This is an archive of past discussions with User:Feezo. 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.
Thanks for the heads up! I haven't been making reports so much as responding to them though. I've been more in UAA and RFPERM than RPP so far. I'm not planning to be super-active in AfD, so I'm not sure that's worth mentioning — would you happen to know whether User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD currently works? Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 10:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I've located and cited the reference for the quote both on the Nesta Webster page and the Historiography of the French Revolution page. Thanks for letting me know about the citing Wikipedia policy - cheers. Kfodderst (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Citing Internal Links
As a general rule of thumb, are internal/wikilinks only used if there is an existing page? For example, if on an actor's page, there is a movie called 'example five hundred', should one use example five hundred anyway, even if a page doesn't exist? Thanks. Kfodderst (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Your janitor's keyring should now contain one that opens up the IRC channel. Please don't lose it; there is a small fee and waiting period for issuance of spares. Bureaucratically yours, Kat Walsh(spill your mind?)05:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to congratulate you on your new role as administrator. There's a lot of talk equating running for admin to running the gauntlet. It's inspiring to see people agree to the process nevertheless, for the sake of moving forward. I welcome the opportunity to work with you more in the future. Again, congratulations! Cind.amuse06:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words. It's true that RfA is something of a gauntlet these days, although fortunately mine was relatively painless. I know there've been talks of reforming the process, but it doesn't really seem feasible without some external driver. Anyway, I've been continuing my newpage patrolling, so we'll likely have a chance to work together again soon. Best, Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 07:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The version I declined (right before you blanked it) had been purged of all personal attacks except the one that was present in the original version. I hadn't seen the longer list, which was present for only two revisions, but it doesn't appear that the article's primary purpose was disparagement. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 04:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
the page muzik lounge school of audio technology has been created by me for our website http://muzikloungeindia.com and the corresponding facebook page ... it was not copied from anything... the facebook page related to this is also ours... so i request you to kindly post this back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyankapothala (talk • contribs) 08:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Certainly. The speedy deletion criteria specifically exclude 'being in a foreign language' unless a substantially similar article already exists on the correct language Wikipedia. Instead of getting it deleted, protocol is to put up a {{notenglish|Chinese|date=April 2011}} tag to get it listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, whereupon it can be transwikied or translated. Of course, if you can determine that it can be deleted for some other criteria, e.g., advertising or copyright violation, you can tag it for speedy deletion under those instead. Hope this clears that up. Best, Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 11:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Mediation is sometimes frustrating, but it fulfills an important and necessary function. I'd say go for it. If you do, let me know, and I'll support your nomination. Andrevan@22:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Rollback request
Yes I was blocked few months ago, for violating copyright issues. It happened since I was new to wikipedia at that time. I was a novice then. But now am improving day by day to become a fine wikipedian. I have done numerous meaningful and sourced edits after I was unblocked. I have even contributed and nominated an article for 'GA' and even made it listed as a GA. Since I have a keen eye on restricting Vandalism I'd request you to grant me rollback rights.--Thalapathi02:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi there; I came across your page totally by accident, tracking down a link. I wasn't even guilty of talk page stalking! Looking at your userpage, and noting your example page where you discuss deletion vis-a-vis retention/deletion of the page of our current US President. The page, as stipulated on the date specified, is a page that I would almost certainly delete. If not by speedy, then by {{prod}} or via AfD. What would you have done, AT THE TIME? --Anthony Bradbury"talk"16:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
That's exactly my point: deletions that seem reasonable at the time have the potential to be embarrassing in hindsight. There's a reason for the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" maxim; the scale of the project, and the speed with which notable current events are included, makes it too easy to make unwarranted projections about the future. This is not helped by the occasions when news has appeared in Wikipedia prior to being broken in conventional channels. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 19:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Feezo. Further to this, I had a look at a sample of the other rollback requests you've answered and they all looked fine to me. Keep up the good work. :-) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp08:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I feel like a dick for doing this but could you please take a look at the requests for reviewer permissions over on th permissions page. As you may have already guessed mines is included. Sorry to do this to you but you are the only admin editing who have some sort of experience with permissions. Thanks and cheers. mauchoeagle01:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Greetings Freezo.
A notability tag was inserted onto my page Mark Pretorius A few changes and clean-ups have been made by me and a couple of others since then. Please would you have a look when you have time, and let me know what more is required to get the tag removed.
Thanks in advance
Hello — there are nine general notability criteria for academics, a detailed disucssion of which is on the linked page. It doesn't look to me as though the subject meets any of them, (only one is required) or if he does, it's not clear from the article. Any applicable criteria from Wikipedia:Notability (people) may also be used in lieu of Notability (academics). Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 18:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I have managed to source more info on the scholar Mark Pretorius, and I have added a sub-section to his research section entitled readers to include this info. I believe it now meets criteria 4.The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. When you have time to look, please give me your thoughts.
Thanks,
Hmm...based on the article, his book and reader work might make him notable. The prose needs work ("momentous" reads like puffery) but if references are added that support the existing statements, then the notability guidelines would probably be satisfied. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 07:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. How do I get the tag removed, is probably the next hurdle to overcome. Who would now review the page to make that decision? Your advice is welcomed, as I cannot find any info on this. Thanks in advance.
The tag will be removed when an editor reads the article and decides it no longer applies. I know it's annoying to see an article "marred" by a cleanup tag, so if you want to get wider input, you can request peer review. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 07:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Please bock this user
Your blocking skills are desperately need over here at the history page. The user has been creating new sections about different topic that I dont think are appropriate. Also he is most definitely a sockpuppet of the user who had been reverted by Ponyo. mauchoeagle19:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I know you just declined my request for protection of my user page but hows about you consider the protection a user request. Will that work. mauchoeagle21:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, and I dont mean to be choosy but is it possible to up the protection to move=sysop. If it is to much then I understand. mauchoeagle00:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:PP#User pages. I always semi-protect user pages at the user's request regardless of any vandalism. I believe this should be the default state of a user page when an account is created. Anonymous IP editors have no business making edits to the user pages of registered accounts.
If you're making a filter, it should be easy: if not logged in AND if editing a user page, deny the edit. Better still (and less load on the server) would be to make a bot to semi-protect all user pages. The effect would be the same. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
My original decision was in fact based on WP:PP#User pages: there was no evidence of vandalism, ergo the page was not protected. However, as I noted, this is not a required condition for protection. I personally agree with your first point, which was why I altered my decision. Perhaps we should discuss changing this at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy? However, there is no consensus to implement userpage semi-protection by default. Some editors, including Jimbo, allow and encourage anyone to edit their pages. I've even preserved a non-vandalism edit on my own userpage. The filter, which is currently being tested, is designed simply to catch deliberate vandalism. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 01:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know there isn't agreement to implement userpage semi-protection by default. I'm in the camp that believes this should be the default, or at least be a selectable option at the time of account creation.
As to changing WP:PP, I think if it's an obvious clarification, I doubt anyone would object if such a minor change were boldly made. I did something similar in WP:BLANKING with no objection. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Feezo. I just nominated myself in RFA, and as a new sysop yourself, I am requesting your feedback since you passed with your experiance and a 7000 edit count. I have about 5000 edit across 4 years of experiance and also have long gaps of inactivity. So whats your take? –BuickCenturyDriver08:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the way your RfA is turning out. Next time, it might be a better idea to approach experienced editors before nominating yourself. We often can get a good feel for how an RfA will go, and give advice on whether a nomination would be a good idea. Who knows? One of us may even nominate you. So, learn from this RfA, keep editing, and wait at least 8 months before your next RfA. Cheers, Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 08:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, yours was a self nom so I don't think there is anything wrong with them, but yes I do agree that noms by other editors stand a better chance of passing. I think I'll ask you next time I think I'm ready, since only one person was concerned about the timing. –BuickCenturyDriver08:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Self-noms have a reputation of being more difficult to pass, but I'm not sure that's true. No one even mentioned it in my RfA. I think as long as you have a clear statement of what you intend to do with the admin tools and a history of performing similar tasks, it doesn't matter who nominates you. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 08:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
A pie for you!
Armbrust has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appétit!†
Could you please take a look at this diff: [1] and tell me if it needs to be removed by an admin and if so could you please change the visibility of the diff. Thanks and cheers. mauchoeagle00:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
If he wants to be removed from those groups he can do it himself. Without asking, I don't know if there is a particular reason he hasn't done this. Did you see my message earlier on your talk page about user rights? Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 02:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I did, I was just scratching my head because I new that all those rights came with the admin bit and thought that someone in the admin group would know to remove these rights once admin was placed on. Nothing big really. mauchoeagle02:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you have granted me the Autopatrol right. I am honored by the confidence you have expressed in me. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I just requested temporary semi-protection of the page. I can assure you that he will come back to the page in 24 hours so I think you should protect it but it is your will not mines. mauchoeagle06:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The article has had similar issues in the past, but also positive contributions by IPs, so I'd rather not semi-protect it if avoidable. If Raychelhj comes back, I will block him again (permanently if necessary) and if he sock puppets, pending changes protection is also an option. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 07:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Just as I clicked Save page I thought of PC protection. Mind placing it on the page so I can keep a keen eye on our friend. Again it is your will. mauchoeagle07:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you mind granting me access to AWB. I know I dont have 500 mainspace edits but I would really like to start editing the mainspace and it is my understanding that AWB can help with that. I am a new but knowledgeable editor. Please do grant this request. mauchoeagle08:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Feezo, just wanted to let you know that I had to lift the PC protection from the above article in favor of semi-protection; there was simply too much vandalism. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for letting me know — I wanted to give PC a try, since things like this are often a chance to bring in new editors, and I wanted them to have a chance to see our tagline at work. But you're right, I don't think PC will cut it here. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 18:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Requesting unprotection of template {{WWE}}
Hi. Could you please unprotect this template? After giving it some more thought, I find that I have opened a can of worms that I shouldn't have. Thanks. ArcAngel (talk) ) 22:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
It is clearly stated in the given references that the Nationality of Donaire is Filipino. The Ring Magazine pound for pound and List of current world boxing champions pages follow the format of BoxRec.com where it shows the boxer's nationality by their place of birth. In fact Donaire is of Filipino descent. Donaire and his family only acquired US citizenship because they moved to US and became resident of CA, USA. Lots of boxers like Jean Pascal, Antonio Margarito and Vic Darchinyan use the flag of their place of birth instead of their residence. Another example is the current No.9 pound for pound boxer Giovanni Segura, a Mexican but a US resident but still the Flag of Mexico was used beside his name. Doughn (talk • contribs) 23:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello — the article is protected only to prevent edit warring. I do not endorse or oppose its current state. If your arguments are sound, you should be able to continue the discussion on the article's talk page until consensus is reached. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 23:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The Ring has updated its pound for pound list. Donaire's country was changed to Philippines. The flag of Donaire in this page should be changed to Philippine flag not just for the fact that he was born in Bohol, Philppines but also because he has a Filipino blood. He only acquired permanent residency in the United States. Doughn (talk • contribs) 10:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
For Filter 401, I notice you typed you typed USER_GROUPS instead of user_groups, and the filter does not have any hits yet. Before assuming it's a slow filter, it's probably a good idea to make sure whether or not capital letters caused a coding error there. mechamind9006:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for offering to mediate disagreement about similar changes to many US nuclear power plants.
We have a single "new" (? Anyway, unregistered with few edits) editor who has added population figures to nuclear articles without integrating it into the article. He has informed me that "I know why" the figures are germane. In other words, the statistics, which he has entered into 50 or so American nuclear power plants, have no explicit reason for being there.
For the record, I was only watching Vermont Yankee, a plant the anti-nukes are trying to close. I now pay 14 cents/Kwh for electricity, which seems too high. If they close Vermont, I will probably have to pay 20 cents/Kwh. I have a small pension and am wondering what to do if this happens. I decided to check other articles and discovered that he had changed all the ones I checked. I assume all US plants. So I do not qualify as a "nut," for watching one article, normally. (IMO, anyway :)
The population within 50 miles (80 km) of Vermont Yankee was 1,533,472, according to 2010 U.S. Census data analyzed for msnbc.com, an increase of 2.9 percent in a decade. The 2010 population within 10 miles (16 km) is 35,284 (increase of 1.4 percent). Cities within 50 miles (80 km) include Brattleboro (6 miles to city center); Keene, N.H., (16 miles to city center); Fitchburg, Mass., (38 miles to city center).[11]
"
I think the others are similar.
1. In its current state, it would appear non-WP:TOPIC to an npov reader, for failing to answer the question, "Why are surrounding population figures germane to a nuclear reactor? They are not germane to other businesses." Of course, he does not wish to do this, having constructed separate figures for each power plant and not wishing to go back and properly integrate them. It took some time for step one for 50 articles. Doing it correctly might take longer.
2. WP:RELY. He is quoting one anti-nuke source, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42555888/ns/us_news-life, from a reliably anti-nuke media, msnbc. The best source is not from someone drawing circles on a map and summing up heads, but from a professional npov source who has considered the actual potential threat, prevailing winds, evacuation routes, etc. This has been filed, as one of many requirements that a nuke plant has to go through, with the Nuclear Energy Commission. There is possibly another potentially reliable source with the states various Homeland Security Commissions. Both sources would be very WP:NPOV. And both would provide context for entry into the article.
3. The source, while in an online website from a news media and maybe even edit checked, is still WP:OR for the reasons given. Can't "just draw circles on a map" and count heads.
The nice part about running this mediation is that you won't have to notify Extremely hot about attending. He is monitoring all my contributions! Very flattering! Most of them are reversions of vandalism, spelling corrections, and an occasional contribution. Mostly to place (geographic) articles. Very boring. He must have a strong stomach. (And for the record, no, I definitely am not monitoring his!)
He is apparently the leader of an anti-nuke group, which appears to consist of (but may not be limited to) users Ccrrccrr, and Johnfos. Since they don't appear to make their own decisions (he watches their contributions, as well!) I would rather not involve them. I tried to discuss this with one of them who appeared to be the most reasonable, but Extremely intervened, preventing an exchange of views. If we can't obtain an agreement with Extremely, forget the others. They will only say what he says, or tells them to say. IFF (and only if) we can get his concurrence, then we can bring in the others.
For the record, these articles, like so many mature articles, are lightly watched. While there are a few recognizable veterans there, they are interested in specific things: spelling, geographic coordinates, layout, etc. Not "content" per se. This makes them all ripe for a "takeover" by a single issue group with a single agenda and scant interest in WikiPolicy. Student7 (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
We can all agree this is a content dispute: both sides have stepped on the other's toes, but I believe both are fundamentally acting in good faith—we should therefore be able to resolve this. To me, the issues look like:
Relevance of including the population figures
Reliability/neutrality of the source
Together, these introduce the primary issue, which is whether including the figures slants the articles against nuclear power. The figures cited (1 million, 3.5 million) cast the plants in a negative light, as the implication is that substantial populations are at risk. The question is whether this negative light is objective and accurate. I will give my thoughts on this if we can agree to the above as a starting point. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 21:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I can see that this is going to be useful.
The user Student7 describes me in a disparaging way as an "unregistered" editor. What does that mean? What's the difference between a registered and unregistered editor?
He says I have not integrated the information into the article. I don't know what he means by this. It seems proper for the population figures to be in a separate section.
He asks why the population figures are relevant. I suspect that to most editors the relevance will be obvious: Nuclear power plants in the U.S. have evacuation zones. There is in the news currently an emergency requiring an evacuation around a nuclear power plant. The source cited discusses all this. Can the editor not see the relevance?
Is he feigning blindness to take a political position?
He presumes, over and over, to know my motivation, making statements such as, "Of course, he does not wish to do this, having constructed separate figures for each power plant and not wishing to go back and properly integrate them." No, I would be glad to make any changes as required, if they were needed.
He characterizes msnbc.com as an "anti-nuke source." He seems to be confusing msnbc.com with the TV network, MSNBC. (One does not own the other.) Maybe this is the basis for his presumption, without substance, that posting these population figures is somehow an "anti-nuke" position. No. He's guessing at the motivation of other editors, and he's guessing at the motivation of a reputable source, and he should stop it.
He argues that the only way to include population figures is to have someone reputable say what is actually at risk, how much risk there is, etc. No, nuclear power plants already have evacuation zones (10 miles and 50 miles), and how many people are in those areas is relevant. It's a neutral fact.
He argues that this qualifies as OR, even though a source is cited. I have no idea how he's making this argument or what he means.
Again he says, "he is apparently the leader of an anti-nuke group." The editor has fallen down the paranoia rabbit hole.
He claims that I prevented an exchange of ideas. No. Without notifying me, the editor went stumping for votes, and I posted for that editor a very brief position pointing out that this was an attempt at a runaround. This note in no way "prevented an exchange." Again, the paranoia creeps in.
Drop the political point of view, quit guessing at the motivations of other editors, quit dismissing respected news sources as OR -- these are the keys to the editor Student7 getting back on the beam of reality.Extremely hot (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
About the reliability/neutrality of the source: These population figures were calculated, based on the new tract-level data from the U.S. Census Bureau, for msnbc.com, which is one of the top 3 news websites in the U.S., with the article written by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who is notable in his own right.
The figures are stated neutrally. One could add to the statement of the population figures that 10 miles is the standard preparedness zone around nuclear power plants in the U.S., although it is expanded when events warrant. And one could add that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has recommended that Americans around Fukushima Dai-ichi evacuate a 50-mile zone -- but if that information were added, User Student7 would then assume that it were posted as some sort of "no nukes agenda." There's your Catch-22. He insists that a reason for the relevance of this information be cited, declaring that he has no idea why anyone would be interested in evacuation zones around nuclear power plants; but if the current evacuation in Japan were mention, how would he like that? I suspect, not much. It seems best to include the population figures neutrally. He presumes to say that merely stating the population facts is a political statement that everyone in that area is at risk, which is tendentious to say the least.Extremely hot (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Permit me to refactor the discussion with separators; with all the line breaks, it's difficult to tell at a glance where replies begin.
Most of your points are good: the "leader of an anti-nuke group" comments need to either be corroborated with diffs, or dropped. Likewise, MSNBC meets the guidelines for reliable sources; "original research" refers to material first published on Wikipedia. The problem with your position is that the 50 mile zone comes from a different standard. The NEI says that "While prudent for Americans in Japan for this situation, this action should not be interpreted as a standard that should be applied to U.S. reactor emergency planning policy, specifically the use of a 50-mile zone." [2] It goes on to say that the 50 mile zone is intended for "monitoring the environment and food products" and that "in an actual emergency, response directors would designate protective actions beyond these zones should conditions require." Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 01:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments.
I believe it's worth noting that the NEI is a lobbying group for the nuclear power industry. Not a useful source for what it believes "should not be interpreted."Extremely hot (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I am one of those that Student7 accused of being part of an anti-nuke group led by Extremely hot, of not making my own decisions, and of only saying what he says. I guess it would be hard to definitively disprove that, but it would take a quite active imagination to figure out why that conspiracy needed me to create a page on Cinnamomum burmannii. If you are assuming bad faith, what I say about that won't matter much, but I have never conspired with Extremely hot or communicated with Eh other than on the VY talk page, with the exception that he had the civility to point out on my talk page that I was being smeared on this page. I think it was poor judgement not to announce this mediation on the talk page, and to implicitly accept the characterization the other editors involved (by accepting the proposal to avoid including us in the mediation). I would also suggest that this be moved to a proper mediation space or moved back to the VY talk page.
Having gotten that off my chest I'm now ready to discuss the 50-mile population issue.
It seems clear from the discussion above that there are reasonable disagreements about what level of concern there should be for people living at various distances from a nuclear power plant. If we were going to put in a section titled "population at risk" and then list the population within X miles, we'd need a reliable source that X miles is the "right" distance. But by simply listing the population within various radii, we provide facts that a reader can interpret how they like. Including the 10 mile radius number and the 50 mile radius number seems like a reasonable choice based on the recommendations from authorities (US and Japanese) for the Fukushima event. (Yes, Student7, I know that we don't reasonably expect a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami in Vermont, but a failure of multiple systems for a completely different reason could be a worst-case scenario.) Perhaps it would help meet S7's objections if we list the 10-mile radius first, and the 50 mile second?
If including that gives the article too much of an anti-nuke slant, I encourage including information to argue how safe that population is, rather than trying to hide what that population is.
Ccrrccrr (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Ccrrccrr, thanks for your input — my main concern is the choice of the 50 mile radius as well. Extremely hot, you're right that the NEI may be expected to take a position favorable to nuclear power, but their descriptions of the 10 and 50 mile zones are correct. [3] Student7's initial concern—that the population figures were poorly integrated—is valid. The population zones should come from a published body of standards, such as that given by the NRC. These are the 10 mile "plume exposure pathway" and 50 mile "ingestion pathway" zones, which should be summarized in the articles if the population figures are included. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 21:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
A statement of the population figures, with proper context and references, might look like this:
Surrounding population
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission defines two emergency planning zones around nuclear power plants: a plume exposure pathway zone with a radius of 10 miles (16 km) (concerned primarily with exposure to, and inhalation of, airborne radioactive contamination), and an ingestion pathway zone of about 50 miles (80 km) (concerned primarily with ingestion of food and liquid contaminated by radioactivity).[1]
The 2010 U.S. population within 10 miles (16 km) of Sequoyah was 99,664, according to 2010 U.S. Census data analyzed for msnbc.com, an increase of 13.8 percent in a decade.[2] The 2010 U.S. population within 50 miles (80 km) was 1,079,868 (increase of 13.8 percent).[3] Cities within 50 miles include Chattanooga (14 miles to city center).[4].Extremely hot (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
(Added the references subsection.) Looks good! There are a few stylistic things I would change (I'm not a fan of the back to back parentheses, and the three references can be combined) but in my opinion it addresses the original issues raised by Student7. I've left a message on his talk page. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 02:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, cleaner:
Surrounding population
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission defines two emergency planning zones around nuclear power plants: a plume exposure pathway zone with a radius of 10 miles (16 km), concerned primarily with exposure to, and inhalation of, airborne radioactive contamination, and an ingestion pathway zone of about 50 miles (80 km), concerned primarily with ingestion of food and liquid contaminated by radioactivity.[1]
The 2010 U.S. population within 10 miles (16 km) of Sequoyah was 99,664, according to 2010 U.S. Census data analyzed for msnbc.com, an increase of 13.8 percent in a decade. The 2010 U.S. population within 50 miles (80 km) was 1,079,868 (an increase of 13.8 percent). Cities within 50 miles include Chattanooga (14 miles to city center).[2].Extremely hot (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay.
What does the 13.8% increase in population refer to? Since 2000? It seems a bit stranded and not relevant the way it is worded. If since the plant's inception, maybe. But would need to be from reference. IMO it should be left out. Just requires maintenance if inserted and not all that significant to your main point.
The statement "analyzed for msnbc.com" sounds a bit pretentious IMO. Something like "According to msnbc.com" seems more accurate. Makes it sound like msnbc.com is a think tank or something. Or "A study published in msnbc.com." In theory, you shouldn't have to have source at all in the text, but probably a good idea in this case. Student7 (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Great to see everyone working together with a common purpose to make this good. Thanks to all three of you. I agree that dropping the increase is a good idea for the reasons S7 states. I also agree that "analyzed for" sounds funny, but "according to 2010 Census data" wouldn't be accurate, and "according to msnbc.com" leaves out the key point that it's based on 2010 census data. An option would be "based on analysis of 2010 US Census data" with an immediate citation. But perhaps you'd want to have msnbc mentioned by name to alert people to the possible bias of the source? I would not object to the options S7 lists or to leaving it as Eh had it, but just wanted to suggest some other options and reasoning for consideration. Ccrrccrr (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll clarify in both instances that the increase is since 2000. (As it said, "in a decade.") The credit should indicate what the data were based on, and who commissioned the analysis: "according to an analysis of U.S. Census data for msnbc.com." (Not msnbc -- that's a different company, a TV network.)Extremely hot (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply there was anything wrong with using the census or the wording, just the "increase" which seemed to raise more questions than it answered.
I probably shouldn't mention this out loud, but the subtitle is almost too bland. While I wouldn't be surprised if you could come up with something less bland :), I was rather suggesting (merely suggesting here now) something a trifle more focused. Just a trifle!!! I can live with what you have now.
I was thinking that leaving the msnbc.com would give the text as much authority as that reference could give it. No more, no less. No one has to run to the reference (if someone objected, they might not get that far). The only reason for leaving it. I no longer think it is biased per se. The link demonstrates that they are important enough to be documented in Wikipedia.
When we conclude here, I do have some "tidying up" questions I wouldn't mind getting answered for future development. Probably won't affect any of what has been decided. Student7 (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Fire away with tidying up questions... Would you prefer the heading "Emergency preparedness and nearby population" or some such?Extremely hot (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The changes don't need to wait on a subtitle, but it might be nice if we came up with one. "Emergency preparedness" is getting in the right direction but isn't quite there. I would avoid "and" subtitles on general principles. (separate style topic). My original idea of "Homeland Security" seems clunky and out of place here. Student7 (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Looking back at the reference, I'm now thinking that there must exist other "ancient" published studies on population. (No we don't have to find them! Good grief!) The author has worded his material about the increase in population near the plants. Rather than go with that, why not merely use the population "as is." The "increase" since 2000 does not usually matter for most plants.
It might matter somewhat for plants constructed a long time ago, but probably not worth it to find out. The main thing you wanted was to highlight the total population. I suggest you go with that and ignore the author's intent, which is a sideshow to your message in these articles. He had to be "different" or they might not have published his material. That does imply a certain degree of copy-editing, which is reassuring. Student7 (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Am I holding things up? I suggest going with the original subtitle. Extremely hot will probably be watching all the articles. Somebody may have another suggestion someday, to one article, that strikes all of us and maybe we can change all articles. Hopefully after a discussion. :) Student7 (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Certainly, consensus may change in the future. I'll keep an eye on things too, and if it seems necessary we can revisit this. At the moment, however, I think we can agree on the present wording, unless anyone has additional concerns? Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 22:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I hope I'm not committing a Wikisolecism by coming into this discussion at this late date. I get the impression that insofar as there's consensus here, it's against including the population change since 2000; but I see that Extremely hot has included it in the latest version of Cooper Nuclear Station. If this discussion is still open, I'd like to add my support to leaving out the population change. I don't see that the increase or decrease is all that germane, in most cases; and I think that the additional statistic makes the section look noisier and less accessible to the general reader.
I'd also suggest changing "U.S. population" to "population" for plants not located within 50 miles of another nation's territory; the triple repetition of "U.S." within a short paragraph looks clumsy. Ammodramus (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Questions having nothing to do with actual proposed change
1. If I, a regular person, were to draw circles around cities and arrive at some figure for who was contained within them (not as simple as it sounds), I presume that my contribution, if based on my findings, would be labeled WP:OR? Now what happens if I have an award in something, and do the same thing and these are published by someone else?
1.a Why does the level of indirection make any difference to the WP:RELYability of the material? The reporter is "investigative" I suppose. Why do those credentials empower him to draw circles better than someone else? Why is not what he did, WP:OR? Merely the level of indirection? I find that drawing circles and counting heads tedious but hardly the stuff of "investigative reporting." In other words, not really his job at all.
1.b. I would think that a reporters job is to interview experts (drawers or circles or whatever) and report their findings in an objective manner.
2. Drawing circles containing Census designated places cannot be quite that simple. For one thing. some of the areas will be outside, or partly outside the circle. Are these counted? Or dropped?
3. Apparently we have decided that there is no NEC requirement for an Evacuation Plan for nuclear plants. Or if there is, they aren't readily accessible. These seemed more germane than circles to me.
4. Here are two made-up cases that seem to contradict the logic of "circles." Let's say I have "California Beach City" on the Pacific right next to a Rocky Mountain with a plant on the east (far) side of the mountain. In case of a problem, there is no way an prevailing westerly wind is going to blow the plume towards my hypothetical city.
4.b. A worst case situation is on the East Coast, where I will place a hypothetical plant near some cape/peninsula. In the event of evacuation, the cape-confined population, would be obliged to evacuate towards the plant. I suspect there are, in reality few situations like this. My point is, that circles seems unsatisfactory to me as a final determination on who is at risk and who isn't. It seems sloppy.
This is all tendentious. You're defining investigative reporting as interviewing people, and only interviewing people, as opposed to looking up information in documents (or doing GIS analysis with new census data), and then asking, why, oh why, should we include this information that's not investigative reporting, by your definition. You're not asking questions for your information -- you're making arguments. (With people you've already castigated with name-calling.) Maybe others will play. Good luck. Your question about the calculation of populations when the radius cuts through a census tract is answered in the source cited. After all this discussion and back and forth, you haven't read the article cited?Extremely hot (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Please, it looks like we're just starting to make some progress, let's try not to get derailed now. The idea of WP:OR is to cover material that first appeared in Wikipedia, or in self-published sources. The msnbc article is neither, so OR doesn't apply to it.
It's true that raw population figures aren't a substitute for professional, site specific risk assessment, but the article doesn't claim that they are. I don't know for sure that including the figures is the right decision, but consensus seems to favor it, at least for now. If we get input later from a wider pool of editors, perhaps the issue can be revisited, but it looks like we're approaching a way to present the information that's acceptable to all parties here. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 08:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
No one seems to believe me. I still have these "cleanup" questions once we decide to go along with the change. I can wait. I don't believe the ref is quite on the mark. It may be the best that can be had which I am willing to tolerate and won't back down from. It's probably not that inaccurate. Off by 10-20% (maybe under as well as over). No big deal. I've used worse myself. In small place articles (not one of quite this magnitude) I confess to using horrible references. Accurate, but horrible!
Apparently you want me to wait for my questions. I don't really "watch" pages that closely and might (therefore) forget to come back for a few days. Student7 (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems clear that there is a consensus that Extremely hot can proceed with implementing what we have above. With that settled, I see no harm in attempting to answer Student7's questions, which I've paraphrased.
1. If I were to draw circles and count, that would be labeled WP:OR? But if I do the same thing and these are published by someone else?
That's right. It's a little bit funny, but that's the way Wikipedia works.
1.b. I would think that a reporter's job is to interview experts (drawers or circles or whatever) and report their findings in an objective manner.
There are lots of ways that reporters gather information... Their job is to gather objective information, but sometimes it's easier to have someone do some straightforward calculations for you than to find someone who already did that and interview them.
2. Drawing circles containing Census designated places cannot be quite that simple. For one thing. some of the areas will be outside, or partly outside the circle. Are these counted? Or dropped?
Already answered.
3. Apparently we have decided that there is no NEC requirement for an Evacuation Plan for nuclear plants. Or if there is, they aren't readily accessible. These seemed more germane than circles to me.
There is a requirement along those lines, and that information could be valuable to add to the article.
4. Made-up cases that seem to contradict the logic of "circles." A "Beach City" next to a Mountain with a plant on the far side of the mountain. There is no way an prevailing westerly wind is going to blow the plume towards the city.
Agreed, there are lots of factors other than distance.
4.b. a hypothetical plant near some cape/peninsula. In the event of evacuation, the cape-confined population, would be obliged to evacuate towards the plant.
Again, I agree, circles don't entirely capture and analysis of how much a population is at risk. I don't think any of us think that they do, and I think we would all welcome more detailed information. By the way, I believe there is a plant in New Jersey near the bridge from the barrier island to the mainland, such that evacuation from the barrier island with the across the bridge going near the plant.
I hope that is helpful to have some response to your questions. As you say, they don't affect the outcome of this discussion. Ccrrccrr (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
My username is changed into Movietech, its great, but User:Erkan Umut and User:Erkanumut are still exist on the Wiki (Redirected from User:Movietech, etc.). Would you help me for this matter. Thanks for everything!--Movietech 06:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure. I probably glanced at the protection log and (mistakenly) thought it was already semi-protected indefinitely. Since it wasn't, I've removed the semi-protection. Thanks for bringing this up. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 19:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
It probably doesn't matter, but my confusion arised after seeing similar messages on other reviewer's talkpages. SOXROX (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm back! I took care of most of the talk page messages by email during my wikibreak, but if there's something that hasn't been resolved, feel free to contact me again. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 20:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey
Umm...I am not really experienced with abusefilters, regular expressions, scripts, etc. so I leave this to you to delete as nonsense or whatever is warranted. Can you please take a look at the article Jasmine (JavaScript framework). mauchoeagle(c)23:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks much for fulfilling my request! I see that you, as an active admin, have fewer edits than even I. Hopefully you will be able to find something to keep yourself occupied xP –HXL's RoundtableandRecord01:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your good offices which brought a conclusion to the recent changes to US Nuclear Plants. That was appreciated.
I have another request. I am helping edit Christian Terrorism#India. See Talk:Christian terrorism#Accusations_against_Hmar. The sub-article on India (Orissa) isn't too bad and we eventually get to where we want to be. But there is a lot of screaming in between! The problem really tends (for me) to be getting used to the justice system in a third world country. Forget formal accusations, Grand Juries, jury trial, and conviction/release. There is little of this and the case normally gets stalled at one of the above for what seems an unconscionable length of time.
So all we frequently have is a blurb in the local media and sometimes not even that. The latest was some NGO (!) investigating and making an accusation. My questioning all of this truly annoys my fellow editors to the point of nearly shouting at me and accusing me of all sorts of things! I think the article has been improved by my questions, but of course, they wouldn't see it that way, would they? :)
Anyway, I would appreciate it if you could take a look and make suggestions as to what could be done (or what I could do, since they aren't the ones with the problem! :) to improve the atmosphere. It would have to get a lot worse before taking it to mediation and we do seem to make progress, though straightening out some of the more colorful tabloid-like accusations can take a bit of time.
This is just confined (I think) to the India/Orissa subsection. The other subsections have different editors and different problems which are being addressed well enough I think. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! Glad to know I was helpful :) I'll take a look at the article. I've been busy pretty much all day today, but I should have something to say by tomorrow. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)08:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Your post in the linked section seems like a good assessment, and although some of the following posts are a little heated, the debates do seem to be making some progress. I have concerns over the conduct of some of the editors involved, but this isn't really an issue that mediation can resolve. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)07:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks once again. I appreciate this "outside" assessment. Wanted to make sure there wasn't something I could do. I guess just "keep calm!" A good idea in any case! Student7 (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
There are venues for that kind of dispute resolution of course; WP:RFC/U and WP:Wikiquette alerts can both help with user conduct issues, but I don't much experience with them. If you're thinking of filling a report, it might be a good idea to find a user who has experience in those areas, and seek their opinion, informally. Let me know if I can do anything else to help. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)17:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder about the etiquette noticeboard. I have recorded it. It may come in useful.
I have had truly bad luck with Rfcs. The most recent one, and worst experience, was with a set of country articles, where this small country is believed to be sliding into dictatorship, but will remain unnamed here! :) "They" have a complete team monitoring national articles. Nothing can be recorded without the teams approval. If it is negative, it doesn't make it. The team includes admins, probably a paid Wikipedia "general editor" (paid by the government, not Wikipedia! :), and a "lurker" who responds to Rfc requests. He never edits, so the requester assumes he is neutral, but always comes down with the party line. While this was not a good experience, others include relatively new editors with no knowledge of policy, that sort of thing.
Which is why I was delighted to have you referee our previous discussion! I'll never use an Rfc again unless someone can come up with a "vetting" scheme for candidate commentators. I have a couple of people in mind (including yourself) for future problems, mostly admins. While I don't know how they will vote and still don't always win (!), at least they are neutral and knowledgeable. Student7 (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Just letting you we just had an edit conflict at assigning perms for autopatrolled. I was about to add this:
Not done Excellent contributions, but recent pages such as this, copyright, recent deletions, and issues with your own New Page Patrolling, seem to show that you are still not fully confident with policy for new articles. Please consider reapplying when you have at least 3 months warn-free on your talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I did see some questionable stuff from a few months ago but I figured he'd grown himself out of it by now. I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt, but now I'm having second thoughts; autopatrolled is really for candidates who have shown they can "get it right the first time." Since he likely hasn't seen it yet, feel free to reverse my decision (you can delete what I posted, with a link here in the edit summary) and then remove autopatrolled. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)10:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Done; It's a shame, because he generally produces some good stuff although even there, there are some unreferenced stubs. The main issue is that he has been warned recently about his own NPP to the point of being threatened with a block. It's counter productive to accord autpat rights if pages still slip through the net. There are going to be more issues too now that requests for rights are being submitted by bots. I was totally against it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks both of you. I believe that our presence on WP is not for ourselves but for the greater good of the millions of people who turn to Wikipedia for their references. I admit that I had problems initially (eg. the block issue), but I have grown since then as my recent works have all made it to DYK page. And though I would not contest your decisions, I hope it will not have to be a wait of 3 months. Again for the article in question, I have not even seen it yet. I promise to work on it. Thanks once again.CrossTempleJay talk10:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
CrossTempleJay, feel free to make a new request directly to Feezo or me when you think you are ready, and don't hesitate to ask for help anytime. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I am always happy to get such responses from people. In Ghana there is a proverb that say "no one head carries all knowledge" I will gladly learn whenever I go wrong. I will polish up and come back again soon. Thanks once again. I'm very grateful.CrossTempleJay talk11:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm glad you've joined the discussion directly, and your attitude about this is more than I could have hoped for. I'm sure you won't have to wait three months. If you address Kudpung's specific concerns, I see no reason you shouldn't be able to get it back very soon. I'm sorry for my initial mis-assessment, since you're such a prolific content creator, and that's exactly what Wikipedia needs more of. I personally would feel comfortable re-evaluating your contribution history in a few days, and granting autopatroller then, with Kudpung's assent. Of course, you can also ask him yourself. Best of luck! Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)11:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Kudpung has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!
BTW: I've replied on my tp about the bot saga.
Thank you very much Feezo. I appreciate it all. I have already addressed Kudpung's and I'm looking at building the Shama (Ghana parliament constituency) as well as other articles that I wrote in its era. I believe at that time I was still a child on WP and they may need some editing as well. Thanks very much Feezo and Kudpung too. Will ask for the right again in a few days if that will be alright. Thanks once again. CrossTempleJay talk12:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Feezo, hope all is well with you. I believe I am ready for the autopatrolled right now. I know that there still may be some former articles of mine that may still need wikifying but I promise to work on all of them to bring them to standard. It is steep learning curve and I'm doing all I can to climb well and fast. My aim now is to create articles that will qualify for DYK status and I'm working to ensure that I achieve this aim in as many articles of mine as possible. Thanks. A friend called - CrossTempleJay talk12:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Feezo, I am not sure about the concerns you are talking about, but let me address these, I hope they help: The page that was deleted was due to certain sentences that were included in my article - Ministry of Interior (Ghana) that an editor taught was a close paraphrazing of some content on a website. I wrote it afresh and those issues were sorted out. Again for the block, it was in my very first weeks on WP, I happened to have asked for a speedy deletion of a page that I mistakenly thought was poorly referenced. Prior to that some editor had asked me to slow down on the number of newbies I was welcoming. All these culminated in my block. After that experience I took time to re-read the various policies for speedy deletion and promptly learnt my lesson. Finally, concerning the article Shama (Ghana parliament constituency), it was when Kudpung pointed it out to me that I realized that there was no references. It was an article I wrote when I was still young on WP, hence the lack of references. I have addressed it. The problem with some of the places in Ghana that I write about is that, most of them do not have enough references to back them up, so I do my best to add references of big cities that are close to them or that have associations with them in order to add to their credibility. As I have learnt, it is verifiability not truthfulness that is paramount on Wikipedia. I hope these answer some of the concerns. I would be glad to explain any other issue that may seem problematic. Thank you very much. Hope my long explanation does not bore you. Thanks again. CrossTempleJay talk22:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, these were the issues that came up, and your explanations look reasonable—I'm especially glad that you recognize the importance of referencing now; I've for Kudpung's feedback as well. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)23:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I think we can accord the right. However, I'm more concerned with his patrolling of new pages, I deleted two today from his log that should have been CSD for advertising, and persistent recreation. He's doing some essential work on NPP, but I would recommend he leave the ones he's not sure about for someone else to tag until he gets used to checking the articles' histories and deletion logs. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd like it if you could actually grant the right, if only to avoid the remotest appearance of wheel warring. If you're not comfortable with that (but don't otherwise oppose it) let me know and I'll do it myself. Patrolling is of course a related issue, but I think a gentle caution (such as the above) should be sufficient. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)05:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm perfectly happy for you to do it. You can add to the reason box something like 'per admin consensus' which would be the normal thing to do and demonstrates very good faith all round. Wheelwarring is only when admins start reverting each other with a vengeance ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Feezo. Thank you Kudpung. I'm truly grateful. I have taken note of your discourse and indeed I am going to tread cautiously from now on when it comes to patrolling NPP. Will definitely turn to you both if I ever have doubts about what ought or not be done. Thanks once again. A friend called CrossTempleJay talk08:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Feezo. 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.
Glad to hear it! If you're new to Wikipedia, I suggest you start at Wikipedia:Articles for creation before taking your article "live". That way, other people can comment on it and you can improve it before taking it to the main space. In particular, make sure you explain how the band meets the relevant notability guidelines, to keep it from being deleted. Good luck, and let me know how it goes! Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)14:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
You have e-mail
Hello, Feezo. 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.
It is my pleasure to inform you that your nomination to the Mediation Committee has been closed as successful. The open tasks template, which you might like to add to your watchlist, is for co-ordinating our open cases; please feel free to take on an unassigned dispute at any time. I have also subscribed your e-mail address to the committee mailing list, which is occasionally used for internal discussion and for periodical updates; feel free to post to this at any point if you need feedback from the other mediators. If you have any questions, please let me know. I look forward to working with you! For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Crane.tv page, help!
Hi Feezo,
Thank you ever so much for your email, I tried now several times to create a Crane.tv page on Wiki, but failed hopelessly (so frustrating...) as I made the username mistake you talked about before which marked my post automatically as spam. I hope this works better now. As I have edited the content a little bit and used an appropriate username.
Many thanks,
K
Crane.tv is a premium online video magazine for contemporary culture, founded by German media entrepreneur Constantin Bjerke. Established in 2008, Crane.tv's new video magazine website officially launched in October 2010 with an exclusive on Konstantin Grcic, announcing his ‘Designer of the Year’ award for Design Miami.
Style
The videos on Crane.tv are a mixture between informative journalism and artistic sensibility unusual to the digital media industry. Covering several formats, they offer a different perspective on contemporary culture: conceptual art&fashion shorts as well as studio visits, behind the scenes investigations, city profiles and in-depth interviews.
Content
Crane.tvis a video only online platform for all sorts of content on contemporary culture. The magazine's core aim is to push forward emerging and to show established artists in a different light. The content is aimed at a digital audience, globally. To date, the magazine has produced 700+ videos on the latest trends in Art, Design, Fashion, Lifestyle and Travel.
Crane.tv's videos are made by an international team of young video editors and lifestyle journalists, headed by Editor-in-Chief Trisha Andres. The magazine runs under a different theme every month, with new videos added to the site on a daily basis. Crane.tvis also accessible via the Crane.tv app, currently available for Nokia.
Thank-you for asking your question. I have answered it. I hope it's to your liking and you will assign me with autopatrolled rights. Thank-you for your interest. WilbysuffolkTalk to me19:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
This page has been subject to a lot of vandalism and anti-3RR, when the block ends I’m sure the usual editors will weigh back in with their subjective edits, maybe it’s better to block the abusing users than lockdown the whole page? I consider myself a worthy Wikipedian who respects the policies put in place e.g. I will never 3RR even if i know I am right. Zarcadia (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Would be good to have someone else contribute to this page, I've added some RS, but of course always good to have someone come in and help oversee things. Zarcadia (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Glitch art
That deleted article was userfied. I found these twitter threads and it seems that this small group is intent on posting links and so on onto the deleted talk page. I wonder if it should be protected. Anyone is free to work on the userfied version, but this talk page posting is a nuisance. freshacconci talktalk18:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I admit that adding the tag without acknowledging the dispute over it may have not have been the best idea, but I think that keeping it in place for the duration of the mediation is appropriate. In mediating such a long running case, it's inevitable that I'm going to overlook some history now and then, but I do genuinely want to reach a conclusion that satisfactorily addresses all sides. If I make a mistake, the first course of action should always be to address that point; mediators aren't infallible, but we do learn from our mistakes. Again, thank you for apologizing, and I too hope the discussion will continue cooperatively. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)09:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
deletion of page 'ikon marketing consultants'
I respect your work and appreciate effort on admin pages in wikipedia.
I just want to know reason of deleting page "Ikon Marketing Consultants" even after enough reliable reference. There are other pages of similar companies on wikipedia.
I would appreciate and thank you in advance if you guide me in posting such article on wikipedia. Also i would like to know specific reasons of rejecting page "Ikon marketing consultants"
Hello, thank you for your message—Wikipedia has fairly strict guidelines on the inclusion of new articles, so please don't feel discouraged if yours was deleted. Adding references is great, but the key to avoiding speedy deletion is often a matter of estabilishing notability. That is, it's not enough to show that a company exists, but also that it's noteworthy in some way. The exact guidelines for this can be found at the page Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I haven't personally evaluated the notability of Ikon, but without at least making a claim of notability, it's easy to see why an editor tagged it for speedy deletion, which is how I found it. If you want to work on the article, I can recreate it in your userspace so you can improve it without worrying too much about deletion. (If you saved a copy of it, you can also create it yourself, for example at User:Marcind/Ikon.) Let me know if you have any questions. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)16:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
creation of page 'Ikon Marketing Consultants'
Dear Freezo,
Thanks for your positive reply. Please help in creating this page without worrying of deletion. You may create it in my userspace.
Sending you herewith links of other similar comapanies having article on wikipedia. In case of notability, IKON is at same level.
Well, possibly. By moving it into your userspace I meant for you to work on it and get feedback before putting it back into the main article space. As it is, you haven't fully addressed the notability issues, and it is possible it could still be seen as promotional, so I can't guarantee it won't be tagged or deleted. The userspace version should be left alone for the moment however. You can find some guidelines for this kind of situation in WP:BFAQ. Again, let me know if you have any questions. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)12:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Re:creation of page 'Ikon Marketing Consultants'
Thanks Feezo for your reply.
Yes..I should take your feedback before creating article page. But still I have one question that how it seems as promotion. There are other similar articles also on wikipedia which seem promotional. For example,
Why above both pages has been not deleted? Both are the companies like IKON and having same notability and reference as IKON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcind (talk • contribs) 13:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
They have been now. One of the quirks of Wikipedia is that policies are sometimes erratically enforced. Sometimes a page exists simply because no one happened to notice it. Tecnova, in fact, had already been deleted twice. By the way, you can write links to pages in Wikipedia by surrounding them with two pairs of hard brackets, e.g., [[corporation]] becomes corporation. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)20:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Re:Re:creation of page 'Ikon Marketing Consultants'
Thanks Feezo for your positive response...yes..both are deleted. I will follow you instructions of linking pages of wikipedia. In fact did it in that page. Please send me if any more suggestion or recommendation on improving that page "Ikon Marketing Consultants"
Hi, Feezo. There is certainly WP:ARCHIVE#Move procedure. However the procedure lose the continuity of Edit history. Move procedure is rarely used for Talk page of Wikipedia and WP:ARCHIVE#Cut and paste procedure is a common practice. Please restore the Edit History by using Cut and paste procedure before many editors edit the new page. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello; I followed the general procedure at WP:SPLIT, rather than WP:ARCHIVE. This is essentially a non-mainspace page fork, rather than a pure archive, and the important thing is to satisfy copyright requirements by showing where to find the history. Since the split represents a significant departure in page rules, I believe it's appropriate to keep the histories distinct. Let me know if you have any further concerns. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)08:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're in for a disappointment then. My purpose here is to focus the discussion in Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islandsexclusively on the primary issue that all parties have accepted mediation for. For the time being, all side issues are considered to be off topic. Once we resolve the core issue, we may proceed to deal with them.
Regarding {{copied}}, that is intended for talk pages where the article itself has been copied, and would serve the same purpose as the written explanation and creation summary.
I don't argue with you anymore on this topic, now that you are aware of the problem I explained above. However if you make this kind of judgment again, I will not tolerate your action anymore. One thing I advise you is to add {{copied}} to the talk page, otherwise no one can trace the Edit History of the talk page. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I have done my best to include you in the discussion, but as you are the only editor who is actively resisting the new format, this may no longer be possible. It is not the Mediation Committee's responsibility to amend Wikipedia guidelines, nor do we have any special authority to do so. If you cannot accept these terms, then I encourage you to withdraw from the case. Finally, I strongly discourage you from undoing edits made by the mediator on the mediation page. Such activity will almost inevitably be seen as disruptive, and will do nothing but weaken your position. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)12:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
"you are the only editor who is actively resisting the new format"? Are you saying any comment without plural of editors' agreement is ignored? You have some problem dealing with this issue because you are not familiar with WP:RM because you have not participated in "Requested move" discussion before. As I stated before, there is a scope which a mediation can deal with and the guideline can deal with. Yes, you can declare WP:IGNORE, but it isn't the mediation's intent. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I construe "for the time being" to suggest that we may not need to understand or accept or refuse anything. I may be wrong; and I am uncertain about the rationale which informs the official mediator's mediation plan. I do grasp that waiting -- simply waiting -- is what seems to matter most for today and for the near future. --Tenmei (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
"This is an archive of past discussions. 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."
[¶D] Your "hands-off" withdrawal from the process renders the imprimatur of mediation meaningless. I can see how this factor alone converts your inaction into a constructive gesture. At the same time, I have difficulty accepting that this is the best we can do. [42 words]
[¶E] Beware the shortsighted quick fix that can lead to worse problems
The close-at-hand problem is always the one the defender must take care of before anything else, but the solution should include what you are committing yourself to over the long haul.
"It is altogether too easy to let the burden of the immediate problem obliterate other considerations from your thinking and to jump at what promises to be a quick fix. What often happens is that you have not achieved a long-range success but only converted one difficulty into another perhaps less obvious but no less onerous one. [99 words]
[¶F] I don't quite know how to evaluate the near-term consequences, but my guess is that the long-term consequences are likely to become increasingly significant because your actions perversely encourage rather than discourage. [32 words] --Tenmei (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. My attempts so far to moderate the dispute have repeatedly been met with edit warring and veiled personal attacks. As such, I cannot function as your mediator at this time. I am therefore limiting myself to an advisory role until one or more of the following conditions are met:
The involved parties resolve the core issue and agree on a name for the article
The situation deteriorates to the point where it becomes necessary to refer the case to Arbcom
The involved parties voluntarily agree to accept my decisions as mediator
Please note that option (3) does not give me the authority to decide the outcome of the case. Only the involved parties may do that. My decisions as mediator relate only to the structure of the case itself. Again, thank you for voicing your concerns, and let me know if I can do anything further to help.
Regarding your email, I seem to recall that someone once said of you something to the effect that you "appear to be a good faith contributor who learned English from reading a philosophy text." Allow me just to say that your email confirms this view, and there was little, if anything, that could be replied to. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)17:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I genuinely cannot understand what is Tenmei's question or argument here. I know he writes in English, but my brain just can't seem to ever compute his meaning. AGK [•] 10:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
AGK -- In response to your puzzlement, please notice that I have added pilcrows ("¶") and word counts. It may help me to improve my writing if you could please point out a specific phrase, sentence or section which needs more work. --Tenmei (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Feezo -- Did you construe any part of the following as "veiled personal attacks"?
If so, perhaps it is timely for me to suggest that we work together to pull aside any veils? I would have thought that this archived critical analysis is direct, measured and sufficiently detailed; but AGK's comment above causes me to revisit your diff here.
If you see this as a significant issue, will you please invest time in helping me edit this archived writing so that I can discern how potential misperception can be mitigated. Contexts like ours require that I learn to write with care so that any inference of "veiled personal attacks" is excluded. --Tenmei (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Feezo's comment on 17:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC), #2 has been long overdue with this amount/level of contention/fighting/dispute/whatever-you-want-to-call-it that has been going on for FAR too long. – AJLtalk00:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Tenemi: As you request above, instances where your writing is ineffective include:
The pilcrows are distracting, and therefore frustrating, because they cause it to appear more as though my PC is not loading a character that that you've deliberately inserted them. You must simplify the formatting and presentation of your writing. On a similar note, the addition of word counts was equally as unhelpful.
Paragraphing: Write in paragraphs and prose, not in lists.
Excessive linking: Much of your text is linked, and this is a distraction. Rather than link to a diff or an article, say what you mean, in plain terms.
Imagery: As a general rule, write literally, and do not use imagery, because it encourages the writer to not clearly set down his point. Say what you mean, in literal terms.
Use less waffle: "If so, perhaps it is timely for me to suggest that we work together to pull aside any veils?" is so hazy as to be unreadable. "Which of these remarks constitute unprofessionalism or a personal attack?", for instance, is precise and concise. There is not much of a reduction in the word count, but the meaning is actually clear, which makes the value of the second sentence infinitely greater.
Quotations: Stop quoting in your comments. Nobody cares what Robert Byrne has to say on Chess, especially when we are discussing a dispute about Japanese islands.w
It appears a rather extended period of time has already transpired and I have yet to see any progress being made regarding this code thing you brought up and the associated problems brought along by a certain party. I've also provided you my advice upon your request. What is taking so long? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to be a complicated matter at all and certainly not going to set a precedent. So, I am not really sure why this has to appear all very complicated. Anyway, since Wikipedia is all about transparency and openness, do you think it will be a good idea to open your mediation committee discussions to us so that we can see what's being discussed and what we are waiting for? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Feezo. 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 Feezo for your mediating efforts on this complex dispute. It is really not easy dealing with this case particularly when some so called "minutiae" came out one and another and was tangled sometime in purpose. I think it is the time that the Code should be enforced. Phoenix7777 has violated item 3 of the Code when xe started here. Some party has violated item 4 by making comments directly about other participants in the mediation safe zone, though it was collapsed later. --Lvhis (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
As for the Update, I feel those are quite good and I'd like to respond. I do not have email with wiki and am not going to have it with. And I feel none of my answers are necessarily hid as all of them can be found in my inputs in the mediation safe zone. So I wonder if I can respond those questions in here? Thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine. The problem with enforcement is that we (MedCom) have decided that blocking isn't an option during mediation. The code hasn't been accepted by all parties, so it wouldn't be enforceable yet anyway. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)01:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Feezo, as I said now I post my response to what you asked in that Update here. Before posting my response I have to express my confusion on your removing that POV-title tag. Does "pending closure" mean the mediation will be concluded with a successful result soon? I have not linked my email with wiki so I may miss some important things. Anyway, here are my response (A stands for my answers):
-Q: What you see as the primary issue in this case (should be no more than a sentence or two)?
-A: Whether the current name/title on the relative pages is POV or NPOV one. I and other two parties have strongly proved the current name/title is a POV one.
-Q: Your own purpose in participating in this case?
-A: Through the discussion, debate, and dispute under the mediation to clarify the above question, and finally the participated parties including me can reach a consensus based on the spirit of Wikipedia, to solve this dispute and let the normal edit work be going on.
-Q: What, in your opinion, is the biggest obstacle to this case, and bearing in mind mediation policy, what is the most effective way to deal with it?
-A: "Penny-wise, Pound-foolish" style tricks sometimes in purpose tangling so called "minutiae" things, and also "wikilawyering". I reminded these and appealed to avoid these more than once including in my post "Wikipedia shall not be forced to take side when involving international territory dispute". I think "the most effective way to deal with it" is through thorough discussion and debate like we have been doing, but better under certain code of conduct as you advised and finished with 5 parties participation or involvement or teamwork, out of 8 actually active parties signing in this mediation. You have announced or reminded once (on 02:33, 12 June 2011 UTC) to every party about this code almost finished and to call any final comments. May I suggest in order to make this code enforceable soon, could you please announce one more time and give a deadline. Any party give no comment by deadline can be treated as no objection = tacit agreement. If this case will be closed soon with no need of any further discussion and debate, just forget my such suggestion.
-Q: What, in your opinion, is an acceptable end point of this mediation? What is the desired end point?
-A: The primary issue has been clarified and a real NPOV name/title will be applied.
-Q: What should the title of the article currently located at Senkaku Islands be? (no justification required; brief justification acceptable)
-A: A dual name/title "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands", which has been used in many, many reliable sources, hence, not an OR of Wikipedia (using "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands" is negotiable); or the real and pure English title "Pinnacle Islands" as absolutely in line with WP:NCGN#Multiple local names, where "Liancourt Rocks" has been mentioned as the closet precedent and example. But if the other side stubbornly refuses to compromise to change the POV Japanese title, I will insist on using the Chinese title base on that side's logic and many "minutiae" results.
Thank you for the info, although quite disappointed. As said pending closure as unsuccessful, that means the dispute is unsolved and still here. So the POV-title tag should be kept there, particularly so far after the debate and discussion the other side has failed to prove the current title is NPOV one. I think it would be reasonable for me to request that tag be kept on, may I? --Lvhis (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that we're very likely to see edit warring resume if protection is removed. You can submit an {{edit protected}} request on the article's talk page, although there's always a chance of it being declined. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful, but with the case in its current state of pending closure, I don't feel that I should be taking any official action at this time. For what it's worth, I do agree that there exists a dispute over the title, and that some editors consider it to be POV. Unfortunately, the same case could be made no matter what title we ultimately end up using. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)05:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
As long as there exists a dispute over the title no matter which is or will be, the POV-title tag should be on, in line with wiki policies and guidelines. Anyway, thank you again for every effort you have made. --Lvhis (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your continued openness—I really do appreciate it—and I agree, there is definitely a dispute over the title. But at the same time, I hope you can appreciate that as a technical matter, I don't feel comfortable with replacing the tag now that I am no longer actively mediating the case. If I were to edit the article now, it would be as an editor and administrator, and would not be on behalf of the mediation committee. This could be seen to jeopardize my neutrality on the issue if I am ever called to mediate or officially comment on it. Again, don't let me stop you from seeking input from an uninvolved administrator; simply point out that the POV dispute is ongoing, and provide a link to the mediation case and this page, so they have a complete picture of the situation. For the record, I don't officially endorse or oppose the tag: the decision must be made by a third party. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)17:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Their Japanese name 尖閣諸島 seems to literally mean "Apex pavilion various island", perhaps from their shape. Their Chinese name 釣魚台群島 seems to literally mean "Fishing fish support group island", i.e. "Group of islands used as a base for fishing" or similar. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, 12 articles is only about a quarter of the suggested standard. I don't see any real problems with the articles you've created, but granting autopatrolled wouldn't have much of an impact on the NPP backlog either. You can try making a request at WP:PERM/A, but current practice is generally to decline requests from editors who haven't at least 40 or so non-redirect pages. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)21:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It might be a little too late for my input here, so I'm wondering if I should take the time to answer your questions. Thanks. – AJLtalk07:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure, you could do that—I came up with the questions on my own, but as the committee as a whole is currently deciding what to do, any perspective provided by participants should be welcome. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)12:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
The semi-protection on the article (Digvijay_Singh_(politician)) is not justifiable because lot of contradictory information on large number of web references is available related to this article.1 where person himself states that that he was better hindu means he has converted now which contradicts the present content in the article. but semi-protection has been applied this on unrefined article and friezing to that stage where it seems that it will be not good for wikipedia to be source of nuetral information. kindly remove it grant permission to edit the page.
In your opinion would this page meet Wikipedia guidelines? I don't want to sound advertisE or SpammE
Akiban Technologies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Preview
Remember that this is only a preview; your changes have not yet been saved!
Akiban (Ah-kee-buhn) Technologies was founded in 2009 with the mission of delivering a database solution to allow high performance and scalability. The product, which is not yet in the market, allows companies to maintain existing relational databases, but restructures the storage of the data for scale. The company touts this approach as breaking “through the SQL scalability barrier”. The initial unreleased product appears to support MySQL, and we infer plans to support other relational databases in the future.[1] Akiban has a MIT cadre of DBMS developers like Jack Orenstein, who was an Object Design founder, Ori Herrnstadt from the Israeli Defense Forces, Mike McMahon who was a founder of Oberon and Blue Agarve Software and Peter Beaman who used to work for Intersystems.[2]
Akiban Server
Operational databases with normalized schemas suffer from performance and scalability problems as schemas become complex. Scalability is the ability of a system, network, or process, to handle growing amounts of work in a graceful manner or its ability to be enlarged to accommodate that growth.[3] These problems are not inherent in the amount of data however, but rather in the SQL joins required to construct objects from that data. Typical workarounds for these challenges include de-normalization, materialized views, and alternative database solutions. Rather than compromising the integrity and benefits of a relational model through denormalization, the database technology will make SQL run better.
References
^ Luca, Andrei. "Akiban « High Tech in the Hub." High Tech in the Hub. 25 Sept. 2010. Web. 05 July 2011. <http://www.hightechinthehub.com/tag/akiban/>.
^ "Akiban | DBMS 2 : Database Management System Services." DBMS 2 : Database Management and Analytic Technologies in a Changing World. Monash Research, 19 Apr. 2011. Web. 05 July 2011. <http://www.dbms2.com/category/products-and-vendors/akiban/>.
^ André B. Bondi, 'Characteristics of scalability and their impact on performance', Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on Software and performance, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2000, ISBN1-58113-195-X, pages 195 - 203 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NO.Denormalization (talk • contribs) 19:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Windows Phone 7. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Feezo, will you be providing any sort of closing statement--a summary, an indication of what the committee was discussing, a recommendation as to whether you (individually or collectively) believe further DR (i.e., arbitration) should be requested, etc.? Both of the closes indicate that we should check the talk page for more info, but there isn't any there, at least not that I'm seeing. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Unless I'm not looking at the right place, the only recent message from AGK is this one from 16 July, which says that the committee has finished discussion, and you (Feezo) would be taking action; it doesn't say anything about the committee or AGK making a comment. The 24 June comment says that, but I assumed that was superseded by the 16 July statement. I can ask AGK on xyr talk if you like. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Feezo. Would you mind removing the dispute tag from the SI page? You added it at the end of May "as part of formal mediation". Now that the mediation is over, I would appreciate it if you could take it off. Cheers, John Smith's (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear Feezo, the dispute has not been solved although the mediation is over, and the current title has failed to be proved a NPOV one during mediation. I have not seen more conclusion as well as justifications except the closure itself for this mediation. Some confusions, sorry. --Lvhis (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern. The Senkaku Islands case is now closed. As I am no longer your mediator, I have no special authority over the article in question. Please follow the standard procedure for controversial changes. Thanks. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)02:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I've taken quite a bit of liberty in unprotecting this page, and actually returning it to its predispute version. At first, this may look like an administrator pushing his will on an article, but I assure you it's nothing of the sort. I have been watching this dispute for too long and I'm trying to keep things sane. I'm posting here because technically I probably shouldn't have undone your protection without your permission. Please read my post on the talk page however which explains all of my actions. If you still have an issue, feel free to resopnd and I will happily work it out to return it to whatever state you'd set up. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for the message—I don't have an issue with your taking on this challenge, and even unprotecting the page (although you should probably address the parallel dispute at Senkaku Islands). Protecting the dispute page was meant as a gentle reminder that edit warring is Not Allowed—and that administrators are standing by if the situation escalates. I agree it does "look" bad to WP:PREFER a particular version, which was why I froze the page in exactly the state I found it. I'm not sure it's wise to get dragged into whether or not the article "should" be tagged. It's an internal filing issue that should never have been allowed to become an object of this much contention (per Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles).
However, it's clear that the situation is not going to go away, and if you're willing to take this to Arbcom, I think it would be better to do quickly, rather than letting the situation continue to simmer. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)02:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll add my few cents here. Regarding Senkaku Islands, ArbCom might not be able to do much (since they don't ever take content disputes, which I personally feel ArbCom may classify this under). As there hasn't been disruptive editing due to the full-protection status, there may be nothing actionable (except at me for restoring the tag). As for Senkaku Islands dispute, I can't say much without looking at detailed history. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps02:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I've been dealing with the later article for months, although the dispute has gone on for years. IMHO there has definitely been some disruptive editing, including individuals willing to edit war, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and most deliciously a healthy case of WP:MPOV. Just to clarify, I'm not pushing whether or not there should be an NPOV-title tag or not; I was just returning the article to its most recent state.
As for ArbCom, wasn't their initial job to take on content disputes? Seriously, what the heck? Too bad they just had their elections; had I known this, I would have gone on a campaign to get a new batch of Arbs in that would be willing to take on the matters which they should be taking on. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
They normally don't have remedies that direct which way they want the content to go. For disputes, they act on whether people have violated AGF, been editing disruptively, and what not. So they will rule on the actions of people that have been violating en-wp rules, but I'm uncertain as to whether they will actually say "which article name should be used". Basically, if both sides are agreeing to disagree on certain subjects, without violating rules, ArbCom normally will not take the case and prefer to defer to the community for input. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps19:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and I've taken it over with an unholy vengeance. On another note, should I spontaneously disappear (e.g., should I find a full-time job, should I have a conscience attack about too much time on WP, etc.), feel free to take it right back over. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Feezo, although a message of yours on 04:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC) has been remvoed, I saw it at the time you just input here. I was and am astonished and very upset that you list me alongside with Tenmei together negatively. Why? For what? Is it fair? Could you clarify this for me? I respect and support you the mediator during the mediation for all the time. I did not do anything out of the topic there. I criticized my debating colleague Bob when he had conflict with you. I made several tries to pursuade Bob to pay an appology to you when you asked such, although failed. I followed your instruction and worked with STSC, et al to draft the conduct code for the mediation. Particularly when Qwyrxian raised some questions, I revised the draft to make it clearly stating the authority of the mediator, you, with my full respect and trust on you. I never attacked you as some participants from other side did. I always communicated with you in very proper way when I have questions and confusions, including when you announced the mediation was over and suggested or instructed me to follow a standard procedure, and I followed it. If you think I owe thanks for you as you inserted the POV-title tag to grant my request at the beginning of the mediation, I paid my thanks to you already. That tag was in line with wp policies and guidelines and it should have been there when such dispute was ongoing. Please don't think doing that was just for pleasing me as so think some editor from other side. The mediation unfortunately was ended with failure. The failed mediation has a lot of lessens that every participants and the mediator should figure out and learn. I would say as the mediator you may need think this more and learn more from such failure. Sorry I input so much. Please clarify that for me. Otherwise, it would be very unfair to me. --Lvhis (talk) 05:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey Lvhis—sorry to have tarred you with the same brush. You're right, you've approached the debate in a generally very civil manner. When I listed you as a "problem", it was exclusively for edit warring at Senkaku Islands dispute, and was not intended to reflect on you in any other way. This is one of the quirks of Wikipedia—edit warring is almost never acceptable, even when you're "in the right" (I remain neutral on the issues, including whether the pages should be tagged). Again, I'm sorry for associating you with editors like Bob; you've been pretty courteous throughout the debate, which I'd like to thank you for.
By the way, I don't consider the mediation as a failure—rather, it succeeded in bringing to light the fact that this is an intractable dispute, with parties on both sides who are unwilling to compromise. Again, thank you for your patience, and let me know if I can do anything further to help. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)06:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Feezo, if you are talking about the edit warring I was involved and violated the BRD resulting a block by Magog the Ogre, that happened after your message said above. If you mean the edit warring before the mediation (no edit warring or no edit for that page during mediation), I wonder why you just singled me out when other editors were also involved. Anyway, I appreciate your polite way in your reply. And I appreciate the way Magog the Ogre has set to prevent edit warring from happening in that hot page although I was blocked by him. --Lvhis (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Feezo. 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.
