revoked, and in the spirit of WP:ADMINACCT, I'd like you to please specify the offending personal attacks and the editors who were attacked. Should you, on reflection, conclude that your action was not the most appropriate in the circumstances, I'd be grateful if you'd rescind the block. --RexxS (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I'm in a difficult position. It does not and did not tickle my fancy to block Alakzi. But I really do fear that his attacks against any editors who oppose him will poison the well and only serve to escalate things. As an editor, I shouldn't care, and should just go work on an article. But as an admin, I feel I have no choice. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 16:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
(ec, have to go, can't read what you wrote, sorry) ps: I mentioned what makes a personal (!) attack, and mused about the lack of sense in Wikipedia's belief in consensus on ANI. No time for more, - you will find it. Boomerang has been mentioned there also, not by me. Sense, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I am back, and thought about the image of poisoning the well. The well which I would like to see crystal clear is called accessibility. It is not poisoned, but muddy. Some people try the tiring process of cleaning, Alakzi is one of them, and very tired. Sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Reagan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic State. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Are you sure? I'm getting a very bad vibe from them. Most of their contributions consist of 2015 and look what "good" has come out of it. I understand their reasons; it's just the way they approach, especially after disagreements. I seriously disagree with their implied (if I am correct) statement that AlexTheWhovian was at fault for their actions: you are responsible for your own actions, no matter the situation. Are you sure? Callmemirela{Talk}♑04:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
If I give them enough rope, they will hang themselves. Same thing I told Alakzi. If Alakzi is serious, he will discuss calmly and civilly. If he isn't he'll just be blocked again. I have already warned AlexTheWhovian, who, without question, engaged in bating behavior towards Alakzi. But, in truth, as I said at AN/I, this is a complicated dispute, and both sides bring reasoned and actionable points. Their methods may be worthy of question, but they're intent is good, as far as I can see. But if either of them disrupt progress in getting a dialogue going, administrators will be forced to act. Thank you for your concern, Callmemirela. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ceradon. Regarding Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alakzi, I'm wary of what WP:EW says about "consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues". In fairness to Alakzi, I was initially inclined to place a reciprocal block on AlexTheWhovian for their campaign to drive away productive contributors, intentional or not. Seems to be a history of baiting by AlexTheWhovian that has contributed to the situation. However, the real issue is coming up with a plan and resolution for the access color issue. To that end, I'd prefer to just give a pass with another stern warning to AlexTheWhovian, and give some WP:ROPE to Alakzi and unblock with a firm admonishment, esp re: civility. Interested in your thoughts. (I've got u on my watchlist for now)—Bagumba (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@Bagumba: In regards to the latter point, I've capped it. As for the former, I was a little bit hesitant, but I agree. I'll give Alex another warning, and unblock Alakzi. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
At best, I was hoping for no objections if I chose to unblock. I'm not sure I would have been big enough to carry it our myself with some of those comment that were thrown your way :-) Kudos. Here's to hoping it all works out for the better.—Bagumba (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your reconsideration. It looks like things are quietening down now; I think Alakzi was feeling embattled and I'm grateful for the steps you've taken to persuade Alex to back off. I'm pretty sure there is no longer a need for an interaction ban, but thank you for your support for my suggestion. I'm very pleased that Dirtlawyer1 has put so much effort in trying to find a solution to the underlying issues, and I will do whatever I can to help when and if needed. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Ceradon! I notice you've been keeping an eye on Alex The Whovian and his fondness of late for pushing editors beyond the point of constructive discussion. You might want to take a look at a couple discussions on Whyedithere's talk page beginning at User_talk:Whyedithere#Extant and continuing in the thread that follows. Whyedithere has done a couple article splits recently, and being a newbie, screwed them up in the way newbies often do. Alex is on his case about a comparatively small error, then in his attempt to fix it, actually made it worse. Thankfully, an admin came along soon after and sorted it all out, but Whyedithere is now so pissed off and defensive, there's no way anyone can work constructively with him until he cools down. Trust me, Whyedit is no saint (AussieLegend and I are building an SPI case right now, and he's just come off a block), but Alex really gave him an unnecessarily bad time. Then there's the charming little exchange about gay marriage and straight pride at the end of it all. Not a problem yet, but on the cusp, to be sure. Anyway... I thought I'd give you a heads up, given your recent action. I'm not sure there's any action needed; I left a message on Alex's talk page suggesting he dial it down a bit. Let's see what he does. --Drmargi (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
My interactions with the user in question are now over, unless he happens to be editing the same article as myself. I see the error in my ways (except for the fact that requesting administrator intervention for the article is far from making it worse, and is the correct way of moving an article and its history). Alex|The|Whovian04:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
FYI
I thought you might be interested to know that I've requested the restoration of my AWB access, something which you might still be opposed to. Alakzi (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@Soltesh: Hello, and Welcome to Wikipedia! In your draft, it seems that a big problem is sources. What we need on Wikipedia for our articles are sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and reliability, and cover the topic of the article significantly (i.e. more than passing mentions). At the same time, these sources must work independently from the topic of the article, in this case 9janimi. A good place to start is Google News and Google Books. However, in my searches for "9janimi" in either of those places, I could see nothing that was particularly helpful. Sources need to be available in order an article to remain on Wikipedia. I'm afraid that unless you can find several sources that are reliable, independent and cover the topic significantly, the draft is not ready for primetime right now. I'm sorry if this is discouraging to you, and I hope this doesn't turn you away from Wikipedia. All the best in editing, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 23:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ceradon: Hi sire, thanks and i appreciate your response, firstly it is "9janimi Channel", however i cannot seem to understand why google is yet to crawl this the News results, but below are links to some posts...
Though I suspect the form of your proposal wasn't quite right to be widely accepted, I wish you would have kept your proposal open for more than a day, to give time for more editors to weigh in. Even if the proposal didn't achieve acceptance, the discussion is invaluable to gaining insight into what may be acceptable to the community in future. A quick withdrawal unfortunately gives the impression that the proposal lacked a degree of forethought, which I assume was not the case.
My personal suggestion is to have professional mediation to work out the best approach in cases of dispute (and ideally, binding content arbitration, but I know that will be an even harder sell). One key to success is for the process to clearly include the community's input, and not be seen as the imposition of the will of an autonomous group. At present, though, the idea hasn't garnered much support. isaacl (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It didn't seem that the proposal was going anywhere, but I believe that there does need to be more discussion as to how we deal with situations where, for some reason, consensus is unattainable. I'd welcome more ideas. I have a few of my own, and I'll keep exploring them in the next few days/weeks. --ceradon (talk • edits) 03:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Determining consensus requires patience; there hadn't been very many replies yet, which is probably not surprising for a weekend in the middle of the summer for the northern hemisphere. Even so, the replies so far were interesting and helping to reveal other points of view. The only way for a future proposal to succeed is for all interested parties to take advantage of available opportunities to listen to each other and learn. isaacl (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your flexibility! The next suggestion I have is a difficult one to implement (I have often failed miserably at it): try to get everyone thinking flexibly as well. Too often commenters get locked in on their initial interpretation of a proposal, and so filter all their responses in terms of their first thoughts. What is needed, though, is that participants think about what approaches they would find useful in improving the decision-making process. Good luck! isaacl (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the proposal for an advisory group: I suggest you explain how such a group would differ from Wikipedia:Mediation and where the group would fit into English Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures. I can envision an appropriate role, but it would useful for you to set out your thoughts to ensure a common understanding. Your enthusiasm is welcome! isaacl (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Isaacl: Mediation focuses on article content, while this advisory group would focus on disputes that do not necessarily focus on article content, but on policies, procedures and guidelines, and seek to facilitate the building of consensus when other avenues have failed to do so. This group would build upon past consensus and create proposals that would be beneficial to the community at large, rather than just one article. Thoughts? --ceradon (talk • edits) 06:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, how would your proposal be preferable to extending the scope of the existing mediation process to mediate other types of disputes? isaacl (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Isaacl: Perhaps for three reasons: First, mediators select and promote themselves without input from the broader community. This might bring accusations of a "clique" or a "cabal". Second, mediators were put in place specifically to handle content disputes between individual editors. All of a sudden, if we expand their remit to things that they were not put their for and may not be suited for, I can see people not liking that. Thirdly, the mediators themselves may not want the extra responsibility. However, with a new advisory group, we would know they want the responsibility. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 16:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
This I think lies at the heart of the disagreement you are seeing with your proposal: it sounds like you are thinking of the advisory group as a team with additional powers, whereas I see it as a mediation team. Although disputes have different natures, the same mediation techniques can be brought to bear, whether the issue is content or policy.
The key issue is that consensus doesn't scale (I discuss it in a bit more detail in the essay I linked to above regarding consensus requiring patience). To continue with a consensus approach, ways to make it more manageable are necessary; for example, perhaps it means the different groups with different viewpoints pick a representative for their concerns to enter mediation, and the mediator tries to work out an agreement with the smaller team. Maybe it means limiting policy discussion to longer-standing members of the community (at the moment, I don't see this gaining favour, though). Eventually if a failure to reach consensus deadlocks the community on enough crucial issues, some change will happen. isaacl (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
About Lukeno94
Drama? I tried to be polite. I posted two civil posts which came from old-timers. I asked for a week so things could cool down. You collapsed it, I did not know how to edit it, now I can not even find it. Is there any chance you could just give him a week, or am I missing something? A simple yes or no will work for me, I will end this here either way. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not questioning your civility, Sammy D III, and meant no offense, but RfPP is not the correct venue for those types of things. I'm also not quite sure of what you mean by "give Lukeno94 a week". Could you clarify please? --ceradon (talk • edits) 18:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I thought Luke wanted Andy and Springee to be blocked from editing his talk page for a short time, there is clearly bad blood between them. That was all I was talking about. Thank you for your answer. Sammy D III (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Luke's welcome to edit or not, his talk page or elsewhere. However he is not welcome to continue with his sniping at other editors, myself included, when he is using "retirement" as a defence against the usual sanctions for such. "Give Luke a week" by all means, but Luke wasn't able to give it a week without attacking others.
He has only attacked with his edit summaries, answering posts from you people. If you had left him alone, he wouldn't have attacked you, would he? I just said about the same thing to your other post.
Hello, Ceradon. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Ceradon. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I see and applaud your short block on User:Olowe2011 and I have noted they have an alternate account at User talk:Wiki-Impartial which they are not using to circumvent the block. This is good. But I also note that they have asked to be part of DRN. To me this is a challenge, because they lack experience here as the reason for the primary account's block shows in full measure. I am simply making you aware as the blocking admin. I have no idea how or whether to pursue this, so I am here for your advice. FiddleFaddle15:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Timtrent, I truly do not believe Olowe2011 is suited for DRN. But, I think with a bit of tuning up, he would make a fine Wikipedian. Perhaps you should push him towards mentorship, or even mentor him yourself? It would be quite beneficial. --ceradon (talk • edits) 18:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I will see how their attitude has mellowed on their return. Fine wikipedians are, in my view, 70% attitude and 30% aptitude. What I do not want to do is to pour fuel on their fire. I'm happy to take folk under my wing; I have often in the past. They have to be prepared to walk alongside me, though. FiddleFaddle20:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Since I am unavailable tomorrow I have made this offer to them. I hope I've couched it in terms that do not inflame the situation. They just need to learn, somehow, that we are all very small fish in an enormous pond. I fear that they may react poorly. I wonder if you might look at that when they reply, if they reply, and offer calming advice if needed? I suggest the DRN issue for their other user name is best left to you or others. I concur that they are not currently ready for that role. They may well become so in time, though. FiddleFaddle20:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
There is potential for positive progress. I wonder if English is this editor's second language. It is possible that this may have caused and be causing a communications disconnect over things here. FiddleFaddle22:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
