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.
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)
