I reverted because I archived the old discussion, so your link no longer worked anyway. It's considered best to create a new discussion, rather than continue one from months ago. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite23:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we started with the left foot, I don't know. Why would someone create an account in august only to vote on move discussions? It doesn't make sense. The entire discussion has fallen into nothing because of Walsariad and his two friends' behavior. I attempted to propose a settlement to end this unnecessary struggle. This is what happened. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thanks for attention. However, the attacks and offends to me and my people are more numerous and heavier than i could tell in 10 lines of message here about some anonymous user... I'm really fed up and i hope it is clear. The serious matters are treated as a circus joke and it is not ok for me...however, my intervention in wikipedia was for protesting, for getting in touch with somebody from administration even if i knew that it would be invane. I have finished/closed with my thread "disinformation" and other thread with similar issue and asked the administration to delete my account as i have no intention to continue here, of course no intention to "disturb" the peaceful trans of community...maybe one day when wikipedia will lose definitely the title of encyclopedia or reference because of liberty of virtual vandals, coward jackals without any knowledge or right for editing either writing any article, which unfortunately rule here, maybe then i will pass by and ask you, the administrators if i were right or wrong...
i had a look in my schedule, but i can't find the command for deleting the personal account. Probably it will be vandalized by the usual jackals sooner or later. I don't know what is the WP ANI that you link to me, i never participated before in wikipedia discussions, it is first time that i register here.
thank you again for time and attention you paid for
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Two strange incidents and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
... yet you censor/close my genuine proposal, hide it, warn against opening it again and harass me in private. This makes no sense, but I've noticed that Wikipedia is full of people like you. There just is no reasoning with you. You will censor and remove and ban anything and anyone you don't like, and always get away with it. It's sad and pathetic and gives me the creeps. This is definitely not the way to win friends and influence people. --Yellowpigeon (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
If there's "no reasoning with" me, why post here except to exacerbate the situation? ಠ_ಠ
Look, people rightly posted a concern that a new user was proposing linking every article to a new forum site. That raises some eyebrows. You responded with personal attacks and accusing everyone of being closed-minded. You already seem to have presumptions about Wikipedia, and that's not helping.
Your "genuine proposal" is not going to happen, per our external linking policy. Further, you misunderstood comment about us linking to "other sites not in our control." We link to verifiable, third-party sources about the subject. Your discussion forum is not one of those, and would not be appropriate for Wikipedia. I would have discussed that with you, but instead you went on a rant and began attacking other editors directly. That's why I shut it down.
You've already made up your mind, so further effort on my part is moot. Feel free to get in the last word, if you must, as I will not respond to this discussion further. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite14:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Citing that in this case is not appropriate. Starting an RfC on whether a certain section should exist is actually trying to "hear" from more editors. The suggestion that an RfC asking a question such as that in a brief and neutral manner is "pointy", is misunderstanding the guideline. Pursuing a wider consensus is not tendentious or pointy, but the opposite.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Bullshit. You could have continued the discussion in that thread, or even started a new discussion thread (though given your proclivity to do so, that wouldn't look so hot either). Your comment wasn't "brief and neutral," it was so vague as to be useless. A "section about warnings" is as vague as "a section about planes." Define the scope of the RfC if you're serious. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite20:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
How is it vague exactly? "Prior warnings of an attack" is pretty straightforward I would think. What exactly gets covered is not really something that would demands an RfC. If the outside community says "yes, it should include such a section" then obviously we will have to consider of what such a section should consist.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing particularly unusual about it. Editors were objecting to the very idea of a warnings section. Without a clear position on whether there should be such a section, it is obvious that any attempt at discussing improvements would be futile.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
So far, the only futile thing I've seen is your incessant need to keep adding everything you find to articles around the September 11 attacks. True to your name, you're not providing a serious attempt at improving the articles, you're trying to "balance" them out as you see fit. That's not going to fly. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite22:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, if you look a little more carefully you will see that I have added very little of my own to these articles, in that, most of my edits have been to restore additions by other editors with improvements to try and meet the objections of others. I think these two articles need a lot of work, and most of the editors contributing to the discussion are not willing for whatever reason to do a lot of hard work on improving the article. Were bold edits being tolerated more I think these articles would be in much better shape.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
No, the difference is what you consider improvements, others consider a detriment to the article. And that's what you're stubbornly refusing to understand. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite00:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't think I would ever say this, but I am about to dewatch the page...TDA has driven me away from it. I had considered trying once again, using some advice given by seasoned FA writers such as Aude and Karanacs, to try and get the page back to GA level...and even see if the main opposer last time at the review, User:Geometryguy, would assist...but if the talkpage is going to be a neverending ramble of peripherals, it may never be possible to get the article improved. I've been the primary contributor on a few featured articles myself and I always considered the 9/11 attacks article should be at least a good article, and preferably a featured article, but that may not be possible...so it just languishes...no real improvement seems possible, though I think the work done by A Quest For Knowledge and Tom Harrison last year prior to the 10th anniversary of the attacks was an impressive improvement...oh well.--MONGO00:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
This scripts listing page is in dire need of cleanup. To facilitate this, I've created a new draft listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts cleanup. You're invited to list scripts you know to be currently working and relevant. Eventually this draft page can replace the current scripts listing.
I have started a discussion with a vote that you may or may not be interested in. Since you participated in a discussion yesterday which was similar, I am sending you this notice:
Thanks, I've commented. I also have no idea why you put a Template:talkback on this page, since there's nothing on your page regarding me. Also, I prefer to keep conversations in one place: either here, or on your page. Bouncing back and forth isn't conducive to keeping a discussion on-track. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite17:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I will strive to be perfect like you next time, never making mistakes. This is a perfect example of the incivility that is crushing many editors and discouraging others. Just who do you think you are? I'm sorry, did I miss all of the featured articles you participated greatly in? You have got some arrogant attitude.Mugginsx (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Wow. That's an uncalled for overreaction. I was simply pointing out my preferred method of conversing here. If you can't deal with simple criticism, you're not going to enjoy Wikipedia. There was nothing uncivil about my comment, you've just flown off the handle at the slightest correction. A thick skin is called for on Wikipedia, because one of the core measures is being critical of each other's work (ie. WP:V and WP:N requiring us to question the validity of edits). That's not going to change. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite22:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello HandThatFeeds. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
This is more of a glass half empty or half full problem. I think the reason you objected so strongly to Mugginsx's optimistic opinion on Jimbo's talk page is because you read it literally. Obviously, you're right if you read it that way, since simply having a positive outlook isn't going to solve anything. But, it isn't really meant to be read that way. The way it is supposed to be read, is as an exaggeration, one that illustrates the idea that a positive outlook might lead to a solution. As you rightly observe, optimists may appear less practical than pessimists, but paradoxically, it is this very mode of thinking that allows one to envision unforeseen opportunities. More importantly, what might appear as an opportunity to one person, could be seen as a misfortune by another. This leads to a discussion of serendipity, which plays a significant role in human events. I'm reminded of the role of chance in scientific discoveries. Note the role of having a prepared mind in this instance, one that is "sagacious" or astute. This just means being able to turn the situation to your advantage, which is really another way of saying "think positively". Viriditas (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I just think it's too simplistic a view. It's not necessary to have a "positive outlook" to be imaginative or come up with new techniques for solving a problem. And serendipity is really just another word for coincidence. I'm not saying people shouldn't be happy or excited when they discover new things. But, the impression I'm getting from Mugginsx is that he does believe that being positive is the solution to all Wikipedia's problems. And he reacts very, very badly to any criticism, even when trying to help him or correct a misunderstanding. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite18:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Language is itself a simplification of an embedded representation of a worldview; the map is not the territory. Within simple views we can find the buds of complexity. Platitude or not, there is very little that is new, but increasingly novel ways of looking at old things. For me, this is key. Whether it is necessary or not, a positive outlook helps one recognize serendipity and solve problems. That's what is meant by a sagacious state of mind. How does a negative outlook help Wikipedia? Do we have good reason to avoid a positive outlook and discourage sagacity? Here's a relevant encyclopedic platitude: it's not how big it is, it's how you use it. How should we use Wikipedia? How will it be used in the future? And how should we treat the users who use it? Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
That is not true. A positive attitude makes quite a difference when it comes to problem solving and there's quite a bit of research on it.[2] The research shows that "positive affect influences creative problem solving". Can you tell me how a negative attitude benefits Wikipedia? Viriditas (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I love how you cherry picked the title of a paper, and then got its premise completely wrong. It wasn't about "positive thinking," but about being entertained or put into a good mood from other things before being given a creative task. From the abstract:
Four experiments indicated that positive affect, induced by means of seeing a few minutes of a comedy film or by means of receiving a small bag of candy, improved performance on two tasks that are generally regarded as requiring creative ingenuity.
Back to your question: "Positive" thinking is hopeful. "Negative" thinking is critical. It involves whittling away hoaxes, fringe beliefs and trivia to keep Wikipedia on-track providing factual information. It involves enforcing WP:CIVIL. Positive thinking is not a bad thing, but it's not the panacea some folks are making it out to be. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite13:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Please try to read a bit closer and more carefully for comprehension. AGF might help you as well. I did not "cherry pick" any specific title of any paper. I think you were confused by my comments and the link I provided. What I said was that the research shows that "positive affect influences creative problem solving". You saw this was similar to the title of a paper in the link to the research, namely "positive affect facilitates creative problem solving". I was not referring to that specific paper, but to the research supporting the idea that having a positive attitude improves problem solving, which in turn improves organizational behavior and decision making. A review of the research can be found in Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology (2009).[3] There's also an established neuropsychological theory that explains how it works.[4] The problem here is reflected by your statement that "'Positive' thinking is hopeful" and 'Negative' thinking is critical." That definition lies outside the context of positive and negative attitudes under discussion here, so you must have got confused along the way. The scientific method is essentially a positive process that attempts to explain the world. It should not be confused with the Popperian criterion of falsifiability as some kind of negative attitude. Criticism isn't a negative attitude. I think you are crossing the wires here, as positive and negative mean something different when we are talking about attitude. Essentially, a negative outlook here is not critical, it is hostile, which is what we are discussing. All of the available evidence shows that this kind of behavior is not conducive to problem solving. Furthermore, skepticism is part of the scientific outlook. It is not "negative" to identify hoaxes, nor is it "negative" to write critically about belief systems. And, it has nothing to do with "enforcing" civility, quite the opposite actually, as a negative outlook/attitude towards other editors is not civil. For an organization like Wikipedia that depends on a culture of collaboration, the benefits of a positive attitude/outlook are supported by the latest research in this area. Beth Livingston, assistant professor of human resources studies at Cornell University, found that people who are agreeable—"kinder, more trusting, more cooperative"—tend to value relationships more, and are "more satisfied with their lives and have a higher quality of their relationships". That's the kind of attitude we want to encourage, and that's the foundation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility. It does not detract from critical thinking or skepticism in any way, but rather improves the relationships we have with each other as individuals and with the community of editors and readers. Viriditas (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh please. You're the one "crossing the wires" by redefining negative as "hostile." That's your own bias showing. As is your belief that "the scientific method is essentially a positive process that attempts to explain the world." You're reframing the argument as "positive = productive, negative = destructive." The scientific process is not "positive" in attitude. It is the assertion of an hypothesis, followed by testing and allowing peer review. It is a fundamentally harsh process, as your peers will point out flaws in your methodology or research. It behooves the researcher to be very skeptical of their own work, so as to eliminate those flaws in the first place.
I can AGF and still disagree with someone without that being "hostile." Somehow, you've decided that "a negative outlook/attitude towards other editors is not civil," which has nothing to do with it. Being skeptical is not incivil, it's the foundation of the scientific method. You're conflating "negative" with "angry" or "rude," and "positive" with "trusting" and "cooperative."
It's obvious we have fundamental disagreements on both what these terms mean, and what is best for Wikipedia. I don't see this discussion as fruitful in the least. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite12:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any fundamental disagreement about anything here, nor could there be. I just see an editor who refuses to acknowledge the point Mugginsx was making because he personally disagrees with the editor. Mugginsx's point was that an editor could maintain a civil, positive attitude towards other editors while criticizing them at the same time. More importantly, as the thread shows, the community agrees with her. For some reason that I do not understand, you have maintained and continue to maintain against the preponderance of evidence that a negative, hostile attidue towards others is beneficial, and even stranger, is part of being skeptical. I'm here to remind you that there is not a shred of evidence to support such a statement, and only serves to excuse bad behavior. Science, the scientific method, and skepticism are not part of a negative attitude towards other editors. Feel free to delete this thread. Viriditas (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this, I've encountered the editor in question all over the place for years now. He's an excellent editor in many ways, but get him near a noticeboard or anywhere admins gather and Mr. Hyde appears. I suspect that most of the time he'd subside in a hurry if no one took his bait. I rarely contribute to ANI because of its frequently toxic atmosphere but, having chosen to wade into that particular fray, decided not to let his reckless allegation go unanswered. I fully assumed I'd get an unconstructive response, and I did. Sigh. Maybe I should trout myself! Rivertorch (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, when he's not involved in drama, he seems to do a good job editing. The problem is, he has decided that admins are a blight on Wikipedia, and is crusading to remove the tools from as many as possible. If an Admin errs, he's off recreating the French Revolution. The fact that he's a good editor has let him get away with this battleground for a long time, and I don't see it changing anytime soon. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite21:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Nah. It's easy to overlook an archiving when things are moving so fast. I'd just let it be. I have a feeling Leaf is going to suffer a serious WP:BOOMERANG if he persists in bringing it up, though. Directly accusing an editor of racism is pretty serious. I had hoped to nip that in the bud by closing the second discussion, but he seems determined to keep going. It's on his shoulders, now. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite23:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It is very serious and such accusations must involve WP:BOOMERANG where unfounded. This Aboriginal tool may soon make its presence felt in this Racism topic. Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork23:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
Thank you for assisting in the current misunderstanding at ANI. I have learnt something valuable from the outcome. As per your suggestion, I would like to offer this cup of tea, as a sign of gratitude. Wesley☀Mouse22:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
May I ask a question too regarding adoption policies? If you're busy, then I understand, and I shall continue to research and figure them out alone. Wesley☀Mouse23:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the tea!
Regarding adoption, I've never actually done it myself, so I'm not terribly familiar with the process. I wouldn't mind helping give you some pointers now and then, though. ATM, I'm going in for some minor surgery, so I may not be back on Wikipedia for a few days. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite11:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The best of luck in regards to the surgery. Hope it all goes well for you. I must admit, I know the feeling with being "tied-up" with real-life schedules lately. I was accepted to be a Games Maker (aka volunteer) for London 2012 Olympics back in April 2011; and everything had been nice and quiet, until the start of this year. No sooner as 2012 began, then my training to be an accreditation team leader at London Olympics has got into full swing, with session after session after session being thrust upon me. Hence, why I was asking about the adoption thing. I had noticed some adopters run a tight schedule with their trainees. I fear that engaging myself into adoption process may clash with Olympic training. Is it possible to allow both schedules to operate around each other, without that stressful clash? Wesley☀Mouse11:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Ani
Hello, HandThatFeeds. I've unfolded your (imo premature) closure of the discussion subsection. There is a genuine issue to be looked at, and evidence in the form of diffs are present. I disagree with what you said in the edit summary and encourage more eyes to look at it, to make any improvements that need to be made so we can conclude the matter well. Thank you, 92.6.200.56 (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Amusing, we both commented on each other's page at the same time. :)
Look, Blofeld's behavior is only tangentially related to Jaguar's mass-creation. Further, you're purposefully baiting Blofeld into escalating the hostility level. It's unfair to Jaguar for you to drag your personal battle into this. Take up the issue in a separate ANI about Blofeld if you must, but you're distracting from the central issue: what to do about the mass created stubs. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite21:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh it's fine if you reply here, HandThatFeeds; easy for me to check your page. :) Okayy a whole lotta allegation there, same ones you wrote on my talk those four minutes earlier. Really I don't have the likes of a personal battle with anybody. HandThatFeeds, it's reasonably certain the entire situation, proposed deletion - everything, would never have happened if the policy on mass creation had been followed. It seemed counterintuitive not to ask hangon, how come it wasn't looked at. Had it been, consultation comprising a small trial run checked before making the rest plus help with structure and sourcing by Chinese speakers would've been how it played out. Instead, the only community 'consultation' was after xthousand pages were created. It came at ANI, in the form of proposals to delete all with suggestions of everything from targeted bans to removal of autoconfirmed status.
Look, nobody wants the situation repeated in six months with another user and different stubs. We've all seen how upsetting it's been for the editor as well as time consuming for everyone. I made the section titled Prevention when the deletion debate on the mass created stubs had >20 supports; it wasn't closed, but'd quietened down. It seemed sensible to examine prevention in parallel. I ignored all the personal remarks because the important thing was finding out why it wasn't brought up; I was fervent, I acknowledge that.
Much about Blofeld's intentions and actions is admirable. Now in the past, he's created geostubs. With Jaguar, he'd told/encouraged him to make the Chinese township stubs, supplied the reference, edited the user's sandbox template used to produce them, and omitting all reference to the policy requirements gave feedback or corrections throughout. It seemed more than, as you say, tangential or irrelevant.
Whether he approaches editors to give tips or advice having been there, or they come to him in recognition of his experience in volume creation amounts to the same. The commendable desire to create new content, address systematic bias and encourage less experienced users shines through. His views on the policy's merits are his prerogative as well, but the omitting all mention of it while advising them unintentionally shields them from expertise and assistance from others. Jaguar would've got lots of help early on, the thread wouldn't exist, and he wouldn't be disheartened. To dismiss what I wrote as nothing but personal sniping and worse link to NPA in a bolded header, isn't a fair summation, and well I don't mind admitting I found it hurtful. If you'd written a view something like, on balance this section is negative - folding to allow further discussion conducive to resolving this, that'd be less, well, y'know. Anyway, thanks for your time. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Wow, wall-o-text. :) Okay, I've read through here. If you have no history with Blofeld, I apologize. However, it's an easy mistake to make: your questions were very pointed and gave the impression you were spoiling for a fight.
I'd like to see mass creations curbed significantly, but ANI isn't the place to push through a policy change. And Blofeld's involvement really was tangential to the direct problem of Jaguar's stubs. Blofeld may have given him some bad advice, but that's not a matter for the admin tools to fix.
As for the close summary, I stand by that. It was blunt, yes. The two of you were simply trading insults and insinuations back and forth, which really wasn't helping matters.
It was rather long wasn't it :) He was asked reasonably, though declined to answer changing topic multiple times. You're mistaken if you thought policy change was ever sought, it was simply about following existing ones. We've different views on the involvement I guess. A user not following norms and policies or indirectly encouraging multiple others not to over a long period of time has at least some relevance to ANI. I rather think insinuations implies unevidenced statements, the fold divorced Thumperward's reply from the rest, and unfortunately it was an inaccurate summation and characterisation. On the close summary, as it's clearly caused discomfort toning it down is arguably the right thing to do. At this point I'll move on and of course wish you well. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I understand quite well. The fact that I disagree with you does not mean that I lack understanding. There is no need for you to post here any further. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite23:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Language dynamics
Hello HandThatFeeds and Bwilkins,
I wanted to offer an observation to both of you (crossposting this, please respond if you like on my tp, as I don't watch yours)
I had noticed that there was an unintentional misunderstanding of a phrase which led to some unfortunate friction with DePiep, who as I understand is working with you guys helping with a bot request I think ? I'm not sure, but I think DePiep was asked to assist in an endeavour because he has remarkable skill and focus on categorisation and templates, would that be correct ? Well, it's a bit like a wall street banker requesting assistance in the ghetto, or someone from the ghetto asking for help in court. It doesn't matter which situation it is, the fact that everyone is using plain English doesn't mean their request will me interpreted correctly. You can change their clothes and their look completely, but it is their English language which is going to get them into trouble by itself (literally fatal consequences in both instances). DePiep has an ordered logical categorical thinking, whereas you guys spend all day long trying to empathise with people and give out good advice. So the innocent helpful statement "As I am both an admin, and a bot owner, why do you dispute .." is no problem at all for many people who empathise the same manner that you do. However, and this is a big however, when a person reads the same statement in a logical ordered methodical manner, it appears to be the issue of a decree from on high. If I may be so cheeky as to use some humorous satire to illustrate, and please don't take this as anything other than humour, it can sound like "Behold I am thy Emperor and my decree is law, how dare you doubt me you snivelling peasant" yeah, ok so I am overdoing it a little, however, what you were trying to say to DePiep is that you are familiar and experienced with the subject, however you didn't use those words, you clearly implied that meaning instead. Usually works well. But this reminds me of talking and explaining my ideas to Z, who programmed PALZ for me, I simply cannot explain what I want PALZ to do unless I phrase my language as computer code. It was really funny to both of us. Normally I would say things like I want PALZ to read from a list of languages where he can put his updates, and then read an edit summary to write in his edit and do that for every language on the list. He's like wtf ? And I say, oops, ummm, IF the name of the server EXISTS on the list of languages THEN read the server name and edit summary. DO each edit on that server with the edit summary UNTIL there are no more entries on the list. Then he is like "oh why didn't you just say so ? yeah cool, no problems." For DePiep, the comment is categorised as "I am an authority figure" then "I'm a bot owner" then "why do you doubt me" which creates a logic lockup and exploding CPU because you are not categorised as policy.
It's like the child walking past a building site, he asked one man 'What are you doing ?" and the man said "cutting rocks" and he asked the next man 'What are you doing ?" and the man said "Earning $3 per hour" and he asked the last man 'What are you doing ?" and the man said "building a cathedral". Same job, three views. Now, same worksite, and a different example, the Bishop, the painter and the stonemason all sat down together, then as three highly skilled and trained men, absolute masters of their respective trades, they would have practically nothing whatsoever they could talk about over lunch, and may well come away from each other never wanting to lay eyes on each other again, despite the fact they all work for the same cause, building the church. You three are ALL on the same side, trying to build an encyclopaedia, so let's not forget that. If you'd like my help I would be happy to assist and I highly recommend that the Bishop, artist and stonemason stay away from each other from now on, because it is not easy to talk to each other when everyone is speaking English. I will be happy to translate for you because I happen to speak all three languages and can translate from English to English to English with some limited success (although I am still learning, there are like SO many people who think I talk shit all day long, and they are no doubt correct too). Penyulap ☏02:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Off-topic
My comment on Malleus may have been off-topic (and I know he's a friend of Nev1's, I don't think that excuses his comment), but how is "I found this suggestion on Nev1's talk page, wouldn't it work? " Could an edit filter be written that disallows non autoconfirmed editors from posting the text string Nev1 in the mainspace". Dougweller (talk) 12:17 pm, Today (UTC+1)" off-topic? It seems very much on-topic. Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Hand. I know you've gone to great lengths to help our non-helix DNA friend, and the community is grateful for that, I know, as I am myself. I just removed one of my comments from ANI that didn't add anything to the discussion in the thread about the article, and I was wondering whether you might be open to removing one of your comments from the non-helix article's talk page? Specifically, your comment of 19:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC), in this section is off-topic for the section, and provides no new, actionable information.
If the original "author" weren't around, that would be fine, but he is, and if he sees that it's just going to pour petrol on the likely fire. No one wants to hear his work described that way even if ( or maybe "especially if" ) it really is that way. His vanity is already wounded pretty badly, and he obviously has a pretty strong emotional stake in being right ... which he still could be, btw, at least based on my admittedly very limited knowledge of the topic.
The article is likely to get deleted, or ( as you implied at ANI ) pretty much stubbed, and then merged, but with its author around, why injure his vanity even further, when it's in no way necessary, and does nothing to improve the likely outcome? Best regards, --OhioStandard (talk)21:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't sure, from your current contribution history, whether you were still around now, so I went ahead and removed the comment myself, in this edit. Sorry; I mean no offence, of course, but I didn't wait because I have no idea when our friend might show up again at the page. I hope you can accept that, even if it might seem officious or otherwise annoying, on my part. Thanks again for all the effort you put into trying to help him. Best, --OhioStandard (talk)21:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Heh, you have a good point. That comment might be the straw that broke the camel's back. No problem with you redacting it, given the circumstances and your clear explanation here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite21:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding, and for responding with good grace. I appreciate and honour the humility of your reply, very much indeed. Best, --OhioStandard (talk)21:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Re: AN/I
I think 'Oh wait, Malarious? Not heard of him, sorry. As you were.' was an oblique reference to Malleus Fatuorum, whom I see you're aware of, and who gets more frequent name drops there and elsewhere. Dru of Id (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
No problem, 3RR plus WP:CIVIL violations made for an easy block. Clearly a problematic editor, he'll be under my microscope for a while. -RunningOnBrains(talk)01:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Par for the Course
Criticism of Wikipedia policy is of course not permitted. I just want to point out to you here that the very self-righteousness being demonstrated may well have been the trigger responsible for Magnotta's actions. You needn't bother replying. This is not the first time that the vindictiveness, and blinkered, close-minded fanaticism of Wikipedia has been responsible for real-world events, and that you and your ilk are no more likely to discuss the possibility of your culpability now, over the Magnotta incident, than you were over the Seigenthaler incident. - SmashTheState (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
You can criticize policy all you want. What you can't do is turn a policy discussion page into a soapboxing rant. We can't fix Magnotta. Assuming the murders would not have happened if we gave him his 15 minutes of fame is ludicrous on its very premise. By that argument, Jodie Foster should have dated John Hinckley, Jr. so he wouldn't have attempted to assassinate the President. It's a complete farce of an argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite12:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to my edit request. I hope that you get some time in the near future, but in the meantime I'm hoping that someone else might help out. It's difficult to get good help around here! Goodsheard1 (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
The closed discussion on Freudian influences in The Demolished Man includes a second topic, whether Lincoln Powell was the product of a Demolition. Kind of a dumb (probably Blade Runner-inspired) topic, but had you intended to hide it away as well? It looks to be by a different editor and seems non trollish. CouldOughta (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, been on an extended Wikibreak for my sanity. The issue of Lincoln Powell is difficult to include in the article without third-party sources, and is really a secondary aspect to the plot. I don't think it fits in the article, but have no objection to it if solid sources for the idea are available. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite16:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Apologies
I'm sorry, but I undid your "narcissism redux" on the Individualism talk page because it left the original comment that started the discussion hanging in mid-air. I probably should have discussed it with you first, but I didn't realize we could send messages to each other. Please see my comments on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.94.64.219 (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
