This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, Cerejota/Archives/2011! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I closed very early due to WP:SNOW and per the precedent of Death of Michael Jackson. That was another article deleted then recreated rapidly. The advice at WP:EVENT (declaration: I wrote some of it) is to hold off on deletion nominations for such articles to give time to judge the event properly and soberly. With breaking news like this, the true notability and level of coverage changes rapidly as the debate proceeds making such debates very messy and generating more heat than light. Currently the content might not go much beyond Osama Bin Laden#Death, but a little redundancy isn't going to kill us and it doesn't take precognition to see that this event is going to rapidly gain more details and coverage. A merge could still be OK though I suspect it won't stick - that debate can go ahead on the talk page. Fences&Windows03:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. The merge proposal with the other article is pretty good. As you can tell am a bit rusty in current consensus, but I thought this had to be done. Yeah, I got snowstormed ;) But I do not agree this is a closed case, the actual death is in itself an unremarkable event in the details. Unlike MJ's death that has generated legal consequenses etc. Pretty much this article will be a list of responses from figures, and maybe a MILHIST article (OPERATION OBL GET). Death of Bin Laden should be in the main article, that then links to it... --Cerejota (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the quote farming; we had to CFORK the Mumbai attacks article heavily to be able to get it to GA, got me and my fellow heavy editors into the Annual Report and stuff. I do see a MILHIST angle emerging. The issue that makes it different from a regular assassination is that this was a military operation by a State, so it has a heavy MILHIST angle that an assassination by irregular forces doesn't. Lets see. Maybe when all the smoke clears, and this finally not being a BLP, we can get it organized.--Cerejota (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
other thread on OBL GET
hello. you comment ed on osama bin ladens death, i am correct? i am simply stateing my opinion peacefully, in my opinion this article is not 'premature'. in my peaceful opinion. please do not critisize, this is only my personal opinion. i have already been critizized twice by user:kansen and someone else, respectively. again, pleas do not critizize on me. thank you very much for letting me state my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.31.102 (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you can "peacefully give your opinion" but when responded equally peacefully it is "criticism"? I peacefully offer the opinion that you peacefully shouldn't expect everyone to agree with you just because your opinion is peaceful? I peacefully offer that it makes no peaceful sense, peacefully restrain yourself from giving peaceful opinions unless you are willing to see different peaceful opinions expressed.--Cerejota (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit and comments
Hello, I read your comment on my talk page. In case you don't see my response (cuz I know you probably get busy), this is what I wrote back.
hi. It's already a settled matter. Also, don't exaggerate please. Don't overly focus on the "Nazi" remark, to the exclusion of the majority of what I said in the edit comment. Most of what is in my comment WAS dealing with the "content" and "edit" and issue itself... Let's not get too thin-skinned either about passing hyperbole, said in half-jest. Anyway, it was a misunderstanding anyway. Anna and I are cool now. But thanks for your concern. Cheers. Art and Muscle (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Cerejota/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You could be having this much fun! Seriously, consider coming.
This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.
Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.
If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have closed as speedy keep. Dream Focus, while inartful in his approach, is convincing in his argument, and besides the initial approach, has been helpful and concerned. SilkTork's accusations poison the well, and keep us from discussing the matters at heart with a distraction.
When a PROD fails the next step shouldn't be automatically an AfD, it can be a number of other less extreme measures, and . As the snowball AfD discussion shows, the PROD failed for a reason, there is consensus that the topic needs to be addressed in wikipedia. That it warrants its own article or as a section of another article is an open question that hopefully will be discussed in the article's talk. I invite all of you to take it there.--Cerejota (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed that you had the confidence to do that, especially as it was your first AfD close. Well done. Some points: Technically it wasn't a Speedy Keep as it didn't meet the criteria of WP:Speedy keep and it had had seven days discussion. Also, while it does happen, it is not acceptable to encourage bad faith comments, let alone make one yourself, especially when you are failing to understand the principle behind the nomination. I would also suggest you check for typos. I sometimes make mistakes myself, and have to go back and make amends. "then belong" should be "they belong"; it is best to be consistent - you have "merger discussions" and "Merge discussion" - the second one is the more common and fits with Wikipedia usage; and "Merge discussion in article is recommended" is unclear. Notifying the nominator of the outcome is a nice touch. SilkTork✔Tea time20:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response and comments. Let me clarify and elaborate some things:
1) Not my first close, although my first in a long time. It did meet the criteria of Speedy Keep, specifically point 2 and 4 of the speedy keep criteria, besides the general principle that no un-involved editor argued for deletion (and in a first for me, not even the yourself as nominator agreed with deletion). Failure of editors to close earlier is a reflection of the busy nature of AfD. Had I seen this article nom on July 12, I would have speedy kept then. It was not a Keep because the nomination was a failure, and closing it as Keep would have been admitting that the nomination was a legitimate one as per process. You clearly disagree with this, so you can either grudgingly accept it (and perhaps get some lessons), or you can seek reversal using the Deletion Review process.
2) I do not fail to understand the principle behind your nomination, I just think it is a wrong principle that wastes the time of the AfD process, and furthermore that the AfD, by your own comment in the nomination, and now in this thread, was not because the article met any deletion criteria, but to make a point of resolving an ambiguity by using the AfD process, one of the things that the AfD process is precisely not to be used for.
3) Need I remind you aof the common sense principle that failure to agree is not necessarily a failure to understand. In addition, disagreement doesn't imply a personal attack or commentary on personal capacity or knowledge. Methinks ya needs to chill, brah.
5) I suggest you take a look at Polylogism, an article that has much worse issues that Low poly ever has and for which I have raised issues for over two years, yet never considered AfD to resolve them or to make a point. What I do is be bold in editing and to raise concerns and argue them in the article talk page, trusting my fellow editors to do the right thing, and if they don't then use DR and etc. There is no deadline, brah. However, keeping/merging and improving is always in my view better than deleting and forgetting.
What you are doing is pointy, and pointing this out is neither a personal attack nor a lack of assuming good faith - people can be disruptive in good faith and pointing out negative behavior is not a personal attack if the behavior is true. But being pointy is criteria 2 for speedy keep and you are being disruptive even if you don't realize it.
In the future, please keep responses to anything I say (and perhaps consider it for all other editors) to a single talk page. We have a talkback (TB) system, learn to use it. With Twinkle its actually painless. Since you duped the posting in your talk to mine, I am responding in both places, but please from now on keep your responses in your talk page, notifying me via TB if need be. --Cerejota (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not overly impressed with the way you closed that deletion discussion, either. It's was going to be an obvious keep, so I'm not going reopen it, but in the future I suggest are little more cautious and eloquent with your "closing statement". —Ruud22:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it a "bad[-faith?] nom[ination]". SilkTork noted some concerns on which grounds the article might have been deleted or merged. The nomination seems perfectly reasonable to me. Therefore it also wasn't really a candidate for a speedy keep, which almost by definition it wasn't any more after several days. —Ruud22:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick elaboration. I can see that ambiguity of "bad nom" as a term. I will be more careful moving forward, as certainly I didn't mean to imply bad faith (the nom was clearly and entirely good faith), but was bad in procedural sense, as per my closing statement (and Dream Focus' keep statement) and my elaboration above and in SilkTork's talk page.
I do have a concern around "speedy keep", which unless you can point me to a discussion that already clarifies this matter from a consensus perspective I might raise as an RfC or some such. I already explained why I closed "speedy keep" rather than "keep". As I understand it, the main difference between a speedy keep and a keep is not solely timing, but also how !v are viewed - in fact, I don't agree that by definition a speedy keep cannot happen . A speedy keep can happen at any point of the AfD if it meets the criteria for SK. This is because SK is not the same as WP:SNOW, which is generally done after 24 hours and a number of !v. In essence, had I seen this on July 13, I would have snowed it in, but since I couldn't, I went with second best, which was SK. A keep, as I already argued, would have meant saying the nomination was in procedural terms correct, something I don't think is correct.
So... since you are another person who thinks it was a keep, but that it was correct in procedural terms, perhaps you can explain to me how is my reasoning faulty, something that SilkTork has so far failed to address, focusing instead on spelling mistakes and some such.
I have replied on my talkpage. My normal procedure is to leave a carbon copy here (as it's quick and easy and gives you a record), but you preferred I simply let you know instead, and I am willing to respect that. SilkTork✔Tea time23:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posting my earlier response here as you indicate above that you have not seen it:
I understand clearly that you disagreed with my taking the article to AfD, though I am less clear on why you feel that I made a mistake in doing that, or why you feel it was disruptive. I am also not clear on why this matters so much to you, but I will endeavour to explain my thinking. I was going through Category:Proposed deletion (as I am at the moment), and deleting expired Prods that met the appropriate criteria, removing the Prod tags from articles that I could clean up, and taking articles to AfD where they did not meet Prod criteria but there was some remaining doubt. This is, as you will note in Wikipedia:Prod#Deletion, recommended procedure. When I came upon Low poly, it had been proposed for deletion by User:Thumperward, an experienced and respected admin, for valid concerns, and it was an unsourced article. However, I did a search and found some sources, so I didn't think it met a straightforward deletion; however, the main source I did find did seem to be more of minor mention as part of a larger picture, than something significant enough for a full standalone article. The topic, and the nature of the sources, along with Thumperward's rationale led me to feel that this was a topic that would benefit from a wider discussion. I had no strong views either way. I felt it was a borderline case. So I followed the guideline and put it on AfD for wider discussion, explaining the circumstances, and then put the cite I had found in the article. This is standard procedure. I and other admins on Prod patrol have been doing this for years. Does that help you at all? SilkTork✔Tea time22:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(At the time of my posting I had not seen it, but I just posted a response. I suggest you have some patience with reponses, and again request you respect my wishes for centralized discussion. I am replying here cause I want to tb you.)
So you jumped to AfD instead of deciding to deal with the concerns raised! You see my point? Just because you *can* doesn't mean you have to. Clearly this neologism is a worthy contribution that shouldn't be eliminated. What is ambiguous is if we merge it to another article or if we fix it as a stand-alone article. Deletion should have never been in the cards, and the PROD was in itself bad, as this not a hoax, fringe, or unsourceable unfixable OR - it is a specialist neologism. Bottom line: the way to deal with a bad prod is not to make a bad afd... and no matter how long-standing, well-respected, and superhuman an admin is, s/he will make mistakes from time to time that need to be fixed.--Cerejota (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Xover (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders Behring Breivik (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Merrill Stubing (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources (RE Breivik)
You said other sources supported the info in the infobox yet you did not indicate what sources. And why can't we use a primary source for his birth date? Pristino (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much any source on him describes him as Norwegian, it is a fact not in controversy, so it can remain even without a source. His profession is less mentioned, but also likewise is mentioned in many sources and not private information or subjected to controversy.
His date of birth, how ever, has only been published in the manifesto, not even in the sources that talk about a manifesto. The reason why we shouldn't use a primary source is because this a biography of a living person, and we have to be careful to balance our need for information with a respect to the living person's privacy, in BLPs special rules apply, in particular with such private information, even if the person is otherwise open to scrutiny. If secondary or tertiary reliable sources, however, breach this privacy in a verifiable way, then we have no choice but to include it.--Cerejota (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter he published it himself, its still a primary source, and hence we do not know what the RS are making of it - it is a breach of privacy because it is information that only so far the readers of the primary material are supposed to know, not the readers of wikipedia. Once a RS makes the ethical jump, then we use the RS because that way we are not making the breach, they are. Our standards are supposed to be determined by what RS say, not what we find out on our own. Please read WP:OR.--Cerejota (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mail has republished pages from the manifesto in full, (LINK) including that of his personal data. Is this the ethical jump you need to use the info on Wikipedia? Pristino (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's very obviously a dispute about the neutrality of the article - in particular the wording in the lede - going on the discussion page at the moment. So your removal of the NPOV tag was completely unjustified. The fact that this is a current event rather than something with "history" (whatever that means) appears to be completely irrelevant. I would appreciate it if you restored the tag.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that. See the issue is there is nothing about neutrality about that. No reliable sources are claiming this as false, and the sources presented are all generally known to be pro-Zionist themselves (Jpost, JTA etc). This means there is no neutrality issues present, as neutrality implies two sides of a debate in the reliable sources. Such other side is not present, hence no neutrality issues - there is no debate on neutrality. There is a debate on your part on inclusion of verifiable, reliable sources interpretation of Breivik's own words, and that is another matter. --Cerejota (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is that the sources don't call him "Zionist". They say his manifesto has some "Zionist" stuff in it. Two different things. Additionally, this is obviously a sick individual who also calls himself a "Knight Templar". You can't take his words at face value. This should be obvious to anyone who's not out to push an agenda and (disgustingly) try to use this tragic incident to advance some political cause. Hence, it's not neutral. The fact that you happen to fall on a particular side of a neutrality debate does not mean that such a debate does not exist.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, because there's no question about whether the sources can be verified. They can. It's just that 1) they don't say what the Wikipedia article claims they say and 2) they are given undue weight given the nature of the article topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So make them say what they actually say. On the "due weight" stuff, since we are talking just a couple of words, it is a verifiability issue: does the reliable sources give this enought notability for inclusion? The WP:UNDUE provision is clearly there to keep discussion of WP:FRINGE from overtaking the actual topic. If there was an entire paragraph or even a longish sentence on the subject's "Zionism", that is, if there clearly was an agenda to discredit Zionism by guilt-by-association, then it would be a neutrality issue. But three words "far-right Zionist" (not even plain "Zionist"), that might or might not be backed by sources is not an attack on neutrality, unless you actually have an agenda of your own.
With all due respect, removing self published sources that directly relate to a BLP is completely inappropriate, since as it says in WP:BLP:
Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject.
Since the manifesto is written by the subject of the BLP it's perfectly proper to quote from it (unless the quotes used are self serving, which these uses aren't.)
Teapeat (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)'[reply]
You are ignoring the rather long explanation I gave in article talk (were we should be discussing this, not here). You are wrong in your appreciation of this particular case, and if you feel that I am in violation of policy, fell free to seek dispute resolution. It will become clear to you that it is in fact your inclusion of irrelevant material that is at fault.--Cerejota (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are treating a section of policy as the whole and missing the point entirely. I am not going to wikilawyer this anymore, as there seems to be no way to convince you of your incorrect reading of policy. As I said, take it to DR if you feel strongly about it.--Cerejota (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a narrow reading of a single section of policy. Self published sources are correctly considered reliable sources under certain conditions which match how the manifesto is being used. Your removal of it is inappropriate.Teapeat (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am very upset and frustrated. Please put back all the <ref name="manifesto" /> tags that you removed. What you are doing is both insensitive and not supported by the alleged policy on reliable sources. There is an ongoing discussion about your actions on the talk page, which you seem to have ignored. --hydrox (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its funny you un-did them, because then in talk you seem to support them. Anyways, I was not ignoring any discussion, you can tell from my edit history I always discuss all my edits and furthermore, create edit summaries. --Cerejota (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, sorry I seem to have missed the previous talk page discussion when making above comments - there was a previous discussion on the issue indeed. I support selectively, cautiously and responsibly using the manifesto as a source, but I am naturally strongly against anyone publishing personal interpretations in WP. Thus, I don't support removing the references, but peer-reviewing them, and removing any questionable ones when encountered. --hydrox (talk) 09:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then we agree fully. My fear is that so far, most editors have unwittingly engage din OR when using it. Peer-review and extensive discussion of any quotation before inclusion seems a good idea. --Cerejota (talk) 09:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My current proposal is to include an editnotice (a warning that is shown to all editors) to the page, warning of using the primary source in a manner not permitted by the policy, and monitoring the page for primary source abuse. But I am not for removing or {{fact}}'ing well-sanctioned use of the manifesto from the article as of now. --hydrox (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea of the edit notice, however the part about sanction needs to be processed more. I have an idea, ill write it in talk.--Cerejota (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who decided those quotes are relevant, worthy of inclusion, and encyclopedic? You did. How did you do it? By engaging in WP:OR. Can't argue otherwise. Also please learn to use the new section button in talk pages.--Cerejota (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article about Hitler, and essentially all individuals, does the same. It is a necessity to select pertinent quotes for each article.
You also selectively choose which police reports to mention, when you allow "police reports initially described him as a fundamentalist Christian" to stand. That's a selection.
Please stop trying to force your agenda through by bullying other users with charges of "disruptive editing." --Ben Ammi (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Ammi (talk • contribs)
Nope, the quotes in Hitler are supported by secondary sources even if they are quoted from the primary. The secondary sources chose the quote, not us. Do you understand the difference? --Cerejota (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
breivik
please note that user scottperry has re-inserted the claim that breivik admired osama bin laden again [1]. i think this is his 5. or. 6. revert less than 24 hours. he tried to muster support but still doesn't have any consensus at all. he is not even discussing any more. i suggest to remove the unreliable material he has yet again included, and a proper administrative response to his breaking of the three-revert rule.-- mustihussain (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
scott reverted again. he has unfortunately broken the 3-rr policy a couple of times now in less than 24 hours (8 reverts i think).-- mustihussain (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know the rules. If I deleted someone others comment, it was unintended and due to an edit conflict. However, it might be that the other one got an edit conflict, and that I did nothing to trigger the data loss. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2011 Norway attacks
Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to 2011 Norway attacks. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. Lihaas (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
dont templte the regulars
yours seems liek a clear case of vengeance mongering which is proable by the time stamp
what is OR about SOURCED INFO particularly when consensus ont he talk page ALREADY supportsit and you claim "dont need discussion"Lihaas (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AGF is not via REPEATED violations, which you seem to have done as noted by various editors on this page. Of whih now the vengeance mongering is adequetely clear in ryour quest to tag me with something
dont template the regulars -- not sure what you mean by regular, but with the repeated ignoring of guideliens you dont seem soLihaas (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you do not specify what "violations" have happened, I cannot make amends to them. Your lack of clarity is not helpful. I will ignore the rest of the things for now. --Cerejota (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I wanted to let you know that I've removed the G11 tag you added to Soul UK Tour. G11 is for articles that are irretrievably promotional; this article, while it talks about an upcoming event, doesn't appear to be non-neutrally promoting it at all - it's just giving facts. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Since we have never corresponded, there is no active edit war, nor have I been blocked for 3RR in this article (and only once a long time ago and quickly unblocked when it was clear the admin was involved), may I ask what is this sudden interest in me?--Cerejota (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not singling you out...actually, I'm looking now at another user on the same article who I will be probably warning in a few minutes if it turns out like it looks. I just happened to have been posting about the corrupted archiving and saw your reverts in a rapid order of same material:
Apart from editing the talk page for the technical reasons related to archiving, I have not edited that article and have no dispute there (with you or anyone). Just keep clean for the next 24 hours there, okay? :) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►04:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Did you read the edit summaries? They are a bit self-explanatory. I think you jumped the gun a little, but we all do... :)--Cerejota (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the summaries. I'm trying to prevent something bad from happening where several users are editing in a flurry and may not realize that they are close to the line. I've now warned two other users there. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►05:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hey. I was the initiator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Fundamentalism (disambiguation). Since then the DAB has evolved significantly and some good cases are being made for Keep. While I haven't changed my official position, I gotta say this comment should probably be refined. I agree with what I think is the gist of what you're saying, but saying someone is using drugs is not respectful and pretty close to violating WP:NPA. Did you want to refine that statement maybe? Toddst1 (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your position, and respect it, but I find the comment hilariously funny and mocking of what is an over the top assertion with no seriousness at all. I apologize that you misunderstand this as a serious assertion that the user in question is a drug user meant as an attack. In fact, nothing wrong with doing drugs, in my view - so I apologize to all those who regularly use drugs an don't go around asserting hilariously meaningless things in Wikipedia for using their recreational choices as a way to mock somebody. --Cerejota (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For your information
After my Breivik-related block I'm opting out of editing articles, the rough and tumble is fair enough, though usually a fatuous waste of time, but as the conflict resolution process is "flawed" too I'm shifting my attention elsewhere. It wasn't Geller I was particularly concerned with but I came across the following and since you seemed interested I thought I'd pass this on.
Geller knows the identity of the message's sender, she's deliberately disguised his identity before posting the comment.
<< ...
"There's an Old Testament blood-bath comin'.
Question remains: Are there enough Norsemen that will hear the Wyking song pulse in their veins?
Or will they rely on their Norske and EU's eunuch 'leadership'?
Season after season Norway (and Sweden) are conceding whole neighborhoods populated by 'immigrants' as no-go zones. Police and EMS won't respond there. It's the friggin' death-cry of civilization when the barbarians can intimidate in this manner.
So...yes. A very nice letter to you, Pam, from a Norwegian Atlasite (Atlasonian?). Unfortunately, he or she could be prosecuted under hate-speech laws for writing or posting in Norway what you have passed on to us."
Posted by: turn | Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 01:40 PM
"yes turn, which is why I ran it anonymously"
Posted by: Pamela Geller | Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 02:54 PM
... >>
There seems no reason to believe it was anyone other than Geller as author of the blog who removed the two sentences "We are stockpiling and caching weapons, ammunition and equipment. This is going to happen fast." from the 2007 post. It's not unreasonable to assume that the timing is connected with the massacre and Breivik. The message isn't necessarily from Breivik, it could be an associate of his who's asked Geller to redact the original or even just a fellow-thinker. But either way, Geller is admitting covering his/her tracks at the time of posting and her current action suggests she's doing some more covering up now. Absolutely irrelevant to the scrupulous intellects at BLPN, of course, but it's a bit of encouragement to those of us who have to reassure ourselves that we're not dishonest or stupid. Opbeith (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This all seems to be original research, and you got b& for a reason. When you comeback, try to understand why this happened, and not do it again. It seems to me this was a just block, unfortunately for you :(--Cerejota (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well then let's start. 'Why is Wikipedia losing contributors? Thinking about remedies'. Second part of the title is added just to keep it clear we're not dealing with criticism but with constructive thinking! Blackvisionit (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the opinion of not trying to direct discussion too much, but don't feel strongly against direction either - let it flow, not anticipate, but react... its how wikis work best. I am now busy IRL, but will look at it later today.--Cerejota (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are referring to Spider Ledesma, correct? If so, please read WP:OWN - no one "owns" any article in wikipedia. So you shouldn't refer to an article as "my" article, it is "our" article.
I also assume that you are Spider Ledesma himself, correct? In which case I ask that you please read WP:COI, it has important information for you.
I briefly explained a number of issues in the article in the article's talk page, which is where I feel any conversation on its content should go. If you have any issues about the article, please discuss them there, however if you have any questions or concerns regarding WP:COI or your 3RR violation, feel free to address them here. Thanks. --Cerejota (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw that you closed this AfD. Can you reopen it to allow an administrator to close it? Non-admins aren't supposed to be closing any AfDs that aren't SNOW keeps, especially AfDs such as this where the opinions were roughly split down the line. Your closing rationale reads more like an opinion rather than a summary of the consensus. You may want to look over Wikipedia:Non-admin closure if you want to close AfDs as a non-admin in the future. ThemFromSpace04:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I have done many non-admin closures, so while I appreciate you including appropriate policy, it was not needed. I do suggest that in the future you provide the relevant text you feel is being violated, to provide clarity in the discussion.--(edit conflict) I am afraid you are mistaken, as per Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure. Non-administrators are allowed to close any AfD that doesn't require admin action, in which there is no contentious and controversial discussion and a clear consensus, and to not have any conflict of interest or be an involved party. Some editors and admins disagree with the policy as is, or like yourself, interpreted in ways it was not meant to be interpreted (for example, it doesn't say anything about snowy keeps, or anything other than what you explained). If you disagree with my close, please take it to WP:DRV for further discussion, as I stand behind its essentially non-controversial nature, and there was clear consensus to keep.-- (edit conflict)My closing summary addressed all points for deletion, and found them to be outweighted by the arguments for keep. It clearly says so, so I do not understand why you contend otherwise. --Cerejota (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't want to take this to DRV, as that is never a fun experience, but I'm willing to do so since I strongly believe that your closure was inappropriate (on a procedural level as well as a policy-based one). Please let an admin close this, as in practice at AfD it is almost never the case where a non-admin closes any debates that are anything other than SNOW keeps (such as cases with 90% keeps, or ones created by banned users.. etc). ThemFromSpace04:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I equally strongly believe the closure was correct on a procedural level, and believe it was strongly correct in terms of policy. I will not reverse, and furthermore advice you that this list will be kept even if re-submitted to AfD after DRV (and the DRV will result either on supporting my closure or re-submission, of this I am 100% sure), as the consensus is clear that WP:NOTCATALOG only applies to lists of products with prices and marketing material, and there is clear community consensus that list of products - as a category of article - are not automatically out of bounds and against policy. DGG said it pretty clearly in his summation of the "keep" !vs.
Lastly, I remind you that as per policy, XfDs are not votes - they are discussions. Compelling evidence of community consensus to keep this article was presented, and its opposite was not. I strongly suggest you drop the matter, because at the end of the long march, we will come back to the same point of origin of keep, with the difference that you would have saved yourself, me and the good olde folks over at DRV a load of editing time that could have been spent doing other stuff, like editing good articles and giving other editors kittehs and brownies. If you really want to go into WP:DRV to get the same result you are getting now, be my guest. See you at the end when it is kept again.
And what do you mean that DRVs are not fun? They are always a fun experience, admins get to give us all spankies for being naughty and whip out the fuzzy pink handcuffs and stuff, and we go back to editing and wikiloving, which it really what we are here for. :)--Cerejota (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
XfDs are discussions that admins should be closing. This is why admins go through a highly stressful RfA process. The page I linked you above specifically states that if you have to weigh the strength of the different votes, then a XfD is not a good candidate for a non-admin closure. As a non-admin you should not be weighing the strength of different votes when closing XfDs. The only ones you should close are ones that are unanimous or nearly unanimous. Can I have your assurance that you won't be performing NACs in the future where the consensus isn't abundantly clear? ThemFromSpace04:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion, and WP:CCC, but that is not policy a sit stands today - albeit you could find an admin or two to back you up because boys will be boys. Also, please read WP:NOBIGDEAL which sums up what I think about adminship, its the same as editing except you have some tools editors don't and have an extra layer of getting into trouble for pulling wheelies if you get cocky... bEFORE i FORGET: There are three rules in wikipedia, NPOV, Dont be a dick, and ignore them when they encumber quality encyclopedic editing. The rest is ornamentation and role-playing games. :)--Cerejota (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at the very least can you take this point to heart: When someone experienced in a particular area points out a procedural error that you've made, its best to listen and see where they're coming from. You didn't do this with me and you didn't do this in the conversation with SilkTork above. You fought tooth-and-nail against more experienced editors when all they wanted to do was help you out.
Don't worry about this particular case, I'm not going to take it to DRV. It's not worth my time. Perhaps in the future I'll throw another AfD up on it and see how the consensus stands then. But please pay attention to proper AfD procedures in the future. A good rule of thumb is this: when looking to close a debate, if you feel strongly about an article then put your opinion in the debate, but don't close it. ThemFromSpace05:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never worried - it made no sense to do a DRV, it was a non-controversial close, of a non-controversial article, in a non-controversial topic area, non-controversial in policy and non-controversial in procedure, you just didn't like it for totally understandable reasons (you nominated it).
I had no opinion about the article, never edited the topic area (except maybe some wikignoming I don't recall when patrolling), don't really care much for it. It was however in the "due for closing" list, had been already re-listed, and was a sore sight, so I thought I'll help. I am sorry this distressed this you so much, but surely you must know that other non-admins will continue to close AfDs, even those you feel are done incorrectly - and some will indeed be closed incorrectly and some won't. I suggest that when this happens in the future, you try to find out a little how much time they have been around the wiki, because in my case, I had been a registered member when you registered longer than you have been here at all. I have probably been in more AfDs than you have (I have been in VfDs, for christsake!). So there is at at least a presumption that I am not ignorant of process, just disagree with your take on it.
I am asking for un-involved advice, because I feel your involvement is too great for me to feel comfortable discussing this further with you. Nothing personal, but I feel your tone to be patronizing, and that worries me.--Cerejota (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{uninvolved|Advice|I non-admin closed an AfD on an article I felt was non-controversial, in a fashion I felt reflected consensus, the admin who nominated for deletion tried to get me to reverse, arguing policy. I disagree. While the issue itself seems to have been dropped in terms of proceeding to DRV, I would like advice from uninvolved admins - in this case that would mean that they don't know the involved admin or me -, both on the issue itself, and on how the admin proceeded. I have some mixed feelings about it and an uninvolved voice would be awesome... --Cerejota (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]
Disclosures: I collaborated with Themfromspace in early–mid 2009, but I don't remember interacting with him since. I saw the {{Talkback}}s on his talk page. I have edited WP:Non-admin closure and am a semi-regular at DRV.
I think that the proper close is no consensus, as the pivotal issue is the interpretation of WP:NOTDIR, with numbers exactly even at 4-4 counting ThemFromSpace and Meirpolaris and disregarding the invalid Speedy keep from 86.145.142.142. Both keep and delete are probably within admin discretion, and Cerejota's close may or may not be overturned at WP:Deletion review. I think the most likely outcome there would be "endorse, keep is effectively the same as no consensus" and a rubber stamp by an admin if participants are concerned by the NAC.
Cerejota, I have some concerns with your tone – even with your smileys – but I realize that text often loses expression as it is written. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that is valuable, and I thank you for taking the time to address this - I am not clear as to why you were looking at ThemFromSpace talkpage if you haven't had contact with him in over two years, but I am open to advice anyways.
I appreciate your view, which I mostly share. There is no way this would have been deleted at DRV - overturn as "no consensus" or a rubberstamped "keep" by an admin would have been the result, maybe a re-list (althought thats thin because of the 14 days it already had). That said, I never close as "no consensus" as indeed I feel "no consensus" closes should be done by admins, as per WP:Non-admin closure - a no consensus close implies an underlying controversy in the community, or at least among a set of editors that feels strongly enough to not being able to agree conclusively on a delete or a keep. Part of my logic is the similarity of arguments flattened the discussion, and I basically saw it as 2-1 discussion: 2 keep arguments vs 1 delete argument. ThemFromSpace himself bought up notability as an issue, and this is why I addressed this in the closure comment, but I didn't count it as it basically came in the tail end of a 14 day discussion.
As to your concerns with tone, since precisely it is tone what prompted me for advice in dealing with ThemFromSpace, what is of concern to you of my tone? I think ThemFromSpace was treating me in a patronizing fashion, as I stated, but I am surprised to hear about tone, albeit I will be honest, it is not the first time I have had misunderstandings based on tone and language, so I am interested in what you have to say. --Cerejota (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having thought it over, I think that there is probably a fundamental difference in how we communicate on Wikipedia. I generally avoid using humor, joking, and irony, lest they be misinterpreted. With the benefit of hindsight, the bottom line is that you stand behind your close and that ThemFromSpace would not be able to convince you to reverse it. Given this impasse, your light tone and joking seem flippant and dismissive, and ThemFromSpace's earnest advancement of his argument comes across as patronizing. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate your views, even share some of them, but you give nothing by the way of advice, which is what I am looking for. --Cerejota (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not being more helpful. If you do not receive responses to the {{uninvolved}}, you may get better responsiveness from asking wiki-friends or -acquaintances directly. If you file at DRV, participants will consider your close and provide feedback. WP:Wikiquette assistance reviews civility issues, but I think it covers more heated disputes. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily disagree with your move of this (personally, I'd move all "Murder of" articles to "Death of"), but I think it may be hard to justify the move, given articles such as Murder of Stephen Lawrence. Both murders occurred within a few years of each other in London, both are unsolved, both are assumed to have had racial/racist motives, both were watershed moments in the policing of London. So I think they need the same title, whatever it is, and I think it's unlikely you would be able to move Murder of Stephen Lawrence to Death of Stephen Lawrence.
Thank you for your comments. I already moved to Death of Stephen Lawrence. It might be true that "murder of" might be common to refer to many deaths, but unless they are sufficiently historical (such as the use of "Massacre" to refer to many old-timey killfests) I see "murder" as a WP:WTA in titles and hence a violation of neutrality, in particular when used in controversial or controversy prone areas, such as incidents involving the police or politically motivated killings, regardless of what POV or emotive reasons lie behind. An exception would be serial murders, which are generally non-controversial anyways, or mass murders, because "mass deaths" as a phrase is not generally used by anyone.--Cerejota (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am for deleting that article, and it is not a good idea to rename articles that are being subject to an AfD except to address the concerns of an AfD, so far the name of the article is not an issue for the deletion discussion, just the plain notability of the subject. If the result of the deletion discussion is "keep", and no one beats me to it, I will rename it and defend a consensus to rename on WP:WTA and WP:NPOV grounds. Even after a conviction, the word "murder" in general should be avoid in the title, although it can be used in the text with attribution (ie "Y was found to be murdered by X by a court of law").
The closest to this is not mentioning the suspect by name, and it is almost always not a successful argument, but there has never, in the history of all of wikipedia, an article entirely deleted/renamed via regular process of consensus solely on legal grounds regarding the content. Never.
Please read WP:LEGAL as to why this should never be used as an argument in any discussion. Short course: if you use legal grounds to object inclusion, you could be blocked until you remove the objection. An exception is copyright violations, which are subject to immediate removal, and if an article is entirely made of a copyright violation, it is subject to speedy deletion. Copyright of media files such as images, which follows its own procedures for deletion and often focus on legal matters, is another exception. Never ever try to use legal arguments in a discussion in wikipedia, ever - you will put yourself at risk of being blocked for making legal threats.
In a related note, I sense - perhaps incorrectly - that you might feel a sense of immediacy of the issue. I often feel the same way, and in fact, feel this way about this article, which I find an aberration and an insult to encyclopedic quality. However, it might serve you well to understand that there is no deadline, and of course show a little less care for the things you cannot control. Let the process work itself out. Personally, I think this article will be deleted/merged, and if it isn't, I will take it to WP:DRV. But one must let the process, which exists for a reason, flow, and process takes time.--Cerejota (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I thought pointing it out was wise though, and I certainly wasn't making, or planning to make any threats, legal or otherwise, just pointing out that it might not be a wise title. FactController (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone did raise it in the deletion discussion, and someone else raised a similar point to yours (murder as a legal view), so I went ahead and did it, based on it being raised there. I see also that you haven't commented on the deletion discussion, feel free to do so if you wish.--Cerejota (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for advice first, on how to proceed. It was more the name itself, rather than whether the article should be kept or deleted, that I was worried about. Thanks for your help, and action. FactController (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2011 England riots
Without commenting on the substance of the long post you made here, you might want to reconsider your threat to revert to 3RR to enforce your favored version. WP:3RR is a bright-line limit, not an entitlement and it is perfectly possible to be blocked for edit-warring before reaching that limit. If you could redact that part of your post, it will make it easier for others to consider your other points on their merits. Best wishes, --John (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya! Please remember to exercise caution while warning users for proposed deletions of pages. I was recently notified that you have tagged the article J. Randall for deletion, but I did nothing but move the article (I didn't create it). Notifying the page's creator, User:KrazKC1, is mandatory. Best regards, BryceWilson | talk04:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Just remember to exercise caution about TW because it sometimes notifies the author who last revised the article. (I made a similar mistake recently, with an apology to the person I accidently warned.) All the best, and good luck! BryceWilson | talk04:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your RfC Closure
Thank you very much for both your courtesy and the thoughtful consideration applied to your recent RfC closure. Your willingness to step neutrally into the fray of this contentious and long-standing dispute speaks highly of your commitment to the process that promotes this Wikipedia project as both functional and credible. Nice job.
One suggestion if I might...perhaps refactor the closure into the RFC and responses section so as to facilitate a {{cot}} collapse tag being reapplied to the "Meta" discussion? Thanks again for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done I hope that was what you asked for, at least :P ALso, thank you for your kind words... and do try to take that kindness into editing :)--Cerejota (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you put your comments in the deletion discussion - your argument is unpersuasive. All of the sources are not from reliable sources (you can ask for help at WP:RSN with that), and he doesn't meet the criteria in part because there is no reliable sources. A reliable source is not just a mention, it needs to be somewhat extensive coverage independent of the subject, and also be generally respect as sources for biographical information, such as national and international periodicals, well respected news websites etc. As to the WP:ACTOR he doesn't meet it. Just being in a movie or two with a notable actor is not enough, he has to win prizes or have had significant coverage independent of just one film. By significant we mean wide-spread. He still seems to be in the up-and-coming phase, and we all wish him well, but we generally do not cover up-and-coming artists and actors, only "made" ones.
Also don't forget to sign yor comments, and to use the "+" or "section" button instead of "edit" to add new sections for comments to other peoples talk pages. Thank you.--Cerejota (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the first one, (specially in view of input I received since) but not the second one - care to elaborate? It seems pretty much clear this is to be redirected, there is not even a claim of notability as there is in the first one.--Cerejota (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The claim for notability for the second one lies in it being a Blue Ribbon School, just as the first one was. There are other sources that can be added that may meet WP:GNG. Because a 'Blue Ribbon School' is the highest award that a US school can receive, there is at least the argument that the AfD should have been closed as 'merge'. This judgement is more appropriate to an admin. TerriersFan (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has quite a history - if you haven't seen it, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 11. I have commented there about your de-fluff of the latest re-appearance of the article and suggested that, while I think you are right that a redirect is the answer, to lay the issue to rest your version should be considered at AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cerejota. Completely agree with that. You might like to also consider moving Murder of Sian O'Callaghan, another outstanding case which is yet to be heard. I think it has been moved before so you may need to delete the redirect. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done No need to delete any redirect, as the talk page was empty. Am not an admin anyways, so I would have required admin action to delete. :)--Cerejota (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm not sure these are good moves (I saw the Yeates move); violating NPOV, Common Name and WP:EUPHEMISM. Some of them make sense. The Blakelock one does seem more of a death, whereas Yeates and O'Callaghan are clear (or at least clearly considered) murders. It feels like a dose of political correctness not to title these as murders :S --Errant(chat!)10:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. The fact that the term "political correctness" is used, makes me suspect that things are not as simple - PC is clearly a rather controversial POV :). WP:EUPHEMISM in my view doesn't apply in this case, one is not trying to change because "murder" offends some sensibilities in a moral sense - it is because "murder" is an inherently non-neutral term with strong emotional responses usually linked to political, ethnic, religious, and other POVs. Euphemism would be changing the title of a book called "The Murder of Blakelock" into "The Death of Blakelock" to censor the word, that is not what we are doing here, as we can find sources that support "death" instead of "murder", and even sources that use both, but "death" in the title!hardly a bastion of PC :). Of course, you agree on the Blakelock move, so this is preaching to the choir a bit, but I wanted to make the point about euphemism with an example you already agreed was a good move.
On the other ones, more appropriate in my view to consider would be WP:SENSATION, part of event notability but whose principle is applicable all around. This invites us to consider the sensationalism of different cases when writing encyclopedia articles. I view sensationalism as violating NPOV, not to mention totally destroying quality, and the best way to avoid sensationalism is to watch out for certain words in certain strategic places - like titles and lede. But even is those other cases, the sources also support "death of". If there were no RS to support "death of", I would be persuaded at the futility of a rename as per both common names and euphemism, but while the majority of sources use "murder", some are less sensational and correctly separate the event, death, from the means of the event under criminal law "murder": Detectives investigating the death of Joanna Yeates.... I think we have a responsibility as an encyclopedia to make this nuance for our readers, to cut-through the yellowish tendencies of even otherwise reliable sources, and present the verifiable information in a way that doesn't compromise NPOV, the only content rule that matters.--Cerejota (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Murder of Billie-Jo Jenkins was a step too far. No reliable sources contend that she was not murdered. The failure of a court to convict someone does not imply she was not murdered, and neither should we with our page title in the absence of supporting sources.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get the point you make, but I contend that indeed a failure to convict is makes "murder" a POV even in cases were no one makes the claim. However the WP:RS are overwhelming in supporting your view, so I won't contend this move.--Cerejota (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, no reliable sources contend that Keith Blakelock wasn't murdered. A bad outcome of these page moves would be if some deaths that were clearly murder are called "murder," and some not. I wish we could agree to call all these articles "death of" so we have uniformity across the board, and not inadvertent POV caused by individual Wikipedians using different criteria. "Death of ..." implies nothing at all about the manner of death, or what Wikipedians think about it, so it's always a safe title, and if it's always used, no one gets offended. SlimVirginTALK|CONTRIBS22:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with you. However, in the case of Blakelock, there is indeed controversy around the circumstances and guilt of his death. There, for example, allegations of self-defense or otherwise justifiable homicide. Of course, a systemic solution that strongly advised for a "Death of" format would be ideal, but in lack of such a systemic view, a article by article evaluation should be made, in which we base ourselves. When there is WP:SNOW reasons not to contend a move, I rather pick my battles.--Cerejota (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with you about Blakelock. He was one unarmed person surrounded by about 50 people, and he was stabbed or cut 42 times by knives and machetes. Most of the stabbing was in his back. The attack included someone removing his protective helmet, and plunging a six-inch knife into his neck up to the hilt. It would be murder in any court.
But I do agree with you about the general principle that these cases can be tricky. I wonder if we could post a request for comment somewhere asking that all articles about the death of individuals be called "Death of ..." no matter the circumstances. I'm not sure where best to post an RfC like that to get full attention. SlimVirginTALK|CONTRIBS22:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, I didn't see that. What would think about an RfC with one simple question: "Should all articles about the death of an individual be called "Death of ...", no matter the manner of death?" The best place for it would probably be Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Would posting that clash with your Words to watch RfC? SlimVirginTALK|CONTRIBS22:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are different things. The goal with the title thing, I think, would be to improve NPOV and reduce WP:NOTNEWS/WP:SENSATION issues that compromise NPOV, whereas the RFC I started is more geared towards the non-applicability of WP:EUPHEMISM to words that have nuances in meaning that affect content.--Cerejota (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really and that is a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument that seldom flies - you can disagree with my argument, but I have been consistent in not having a view that systemic relief is in order, rather than a case-by-case view. The only systemic thing I am trying to do is the WP:EUPHEMISM stuff because its simply ridiculous.
That said, lets evaluate the cases you raise:
Srebrenica massacre - Be careful, WP:BEANS! That said, multiple people been accused and found guilty for this under the legal name of "massacre". In addition, while I know this is an off-the-cuff example, "deaths" in this case would indeed be an euphemism. It wasn't one or two or three people, it was thousands. The only non-euphemistic alternative is "mass killings". I could live with Srebrenica mass killings perfectly well, if the article mentioned in its lede that it is generally known as "Srebrenica massacre". However, I am perfectly happy with how it stands, because I do not see NPOV being compromised and there is no controversy that keeps us from improving the encyclopedia around the name.
The Holocaust - this is more iffy in terms of the line of reasoning, as the name is indeed a partisan one, with a partisan origin, intended to find a poignantly lyrical word to describe the events, done in 1978. Before then (ie for forty years or so) it was indeed called "genocide against Jews" or some such descriptive name, so had wikipedia existed then, the title wouldn't be Holocaust (see for example, Holodomor - a retconning done to make it sound like "holocaust" and which is heavily disputed). However, here other considerations operate, among them WP:SNOW, there is not a chance in hell that article title can be changed unless its easily reverted vandalism. It would be the most epic snowball in the history of wikipedia.
Both examples are Reductio ad absurdum - neither example describes murders as used in the "Murder of" articles, which are common criminality, not genocide or other forms of state or para-state mass murder.
The point I am trying to make is that we should look at each article in its merits, a listen to reasoned argument, rather than making slippery slope arguments that bear little connection to actual practice or actual topics. I understand your concern, and this is why I am reluctant for a systemic solution, but these kinds of argument actually strengthen the case for a systemic solution rather than weakening it, at least in my view.--Cerejota (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone your non-admin closure of this discussion. There is clearly still an ongoing discussion about the issue, and no clear consensus has yet been reached.
On a broader note, looking back through your talk page, I notice that several of your non-admin closures have been reversed. Perhaps you don't understand the purpose and guidelines for a non-admin closure, and you should review them here. Until you are fully familiar with the process, you might want to just avoid it altogether. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!13:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And many more also sustained, however in this case it is a clear keep - no controversy. I am sorry, but while I am indeed open to reasonable criticism, as you can see, I simply cannot see this: If after two weeks of debate the !v are 4-1, with only keeps after the the re-listing, and the comments being reasonable, and no SPAs and otherwise suspect users are involved, and no debate of substance since the relist. Its a pile-on of a debate that has run its course. On what basis do you argue this is controversial or wrong?
Of course, you can re-open it, and I won't dispute that, but then the rules need to be re-written, because you seem to argue that essentially only SNOW and Re-list is an acceptable closure, and that is not what the rules say. Also, when you revert a closure, also revert the article and the notices. --Cerejota (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep outcomes after a full listing period (stated in the instructions to each XfD, this is usually seven days), absent any contentious debate among participants. This also extends to other clear closes in which the final task can be performed by a non-admin i.e. Redirect or Merge (when a history merge or deletion is not required).
The discussion in question still had an ongoing "contentious debate" over the validity of sources, and so, fails to meet this criteriaon. Nothing needs to be rewritten; existing rules just need to be adhered to. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!13:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was no ongoing substantial debate, and the article was listed for two weeks. Sometimes, you have to stop beating the dead horse. I ask you to reconsider your re-version for the closure and go to DRV is you feel its in error, because your explanation is not convincing. --Cerejota (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is by your definition of substantial debate, I suppose. The discussion between Falcador, DeVerm and Drdisque regarding the validity of coverage by Speed Network, ongoing even as of today, is insubstantial, I suppose? This is exactly the type of discussion that should not be open to non-admin closure. At best, this is a non-consensus closure, but I would leave that call to an admin as well. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!13:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree "non-consensus" closes should be left for admins, but why you think this was "no-consensus"? For me, non-consensus is when valid points are made on policy on both sides, but neither comes out strong or dominant in a significant way (60-70%). In this discussion, both sides made good policy based arguments, but one side clearly came ahead in discussion, in particular after re-list. --Cerejota (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Each keep !vote after the relist was debated with equally valid arguments. To be sure, only keep !votes were received, but they were not universally accepted. I don't argue that the article should be deleted (I voted keep in the first place); I only argue that the outcome of this discussion requires an evaluation of all of the arguments relative to the policies, and that is a job that is reserved to admins. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!13:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no change to existing policy is needed, only a strict adherence to it. Since substantial debate was still ongoing, the discussion was not an appropriate candidate for non-admin closure. I sense from this discussion and others that have preceded that you are something of an activist for expanding the scope of non-admin closures. If you feel this is needed, you should take up the matter at the appropriate forum. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!14:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are under a mistaken impression, and see no way how you could arrive to that conclusion - simply because I ask questions? I am, however, big on clarity. --Cerejota (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just as I pressed the "no consensus"-button I realized that you relisted this one today and not a week ago. If you still think it could use another week let me know and I'll be happy to revert myself. Cheers / Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't matter to me, so if you don't feel strongly about it I guess we can just leave it for now. In case it doesn't improve it's likely to be relisted I suppose. / Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cerejota repeatdly accuses me of wrong doing without providing a WIKI RULE
For the record the user Cerejota repeatedly accuses me of wrong doing, after i replied to his accusations at my user page and refuses so far to provide me with a wiki rule which would explain his accusations. Looking at his record and what other users say about him he seems to do this with an agenda, systematically to disturb the wikipedia editing from certain users. Gise-354x (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to thank you for being there for me. You are a true friend who appreciates my work here. I know that I made a mistake, but even though I tried to solve things in a civil manner [4] I ended up in ANI, where I was accussed of everything form being a "Killer" to being a "Mad Man". I have been under a lot of preasure, but knowing that I have friends like you and that my work here is appreciated, not only by hundreds of readers and various government institutions in the US and Puerto Rico, but by a member of the Salvdorean Legislature. Here is a message which I received recently:
"Hola, mi nombre es Lorena Varela, salvadoreña trabajo en la Asamblea Legislativa de mi país, colaborando con la Comisión de Salud. He leído lo que usted hace en su país, que es conservar y trasladar sus raíces a las nuevas generaciones de descendencia boricua fuera de sus fronteras."
"Me parece una labor muy ejemplificante para los latinos que algunas veces viviendo fuera de nuestros países, se olvidan de donde vienen y para donde van, porque al perder nuestras identidades perdemos el rumbo de nuestras vidas; sí tenemos que aprovechar las oportunidades que se nos dan en otros lugares pero jamás olvidar nuestro orígenes."
"Le deseo toda clase de bendiciones en su labor." Atentamente, Honorable Lorena Varela
You said that the other guy was wrong in removing it, and I disagree with your argument (or "categorization") of his removal. You do not have to agree with a revert for it to be a valid one, and most certainly your revert of his removal I feel ignored the valid point raised in his edit summary. My apologies if this was not a clear edit summary, but not everything needs to be WP:TLDR.--Cerejota (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cerejota. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of S.S. Todi Calcio, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 speedy has already been declined, see history. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please choose the discussions you close more carefully, as per WP:NACD, "close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." If you want to regularly close AfDs, including complicated ones, please consider standing for administrator first. Thanks, Sandstein 08:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your observations.
Sandra Larsson is clearly SNOW, or at least I thought so. Why wasn't it?
Monmouth was a keeper, and non-controversially so, at least by my count, 4-2 (including nom) and the only !v after relist being keep, with a full week for other opinions to emerge - and the arguments being all backing notability upon sources, and long contributions. So I would need guidance as to why this was controversial.
Maltese was a redirect, not a keep - and here I do need clarification from you, because what would be the difference between a redirect and a delete, beyond the technical? In effect, had this been deleted, it could have been recreated as a useful redirect, and SNOW kept. So if I did something wrong, I apologize, but I need clarification as to what I did wrong.
Due to my involvement in ARBPIA, I have way too many enemies to be an admin, in spite of having done more policy edits, started more Wikiprojects (including WikiProject Wiki-Books), and probabiy donated more money than most vanity admins that populate the Pokemon pages. So thats out of the question. But I like the intellectual exercise of AfD closing, RFC closing, etc, so any guidance is welcome, I know you sort a AfD specialist.--Cerejota (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sandra Larsson is not even close to SNOW. Monmouth University Polling Institute is not a keep either (it's a no consensus if you have to close it now). I reopened both. T. Canens (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For Sandra Larsson: the keeps are pretty much proof by assertion on the GNG and NACTOR#3 point - what you have is pretty much a verbatim recitation of the guideline and the assertion that she meets it, without any kind of analysis, and the nominator is concededly correct on NACTOR#1; the BLP1E point wasn't really addressed by the keeps either (and BLP1E, being a policy, can trump GNG even if it were satisfied). Plus, when you have people split 2-1 it is almost certainly never going to be SNOW anyway.
For Monmonth: if you are going to count noses, you need to exclude the SPAs - and that leads to a 2-2 split; the SPA keeps are pretty crappy anyway in terms of quality and can and should be disregarded. Between the non-SPAs opinions are divided, with no side having the clear upper hand, so it's a no consensus if you have to close it now, though my practice is generally to relist 2-2 splits. T. Canens (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the thorough comments. Lesson about SPAs learned - I was AGF in too much then - and about the clarification on BLP1E vs GNG, I have always thought that in terms of inclusion, barring NOTNEWS, GNG thrumped BLP1E - i'll take that into account. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking our advice in good spirit. I agree with T.Canens and add that you should probably less readily consider that a consensus exists. Closers are not empowered to impose their own opinion as consensus. My personal rule of thumb is that I discount all clearly invalid opinions (does not address policy issues, personal attacks etc.) and most SPAs (unless they make good policy-based arguments), then check whether there is any problem that mandates deletion regardless of consensus (e.g. copyvio, unsourced BLP), and then check whether there's a 2/3 majority of the remaining opinions for either keep or delete; if yes then that's the consensus; otherwise it's no consensus. In close cases I may assign some opinions more or less weight depending on how well they conform to policies or guidelines, but that's rare; in my opinion non-admins should be very cautious in closing discussions other than near-unanimous keep, redirect or merge outcomes. Sandstein 16:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What Sandstein said. FYI, my general rule for NACs is that if you need to think about the close after quickly reading through the debate once (or find it necessary to write a rationale), it's probably a bad NAC candidate. T. Canens (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I made a question above about the difference between a redirect and a delete as a result of discussion, regarding "Maltese Brazilian". Could you tell me? Thanks in advance...--Cerejota (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies about the delay. I'm traveling and so Internet access is a bit sporadic.
Personally, I don't see a big problem with that one. Admins sometimes delete the page history before redirecting a page - I usually do it if it has been redirected before but the redirection has been reverted, or if there are BLP/copyvio/etc. in the history. Another issue here is that pretty much no one explicitly suggested a redirect in the debate, so many may perceive the close as a "supervote", especially since your rationale sounds like you are picking your favorite argument instead of actually interpreting the consensus of the discussion. In this case, though, the redirect suggestion is implicit in the merge and while the deletes say that there's nothing to merge they didn't say anything that would suggest that a redirect is inappropriate. Sandstein may have a different view, though, so you might want to ask him as well. T. Canens (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cerejota. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Peter Pepper (musician), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There's additional sources now that weren't included last time it was created. Needs to go back to AfD if necessary. I'll move it back to where is should be (without the disam). Thank you. GedUK07:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worry, you are being conscientious, most decliners don't bother ;) Can you please salt the disam? Even if the article is kept this time, there is no reason to have it, but if its deleted, there is a good chance it would be recreated under that name. Or I am being to cautious?--Cerejota (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Errm, not sure really. I think it's best to leave it for now. If it gets renominated for AfD, and if it's then deleted, the disam will need to be deleted and probably salted. I'll keep an eye on it, but it's probably unnecessary for now. I'd rather leave the disam so that the page creator knows where the page is now and doesn't try and recreate it somewhere else. GedUK07:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Serie D is the top level of Italian amateur football. Whjether it is notable i leave to those interested in the sport, but it is certainly at least a claim to notability. DGG ( talk ) 15:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shady Jeff Phillips' wiki page
I changed it from a redirect because Jeff Phillips is more than just a former member of Hollywood Undead. He works very hard on biodiesel conversions and has been featured on CNN and in news papers such as the NY Post and I have provided these sources. I believe that since he is MORE than just a former member of a popular band, he deserves to be known. Please consider this information before continuing a pursuit for this page's deletion.
GeisterXfahrer (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to Peter Pepper (musician)
I have done everything I can to provide a multitude of sources regarding this musician; from news articles to critical reviews to history. I believe that this page should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia because the rules have been followed and everything written is properly cited. Please message me personally before recommending my pages for deletion.
GeisterXfahrer (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Talk page stalker) For both of these comments the correct place to make them is the Articles for deletion page, I suggest that you state your reasons there for keeping the article.
(edit conflict)::Yeah I thought it (J Robinson) was less controversial, still honing my "feel" for that. I know that for you jaded admins its easy, but it takes some using to suspending mental partisanship to make an objective judgement - figuring out SPAs and invalid !vs figuring out if there is a need to evaluate policy and other reasons not to close as admin. And on RfA, I don't think I have a snowball's chance in hell to be admin, not because I would suck at it, but because I have a tendency to edit controversial topics. NPOV warriors are like Dangerfield, can't get no respect. ;)--Cerejota (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to take this tone, but you simply cannot close anything controversial (or even anything that isn't clear-cut) if you are not an administrator. Please read the essay before doing so again. Sorry to hear about your chances at RfA, but never say never, and all that. — Joseph Fox01:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get a bad tone from you, then again I have been called many names :P I know I shouldn't close controversial stuff. I agree. I am just getting a feel as to what is considered controversial.--Cerejota (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's fine, I just don't want to come across high-and-mighty. As I say, though, please only focus on the obvious stuff while you're still without the appropriate rights. ¡Gracias! :) — Joseph Fox01:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
reverted change in ER
I reverted your question in the edit review, because quite frankly this is not how edit reviews are done. If you wish to participate, please look down the list of open reviews and get a feel of how the process works. If you have a question for me, feel free to ask anything in my talk page, and if you want to add a review, feel free to do so - although given our history I am not completely sure I might not be skeptical of what you have to say. --Cerejota (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just noticed the review and believed it was ok to post questions. I confess I'm not familiar with the process at all. I'll take some time to learn about it. With some embarrassment, I apologize for the unintended disruption. --damiens.rf18:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The situation with the image is the following: Let's assume that the image is deleted and that the images of the statue and the WW I one are not. We then have two images in the article which is fine up until someone comes along and nominates the image of the statue for deletion. You see according to copyright laws the copyright of the statue belongs to the creator (artist) and no one has the right to reproduce the picture as in free use unless they have permission from the copyright holder (The artist) to do so. The person that uploaded the image does not own the copyright to that statue and the image can therefore be deleted as a copyright vio. I know because the picture which I took in Carolina of the statue of Jesus T. Pinero was deleted because of what I just finished saying and there was nothing that I could do. That is unless that statue was created before 1923 and it certainly wasn't so. If this happens then the only image there would be the WW I image and that is why I believe that the image which reflects him as he was in his hey-days should be kept. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We re-upload the NF image and claim the exemption as we are doing now. We agree that this meets NFCC#1 because of the representation it makes, it represents a different period in which the illustrative qualities are simply not there. Since this is being deleted under the presumption that a free alternative was found, if the previously available free alternative is no longer available and not possible to replace then we have a chance. But arguing NFCC while a free alternative, however tenuous the claim might be, is available is not possible, period. --Cerejota (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the free alternative, the statue one? Is the uploader Uer:Cartof the sculptor who created the bust and who therefore owns the copyright? I'm just saying that the picture can be subject to deletion, ask "Damians", he knows about this. Remember it was the same situation when I uploaded an image of the painting of Capt. Euripdes Rubio which I uploaded, believing that there would be no problems since I was the person who that took the picture. What happened? It turns out that I would have needed the permission of the artist who painted the picture and owner of it's copyright in order to upload it and it was eventually deleted. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. But as long as that image exists in the commons, it is considered a free alternative, there is nothing we can do about it except be patient. Y prende tu email ;) --Cerejota (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cerejota.
I leave this message because I submitted an article about IPA Adriatic Cross-Border Cooperation Programme and I saw that you nominated it for deletion.
I would to know what is the problem. It is a simple article of presentation of an European Cooperation Programme.
Thank you for the explanation.
Cluppic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.47.25.138 (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is an open merger discussion, participate on it, but the removal of the template is an interruption of normal process, and uncalled for. Anyone can request a merger discussion, and until an uninvolved party removes it and closes the discussion such templates should remain.--Cerejota (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There actually isn't an open merger discussion. It was mistakenly opened by another editor because the wrong tag was used. You need to actually look at the tags and the discussion. There is no active proposal to merge the article. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is now a proper discussion, under the proper header, even if its failed, and I just participated in it, and DTTR doesn't say anything about not using the templates as a basis for a further argument, as I did (by mistake I didn't put my text inside of the template). The point remains, removing merger tags is only to be done by uninvolved parties or when there is a clear error, which this case is not. You need to tone down the self-righteousness, its making your reading comprehension suffer...--Cerejota (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is no proper discussion since there was never a proper proposal for a merge. The merge proposal thread was started by another editor who opposed a non-existent proposal. And yes, there is a clear error here, which is why I removed the tag.[5] It's not a merge. Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are still missing the point: You are involved. You do not do things like this on your own. You get an un-involved party to do it for you, at best. But a quick look at the debate shows that you are misrepresenting it.--Cerejota (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Know it, love it, bought the book and saw the film. I'm not involved in a non-discussion about a non-proposal that I neither support nor oppose. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do, so I'll give you a chance: experience teaches that rarely do people with horses in a race are able to be objective in their consideration for the behavior of those backing other horses. For example, assume good faith that an edit summary was not meant as an attack, even when perhaps some care should have been taken. A personal attack requires willful and evil intention to hurt a person. That was not the intent, and is obvious from my posted text.--Cerejota (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One must consider how words may be taken by other parties before using potentially nasty language. My "horse" is more of a pony here; my participation on that particular talkpage was transient. I also don't think that participation in a debate disqualifies one from pointing out incivility in a debate. My message stands: "shut the fuck up" is in and of itself an offensive expression intended to belittle another person – "regardless of the manner in which it is done." Don't use it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And my point is that "stfu" is used informally in a much less harsh manner than you suggest, as shorthand for example, and that perhaps you are didn't consider that possibility, edged on by your equestrian in the race. And that instead of asking for a clarification, you assumed bad faith. --Cerejota (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said that your language was unnecessarily rude and confrontational and that it may cross the border into NPA. I didn't template you or take you to ANI, I told you to be more careful. I don't think that most personal-attackers go into an argument thinking "muahaha, I am going to make personal attacks", but end up using language that may not seem harsh to them, but may be viewed as such by another person. I'd have let the matter rest if you had not acted so defiantly to my reminder.
A brusque "point it out or STFU" is not what I consider to fall under the definition of "less harsh", and I would point this out regardless of whether or not I was involved in this less-than-significant dispute. I posted two comments, neither of which were in the thread in question. Don't cast me as an antagonist here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, it's 2:30 in the morning where I am, so this will have to sit overnight. In the meantime, I encourage you to take a step back and try to view what you say from a detached perspective before inadvertently stirring up mud. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is "dispruptive editing"
Hi C, On a certain talk page I expressed my opinion that another editor's efforts were disruptive. I'm replying here to not fan any flames there. Your reply to me said "you are stretching the definition of disruption here a bit. No one doubts that (a certain other editor) is acting in good faith, and that is enough to know there is no disruption.
First, APPLAUSE and CHEERS for the rest of that comment, omitted here, that moved us along toward solution seeking.
I just wanted to say the italicized part above is in direct contradiction to the last paragraph in the lede at WP:DISRUPT
"The fact that the disruption is done in good faith does not change the fact that it is disruptive and harmful to Wikipedia."
"Disruptive editing is not always intentional. An editor may be accidentally disruptive because he or she doesn't understand how to correctly edit a page" (in the case in question, that would mean how to use certain maintenance tags)
Hi Cerejota. I see that you've been making some excellent progress with Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Sysop on request and I hope you don't mind me mentioning it in an update on RfA reform. It'll mean that members of the task force may pop along and give you a bit of feedback. Have you considered joining the task force by the way? WormTT· (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took a bit of a break because hurricaine adrenaline is better to make lame "witty" comments and facepalming at ANI. Its not completely ready for prime time, but this is a wiki and it is not in userspace for a reason :P And how do I join the task force? I like the idea so yeah count me in.--Cerejota (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the idea of the task force is that we develop proposals before putting them up before the community - so it'll be probably half a dozen extra pairs of eyes on the matter. To join up, just drop your name at Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Task force and any time we do an update we'll make sure you're included. Don't worry, there's no rush on getting the proposal finished - it's much better to get something that the community will accept than to rush it and bodge it. It is possible that a couple of people will just come and say "hate it" - don't be disheartened, radical reform has that effect, and there's clearly a push for some radical reform. WormTT· (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cerejota. I leave this message because I submitted an article about IPA Adriatic Cross-Border Cooperation Programme and I saw that you nominated it for deletion. I would to know what is the problem. It is a simple article of presentation of an European Cooperation Programme. I create also a link to ERDF Fund as Operational Programme Italy-MAritime France 2007-2013. What's the difference? Thank you for the explanation. Cluppic — — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cluppic (talk • contribs) 11:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I placed some useful links that explain what Wikipedia is about in a welcome message on the top of your talkpage, but specifically the reasons the article is not suitable for Wikipedia is because it doesn't meet the General Notability Guideline. I am sure this exists, and perhaps its useful, but it is not notable. This is one of the most basic, but not the only, criteria for inclusion. Please follow and read the link, and it would be obvious why the article will be deleted. --Cerejota (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RFC bot
You must have missed the word "brief" in the RFC directions that say to "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template, and sign it with ~~~~" The RFC bot spammed your entire multi-section complaint to the RFC page, all the way down through the Support section. I've fixed it for you so that it will only include the summary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't miss it, I thought the bot ignored the further sectioning. Perhaps it needs to, as that is a severe limitation on being able to structure an RFC before the bot gets to it. Thanks for fixing it though, its a bit embarrassing ;)--Cerejota (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The bot handles sectioning with less grace than we might all wish.
It's a common problem, actually. I skim through most of the RFCs about once a month to find and fix these things. The good news is that the bot runs frequently, and all you have to do is give it an extra date stamp. It will then automatically fix everything on its next run. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted tp let you know that I moved your announcement about the Verifiability RfC to WP:AN, as it's not an incident and doesn't require admin action, so shouldn't be on WP:ANI. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi,
Please desist from personal attacks like here and here, especially when the other side is barred to respond.
... because you said "Please keep your filth in your mind before vomiting it out. It stinks." This has been explained to you. As far as the allegation of POV is concerned, well, I guess that it is a matter of record. You have been very open about it in the recent past. I have had no interactions with Cerejota before but my guess would be that they have independently arrived at the same conclusion, as did people involved in the ANI discussion. - Sitush (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are so quick, why do you not also read quickly things like "The difference between you and me is that you support pushing aside neutrality when it puts your side in good light, but want neutrality when it would put your side on a bad light. I, and others, do not care about sides." where he takes a rather neutral position immediately after a personal attack.
So how are those who indulge in personal attack, and then warn, are neutral, other than talking about standards while breaking standards?
Why have you rushed to the aid of this gentleman suddenly, after assuming that he must have "independently arrived at the same conclusion" regardless of any connection to the voting in question? If you and the gentleman have a knack of assuming things like this, the admins should give proper warning to others about self-righteous self-correctly-assuming people on Wikipedia.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat201108:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please consider replying at AE. The community probably doesn't agree with your statement on the article talk, 'there is no need for consensus for tags'. People are blocked all the time at WP:AN3 for tag warring. Since an RfC is in progress, the AE may not be necessary, but it looks bad if there is no response. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I replied thank you for calling my attention, I was preocupied with mor eimportant things than this unfortunate attempt to disrupt WP:BRD and use bureaucratic means to advance an editing position.--Cerejota (talk) 03:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the Simple Wikipedia is simple because it leaves out info. What if the English Wikipedia policy pages were made simpler without losing any of their info? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I looked at the Simple Wikipedia's article on Baryons and the language looked the same as the English Wikipedia's article Baryons, at least in the lead. I didn't read farther, but scanned some of the rest. The difference seemed to be the amount of info, and at least one physics error that I found in the simple Wikipedia article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simple Wikipedia has many issues, including that its editors tend to forget what that project is about, but the principle of simplified language is what it stands for. We don't. I think that a test of WP:COMPETENCE that a paradox provides is a Good Thing.--Cerejota (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems somewhat disingenuous to open yourself for editor review but then delete relevant comments. If you think the comment is a misrepresentation, defend yourself. But censoring the process seems to subvert it. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!02:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A comment without diffs, just with a current beef and with no even an inkling on my behavior before the ER was open is not helpful - the intent of an ER is to help me become a better editor, I see no reason how re-stating was has already been stated elsewhere, and in particular, without providing any context, is unacceptable. If you notice, I have left harsh words in there, but they were specific and helpful, even if I disagree with the assessment they provide. A strong disagreement in good faith is one thing, seeking to forum shop an open editing dispute is another thing. I see no reason why the misuse of the opportunity for an editor review be allowed to exist, and I do not see protecting the integrity of the process as disingenuous. If the user in question was to make a good faith effort to submit me to criticism, even harsh criticism, he is welcome, what he is not welcome to is to use the opportunity to advance a current editing dispute, when there are plenty of places for that, most importantly the edit summaries and the talk page for the article.--Cerejota (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redacting, censoring, and selectively editing others' comments
I thank WikiDan61 for noting the problem with deleting my comments on his Editor Review. (I had not imagined that an editor at ER would do such a thing.)
Nonetheless, despite having received this gentle note from WikiDan61, Cerejota has again twice deleted my comments (making the deletion count three, so far).
Cerejota has no cause to accuse me of forum shopping and especially not to accuse me of bad faith.
Hi there. I have closed the AN/I thread you opened with a reminder to Kiefer.Wolfowitz to avoid edit-warring. However, I must agree with WikiDan61's suggestion above that it would be wiser to ignore ER comments you don't find useful rather than removing them. 28bytes (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, I was however shocked at the concept of a run-of-the-mill hate crime. I knew folks are getting de-sensitized to violence but I figured people would get the context of this crime - the press appears to. Run-of-the-mill hate crime would be up there with routine genocide. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would have facepalmed but I am tired of facepalming, been do in that on wiki since at least 2009, as I was recently reminded :P--Cerejota (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice proposal
I am so glad to see all the work you put into this proposal. I wish I had know sooner because I will assist in every way to see this through. There are a couple issues I want to clarify and then we just go forward with it. When I am done editing what I would call the merge, I will ask you to look at it in my sandbox, and if it sounds reasonable to you, we can go with it, or some variation. Sound good? My76Strat (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sur eman, feel free also do do live edits, am not owny - I am addressing something a lot of the community wants, so any additions etc are welcome - do specify changes merge etc in the talk page, for historical reasons etc ;) Excellent work btw, we need more editors who care about meta stuff...--Cerejota (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From what I have observed in your debate with Kiefer.Wolfowitz you seem to have lost your temper a bit... Perhaps just have a good sit down and a nice cup of tea before resuming the debate? And before you ask; I have left a similar note on their talk page as well Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 08:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...because I am explaining to you policy, not debating it". Try not to be so patronising. If you have a look ay my profile you'll notice I really don't need you to "explain policy" to me. Nothing you said related to policy; it related to opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for coming across as patronizing. But no, I was not giving an opinion. Policy, as it stands, doesn't have a specific rule on "bus plunge" or "air crash" notability - both are subjected to WP:GNG, WP:NEVENTS and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, there is however the widely supported essay WP:AIRCRASH which is generally used to weight keeping or deleting article on an aircrash. Bus plunge stories, regardless of where they happen, are generally deleted or put in the list articles. As I said, if you want to improve policy to cover bus plunge stories better, that is a debate to be had, but as policy stands, most, in fact nearly all bus plunges do not deserve their own article - as per policy - because reliable sources tend not to cover them in ways that meet the notability criteria and exceed the requirements of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. They can, indeed, be added to the "List" articles. I am very sympathetic to WP:BIAS, because in part Puerto Rico is badly covered because of notability rules - but the policies are what they are, and that is why this article was deleted. Look back at the discussion, and your argument essentially was "keep because of systemic bias" - I have tried and failed in using that argument, and it has failed because it has no basis in policy. That is the key point I am trying to make.--Cerejota (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, my argument was essentially "keep because it's notable"! Others obviously disagreed, but I stand by my opinion that such accidents are notable enough for articles. Policy does not come down on one side or the other. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, the policy is a brightline on notability: multiple sources independent of the subject providing significant coverage. The key word here is significant. By definition bus plunges are not provided significant coverage. Airline crashes usually do. That is the key difference: something doesn't meet notability simply because you argue "keep because it's notable" (in fact, that is actually to be avoided as a !v: WP:ITSNOTABLE). It meets notability because reliable sources provide significant coverage. It would take a highly original definition of "significant" to describe the bulk of "bus plunge" stories. However, most airline crashes do get significant coverage. --Cerejota (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we will not agree on this. Most "bus plunges" (a neologism if ever I heard it) are in countries with far less media coverage. We're back to systemic bias again. In any case, personally, my favourite policy is WP:IAR! Wikipedia has become far too rules-bound in recent years. "If it looks notable then it is notable" has always been my opinion and continues to be. Yes, it's an opinion, but if AfD debates weren't about opinions we wouldn't have them. AfDs would simply be decided by administrators based on "the rules". We do and they aren't, so opinions are clearly still important. And no, I'm not a manic inclusionist. I'll happily argue for deleting crap or anything that's clearly non-notable, but I seriously cannot believe that anyone would consider an accident which killed over forty people to be non-notable. I actually find that rather shocking. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I take a mor enuanced view on Notability, and while obviously a great fan of IAR, I do not think having articles for every reported bus plunge (not a neologism, but a well-known journalistic jargon) improves the encyclopedia. Having a list, that is another matter. I think there is a fetish with articles for each discrete event that does harm to encyclopedia, if editors were more consentious of the possibilities of list articles a lot more coverage to systemic bias prone topics could be had. I guess this is a philosophical difference... I enjoy meta conversations, just not in AfDs ;)--Cerejota (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
continued drama
User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz's good faith report closed as Facepalm by uninvolved admin, and the rules at the WP:ER modified to allow editors to delete, but not otherwise refactor, the comments made by other editors in their own ER. This stands as reminder of why common sense, assuming good faith, and not being a dick are good principles in a massive collaborative environment. Since this is my talk page, I am closing all of this discussion, and not engaging the matter further, as this was a distraction from actually editing the encyclopedia, which is what we should be doing instead of raising hurricanes in teapots.--Cerejota (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
this, this, this and this were plain uncalled for. You launch an editor review so you can know what people think of you warts and all. You do not launch an editor review if you want to only hear good stuff! Also: Per WP:TALKPAGE you can be blocked if you continue to remove other editors comments (Unless they are BLATANT vandalism or on your own talk page and ONLY on your own talk page!) and you should also know that removing good-faith comments is a MISUSE and can be seen as possible ABUSE of the rollback privilege which WILL be taken away if you continue to misuse it! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me12:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your comment is helpful. Your use of bolding, caps and somewhat threatening tone is a bit offensive and misguided in my view. An editor review is for the benefit of the editor, no one else. You don't get to tell people the scope of their review or how they conduct it. It's not a game nor is it a struggle session. If an editor doesn't regard a comment as useful or relevant, so be it, it's their review. Sean.hoyland - talk14:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sean,
There is no statement on the ER description that the editor be free to remove other editors' comments. In personal namespace, the editor is welcome to remove others' comment entirely; however, even in his own namespace, the editor is prohibited from cherry-picking others' comments---they are prohibited from partial deletions.
So you say and yet the more important issue is whether you want to help another editor or whether you want to do something else. The editor review process has a purpose. You seem to giving more weight to what you regard as the rules than what the editor regards as useful. This seems wrong and counterproductive. Sean.hoyland - talk15:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I ask you to change the ER rules so that your decision has some policy warrant, rather than violate the prohibitions against editing others' comments. Kiefer.Wolfowitz15:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said, it's about helping the editor, a human being. That's what matters. Using words like "violation" and "prohibition" in this context demonstrates that you've lost sight of what's important. If comments don't help the editor from their perspective they don't matter. Sean.hoyland - talk15:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you name a WP policy statement and associated noticeboard that avoids "violation" and its synonyms? Presumably such policies and procedures were also designed to help editors. (I grant that this editor is a human being and humanitarian but some editors are robots.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz18:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cerejota!
Please note that I object your editing my comments, and that such editing may in the future get you (or any other editor doing such editing) blocked. That said, I shall leave the tamed ER comments to stand, appreciating your acknowledgment that they (at least) were sincere.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oops
Sorry, accidentally hit the rollback on your talk page but I think I've fixed it. Also (in case you weren't aware), your editnotice links to HJ Mitchell's email page. Nightw21:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know your definition of a 'test' or 'vandalism', but most people would not consider that includes C-SPAN, Charlie Rose, the Guardian, TED talks, and the NYT. I'm not going to bother to re-add those links, as I realize you'll just again delete them with yet another insulting comment like that. 75.60.6.70 (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm just letting you know that I have closed the nomination as "not promoted". Typically, two thirds support (with at least four full supports, and with weak supports/opposes only counted as half) is needed as a rough measure, but, of course, closers will make judgement calls in borderline cases. In this case, it seems that there were legitimate concerns about it not matching up to our current amphibian FPs. Regardless, I hope to see you back at FPC soon. J Milburn (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was considering self-reverting before the AE was posted, but I was waiting for someone to respond to my thread at the discussion. Night said he was going to explain his reason for restoring the tag at ITN, but he never did. I appreciate your comment at AE and of course your assistance at the etiquette board. That could have mutated into something far worse had that not been closed. WikifanBe nice05:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, your self-revert basically closes the case. Just take care in the future because AE tends to enforce 1RR pretty strongly with little interpretative headroom. --Cerejota (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it does. But considering my history I don't expect this to be closed without some thought by an admin. I imagine Ed or T.C will weigh in. WikifanBe nice06:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Like I said before, I predicted an admin would suggest a topic-ban. I was hoping the self-revert would close the case as you felt it would, but I am not sure if that is going to happen. So before a potential topic-ban is put into effect (meaning I wouldn't be able to even mention anything about it), I just want to say again thanks for your weigh in at the AE and moderation of the etiquette dispute. I wish we could have collaborated more. WikifanBe nice18:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.
I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:
Thanks for the help. I'm just leaving Wikipedia. I get a lot of this. I really just assume good faith. (Or at least try!) I'm not trying to be slanted. Just contribute to the best of my ability. I've got OCD and Panic Disorder and can't really take conflict. (I guess I shouldn't be on the internet huh?) I'll be the first to admit I'm not 100% with all of the policies, like a typical new user I dive right in without reading. I really wanted to learn. Rude users ruined that for me. I know accounts can't be deleted. But usernames can be changed right? Can you help?--Violeta123321 (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
mentoring?
Seeing as how you have crafted this proposal at AE - though not blessed or endorsed by an admin yet - would you consider being my mentor regardless? You seem to be very knowledgeable about I/P, whereas my previous mentor wasn't particularly active in the area of conflict and we had a falling out. I'm not certain anyone would want to mentor me considering my history. Anyways, WP:MENTOR is pretty ambiguous when it comes to how mentors set up their field. It wouldn't have to be too complicated - just a userpage sandbox, exchange emails (you can email me now if you want), watch my editing, etc. I won't be particularly active after this week because of RL issues. WikifanBe nice04:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hi
Hi. I've been off wikipedia more or less for a some time, caught up in non-wiki stuff irl. Now I notice that various articles that i've started have been deleted after the prods. The prods are directed against political parties not having stood in election, which is a quite odd criteria since electoral politics in not the sole area of work of political parties. One of the articles, for example, deals with a Namibian party existing in the 1980s. Not to strange if they didn't contest any polls, right?
Could you look into this? The deletions are made by different editors with similar edit summaries, so it ought to be a joint effort. The redlinks can be found on my userpage. --Soman (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive me if this is placed in the wrong location. I am new at this. I have responded to your proposed deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Priest by clarifying the extent of her work in two artistic areas. I trust this will suffice. If I am missing the point, please let me know what you are looking for. Thanks for helping improve this artist's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 345sally (talk • contribs) 18:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the paragraph needs to be removed now, and any future discussion is to convince us that it can be modified, sourced and put back. We can't have unsourced drivel like that on Wikipedia any longer than we absolutely have to, as I know for a fact at least one academic was appalled by it! How can Wikipedia ever be taken seriously, if unsourced drivel (on fact-based science) can't be removed, and can be replaced even though it is unsourced??? Please remove the para, and others can argue on the talk page to replace it if they must ... 130.216.201.45 (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC) sorry, forgot to log back in![reply]
It has been tagged "citation needed" and there are sources. If you want to remove it, do so, but please read WP:BRD and explain the removal in the talk page.--Cerejota (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it, and there are no sources for that paragraph, which reads:
Due to paucity of paleontological record, morphology was the main source for inputs for constructing insect phylogeny but was invariably beset with conjecture and conditionality. A stable and reliable phylogeny of insects is slowly developing due to the advent of DNA genome analysis. This has reduced the importance of morphology in evolutionary studies. However morphology still plays a great part in understanding how insects adapt and cope with their myriad lifestyles on planet Earth
There isn't a paucity of insect fossils (there are probably more than there are vertebrate fossils). Morphology still is at least as important as DNA analysis for reconstructing insect phylogeny. This is just a (shoddy) bit of pro-DNA propaganda (and therefore violates NPOV). Where are the sources?? I am not going to risk another 3rr trap by removing it, but I will keep lobbying for its removal until somebody does it ... Stho002 (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, how can anybody possibly be justified in reverting my deletion of this paragraph, when it is unsourced and violates NPOV??? ... so, again, please delete it, and anybody who objects to the deletion can argue the toss on the talk page ... Stho002 (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please read WP:BRD and discuss this edit in the talk page of the article. I have zero opinion either way in terms of the content itself, but my talk page is not where this article should be discussed :) --Cerejota (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, all someone has to do is revert an edit (even if, as in this case it was a perfectly justified edit, and material removed was unsourced and an NPOV violation), to create a dispute that has to go to the talk page, where they can then ignore it, and quite possibly nobody else will read the talk page, and meanwhile nobody can touch the offending para??? Oh, how sensible ... Stho002 (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear ... what if nobody replies on the talk page (how long do they get to reply). Anyway, I don't really care enough about this article to risk another 3rr trap, but it *really* shouldn't be so difficult to purge articles of unsourced propaganda ... Stho002 (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dominant creator
How do we tell User:Marshallsumter to stop creating these articles, as he has dozens more planned by looking at his userpage? can we be nice about this? If he is in fact a scientist, we dont want to scare him away, but these are really horrible failures as articles. by the way, i actually have the cutest kitteh on earth, so i always think of him.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He seems non-communicative, but I would first attempt to communicate the concerns, and if no response is given, then RFC/U. I suspect we are dealing with someone who is earnest but possibly lacking in the communication area - however this stuff is disruptive. I have seen this before, people who focus on a concept or topic area and want to shape it to a given SYNTH. These are tough cases, because there are often sensitive off-wiki issues involved, so we must be caring but firm. I hope this helps. --Cerejota (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you feel the need to be the only person on the planet asserting that the death was not homicide? The murder charges aren't POV, they're a matter of public record. Toddst1 (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was more than a homicide, it was a terrible, hateful crime, that deserves the loudest condemnation. Not in Wikipedia, because of this pesky thing called WP:NPOV, however.--Cerejota (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone - the DA, the NYT, the LA Times is referring to this as a murder. I think *not* calling it a murder is both highly POV and SYN. Toddst1 (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not said that it is SYNTH. I haven't said it is highly POV. But until a court of law finds the defendant(s) guilty, there is a BLP issue that calls for neutrality. We can think (and in my case do) that the defendants here deserve the highest level of incarceration (if not the death penalty) and are hateful murderers. Without self-outing, I am not exactly what you would call white, so I am highly familiar with casual, systemic racism, and a few times have been on the receiving end of less dramatic, but somewhat traumatic events that bordered on the hate crime level. However, this is a slippery slope: if we start using the encyclopedic voice to describe living people as murderers before they have had their time in court, we are opening the door to this being a generalized practice. We are not transcription monkeys (and he said in part in an argument against me), we do not have to say exactly what the sources say, we can make editorial decisions, based on our rules, and even on our personal perspectives. If you want, search the archives at WT:WTW and you will see this is not a new concern with me, and in particular, I point your to Death of Keith Blakelock, whose recent rename discussion resulted in the current name, and of which I was the initiator. From my perspective, "Murder of" has sensationalistic overtones, that undermine the encyclopedic mission, and disregard NPOV to take a POV, regardless of how prevalent it is. Think for second, how would you feel if you are the parent of one of the kids, to see your child being called a murderer without his day in court? What does that do to the reputation of the project?--Cerejota (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No - I'm saying you are synthesizing stuff and creating your own POV by referring to the murder as a death. It has been called a murder in every instance of coverage. Not referring to it as a murder is making your own POV up and inserting it. Nobody was ever convicted of the Assassination of John F. Kennedy but it is referred to as an assassination - not a death. Toddst1 (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, lets get technical: I am not doing SYNTH, because SYNTH is taking source A that says X, and source B that says Y, and saying original concept Z is sustained by both. I do not such thing, because I am not disputing that sources overwhelmingly call this a murder. My reasoning is more along the lines of why we use the title September 11 attacks than September 11 terrorist attacks - a WP:LABEL consideration, but also my successful argument at Death of Keith Blakelock. I might yet be unsuccessful in defending NPOV in this article, but if I am, let it not be marred by WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments or strawman wikilawyering about SYNTH. Your position that RS say is compelling and reasonable, but per WP:POVTITLE I think you give too much weight to the RS, and too little weight to our editorial responsibility to keep NPOV and have BLP1E consideration to the perps. In this sense, the comparison with the assasination of JFK is not very compelling: in general "assasination" is used to describe the killing of heads of state. The victim in this case is not a head of state, and that is that.--Cerejota (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the issue, from the time you started and even when I started, wikipedia has moved away from these types of lists as per WP:L. I think this was a mistake, as there some content (such as WP:OUTLINES) which fell through the cracks. RIgh tnow I suggest we continue the user page work - there are probably changes in this respect coming (for example, there is a wikiproject dedicated to outline articles). There is of course some need to counter the systemic bias, in particular the ideas the conflate having entries on small, under-reported nations and their activities, with nationalism and a particular political POV. So the problem is complex and we need to thread lightly - I am confident that with the hardwork in userspace, when can then develop a consensus for inclusion. I am positive that if we listen carefully to what we are being told, we can take it to the next level, It might take some time, but we will get there: the material is clearly encyclopedic. One thing I do suggest is that you keep an off-wiki archive (in your email or in a private image host) of the Non-free images, becuase they cannot be included in userspace. This way, if we take to main space, the images can be uploaded and defended on a case by case basis.--Cerejota (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can hardly imagine a better person to collaborate on a proposal with than you. Lately I have observed some remarkable clue from your corner. It goes beyond what luck could deliver. Before I bumped into you, and the fact that we were pursuing the same objective, what I was hoping to develop was targeted at exactly the qualities you exude. You'll notice I added a thread on the talk page regarding an essay I had developed. And because it was also developed for the ADMAN, a title you accentuate, I have added it also to your talk page, because you belong on that list, and it would be incomplete without you. With esteem - My76Strat (talk) 05:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate these words, and of course, NO U :P To answer your question, I have had a tumultuous relationship with Wikipedia, and a lot of life instability - which meant I personally didn't judge myself as interested in The Mop. Also, look at WP:WQA, BabbaQ exemplifies the kind of user that will oppose me on principle, because of my involvement in WP:ARBPIA - something that I do not regret (basically all the changes of substance that are there are going the way I think improve the encyclopedia - either because of my direct or indirect contribution), but have gained me some enemies. Some people are here because yet one more battleground in their battle, and unlike my more prudent fellow editors and not a few admins, I have no trouble jumping in the cesspool to rescue teh kittehs ;)--Cerejota (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a mop reserved in your name
I have observed some remarkable contributions from this account. I am curious, why are you not an administrator. Pardon that you have struck me as the kind of editor who could be a good one, and that you seem qualified by a cursory review. You exemplify the essence of an Administrator without tools! I hope you will consider serving in the fuller capacity.
I am sure you are correct, and I am certain it will be worth the wait. BTW Kiefer, you're not so bad yourself. Perhaps misunderstood at times, but never misguided. My76Strat (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Point understood. Yet... if this guy were given The Mop, there wouldn't the apocalypse that all the thunderous nay saying predicts. Just because The Mop has become a big deal, it doesn't mean it is a big deal. This dude has much more sense in him than many an admin I have met, including some who are my buddies ;) and there has been no fire and brimstone as a result :)--Cerejota (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually more concerned for him than for the project - which can survive the odd bad admindidn't mean that, meant something about admins with stress problems. Stress is rarely good for anyone, but it seems particularly bad for him, and admins do face a lot of flak, even if they don't end up stalked by Grawp or similar. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I understand now, yeah, is the rage comic bulging vein thing. Yeah, getting the mop does makes one a walking hate magnet, perhaps I have not seen him stress tested. On the other hand, people often misrepresent the feelings of others - if I had a dime for every time I have been told I was "mad" or "aggressive" I would be a millionaire - Meanwhile am just chillin' with teh kittehs and the iced coffee :)--Cerejota (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I wouldn't necessarily say I handle stress well, but to stress me you have to affect my kids, hubbie, job, cats etc. If you're rude to me on a website, you're just a stream of 10101010 - there's always the revert button or the option to just ignore. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah someone messes with my kid, kittehs, or nerdmate, there is raaaaaage coming. Teh wikis, if they get to me, there is nothing a beer, a good book, or Netflix cannot fix :P--Cerejota (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, I am slightly torn by this thread. You comment seems is well intentioned, but the header gives gave me pause for concern. Cerejota, whom I consistently regard as her, for the nurturing aspect of (her) comments, did not "open mouth; insert foot". On the other hand, you may have!You were incredibly shortsighted to label my bad knee jerk reaction as a consequence.This is a consequence, and this as well. And this and this and even this very post. Like everyone else, I am more than the sum of my parts, and I am certainly more than a few selected parts. misrepresented as the whole.My76Strat (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AM not a she, although thats kinda kinky and genderfuckingly. That said, consider what you just said, and how it can be interpreted as proving her point ;) Idiomatic humor is a way we all communicate, as a way to demonstrate that while the issue being discussed is somewhat serious, there is no need to really get all bunched up about it, feel me?--Cerejota (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for stereotyping your gender. Yes, I have faults. I try to learn from my mistakes, and hope I progress towards betterment. I agree with everything you have asked me to feel. That is why I said I was "slightly torn" opposed to having been torn. I'm not really bunched up about certain things, but I am passionate. I hope this is understandable. Best - My76Strat (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize ;) That said, passion is awesome - so that is not the issue - the issue is that passion should be tempered by thoughtfulness.--Cerejota (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to reassure you that I just wanted to let Cerejota know that you had been a bit stressed out by this adminship business before, and maybe it wasn't for the best to bring it up. Maybe I'm wrong about that, and it doesn't bother you, in which case that's great.Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine, and understandable. I'll admit, and I recognize this as a flaw, that I get defensive if I think something is said about me which I might disagree, or presume all the relevant facts hadn't been considered. I don't even know why, because it should not matter. The reason I thought you were commenting without knowing certain facts, is because that once you know that he and I are co-sponsoring an important proposal: WP:ALTRFA, and an associated essay: WP:ADMAN, coupled with the immediately preceding thread, the significance of the gesture becomes self apparent. I felt you were criticizing him for messaging be while himself not being aware of the facts. And I guess it reminded me of mistakes which no one is willing to forgive, or let fade (as in the entire concept of rehashing mistakes). Anyway, some of that defensiveness, spilled into my initial comment, and Cerejota helped me see how it was actually misplaced. For sure he is the stuff of an administrator! While I can't really take it back, because it was published, I did strike some of the emotion laden text. I hope you believe me when I say I didn't mean to offend, but was intent to be frank. Now I apologize for my candor, which was a selfish reflection. And one I hadn't quite seen until Cerejota help clear an object of my own stumbling. And then of course, there is the issue of people hating the way I write, which is at times, the hardest thing for me to overcome. Even this post qualifies as one I shouldn't have written, because it came out longer than many are willing to tolerate. Regardless that I felt a need to say the things said. But I'm working on that too. Thanks for reading this response. Cheers - My76Strat (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to apologize if anything I've said in the last few days has provoked you or pushed any buttons. My intention, as I'm sure yours, was to improve the encyclopedia. I noticed you're Brooklyn. Ten years ago today I was Queens. I invite you to read something I wrote yesterday morning, perhaps in the midst of our disagreement (I know I was feeling some misplaced anger at you when I wrote it, not realizing you were a fellow New Yorker, likely going through much of what I've been going through). I hope it helps us both to find some common ground. I value the work you do, especially, MOST ESPECIALLY when I disagree with you. It likely means you're seeing something I can't or won't see. Please forgive me. BusterD (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is incredibly moving... at a personal level. Lets remember Frank, and all the other Franks... today and always... And there is nothing to forgive, because this is way more than I could ask for. Thank you for such incredible words, and thank you for not forgetting Frank, having learned of him, neither will I...--Cerejota (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your willingness to put our passing disagreements behind us. As Wikipedians, I see we have much in common. I sure wish we could clash on SENSATION and NOTNEWSPAPER. I think our disagreement in the AfD is important. BusterD (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mention it - it is others who are unwilling to do this, and continue with grudges and bickering, and trying to intimidate and a bunch of other stuff. Just one lesson - WP:DR is a Good Thing, and people shouldn't react bad to it - or try to escalate it needlessly ;)--Cerejota (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you give consideration to my final request in the WQA discussion? Thanks again for helping to resolve this minor disagreement. BusterD (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I meant the sanction was harsh - I really thought 0RR had momentum. It seems to me the admins gave up on you - probably because of your former mentor's input. Please don't leave Wikipedia altogether. I suggest, for example, you take on Jewish/Israeli topics not related to ARBPIA, or even better, something related to your professional interests and hobbies and not national/political interests. You could also make a great ITN generalist, as it seems you always get the news first (ie most of what you have created are ITN worthy articles, even if all ARBPIA) - ITN often overlooks good topics and has systemic bias issues.--Cerejota (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I had it coming anyways. I might edit a little bit here and there, but just tired of the drama. I was considering opening up a Death of Andy Whitfield at ITN, but the news seems stale now. It's important that you know I really do appreciate your proposal and discussion at AE, you put a lot of thought and effort when you had no obligation at all. WikifanBe nice23:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also appreciate the maturity you have shown in handling the issue itself - and for seriously considering feeding your newsjunkie side, if you decide to go that way ITN will gain much.--Cerejota (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your message
Hello. Sorry for replying on-wiki, I dislike using e-mail unless strictly necessary. I am not currently active in the area you mention, but you can make your request either on the administrator's noticeboard(s) dedicated to such issues or on the talk page of any currently active administrator. You can, I think, also ask any other user to take the requested action, or take the action yourself if you are uninvolved, because the rule at issue does not require action by an administrator. Sandstein 11:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Hi there, I wonder if you would be interested in helping me with my research on Wikipedia. I am writing a dissertation on Wikipedia as part of my undergraduate course at the University of Cambridge. What I am asking is for you to complete a questionnaire with a number of general, subjective questions about your experiences working on Wikipedia, for example concerning Wikipedia's culture, your motivation in participating and so on. It should take 10-20 minutes. Participants will be anonymous if requested. More information is available if you are interested. Thanks! I really appreciate any time you can give! Thedarkfourth (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you should talk to the Wikimedia Foundation before making requests for surveys. If this is a haphazard, convenience sample, it is nearly worthless for drawing inferences, also.
Awesome! I have some experience in controversial areas of ethno/geographic conflict, and I have learned both from my mistakes and those of others.--Cerejota (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for disturbing you on here Cerejota; I did mention on CT Cooper's talk page which can be found here, that I am sitting back from discussion, so that I am not being goaded into a full scale war by FleetCommand, which his harsh words are distressing me so much as it is. However, I noticed he posted a lengthy bullet-point of things that have been said; and I would like to respond to those. Yet I know in doing so that Fleet Command would only take the huff and think that I am picking on him, even though I am only explaining clearly, which is only fair. What I would like to know is, if it would be fine for me to post my response on my own talk page for now, so that it may be linked to the WQA itself if needs be. I look forward to your reply in due course. Wesley Mouse (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WQA as it exists is broken, and I hope it can be fixed. That said, please read WP:CANVASS, going around requesting people look at an open WQA is not a good thing. As I told you, I think m:Metapedianism is vital to the project, but it also requires learning about the existing environment, our policies, and our actual realities, which often defy common sense and exist, for better or for worse, in a world of their own. In this sense, while I see your willingness and intent is commendable, you are taking this too personal in my view. Experienced MEDCAB mediators have faced much worse issues than you are, but their response to it is to shrug it off, and also either being admins or having a support network of admins to help them. All of these things take time to develop. You lack time and connections on the wiki, and hence, are more vulnerable and can feel alone. I recommend you let this one drop completely, and let the rest of the community handle the other user. And then seek out an experienced MEDCAB mediator to become your mentor, to induct you into the Cabal - if that is your area of interest. As you mentioned, you have real world experience in mediation, but that needs to be tempered by the often overwhelming nature of wikipedia. However, I think it is unfair to say that you are unqualified to mediate just because you got into a conflict, but there is a lesson here, which is that no matter how much real-life expertise there is in someone, the way wikipedians behave and act is often much different than in real life, and the social consequences and views are often different too. To be a new and relatively unexperienced user is not shameful, we all were at one point - but some areas take more time to master than others, and you would be happier in your experience here if you recognized this and adapted to it. In short: wikihaters gonna wikihate, its up to you to make lemonade out of the lemons.--Cerejota (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for replying back to me so rapidly. I wasn't expecting such fast response. Anyhow, I understand where you are coming from in regards to canvassing, although I'm not quite sure how I have canvassed, as that wasn't the intention. I contacted CT Cooper, as he is an editor on WP:ESC to which I am also work on that project. As I've gained trust in Mr Cooper, I thought it would be wise for me to seek an outside view on events, just in case there was something I had done wrong, and hadn't noticed it. I do trust his judgement 100%, and knew if anyone, he would say things as it is... which he did - and I thank Cooper for that too. Like I mentioned to Cooper, I have taken a back-seat from the current WQA, purely for the fact that I felt I was being goaded into a war by one user, and the comments and actions were distressing me personally. It was wise for me at that stage to just stand back and let Mr FleetCommand vent off his anger. As people say, it is best to let it drop and actually mean it. I am horrified though at the long points that have been posted, which are clear as the blue sky, are being written out of context. Alas, like you say, it be best to let others handle things now, and leave things be.
On a different note, I have read the details on m:Metapedianism, and I'm bemused at the "gadflies" reference. Not sure if I'd want to be referred to as a pest, that is what gadflies are I'm sure. I suppose that term is meant in jest, but I would appreciate some brief details into what exactly is the purpose of the role. Silly of me to ask I know, curiosity gets the better of me when something sounds good, but looks bizarre. As for the lemonade, mmmm I now fancy a glass of freshly made lemonade :0) Wesley Mouse (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not imply that you are canvassing, just saying that in the middle of a DR process, the other side can pick on anything to raise a storm. That said, I think you point out something important about "gadfly" in Meta, which I will fix. The term is used in a self-deprecating fashion in a reference to Social gadfly - which tells us the word may be uttered in a pejorative sense, while at the same time be accepted as a description of honourable work or civic duty - my emphasis.--Cerejota (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid, the alteration sounds much more inviting. It is almost like being a PA for other editors, which does sound fascinating and at the same time an intriguing role to be a part of. May I ask, this wouldn't affect my role in working on the WP:ESC projects by chance? As that project is something that I find dear to me, as it is about an annual event that I have become a huge fan of, and enjoy assisting other on that very project. Wesley Mouse (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are largely self-directed volunteers, so it wouldn't affected at all - you are not compelled to do to or not anything and can come and go as you please - with an eye of course to the fact that ultimately all of our actions should be geared towards improving the encyclopedia. m:Wikiphilosophy is a personal choice thing, not a rule or guide, but simply a way some editors use as a meta-identity or use as a way to understand other editor's actions, and sometimes some editors are viewed using these terms while denying them (for example, there are very few editors who claim to be "deletionists" compared to how many are seen as such by others).--Cerejota (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Good Friend Award
I would like to take this opportunity to award Cerejota this award for helping with a resent WQA case that I was subject to. Some comments/advice that you gave have been really helpful, and you've inspired me to do what I can for other Wikipedians by being there and showing no matter if we're new or old to Wikipedia, we are all equal. Wesley Mouse (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any opinion on this subject?
I've requested User:Reaper Eternal review my wikicareer and decide if I might one day be ready to wield a mop. I'm wondering what sorts of things you think I should do in order to further prepare myself for the task of mopping. Do you mind commenting here on your talk page? BusterD (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For all I care, you have a Moptm with your name on it - I think you answered the question yourself in that message to R_E; my only suggestion is to get a bit more up on the theory of policy (ie specially the obscure stuff the wikilawyers love) and to do more huggle/RCP/NPP anti-vandal stuff, just to both build confidence and experience with the tools - not to mention the spidey sense that tells you WP:DUCK and WP:IAR are at play. Just don't go powermad when you get the Janitorial Honors :P--Cerejota (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the encouragement. I think my weakness is little experience with RC. I don't like looking at the datastream like a firehose, though I'm sure that's exactly what many admins take on. I do think I have used tools responsibly in the past, and made a point of honestly resolving personal disputes as they have arisen. After the last month or two at AfD, I'm sure I can contribute in the arena of closing more contentious discussions. There's so much pagespace I want to work on and build, even if I didn't win community support, I wouldn't be particularly unhappy. I've been waiting a long time to submit myself to this test, and I appreciate your positive and encouraging answer. Please feel encouraged to peek over my shoulder and give advice. BusterD (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RC is not to be understimated as a way to build your confidence and self-ability: it puts you out of your comfort zone, exposes you to the best and worse of new editors, etc. AIV is well monitored, so if you get into trouble, protection is near. I also find the data stream and speed intimidating, but there is no shame in that. Some of the best lessons on how to handle conflict (which I still working on) I learned in RC, and I don't RC very frequently.--Cerejota (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A bully get to run around swearing, telling he only does it his way and not Wikipedia's and I'm told I'm to blame and an idiot aka "idiosyncratic". I thought Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance was to help an editor deal with another editor and not a battleground. I thought somebody would actually look at the talk page and article before I made a comment on the behavior. Nobody wants to comment directly what was said and help me on what to do when another editor does the same thing. Being told to fuck off and being a bully is perfectly fine now. You really, really have no idea how this entire episode has hurt me. Why do I clean out Category:Biography_articles_without_living_parameter? Why do I do anything? Bgwhite (talk)
Perhaps the best place to air this is WQA. That said, I am sympathetic to your view - no one likes to feel bullied, however, as I did in WQA, I think the best way to proceed is to separate you and Off2riorob, because both of your work is important, clearly you two cannot work together in a positive manner - who is to "blame" is unfortunately irrelevant. Off2riobob admits this at WQA. I apologize that "idiosyncratic" was offensive, I didn't intent it to be - but I remain hopeful you will work with us (the community) to achieve a level of comfort for you, without the need to be punitive. I might have other things to say and propose, but not in my talk page, WQA is the appropriate forum. --Cerejota (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Close the thing. This mess is sort of like a rape trial... try to dig dirt on the accuser and only blame the victim. So what have I learned. New editors get reprimand for the same behavior, experience editors with repeat behavior don't because experienced editors have friends. You can't tell a joke, but you can tell someone to fuck off, unless it's in your own talk page comments. You can be overtly hostile, but you can't report overt hostility. Including this, I've been told the past couple of months, I'm an admin, your not, so get lost and I've got over 100,000 edits so don't tell me what to do. The first real article I tried to work on, Talk:Chesterfield, Idaho was a disaster. Overt hostility, intimidation and bullying continues unabated... Bgwhite (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Hiya, I reverted your move, because it should really go through RM. Once an official Requested Move has closed, the article usually shouldn't be moved again unless it goes through another WP:RM. --Elonka00:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am a great admirer of Tony the Marine's contributions to Wikipedia, and I would like to help with any articles dealing with Puerto Rico. Please let me know if I can be of any help.
Hello. As a Spanish-speakingWikiGnome, I'd like to solicit your help in testing a new tool. For a few years now, the Red Link Recovery Project has been using the Red Link Recovery Live tool to track down and fix unnecessarily red links in articles. Recently, the tool has been expanded to work on non-English Wikipedias. A small set of suggested fixes for red-links on the Spanish-language Wikipedia have been prepared and I'm hoping to interest some Spanish-language speakers (such as yourself) to work through them.
Sorry to bother you Cerejota, but I was wondering if you'd be able to assist me with a problem I'm having on my user talk page. CT Cooper kindly set up an archive box for me, with an automated archiver 'MiszaBot' to transfer things that were 10 days old. However, I noticed a few other talk pages with archiving that was set for monthly/yearly archive pages, and attempted to reconfigure my own archive to do similar. However, I feel I may have followed the instructions from the archive help page, incorrectly. Would it be possible for yourself to take a look on my behalf, and fix anything that needs fixing? I am truly grateful for any help on this matter. Kindest regards - Wesley Mouse (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox television. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tamil Tigress. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 21. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
I know you've been very helpfully concerned with this before, and you may want to comment at his talk p. on the user's recent editing activity, & perhaps on the appropriateness of the level 3 warning I just issued. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Volunteer (Irish republican). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pregnancy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Astrology. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anthony Bologna. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:VeronicaBrownAtl/AlgoSec. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Richard D'Oyly Carte. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You mentioned at VPR that some of the outlines are atrocious. If you would be so kind as to point them out to me, I will do my best to clean them up and improve them.
Also, what types of things have you noticed that need fixing? So I can keep a keener eye looking out for them.
Hi Cerejota
You participated in a discussion I initiated Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=450620729#Moving_to_the_general, which seemed to reach general consensus that it would be a good idea for Admin candidates to be at least forthcoming about whether they had previously edited under different usernames, and for the conduct under that name to be taken into account (whether by public scrutiny or the report of a bureaucrat).
Although there seemed to be essentially agreement with my suggestions, I see that the discussion has now been archived and - as far as I am aware - no policy rulings have been made as a result. What is the procedure for proposing that the suggestion be formally adopted? DaveApter (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mystery
Please solve this mystery if you can...
On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.
Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review
This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 10 October 2011 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡13:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox television. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Bad Girls Club (season 7). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pashtun people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Homosexuality. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dana Tyler. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:OPERA neutrino anomaly. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Democratic Party (United States). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:Lists of people by nationality. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jimmy Wales. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of California public officials charged with crimes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Steve Jobs. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of sovereign states. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Paul Krugman. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2000. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of "Occupy" protest locations. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Foxconn. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Falun Gong. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Conservatism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:International recognition of the National Transitional Council. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox football biography. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Female genital mutilation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tamara Toumanova. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Joint custody. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bird. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Serer people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Implementation Force (IFOR). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Quotation mark. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Palestinian people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:New Amsterdam (TV series). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Circumcision. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Genesis creation narrative. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pan Am (TV series). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Usage share of operating systems. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Oracle Exalogic. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Harry Houdini. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:Anti-abortion violence. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Portal. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Configuration Menu Language. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Southern Baptist Convention. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Wachowskis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Domestic violence. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on File talk:North Strathfield Bank.JPG. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Hey! It's been a good few months since the Bacon Challenge 2012 kicked off in June, and I'm pleased to say that decent progress has been made. While we were a bit slow to start, bacon-related contributions have been picking up again, and scores have been rising in the Bacon WikiCup. Here's a quick rundown of the overall positions as they stand:
Currently, only a handful of participants have reported contributions: to those who haven't, remember, there is still plenty of time left to contribute and rise up in through the positions, as the Challenge and WikiCup run up until March. Just like last year, all participants will receive a shiny medal which they can place on their userpages, or use as a self-esteem booster if need be (just joking...sort of). If you need ideas for what to work on, a list is available here.
One last thing! Per request, we are bringing back territory representation into the WikiCup! Editors can now represent nations, states, or provinces, just to add a bit of fun and Olympic-flair to the event. Simply reply to this message with the territory you wish to represent, if you choose to do so.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ram Dass. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:.ss. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiAfrica. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Amigo Energy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:GravEngAbs. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fisting. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bibliography of biology. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success!
This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t01:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.
