This is an archive of past discussions with User:NE Ent. 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.
incompetent AfD nominations
In your thoughtful post at ANI, are you saying that incompetent AfD nominations are ok because they result in article clean-up? It doesn't always work that way. In the case of María Viramontes I took the rescue approach of adding sources to document the notability. I have been attacked and hurt for this decision. My content work has been trashed, my work at the AfD discussion has resulted in personal attacks, and my work to restore reason at the DRV has been disregarded by a vote-counting close. In all this time no one has ever said that the topic failed WP:GNG. If it is really true that AfD nominations are inherently good for the project, we should have a robot create them. And the counterpart to saying that bad nominations are ok, is that it creates a two-tiered society of finger-pointers and clean-up-servants. I welcome your comments at WT:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes—if the current set of sources doesn't pass WP:GNG, no editor will say how many more sources are needed. Similarly at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Removal_of_sources_on_notability_grounds_at_Mindell_Penn, no editor has answered any of the four questions that I asked. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the invitation, as a general rule I don't participate in Afds except for articles I've nominated myself. Nobody Ent04:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Um, hate to butt in here, but why are we still talking about Maria Viramontes? It was deleted because the "sources" were mostly just stuff found on the Internet that only mentioned her tangentially, and it failed specific guidelines (which are oftentimes more relevant than the catch-all GNG). Numerous editors agreed with the deletion, either in the initial AfD or in the DRV, so it's almost a personal attack to call the nomination "incompetent". And Re:the Penn NN thread...it's a similar issue, because two of the three references removed barely mentioned Penn at all (meaning that regardless of the general issue of notability and references, they wouldn't belong). Sometimes you just have to let these things go. Anybody who's created or edited a lot of articles (and I've created a couple score myself, mind you) has had an article successfully nominated for deletion or significant content removed. Your attitude towards that is deplorable...since that deletion, you've apparently been trying to get back at me, the nominator, in some form or another. I notice that you've done very little content ...maybe a little yes yammering on about inactive discussions and a little more content? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈01:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Re: My unisgned comment on the Workshop
Hi Nobody Ent. Just wanted to say thank you for picking up my unsigned comment in the workshop, I've dropped in and rectified the issue by adding my own signature, and noting what time I made the original comment there. I guess I was typing way too fast and missed out a tilde :) Have a good new year. BarkingFish18:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, have a great new year yourself! I just reviewed the WQA you referenced -- it appears to have been during a time I wasn't Wiki active. A couple suggestions
Whenever someone WP:DTTRs me I simply post the link "WP:TR" with no additional words. Note: I've seen at least two complaints by regular editors who complained when another editor used their own words instead of using the template. Both are minority essays.
I understand your concern, however Deb is not the editor under scrutiny here, Malleus is; and for me the value in ensuring his treated fairly is the primary consideration. My explanation is here [1]. If you (or any other editor) can suggest an alternate phrasing which supports the same conclusion I would be happy to use that phrasing. Nobody Ent16:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
And I understand your concern! I feel I need to point out that I don't consider your comment in its entirety inappropriate: I believe that the first part, i.e. multiple editors explained UK usage to her; she gave no indication of accepting their statements and continued to insist she was right, is perfectly acceptable: it conveys your point of view, emphasising that many editors have maintained that Malleus' usage of "cunt" was never intended in a sexist way, but also lets the reader draw his own conclusion. Conversely, in my opinion, the second part of your message, i.e. which is an innuendo implication the other editors are either stupid or lying, is not necessary to insure Malleus is fairly treated, and, being an assumption of bad faith, can be divisive (an editor in particular objected to it). That's why I was asking you to remove that bit... SalvioLet's talk about it!17:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The point is the continued insistence is itself incivil because of what it implies, which i don't think it obvious, as evidenced by the other editor's "not getting it" after the four point detailed explanation. Nobody Ent17:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
What continued insistence and how is it uncivil? One is uncivil now if one refuses to believe a group of editors who claim to know how the rest of UK residents use a word? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that insistence is uncivil; it's quite normal for people who discuss to keep on holding that they are right, especially when they're talking about a term that's so loaded as the one de quo... SalvioLet's talk about it!17:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I think one thing that's frustrating for editors on all sides is that the language gap is making it difficult for us to truly put ourselves in others' shoes; that's true for me, for you (Nobody Ent), for Deb, and for Malleus as well. The perspectives are just so different on the use of the word that good faith editors really can have difficulty accepting others' points of view on this, even if they believe those other editors are completely sincere and intelligent. I think it's certainly fair to claim Deb thinks other editors are mistaken, but Salvio makes a good point that extrapolating that further is probably not necessary. Just my 2¢. 28bytes (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Notice
Please do not add edits to Wikipedia policy pages, especially if controversial as you did at WP:NPA. Such edits are considered very controversial, and should have legal administration discussion and approval before placing the edits there. Abhijay☎(Тalk)/✍ (My Deeds)06:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
responding to "Conducting unbecoming administrators"
You know, if someone goes raking muck on ANI, I think they should be prepared to be treated like an adult. That's what happened in the case of Bouket. It's not as if s/he was minding his/her own business and Drmies or I came along and started picking on him/her - or biting him as you put it.
I think your conclusions are way off base and I should point out that none of my actions with either Aditya or Bouket were administrative. Telling someone - especially someone involved in wikihounding another editor - to "get over it" is very different than telling them to fuck off - which in most cases would be uncivil. I'd expect you to know the difference. Toddst1 (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
ANI
Sure thing, I was planning on it but didn't rush as this user follows my edits and nearly always comments on every edit I make in any talkspace. Thanks for the reminder though and I will follow the procedures more promptly going forward. Did I bring this issue forth at the right location?LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
First off, seven days and three editors is sufficient for a merge consensus...merges don't need a consensus, and seven days is the same amount of time as a move or deletion discussion gets. Furthermore, Lucifer's ANI thread is based simply on the fact that he disagrees with me and that he views any Richmond article as a sacred cow, rather than any policy violation Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈05:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
WQA to ANI
Thank you for picking up that legal threat and referring it to the proper board. I left for lunch before he made the threat, and and he was already blocked and had his appeal denied by the time I got back. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm always happy to answer questions, but in this case I'm afraid I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you asking if I think it's a personal attack to accuse a specific editor of incompetence, or if making the general statement that "some editors are incompetent" is a PA? I thought I would ask you directly here rather than clutter up the workshop page. 28bytes (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Some editors are incompetent = some admins are dishonest cunts. Same form, latter just has a. slightly more perjorative term (dishonest vs. incompetent), b. profane word (cunt) Nobody Ent21:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure what the relevance of the question to the case was at first, but your analogy explains it. It frustrates me to no end that people continue to think of "cunt" as "just" profane, but I've all but given up trying to explain why it isn't. 28bytes (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with some inconsistency if it means we can point out that people are being dishonest or incompetent but we can't call them cunts when we do it. 28bytes (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
It's extremely profane in the USA, it will provoke immediate violence over 90% of the time here. But it's true in the UK it is able to be used much more jocularly, but over here it's equivalent to "bloody bugger" in its fury. Having said that, some admins are total dishonest cunts, and get away with it for also being prolific and very experienced, funny little world we cunt around in.LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
The filing user specifically requested it. What good can that possibly do on WP:WQA? If nothing good is going to come from a discussion like that, there is no point in leaving it around to attract problems. Prodegotalk19:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
my problem is I gave him advice and if hadnt been so bitey it would of been sorted by the time I got out of igloo he had started his rants and messages to me. That gets me non willing to help. The first time igloo flagged I ignored it the second time it didnt look ok so I reverted it. On coming out I looked at it. It was never going to be able to stay in there in that state. As most of the users I have dealing wIth will tell you if you ask me for advice or to do something for you even if it takes me weeks to sort as a current project I'm working on is. I just don't understand why he gets away with the behaviour if I had been at home I would list all the diffs but I'm not so I can't. The talk about press involvement led to the first ANI. The second came about because he re posted on mine and tide rolls talk page being pointy accusing me of calling him a sockpuppet which I haven't that.
Makes me think something wrong and another ANI was necessary. I would never have even paid any attention to him if he had t done that until today I didn't even have the article on my watchlist. I'm going to ask him politely to to post on my talk page for me that's it closed unless he starts again. I just hope he has read the links to the policies that I gave him at the very start. EdinburghWanderer17:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I still have objections. That thread is worthy of notice and if there are issues with a single post then better to speak to the person that made that post than hide the whole issue. The canvassing is an admin issue. Ani archives 24 hours without a post so it archives rapidly anyways. I won't get involved more though, regards. - Youreallycan15:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
No worries. If TP wants to reopen it then better leave it where it is unless he does. I think such early archiving ANI reports is a bit of a slippery slope, as I doubt there are many threads in the WP:CESSPIT without some kind of guidelines busting comments. Best regards to you Ent. Youreallycan16:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Last Man Standing (U.S. TV series)
Hello!
Would you please give me an explanation/reason for deleting my entry in the article with a revert
to a version that user QuasyBoy has already reverted without a reason.
Thank you. AmblinX 21:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I accidentally rolled back one of your recent edits at ANI. I self reverted within seconds. Sorry about that. I was simply looking through my watch list on my iPhone. One of the potential problems with a multitouch device. Again sorry. JOJHutton14:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Not really brave. There are advantages to being a nobody. Anyway, it appears Risker has terminated discussion, so yes, the case will end. Whether ArbCom can actually fix the ambiguity of the civility pillar remains to be seen. Nobody Ent00:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I really don't think anyone can fix what's going wrong here, not even ArbCom. The problem is that nobody's understanding what the problem is, which has got fuck all to do with the proportion of female editors. The problem, fundamentally, is that administrators are out of control and unaccountable. MalleusFatuorum00:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Concur with the female thing. Mostly agree with the admin thing; mostly an obviousness among some that their rhetoric escalates rather than deescalates situations. More fundamentally I think it's just the wide variety of opinion on what are and what aren't acceptable ways of interacting. Nobody Ent00:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
My position is and always has been that Wikipedia isn't a social club. The best way of interacting is the one that leads to the best result for the encyclopedia. MalleusFatuorum00:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Nope, they don't pay me enough to do the mopping around here. (I don't think "shortage of admins" is a current Wikipedia problem.) Nobody Ent03:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment regarding the brief rangeblock causing presumed collateral damage to this editor; I am uncertain why you felt impelled to make it. Clearly one does not give IP exemtion without confirming the nature of the problem and in consultation with the blocking admin, however straightforward the situation may appear. As the block was set to expire in only a few hours, this procedure appeared unnecessary. A word to the editor, inviting his further input if the block did not release seemed, and still seems, entirely appropriate. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"11:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The procedure outlined here Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption#Administrator.27s_guide does not require checking with the blocking admin except in the case of the blocking admin is a checkuser; JamesBWatson does not appear on [list]. As granting an IP exemption requires researching the registered user's edit history, you're certainly under no obligation to do so; however, saying, in effect, 'we (I) don't care enough about you to do the necessary research' is unnecessary and uncivil. Nobody Ent16:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I have deleted the RFC/U as having been improperly certified, since it was premised on the unproven assertion that Ash and Fae are the same person. You are welcome to create a fresh RFC/U on Fae alone, but it should not include unproven allegations of other identities. Will Bebacktalk07:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
As you are quite involved in the RfC/U itself, it's probably best to leave the closure of the ANI stuff to an involved admin. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Please note that per WP:CBAN, a community ban discussion has to be closed by an uninvolved admin (which I presume is what ASCIIn2Bme meant above). As you're neither an admin nor uninvolved, you didn't meet these requirements, so I've taken the liberty of undoing your archiving of the discussion. Prioryman (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
A beer for you!
(>**)> Sorry if I seem to be being a pain; love you really! Despite the wry and wacky humour, I genuinely do think it's an important distinction for newbies, particularly, to be aware of. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Sluurrrp. Thank you. 22:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
AN/I
Please do not make me do this again. I don't care if you think a group a posts are off-topic: you should not be removing others' posts like this. I take extreme offense to people removing what I took the time to type when it was in good faith. If it went over your head: ignore it. Doctalk13:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Your comment
Hi Nobody Ent, regarding your response to me here; the way I have understood things, unless they have changed, blatant socks (as opposed to suspected ones) can be reported to AN/I. This being said, when I was told to report obvious socks to AN/I that was five years ago, and I rarely participate at AN/I now (it isn't even on my watchlist) and almost never at SPI. I hope that explains where I was coming from with what I said, and I will keep your note in mind in future. (Posted this here because it didn't seem relevant to explain over there.) Best. Acalamari16:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you slap {{uw-3rr}} on the talk pages of every user brought to WP:WA? Removing copyright violations is clearly not a violation of 3RR and I was not even notified of the discussion about my edits. Eagles24/7(C)05:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Did you really think that a new editor needed no explanation as to why his contribs were deleted? Or was something else going on that lead you to omit your edit comment? It seems DTTR is pretty minor in comparison. LeadSongDogcome howl!05:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite. Let me think about it. Right now I am focussed on Political operatives and chronicalling (sp) actions, conversations etc to provide a history for debriefing when the nomination process is over and the general election starts. ```Buster Seven Talk18:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. Not so much an invite as an introduction -- I'm not actually against paid editing, myself. Nobody Ent
Hi there. I declined your recent taggings of pages in User:Joo's userspace. Those are apparently stale reports from back in 2010, so there is no need to speedy delete them. And they are not clear attack pages, so G10 does not apply anyway. If you believe they should be deleted, please take them to WP:MFD. Regards SoWhy15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Nobody Ent. This is just a short note to express my thanks for your time and your wisdom on WP:WQA recently. I’m particularly grateful for the soundness of your contribution at diff. Many thanks.
I'm going to get to a thread first and be able to say what I think. Geesh. I constantly see what you post and think "damn it .. that's what I wanted to say". I am truly impressed with the way you think and post here Nobody (although it's getting very hard to think of you as either a "nobody" or an "ent"). All my best, and thanks for all you do. — Ched : ? 21:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC) (yea, I know we don't always agree .. but who does?) :)
I really miss Gilda. Got to see her live in the glory days of my youth, back before I really understood what the big deal was about Mary Magdalen. Thanks for the smile. Risker (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Apology
Discussion and expression of different views is something I consider very important in a collaborative project. In my enthusiasm for understanding issues affecting Wikipedia, and expressing them as well as possible, my comments on your essay almost certainly came across as more sharply critical than I intended. I offer my apologies for that, Geometry guy21:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I've really appreciated the wisdom of many of your recent contributions, but this seemed particularly apposite. Keep being a deep thinker. It was nice to meet you. John (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Lions in the Desert requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. DreamFieldArts (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Nobody, have you had a chance to look at my draft for the Brian Lamb article? If so, I'd be interested in your feedback; the current discussion has gotten off-track, and it could certainly use new or returning voices. Hope you have a moment to take a look and offer your view. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi
Hi, can you ask DBigXray to stop this lame editwar adding my own name on top of my comment? [6][7][8] ...I also replied to your question. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Nice photo. Did you take it? Toddst1 (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
If you move a page, which contains non-free images, than the non-free rationale of the images should be update. This is just a note for the future, as I have updated the fair-use rationales for this page move. Armbrust, B.Ed.Let's talkabout my edits?00:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Reverting
Hi Nobody Ent,
you reverted a change in 479582181 commenting "see talk page". However, I cannot find a justification of that reversion on the Talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Reversion#Explain_reverts. Then, please either revert your reversion or explain it. If your reversion persists unjustified, it will not be possible to provide much justification if your reversion itself has to be reverted.
But also, do you know anyone for a new mentor who you could recommend maybe (I said in that post at the end but you deleted that too )? I thought you might be a good person to ask? Thanks for any help --Mistress Selina Kyle(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)13:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Language
I should know by now that if you use strong language to make a strong point, people will ignore the strong point entirely and focus on the strong language. Anyway, frustrating as that is, you're right that the language was not serving to de-escalating the discussion, so I have refactored my comment. 28bytes (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Things seemed to have calmed down so hopefully the discussion can move forward. I hope it was clear it was not my intent to single any editor, including yourself, out but try to stop the escalating spiral. Nobody Ent17:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
No, I didn't feel singled out, I thought you were fair in your distribution of criticism. :) Funnily enough, as I was searching for the phrase "complete and utter bullshit" on the page to edit it, my comment wasn't the first hit. In the future, if I feel the need to use strong language, I'll have to make it a point to do so with more originality. 28bytes (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Shocked... utterly shocked and surprised!
I hafta say, that I am utterly shocked and surprised that nobody came here to badger you regarding a recent close that you made (you know which one.) I mean, the closing statement basically said what many of us had said previously---that it was a farce and shouldn't have gone on as long as it did. The fact that you (as a contributor to the discussion and ostensibly 'endorser') could close it that way, and have nobody berate you over it or question the close shows how little people cared at the end. I'm not going to call it a good close, but will say it was a gutsy one that needed to be closed... and I definitely don' t think it is worth any more air than it got... but I've been watching your page/AN/ANI for somebody to object and to whine that you closed it the way you did (basically saying it should be deleted... but nobody has.)---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon20:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
...for this! I usually like to leave closing discussions until they have died down, but there are cases when it's right to step in and stop a going-nowhere discussion from pointlessly absorbing lots more time and energy. This was one of those times! Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)14:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Now that it's safely archived: you're welcome (was waiting with baited breath to see if it stuck before commenting) Nobody Ent14:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. and thanks for the clarification on your comment -- was thinking I had stepped in because deleted page history is invisible to me. Nobody Ent14:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Nope, you were quite right to comment as you did. Foxj's been here ages and is obviously in good standing, and besides their userpage says they're from Australia while the elance account says Colorado, so despite the weird name coincidence it was pretty unlikely to be the same person. I belatedly thought of letting Foxj know they'd been mentioned and then found you'd already done the decent thing. Thanks again, EyeSerenetalk15:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I reopened that thread on AN with the agreement of the archiving admin, who had the same misunderstanding that you did. Please read it again and let it run its course. Your 3rr warning on my talk page was inappropriate and unnecessary. Please don`t do that again. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Excelsior (movie) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ~dee(talk?)14:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite
Hello NE Ent/Archive. 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.
How is it not exactly true? "Functionally equivalent" is incorrect, in that it implies the physics definition of weight, in which case there would be functional equivalence at one g. The whole point of my addition is that "weight" in certain contexts is legally, and by definition, absolutely equivalent to what in physics is known as mass. Or to put it another way, nutrition labels and product packages, by law, mean the same thing on the moon as on earth. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Re: Removal of Nortonius' comments @ User_talk:Courcelles
Hi, thanks for the warning - I didn't realise my edits had nuked anyone else's comments - i certainly wasn't warned that I had an edit conflict or anything, but I will watch out for this in the future. Cheers! BarkingFish15:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 April 2012.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 17:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
In response to your "It's a collaborative effort which requires some time to get article content in a state which balances all the points of view. Best option is to use the article talk page to discuss with your fellow editors. Nobody Ent 10:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)"
I was tempted to use a swear word. As anyone who reads the talk page of the article in question (shiatsu), in the last two weeks can see, IT IS NOT A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT, it is the opinion of IRWolfie who has a monopoly on what can be added , what sources are reliable (those that agree with his point of view), what BITS of those sources are reliable (those that agree with his point of view). When I add things from the sources HE likes he says that it is not supported by the evidence - "The text you added just isn't supported by the reference. IRWolfie - (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)"- and when I point out the exact sentences that support my additions he just doesn't reply and tries to get me blocked. What were your words? "State which balances all points of view?" Am I supposed to believe it too? Shiatsushi (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry, I won't pull out "Don't template the regulars". I'm okay with that. However, I would like to point out, on your messsage
"To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors.
I see your point, but I had *already* asked them to not discuss their spat on that page. Isn't there room for hiding tangential cruft in cases like that? --KarlB (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about this. I wasn't even editing at the time, just looking something up – but not actually looking at WP:AN. I must have somehow clicked on rollback by mistake. SlimVirgin(talk)16:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
No problem at all, I just didnt want everyone getting bogged down in the technicalities of 'should he, shouldnt he' and ignoring (albeit unintentionally) the civility issue. While everyone can agree/disagree on the starting point, I think it should be noted the over-reaction afterwards was totally out of line. Especially when attacking someones character. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with you. It just that I've been around awhile and seen that often excessive reaction to another editor's real or perceived disruption can easily become more disruptive than helpful; I've previously said my piece and don't see any benefit to Wikipedia in reiterating my viewpoint. Nobody Ent18:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Depressingly given the comments by arbs on the rejected case, I suspect at some point everyone involved is going to have to say their piece again. Although given the massive amount of history it could probably just be entirely blue links to get the point across. Anyways, my regards for your input. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
That's the best point.
I was just waiting to see if DC might come up with it on his own. :)
Sorry about that. I was hoping to get them both to just agree on some wording so everyone could move on. Didn't mean to offend. -- Avanu (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I know you were working towards a resolution and that is fine. Just don't edit another editor's comments. Nobody Ent01:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Andy the grump
I trust that you made the right decision in closing the AndyTheGrump complaint on the AN/I. I noticed you left my section open. I don't understand, did you purposefully mean to do that or did you missed it in the closure ? --POVbrigand (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks also for the clarification of the AN / ANI closure practise. So in theory it is possible to have other "very"-friendly editors close the complaint before the rest of the community had a glance at it. WOW --POVbrigand (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I note that you have closed this matter. Based on previous behaviour it is likely that AuthorityTam will now return to editing in a couple of weeks. If he returns but does not resume the previous behaviour, it may not be necessary to return to ANI.
However, if the behaviour does continue, would it be better to resume the ANI, or raise the matter at ArbCom instead? If so, what's the process? Is it appropriate to reference the ANI from ArbCom, or does the whole process have to start from scratch?
On a separate but related matter, it would be nice to see some improvement in Willietell's behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi- I do apologise if you took my comment here as insinuating that you or cyberpower specifically were angry. I've amended decided to remove my comment anyway, I shouldn't have got involved. Cheers. SD503:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Closing ANI threads
I know that you were very upset that YRC was blocked, and that everything was resolved in your eyes when he was unblocked. However, there were two users blocked, and your closing of the thread makes it look like both blocks were resolved, which they were not. Try to be more careful. AniMate19:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
The other editor has already said his intent was not to get actions, therefore the use of ANI was useless, and the wrong forum. Besides, I've only posted there twice :-) (talk→BWilkins←track) 20:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Since you wanted it to be closed. I will reply here or, if you want, you may reopen it. I disagree with your comment that, "this was sufficient warning as per Wikipedia's requirements." - It wasn't!! I agreed with you that we need to stop the WP:BATTLE mentality, I ended my comments saying "thank you". You could have easily refrained from evincing WP:BATTLE mentality by not stretching it further.
But then, what did you do?
You went on to claim patently illogical things. I was not playing a "game" when I said I didn't get warned properly. Your deliberate caricature of my position, predicated upon your high-handed bullishness, is chronically wearing too. I say this with utmost humility, "grow up!" Brendon ishere07:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
A close by me probably wouldn't stick. Just stop replying (take ANI off your watchlist, if it's there) and it will wind down pretty quickly. Nobody Ent12:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Brendon111, I am quite "uninvolved" with your situation, so I don't know how I got lumped into the same category as the opener of the section and the admin whose head you've been screaming for. If you can be helped, that is good; but you must listen without firing from the hip at every perceived insult. If you cannot be helped, it is certainly not our responsibility to fix you (per WP:NOTTHERAPY). We can only attempt to point you in the right direction. So try to roll with the punches a little more gracefully from now on, okay? Doctalk12:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I just figured it out. Some out there have just been baiting me all along. I do edit contentious extremely sensitive articles and have been involved in multiple disputes tiffs in the recent past. It's not hard to imagine that I have more than a few around me who don't want me editing there. (Nonetheless, I reserve the right to change my mind.) Brendon ishere15:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
An opener reports and their desire to close the report when the focus has moved to their actions is not something users should edit war about - shame on you Ent - there is discussion about this admin unresolved and your closure is not correct at all - Youreallycan20:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Its too late now - you remember this next time and keep out of it - leave things alone that are unresolved - who are you to force closure - Youreallycan21:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
This is not the first time you inappropriately closed threads on the admin noticeboards. Do not do this again. You need to leave adequate time for people to respond, and be much more conservative closing threads. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Had the thread been left open for longer than 1.5 hours, it's quite possible someone might have mentioned recent related events. Sometimes these sort of things get dismissed as "isolated", when they really are not. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of ANI is "reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." It is not for commenting, or mentioning related events -- long term issues are not handled well at ANI and better served by DRN or RFC/U or possibly WQA (depending on the exact nature of the circumstance). If and when I see a thread where historical observation leads me to be fairly certain the thread will not converge to consensus to take action and may, instead, lead to escalation and/or frustration, I'll put a close on it. This is not in violation of policy because, as near as I can determine, there isn't a policy.
That one edit was just a revert on possible vandalism, as I am also aware of the conflict you addressed with Status and the other user. Dan56 (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to know why I received a warning when I did one revert on the article; an addition of a second album cover which violates Wikipedia image rules. — Statυs (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Note for Ent, my comments here yesterday came over a bit strong , sorry about that - you were not really warring, just a single close - so my comments were undue , please excuse me. - As I am on a one revert edit pattern I came correctly to discuss with you, but I was unnecessarily attacking rather than polite, sorry. Youreallycan17:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
No worries. It's not that I don't share your concerns with the admin in question -- especially given today's ill considered post -- but, as I mention above, ANI is just not going to achieve anything. Since he's not AOR someone would have to do the hard work of putting together an RFC/U to have make a positive effect on Wikipedia. Nobody Ent22:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment; I cannot see any earlier contribution from you on this thread. I have made no further comment since 24 th May, nor did I intend to, although there are seven further entries by other editors. Accepting without question that any editor can edit antwhere, why do you feel that my edit was inappropriately placed? It was, after all, a continuation of an ongoing thread. Please note that I have since been in contact with Malleus by e-mail.--Anthony Bradbury"talk"20:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Amendment request rejected
This is a courtesy notification that the request for amendment you are involved in or are a named party to has been declined.
You did. Saw that. Thanks for the note. I was pretty much planning to ignore it for the silliness it is, but since you brought it up... In Raiders of the Lost Ark the bad guys dug in the wrong place 'cause creepy bad guy only had an impression of one side of the Staff of Ra headpiece burned into it, and missed important "subtract three blah-blahs" on the back. Likewise you seem to have missed my complete sentence -- "are all homophobes except all the ones who aren't. " The diff you're quoting is not my individual opinion, it's my satirical summary of the entire mess of a case; while it may not be obvious now it was pretty clear to those participating at the time. I'll also note that, as one of the two certifiers of the RFC in the first place, that if your interpretation was correct I'd be calling myself a homophobe. Nobody Ent01:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Re: not meaningless
What I mean is that removing the comments removes the context for what I said. If I reply to something and then you remove it, others can't understand what I said — my comments are meaningless to them. You also removed one of my comments entirely. Nyttend (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry
Sorry for prematurely requesting closure on that ANI thread. I haven't been on in a while, but I suppose that's still no excuse. It shall not happen again, I assure you. Onepier(Logbook)23:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
True. I was misled by inaccurate AN header info that the section would be archived soon, so I was thinking better than nothing. Certainly wouldn't object to being reverted if an admin wants to close it out. Nobody Ent
Sock Puppets
Hi Nobody Ent. Recently you reverted an edit of mine on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, writing "See talk." I checked the talk page but wasn't sure what you were referring to. What was your rationale in reverting the edit? Thanks. —Iamthedeus (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Ent. I know you're not an admin yet, but since you seem to be online at present, and the community seems to approve of your housekeeping efforts on the various noticeboards, I wonder if you'd have a look here? I'd be grateful, and will be glad to answer any questions you might have, right here, too. Will check back here every five minutes or so, for the next thirty. Thanks, --OhioStandard (talk)12:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I sort of come and go at pseudo-random times and am highly unreliable; I see Blade of NL took care of it. Nobody Ent21:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
For future reference
Please be aware that all trolling posts that are vaguely related to me from the IP ranges 94.196.1.1/16 and 94.197.1.1/16 are ipsocks of Echigo mole. This was explained in great detail in the the recent arbcom review in answer to one of the questions ("Is Mathsci being harrassed by socks?") and appeared also in the WP:AN report that resulted in Echigo mole officially being listed as a community banned user. (Very occasionally Echigo mole will also use the older vodafone range 212.183.1.1/16. In March 2011 that range was blocked by a CU/arbitrator for three months because of persistent abuse by Echigo mole.) So if other users see such messages, they are likely to remove them on sight per WP:BAN. In cases like that, there is no need to wait for an SPI report to come through. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
It is WP:BAN. Here is the record of the range block of Shell Kinney (March 3).[10] This was also carefully explained by the checkuser Amalthea here [11] after he removed a similar edit and then blocked the IP.[12] He also suggested preparing a Long Term Abuse page to avoid having repeatedly to describe these patterns to other users. Mathsci (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
You might be interested in this, and I invite you to offer your opinions.
I notice that you archived an a/n/i discussion I just opened, which seems irregular. I've reopened it and hope that it may stay open for others' comments and possible aministrative action. Thanks.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
But what if he was disruptive on article pages - reverting people correcting his mistakes? Have you considered that? He kept readding a grammar mistake, and also claiming that a source didn't mention a person when it did in the second para. Taking it to his talk page was better than the edit war he had started. Next, he disingenuously called my comments "trolling", his usual ploy when backed into a corner. Lastly, is it appropriate to swear at me in the edit summary on his talk page? Have you told him off for that? He did it to another editor recently as well (calling him an "abusive asshole"). Btw, why did you decide to step in? Were you asked? Regards, Malick78 (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'd already looked at your contributions and seen the VM discussion and left a comment by the time yours arrived on my talk page - just so you know I wasn't ignoring your advice. Either way, I've talked to VM on a few different pages and he seems to take pleasure in reverting me, for the smallest of reasons (often unjustified in my view). I've created some articles on race and Poland (such as Murzyn, Murzynek Bambo, Racism in Poland), and VM (and some other editors, who I'd term "nationalist", though they'd probably dislike that) have taken a dislike to them. As you can imagine, I'm frequently left alone to fight my corner (there aren't too many interested in race and Poland, at least the more enlightened viewpoints). So, while I try to resolve things amicably... it all too often ends up heated. I've offered a solution: VM stays away from articles I've created, and I from ones he created, and we don't revert each other on other articles, but that was rejected. It's worth noting that I've never been blocked in 5 years here... I'll leave you to check VM's block history yourself. Thanks for your time, Malick78 (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
ArbCom Clerking
If you would like to apply to be a clerk, please let me know and I'll forward your request to the mailing list. If not, could you please refrain from performing clerking activities on the case pages? Thanks, NW(Talk)00:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
X-ray_computed_tomography
Hi, I am IP from X-ray_computed_tomography. You can reply here, I'll check for a reply here. I read your post at the WQA. I seem to understand from your message, that the WQA & DRN are a waste of time. Is it?
I kind of suspected that, because both places say that they operate by discussion and agreement, and so far, jmh649 totally ignored both, so it seems like not much discussion and agreement are going to take place. I expect that he would continue to delete whatever he can, and without explaining. This is quite discouraging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.215.205 (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Rape_culture#RFC_-_Multiple_Factors
Hi, regarding [13] and other on the basis of the AGF doctrine - I ask why you remove problem notices from the articles before addressing the problems which they describe. These had already been reviewed and corrected by the editors who removed the CSD notices. They listed real problems which are now unlikely to be resolved if they are deleted and that they also function to inform both the general public of the quality of the article. I hope we can have a more productive cooperation in the future. I suggest that you should have a second look at those pages - rather than revert them like a robot. Good day BO | Talk08:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
NWQA
I am sorry but I did not get you when you said "referred elsewhere" can you please clarify where. Thanks --DBigXray11:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Put longstanding tradition, as outlined Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/Volunteer_instructions, the available options are resolved / stuck /stale /wqa in progress and nwqa. Of those, nwqa best describes my opinion (and other who have posted) -- nothing is going to come of your alert. You're welcome to remove the tag if you wish but I'd advise against continuing to pursue the issue. The most likely two outcomes are you'll receive no response or a backlash for failing to move on. Nobody Ent12:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Right people, wrong sections -- swapped comments intended for DQ and Salvio. Thanks for heads up, have fixed. Nobody Ent03:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, NE Ent. You have new messages at wp:ani. Message added 04:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sorry. My real life schedule makes my availability to participate in Wikipedia sporadic, so I can't commit to anything like mentorship. Nobody Ent11:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing; I included it because it shows a lack of good faith and I recall a history of acrimony between MF and the editor he was replying to. Nobody Ent03:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing; I included it because it shows a lack of good faith and I recall a history of acrimony between MF and the editor he was replying to. Nobody Ent03:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't really see it. I think if Malleus' general standard improved to that level then there wouldn't be a problem. But hey, its your evidence not mine :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Note that: "Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet". If a disproportionate number of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account." T. trichiuraInfect me20:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
That's definitely an interesting interpretation of AGF. I can see that conversing with you here has not been and will not be productive. Bye. T. trichiuraInfect me20:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Gerard, (hope you don't mind me calling you by your former name for which I have got use to from our last WQA discussion all those months ago).
A user submitted a report at WQA, in regards to a very complex and overheated issue. However, to date, only the involved parties have commented on the WQA thread, with exception to one uninvolved person who asked a question but never followed up the response to that question. A diplomatic proposal has been made in an attempt to resolve the issue, to which 3 of the 4 involved users have support the proposal. My question is, would it be possible to glance an eye on proceedings and act on anything that needs to be acted upon, in your own time of course. Much regards, WesleyMouse10:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
If you intend to keep the "as an engineer, I ..." comments in there, it must go back to being a userspace essay. Is there any way you can edit "personalization" out and make it generic ASAP? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe that asking someone to consider if the language they're using hurts their case is a violation of AGF. I take them at their word that they didn't intend it that way. One can use an extremely poor choice of words in the best of faith (and people, myself included, often do just that.) 28bytes (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, it would be good to get perspective from another volunteer on my response to this incident: [17] (I manually archived after the last comment following the WQA instructions), also User_talk:Bittergrey#Note. Do you have any comments on my handling of this incident? Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for delay, was away from computer for awhile. Your comments were clearly made in good faith and intended to be helpful so I'm not going to criticize them. My personal preference is not to "close" WQA threads because it's often helpful for editors to be able to vent and I think it better just to let a conversation wind down on its own. Closing a thread while folks are riled up might cause them to do something they'll regret (like escalate to the shark tank and getting dumped on and "boomeranged" and other unpleasantries). Nobody Ent23:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Cheers for the response and I'll bear that in mind for the future. I've noticed WQA threads appear to have a pretty short lifetime so I should have left it die out. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I declined because two other admins whose judgement I trust said they felt the block was valid without having to know exactly who the alleged sockmaster account was. Personally I feel every such block should at least try to identify a sockmaster, but I don't set policy. If you want to discuss this further, talk to those other two admins. I really can't add anything more by way of clarification. Sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Please stop closing ANI reports. You are not an admin and based on your recent misjudgements I think you are unfortunately not experienced enough to know when discussions on WP:ANI should be closed. Arcandam (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
It would depend if there is no reason, clearly he thought there was. Characterizing it as disruptive is an assumption of bad faith; I think it's clear from the comment Nobody Ent left that the editors actions were in good faith. I note that you re-inserted the weighing up of the consensus although you were involved in the discussion. Your only reason for doing so was because a non-admin did it, which to me, is more worrying. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for moving that report to the bottom. I saw the poorly formatted request and didn't even think about the fact that it was on top too. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Clerking at ANI
What on Earth was this about? If an admin raises a thread at ANI is it likely that said admin does not believe there to be some other more appropriate forum for it. Non-admins should certainly not be summarily shutting such threads ten minutes after they're opened. Don't do that again, please. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The top of ANI states "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." If you disagree with a close you'll certainly welcome to revert, as you did. Nobody Ent11:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
That wasn't "discussing" the incident: it was "dismissing" it, and that's quite different. You're not helping when you do that, so please don't do it again. Inappropriate non-admin actions have taken quite a bit of scrutiny recently; they should be avoided if they are at all likely to be controversial, and summarily closing threads an admin starts at ANI after zero replies and less than ten minutes have passed certainly falls under that banner. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
H I - I know you were not there but please allow people that were to deal with their sharing - thanks - Youreallycan19:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Suspicious talk page editing
Very Suspicious comments have come from a user on the Talk page of the Controversies at the 2012 Olympics. They have come on to the talk page and entered into what I can only describe as goading. To attempt to elicit a response from me. please see this latest edit and let me know what you think and if you have similar concerns that I do. Sport and politics (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Please don't talk about me to others without my knowledge, it's quite rude. As for the complaint, I'm baffled. What was goading about my post? You made some statements, I have responded. This is what the talk page is for, no? Having asked you a question about your post, I am indeed attempting to elicit a response. This is the normal social expectation in such an interaction. HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted some of your edits accordingly. If you wish to discuss further, there would be a good spot to do so. NW(Talk)20:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that the civility condition and the one RR restriction would render this BLP discussion clause as unnecessary and extreme punishment - if I cant revert and I cant make a single rude comment without being site banned then as I am not a BLP violator then I can be allowed to comment about living people but not allowed to edit content about such.
I noticed this. Did you think that was helpful? In light of the content of the guideline you referred to, did you honestly think that my single notification to a previously-involved admin was not "polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief" enough? Perhaps you might on reflection wish to strike your comment? --John (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
You're using the word again, but I see no response to my asking you to justify it. I request that you refrain from using the word "canvass" unless it relates to actual breaches of WP:CANVASS. I request again that you strike your comment. --John (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I am disappointed you have not yet found the time to correct your mistake. Did you see a potential breach of the guideline in my edit? If so, what was it? If not, please strike and (optionally) apologise. --John (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Breaking Others' Comments In Talk Threads
Hi. I just came across comment you made a month ago on Ihardlythinkso's talk page. Although I have no particular opinion on Ihardlythinkso or his participation in that prior thread (I have encountered him recently, in a completely unrelated thread in which I have not have any problems with him), I'm very gratified to see that I'm not the only editor who is against the practice of breaking up another editors' messages with one's own responses. Thus far, when encountering others who did this to my messages, I responded by politely asking them not to, because (and I'm going off memory here), I seem to recall reading or being told somewhere that this was permitted as a matter of personal preference. But do you know if there's a specific policy or guideline to cite against it? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate that that's your opinion. However, policy actually supports the action. (WP:NOT and WP:PROTECT to just name two.) Regardless, there is no purpose to a policy debate. While the person is blocked, and while their talk page access has been revoked, the talk page will remain protected, per the reasons already given. Once talk page access is restored, the protection may be lifted, though I'm leaving that to elen's discretion, as she removed the talk page access.
I note you have already commented at her talk page. So it doesn't look like there is aught else for me to say here. - jc3719:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I see you have made several contributions since the item I raised with you which is now archived here. I notice you did not respond to the serious question I asked you regarding the misstatement you made at AN/I. If this was an oversight, will you please rectify it at your earliest convenience? It is obviously too late for you to strike the inaccurate and unhelpful allegation you made about me, but I would appreciate your clarification. Thank you for your attention. --John (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I see. Well, asking a flippant question wasn't a very good answer to the serious question I asked you. Let's put it like this; don't do this again, please, or it may be that you'll be looking for a different hobby. That isn't a threat, it's a prediction. --John (talk) 12:12, 30 August 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
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
I see that WQA has now been closed. Even though that happened, I think that Wikipedia owes you proper recognition for all the good work that you did there. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
I see that WQA has now been closed. Even though that happened, I think that Wikipedia owes you proper recognition for all the good work that you did there. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Migration to ANI was the logical outcome, but unfortunately the community disagreed with that assessment. It'll probably be another couple months before my real life settles down enough for me to get back participating here on a regular basis. Nobody Ent14:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
You know, I'm actually trying to help. A guy coming in with a comment telling me the idea is dumb, and telling me that my request for people to comment isn't right, is not helpful or civil. One day, Wikipedia might actually show it cares about that generally. But it won't happen if people don't speak up for improvements. -- Avanu (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
In real life, people shoot you a look, people tell you to shape up, and they tell you to "take that back", when you say something uncivil. In Wikipedia, it seems to lead to endless debates where no one actually gets anywhere. Unless "they" don't like you. Then you get accused of trolling, being disruptive, or simply blocked without a case. It isn't about setting standards, even though there is a clear Pillar/policy of Civility. In real life such people would be kindly asked to find other ways to spend their time. -- Avanu (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Please stop
Please do not interfere with my discussions with Sports and politics unless I specifically ask for help from other editors. I see your postings as being obstructive and possibly muddying the waters of the disagreement with unsolicited feedback. Thank You.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Tifjo
He made a statement on an/i that i don't know what he means. how am i supposed to ask him/her then? if they aren't willing to clairify then why did they make the statement to begin with? just asking. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
In case you didn't know, they for some reason quoted your userpage as the "Quote of the Now". Also, they took it out of context to make you sound like an anti-Jimbo anarchist. I know they're just trolls and if you respond to this at all they'll probably raise a huge stink about it and make your name a joke all over the internet, but just thought i'd let you know :) --██████12:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Don't visit my page accusing me of incivility. I think you'll find I did no such thing and your interference is in itself incivil.J3Mrs (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't know who you are but you really need to be more careful and stop interfering, goodness knows what drama you could cause.J3Mrs (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
And I don't know who you are, but there is strong indication that Nobody Ent was not all wrong, because you seem to be actually mean. xoxo Lguipontes (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Nobody Ent...its pointless to remind some editors of some policies like NPA and CIVIL if they refuse to have any history of abiding by those policies, or have a posse of buddies which will defend them and Wikilawyer about why the policies don't apply to these editors, or we have an arbitration committee that is uncommitted to doing the very thing they were elected to do. I say to let anarchy prevail until it becomes so preposterous they'll simply be no rational defense for it, not that there is now.MONGO15:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't "mucking with the header" - I was making it more neutral. The conclusion was that both of us could have handled it better - something I accept - but the header implies that I was entirely at fault. I feel that is unfair. GiantSnowman12:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Personally I feel an accurate record of the discussion & conclusion is more important than a few edit summaries being slightly off. I won't press the matter any further, however. Got more important stuff to be getting on with GiantSnowman12:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
You're both welcome but premature, unfortunately, as the closings didn't stick, alas. Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you Nobody Ent14:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. With regards to the ANI discussion of JHunterJ/Apteva, I was looking for a template to add to the warning notification [18] to make it look official and to make sure it is done properly, but there doesn't seem to be a template for MOS at WP:AC/DS. Is this something to be concerned about? Thanks. --Neotarf (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Agree. And the fact that two policies are so clearly contradictory means we can look forward to more drama in the future. Nobody Ent00:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
What's that have to do with anything? One page says renames will be logged and are supposed to be transparent, and the other says that mentioning an old account name is outing. Does that make sense to you? Nobody Ent00:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Due diligence would have revealed that VM was not outed, that his account name was changed, and that his previous account was linked with his new one. Dennis, your expanation sounds like one of those police reports that explains why an officer shot and killed a woman's dog on her property because the woman dialed 911 due to a heart attack, and the officer felt threatened by the barking. Is this what Wikipedia admins have become? You can't be bothered to spend two minutes researching a report, but can freely block for no good reason at a moments notice? Yes, this is why admin rights need to be devolved immediately. If you can't be bothered with the facts, then you don't need the buttons. Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
"Is this what Wikipedia admins have become" doesn't refer to you, it refers to all admins, implicitly the admins involved. Thefore, "you can't be bothered" refers to admins, not "you". Why is there a rush to block anyone instead of a rush to uncover the facts? Talk about misplaced priorities. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
No need to leave, just want to stay on topic -- which is incoherent policies -- it's really not clear to me that you have a handle on WP:RENAMEing works -- calling outing after a rename just doesn't make sense. Nobody Ent
The media file you uploaded as File:Northdumplingnavy.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source),
or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.
It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media
clearer.
Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).
If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: {{subst:usernameexpand|NE Ent/Archive/2012}} will produce an appropriate expansion, or use the {{own}} template.
If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Lions in the Desert.png
Thank you for uploading File:Lions in the Desert.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
Hi NE. Thanks very much for your timely action at WP:AN. I tried my best to simply post links to discussions elsewhere, with a short neutral background and an explanation for doing it the way I did (=I'm lazy), with as little opinion as possible. I was amazed to see my note treated as an invitation to spread the "discussion" (=the repetition of angry things one has already said ad nauseam elsewhere) to yet another forum, with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests, User talk:Malleus Fatuorum, and User talk:Jclemens apparently not being felt to be large or numerous enough as arenas for all the self-expression and Sturm und Drang required by… by all the emotion, I guess. The way the section developed, I was afraid the whole thing would get removed soon, and since I still feel my links may be of use, I'm glad you shifted the discussion elsewhere. Bishonen | talk11:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC).
I'm not aware of using the word illicit recently. While wiktionary's definition makes reference to illicit, the Merriam-Webster definition makes no mention of it.
wikipedia-en-admins states: "in-channel discussion is never a substitute ... for on-wiki discussions (on WP:ANI or another appropriate forum) of controversial issues or decisions. Basing an admin decision on IRC discussion is a bad idea." (emphasis mine) Nobody Ent17:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Re. I was nominated for Wikipedia Review's "Balls of steel" award once, lol. I don't exactly remember why — probably for blocking FT2 — but the balls of steel entered my sparsely-populated long-term memory. (Mind you, I don't exactly agree with you, I agree with Guerillero, who put the matter very well.) Bishonen | talk13:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC).
I think the important thing is ArbCom is issued (yet another) Sword of Damocles ruling; one that at first blush appears to be a reasonable compromise but, upon further reflection easily gameable; if editors can make comments about MF's posts but he can't reply, he becomes a wiki Piñata. I can't realistically forsee any other outcome beyond yet another dramafest, with legions of detractors and supporters rehashing the same ol', same ol' arguments. The sidetracking on a questionable to some expression just isn't that important.
Additionally, with all due respect ;) , "some of my best friends are women!" and I've heard them use balls in a gender neutral way. (Of course, can't say that on the noticeboard, OR and all that). Language wise, I'm less concerned about growing of pairs than the lack of a feminine equivalent to the compliment "that took balls" (or "you've got balls"). The best I have is "courage" but that have quite the same raw connotation as "balls" Nobody Ent15:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Well said
This was very well said. His condescending demand that 'simple courtesies' be offered to a vandalism-only account that had already received four consecutive warnings before being taken to a noticeboard left me gobsmacked. We should be able to block a throwaway vandalism account without this much fuss; and I despair for the non-admins editors who believe that Bwilkins' instructions represent the 'right' way to get help. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
A first time account deserves to be told the rules of Wikipedia - even if what they're doing is minor vandalism (major vandalism=very different...in a way...ANI notification is not optional, period). Maybe they believe their edits aren't actually live. Maybe they don't see the orange bar, who knows. Slap'em a Welcome, warn them, but it's still a human being behind that computer (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:AGF isn't a suicide pact. An individual who makes his second edit to the 'troll' article in the middle of an hour-long vandalism spree isn't someone who is confused about what he is doing. Given that the throwaway account ignored four consecutive warning messages that provided detailed explanations of why there was a problem with his conduct, why would it be helpful to add one more?
Besides, you have to choose which set of rules you're going to be pedantic about. You either get to lecture Niemti about placing his AIV report on the wrong board, or you get to lecture Niemti about filing an AN/I report incorrectly; you don't get to do both—unless you're trying to arbitrarily punish a good-faith, constructive editor for not wasting time on bureaucratic nonsense.
It's pretty apparent from your actions that you were perfectly willing to handle this as a misplaced AIV report. You blocked the vandal's account without notifying him of the AN/I thread or offering him any opportunity to respond to the charges against him. You handled the case exactly as it would have been handled at AIV: without fuss, muss, bother, or user talk page notifications of the filing. The block notice you provided already explained clearly why the block was placed; there wasn't anything that a new user would find helpful in the (one sentence) AN/I report. Insisting that Niemti post a link to the AN/I discussion was just bullying him for no good reason. AN/I can be pretty intimidating for newer and non-admin users (I note that Niemti has only been editing since March of this year); thanks for making his experience particularly unpleasant, and teaching him that Wikipedia administrators are willing to abuse editors who don't beg for help in the right way. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Why should I dial it down? Someone rides in on their high horse after clearly misreading, calls me a bully recklessly, and I'm expected to say "ok"? Someone either can't read, won't read, or misread - I assume the third, and other people better start AGF'ing bit more as well (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment on my talk page as well. Sorry, I didn't realize I was being uncouth- the only other ban I actively pushed for was for someone who refused to really even participate, so it went very differently. This is easily fixed. Thanks for the advice. Sergecross73msg me15:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
ANI Close
Just FYI, it was only a 48 hour block. We generally don't indef IPs. He'll get reblocked for longer if he comes back and continues, but the most we generally do is 2 years at a time for the worst socking/abuse.--v/r - TP21:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the closing summary says blocked 48 hrs for disruptive editing, legal threats and outing. You must have misread the summary. Nobody Ent21:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Honest feedback to my Wiki-philospher friend
"You were dragged to ANI [...]"
People use this term "dragged" and it always seems to sound as though the dragged party was in ball & chains and had committed some offense they have justly paid for. (Yes? If not, then being "dragged" certainly means one's clothing or pants get dirty ... because they were "dragged", not "walked", or not "invited", etc. And if one got dirty through the dragging, then ... they deserved it? Why?? Anyone can open an ANI case against anyone else, for any reason. I know this. So why does this means the person must be mal-treated, even if it means just "getting dirty through being dragged"? If "dragging" means something other to you and others who use the phrase, please explain to me what it means to you, as I surely like to know.)
"Magog threw out a comment"
So casual sounding! (Charges of making personal attacks, battlegrounding, canvassing, and a block recommendation. My gosh Ent, you are not on the receiving end of that. I have been blocked. Receiving a recommendation of block from an Admin isn't as casually received by me, as you think it should be, or can be, or is. [Have you been blocked? I have not checked your block log. Have you been indef-blocked? I doubt you have. Have you been unfairly indef-blocked? Not if you haven't been indef-blocked! Please stop speaking for others and how lightly or casually they should take something, when you are not in their shoes and cannot possibly know what they feel being in their shoes. And since when can an Admin *casually* make serious accusations of policy violations and make block recommendation? Is that appropriate in any context at all??)
"You went to Magog's talk page [...] and Magog had pretty much answered"
"Pretty much answered"?? Oh good grief! (Have you read that thread?? Give it another read, please. Magog has mostly given non-answers, the only answer given is a recent one given to me, which he prefaces after questioning my motives for asking again and again with "Alright, here it is" [as though I am a spoiled child] and concluded with "There, are you happy now?" [further condescension] where part of the justfication for his ANI charges which I'd asked to know, was a link to something I wrote 10 hours after his charges had been registered. Getting his responses has been as easy as pulling teeth, with plenty of insults along the way, presumably to encourage both editors to be driven away. And how is it that an ADMINISTRATOR seems free to be condescending and insulting and evasive, to such degree as Magog clearly has?? Is that becoming of an Admin? Do you support it? Are you in defense of it? [Huh? I could ask why behavior like that, from an Admin, is not sanctionede. That would be quite logical. Instead of sanctioning or admonishing the Admin, you like to point finger the other direction. I don't think that's equitable.])
"and indicated they didn't want to discuss it any more."
How does one "not discuss it anymore", when one hasn't "discussed it" in the first place?!
"And he doesn't have to because WP:ADMINACCT applies to admin actions (like blocking)"
If you read WP:ADMINACCT, you will see that it also applies to Administrator behavior, which would include accusations of serious breach of policy and recommendation to block at an ANI -- I would presume! (Or, you think not?!)
"not to commenting on ANI, which any editor can do."
Neither Momento nor I have asserted or suggested that Magog had no right to make his contributions at the ANI. However, Magog is not "any editor". He is a special editor called ADMINISTRATOR. And the behavior standard for an Administrator editor is higher than for regular editors. (But, you know that! Why you forget it just now, I don't know.) Also, the word you are using here, that Magog made "comments", ... the fact is he made accusations of serious breach of multiple WP policies, along with a block recommendation. To minimize those by calling "comments" is a rather distorted use of the language IMO.)
Nobody cares that Magog said something last week on ANI that no one supported or acted upon.
I'm nobody? *I* care what Magog said about me! And even if Magog and I were the only two people existing on planet Earth, I'd still care. (My caring isn't dependent on "what others may think about [me]" as a result of what he accused, in case you might think that.)
The best option is to read what they said with an open mind -- if any of it makes sense to you, consider it as you move forward with editing Wikipedia; if it doesn't, blow it off.
Are you using "they" in the singular (Magog) or plural (Macon & Magog)?? I'll assume singular ... I really disagree. This position you seem to be taking seems to support total unaccountability and lack of responsibility by an Administrator for making serious accusations of policy and block recommendation against editors at an ANI. (It happened to *me*, and it happened to Momento. It did not, as mentioned above, happen to you. You aren't really in an ideal position to recommend how Momento or I should feel about it, or how we should deal with those feelings, unless you have been there [and for my case, it includes having been indef-blocked]. Anyone can tell another to "walk away", that is so easy, because your feelings are not directly involved. You weren't accused of serious misconduct. You weren't recommended to be blocked by an Administrator.)
If you think this is meaningless complaining, it is a very wrong assessment. It's easy to watch it on TV. It's different being shot at.
Nobody Ent, please don't conclude I therefore support the current ANI, because I don't, because I believe like Malleus: "Nothing good ever comes from that place." I have no faith in it, based on experience. The call to BOOMERANG is made by the thoughtless, to replace thinking. ANI is a cesspool of irresponsibility. I will never open a case there as a result, no matter how just. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Why am I explaining this? When others have said it much better than I can? For example:
The fundamental problem here is that AN/I is dominated by the irresponsible, the responsible generally won't go anywhere near it, and non-admins most clearly don't have the same rights there to speak as admins do. Admins can come in and lob charges at regular editors with narry a diff, but if a non-admin challenges them, they are ignored or chastized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is neither fair nor just, as I've attempted to explain in No justice. That is a situation I have neither the power to fix or the inclination to try. I'm always aware there are people on the other end of accounts, and what I can try to do, and sometimes succeed at, are to make things a little bit better for them. My goal today was simply help prevent Memento from getting chewed up in the ANI shark tank. I despise boomerang, it's a harsh overreaction bandied about by folks who think it's cute or clever or some such thing, as opposed to understanding it's just rude. So before someone jumps in, I'd rather throw a close tag around a nascent thread, hope it sticks, and hope they'll willing to accept my advice. . Nobody Ent16:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Sadly
Your efforts were in vain, and Elen jumped on to Pen's talkpage (apparently all in good fun), then, just after Pen filed a Checkuser Ombudsman against Courcelles, Corcelles blocked Pen, stating that he was trolling Elen. <shrug> Kinda crazy, but I'm not prepared to spend two months cajoling Courcelles into recognising the obvious. RichFarmbrough, 22:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
Hello again! An unregistered user changed back the name of the first song off The Poison. He added a reference from Last.fm, but I think that is not a reliable source. Moreover, I have added some references to the talk page such as the official BFMV website, itunes and BBC, among others. I can not reverse his edition due to Wikipedia: 3RR. So, I'd like to ask you to solve the problem, protect the page and block that user who insists on vandalism. Cristian MH (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not an admin (and wouldn't protect or block if I was, it's too early for that). I've readded your first ref, tagged the listing as dubious, and reopened the ANI thread. The best option would probably be to head to WP:DRN; I have to go real life for awhile and don't have time to do that right now. I'd wait like a day to see if anyone watching ANI helps; if not you could start the DRN process. I know it's frustrating that it takes so long to get things fixed when you're pretty clearly correct, but that's how Wikipedia works. By the way, don't call it vandalism; that's reserved for intentional disruption, and throwing that phrase around it a content dispute can get folks annoyed with you. Nobody Ent12:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I will follow your advice, but this is so unfair! I have that CD in my house (I bought it a few years ago because I'm a big fan of Bullet For My Valentine) and I can read clearly that the name of the song is just "Intro". Anyway, thank you very much for your attention. It's good to know I can count on you when necessary. Cristian MH (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, what's up? I did like your old name, at least the look of it (it didn't scan so great, in my opinion). How should we pronounce the new one? BTW, I never thought of you of worthless despite low article edits, let's keep that clear. There was some talk somewhere of you running for office, and chances are that low article count is a big enough problem to sink it, but there's plenty of other useful stuff you do. I also think you have adopted a more measured approach in the last couple of months, but that could just be a matter of perception. At any rate, all the best under your new name. See you around, no doubt, Drmies (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I was surprised when the suggestion was made. Not only the article count but the whole Afd scene, which I don't particularly have any interest in, and little participation in. NE Ent23:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
One of the things that I've learned the last two or three years or so is that the place is a lot bigger than I thought. I just to hang out at AfD a lot, where I became a deletionist and an inclusionist (and I'm perfectly at peace with that). There's a lot of work still to be done. I just dedicated Q & Q to Crisco; maybe I'll find a tree or so I can write up and dedicate to you. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Alas, I've observed my days of anonymity have passed. It used to be I'd get That's just stupid; now I'm likely to get That's even stupidier than you usually are -- indicating folks are starting to remember the last time I annoyed them. Accordingly, keeping the "Nobody" seems disingenous. NE Ent23:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
For your message at the MfD page; that's a really accurate summary of what's going on. It's humor in situations like these that allow me to enjoy my time here on Wikipedia. So thank you. GoPhightins!03:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
No harm done. The software does weird things sometimes -- I'm baffled, not upset -- it didn't really make sense that my comment was removed when yours went it as it was in an entirely different section. NE Ent13:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Hmm that is odd. I am not up on the technical aspects, but if you are section-editing (rather than page) are you even supposed to get an edit conflict with someone editing a different section? (Or if I section edit for example, and you page-edit? I think you know what I mean) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Don't think so, but I'm not super expert on the technical aspects. Like I said, I've seen weird things -- WP:AN archiving backed up for days because a necessary key in the archive directive was altered. At first I suspected sneaky vandalism, but when I tracked the edit it was by a regular contributor -- when asked about it, they had no idea how it happened either. NE Ent13:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that you deleted the COI tag Qworty placed on John Bassette. I was wondering if you could look over another few articles. Qworty has been tagging and generally chopping up about 30 articles I have edited. His/her issue is a long-settled arbcom from 2007 which did NOT result in a decision that I could not edit these articles nor that anything need be done about them. I have no idea what has spurred this sudden campaign, but whole reference sections and properly-constructed bibliographies are being deleted, then COI and Notability tags are being slapped on. I don't expect you to take this whole thing on, but if you could at least look into the COI tags I'd appreciate it; I've listed only those with the COI tag, but there are many more. I am loathe to do so since he/she is targetting me, and I don't want to be accused of a revert war.
Just holding another RFC immediately may be less awful than people just ignoring the decision, but it isn't exactly a good option.
There needs to be some sort of review process for decisions - allowing bad decisions to stand isn't a good idea as then either you have to have another RFC about the same topic which wastes the communities time, or you annoy people because bad decisions have to stand.
Both the closer and the people involved in the discussion are unable to productively work out if a decision needs reviewing.
In order to make sure outside people have an opportunity to ask for reviews decisions to be reviewed you need a formal and basically by definition bureaucratic but transparent process to close discussions.
Let's review. You communicate off-wiki and I accuse you of clandestine activity. I express skepticism about the ability of a website to classify IP addresses as static or dynamic and somehow that comes out as an attack on your thoroughness and/or technical knowledge. Are you sure you want to be inviting me to critique an essay you started? ;)
Some days I do have a lot of shortcomings to overcome. Do you want comments/suggestions on the talk page, or should I just directly edit the essay with suggestions? (Obviously you could revert if you disagree). NE Ent00:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
And all your edits have been undone. I have solid proof and I'm right and you're wrong. I know something you guys don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxXD1 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Request for review of possible misuse of Administrator privileges by Administrator KillerChihuahua
Opinions vary. Not that it matters -- just the other I closed an AN thread that should have been on VPT and some editor continued to edit anyway. Can you imagine the nerve? NE Ent21:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Hmm--did I do that? Just for the hell of it I added rollback to your account--you may find a use for it. Also, as an Ent, were you offended that someone started a Bilbo-related sock farm? Drmies (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for stopping by and the suggestion. I'm about to go real-life for awhile, so I lack wikitime to reply in depth, but I'll leave you add the 89 (89???) talk page watchers with this cryptic note: I am a willow Ent, not an oak Ent. (But not Old Man Willow, who isn't an Ent). NE Ent14:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
FYI on blocked users at WP:ANI
"As a general practice, we don't file ANIs on indeffed blocked users ... a passing admin will revoke talk page access if / when it becomes necessary", from the "Talk page access recovation for User:Pablo.morales.la.bomba" section of WP:ANI. Just a note: it's actually appropriate to report talk page abuse for blocked users at ANI; it's supported by the header text of WP:AIV, which tells people to go to ANI to report talk page abuse because bots won't realise that accusations of talk page abuse should be treated differently from other blocked users. Nyttend (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Not all that is allowed is wise -- ANI is a horrible place and I always discourage folks -- especially new editors -- to avoid it if possible. NE Ent14:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
And it will remain horrible as long as reasonable people are discouraged from using it, and newer editors are snapped at for using it entirely correctly. Don't be a part of the precipitate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Huh. Thought it was a neutrally worded observation, not snapping. Given stuff like this happens to newish editors, my opinion remains it's hazardous for newish editors to be going there. (If every admin was as Zen as you guys, I'd have a different opinion, but you're not there 24/7). Nonetheless, you raise a valid point; I have been off my "A" game recently; I'm taking steps to address that. ;) NE Ent21:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Chili burger AfD
You know how yesterday you hid some of the comments there as ad hominem attacks? Well, there are now more for you to hide. Danjel called Epeefleche a meatpuppet and called me a "delicate little flower", again referencing a completely ungermane AfD. I have frankly had it with Danjel: he refuses to communicate on his talk page, but he forces interaction by continually lambasting me at an AfD of an article. Could you please tell him to step away from the AfD? pbp07:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Long have I have longed for long for to use this word
I'm sorry to say I think your close was a bad idea. It hasn't been 18 hours of mudslinging, it is a conflict that has lasted several months, and I fear it hasn't been resolved by tossing it back to the article talk page. I'll grant you that there has been poor conduct from both sides of the discussion, but not from all editors (barring rare lapses or poorly phrased comments, for which I have twice (if I remember correctly) given immediate apologies for). Here it is implied that after a certain point you will get help to deal with it. I hope you will not claim I have failed the criteria in the first paragraph as I have NEVER made a claim against another editor without providing diffs, or the diffs already being provided in the discusion (excepting asking someone to cease and desist in a direct reply to a comment). Furthermore, I have made reports at the designated forums. Why can't I receive help from experienced editors to deal with this? 85.167.109.64 (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to distinguish between Wikipedia-That-Should-Be (WTSB) and Wikipedia-That-Is (WTI) in the following advice/explanation:
First of all, you'll want to get a registered account. It's not required per written policy and on WTSB but on WTI you're not going to get much help / attention
Editors respect each other and are polite on WTSB. On WTI, there's no consensus on how incivil an editor can be before they'll get significant pushback.
On WTI that is, if the initial ANI post(s) on a thread is/aren't well done it's unlikely the thread will come to much. Best not to try to salvage something out of it. NE Ent03:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. I so rarely come across editors with problems with me being unregistered that I don't consider it an issue. The lack of consensus on civility is a major problem, as Wikipedia claims it is a pillar. The lack of consensus also means that even a well-formed ANI may come down to the luck of the draw, as I have seen administrators indicate that incivility is hardly ever a problem. Hopefully this, where I made some comments after the first ANI disappointment, will get a result, otherwise editing won't be as enjoyable in the future. I hope the current ANI ends with warnings instead of "no action", simply because "no action" twice has had no discernible effect whereas a warning that I would report worked for more than a month. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Your perspective
I would like to understand your perspective behind this edit [21]. Do you really believe that that discussion was moving toward improving the article, as opposed to trolling? I collapsed the discussion for reasons that I think you are very well aware of, having participated in the recent North8000 ANI. Is is really necessary for us to create a magnet for more drama? - MrX21:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely not -- and, in my experience and observation, it's better to simply ignore something that isn't unambiguously trolling that get into a edit war over a collapse tag. If we collapse we have to argue whether it's truly on topic or not -- ignoring doesn't require anything. NE Ent01:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your perspective, and I agree that ignoring the OT discussions would be best, but that only really works if everyone follows suit. Generally, I don't think it's helpful to re-open a closed discussion unless it was closed maliciously. I guess I feel it comes down to mutual respect and trust. Thanks again. - MrX02:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Sandy Hook Elementary School edit war
Dude, I know you believe you're doing the right thing by warning us, but if you're paying attention, we're way in the process of burying the hatchet. Your warnings really add nothing of positive value to the situation right now, I hope you can see that. --213.196.218.39 (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
(edit conflict)No, not at ANI, at pretty much everywhere. (Arrgh) I've been browsing on a tablet with a crappy touch screen -- I just logged into a real (borrowed) PC to go to userrights -- but since you're here I'd appreciate it if you'd remove rollback permission from my account ( I don't need it since I use twinkle anyway) thanks. NE Ent17:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
This is why I stopped editing on my phone - on my watchlist, "diff" and "hist" were far too close to the "rollback" on the entry above, as you'll see from my contribs :) Black Kite (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
From his recent history, Ent seems to be having problems with a tablet. Maybe he should swallow it instead of using it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Moved to User talk:Nobody Ent/block log
.svg)
![[4]](http://img.alibaba.com/wsphoto/v0/495006501/duck-walkingDIA-24-aluminium-foil-promotional-balloon.jpg){kind=link}
