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.
Your proposals here are magnificently drafted, on point, and necessary. If anything, the general reaction to the proposals demonstrates the need for the alternatives you suggest. North of Eden (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
BBC says that a transfer is a loan deal (Jak Alnwick) however I noticed in the history that a user claims that the BBC is wrong and that a local newspaper is correct. I'm unsure what to do, should I undo my edits of BBC being correct? Leeds United FC fan (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I've gone back to the previous edit before mine because it seems that the club themselves confirm its a transfer and not a loan, in addition to numerous other sources so this is a mistake by the BBC. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello. A few days ago you protected the article because of an IP-hopper repeatedly adding "non-mainstream" material, i.e. a very fringe claim that the school was the first university in the world (see discussion on the talk page of the article). Well, the protection has expired and the IP-hopper is back, with the exact same edit, so would you mind protecting it again?Thomas.W talk17:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Canister is irrelevant to the Confederate barrage. They used heavy ordnance. The anti-personnel canister is what ripped the Confederates into shreds (with grape and case as well).
Subheading makes it much more clear that the whole thing was staggered and had three separate waves (inadvertently). • Lingzhi ♦ (talk)04:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
If you wanna wait until the whole infantry section is completely finished and then add subheadings, that would be OK. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk)04:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Lingzhi, I'm trying to keep the TOC clean and wieldy. I don't think subsections are needed there. In any event, we could reinforce to the reader that their were three waves of assaults in the lede and the body, rather than subsections. I mean, maybe we could do "First charge," "Second charge," etc. (And yes, I think we should until the entire infantry section is done before subsections). --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
There's a tension between "clean and wieldy" and "too short and vague". It would be sorta OK to list three waves in the TOC by "First wave", "Second wave" etc. without mentioning the specific commander's names. That would kinda suck too, but would suck less. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk)04:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm using harvtxt without enclosing ref tags in the notes section, a practice which I recently opposed but have come to an evolved understanding. I now think a footnote inside a footnote does look odd (which another person said recently and I disagreed with). You're using harvnb inside ref tags. I just think it looks better (more logical way of presenting the stream of information), but will not take a strong stand on the issue. Thoughts? • Lingzhi ♦ (talk)07:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, I am giving strong consideration to your suggestion of avoiding new subheadings. I am not unwilling or unable to change. But my gut still leans toward adding them. We'll see how the section ends out... • Lingzhi ♦ (talk)10:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi there - would you be able to clarify something regarding UAA? Are blatant promotional usernames which have made promotional edits to their own userspace also reportable? Samuel Tarling (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
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.
Thank you, and I didn't take offense. It was an underdeveloped idea and a ill-guided, and thus ill-fated proposal. C'est la vie; life is a learning experience. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 05:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
The vandalism resumed immediately. This will be a long-standing problem because of Cecil's popularity, so please make it for a longer time this time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Ceradon I am utterly surprised for being topic ban from India Afghanistan and Pakistan. Reason number one: I have never edited any india / afghanistan page. Number two: I never voilated any WP rule except 3RR on Tank and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa pages for which maximum you shold have blocked me for 24 hours on first Offence. I question Blind following of volunteer comment of a DRN competitior user Cyphoidbomb on ANI. Now how will I able to comment on DRN. Actually by doing so user Cyphoidbomb has denied my right to speak on DRN to which I was party. Can I call this democracy ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmaghndstakun (talk • contribs) 17:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
There is an unblock request at User talk:Jermzc. You blocked the account for 1 week because of "Disruptive editing and edit warring", and Yunshui then increased the block to a month because of sockpuppetry. I agree with both those blocks, but the editor has now given what seem to me to be sincere undertakings not to do the same again. If those assurances are valid, the block is no longer necessary for prevention of disruption, and so I am in favour of unblocking. However, I would like to know if either you or Yunshui has any opinion to express on the matter. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
JamesBWatson, no, I don't have any objections to Jermzc being unblocked. Given his assurances, maybe the block has served its purpose. In any other event, ROPE applies. Thank you for asking me. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 10:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Ceradon. For the last two days, I have been participating in a relatively heated AfD about an obscure competition swimmer from Palau (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirngulbai Misech). I know it's hard to imagine that this subject would generate any amount of interest or emotion, but the back story is the AfD is an outgrowth of this discussion at the WP:NSPORTS talk page: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Notability of individuals for swimming/aquatics. The editor in question, User:Lugnuts]], is a long-term productive editor who frequently contributes constructively to sports subjects. In the case of this AfD, however, he has accused other editors of being "deletionists" (contrary to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA), accused me of improper "canvassing" (contrary to "appropriate notification" per WP:CANVASS), and is now falsely accusing another editor of sock-puppetry (contrary to WP:Sock puppetry). This is making a mess of the AfD discussion, and generally turning it into an unpleasant atmosphere for new participants during the remaining four days of the AfD. I was tempted to file an ANI report, but that always leads to more drama and less constructive resolution. Can you take a look at Lugnuts' comments and issue any warnings you think appropriate? He's not responding to gentle warnings from me or anyone else, the AfD is going to be a complete mess, and most of the AfD thread already needs to be hatted as off-topic. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Not a problem. The incivility and accusations will no doubt continue to percolate for the next four days as they have for the past three. Dirtlawyer1 (talk)
@Pigsonthewing: My protection was to prevent a move war. I got spooked when Alakzi was reverting JzG's edits, and thought he might move the page again, which would definitely have been unconstructive, thus the move protection. The protection was the first admin action. I believe that, at that point, I wasn't yet involved. With the reversion, yes, I'm now involved, so I won't be using my tools anymore in this regard. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 16:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
If it's a conclusion any administrator would have come to, why does it matter whether I am involved or not? INVOLVED is not a trump card for common sense. In any event, angry rants are better served in the userspace than in the project space. According to ESSAY: "Essays may be moved into userspace (or deleted) if they are found to be unhelpful" Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 16:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Because it's inflammatory. From a policy point of view it's true that your involved actions are not something another admin would overturn, but in context they give they could give off the impression of hounding and targeting another editor. Based on this diff it seems like this is the exact impression that's been given off.[2] You blocked an editor, then unblocked them citing WP:ROPE (admin action). When they attempted to have the essay deleted in response to your actions, you voted keep in the MfD (non-admin action). Then when they attempted to rename the page (in response to something you did), you locked the page(admin action). Then you voted against the move on the talk page. Then you go and engage in a snark off with the editor in question at ANI(non-admin action). Then when their friend wrote an angry essay which seems to be in response to something you did, you closed a discussion and moved it into userspace(admin action). Even though the editor in question clearly wasn't exhibiting the most ideal behavior, that doesn't justify this mix of admin and involved actions. Do you not see how the targeted editors could take this pretty badly? Brustopher (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I actually agree with everything you wrote there. That's exactly why I'm on your talk page discussing this with you right now instead of writing WP:Don't be an involved Ceradon. I'd like to clarify that I don't think you're doing anything bad here on purpose, and I don't mean to condone any insults that have been thrown your way. But just as you recommended to Webdrone, you should consider the human consequences of your actions, even if the humans in questions are behaving badly. Brustopher (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Why? Our social policies are not a suicide pact. Why should I show good faith to individuals who have repeatedly shown me bad faith? Why? Why? Why? I'm at my wits end. I've tried the best I can with Alakzi. He has done some very good work, and we should definitely try to salvage editors who do good work. But now? I'm done. I no longer care keep Alakzi or his friends on Wikipedia. I have considered the human consequences of my actions. That's why I unblocked Alakzi. It's why I warned him before this whole thing blew up that he should leave it alone. His response? "Maybe there will come a day when you will acquire principles." You're questioning me on the human consequences of my actions when my detractors have repeatedly failed to consider the human consequences of their actions? Please, spare me. I know you're intentions are good, Brustopher, but you are defending the indefensible. I do not care to speak any further in this regard. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 17:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I noticed you declined me as being a template editor, I thought I had a good explanation for becoming an editor, so could you please give me some tips on how to get approved? And also it doesn't say declined but instead "not done", what does that mean?
Nrwairport, templates are very important to Wikipedia, to say the least. Having template ditor status would allow you to edit some very sensitive templates that, if something went wrong, could do quite a bit of damage. I quite simply do not believe that you have the experience or the need for the template editor status. But experience is accumulated over time, of course, so that is not an indictment against you. However, if you want to suggest changes to a template, you may suggest changes using the {{edit template-protected}} template on the talk page of the template you want to edit. Someone will come along and action them. You may also like to familiarize yourself with template syntax here: Help:Template. I hope that helps! --ceradon (talk • edits) 02:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I do have the experience. Although this specific account only has a few hundred edits, my other account in which will no longer log in, has made over 100,000 edits and I have edited with Wikipedia for upwards of 5 years. I am an aviation specialist and the templates that I see for airlines, airports, and other aviation pages (just as an example) are very "information-lacking." Editing the templates for the better is what I would do. So if having the reason of bettering these templates and 100,000+ edits and 5 years of editing is not the "experience or need for the template editor status," then what is? I also noticed I was declined several other roles, and the reasons for declining were not reasonable. Nrwairport (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Fold3. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:
Make sure that you can still log in to your Fold3 account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email me and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Unfortunate to have closed the conversation without explaining to me WHY he was banned. Maybe I would've supported it, maybe not...Zigzig20s (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
You are free to read the ANI thread -- only took me twenty minutes. Although, I can expound on the reasons laid out if you insist. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 03:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Why was he blocked specifically? It's not clear whether it was for multiple reverts (which can happen in the heat of the moment sometimes), or for adding conservative-leaning content. But I would have to see specific examples. You said earlier, "I can expound on the reasons laid out if you insist." Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
He was "blocked" because there was consensus for that at ANI. I assume, though, you mean "why was he banned". The answer to that though, should be apparent to anyone who has read the ANI thread. He was banned for edit warring on a wide swath of page over an extended period of time, despite numerous warnings, in an attempt to slant those articles in favor of his particular point of view. For instance, this absolutely neutral gem; and this, which not only waters down what the source says to push his own point of view, but also mirrors the original source much too closely. I hope that helps. --גַּבְרִיאֵל (ceradon)(talk)19:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Never heard of Kempner, though I know the Victory Fund a little. Anyway, the second example sounds similar to me--nothing concerning. I tried to improve Kempner's page and also added relevant WPs. Hopefully it looks more encyclopedic now. His article should include information about his investment in lightbulbs if this has been disclosed in the popular press.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the fact that you are seeing the Kempner edit for the first time here strongly suggests that you didn't even bother looking at the Diffs and examples. How about doing that next before you show up and ask "whats the issue here?" -Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Please tone down your language and be courteous. I have zero interest in being talked down to by you (or any other online stranger), none. So far, those two examples do not look like good enough reasons to block an editor to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
But that is sort of the point. Those two examples the admin pulled from the ANI. You would have seen them if you read it. There are many there, its evident you didn't bother looking at them. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Please don't talk to me again. I am not interested in talking to you or hearing about your opinions, given your unfriendly tone. I will wait for Ceradon to get back to me, since this is his talkpage, not yours.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
In case anyone missed it at the tail end of the ANI, Zigzig20s was canvassed by Jimjilin based on this thread on my talk page (about thesetwo edits). I link to those diffs not to bring up the past -- it's indeed well in the past -- but to give context to why this is the one editor from my talk page he canvassed while looking for "editors who favor freedom of speech" (i.e. it's a comment about Jimjilin, not Zigzig20s). However, generally speaking, showing up at the end of an ANI thread, knowingly canvassed, asking to be walked through it without reading the thread and following the diffs, while suggesting some anti-conservative agenda in play (presumably held by the many users who shared the same opinion of Jimjilin's edits as represented in the thread?) doesn't seem like a fruitful endeavor. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Final comment: I must agree with Xcuref1endx; I don't think it's my job to restate everything that has already been stated in the ANI thread for your edification, and I do not have the patience for that either, so I will withhold from doing so. It seems, Zigzig20s, that this conversation is going in circles, and that all the answers to your questions might be answered by a careful reading of the ANI thread. If you have further questions, you might be better served by referring them to Rhododendrites (I hope they don't mind). Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 17:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Next time, don't say, "I can expound on the reasons laid out if you insist." Instead, say, "I CANNOT expound." I have no idea why that editor was blocked; it's an unknown unknown. Whatever.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Awesome. Probably, the biggest thing I couldn't find is details about his burial, cremation, etc. Got anything on that? --ceradon (talk • edits) 06:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll look. I didn't borrow "And So It Goes" again, but looked for books of commentaries. It staggers me how much has been written about Vonnegut. If necessary, I can go back to GMU Sunday. I think possibly something should be said, perhaps under techniques, about the plot style, as exhibited most famously in Slaughterhouse-Five. We do say something in the bio section, but I think something under techniques would be good. I'm mining the books for nuggets that won't lengthen things too much but which hit good points. Sorry I was inactive so long, I was traveling and had very little time to do work and not much internet access.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Wehwalt, no problem. I was trying to find a preview of "And So It Goes" that gives info on Vonnegut's burial. No luck. Online sources don't seem to help either. --ceradon (talk • edits) 07:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure it has much, I did look at the end looking for "Legacy" style stuff and it seemed to end abruptly with his death. But I'll have to double-check.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not coming up with a lot either, using my online resources through GMU. Will keep looking. We need a section with his views on war, I think. I'll take a shot at a first draft and see if you like it.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Still nothing on funeral but I'll keep poking around. And So It Goes ends with his death, I checked. There's a couple of comments by Iridescent that I left for you. I would suggest waiting a few days after he is done and if no one else comments, close it and we can nominate at FAC. I am doing a slow copyedit of the article and will look for anything obvious missing. Do you know of any of Vonnegut's GE publications available online? They were almost certainly published without copyright notice and would be PD today, but we'd have to view the entire publication to be sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I did the Dresden footnote. Unless there's some further concerns at the PR, I think we are in business. Why don't we notify Iridescent that we plan to close the PR, say, in a few days, and if all looks good, plow on to FAC?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Wehwalt, left a note on Iridescent's talk page. I don't think we need to wait a few days, actually. If Iridescent is okay with the article, I think we can go forward to FAC. --ceradon (talk • edits) 12:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Why don't we go ahead? People's schedules can be a bit uncertain in the summer. It sounds like anything he might have to add would be easily fixed, and he can make it at the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
On the images: I think the yearbook is taken care of. The family one has an OTRS tag and I think that's good enough. The Army one I'm not sure on, and the 1972 one would be fine if someone had bothered to webarchive the eBay images, which are now gone. We can find another copy or use another image, I suppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Wehwalt, it's just Brianboulton and Iridescent left to throw their hats in the ring. After that just a source review is needed right? (Actually, there is consensus to promote right now with 4 supports, isn't there?) --ceradon (talk • edits) 23:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Probably, though they may wait and not rush to promote. I think Eric Corbett also mentioned someplace he might weigh in. What SO did was part of a source review, but not the whole thing so I guess we will have to have someone do that. Or we can ask him.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that you closed my ban appeal as "no consensus". I think you made mistake in evaluating arguments presented in this discussion.
Keeping people banned because they feel and think they were unjustly banned is not valid ground for keeping them banned as long as they do not demonstrate behavior for which they were banned. People should not be sanctioned because of what they think, feel or not do. People should be sanctioned because of what they do. Especially if !votes for sanctions come from several editors who are involved and who demonstrated the behavior for which they banned me.
Antidiskriminator, my comments at the ban appeal: you must present that you understand why you were banned (blaming it on vendettas will not work), and you must present an actual plan on how you expect to prevent such behavior from recurring. Perhaps, a 1RR on yourself to prevent edit warring, and a probationary period? Food for thought when you re-appeal later. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 14:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I did present explanation why I was banned and I did present plan to avoid similar problems in this topic areas. What is more important, with my behavior during the ban I adressed all presented concerns about my behavior. Your statement and especially proposal for probationary period with 1RR to prevent edit warring show that you did not carefully read the discussion and that you don't understand why I was banned (it had nothing to do with edit warring). Will you please be so kind to reconsider your closure and also to mention necessary participaton of uninvolved editors? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
@Antidiskriminator: Oh you did? Perhaps I missed it. Please restate why you were banned and what your plan is to prevent future recurrences. State it clearly and unambiguously and use as few words as possible for the record. Reflect on what you did to get banned, and how you plan to prevent such recurrences. --גַּבְרִיאֵל (ceradon)(talk)20:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
If you read the discussion carefully you will notice that there is no dispute why I was banned. I was banned because of what I said on article's talkpages. Not because of edit warring. That is why I think your statement and idea about probationary period with 1RR to prevent edit warring show that you did not carefully read the discussion and that you didn't understand why I was banned. It had nothing to do with edit warring and I don't think I need to present plan to avoid edit warring. Also, I don' blame anybody. The administrator who banned me (Drmies) stated: "That votes for the ban come from editors that they have been in conflict with--eh, that's to be expected." (diff). Those editors said that my communication with them was "disruptive (unproductive, unconstructive, annoyingly bizarre, unhelpful, mind-numbing, obstructing, stonewalling, ....)".
During my ban I strictly followed wikipedia policies and avoided both content and conduct disputes with other editors. Nobody thinks my communication during my ban was "disruptive (unproductive, unconstructive, annoyingly bizarre, unhelpful, mind-numbing, obstructing, stonewalling, ....)." That is why my plan is to continue "avoiding similar problems in this topic areas by strictly following wikipedia policies and avoiding both content and conduct disputes with other editors." If you think I should present a plan to prevent edit warring please explain why.
If you carefully read this ban appeal discussion and earlier discussions related to my ban you will notice that multiple editors, including some involved editors who banned me, underlined that uninvolved input is necessary to make decision about my ban. Why didn't you mention that in your closing statement?
I hope you can now reconsider your closure. If you decide not to change your closure I would appreciate if you can explain me what DID I DO to make you decide I should remain banned? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
What specifically did you do on talk pages that got you banned? The first step is admitting you have a problem. What did you do in particular that got you topic banned. Asking me is cheating. You need to realize what you did that got you topic-banned. That's the only possible way you can develop a plan to prevent it and follow it to the letter -- if you recognize the problem, and actually want to solve it. "Those editors said that my communication with them was "disruptive (unproductive, unconstructive, annoyingly bizarre, unhelpful, mind-numbing, obstructing, stonewalling, ....)"." You're trying to distance yourself from your own behavior. Refer only to yourself, and don't refer to others. What did you and you alone do to get yourself topic banned? As for the 1RR suggestion and a probationary period, several editors suggested it in the ANI thread, and I suggested it to you.
Simply saying you're going to "strictly adhere to Wikipedia's policies" isn't a trump card you can throw around and get yourself untopic banned. The first step is admitting the problem. Now, develop a definite plan that you promise to follow (and others hold you to) that will prevent these problems from recurring. For instance, will you limit the amount of comments you make to a particular thread? Will you do better to seek consensus on talk pages? Will you limit the amount of times you mention the same thing on a talk page? Will you limit the amount of new sections you make on a talk page? Will you limit the amount of times you respond to a user's comment on a talk page? Lay out a plan.
Because it's irrelevant. Of course the users who are more closely connected and affected by your behavior will be more keen and vociferous about getting you topic banned, and making sure your topic banned sticks. That's just common sense. If you can't convince the people you'll be working with that you have changed your behavior for the better, well then my opinion, the uninvolved administrator who closed the discussion and will likely never work with you extensively again, is of little importance. --ceradon (talk • edits) 17:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer.
"The first step is admitting you have a problem....The first step is admitting the problem." - Admitting? That is not what you wrote in your closing statement. Admitting is different from presenting the reason for ban and plan to avoid it in future, which I both presented. My behavior during the ban prove my plan is effective. 1rr idea is refuted during discussion. With your comment about it you again prove you did not read the discussion carefully.
Lack of uninvolved input is not irrelevant because your closing statement should reflect the discussion. Will you please include it in your closing statement?
Your reply again point to things I did not do. You can not decide to keep me banned because of what I think or what I did not do. Why do you avoid to reply to simple question: What DID I DO to make you decide I should remain banned?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I would like to ask you to look at this immediately emerging situation
Issue: User completely reverting Talk comments of one User: A User with whom you interacted recently, in an edit war/block situation, has taken it upon himself to completely blank out the Talk comments of this editor, see last two Talk entries here Talk as it should be versus The world according to… DePiep. See also here the edit history, where you see I had to experiment with his reversion, to believe my eyes, that he had actually reverted my entries. (Note , I do not know technically what he did, as the first violating edit of his, at 22:45, 18 August 2015 (DePiep, +4,687), appears to be an addition. I simply know the result was to delete all my Talk entries of today.]
Please have a look, and restore the Talk to where it was before this problem editor did his erasure? It is urgent because others have been pinged to reply to the latest discussion (i.e., he needs to be reverted, and stopped from re-deleting Talk, before others begin to edit the wrong page.) Thank you for your attention. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Done. Initial matter settled—Talk page restored—but not before the fellow let Doc and I have it, mdr. See closing Talk section here, [3] (and search your name to see previous encounter). Perhaps look in here [4] to make sure Bagumba's reversion stands, if your time permits. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
24.228.234.139 blocked
Hi,
Thanks for blocking 24.228.234.139. When I reported that IP I wasn't entirely sure since they hadn't made another edit since being warned this time. However, between my reporting them and your banning them they reinstated their offensive vandalism. It probably won't come up, but should there be an appeal against the block or any other discussion, I think that that show you made the correct judgement. Thanks again. 95.150.40.137 (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar
Ceradon, I saw your RfA but didn't comment since I wasn't really familiar with you at all. Since then though, I've seen you around a lot, and I've been impressed not only by your willingness to boldly help out in a variety of areas, but by your consistently good judgment and your reliably insightful commentary. Thanks for everything you've been doing since becoming an admin. It's been good seeing you around and having you on the team! Keep up the great work! Swarm♠03:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words, Swarm. I must say that adminship is certainly fun. Just as well, such barnstars are definitely encouraging. I've seen you around as well, and I can say the same about you. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Honorable move
Thanks for coming clean. I need to review history, but what I've seen with your current account, you have been doing good work for the project, and I hope all agree. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
You don't know me but I've seen and appreciated your work here. Should you decide to put forward an RfA I will abandon my moratorium of that process and support your nomination. Make the choice that's right for you. Regards Tiderolls07:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why this was made a draft when there was no request to do so. It's just an invitation to end up back in mainspace unaddressed. Also if you're going to userfy, the article really should be neutered (add AfC submission tag so it's removed from search engines, remove categories, etc.) – czar07:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I userfied it in the hope that new, reliable sources might come up in the future. It may not be notable now, but it may well be in the future. There's no reason to put a new user through getting that refunded whenever new sources pop up either. Per your suggestion, I've neutralized the categories and added an AfC banner. If I missed something, feel free to ping me. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 07:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The article has sat fallow for six years without sources and that editor only returned because of the AfD notice. As much as there's "no reason" to have an editor request undeletion when they're planning to invest the effort, there's just as much "no reason" to put an experienced editor through monitoring yet another page that the author has no interest in maintaining. So I hope you're right. – czar08:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Happy to be working with you
It's probably no recommendation to some, but I just want to express my public confidence, in you as an editor, a content contributor, and as a once and future admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:CLOSE, I am requesting that you reconsider aspects of your recent close at WT:HARASSMENT. I consider that the conclusion of "no consensus" for a specific sexual harassment policy is a reasonable outcome of the discussion, but am concerned that the conclusion that there is a consensus for an identity harassment policy may not be as reasonable.
While a wider identity based harassment policy may have been addressed by some of the contributors, the RfC questions were limited to a specific sexual harassment policy, and it would seem that a number of contributors limited themselves to discussion of the specific on this basis. It may not be appropriate to conclude that those contributors opposing only the specific would not have also opposed the wider policy if that had been the topic of discussion.
the RfC questions were limited to a specific sexual harassment policy I'm afraid I don't see where you concluded that. The third question in the RfC was: "A harassment policy that specifically mentions identity-based harassment (including, but not limited to, sex, gender, race, age, ability, etc.)" That was added on July 18. Even before it was added though, several people were supporting a broader harassment policy. For instance, " if our harassment policy could make clear that gender discrimination and sexual harassment are explicitly not tolerated and blockable, sure"; Boson's "differentiated support", Kirill Lokshin's "While a more general policy against harassment is certainly necessary" -- Just to name a few. --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ceradon, Many thanks for your response. It is greatly appreciated. It would appear that I have phrased particularly poorly, for which I sincerely apologise.
For the RfC questions were limited to a specific sexual harassment policy, please substitute "when considering the question of a separate policy, independent of WP:HARASSMENT, the RfC questions were limited to a specific sexual harassment policy".
I believe that this is the scenario presaged in comments by AndyTheGrumpthe RfC can only reach an unambiguous conclusion of it closes as 'oppose' & Bosonthe question was whether to have a policy, not whether to have a separate policy.
I do take your point w.r.t the addition of Option 3 on July 18; and I do concur that it is not unreasonable to conclude that this option received greater support than Option 2; and that it is arguable that there is consensus for explicit mention of identity-based harassment within policy.
I would not, however, concur that support for Option 3 should necessarily be taken to imply support for a separate, independent, identity-based harassment policy; I think that reasonable readings of that option include the addition of wording explicitly covering identity-based harassment to the existing general harassment policy. (Such as that recently introduced to WP:HARASSMENT.)
That is, a harassment policy that specifically mentions identity-based harassment... may not imply a separate, independent policy; and may be taken to mean the preexisting policy.
W.r.t the individual response examples; the first, by Drmies, explicitly refers to the existing policy; the second, by Boson, explicitly supports mention in the existing policy; the third example, by Kirill, supports calling out sexual harassment, but does not mention whether this should be in the existing or a separate policy.
There are also a number of the !votes which would reasonably be considered oppose to a separate, independent policy of any kind; not merely of a specific sexual harassment policy. (Per: Godsy, Chillum, Robert McClenon, Staszek Lem, GoodDay, Pudeo ... etc )
Reviewing the support votes, I cannot concur that there is sufficient support for an independent policy.
I do not expect that the close will be amended; but "hope springs" is not just a Scottish TV series; and I do consider it important that concerns that the close does not accurately reflect the consensus of the discussion be noted.
I would also like to note that while I may disagree with the close on this basis, I extend sincere thanks to you for having performed the close itself. I realise that this is a contentious area, with strong feelings held by many, and I appreciate you "stepping up to the plate".
I also notice that you are currently working through some other matters, so will not overly trouble you on this point further. I wish you the best of luck with that matter.
I just want to let you know that Steve Harvey's birth name is Broderick Steve Hightower. His stage name is Steve Harvey. I learned this from his talk show, "Steve Harvey's Talk Show", and his game show "Family Feud". It is important to get people's actual name right. Please understand that the edit I made is correct and your revision is incorrect. So leave my edit, Broderick Steve Hightower, alone and do not edit it again.
Quite honestly, I do have to wonder how you could completely forget about all your previous accounts, even one (MauchoEagle) that made over two thousand edits. --Biblioworm(talk)15:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how that happened either. But, the best I can do is honesty. I'm an open book right now. If honesty doesn't work, I don't know what else there is that I can offer the community. --ceradon (talk • edits) 15:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Im confused. I can understand forgetting those accounts, given that they were only active for a few months, but are you saying you also forgot about SunCountryGuy01 itself? SCG was only active for about six months itself, but I seem you remember you editing as SunCountryGuy in a lot more places. If you really didnt remmeber any of those accounts until now, i agree running a reconfirmation RFA with that information in plain sight is a good idea. If you were hiding SCG as part of a cleanstart process, Im still not necessarily upset; but i think that info should be public as well. Im posting this here instead of the RFA because although I do want you to answer this quewstion, posting on the RFA might encourage too much attention. —Soap—15:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Soap: I wasn't hiding SCG01; not intentionally at least. I simply forgot it. My interest in Wikipedia fizzled while my real life kicked up. Wikipedia became a memory, and I moved on. At least until I came back a few months ago. --ceradon (talk • edits) 16:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
On June 2, 2011, you asked for an unblock on your old account. On June 7, 2011, you registered and you forgot about the presence of your old account? Please explain this, as it strongly differs from your initial "two-year absence" claim. Esquivaliencet16:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Esquivalience: I'm quite sure I remembered those accounts when I created this one. If you got the impression that I was saying I somehow forgot about my previous accounts before creating this one, that was not my intention. I'm saying since about 2012-2014 I simply wasn't paying any mind to Wikipedia (check my edit count stats). I went off to live my life, and only came back to develop the Battle of Malvern Hill article, and ended up sticking around. Hell, the only reason I remembered this "Ceradon" account is because I use "Ceradon" pretty much everywhere; otherwise, I might have created a whole new account. --ceradon (talk • edits) 16:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I was or perhaps I wasn't. I can't exactly tell how I felt four years ago about a website that had kicked me out twice. I was admittedly young then. All that really mattered to me was that people were kicking me out of a place I wanted in on. Now, four years later, I have matured enough to know, understand and follow the rules; back then, probably less. --ceradon (talk • edits) 18:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
We're talking in circles here. During that particular stretch of activity, any edits I made were almost surely dispassionately made. The truth is simple: I didn't care about Wikipedia during that time. I didn't want to edit a lot. I just didn't care. My interest fizzled out, and apparently, so did my recollection of those past accounts. I came back to improve the Battle of Malvern Hill article, and ended up sticking around. --ceradon (talk • edits) 18:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Just a procedural note here, I've removed your edit filter manager user right as it's restricted for non-admins by default. If you still have a need for it, you can re-request it at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter. I'm very sorry for the way things turned out; I'll email you when I have some time to compose my thoughts. I absolutely still stand by the barnstar I sent you. Swarm♠07:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Swarm: There's actually a precedent (namely Rich Farmbrough), for not removing EFM when an admin is desysopped. I think this is the kind of thing that should probably be clarified somewhere though. Sam Walton (talk) 09:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Samwalton9: If you look at Rich's log, EFM was actually removed before being re-granted on request. If someone already had EMF before sysop, I see no problem not removing it. However, if the EFM was self-granted, I do think it's a good idea for the user to make a formal request to be re-granted it. -- KTC (talk) 10:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Ditto. And fwiw, I think withdrawing the RFA was the right step. Take a few days off if needed, but hope to see you back soon. Abecedare (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry it didnt work out. I never decided how to vote on this RFA, though I may have seemed as if I was leaning oppose. I stand by my earlier words in that now that I see the full story, I think this is forgivable and I hope you decide to stick around long-term and keep on editing for its own sake. Would you mind me (or anyone) removing the userrights from your alt account user:Gaivri'el that are not also on your main account? —Soap—06:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I also hope you don't leave. You are a very talented writer, and you are skilled at article management at FAC, which few are. The project is nowhere near completed, the task is urgent, and there are too few with the skill to help. There are, however, as ever, many who lack ability, except when it comes to detracting, and that's a pity. Sweep them off the table! There's work to be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I was waiting for a few days monitoring the RfA hoping to see a full picture and any further disclosure. Though I'm not surprised you withdrew the RfA, I don't want Wikipedia to be the sort of place where mistakes and dumb decisions made years ago are a reason to never edit again, and in disclosing your previous accounts, you have done the right thing. I do hope you carry on with contributing to Wikipedia: writing articles and improving content, working on backlogs, patrolling, helping other editors etc. Ignore the drama, improve the project and if you ever feel stressed or angered, never be afraid to step away for a few days and have a nice long walk in the sunshine or whatever you do to relax. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article James T. Brady you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. GregJackPBoomer!16:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
It's on hold for two minor issues on the prose, everything else looks good, so as soon as those get cleared up, I'll pass it. Regards, GregJackPBoomer!16:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
You're not the only that can speak German, and it's rather offensive to us others who focus on the technical part of the encyclopedia.—cyberpowerChat:Online19:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I'm sorry you are offended, but the award is for content creators. I'll look at rewording it however. GregJackPBoomer!22:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
It is much better, but I hope I am one technical editor that can be of a positive influence on you content creators. Keep up the good work and thank you for rewording. :-)
Sure, my German has always been weak in grammar and with a heavy Texas accent. I could always ask for a dark beer, the check, and the restroom OK, but the rest was always somewhat mangled. GregJackPBoomer!23:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly how it's supposed to be worded, but here's how I'm reading it. "Do you have an old beer, to celebrate with me for Authors and Developers? Don't let the technical editors influence you."—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access03:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
"Will you have an "Altbier" with me, to celebrate authors and content creators. Don't be influenced by technicians." What I'm trying to get across in my poor German is to have a beer with me, and Altbier is a specific style of beer, a German ale, from the northwestern part of Germany, like Rauchbier is usually from the Bamberg area. The second part is meant to convey a feeling of not letting those editors who insist on strict adherence to BS rules over creativity get you down. Technician isn't really the right way to convey that, I'm looking form more of a reference to a "rules nazi" without the nazi part. GregJackPBoomer!04:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Formal: "Wollen Sie ein Altbier mit mir trinken, um die Autoren und Inhaltentwickler zu feiern? Lassen Sie sich nicht von die Wikianwälte beinflussen."
Informal: " Willst du mit mir ein Altbier trinken, um die Autoren und Knhaltentwickler zu feiern? Lass dich nicht von die Wikianwälte beinflussen."
Indeed. Limping along with Google Translate, I see that the last sentence essentially means that everyone who has not created content is worthless. (Am I right, Cyberpower?) Does anyone want a Wikipedia without anyone to revert vandals (who ruin content creators' work) and ensure that junk pages don't stay? I'm not at all hostile to content work, since I like working on articles myself and intend to improve more, but I don't want any part at all in some elite club that completely despises those who are more maintenance-oriented. --Biblioworm(talk)21:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you got it. I feel technical editors and content creators require a symbiotic relationship. Without the technical editors, Wikipedia would fall apart, and without the content creators, Wikipedia would rapidly become outdated and useless. I recognize the importance of contect creators as the fulfill the role of building the content of the encyclopedia, but technical editors fulfill the role of maintaining the structure of the site, and providing services such as bots and tools that are meant to assist content creators and other users. My most notable example is Cyberbot II 5 at WP:BRFA which is designed to help the content creators. I can say with certainty, when it's ready for deployment it will be well received by at least 90% of all content creators. The goal of it is to preserve sources, and always make sure a backup copy of the source exists should the original go down, as well as redirect to the backup copy if it does go down.—cyberpowerChat:Online22:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
On Wessex, I'm currently looking at a source for the Roman period and searching for more information to add concerning the Saxon invasion. I tend to work rather slowly on articles, but I hope to get this one up to at least GA by the end of the year. It sounds like a long time, but the article almost completely lacks any quality sources and therefore needs a complete rewrite. --Biblioworm(talk)23:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you please protect the page and block the user Mulaj as they keep reverting my sourced edit and saying that a book doesn't count as a reliable source when it does; they have been vandalizing every single Aaliyah page and should be blocked if you can see about something please? Thanks 86.158.64.128 (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
How do I get back my deleted article? I'm really struggling with how this site works its very confusing & I don't know who deleted it in the 1st place. Any help would be appreciated. The page title was "Hecate's Wheel" & it was deleted March 2015
VickiJazPrncess (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
On 7 September 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Samuel L. M. Barlow I, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Samuel L. M. Barlow I settled a dispute concerning a $1,600,000 contract to send arms to France? 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.
I didn't realize until after I left this message that you haven't been on-wiki for a while, so I went ahead and blocked the user. They'd already been blocked for one week for socking to avoid the topic ban, so I blocked them for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
