User talk:Renamed user e8LqRIqjJf2zlGDYPSu1aXoc/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Out of hand

This thing on Noahs ark is really getting out of hand. You're right, EAR probably wasn't the best place to post concerns. As for the biting, I took it to WP:ANI. For now, it is just one other editor and I sorting out facts, and I'd like to keep it that way for now. As for the NPOV, I don't think brining it up at NPOVN would accomplish anything as it (apparently) has already been brought up there, and people are just to afraid to support even minor changes in policies. The argument can be made that Noahs Ark is neither scientific nor a creation story. And why would we use scientific terms for a historic/religious event? Shouldn't we use historic/religious terms? Or at least provide terms neutral to both?Drew Smith What I've done 12:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It might not be of scientific interest in the traditional definition of science, but it's absolutely of interest to the social sciences (especially cultural anthropology). To treat the Noah's Ark story from an exclusively biblical perspective would be bad in my view, as the story has a much wider-reaching significance than that. I'm not saying it's necessarily appropriate to treat it from the perspective of rational skepticism, but deluge myths pervade human society and there's significant interest in that perspective. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

So why not neutral terms, such as the one someone else suggested on the talk page "narrative" instead of myth? This was quickely shot down by the same editors I'm having problems with.Drew Smith What I've done 13:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, part of it might be that if there's consensus in the anthropology community to refer to the Noah's Ark story and similar stories as deluge myths, then it's probably appropriate to call it a myth. Here's a random suggestion- is there a dispute about calling the Noah's Ark story a myth in either secular or religious academic literature? If so, you might be able to get at least a commentary in the article about terminology. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately there probably isn't. The few christians who promote the view of the ark being a metaphor or some other nonsense are the people who actually study it. The average christian, the one who can't get a damn thing published, usually believes that it is real, because they prescribe to whatever their preacher tells them. And the preacher tells them, without explaining the part about it most likely being a metaphor, that noah built a big boat. So they take it literally, and take it to heart. But its the preachers and such that pubish papers, even though they know full well most of their congregation doesn't even know of the possibility of a metaphorical version of the story.Drew Smith What I've done 13:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is a disconnect between the lay Christian's view and the theologian's view, I wouldn't be surprised if a theological academic had written on it. Have you checked out Google Scholar? If there's a particular document you can't get access to, I do have some specialized academic databases I can access. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Reminder about the AWB rules of use

One of the rules of use concerning AWB says, "Don't do anything controversial with it. If there is a chance that the edits you are considering might be controversial, consider soliciting comment at the village pump or appropriate Wikiproject before proceeding." Interpreting this rule, administrator Iridescent said: "See where it says in large black letters Don't do anything controversial with it? Means what it says. If you're using AWB to make edits that there's a possibility of someone disagreeing with (aside from when you're indisputably in the right, such as correcting "jewelery" which always leads to 'but that's the correct spelling' protests from people who don't bother checking the dictionary), you don't seem to understand what it's for." Nevertheless, you have been using AWB in full force to delete IP sockpuppet tags despite the fact that you are aware that myself and certain other editors disagree with your deletions.

Another rule of use concerning AWB says, "Don't edit too fast; consider opening a bot account if you are regularly making more than a few edits a minute." In a clear violation of this rule, you have been using AWB often at the rate of more than one IP account per minute. Tennis expert (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that there has been even a reasonable expectation of actual controversy in those runs- the first instance, I've already explained why, and as to the second instance, the situation had been resolved by the intervention of SPI clerks, who provided an observation of preexisting consensus (i.e., established practices of use), and I had been explicitly cleared by an SPI clerk to depopulate said categories. If you have a problem with this, I suggest you take it up with PeterSymonds. I rebut your claim with the argument that this is another instance of refusal to 'get the point' on your part, which is part of the subject of your ongoing RfC/U at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tennis expert.

I further disagree that I'm violating the rule of using AWB too quickly. While, yes, I have been making multiple edits per minute in these two instances, they have been isolated instances. I have never, ever "regularly" used AWB at bot-like speeds.

Finally, there has been no instance where an editor other than yourself has disagreed with me. Please provide some direct, unambiguous evidence that there are editors who disagree with me other than yourself. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

How soon you forgot.... I already have given you a partial list of editors who, either through reversions or original edits, agreed with the multiple sock puppet tags. I already have suggested that if you want more examples, then you should go through the history of the IP account discussion pages to find them for yourself. And you have a very troubling and disruptive history of taking what one person said (PeterSymonds is just one person and cannot creat a consensus on his own) and using that as justification for edit warring notwithstanding the fact that you appear in other contexts to have a good understanding of what "consensus" is. As for your AWB rules violations, you have made hundreds, if not thousands, of controversial and too fast edits in just the last few days. That's hardly "isolated instances". In summation, the person refusing to "get the point" appears to be you. Tennis expert (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you provided a list of editors who reverted an IP's removal of sockpuppet tags. I also showed why that list is insufficient evidence, and indeed, the only editor in the list you provided who originally added such tags himself agreed at WT:SPI that it was incorrect. I ask again, please provide direct and unambiguous evidence to support your stance. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject User Rehab

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. Drew SmithWhat I've done 09:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I may check it out when certain situations in which I'm currently involved calm further. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

James Vann

I am in full sympathy with the inclination to consolidate all the queries re James Vann but I do wonder whether the IP editor is confused by not finding his queries at the bottom of the page where he left them. I don't know; it's just a thought. (Otherwise, this one sure is posing its challenges, isn't it?) JohnInDC (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Or not. The IP editor has now opened discussion on the James Vann talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right, of course; this is certainly an issue that will repeat itself too, where the editor reposts the problem. In the future, it would probably be a better idea to bring the prior thread down, or at worst to just flag the old thread as unresolved and internally link to the new one. I'm sure the only reason the editor figured it out is because of the shotgunned message to all those IP's user talk pages. As to the issue itself, I really haven't looked too deeply into the content since it's not blatantly obvious who the correct party is. Since both editors involved apparently have specialist knowledge, I'd rather use their discussion as a basis for figuring the situation out.

Anywho, thanks for the message. If you think the handling for dupe/repeat cases needs more thinking, I'd be amenable to starting a discussion about it at WT:EAR. Let me know! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:UIUC seal.svg)

Thanks for uploading File:UIUC seal.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Restored image. The person who removed it may be claiming invalid fair use, however. This should be watched. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I understand the need for standardization. I am not claiming invalid fair use; this clearly is fair use. The University of Illinois at Chicago and the University of Illinois at Springfield pages should also be edited so that the seal appears in the primary position and the campus logo in the appropriate place; that's the seal of both of those campuses, too. User:Joel Steinfeldt 21:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see. Thanks Joel. I'll make that change. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...plus a question

Hello, Mendaliv, I wanted to thank you for the good advice you gave when I posted my issues with the group Will to Power over at EAR, then for stepping in again when it went to ANI and the message you left for one of the editors. You seem to have the right kind of personality for dealing with other people's grievances (helpful, cool under pressure, able to see things from different angles, etc). Wikipedia could use a few more like you, that's for sure! I appreciate your involvement.

On an unrelated topic, not long ago I created the article on Betsy Brandt, an actress on the TV show Breaking Bad (I don't know if you watch it, but it's really compelling). She was the only one of the main cast without an article, so I found out a bit about her, including that she got her BFA from UIUC. I saw the userbox on your page and wasn't sure if you knew of a source that would tell what year she graduated, or if that's even relevant. As it stands the article has her DOB missing, and when I linked her to the List of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign people I left the graduation year out. No biggie, but if you happen to know a source or could point me in a direction, I'd be grateful. And let me know if there's ever anything I can do for you. Thanks. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I'm glad to hear that I was able to help out.

As to your question, dates of birth are notoriously hard to source. In biographies of living people, unless you have a source that explicitly states their date of birth, it's very difficult to justify including it. Years of graduation might not be so hard though... if I recall correctly, UIUC typically publishes a list of graduates every year. I'm not sure where they do it though. I'll try to take a look though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your advice seems obvious to me in retrospect ("discuss it on the talk page"), and yet at the time I was becoming so frustrated I didn't even think of it. That, I think, helped stabilize the article, at least for now. It wasn't like I was on an ego trip saying it has to be me re-writing it, there weren't any other volunteers who would admit that it was pretty puffy and unsourced before. Re Betsy, if you run across something, that would be great, but if not at least she has a stub article up (which I've since tagged as such, I forgot that originally). Regards. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Casale Media

Hi Mendaliv, You seem like a good faith user/editor, so I am writing to thank you for signing your deletions. However, I think you are wrong in deleting those references to people's dislike of Casale Media as "unreliable sources." How else can irritation be proven than with references to (many, many) people's being irritated?

Casale Media has made the article look like an ad, when in fact Casale Media is just a massive, legal spammer, whose ads are harder to get rid of than spam. I think the information that Casale Media is annoying belongs in the article, since it is how they do business. Do you like having Netflix ads pop up on your computer screen?

Maybe you can help me figure out a Wiki-correct neutral way to get across the fact that Casale Media is not just the fantastic boon to humanity that it is trying to appear on this article page.

Evangeline (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Fourms, like it or not, cannot be used to source such claims. Please read WP:SOURCES and moreover WP:REDFLAG, as the statement being made in the article is a sweeping one, which quite frankly I cannot find reflected in any other sources. What I think of the company is immaterial- all material on Wikipedia must be verifiable, and if it's potentially contentious, it has to be referenced to a reliable source.

Now, if you take issue with the wording of other parts of the article, like if you think the article reflects the company in a non-neutral light, that's fine, we can work on that. But just going in there and calling the company "notorious" without a reliable source which says so will never fly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that statements on Wikipedia should be from a reliable source. But since my point is that the company irritates people-- which is subjective--, how is it not a reliable source that thousands of people SAY it irritates them (as you can see in the history of the article)?

You seem to be saying that, since the "reliable" sources are just commercial and business sites, and therefore pro- Casale Media, while the thousands of people's personal opinions are just opinion, Wikipedia has to accept that no negative information is "reliable" enough for this article.

I'm tired of thinking about it. The company is a spammer, but someone else can fight this fight. Evangeline (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What you're describing is original research; it's not valid for us to say "hey, there are a bunch of people who say this company is no good". Wikipedia is a tertiary source, hence, it generally reprints information found in secondary sources. Forums, and groups of people who just say a company is bad, are primary sources. Primary sources are sometimes acceptable for non-controversial facts that are difficult to source elsewhere (e.g., dates of birth). Reliable sources are newspapers, magazines, published sources. I've done a decent search for such sources and turned up nothing.

As to fighting the fight, Wikipedia is not a battleground. Even if you're right, forcibly keeping content in an article which is contrary to established policies and guidelines doesn't help Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I appreciate your point of view, and your concern for Wikipedia established policies, but I disagree with you on what "reliable sources" are in this arena. You say that Wikipedia is not a battleground, and I was certainly not out for a fight; but fairness and balance ARE worth fighting for. In a case like this, not fighting means that a Wiki article on a much-disliked company turns into a puff piece by the company's PR people.

A central fact about this company is that it irritates people, just as a central fact about spam is that it irritates people. Since the question is, How do you prove that ordinary computer users find Casale Media very irritating? I believe the ONLY reliable sources are the places where real people discuss this, i.e. forums. There are literally thousands of comments in English and French on Casale Media, and except for people commercially involved with the company or reporting on it from a business point of view, the comments are ALL negative. Yet to you that's not "reliable" enough for the article to say that "many people are irritated by Casale Media." I believe it IS.

But I'm tired of thinking about spam, so I'm off to my regular editing. I hope you yourself will check back at Casale Media every once in a while; you will see for yourself just how bad this article will get. Thanks anyway. Evangeline (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If the company irritates people, and it's substantial enough to merit mentioning in the article (see WP:WEIGHT), then quite frankly there should be a news, magazine, or SOME source that fits the criteria in WP:RS which discusses it. It doesn't matter that a bunch of people make a bunch of comments on a forum; someone needs to have done the research and noted that annoyance, written an article commenting on that annoyance, and published it. That's the reliable source deal. Ask at WP:RSN if you still don't believe me. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Como Era Gostoso o Meu Francês.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Como Era Gostoso o Meu Francês.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed... at least it should be. I wonder why the FUR template on there was satisfactory before... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:ISOTEC logo.svg

File:ISOTEC logo.svg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:ISOTEC logo.svg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:ISOTEC logo.svg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Kewl. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Latest EAR

Lonelygirl is indeed a sock. I can't place where, but I've seen multiple versions of that naming floating around in old edit histories. Like I said, I can't find where, so I'm not gonna file a SPI, but it may be worth looking into.Drew Smith What I've done 04:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've no idea who JRG, the suspected sockmaster, is anyway. I guess the best thing would be to drop a message at the talk page of the person who placed the suspected sock tag and request they comment at the EAR thread, and/or go through with filing an SPI request. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2009 Newsletter

The May 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Weighing in on Casale Media again?

I noticed you were involved with a discussion on Talk:Casale Media. Do you mind weighing in on a Casale Media dispute again? User 12.64.18.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)/12.65.6.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has reverted a court evidence citation: first with out reason, then with "unsubstantiated claim" in the edit summary. The document is directly referencing quotations from an email. Your opinion would be appreciated. Talk:Casale Media#court evidence reference.

Thanks R.Vinson (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've dropped a reply on that page with some thoughts. To summarize, I think it's an interesting reference and potentially useful, but I'm concerned that there may be issues with using such court evidence in an article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

NCNOLT

Thanks for weighing in. JohnInDC (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No prob; I've got the article watchlisted, but feel free to drop me a message if you'd like me to drop in again. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to review and comment on this RfC. I welcome any advise or suggestions you may have for me with respect to improving my "possibly poor manner of arguing". Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help out. As to your manner of argumentation, I wasn't referring to anything in particular- I meant it more to illustrate the difference between what it seemed the people bringing the RfC stated and what truly disruptive editing is. But, since you ask, my main suggestion is one you've already made in your response– escalate a dispute early. This of course doesn't mean to run for help once the going gets tough, but it does mean to ask for advice via the appropriate dispute resolution channels when it appears a discussion or dispute is degenerating. Of course, I don't think you're at any special fault for having failed to do so- the other editors could have done so just as easily, but instead went for ANI... which is not a dispute resolution method.

Another piece of advice I'd give is to be careful about abrasiveness in the future. I understand from experience how hard that can be, of course... but there are certain edits that inevitably come back to haunt you. It's the whole civility thing- it has different definitions for different people. For some, it may mean just keeping basically civil- that is, avoiding (open) hostility towards others. For others, it may mean maintaining a level of decorum, politeness or keeping a collegial atmosphere. The former attitude, unfortunately, doesn't work out too well in heated disputes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

your ANI notice

Thank you for your info on the ANI notice and subsequent removal of said ANI. I left a message to that user suggesting that their first course of action should be to talk with the editor in question rather than running to ANI. Happy editing. SpikeJones (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was about to leave a very similar message at the ANI post when it was removed by the editor who posted it. :-) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)