User talk:TParis/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Thank you for your close on Thefederalist.com AFD

I am not sure if a merge is necessary if you feel the sources are fine there and notability has been demonstrated. Lets see if it can be expanded and I will look at all the sources to make sure they are summarized properly and are all within our policies and guidelines. If the article remains a stub and/or begins to become too promotional I will begin a merge discussion if no one else has by then.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on it. The AFD seemed to lean that they are adequate or marginally adequate but that notability was really determined by the level of citations by other media to TheFederalist. The merits of a merge discussion should happen in another venue this late in the AfD.--v/r - TP 21:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I assume good faith here and do trust your view on this 100%. There was such a back and forth going on, I decided it was all really TLDR. But I also have no real objection to the article remaining or not being merged. I just went back and see that all hell has broken loos on the article again so I am leaving it alone and not bothering with anything for the time being. I hope my bringing this to the attention of the LGBT project was not responsible for the lockdown or the continued fight on the AFD but then...I am not the one doing the fighting. Goodness..can't really tell who is doing the worst stuff over there but I don't think I wanna know at the moment.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it has to do with the LGBT topic and your adding the project banner confused me a bit. Has Neil (forget his last name and too lazy to look it up) or The Federalist been involved in LGBT topics? I don't think it was involved in the page protection. I think that after the article got kept at AfD, User:HJ Mitchell probably felt that protection was best right now given the toxic editing environment and the constant reverting going on.--v/r - TP 21:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I unprotected it (per an RfPP request) while the AfD was going on, and then it came back to RfPP today. There's a lot of back-and-forth going on so I thought I'd give t a few days for tempers to cool and people to work it out on the talk page. That's about the extent of my involvement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough to me.--v/r - TP 21:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Both seemed reasonable to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Wait...you really are confused by why I added the LGBT project.?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I have no idea what the connection to TheFederalist is.--v/r - TP 21:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Really? So....you didn't read through the sources being used for the article or do you mean that the LGBT Project has no business placing articles about subjects critical of the LGBT community within their scope or is your belief that isn't enough of a reasoning. I think I should begin a discussion on that placement on the project to see what others may feel about the bold edit. I also thank you for your input. And hope you will give me more of your thoughts on this. Seriously. --Mark Miller (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Having now looked at the sources, which you could've pointed to before becoming condescending, now I'm even more baffled. I personally don't care what project wants to claim what articles - I simply have no idea why one picks an article. Despite my belief in 'freedom of the Wikiprojects', are you telling me that you think one accusation by Media Matters for America is enough to call something and the living people who work there anti-LGBT? That seems a bit much especially since nothing is written in the article about it. If you really feel this falls under the LGBT project, don't you think it should be expanded upon in the article? Is that not the point of a Wikiproject?

        Regardless, you're approaching this with much more light than heat and I'm reading your latest comments as very aggressive. Perhaps you'd like to tell me exactly what your thoughts are instead of assuming or guessing mine?--v/r -

        TP 21:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
        • • I can see why you might feel the wording was condescending. They were not meant that way. However, clearly you closed the AFD without checking the sources TParis ("Having now looked at the sources")....and I am shocked at your actions now.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Closing AFDs is not the same as forming an opinion at an AfD. My job is to assess the consensus of editors and look for basic policy mistakes and determine which policies were most supported. Reading the sources and coming to my own opinion would have biased me. I don't know the Federalist one way or another and my only knowledge of Neil -whatever comes from watching The Cosmos on TV. That's about as unbiased as they come. Note that I also blocked two pro-Federalist editors who were being disruptive.--v/r - TP 23:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
              • I am not at all in the loop about Neil...but you did actually question my bias with your own by questioning my reasoning for placing the project tag on the talk page. Part of the closing should have been to check the actual sources to see if they passed notability. Now...having said that, I also am aware of your willingness to be reviewed for your actions. Had I not known that much, and being someone that supports you as an admin....I would have just been pissed off and said nothing to you directly. But I do feel we respect each other's concerns and have similar interests. I am not going to be creating any review on the close. If others feel so inclined they would have to be the ones to do so. I feel I am too involved with you as an editor to make such a formal review. You just really confused me here. But that is cool....I mean I did that to you as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
                • I think you think the tag means more to me than it does. I said it confused me. I know very little about Neil nor The Federalist and so seeing it placed on that article was odd. Remember, I didn't bring the topic up, you did that. It's fine with me either way. What I don't like, and I say so on my talk page, is when advocates of any cause become righteous and become aggressive when they feel their topic is threatened. That's how I felt when you said, "do you mean that the LGBT Project has no business placing articles about subjects critical of the LGBT community within their scope or is your belief that isn't enough of a reasoning". The best way for any social movement to achieve success is to facilitate communication. I asked what the connection was and you mocked me for not knowing. Now, I understand how people can get very passionate about their topic interests and it can be forgiven, but I'd like you to reflect on how your approach made me feel and would make anyone defensive. In any case, Mark, like everything else, I don't take it personally, I've enjoyed working with you before, and I'm looking forward to the next time we can collaborate.--v/r - TP 00:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
                  • Uhm...I wasn't mocking you. I was actually confused since the sources used make it clear this is a subject that is critical of the LGBT community. We (and I) have added similar articles under our scope. TParis....did you know I am not using Wikipedia to make any social movement a success? Perhaps not. But I am not a person to use this project to promote my ideals or my political support. Why do you think I am not that active on the project? Why do you think I add such subjects to said project? I do not ever question your involvement in US military subjects why would you question my involvement here? I do enjoy working with you Paris...but more important to my enjoyment is how you balance my understanding and personal beliefs on a broad range of subjects. But I will truly stop and reflect on how I have approached you here and made you feel and would make anyone defensive....as I hope you will do as well. This seems to be one of those moments when we have a clear line between, not only our personal beliefs....but how we edit and use Wikipedia. Confusion is not a bad thing....since it makes us think, but I want you to at least know I am not attacking you.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think that one of the roughest issues I face on Wikipedia is that I genuinely support LGBT rights, feminism, equal pay as well as the 2nd amendment, small government, and minimum necessary taxation. It's a clash of ideals but also I support these causes while also being opposed to the advocacy of them. Either way, no, I don't think you are one of the advocates. But I was certainly caught off guard here and it had crossed my mind about whether there was something about you I was unaware of. Either way, I think we can move on from this without any hard feelings.--v/r - TP 00:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yep....  Done and now time to Dine! ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not !no vote in the discussion since I did not have a strong opinion either way, but if the AfD is closed, the closing should be based on a solid policy basis. Being cited and respected by fellow media is an argument for reliability, not notability. These are separate concepts. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• WP:AUD, "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." That criterion was met.--v/r - TP 03:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not familiar with WP:AUD but that section currently states that its "wording or inclusion in this policy or guideline is disputed or under discussion". Admins should really be using WP:GNG to close AfD discussions. Unless I missed it, I don't recall seeing anyone citing WP:AUD in the discussion which would make your close a super-vote. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Whether someone typed "[[WP:AUD]]" or simply argued it's points doesn't make a difference. Recognition by international sources was argued, at length, and there is a guideline to support the argument. If you think it was supervoted, feel free to open a DRV. I have a feeling it will reflect much more on you than me.--v/r - TP 20:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Wow, that was rude and uncalled for. Perhaps you might want to retract your last comment? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Rude? I don't see a single rude thing in anything I've said. Perhaps you'd like to retract your accusation of admin abuse/supervoting? That's the only rude thing I see in this whole conversation.--v/r - TP 23:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Really? You are the one who interpreted this personally: "I have a feeling it will reflect much more on you than me." You don't think that's rude? Further, I never said anything about "admin abuse". I only came here to figure out why you closed this AfD with a non-standard close. Nothing more; nothing less. If you had closed this AfD with some other rationale, that would be fine. (To be honest, I would have leaned towards "no consensus" which would be effectively the same thing as "keep".) But you closed this AfD on a non-standard rationale, and one that nobody advanced during the discussion.

I'll add that while I don't recall any specifics, in my previous interactions with you (or perhaps just reading your posts) you've come across to me as one of the better admins, so I am actually taken aback by your close and your responses on this talk page.

I'll further add that I completely understand that this was an extremely contentious AfD, so I give you all the credit in the world for stepping up to the plate and closing it. I just don't understand the rationale and I'm asking that you help me to understand it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The rationale is simple and GNG is only one way we judge the assumption of notability. A supervote would be if I took the 1 in 5 delete !votes and based some magical rationale off of it (I believe WP:KOCH was cited in the AFD, perhaps that'll do?). A supervote is admin abuse. If you don't think it is rude to accuse someone of a supervote, I really would like to hear your definition of rudeness. I, likewise, have had mostly positive interactions with you except for one specific case that I'd have expected you to remember, but I have mostly positive opinions of you. My only concern is your use of the word 'supervote'. The rationale was clearly spelled out, a publication that is widely cited by international media sources multiple times is considered notable according to that very wide discussion of ~100 people. That discussion achieved as much if not more attention than a RFC on the topic would have received. Policy reflects consensus, consensus doesn't reflect policy.--v/r - TP 00:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think it unfortunate if any admin views a single mention of "which would make your close a supervote" as rude. It's a procedural critique, and admins cannot be beyond discussing procedural critiques, without being personally offended. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Accusing an admin of a supervote is threatening behavior. If you feel there was something inappropriate, say so. When you break out words like supervote, you're saying that person has committed admin abuse. It's like if I were you say you two were harassing me on my talk page right now. That's would be a very harsh description of us simply talking and it would make you both very defensive. Supervote is a charged word - it has severe negative connotation. If AQFK didn't mean it, they should retract it and then we can discuss this more without any defensiveness.--v/r - TP 02:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. But as you now say you feel threatened by it (which appears to be an absurd overeaction to the use of a Wikipedia procedural word), it only confirms me in my opinion and there is no point in discussing it further. Alanscottwalker (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment - "Accusing an admin of a supervote is threatening behavior". No...its accusatory behavior although you may feel threatened it does not raise the behavior to that level. Even if you (TP) said they were harassing you, that action itself would not be threatening. Its a perception that I think is reasonable given the circumstances but a threat is "Threatening another person is considered harassment. This includes any real world threats, such as threats of harm, but also threats to disrupt a person's work on Wikipedia." and for Alan anyone to be making an actual threat as defined by policy it would require more than saying you made a "supervote". It must be about taking some form of action that is not a proper, normal Wikipedia processes. Just a note. But it would be nice if you both realized you said your piece and TP disagrees. Suggest a respectful exit here...--Mark Miller (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it was AQFK who used the word ( " . . . don't recall seeing anyone citing WP:AUD in the discussion which would make your close a super-vote"), but I assume you were speaking metaphorically. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah...thanks. I have corrected that.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request

• From the above, I have a request for an edit to the close (if you would prefer me to make a PP Edit Request, let me know). As you rely on AUD, would you cite that in your close (or at least link your above comment). In the future, it may help people to know. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I don't cite AUD. I cite the participants in the discussion whose arguments were very firmly supported by AUD.--v/r - TP 20:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, I understand that is your reasoning, so why not say it? So, later people know why. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Because someone has already accused me of a supervote.--v/r - TP 22:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Well I assume your rationale would/could not change because of that. So, either that would be determined in your favor or not, or it will just go away -- meanwhile, there is a close rationale that would be easier to comprehend in the future if you stated why, with reference to the guideline, you closed as you did. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
          • I don't think there is any confusion.--v/r - TP 23:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
            • OK. I'll make an edit request, as that guideline is what you referred to above, it only make sense to have it with the page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• • • • • • • Tom, I'm sorry, but suggesting that you a made a mistake is neither an accusation of "admin abuse" or "threatening behavior". We're all human and we all make mistakes. As an admin, it is part of your duty to explain your decisions. If there's a better term to use than "supervote", then tell me what term to use. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a lot of dots... "Supervote" implies he imposed his opinion contrary to the discussion consensus. It impugns his neutrality. The term would have offended me too. Hope that helps. Begoon ^talk 16:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

So could, 'your edit does not accord the NPOV' or 'your edit violates BLP' etc., to turn process objections into putative threats or insults means the entirety of Project members cannot work together. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain that? I've read it several times but I'm too thick to get what you're saying. Begoon ^talk 16:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I can try. If you say to me, for example, 'Alanscottwalker, you have violated our neutrality policy (see NPOV)', and my response is 'That's an insult or a threat', than working between us is practically impossible. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I understand now. Yes, there's something to that. In those circumstances reversed I'd hope I'd try to understand your point, and if I had violated the policy I'd hope it was unintentional. I think that's the crux of it, though - if you said I had done it intentionally, then I would feel insulted. I think "supervote" as a term carries that implication of intent. That would make it difficult for me to see it otherwise. Begoon ^talk 04:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If I am AGFing and you are AGFing, then we both are discussing a mistake or a misunderstanding. I may have done it intentionally but it may be due to some misunderstanding on my part. (Or there may be a misunderstanding by you.) In the end, either we will come to some agreement or others will become involved to sort it out. They may determine that I have violated neutrality, and I may still disagree (even strongly) but it is settled by them. As an analogy, in common law legal systems judges are regularly overturned by higher courts because they have 'abused their discretion' (they have got it wrong for any number of reasons, procedurally or factually), all that means is they have got it wrong, sometimes people get it wrong. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. It's all about language and perception. You used that word "abuse[d]". That's become so emotive when applied to admin actions here (and in general use too) that it almost always provokes a strong reaction. Should it? Probably not, in our ideal AGF world, but sadly we don't live there. "Abuse", "supervote" and similar terms, it seems to me, are charged terms in our environment (they are "abused" if you like ). I'd prefer it if they weren't too. Begoon ^talk 10:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Except, we need to 'live there' if we are to work together - you have to be able to say to me 'you are wrong' (without assuming I'm evil or malicious) and I have to be able to say to you, 'let's discuss it' without me closing down discussion assuming you are insulting and threatening me. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, I agree. I hope you can always tell me you think I'm wrong. I hope I'll react well if you do. I hope, when you do, you don't test that by telling me I "supervoted" or the like, though, because I'm as susceptible as the next man to misconstruing that kind of thing. Also, I hope, even then, I'd come to realise I was misconstruing it and engage productively. That's the best I can do. Begoon ^talk 11:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Getting back on topic

Can we please get back on topic? To reiterate, in Tom's close, he cited being cited and respected by fellow media, which is normally an argument for reliability, not notability. Tom further clarified that he based his close on WP:AUD, although nobody cited this during the discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Take it to WP:DRV, I have nothing to add.--v/r - TP 06:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

To those reading this thread, do you think that this should be taken to WP:DRV? Tom has indicated that they are not willing to discuss this any further. As an inclusionist, I have mixed emotions about taking this to DRV. I'd rather not have the article deleted, but I'd also like prefer the article be kept on a solid policy basis. Opinions? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to get input, but if you want to article kept and are unwilling to take it to DRV than it seems to me there is not a constructive conclusion to this path. So, wouldn't that make it a WP:POINT and shouldn't you take the advice of WP:DGAF?--v/r - TP 22:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I thought you said that you had nothing to add. I am willing to discuss the matter further, but you said that you are not. Therefore, I am soliciting advice from other editors. If you don't want this discussion taking place at your talk page, I can take it to the talk page of the AfD. Please tell me which you prefer; I will honor your request. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in participating further, I said my peace. But my question above is, why are you? You said that you would like the article kept - it has been. So, what is the result you seek that is worth the expenditure of the effort you have put into it? Shouldn't WP:DGAF come into play here?--v/r - TP 22:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification on topic ban

I just realized that in your topic ban notice, "making any edit related to the historicity of Jesus in any namespace" might affect this page in my user space: historicity.

The page has been around since August, and I last edited it on October 2. It contains citations and quotations regarding the historicity of Jesus.

I'm fine with living up to the letter of the ban, and leaving it just as it is. (It may be a useful resource to other editors.) But, if there's actually some policy or guideline that applies in this situation, it would be good to know, lest I run afoul of it. Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You can certainly leave it up but I wouldn't make any edits to it.--v/r - TP 07:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

xtools

xtools seem to be down? DaMatriX (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Huh, it's not serving any of the pages. @Cyberpower678 and Hedonil: Any ideas gents?--v/r - TP 18:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent death template

Hey TParis,

Do you think there's enough activity at Sarah Danielle Madison to warrant the recent death template? According to the template documentation it's only used on articles that are heavily edited (their example is "dozens of edits per day") following a death. I'm not sure the editing here is prolific enough to warrant its use in this case.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

When I put it on the article, for some reason I was thinking she was the actress that played the mom on that show which would've made her a bit more known. It can be removed.--v/r - TP 19:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That would be quite the unfortunate double whammy. I only know about the "heavily edited" caveat as someone pointed out the requirement to me when I tagged an article with it once. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Q

TParis (or any other admin talk page stalker), do you think you can have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#I_was_in_the_process_of_filing_a_report_here_.5B....5D where there seems to be a possibility of closure? You understand why I'm trying to phrase this diplomatically. There's more in that thread, but there's a section that's ready to be wrapped up. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• OK, look on down the thread, last section. I'd block them if there weren't a bunch of drama queens looking over my shoulder ready to cry "involved"--the DUCK evidence is purty good. I'm about to file an SPI. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, there is a lot going on here and I'm trying to get context on it all.--v/r - TP 02:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    • No rush, TParis--take care of what needs taking care of. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
      • It's done. I hope you're not disappointed but I found it difficult to block. The evidence was on the edge and I could have tipped either way.--v/r - TP 03:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    • [ec] Ha, you already got to it. Thanks. Listen, I don't know what tool you were using for overlapping, but they Sfacets and Zambelo overlap 135 times, according to the tool I use, mostly on cult people/topics. BTW, I did start an SPI; it's listed under Sfacets. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
      • @Σ: Yo Sigma - why does your interaction analyzer return 0 results when this tool gives 135?--v/r - TP 03:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Aloha

Do you have an itinerary yet? We were there in Jul-Aug of this year and had a great time. A few unsolicited suggestions

1. Spend as little of your time (and $$$) in Waikiki as as possible. Get your tourist on, sure. Have dinner at Dukes YES (though the same company has restaurants on other islands. Other than that along the beach front it's very high end shopping for the throngs of Japanese.
2. Luau. Personally I could leave it more than take it. Luau food is BLECH, and the show was cheesy. YMMV for various productions. If you do decide to do one, try and arrange your day so that your end of day activities ends near the luau so you don't waste time
3. Uber and Lyft are really taking hold on Oahu and fighting tooth and nail for marketshare. They are cheap and convenient so use them when you dont have a car. If you go to Waikiki from the airport, use one of them instead of a taxi or a ride service like Roberts.
4. Rental cars. You will need one most days. It costs nothing to reserve them, and no penalties for not even showing up. Do it early and make lots of 1 day reservations across companies. Alamo had a nice self kiosk. Avis Preferred and Hertz #1 are both free and will have the cars waiting for you. If you can, stop by each of those companies mainland side and get the paperwork filled out so you don't have t wait in a 45 minute line. Yeah, that sucks. If you are really frugal, once you have your car locked in, use priceline and make a lowball offer. $30/day rentals in Kaui were easy to get.
5. Speaking of Kaui, my favorite Island. It's not very big. You can station your self in the middle near Lihue and be not too far from either end of the Island. We did a last minute reservation at the Kaui beach resort for $150 or so a night. A nice place for the price (though really no beach to speak of)
6. If you make it to Kaui and don't get yourself a Puka dog (poipu shopping village) I will track you down and smack you in the head with a day old tuna.
7. Speaking of tuna, definitely try some Ahi sushi. If you are not a sushi person, make yourself one for a day. It's the tastiest protein on the planet. Waygu beef doesn't hold a candle to this stuff.
8. The pineapple is amazing. It's very mild, due to the volcanic soil.

Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 00:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Lol, thanks for the great tips. I do live here though. You should have told me you were in the area, I would have met up at a Starbucks or something. I live across the street from the airport which means at some point you and I were within 0.5 miles of each other.--v/r - TP 00:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

lucky man. Kuai? We hit that ramen restaurant. I loved it. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 03:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We are probably going to Oahu next year. With a possible fly over to Maui and the big Island if it is affordable. I want to get out to the Bishop Museum and the Palace, hopefully with a new camera by then.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We live on O'ahu. I work on Pearl Harbor. Mark, I have 2 free passes to the Pacific Aviation Museum. They gave me them as a gift when I told them I brought the article on their museum to GA. I don't need em, let me know when you get here and they are all yours. I can even get your on Hickam and Pearl Harbor if you want to check it out.--v/r - TP 06:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That would be pretty cool actually. Sure. I'll take em and use them to take as many pics around that I can. We are thinking of February or March. Love to visit Hickam to see the old house on 21 and the flight line and my old school etc. :-) That would be awesome. My sister is retired Air Force but she won't be coming with us. They went last year.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Closure

TParis, as you are completely uninvoled and you have performed a number of closures on AN/I recently, I would like to see if you can close this section. Bots are pretty quick in AN/I, there are only 3-4 hours left. I had bumped it before. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure you'd want me to close that. I'm sure not it currently leans in your favor - or leans at all for that matter.--v/r - TP 03:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks anyways. Request for closer has a backlog, like you know. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, if I was feeling bolder, I might close it as no big deal but it's very much on an edge. I'd hate to close it against you after you asked me to help.--v/r - TP 04:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: I've left some support for you and User:Dennis Brown has as well. Perhaps that'll be enough to convince another administrator to lean in your favor.--v/r - TP 21:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Good archive

Game 3 of the NLCS just started and I don't need the distraction. But if the game turns out to be a stinker I hope someone reverts you :p Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 20:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Heh, well I received three "thanks" within 60 seconds of trying to archive that so maybe possibly it has a chance.--v/r - TP 20:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I have asked Lila to have a look at it, as I think this is a key issue for the community going forward. Whatever one's opinion of the abstract philosophical question of whether it is "worth it" to accept longterm abuse from people who contribute (or allegedly contribute) "good content" - it is a question that we need to resolve.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Revert! Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 20:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Your ANI close

You are saying things about teamwork and such but as long as Eric Corbett rubs editors the wrong way with his insults and snide remarks there can be nothing to be found here. I disagree with your statement about "Untouchables" since when are editors immune to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia? While you may have closed the topic today the long running war has not stopped and will have to be addressed sooner or later. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That close reflected both reality and fantasy. The reality is that attempts to impose any kind of sanction on Eric or Jimbo will be futile. The fantasy is that we could all come together and realize that we're a team, we've developed a collection of knowledge that rivals the Library of Alexandria, and that what we have done as a group is amazing and worthy of being proud of. We need to stop drawing lines. There are going to be troubles but we need to remember that we're all on the same side and find ways to come together to solve them instead of breaking into camps.--v/r - TP 21:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there should not be camps here but it appears there are so how do you propose to go about solving this in the long run if you are against sanctions? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not against sanctions. I'm against drama. If you have a suggestion for a way to actually successfully achieve sanctions against Jimbo and Eric with the least amount of drama necessary, I am happy to hear it. At the moment, Jimbo and Eric are discussing the matter on their talk page. Let Jimbo's talk page get caught up in edit conflicts - and let ANI remain editable.--v/r - TP 22:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban

that you imposed on Zambelo (that didn't take long). I just reverted it and given that I am on his list of evil POV editors (on his user page), I guess I should consider myself involved. This is the edit (sorry that is not a diff, but for some reason my browser gets blocked when I look at diffs of large edits...). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. Landmark Worldwide isn't a New Religious movement. Zambelo; talk 11:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "Landmark has also been studied as a New Religious Movement, or as "New Age" and has been referred to as a "cult" - and not to forget - Werner Erhard was influenced by Hinduism." (statement made by Zambelo in reference to the question on if Landmark Worldwide was a religion). Coffeepusher (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

More like a stalker fullstop huh? Coffeepusher. So you are saying Landmark is a NRM? Just to clarify. Zambelo; talk 09:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Zambelo: I'm going to give you a break on my talk page being that you are supposed to be able to talk to the imposing admin about your topic ban. But be sure to direct comments about your topic ban toward me, and not others on my talk page, in the future. As far as your topic ban is concerned, Landmark is a NRM. You can call it whatever you like off Wikipedia, but you are not allowed to talk about it at all on Wikipedia unless you are appealing to WP:AN or filing an Arbcom case to appeal your topic ban.--v/r - TP 18:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this is all too typical of the "shell game" style special pleading that Zambelo and Astynax indulge in. After arguing strenuously that Landmark is a New Religious Movement - and edit warring to keep a completely undue weight section to that effect in the article, they want to argue that it is not when that suits their purposes! DaveApter (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, but Zambelo has already acknowledged that Landmark falls within the scope of the topic ban and so it's not really constructive to continue talking about him. Intentional or not, it comes off as baiting.--v/r - TP 15:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that admission, and there was no intention of baiting. btw I'm sorry to hear of your frustrations with Wkipedia, and your semi-retirement. From the little I've seen of you, you will be missed. DaveApter (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. User:Yunshui explained to him on his talk page that as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is within the scope of his topic ban and he said that was "fair enough." So, now it's time to move on and let it rest. Thanks for the kind comments.--v/r - TP 17:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

copy of deleted article?

hi tp. you are in the category of admins willing to provide copies of deleted material.

an inexperienced user got in too deep too fast and has lost one of his articles. i helped him save the other two in user space (they will likely and rightfully deleted from mainspace) and set up an empty page for the deleted one.

so could you please retrieve the deleted content from Diagnosoft, Inc. and paste it here: User:Naelosman/Diagnosoft,_Inc.?

Not sure if that is the appropriate way to ask - never did this before. but thanks!

Sorry to see that you are retiring, and in a 'walking into the sunset sad cowboy' kind of way. it has been good interacting with you. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've enjoyed working on this project with a lot of people and you are certainly one of them. I've restored the page and userfied it.--v/r - TP 18:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

double thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

oh crap. that diagnosoft article was just a stub? not a much longer thing in the history? i thought i looked at it a couple of days ago and there was more content (bad content, but stuff to work with). sorry for not being more specific i hate wasting people's time... sorry. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, there are only 3 other edits. Once adds an A7 tag, one adds a COI tag, and the last is a bot adding a date to the COI tag.--v/r - TP 20:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

ach in that case i am sorry i bothered you! i misremembered. sorry. Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Is Xtools down?

Hello TParis. I am from ptwiki and I noticed that Xtools is currently down (=504 Gateway Time-out). Did something happened? Or someone just tripped over the cable? :P Thank you in advance. --Diego Queiroz (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like tools lab is down altogether. It's usually just a hiccup when this stuff happens.--v/r - TP 22:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh great. :( So thank you again. Should I file a bug on bugzilla or just wait? --Diego Queiroz (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Nah, give it a bit and it'll work itself out. Can you give me an exact link you are trying?--v/r - TP 23:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, any link does not work (like this: [1]). Anyway, people from the chat instructed me to file a bug, so I did ==> T74104 :( --Diego Queiroz (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

IN RE: Centrism

I'm bringing this here, after finding your commentary, including your linking to WP:MPOV, at a different user's talkpage interesting. First, that essay doesn't seem particularly useful, as linking to it in conversation would tend to make the person to whom you were addressing it feel attacked. With that said, however, your point about centrism is a good one. I for one have never known a true "centrist." I've known people who hold a mix of what would be called conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc. positions on various issues, but those type of people aren't "centrist", at least in my view. There are some people who hold almost universally liberal or universally conservative ideals, but those people are quite rare, in my experience. I, for one, hold a wild mix of strongly liberal and strongly conservative ideas. (For example, who has ever heard of a person who is anti-gun control, but also pro-drug legalization?) Anyways, just wanted to drop you a quick note to let you know I thought your comments regarding centrism were very on-point, although the linking to the MPOV was a bit less so. Regards, LHM^{ask me a question} 21:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Almost like linking WP:CIR to a user with a competence problem, then? Perhaps - though I wasn't trying to say Factchecker has a MPOV, only that it is frequent enough to warrant a meta page. In any case, I find my views change often based on what I learn all the time. But I could most often be called a social libertarian economic conservative. I'd say I'm an Objectivist with a heart for helping others (with my own hands of course). In any case, I'd say the only centrists are the apathetics and they are unlikely to argue anyway. I'm entirely fed up with the biases here. Wikipedia isn't one way or another, but each individual topic has a particular slant. What that slant is depends on the topic. Tired of it. Just tired of it. And it's not just disputes with political leanings. Things related to Malleus/Eric, COIs, AFD/BEFORE, Arbcom itself, Jimbo himself, deletionism...no body cares what we actually do here anymore. (sigh) It doesn't matter what side of the drama anyone is on, all of them treat it like an MMORPG. Just so tired of it. And tired of people saying the other side is the MMORPG side - and none of them realize they all are. I got off an a tangent here, but yeah, centrism is rare if it even exists at all.--v/r - TP 21:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess because my particular biases are on the content-creators side of the discussion, I have little patience for Jimbo, or for people who value esoteric "civility" above all else. Should people be kind to each other? Sure. If they're not, should they be blocked from editing? In my view, no. It is my personal perspective that if blocks were limited only to vandals, blatant POV-pushers (i.e. Church of Scientology-types), and those who stalk and harass people in real life, the dramaboard would go out of business, and editors and admins whose wikilives revolve around those boards would eventually leave the project. And in my opinion, that would not be a bad thing at all. LHM^{ask me a question} 21:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting perspective and it might work - though I doubt it has any chance of happening. My views are that I'd rather that everyone just bite their tongue so we could focus on what will actually matter in 50 years. What people write will matter, how we treated each other will only matter insofar as it distracted us from the goal. Who is responsible for that distraction doesn't matter as much as the fact that we were distracted does.--v/r - TP 21:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × This is a reply to your earlier version)Over the 8 years I've spent on the project, I've found Malleus/Eric to be extremely helpful and quite easy to get along with. I can understand why others might have a different perspective, but I have no patience for the way Jimbo (and those who frequent Jimbo's page) treats him. Jimbo has forgotten what this project is supposed to be, and in my opinion, the project would be better were he to be removed from having any influence on it. In my perfect world, his talkpage would be deleted, salted, and put down a memory hole. I apologize for how "rant-y" this post is, but I just can't get past my anger at how he treats some of our best content creators. Are you familiar with his insults against both Bishonen and Giano? LHM^{ask me a question} 21:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the multiple versions. After I wrote the first post, I decided I didn't want to make the issue personal by mentioning names. Then as I read what I wrote, I realized I had several caveats and tangents that I wanted addressed. It spiraled out of control from there. I haven't had the best interactions with Giano. One in fact. I made an innocent (and funny) joke and he got very angry and made threats. I can't imagine anyone having a problem with Bishzilla, though. But to answer your question, no I have not seen either. I have seen Jimbo make some comments that fall far outside community culture. I've seen several WMF staffers do the same to include Sue. I think our problems could not be easily solved by taking Jimbo out of the picture though. We'd by cutting off an arm of a greater monster created out of our own culture. Our monster is all of us and no one knows how to fight it.--v/r - TP 21:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

He blocked her, for no other reason than to be vindictive, and referred to her as a "toxic personality." As for removing Jimbo from any and all governance of the project, it wouldn't completely solve the problems, but it would begin the process. He has utterly lost the plot on what makes this project what it is, and I can't foresee any way back for him. That said, I don't think any of the powers-that-be have it in them to block him, and really start a discussion about what ails the project. And I don't think the arbs would be willing to sanction him for how he treats people who directly challenge his bullshit. Long story short(er), nothing will change, and eventually Wikipedia will stagnate. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 30, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, S Philbrick(Talk) 01:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

A curious query

Hello TParis. I noticed your edit regarding discretionary sanctions at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and observed the talk page notice as well. Both places link to WP:ARBEE and I trust it is a valid link. I am curious as to why the article itself is not listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Log of article-level discretionary sanctions; wondering: should it be? I also noticed on the linked page that while it allows edits to be made to the closed case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Log of blocks and bans, it does not mention allowing edits to add new articles. Is that an omission that perhaps should be corrected? Thank you for indulging my curiosity in this regard.—John Cline (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There log of article sanctions discusses actual editing restrictions. Other than the discretionary sanctions themselves, there arn't any article-level restrictions that I am aware of - though you should keep in mind that I have not been following this topic at all and there may be things I am unaware of. The authority to place an article under discretionary sanctions comes from here. Essentially, articles in the scope of Eastern Europe are automatically placed under discretionary sanctions whether someone comes along and officially points it out or not. If the article had a WP:1RR restriction or page protection of some sort, it would be listed under articles in that case.--v/r - TP 01:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand; thank you.—John Cline (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I just realized that I mentioned you on this report but I forgot to ping you. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad

Hi TParis. Thank you for your detailed close at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad that summarized the arguments well.

You wrote at User talk:Randykitty#Are you around? (permanent link, bullet points changed to numbers for easier reference):

• So, I see you're not around so I'll lay out some thoughts I had:

1. You could just restore the edit history. Sure, you are technically on solid ground and you are not required to. But, it doesn't harm the encyclopedia to have a redirect with edit history behind it and it would be an easy way to solve the drama. The advantages of appeasing the people upset over this far outweigh the nonexistent disadvantages.
2. You could restore the page and then userify it or move it to WP:Draft namespace. Then leave a redirect at the article space link. The draft or userfied page could still have a redirect on it.
3. Perhaps Cunard would be happy with receiving an emailed copy of the page.

• What are your thoughts? I personally like #2 best.--v/r - TP 22:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts:

1. This is the best option. I hope Randykitty will agree with this, but he did not change his position at the DRV, so I don't know if he would do that now.
2. I would not support userfication or moving it to the draft namespace. The content as preserved at http://web.archive.org/web/20131021185643/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VideoPad could be merged selectively into NCH Software#Software products. Giving attribution for a selective merge is required by the guideline Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright. I would rather link to the article rather than a draft, which if not worked on would eventually would violate WP:STALEDRAFT.
3. An emailed copy of the page would leave the history hidden to other non-admins and would not satisfy the attribution requirements of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright.

I understand that this was a difficult close to make. I would have preferred a close of "restore the history" since no one opposing restoration in the DRV could answer Unscintillating (talk · contribs)'s question: "How does keeping the edit history deleted improve the encyclopedia?"

But that would have been a controversial close since the community was divided, so "no consensus to overturn" close is understandable.

I propose a fourth option:

4. Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing reviews states:

   If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

   Would you consider using your discretion as DRV closer to revise your close to "no consensus to overturn, default to relist"?

   Reasons in support of a relist:

   • Paraphrasing from the eloquent November 2011 close of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence:

     At this level of abstraction, we are far removed from considering the actual underlying question (whether keeping the edit history deleted improves the encyclopedia). The purpose of AfD is to establish consensus, and consensus is found through discussion and collaboration. The five commenters here who expressed opinions related to retaining the redirect's history should have done so (and should have had the opportunity to do so) during that original discussion; they would have caused a nearly 50% increase in its level of participation, and probably an increase in its clarity. In a relatively low-participation discussion such as that (or this, for that matter) an obvious way to gather more data is to extend and advertise the discussion. There is no value to the project in extending this discussion, we need to get down off our meta pedastal and get back to the coal face where the actual issue is. To benefit the project, the original AfD needs the opportunity for more editors to get involved, and with the prominence this discussion has given it, it stands every chance of doing so. To benefit the project, this discussion needs to get out of its way.

   • As SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) noted, "there is no evidence that the earlier participants even read Cunard's 11:28, 28 September 2014 post. I guess that 5 minutes just wasn't long enough?" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VideoPad was closed at 11:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC).

If Randykitty disagrees with option #1, I hope you will consider option #4.

Thank you for taking the time to review and close this contentious discussion.

As a side note, would you consider closing some of the discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, which currently does not have a regular closer? Your diplomacy and aplomb in contentious discussions would be very helpful in resolving disputes.

Cunard (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a relist would do. I think what has happened here is that you've found a hole in policy that should be addressed somewhat. I think the next step, and perhaps RandyKitty would agree, is to hold an RFC on Wikipedia talk:AFD about whether defaulting to keeping the history for a redirect is desirable except in cases of copyright vioations or BLP issues.--v/r - TP 23:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The DRV discussed two questions:

1. Was deleting the article's history an accurate assessment of the AfD's consensus?
2. Does undeleting the edit history under the redirect improve the encyclopedia?

At the DRV, "endorse" participants found (1) correct so did not feel the need to address (2). If only (2) was considered at the DRV, there would be a clear consensus to restore the redirect.

A relist would allow the community to answer (2) without (1) being in the way (paraphrasing from the close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence).

The issue of a redirect's history has been discussed at an RfC in the past. It was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect in January 2011, where the closer wrote:

There is no consensus for automatic deletion of page history when an outcome is "redirect" (though there's also no consensus against that deletion when appropriate)

The close indicates that there is no consensus against history deletion when appropriate, which I interpret as referring to the "cases of copyright violations or BLP issues" you mention above. It was also discussed at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#History undeletion underneath redirect (permanent link) earlier this year.

Cunard (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• The January 2011 RFC is old and not definitive and so it's pretty weak in making your argument. Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#History undeletion underneath redirect looks a lot better. Is RandyKitty aware of that discussion? If I were to read that in his position, I'd probably be convinced to change my stance. There are a lot of respected users giving very informed opinions there. In any case, I think an RFC on the desirability would be most beneficial. Even King of Hearts question is about what should happen and the answer is that it is dependent on the situation. So, then it's a matter of what is the desired outcome in case by case situations when there is no overwhelming reason to delete the history.--v/r - TP 00:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your thoughtful (re)close. When I commented at DRV I was unaware of the discussion you linked to immediately above. Thincat (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that an RfC on the desirability would be most beneficial. But creating a neutral, clearly worded RfC on the matter will take considerable time and energy. I do not have the time or inclination at the moment to draft such an RfC. A relist, as I noted on Randykitty's talk page, would be a good test case for any future RfC on the matter. Cunard (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"revision history statistics" link

forgive me if I have the wrong person, the other day I asked at the "help desk", when the "revision history statistics" link would be up, but I didn't get a straight answer(the page is very useful). If I have the wrong person please forgive my intrusion, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Nick-D on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you care to comment?

Would you care to comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DangerousPanda-EatsShootsAndLeaves? Msnicki (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Santorum campaign

I find myself in agreement with you in regards to your point about how Wikipedia handled itself on the Santorum matter. If you're interested in opening a larger community discussion about how to address this ongoing problem, I would be happy to support you. Viriditas (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the larger issue is that our policies were effective before the media began to recognize us as having a legitimate impact on culture. Now, our policies have become a sewage drain direct from their corporate offices. That's the real issue we face. I don't believe anyone actually thinks they are using Wikipedia as a battleground - I just think it happens anyway.--v/r - TP 20:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting topic. I think where we agree is on the subject of cultural impact. In other words, I do believe that external groups are using Wikipedia to manipulate Google results. I generally do the most work on obscure topics (see my user page) that nobody cares about, so I view this mostly as an outsider. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel

I'm not sure how to proceed here. Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has unblocked, but with a petulant edit summary, and still refuses to provide diffs of the serious accusations that have been leveled at Andyvphil. Now Gamaliel has blanked and protected their talkpage, so that no further queries can be lodged. I just don't see how Gamaliel can keep the bit after this meltdown. Am I wrong, do you think? LHM^{ask me a question} 04:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's just wait and see what happens tomorrow. Gamaliel is clearly upset and being that I am a Caucasian male, I just have no idea how it must feel to be in his position. It doesn't justify his actions, but it certainly calls for some compassion. He's not infallible. I think he knows that. I'd like to avoid the usual course of blowing these things up and causing more lines to be drawn. Let's try to solve this amicably with Gamaliel, without calls for his bit, and see if we can just make sure this doesn't happen again.--v/r - TP 04:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably the best course of action. But Gamaliel has to drop the "racist/racism" accusation if he is unwilling or unable to provide diffs to prove it. I've been following the kerfuffle at the NDGT article and, while I've not been pleased with Andyvphil's discussion style, I have seen nothing to justify such accusations. He made a somewhat inappropriate insinuation regarding affirmative action with regards to Dr. Tyson getting into a second PhD program after being kicked out of UT's, but other than that, I have no idea what Gamaliel might even be referring to. LHM^{ask me a question} 04:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Butting in as a matter of personal privilege, here: I don't think I should be accused of "insinuating" that something is true (consider the semantic load of that word, in the sense S.I.Hayakawa made famous) if I have never falsely indicated that I know it to be true, or adopted any sort of winking tone in discussing the subject. The acceptability of "diversity" as a goal in academic admissions goes back at least to Bakke, and <redacted, per what I understand to be TP's request> It he were very unlucky it might have worked primarily against him, but that's not very likely.

Ah, I have the diff now. Thank you. @TParis:. I wrote, "<redacted, this time indubitably per request>." This is not an "insinuation", nor is it "inappropriate". It's a clear, flat statement of what I believe to be the truth. Those who admire Tyson will think that what was almost certainly done was a shining success, those of us who think that his reputation exceeds his talent, application, and judgement will not be so pleased. In either case if "affirmative action", private or public, played an important role in his path that fact ought to be addressed in his biography if reliable sources exist. Given the demonstrated propensity of the happy band of admirers who apparently dominated his article -- a common phenomenon on Wikipedia -- to see any information seen as "negative" as also "inappropriate" (see: UTA dissertation and the The Federalist flap) it was not unreasonable to ask if such sources existed and had been ignored. That's all I did. Asserting without cause that the question is an "inappropriate insinuation" demonstrates more self control than Gamaliel's "Racist! Racist! Racist!", but the impulse seems much the same. Please reconsider. Andyvphil (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but we're approaching this front a life experience of white privilege (assuming yours). Our perception of racism is entirely different. Gamaliel may legitimately have seen racism but he feels that he cannot demonstrate it in a way that our life experience would allow us to see. We also don't want to undermine his feelings whether there is legitimate evidence or not. On the other hand, we also cannot excuse tool use in this manner either. So, at the moment, we've expressed our concerns and the best we can do is hope that Gamaliel has something to add tomorrow.--v/r - TP 05:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You might feel differently about this, but I'm not swayed by the long note he just posted at his talkpage. He still hasn't provided any diffs for his serious accusations and, though he seems to admit what he did was wrong, still seems to be attempting to justify both his actions regarding Andyvphil, as well as what went down with Gamergate. (I am unfamiliar with the latter, so that's just a sense I get from the tenor of the post.) I hope you have success in getting him to produce diffs to support his accusations of racism, or that you're able to get him to retract them, because just as we wouldn't allow an editor to make such accusations against a living person without being well-sourced, so we can not allow an editor to make such accusations without very solid proof, in the form of diffs. LHM^{ask me a question} 06:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel's talk page comments are a great sign that he is at least open to discuss the matter. Let's let him sleep on it. As a fellow admin, I have sympathy. I've hit my breaking point too, we're human. This is out of character for him. Andyvphil is unblocked, there isn't any sign that Gamaliel has any intention of doing anything we'd not want him to do, so there isn't any urgency here. Let's let tempers settle. We'll all feel better about ourselves if we make calm rational decisions. Especially because both Andyvphil and Gamaliel feel backed into corners. They are both going to be defensive. Two years of marriage counseling tells me that feeling defensive never solves anything.--v/r - TP 06:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(TPS)From what I can tell, someone is accusing an academic of not being qualified for their job, which makes it a BLP issue. Might not be too cool if the guy's current employer thinks there's fire if there isn't even smoke. The talk page protection is not necessarily out of anger, but to prevent the unblocked person from posting on their talk page--solves that problem so they don't get spammed for the next 16 hours while they're sleeping and at work. There's nothing that can't wait. Someone should probably keep an eye on the unblocked one to make sure they don't try to reintroduce the controversial BLP material before everything can get sorted out. —Neotarf (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The tools should not be used to protect the admin's own talkpage, simply because another editor might post questions, comments, or whatever on it. LHM^{ask me a question} 06:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Andyvphil: Feel free to discuss the facts of this case, but please do not repost the redacted material until and unless you are asked to for dispute resolution. The material was sent so you could formulate an argument in your defense, not so they could be reposted.--v/r - TP 06:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the issue with the fragment, but I see the formal argument. Please enlighten me on the next step in attempting to undo the redaction. Andyvphil (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You could start an RFC on whether NGDT's education should include the tidbit about not finishing a particular school. I'd include ample sourcing on both the actual academic progress as well as about the news about the progress. If you have sources saying "this is important," you'll convince more people. Formulate a neutral RFC with neutral wording. That's one way. The other way is that you can start an WP:AN or WP:ANI to gain a consensus to reverse it. Other sysops will read the diff and leave comments. I wouldn't recommend you do that, I have a feeling that other editors are going to take issue with your style of communication and editing. But it is available to you. The final option, also not recommended, is that you file an WP:AE appeal because this redaction was done under the BLP discretionary sanctions. I think this approach will also end poorly for you. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to be fair to everyone. While you may have a strong argument that Gamaliel acted inappropriately, your editing style is going to be strongly scrutinized and your style of arguing with become a major factor. My suggestion is the first option I laid before you. Take it to the talk page, change your approach, change your style, assume good faith, try to work collaboratively, and try to gain consensus.--v/r - TP 06:36, 20 Octobfairely stable on the pageer 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, the "tidbit" seems fairly stable on the page, only a dead-ender or two trying to whitewash it, so there's apparently no need for an RfC on it. Other editors have taken over and, apart from weighing in if I must, I expect to leave them to it.

On this page, as a courtesy to you, I have redacted not only my exact words but a restatement of what to me seems an obvious truth. As I said to Gamaliel, there's nothing in the words he...RevDel'd, is it?...that I had to see in order to say it again, and since there is in fact no BLP issue or policy violation I will not hesitate to say the same thing again. But I won't quote the text you emailed me, or paraphrase it, in the context of a reference to the revdel, until/unless an admin requests it, per your instruction.

The text that Gamaliel revdel'd was a response, to a personal attack, that I want back on the page, but he went quite above and beyond anything that had been said before in the exchange on his talk page, and I see it now says I "posted a comment so egregious it required revision deletion, and then that editor came to my talk page to harangue me about it for three days until I finally blocked him for harassing me after repeated requests that he disengage.", and "given this editors behavior, I believe a block was appropriate", i.e. his lifting it goes unmentioned and is not an admission that he erred in imposing it, nor a promise not to do it again. I don't believe I can leave these assertions uncontested, particularly since her's previously specified that my "behavior" was that I "[insisted] on making blanket racist assertions". I'll take my chances on other editors not liking my style. My style shouldn't be the main issue in this incident.

WP:AN does not seem relevant. Administrative misbehavior seems more WP:AE than WP:ANI, but I'm not seeing a category that applies, so perhaps I'm wrong. Andyvphil (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comments like the one that someone left at Gamaliel's talkpage, claiming that the only mistake he made was of a bureaucratic nature don't give me hope that anything will change. I've yet to see anything from Andyvphil (other than tone, which isn't blockable) that justifies accusations of racism. Even if in that revdel'd comment he stated flatly that his opinion was that Dr. Tyson only got a second chance at his PhD because of affirmative action (which sounds silly to me--many people take more than one pass at it to attain their doctorate), that's hardly racist, doesn't justify a revdel, and certainly doesn't merit a block. As you mention above, I can certainly identify with reaching the end of one's endurance on-wiki. It happens to everyone. But Gamaliel needs to understand that such accusations can not be flung, and the block button can not be employed to silence opponents. While the message at his talk is a small step forward, unless those he respects (and I am not one of those) hold him to account in that regard, I fear nothing will be learned from this sad episode. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • So, repeating an unsourced rumor against a BLP that has already been revdel? Academia is a notorious hothouse for vicious internal politics; someone from a minority group is going to be twice as vulnerable to whisper campaigns. —Neotarf (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

    It was revdel'd, and then claimed to have been vile racism, which it was not. (Though, I should caveat this by saying that I have only a vague recollection of what it said; but given my own background, I am very attuned to actual vile racism.) It was simply ill-advised, and almost certainly wrong. Such a revdel is problematic, in my opinion, when the content is subsequently represented in an unfair way. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• In my opinion those comments were BLP violations, yes, and potentially blockable. There will frequently be disagreements over what's really a violation and what should be removed and in which way, but we need to err on the side of caution, and if material is revdeleted a "normal" editor must simply accept that. Admins will look into such matters and agree or disagree, but we can't go around restoring BLP violations just so we can all have a discussion over them. The essence of the BLP policy is really two-fold: a. it applies on all Wikipedia pages and b. we err on the side of caution. Call me a liberal, but I certainly thought that Andyvphil's comments, which are probably acceptable as YouTube comments or on Facebook, were violations on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• All fine and fair, Mr. Liberal. But we need to apply BLP evenly across the political spectrum. Santorum comes to mind. There is no more obvious use of Wikipedia to shame a living person more than the Santorum campaign and it's spread all over Santorum's article, David Savage's article, and has an article of it's own. It's disgusting that editors will defend this made up thing to shame a living person while criticizing facts of life about another living person.--v/r - TP 18:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Can I be Mr. MONGO? I've been called many things but never been a Mr.!!! I agree with Mr. TParis in regards to the Santorum stuff...a stiffening of BLP might be in order all around....but nobody listens to a smelly hairy woodland creature like MONGO.--MONGO 19:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Mr. OGNOM, I heartedly agree. I think our BLP policy was written before the media realized how important Wikipedia was and how they could game their own devices to get their content on here through our WP:RS policy. We're basically written in a way that anyone in the mainstream media can control content on this site. The BLP policy needs to be adapted to prevent attacks from the reliable sources themselves to be propagated here so we can cut off the sewage pipe. I wrote two new essays, though, It's not a BLP and It is so a BLP (imagine two 5 yr olds screaming these two lines when you say them, repeat at least 3 - 10 times).--v/r - TP 19:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Mr. TParis, your essays are humorous and close to the mark and it falls on the likes of well respected persons such as you and Drmies to make the appropriate changes in BLP Policy. The biggest thing that needs adjustment in these changing times is how SCOPE and WEIGHT are at issue in a BLP. I would say that I oppose whitewashing but no doubt any negative nonsense should have to be impeccably vetted. So sayeth Mr. OGNOM...--MONGO 19:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Drmies? Respected? But, he's a liberal! He said I could call him one!--v/r - TP 19:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• That's Dr. Liberal, Sergeant. At ease, Drmies (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• My mistake. Well, you know, being almost a conservative, I have no respect for academia. Hehe.--v/r - TP 20:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Which reminds. I'm probably a "bleeding-heart liberal", but it depends on who the speaker is whether they can call me that or not. :) I suspect that TParis isn't in the same category as I am, but I respect him greatly as an admin and have no problem letting him make a call on a politically charged topic; I trust he will do so in a fair and honest way. That's what being an admin is about. I find myself, oddly enough, making such calls more on "conservative" than on "liberal" topics, and no doubt there are many who think I'm on a totally opposite side, which is maybe why I'm getting yelled at sometimes in this Gender Gap debacle. But I value the BLP and NPOV over any party affiliation, and the Santorum case was one of those--my record is on the various talk pages related to that mess. I have fought hard (and fruitlessly) to get Commons cleaned up from all kinds of Santorum material (and categorization), and anyone who knows me knows that I have nothing in common with Santorum and his supporters but my two-leggedness, and that I had to drive through Kansas not once but twice. Anyway. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• [after ec:] Fair enough, TParis. Just remember who teaches your kids and does your science for you. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Haha, if I had to pick educators for my kids, I would not at all have trouble picking you. I think we're on the same page if not slightly different politics. I suspect you are secretly my uncle, you share his style of editing and politics. But he's a opinion columnist. Either way, I agree that adminship is about being objective and trusting each other to act in good faith. I think we're more alike than labels suggest.--v/r - TP 20:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Bottom line is that administrators are given great latitudes as far as BLP enforcement and my take is that arguing over a petty detail such as it was on that article that Gamaliel was justified in their use of the tools and position.--MONGO 16:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realize that we were arguing over whether it should briefly mentioned in Dr. Tyson's article that he had to redo two years of study because failed to make progress on his first attempt at a dissertation. That seems to be settled, though consensus can change, and [WP:CONSENSUS] on the ridiculousness of the assertion that such a mention, available from a RS in Tyson's own words, is a BLP violation cannot be relied upon.

That said, although Gamaliel reacted to the 2nd attempt to put such a mention on on the page (and remove the assertion not contained in the source that there was a "vote") by reverting ("bullshit"[2]), he did not use his admin tools at that time. The only significance of that fact is that is shows he was [WP:INVOLVED] and that his subsequent revdel of my response to a personal attack on my attempting to insert the material can be fairly interpreted as a violation of the "nutshell" at WP:Administrators, "Administrators are... expected... to use the tools fairly, and never to use them to gain advantage in a dispute."

I don't share this all-so-collegial high opinion of drmies, who may be a fine person (he puts this on display on dirtylawyers talkpage, where he laments his failure to help a black student) but has shown in the past that his grasp of logic (my first encounter with him was his appearance on my talk page to declare that reverting a crank's contribution to a talk page was in accord with policy and therefor NOT CENSORSHIP) and of the responsibilities of his admin bit (I subsequently noted that he went through full protection to insert scare quotes around "Tyson Controversy" in a The Federalist section header -- as with Gamaliel's revert of my block, when the protecting admin called him to account for this, his comment on doing so did not admit any error, "if you insist"(not exact) paralleling Gamaliel's "Go ahead and harass!"(not exact)). His assertion that what was rervdel'd was a BLP vio should be seen in the light of such prior failures in judgement. Andyvphil (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thing is that the core of BLP is to do no harm. I am generally suspicious of any effort to insert negative information in a BLP unless its impeccably vetted. How important is it for the reader to know about mostly trivial stuff.--MONGO 22:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No, the core of BLP is to ensure that Wikipedia does not get too often sued, and never successfully, while its readers get to make up their own minds about reliably-reported facts and opinion not properly considered trivia. It's absurd to argue that the fact that Tyson was inattentive to his studies and washed out of the UTA PhD program is "trivia" in the context of a biography. Anyway, the problem is not with editors who are "suspicious of any effort to insert negative information in a BLP unless its impeccably vetted", it with editors who are determined not to allow insertion of what they view as negative information about a person they like anywhere in Wikipedia whether it's impeccably vetted or not. Not being familiar with you I cannot venture a well-informed opinion on which camp you actually belong to. Andyvphil (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Rfcu legal threat close

That was a horrible close. The sun does not have sufficient mass to go supernova. It will shift to fusing hydrogen, become a red giant, and engulf the Earth. Which might stop the pointless bickering on ANI, unless WMF has shifted the (future) InterplanetaryNet servers to outer orbit. NE Ent 00:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right. I'm horribly embarrassed and ashamed of myself. Perhaps I should have watched more of NDGT's Cosmos. Then again, as I think about it, I never specified which sun.--v/r - TP 00:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Good call

Your note at Andyvphil's talkpage was on-point. Some of the messages there were feeling very WP:BAITy, which is not good form. Particularly, though, when consensus wasn't "abundantly clear" at the thread that got him topic-banned, particularly surrounding the key point ("Andyvphil posts racist stuff on a BLP") was hotly disputed, and never demonstrated with actual diffs. He was upset enough before being topic-banned--poking him with a stick was a really bad idea. Thanks for nipping it, if not in the bud, before it got to full flower. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm halfway convinced he is, myself. He may not say racist things, but to me he has a particular attraction to the topic of race. This is the part of my nature I don't really enjoy. I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. I don't want to see someone pushed but I also don't want to seem like I am defending him either.--v/r - TP 02:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not defending him, as I don't even much care for him. All I'm saying is that the curt close of that discussion, combined with later claims that consensus was "abundantly clear" really bother me, based on principle. Is the person behind the username a racist? Who knows? Only he does, as nothing he's posted here clearly demonstrates that. Even the revdel'd comment isn't the proof positive people want to claim it is. As for the "unhealthy attraction" thing, I see lots of similar behavior here, particularly around politically-charged articles like those on climate science, various politicians, and that type of thing. I just think topic-banning people from areas of interest, essentially for disagreeing (even strongly so) with the prevailing views (which is, in my view, what happened here) is a Very Bad Idea. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Xtools

The link to Xtools seems to be broken, this week the page didn't load every time I tried to view my stats. Now it is saying 404. Is someone addressing this? Lightspeed2012 12:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

They have been down, but my access is apparently screwed up. I cannot fix it myself. Try Cyberpower678 or Hedoil.--v/r - TP 17:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking.—cyberpower _{Temporarily Online}^{Trick or Treat} 11:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: I tried to take a look a few days ago and I ran the edit counter from the console and I got a bunch of write perm errors. The biggest one was to the /tmp/sessions folder. However, I couldn't tell if it was my account that didn't have write permissions causing the error or if apache couldn't write to the sessions folder. I have no write access to any of the files to do any testing at all.--v/r - TP 17:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

xtools had multiple webservices running, which were clashing with each other. I deleted the webservices and started a fresh service. Are you able to use "become xtools:? If you are, there is nothing wrong with your access rights. The issue you were seeing was likely from the multiple services.—cyberpower _Absent^{Trick or Treat} 18:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I never tried to "become xtools". I don't ever use tools lab but I suppose I should have thought of that since I had to do it on toolserver.--v/r - TP 18:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Alison Lundergan Grimes

Hi, TP! On October 20 you fully-protected the article Alison Lundergan Grimes. Since then several edits to the article have been requested by consensus on the talk page, but the requests are not getting answered. We don't seem to have any admins active at that article. Could I request that you either make those edits yourself, or else lower the level of protection to semiprotection, so that we can maintain the article? Thanks much. --MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Seems the page protection expired anyway.--v/r - TP 22:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Udall/question

Hello TParis. I have a question about something going on over at Mark Udall. I think you've seen the recent action on that page with promotional content being added and taken away repeatedly, etc. I went through the article today to try to clean it up and tagged some bits of information that didn't have apparent references. I was subsequently accused by User:DD2K in a variety of talk page messages [3] and edit summaries [4] [5] of vandalism for adding a citation needed tag. Is it even possible for the addition of a citation needed tag to constitute vandalism? Could you look over my edits and see if you believe they do constitute vandalism? I saw a piece of information without an inline citation, so I added the citation needed tag. I thought that was the protocol in such scenarios. I didn't remove the info outright because it wasn't contentious. Now I'm being accused of vandalism and disruptive editing for adding the tag, so I'm a little confused. I'm seeking to improve articles while remaining civil and assuming good faith, and these recent developments are rather unsettling. Your thoughts are appreciated. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That's actually a bit funny you'd ask, I was just reading over there. @DD2K: Hey, I've gone through every source in that entire section and I don't see the bit about the student body president. Could you identify which numbered source it is and I'll be happy to add an inline citation? @Champaign Supernova: No, it's not vandalism. However, reverting it back in after someone opposes it is a bad idea. You should have gone to the talk page.--v/r - TP 22:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll take it to talk next time. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure Tom, but it's already in the next paragraph, right here. I left it in my edit summary. I further explain my frustration below. I would think anyone reading a pols page claiming they were class president would assume it's correct, and then look through the section for the source. If they think it's questionable. Dave Dial (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Since you tagged me here, I'll answer your post from my Talk page. I don't really edit that article much, but saw your unusual activity in removing some basic information that is in most articles of politicians. One, you removed a quote from the article that Udall used to explain his vote with the explanation of, 'we have his vote, we don't need his quote'. That's absurd reasoning for an article. Two, you combined one relatively constructive edit with an edit that removed important information. That seems to be disruptive when you are making as many edits as you have on that page at once. Third, you used a CN tag with the source right below, you didn't even both to check the sources in that section. That's disruption. I think any reasonable editor that saw that a politician was a class President would not be surprised and would read the sources BEFORE tagging it. It's hard to AGF when your motives seem clear from your edits. Sorry for posting this here, but I was tagged and thought I could better address it here. Dave Dial (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @DD2K: Dave, I'm not sure if you saw my comments. I checked every source in the personal life section - not even just that paragraph - and I found nothing to support the sentence that Supernova added the {{cn}} tag to. Could you clarify the sourcing. The source you keep referring to is a list of golfers and doesn't mention anything about a student body president.--v/r - TP 22:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Yea, it's the very next source(#4) in the next sentence after his bachelor of arts in American Civ. The Denver Post link I posted above. Dave Dial (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Ah ha - them communist hyphens!--v/r - TP 23:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I don't think what you've pointed to, or what I've done, can be called disruptive editing in any meaningful sense of the word. TParis couldn't find the sourcing you're talking about either. All I wanted was for there to be a source after a fact, so I added a citation needed tag in the hopes of eliciting one. Since you apparently know about a source that corroborates the fact in question, I'm not sure why you don't just add it as an inline citation rather than reverting my citation needed tag. When there's actual vandalism and disruptive editing happening all the time at Wikipedia, I really don't appreciate being accused of it when I'm making a good faith effort to get better sourcing for an article. Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Sorry. Most of your edits were constructive, perhaps I was just frustrated you seemed to be removing sourced material that I felt was important within some of your constructive edits. Just try to think of a politician on the other side of the aisle when you remove some of the stuff. Everyone deserves a fair shake in their BLP, within reason. That's why I try not to edit BLPs that I may have a bias against, except to revert vandalism. Still, I may have overreacted. heh Dave Dial (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Apology accepted and appreciated. Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Threat of harm

You seem active at the moment - could you indefinitely block HerTrueWarriorFromTheDeep (talk · contribs)? Only made one edit, but what an edit. --GRuban (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that was fast and well done. --GRuban (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I sent an email to WMF emergency email about it.--v/r - TP 17:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear.

Hello TParis. I came here for a snoop as i remember (a couple of weeks ago?) you asking on AN or ANI about editors interested in RfA; i wondered how that was going, if there'd be any evidence on this page of progress. Instead, i'm very sad to see that you are planning on giving up the mop and entering semi-retirement. I am afraid that that action will be a loss to the project and community; seeing "v/r - TP" at the end of a close or a statement is a sign that, though i may occasionally disagree with the conclusion, the argument is thoughtful and cogent. I am sure my posting here won't change your opinion or plans (though, if it helps, mine opinion is open to change!); i do hope, however, that your search for an RfA candidate is progressing and that you won't leave us till you have provided an adequate replacement. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 03:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• I agree. You are one of the good ones--which are fewer and farther between amongst administrators these days. I ask that you reconsider. LHM^{ask me a question} 04:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi LindseyH! Actually, I've had a very positive response to the AN post. I have 5 editors ask for a review. I've reviewed one whom is going to get a nom very soon, two others I suggested they wait 6 months but are otherwise great candidates, and I have 2 left to review. One of those two I have left, I started last night but then got distracted. Both of the two I have left look promising on the surface. In all, I think I have 5 noms to prepare.

    Sorry to disappoint you about my semi-retirement. I only mentioned it now because I wanted to be able to leave without anyone thinking it was a rash and angry decision. So I figure if I say it early then I'm on clear ground when I do turn in the mop. Thanks for your kind comments, though, they are very much appreciated.--v/r -

    TP 04:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

For In case you are in doubt of my opinion of your adminship, I hereby award TParis with the “Cool Award.” GRuban (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: TFA for December 7

I seem to remember adding it to the list of pending requests some time ago, but I'm happy for your article to replace it. It seems to be more relevant to that particular date, and I'll definitely support it if/when it gets promoted. I'll add it to my watchlist as well, but give me a shout and let me know what happens anyway, and all the best with the FAC. Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking to nom

Late to the party, but I recently came upon your "looking to nom for RfA" post, and if you're still offering, I'd be interested in a review. I'm primarily here to write, but I've been working AfD for a while and I'd really like the tools to help with the non-NACs czar ♔ 17:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. You're the 7th to ask and I've only knocked out 3 reviews so far. So it may be a couple weeks, but I'll certainly send you a review and then we can go from there.--v/r - TP 18:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

XTools

Hey, TP. What's the status of the X Tools? As I'm sure you know, the edit counter has been on the fritz on and off for the last month or more . . . . and no one on the technical help pages can explain what's going on. Is there anything I can do to help? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It's an issue that only Cyberpower678 knows how to fix, sorry. I really do not take much part in the tools anymore other than having access. Hedonil has been kind enough to include my name, but he and Cyberpower have really taken over the tools--v/r - TP 18:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Understood. I saw their names listed, but I've never had any interaction with either of them. I guess it's time. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

I've been incredibly busy at work, as I generally am this time of year, so I just now saw the message you left me several weeks ago. I just wanted to thank you and let you know that I've responded on my talk page. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

How's your sked?

Hi TParis,

I see that you've been quite busy the last several months. I'm wondering if things may have settled to the point where you might have time to take a look at the edits I made in response to your most helpful comments last May, here [6]? Much appreciate any time you can spare--if you have any! EMP (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll have to bring someone in who is more familiar with MEDRS. User:WhatamIdoing Could you take a look at Yin yoga and give us an overall impression?--v/r - TP 18:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in taking this forward. EMP (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Decree

I hereby forbid you from using humour such as this in the future. If you violate this unilaterally-imposed zero-consensus ban I will bombard you with wikilove templates and kittens. ;) --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

hehe!--v/r - TP 19:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Problem with edit count tool?

Hi TP. I was checking my ed count and it took me to the tool lab page which said there was an error? I am currently editing from my partner's computer, so unsure if this would have any bearing? Regards Irondome (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Use supercount for now.--v/r - TP 17:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Irondome (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Is WMFLabs down? I tried both the page count and supercount and — after a long wait — get a 504 (occasionally 502) error. I found a bugzilla bug report that was similar from last month, but it was reported as fixed. With both tools not working, I was wondering if labs itself is down. — al-Shimoni (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. Looks like it is up now, and there's a notice that Labs went funky. — al-Shimoni (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Ford Island FAC contributions that created more work for you...

I did not even notice that you corrected almost all of the conflicting content in the inline citations that used "pages" instead of "page". for consistency. Thanks and have a barn star for your hard work. The article is an important one and I hope my contributions were satisfactory and accurate. Sorry that it created more work for you. I am done adding content and if there is still anything that concerns you let me know. Also, feel free to remove anything that becomes an issue standing in the way of the FA status. I believe I have added relevant content to the subject but if I have gone overboard in any way, I will not object to you removing anything that is holding up the FAC!--Mark Miller (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for correcting the issues you found on Ford Island after my edits! Mark Miller (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, TParis. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 02:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

///EuroCarGT 02:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You might want to look at this

[7]. This is beyond reprehensible. USchick is insinuating that I threatened your children or something. This is almost as bad if not worse as when they accused Geogene of being racist. Volunteer Marek  20:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I left a clarifying comment.--v/r - TP 20:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hi TP, I hope you're not mad at me for dragging you into something that turned so quickly, so wrong. That wasn't my intention and I'm sorry. The reason I'm here is because over time, you have shown to be reasonable and I respect your opinion. After any significant event, I like to reflect and think about lessons learned. At this ANI event, several things surfaced that I don't understand at all, and I would like to ask them somewhere. Some things are related to me, and some things are related to admins in general. As is often the case, the way things work on Wikipedia, is not at all how they work in real life, at least not in my life, so I'm very confused. I have four very specific questions. None of them are about other editors. I would like to get my questions answered for future reference. I don't want these questions and answers to be in a public place where they will come back to haunt me later as accusations of some kind. You are familiar with this situation so you would be a good person to ask. There are two other uninvolved admins that I would consider asking if you're not available or would rather not talk to me. What do you think? Is what I'm asking reasonable according to policy, or is there a rule about asking questions of this nature? Where is a good place to do this? Would you be willing to talk to me? Or should I approach someone else? Would that be appropriate to do, or would that be a violation of some sort? Whatever you tell me, I will follow your guidance, and either way, I respect your decision. Thanks in advance. USchick (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to email me your questions and I'll do my best to answer them. There is no violation of policy in asking questions in private.--v/r - TP 04:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I will put my thoughts together and email you tomorrow. USchick (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You're out of here in March 2015?

Did I read that correctly in NA1000's RfA? I have to admit that if its true, its disappointing. We've butted heads in the past, but I consider you and your efforts to be one of the positive factors on this site. In my opinion, you are one of the members of this community that helps to keep it honest and on track in its purpose. If you truly are "retiring", you likely deserve the respite, but I hope that it will not be permanent. Regards, --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the well wishes. It's time to move on to other hobbies.--v/r - TP 22:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

So no point in asking you to run for ArbCom, I guess, which is what I hoped to see someone else asking you to do which I could join in support for. For the record, if come March you find that there is still a bit you want to accomplish here, I think we would all welcome seeing you stay as even an irregular contributor. John Carter (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ohh, I certainly plan to be irregular. You'll probably find me in Hawaiian or military topics. I definitely wouldn't run for Arbcom. I don't like to make myself a target and I'm not sure how it would affect my day job. Besides, I'm an election 'commissioner' so I am forbidden from running this year. Thanks for the compliment(?) though :)--v/r - TP 22:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, wanting to pursue other hobbies is something I can identify with all too well. Like I said, I will be sad to see you go or become an irregular for that matter. Your influence will be missed. I hope that someone will take up your mantle. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

revision history link

Hi. There seems to be a problem at https://tools.wmflabs.org/ with xtools. At https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ ...I have been to the Village Pump Technical but have gotten nowhere, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't really maintain these tools anymore. Try User_talk:Cyberpower678.--v/r - TP 22:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa (talk · contribs) is referring to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#revision history statistics; answers have been posted there and in the following section, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#So.... --Redrose64 (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Nazi Germany's Eastern Front allies Op-ed: TomStar81 on the origins and legacy of trench warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding xtools

Hi Tom, question: what is the difference between xtools' pcount and ec, if any? --82.136.210.153 (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I don't think there is a difference. When I hosted the tools, I found them to be almost identical and so I forwarded /pcount/ to /ec/ to simplify maintenance. I'd be shocked if Cyberpower or Hedonil resurrected pcount.--v/r - TP 06:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

They are both in use, and AFAICS they are identical. Frankly, a lot of the migration from toolserver to labs was a fiasco. Very few of the tools (well, the ones I use) actually work any better for it, they are all appallingly slower (if you can get them to work before the connection times out), and people like Cyberpower instead of doing a straight migration unilaterally decided to give them a new look, split them across several pages, and then does a bunk when taken to task over it. Perhaps we need some maturity controls on who can work on software. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I really like Cyberpower's and Hedonil's changes lol--v/r - TP 16:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail

I sent you an email and it bounced. Can you see if you got it? Thanks. USchick (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't get one, no.--v/r - TP 18:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

On the left, under Tools, Email this user, I used the form there to send the email and it bounced. Is it going to an active email account? I got an error message from my Yahoo email saying: Your message wasn't delivered because Yahoo was unable to verify that it came from a legitimate email sender. Your email failed one or more of the following industry-wide authentication checks that Yahoo uses to verify emails are truly sent from the domains they claim to originate from.

It doesn't like the Wikipedia form? Any suggestions? USchick (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Weird, I used the form and it worked just fine. It must have something to do with the email address in your profile.--v/r - TP 19:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

People send me email from my profile and I receive it. Do you mind sending me an email and I'll answer it? USchick (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! USchick (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @TParis and USchick: There is a known problem, which has existed since April 2014, in that if the sender's email address (as set in their Wikipedia prefs) is a Yahoo one, it will always bounce. More at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 125#Wikipedia email not working when I send but works when others send to me; Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 127#email; Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 129#Is "Email this user" on the blink?; and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 129#Wikipedia email Gmail note. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! USchick (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom E;ection Comission

Could you please tell me where the talk page of the Arbcom Election Commission is. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Right here: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2014/Coordination.--v/r - TP 16:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not see anything on it that concerns me. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Czar

I'm just waiting on your co-nomination so we can get the RFA started. Thanks Secret ^account 22:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Well crap, I thought we were waiting on you. Alright alright. Despite you and Dennis both bashing me, I guess I can lock arms with you two cats on this one.--v/r - TP 22:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The goddess awaits and demands her sacrifice. Proof that what we agree on is more important than what we disagree on. This is sure to confuse the dickens out of a number of people, but hopefully sets a good example. Dennis - 2¢ 23:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: On the subject of admins at DYK...

It's an interesting idea. I wouldn't mind having admin tools, but I've got no interest at all in going through the current RfA process. —Swpb^talk 22:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I have room to talk considering the kind of atmosphere I am causing at NA1K RfA at the moment, but in my experience, a good candidate with have a good experience. Take User:I JethroBT for example.--v/r - TP 23:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I just offered Swpb a co-nomination as well. Despite our differences in NA1K RFA, (I was thinking about withdrawing my support until several "revenge votes" by other opposers showed up, sorry I used you as an example) we both have the same goals in mind in finding high-quality candidates, and helping them guide them though this RFA. Thanks Secret ^account 23:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

revdels at Talk:Zoe Quinn

Could you check the Revdels in early September to see if all the objectionable material has been Revdel'd. It seems to me that only the objectionable editors' revisions were revdel'd, not the intermediate revisions which have the same information. This seems to be GamerGate-related. I came to this because of the editors who had revisions deleted has been making other questionable edits, and I decided to check his entire (short) edit history. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for bringing it to someone's attention.--v/r - TP 01:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for handling the issue on my talk page. Some old friends from university are visiting, so I've been offline mostly. Any idea who it was? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't, really. I just employed DENY.--v/r - TP 01:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place that tangentially involves you

The NA1000 RFA was closed as "successful", with no further comment, by a 'crat that !voted in support of the RFA, including a swipe at you in his vote. I have opened a discussion of the close at WP:BN. Just letting you know. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I cannot log in right now because I am not at home but that crat said in a recent discussion less than a month ago at ANI that he and I have beef. I cannot remember what it was but it seems he's held onto it so if you can find his comment or whatever the beef was then you can show he holds I'll feelings towards me and should not be using his tools in something I am so deeply involved to get back at me for whatever I did to him. @Lithistman:--TP (alt) 00:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

He waited until a 'crat willing to immediately restore the successful close showed up, reverted the close, and then it was restored within an hour or so. While a close at successful is defensible, I still think it should have been submitted to a 'crat discussion. The current closing 'crat dismissed much of the opposition, including your own, not as frivolous, necessarily, but as basically not carrying enough weight to consider not promoting. My main concern, though, is not with the final result, but with how awful Andrevan's behavior has been throughout this process. That he had a history with you just makes it worse. Since he has refused to resign the crat tools, I'm considering what action might next be necessary for a crat that has so abused the trust invested by the community. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• When 'crats are allowed to act the way Andrevan has, with no actual consequences, and discussions about the crat's targeting of you are closed as that one was, I'm not sure what the project is coming to. Quite a sad state of affairs. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm more concerned with the wider implications. We just had an RfA pass where the canidate and nom ignored the opposers, accusations of personal vendettas were made without any evidence, and a user who has absolutely no conflict/dispute resolution skills at all has been given the tools. This is going to come down to a big blow up, an explosion of epic proportions on ANI. I won't blame NA1K, he is who is he. Blame is going to fall solely on those who supported the nom and so callously ignored the obvious truth. Fortunately, I won't be here after I retire.--v/r - TP 05:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

    I've been thinking of going that route as well. The project is drifting further and further away from its wiki-roots. Not sure I want to stay around much longer. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Requests (Gender Gap Task Force)

In reply to your comment at this discussion which was recently closed: I agree that Thebrycepeake could have been more courteous. However, certain aspects of any honest discussion on fixing gender gap will offend (male) editors. It is important to have those discussions anyway. I have only skimmed through GGTF talk page, but a discussion comes to mind where the idea of male privilege was hotly contested. I guess that is why someone (was it SlimVirgin?) had proposed the idea of a "safe space" at GGTF. That probably will never happpen, but the least rest of us can do is to ensure that those who want to fix the gender gap get enough space to air their ideas without fearing repercussions. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 19:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You mention that certain aspects will offend male editors. That is a point easily conceded. What isn't easily conceded is methods that are solely intended to offend should be utilized. To say "A recently study shows that male aggression was cited by female editors blah blah blah" will offend. But it would be necessary for an open and honest discussion. The comments by Thebrycepeake were not meant to discuss the gender gap. They were meant to shame people into compliance with his point of view. I'm not going to tolerate shaming as some kind of constructive form of social change. It's not. Those who want to fix the gender gap need to do so by relying on facts and objective measures and not by subjective opinions and shaming methods. The current practice has been to throw out wild accusations and then shame anyone who doesn't nod their head. I will not stand for it. And if you think for once moment that accusations and shaming are an appropriate form of social change, then we have nothing left to discuss. On the other hand, if you believe that change happens when we discuss matters openly, with facts, and with open minds on both isles of an issue - then you and I are allies no matter what actual side of the isle we fall on. And that's what needs to happen - alliances for change need to be built with respect and trust.--v/r - TP 19:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't approve of any strategy which involves shaming people to make them fall in line, not that such a strategy would ever work. In bringing about any kind of social change ends matter as much as the means to me. I do however anticipate that some arguments about the Wikipedia system as a whole and the biases in it will be more speculative than factual and others will be harder to prove based on facts. I am okay with such arguments. For instance, "incivility drives women away from Wikipedia", "more women administrators would help bridge the gender gap" etc. will be hard to justify based on facts alone, but some of these ideas might be worth experimenting with anyway. And if someone feels there is some form of gender oppression on Wikipedia they should be able to say it freely as long as they are willing to explain and justify their position. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 20:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Aye, I wholly agree. But there is sharing an opinion and there is making an accusation. "I feel that there is oppression of female editors here that could be concious or subconscious and I have some ideas that might help combat my perception" is an opinion. "You all are oppressing women" is an accusation. Have you ever been to any form of relationship counseling? I've been four times. Once as a child, and three times as an adult (only one of those was religious). Every single one included a discussion about sharing feelings and making accusations. I suspect many people do not see a difference, but there is one. Any editor should be able to express their feelings in an honest way. No editor should make accusations against others. It's the different between "I feel that" and "You are doing". Regarding your two examples, there is a bit of subjectivity there but I agree it's important to consider those angles. But there is a scientific way to do it. We can take polls, we can ask questions, we can seek trends, question and challenge assumptions about those trends, modify our questions based on those polls, and ask again. But what we cannot do is rely on hearsay and anecdotal evidence to support those statements.--v/r - TP 20:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I find your clarity refreshing. I think editors at GGTF, on whichever side, would find your explanation of the difference between sharing an opinion and making an accusation very helpful. Maybe you shouldn't be planning to semi-reitre just yet. No one can completely change the combative way in which many of these disputes are handled, but many small victories remain to be won by editors such as yourself. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 05:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sigh I wish it were the case. My opinions are most often reacted to as if I oppose the things I am critical of. As if life is binary and one must be fully committed or fully opposed. I've been called sexist, racist, and transphobic - despite being a Libertarian who supports freedom, equality, and liberty for all - by folks who misunderstand me. It's been taxing for many years and I've convinced myself that my beliefs are a minority.--v/r - TP 05:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

And also, I have a hard time living by my own ideologies. Just look at Lightbreather's comments below - she was right about me making unfair arguments.--v/r - TP 05:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly why I insist you must stay. Because your beliefs indeed are a minority, because most editors involved in such disputes cannot see beyond binaries, because those you are critical of still reach out to you with "hearfelt requests" and because you readily admit to slipping up from your own standards. As long as you don't expect big changes to way things work you'll notice the impact you have. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 06:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment, but I really am exhausted. Maybe in a year or so I might get a second wind.--v/r - TP 06:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Long overdue

		The Half Barnstar
		You are one of the few editors who have held opposite opinions to me often in consensus and yet have not pushed in your own point of view (even supported NPOV against your POV / personal opinion etc) or kept any hostility for later comments and always stayed civil (something I have observed you to be having as an admin as well though I never interacted with you in that capacity). I had thought of giving you this one back at those initial disputes but did not want to make it look like 'partnering'. I feel this one is even more due now all that is stale and after your recent support at AN. lTopGunl (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it.--v/r - TP 17:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

A heartfelt request

TP, you have been someone I've admired from very early on, because you always seemed to make fair assessments of situations. However, I see something happening with you that I've not seen before, and I'd like to ask you to consider if what I'm seeing might reflect a problem you could work on. I suppose I am one of the last people you want to hear from right now, but I am reaching out to you because I want to regain the level of respect for you that I had in the not-too-distant past.

I think you are letting the discussions surrounding the gender gap and sexism on Wikipedia affect your good judgement. I first noticed this many weeks ago in one or two discussions. I remember the term "mansplaining" being involved, plus one or more of the more outspoken feminist editors. The way I can tell that it is causing you to lose some of your good sense is very simply your language. For example, at me on the GGTF ArbCom page:

1. You've just made an argument completely based on the gender of the editors and Arbitrators and without any regard for evidence-based facts.
2. You assume the only mitigating circumstance must be his gender.
3. None of the editors are making wide sweeping generalizations and accusations of sexism here.
4. [Your] only goal here is to be offended.
5. You made sweeping generalizations based on gender.
6. The statement you made was completely based on the gender of the editors and Arbitrators.
7. [The] opinion you've shared with all of us is exactly as I described it.
8. There isn't a single editor on Wikipedia that believes it should be dominated by any demographic.
9. Please either correct your behavior or don't participate.

The first eight examples are untrue. The last example ignores your own, good moral compass, because you have said elsewhere, "A pet peeve of mine is people telling others where they are and are not allowed to give an opinion." To be fair, my "behavior" on that page was giving my opinion, and I did not deserve such a hot-headed lecture.

I have never considered you sexist, but the hyper-sensitivity that you're showing on the subject is puzzling. Please take a breath and realize that most (probably not all) of the people (not only women) on Wikipedia who are complaining about sexism are doing it the best way they know how, short of not addressing the subject at all. After years of saying little and doing less, the community has some work to do on the subject. Yes, based on hard evidence, but also on the anecdotal stuff, too. There might be some here who are making this stuff up, or exaggerating it. I'm not, and I don't know anyone else who is, but I concede that is a possibility. However, the gender gap and sexism on Wikipedia is real, and something constructive needs to be done about it. The first step is for the community, which is predominately male, to acknowledge that the agonistic editing environment is toxic to many people, but especially to most women. The fact that many men and some women thrive, or at least survive, in this environment doesn't mean it's the others who need to change. For Pete's sake, they're the ones who are excluded.

If this pisses you off, which I know is a risk, I apologize in advance and tell you that I won't be back if you direct more of the same at me that you did at ArbCom. It literally makes me sick. I barely slept at all last. --Lightbreather (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right, #9 was unfair. Regarding the other 8, I specifically quoted the words that you said that I am referring to - as you've just done here. You've made some serious accusations against the Arbitrators and editors on that talk page without any regard for any circumstance other than gender. I'm not making an infinitive, I'm speaking directly to the words I quoted on that talk page. The only reference you made in the opening post was to gender as a factor. Now, I'm always open for discussion, but you have to read what I wrote to Correct Knowledge because that abouts sums up my feelings. My feelings aren't because this is about sexism, my feelings are because this is social advocacy and if you read my talk page I have a real problem with social advocacy. Modern day social advocacy is designed to make accusations, shock people, and shame them into compliance (from my perspective).

When I read your opening post, and I have reread it about five or six times now, I just keep seeing that same type of advocacy. You said, "doing it the best way they know how." I suspect that people are both sides of the isle are arguing the way they best know how. Now, while I think it is unfair of me to say to edit my way or get off, as you've pointed out, I also think it's unfair of you to say that editors must take the gender gap at face value without scrutiny and/or that we must accept at face value that the only reason the Arbcom case has gone the way it has gone is because of the gender of the Arbcom members. It lacks serious good faith, for one, and it's divisional.

I don't have the solutions to the gender gap. I'd love to see female editors thrive and all editors getting along. What I'd like to see is an open and honest dialogue between those with ideas to combat it and those who are skeptical of those ideas. With some open dialogue, perhaps something everyone can agree to could be devised. But, I don't think forcing an idea on someone and becoming upset when they ask why is going to solve it. I remember this study (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeK759FF84s). Instead of telling students "Racism is bad" and having the students ask "Why is racism bad?", the teacher engaged them in an exercise in discrimination and instead the students asked "Why do people do this?". Whether you agree with my summary of what is happening at the GGTF or not, I think at the very least you can accept that it has become the perception. Perception is not truth, and it much more powerful.--v/r -

TP 02:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You think that I made "accusations" against arbitrators AND editors? And that I made accusations "without ANY regard for ANY circumstance other than gender"? No. The first paragraph and the bulletin items are facts. The rest is my opinion, my observation. You read the whole and assumed that it was an accusation, and what's more, an accusation based only on gender. If you wanted to know if your assumption was true, you had only to ask two simple questions. Are you making an accusation? Is your conclusion based solely on gender? But instead you commanded me to review the case and report back to "us."

The fact is, I had read the Proposed principles, Proposed finding of facts, and Proposed remedies numerous times in the days leading up to my post. After reading and weighing all of that, numerous times, I made my observation. It is my opinion that, whether it was conscious or not, that ultimately gender was the significant contributing factor in deciding to ban Carol, but to give Eric another other chance. Is that an accusation? To charge someone with wrongdoing, I'd want to know that the someone knew they were doing wrong. So no, I don't consider it an accusation. It's an observation. An appeal. Perhaps a wake-up call. Now I'm going to watch some TV with my hubby. I believe you're Yank, like me, so Happy Thanksgiving to you. Lightbreather (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to go through your opening comment on the talk page one by one:

• "I am split between being disgusted and heartbroken by what I see happening here. So much could be said, but it's all been said before. The upshot is this:" - The central point is that you are upset because of the following reasons:
• "Five men and two women went before ArbCom because of disruptions at the WP:GGTF." - The central point is the genders of the parties
• "Only one of the 12 arbitrators was a woman." - The central point is the genders of the arbitrators
• "This case's net result? Five men free to continue editing; one woman topic banned from the GGTF; another woman site banned." - The central point was to compare the remedies based on the genders of the parties.
• "The current state of this case sends a strong signal to the (largely female) community that prefers - or especially expects - to edit in a more civilized environment: Sorry, helping guys like this means a lot more to us than helping someone like you." - The central point is that this sends a message that helping one gender is more important than helping another gender.

So you see, as far as I can tell, your point is about gender. That's where "completely" comes from. Each of your main points is about gender. If you didn't mean it that way, I hope I've helped you see that your intended message wasn't communicated. But, as far as I can read, each of those lines has a gender-focused undertone. Especially the last line which calls for a decision to be made using gender as a determining factor. As far as I understand, this comment advocates a double standard of decorum as long as it benefits the gender gap. I cannot support that and that is what I am opposing. I'm not opposing fixing the gender gap, I'm not opposing female editors, I'm not opposing change to the systematic processes that disadvantage women. I'm opposed to any form of change that isn't founded in respect and trust.--v/r - TP 04:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thebrycepeake might argue that the basic requirement of respect and trust is a diversionary tactic meant to delay change. I disagree. I think, as Correct Knowledge said above, that the means is as important as the destination.--v/r - TP 04:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Ohh, and happy thanksgiving. Hope you have a great time with family and friends.--v/r - TP 06:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

And no, I'm not pissed off at you. Frustrated in general at the whole Arbcom case - I think Neotarf is getting the shaft where other people are being granted leniency. Everyone is sticking up for Carol and Neotarf is being nearly completely ignored. And I'm pissed off about the gaming and aggressive tactics that both sides have used. While the gender gap side has been more vocal, the other side has been more strategic. I'm not happy either way and this is why I am retiring. I'm tired of seeing opportunities to engage openly being thrown in the trash because skeptics are snide and proponents are passionate.--v/r - TP 02:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree about Neotarf. I think if Sitush is going to be able to continue editing on gender-gap related articles and participate in gender-gap related discussions, that Neotarf should be able to as well. Lightbreather (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Post Turkey Day wrap-up

I was very good and ate only one (albeit very large) plate: turkey, mashed potatoes, gravy, stuffing, cranberry relish, green bean casserole, corn casserole, yams, and a biscuit - the whole nine yards! And, of course, pie and ice cream an hour later. My DIL was happy because her Lions beat da Bears. My granddaughters were sick, but only sniffles, so I was and am very Thankful.

I've read your comments and came back to make one final observation. You misunderstood my original/opening post at ArbCom and commanded me to explain myself, which I did. When I came here to share my personal concerns about you - and it wasn't easy for me to do so - you cited my original post again and insisted, again, that the only conclusion you could draw (from my original post) is that I made my observation based only on gender. You're focusing on my original post and ignoring the two or three times since then that I've explained the thinking behind it in detail. You write, "I hope I've helped you see that your intended message wasn't communicated." This is interesting, because I'd hoped that I'd helped you see that my intended message wasn't received. There are two ends to our communication. Let's just leave it by saying we both might have done a better job.

I am now returning to the ArbCom page to make - I hope - a final comment, provided the other editors (two come to mind, and neither is you) don't decide to make light of my input. --Lightbreather (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

There are two sides to communication, you're right. Perhaps our next interaction won't be on such a controversial topic and it'll be better for both of us.--v/r - TP 18:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Ford Island

Hey TP, congrats on getting this promoted to FA, looks like everything's good for TFA on December 7. This is Paul (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Sigh of relief Thanks, that was a lot of work. It's still on a tight schedule, I have to write a blurb and propose it. Thanks again for being open to withdrawing your article for that day.--v/r - TP 17:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Good job, TParis. Viriditas (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Nice of them to withdraw for this. Good work TParis and thanks for inviting me to help.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	This is a little overdue, because I saw your message a month ago. For burying the hatchet with Joefromrandb. ...William 20:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TParis. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).
Message added 03:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Your request

Sorry, but I take exception to your statement that I've been dominating the conversation anywhere. Obviously I'm not going to be exchanging Christmas cards with Neotarf anytime soon, but I doubt that account will ever be unblocked. I've had minimal interactions with LB, if any. When Carol returns from her timeout, well I'm sure we will be cordial. I'm kind of pissed at the FoF, which if you review Rich F's unsolicited analysis you will see its, pardon my French, complete bullshit. But I'll take the topic ban and move on. But I find the request for more sanctions to be punitive and mean-spirited.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 06:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I don't think any of you can talk without snapping at each other. It's not personal - other than maybe I personally am tired of seeing ya'all making snide remarks that don't settle anything. Ya'all simply have a different perspective of what is happening and what has happened. Pure and simple. And there is no amount of talking to each other that is going to persuade anyone. So - time to quit the chatter.--v/r - TP 06:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You are ignoring my complaint that I have been dominating the conversation. Patently untrue. I've never posted on LB's page, and only posted twice on Neotarf's. Once was when she crossed the line and compared me to a Nazi, and the other time I requested they remove some personal information about someone (which she did). Suffice it to say, I'm not "going after" any of them. And I find it objectionable that another last minute change may occur.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 07:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Ya know what, I've looking over the "edits by user" and it seems that I've edited the proposed decision page with edits in a closer proximity than you have. I'll strike your name. I don't know where the perception came from. Sorry.--v/r - TP 07:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 07:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

RFA

I noticed you nominated Czar for adminship, which was successful, and Sarahj2107, which almost certainly will be successful too. Would you consider nominating me? Everymorning talk to me 16:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I can mostly definitely do a review and we can see where we go from there. I'll email it to you. There is one review ahead of you at the moment.--v/r - TP 17:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ford Island recognition of your personal effort in FAing it in time for 7 XII 2014 as you set out to do

And you did it, Tom! Your heroic effort to get it done, mostly through your edits, and to get it done in time for the article to feature as a Featured Article on the Main Page on the anniversary of the day that shall forever live in infamy, well. Tom, for this you deserve a star of its own joy and designing. Allow me:

--Mareklug ^talk 11:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It was a team effort with you, Mark Miller, Minniapolis, Dank, Peacemaker67, Crisco 1492, Nikkimaria, Hawkeye, and many other reviewers who put in a lot of effort to critique the thing. Very happy how so many people came together on this to help us get it on the main page. My only hope now, the thing I fear I could have done wrong, is that I treated the ancient Hawaii section with enough respect, dignity, and understanding so that I do not offend.--v/r - TP 17:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Email sent

Hello, TParis. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

BusterD (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell

You posted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell:

Per Hell in a Bucket's insistence that I find the exact edits, here are all the ones dealing with Carolmooredc and Lightbreather - I hope this settles the matter as there were plenty and easy to find: [8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. There are more, but I think I made my point.--v/r - TP 02:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• TParis: This is the content of the links you provided above to provide the exact edits dealing with Carolmooredc and Lightbreather posted by EChastain:

1. [15] @Carolmooredc: This one also looks useful: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject, if you haven't seen it. EChastain (talk) 5:22 pm, 26 October 2014, Sunday (1 month, 7 days ago) (UTC−4)
2. [16] @Carolmooredc Is the c word a gender-related slur when said to a male? According to the evidence provided by User:Patrol forty, in his section Eric Corbett's use of the C-word, "In the last 6 months, Eric has twice used the C-Word in way that is unambiguously intended at a direct personal insult:[17] and [18]." Are these diffs referring to males also gender-related slurs? I'm unclear. EChastain (talk) 5:05 pm, 28 October 2014, Tuesday (1 month, 5 days ago) (UTC−4)
3. [19] @Carolmooredc:, Evergreenfir is correct on that point? Mind reading Eric's thinking processes? Could you define what "acting like one" is in that statement. I wouldn't take her word for any of this. According to EvergreenFir on Mansplaining: "The people who "decide" it's a social phenomenon would be the scholars that write about it." What scholars wrote about Mansplaining that EvergreenFir considers it a social phenomenon rather than a derogatory term? EChastain (talk) 6:47 pm, 28 October 2014, Tuesday (1 month, 5 days ago) (UTC−4)
4. [20] @Carolmooredc: I don't see anything in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Getting_into_fights that will help with fighting. It basically says for: "Fighting with other WikiProjects or unaffiliated editors: No project can control another project or other editor", and "In disputes with another project or with editors outside your project, your only effective tool is negotiation. If you need the cooperation of another project, approach them in a spirit of cooperation and look for appropriate compromises." EChastain (talk) 4:23 pm, 29 October 2014, Wednesday (1 month, 4 days ago) (UTC−4)
5. [21] @Carolmooredc: I'm not saying anything about the five pillars. I only quoted you from a member of the Wikiproject Council responding to a question about specific procedures to deal with "editors [who] have a problem with the scope or activities of a Wikiproject that cannot be resolved at the talk page".[22] I believe you would have to take it up with them if you want them to modify their scope to include procedures you want them to have to deal with editors having problems. They do stress that they have no control over editors or conflict between projects. EChastain (talk) 7:47 pm, 29 October 2014, Wednesday (1 month, 4 days ago) (UTC−4)
6. [23] @Carolmooredc: I think you've misrepresented Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Getting_into_fights. Under the bullet point Fighting with other WikiProjects or unaffiliated editors, Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject says:No project can control another project or other editor: No project can demand that another project support an article, change its scope, quit working on an article, or otherwise do what you want. Disputes may arise between projects or outside editors over formatting, such as the preferred system for organizing an article or the contents of a template. Disputes may also arise over quality standards. [...] In disputes with another project or with editors outside your project, your only effective tool is negotiation. (emphasis added)

   I think the link give above to ANI Disruption of WikiProject as support for Locus of dispute is unfortunate. To me it demonstrates that some supporters of GGTF lack knowledge of what a personal attack is and provide diffs that are no such thing. Accusing editors of personal attacks with diffs that are clearly do not support the charge is likely to reduce the credibility of the task force complaints. And it doesn't support the Locus of dispute: "The main focus of this arbitration should be the bad faith editor behavior which disrupted the project."

   EChastain (talk) 1:35 pm, 30 October 2014, Thursday (1 month, 3 days ago) (UTC-4)
7. [24] @Carolmooredc:: Patrol forty is indefinitely blocked. Block log:

• 22:16, 25 October 2014 Adjwilley (talk | contribs) blocked Patrol forty (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia)

• 10:51, 26 October 2014 Bdd23 (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Patrol forty (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite (Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked: Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia)

• 23:43, 3 November 2014 Courcelles (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Patrol forty (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite ({{checkuserblock-account}}: Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia)

Note to Carolmooredc: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy

Carolemooredc, have you read Patrol forty's talk page? Do you think, given the checkuserblock-account, the revocation of Patrol forty's talk page access, his posts on his talk page, etc. that you are using good judgment by choosing this diff of Patrol forty's evidence to support your views (as you did above?)

Problems with your diffs: As you so often do, your diff to Patrol's evidence isn't precise, forcing the conciencous reader to hunt through long and confusing pages for the evidence you claim to cite, for example long ANI pages (and when I've read them I've found you've misrepresented the evidence) and likewise when you cite your Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/related resources which seems to becoming a link farm (it would be an effort to read through the long list of questionably relevant articles, and then read the actual articles to see if anything you mention as fact was reliably supported by an independent source or even relevant to the Gender Gap on wikipedia.

You know how to provide specific diffs like this:this specific diff because I've seen you do it before.

Re arbs and other editors: I am wondering if many, including arbs don't have the time it takes to get through the long and confusing pages you cite to evaluate even one of your statements, so they assume you are validly supporting your "evidence" which would take many days. And especially a problem is your constant changing of your evidence (and perhaps your comments too, as I can't continually check) without notice, so what I read and react to may not be the same post after your perpetual revisions.

EChastain (talk) 12:36 pm, 15 November 2014, Saturday (17 days ago) (UTC-5)

• TParis, None of these diffs are related to Lightbreather.

• Examples of some diffs left out:

1. [25] @Neotarf: Regarding Eric Corbett, when verifying your evidence regarding Eric's misogyny (to be sure you were being accurate), did you check the article to see that Eric made many edits (becoming the third largest contributor) to William of Wrotham after Ealdgyth requested his help on that article? Surely the inaccuracy of this evidence against Eric demonstrates the misleading nature of the diffs supposedly showing his abuse of women. EChastain (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
2. [26] @Carolmooredc: This one also looks useful: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject, if you haven't seen it. Has bunches of formating code and other stuff. EChastain (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
3. [27] @EChastain. Thanks for noticing I someone how presented the wrong diff. This is the diff of Eric Corbett saying to Dank: "I see, you're the cunt I always thought you were. " If the Arbitrators have not seen fit to remove Patrol Forty's diffs, I have a perfect right to use the diff. There's no guilt by association here.

   If the Arbitrators have a problem with other evidence, they can ask me a question. The Resources link was an invitation for people here to look at the research themselves instead of asking people for their interpretation of evidence. If people care about the issue they will.

   Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 1:14 pm, 15 November 2014, Saturday (17 days ago) (UTC-5)
   

@Carolmooredc I guess that means that no one else checks your diffs! And that you don't either to see if they're correct!! And that you have no scruples using evidence that you know is tainted by a CheckUser finding, and didn't even bother to read Patrol forty's talk page. Rather, as usual, you expect others to do the checking: "The Resources link was an invitation for people here to look at the research themselves instead of asking people for their interpretation of evidence." (As if you haven't done an insane amount of "interpreting" already in this arbcom.)

This is your usual MO, as you've done with Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/related resources, always saying things like you have no time, real life issues intervene, will complete in a few days, etc.

I've noticed that you frequently reply to comments by answering only the least relevant one, or by changing the subject. Here you evaded my overall comments about your links to huge pages like ANI#Disruption_of_Wikiproject which you cited as evidence of bad faith editors and of the "Locus of dispute", and which I posted to you before as a horrendous page that you seem to expect editors to go through and which doesn't support your statements[28]; Nor did you give relevant responses to my other comments at that time to you[29]

You misrepresented what Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide says[30] and misunderstood the guide to mean that "this guide which only mentions "negotiation" overrides one of the five pillars, which includes civility and dispute resolution? Obviously the Guide has to be beefed up to reflect that fact." [31] And you didn't even check Patrol forty's talk page. Do you make any effort to check out anything with even minimal investigation? I don't see any evidence that you do. From what I've seen, you usually misrepresent/misunderstand a great bit of the time.

It's also annoying that you took my suggestions for links to the Project Council/Guide, and presented them as your suggestions.

You also say: "The only thing I say about the "Getting into fights" section in this "Locus of dispute" section is that “unaffiliated editors” can be the source of fights." I wasn't discussing negotiation or dispute resolution, so I can't be misrepresenting anything, can I? And I agree that "The main focus of this arbitration should be the bad faith editor behavior which disrupted the project." But you can't understand bad faith behavior without understanding possible motivations. The Disruption ANI was how it looked at the time. My original evidence here was a timeline. Understanding of the motivations for the disruption - including through collection of diffs and seeing others' diffs - is an evolving process. Thus this later analysis to help Arbitrators understand that strong and even hostile POVs against the GGTF drove editors to their bad and disruptive behavior.[32]

I never said I thought the main "Locus of dispute" should be the bad faith editor behavior which disrupted the project.

All I can say in response to all of this is to ask if you are considered a quality editor here? If so, I'm disillusioned. You didn't follow the suggestions of the Project Counsel/Guide to be sure to define the scope before you open your project or task force or whatever. If you'd done that adequately, and followed their other suggestions, this arbcom probably would have been unnecessary.

I quoted from a member of the Wikiproject Council responding to a question about specific procedures to deal with "editors [who] have a problem with the scope or activities of a Wikiproject that cannot be resolved at the talk page".[33] Then I found out you, Carolmooredc was the editor who posted the question there! I have trouble believing wikipedia is this inept. (Sorry if this comment offends, but I'm surprised at what I'm seeing here.)

EChastain (talk) 4:06 pm, 15 November 2014, Saturday (17 days ago) (UTC−5)]

TParis, I can add more diffs, but in no instance did I add evidence pertaining to Lightbreather, nor address any comments to her. I admit I probably overdid it regarding Carolmooredc, and in retrospect I wish I had posted much, much less. But I was mindblown at her misunderstandings and misrepresentations shown in her evidence. And I was frustrated she did not answered my questions directly, but evaded, changed the subject, deflected to other issues etc. I eventually gave up the attempt to get a straight answer out of her.

My apologies for this long post. Thanks, EChastain (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You've admitted to not being a new user, fair enough. But I'm convinced that you are a clean start and that you have pursued an old dispute. I'm fairly convinced you are Sue even if you have managed to avoid some of the areas of conflict Sue had while participating in others. Now, the question is, who are you if not Sue? Carolmooredc seems to think you may be someone else - I don't know who she has in mind. You don't seem to be arguing that you're not a failed clean start, you seem to be arguing that you're not a failed clean start of Sue. So, what do you propose we do from here?--v/r - TP 17:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Really? That I'm Sue Rangell? I've never come across her. Could you enlighten me as to what that "old dispute" is? (You think it's gun control or the Israel/Palestine issue?) Do you think it's ok that Lightbreather continue to add "evidence" against me on her talk that's frankly ridiculous. At least EvergreenFir verified that she was the one that used the word "sigh" in an edit summary, so that piece of evidence purporting to connect me to Sue Rangell is out (maybe, or will they find a way to morph it into something I did anyway)? I guess I'll have to start reading archives and more arbcom cases to try to figure out what's happening. EChastain (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

i've looked under gun control arbcom and can't see where Sue Rangell is involved. Couldn't find the Israeli/Palestine arbcom. Frankly I'd never heard of any of the editors of the GGTF or even the GGTF its self until I came across Neotarf's "cunt, nigger" post on NYB's page and was incredulous that this could happen on wiki at all. There seems to be a plan to hound me until they find something they can pin on me. Maybe Carolmooredc and Lightbreather need a villain - whatever Carolmooredc and Lightbreather can make stick.

Just found a link to the mailing list. It's really depressing. I guess this time I'm going to see a whole new side of wikipedia I never knew about before. Oh well. It doesn't matter what happens if I'm going to be banned by hook or by crook, so I'll dump any serious editing plans, cancel my book orders until I see if I can stand the harassment.

The last arbcom case I followed was Sexology and this GGTF case really reminds me of that one. On the mailing list, there's descriptions of all the attempts made to figure out who Eric Corbett is, and all they could find was that his family set up a trust for ferrets. WOW!

I rue I outed myself as a female, and if by any chance I'm not railroaded and harassed off wiki by Lighbreather et al, I'll ask for a renaming so my sex won't be known.

But, hey, if you could point me to places to look to find out the backstory to all this, I'd really appreciate it.

Why was it not ok for Jokestress to bring in off-wiki disputes onto wiki, but it's ok for the GGTF folk to do it openly, and even opening spam twitter accounts and openly try to out Eric Corbett? This place has really changed since I last looked in. Cheers!

EChastain (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Here and Here are where Sue intersected with Lightbreather and Carolmooredc.--v/r - TP 01:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that I study those lists and avoid all articles/ interactions on them? EChastain (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No, once the SPI comes back negative you can completely ignore all of this. Tparis is just using that as reasons he thinks you are said person. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Does "civility" excuse misuse of information?

It appears to me that you may feel like you havea guilty conscience re Lightbreather:

• A heartfelt request by Lightbreather on your talk on 27-11-2014 "you have been someone I've admired from very early on, because you always seemed to make fair assessments of situations.", "I have never considered you sexist, but the hyper-sensitivity that you're showing on the subject is puzzling." etc.
• Just look at Lightbreather's comments below - she was right about me making unfair arguments made 27-11-2014 in response by TParis (though you noted only one of your nine comments was unfair, and the rest were directi quotes from her.
• Post turkey wrap up by Lightbreather on 28-11-2014

I don't understand these post by you and Lightbreather, but it suggests to me that you many be WP:INVOLVED.

And when posting her allegations on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell and updating them without noting that it was a revised edition, and without notifying me, was extremely confusing - I thought I must have Alzhimer's. (Even though I'm a new account, do I deserve no regard in your eyes?)

I've looked through her archives and see many examples of this kind of thing (like requests to remove of comments of others after pleas that her feeling were hurt). EChastain (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

1) I am not WP:INVOLVED by any sense of the word having never interacted with you before at all. Nor does WP:INVOLVED apply as I've never taken nor threatened to take an administrator action with regards to you. And your misuse of policy really makes you seem more and more like Sue. 2) No revisions were made since Lightbreather's commets were not the basis of the SPI. They were my own comments. 3) You were notified.--v/r - TP 16:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tparis that he doesn't at this time qualify as INVOLVED. I'm sorry to see you are giving up the mop completely btw. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Shrug Time to go. Don't worry, I found 7 people to replace me.--v/r - TP 23:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I totally can't believe that you're breaking up with us! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Precious

a person's freedoms
Thank you, "active duty programmer in the Air Force" and "pro- just about everything related to a person's freedoms", for quality articles on what you know, such as Ford Island, Pacific Aviation Museum Pearl Harbor and The Faerie Path, for welcoming new users and service as an admin open for review, guiding "your" candidates for the mop successfully through the ordeal, for realism and for trying to protect children, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I appreciate it. You must have really dug to find that Jimbo diff, though. lol.--v/r - TP 17:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Amused: it was rather a lucky find, - I always look end of 2012, because of women with courage, supported by the same (not Jimbo, of course) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Ford Island

Congratulations getting the article up on time! It was a charm to review for ACR, good job to you and the other editors! Protonk (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review and the time it took to compile it. A lot of great people came together to get that article up to snuff. I've never had an experience like that on the project before, it was really great.--v/r - TP 18:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It was fun, but you put the main effort to get it up on this day so congratulations on all the effort paying off!--Mark Miller (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Your email

Hi, I got the email you sent me. As far as the MEDRS subpage thing is concerned, I didn't intend for it to be interpreted the way you read it. I do think this guideline is an important one and try to follow it as much as possible, but in the subpage I was talking about how it is inconvenient. Given that your email has led me to think about the issue of whether this looks like I am complaining unconstructively, though, I have tagged the subpage for deletion. Thanks for the feedback. Everymorning talk 18:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. Let me know if I can do anything else for you. If it helps, I've reviewed 13 people since September and so far have only nommed 3. You're well within a future admin candidate zone but just have a few things to consider. I'd be happy to nom you in 6 months.--v/r - TP 19:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Signing

Hi TP. Could you sign your DS alert to User talk:MarieWarren? It's good for the user to have someone to ask if they don't understand the notice. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I figured the template would do it for me. Thanks for the heads up, I went back and signed it.--v/r - TP 19:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

According to Template:Ds/alert you can specify sig=yes, but it's not the default. EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Shooting of Michael Brown

I noticed your comments at ANI about Shooting of Michael Brown and there are numerous cases of WP:BLP violations, misinformation and POV pushing. Pro-Wilson, Pro-Brown sections mingled with completely inappropriate analogies and assumptions. A call for a non-involved admin was requested and while I am not one, there are dozens of issues in the article that need to be immediately removed per BLP. Perhaps I was a little harsh by stating that editors blocking the NPOV tag should be blocked, but those involved are either blind to policy or complicit in the violations. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I've got a opinion about the issue and so I probably couldn't remain impartial enough to be an uninvolved administrator. Besides, blatant NPOV violations protected by the system because sysops are unwilling to enforce NPOV when it suits their politics is exactly why I am leaving the project. I feel like I've done my part to combat radical conservatives trying to push conservative POV on this project but I just don't see that sort of effort from my counterparts.--v/r - TP 18:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

TP, it's a great shame you feel you have to go, but before you do leave the project, I think you owe it to us to bring such admins to book (if you haven't already done so, that is) or at least lay the trail. I for one, am one admin who is on the warpath for misbehaving sysops, mainly because I'm fed up of us all being tarred with the same brush by the anti-admin brigade, and for the reason why I became an admin in the first place after having been 'assaulted' and insulted by rogue admins years ago. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

As a self-identified "conservative" (I'm not so sure I'm "radical" or not) I also would want to have someone at least have the problem editors identified, and I think Kudpung would be a great choice. Regarding some things, like I guess BLP, conservatively erring on the side of caution is probably a good idea in general, but I have to say that if this site winds up being the Rush Limbaugh involuntary gag response of the net, none of us, conservatives or otherwise, do ourselves any damn good whatsoever. Civil or nominally civil POV pushing is one of the biggest problems we have, and several arbs and potential arbs among others have clearly recognized that. Letting someone else know who the worst offenders of that type are would definitely be something that would be in everyone's interests. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's just put it this way, I'm not going to name names, but anyone who pushes Media Matters for America as a reliable source and disputes whether Fox News is a reliable source is a POV pusher. It's that simple. I'm tired of the double standard with regard to source-bias. I'm tired of the editors who push that point of view with a straight (civil) face. And I'm tired of the sysops who encourage and support those editors in disputes because it serves their own purposes such as social or political advocacy. Once again, Santorum is a perfect example. Compare that article to "You didn't build that". The more Wikipedia becomes a cultural icon, the worse it becomes. It's not getting better and I don't want to be part of it anymore. The "encyclopedia" is a tool of activism, now.--v/r - TP 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sad to say, the encyclopedia has always been a tool of activism. I started editing in 2004 and we had to drag a POV-pusher all the way to ArbCom because he couldn't let that election go. Gamaliel (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

If he's speaking about encyclopedias in general, though, not just wikipedia, I have to say that I think in some cases he is kind of justified there too. There are at least a few encyclopedic articles relating to religious topics, generally smallish groups or movements or ideologies, which at least to my eyes read more like press releases than neutral overviews. And I seem to remember seeing at least some reviews of encyclopedias relating to recent historical developments being criticized as obviously partisan. And I'm still stunned the last print edition of Britannica contained an article on the Catholic Church which included in its bibliography 4 sources relating to the history of Catholicism in the UK and 3 relating to the history of Catholicism in the entire southern hemisphere combined, with an article rather clearly reflecting that bias.

I don't know if it has any chance of working, but I remember User:Shii, who probably knows more specifically about religion in general than I do, saying recently that in some ways we are trying to do here something that even most print encyclopedias don't do, which is be both neutrally encyclopedic and up-to-date. I agree we ain't really doing a good job of getting there, and I can well imagine people giving up trying, but I'm an unrealistic optimist in a lot of ways and I can hope that maybe sometime we might be able to in some way maybe at least cover most everything that the major topical encyclopedias cover. If we even do that, which we are still a long way from doing, that is at least something. John Carter (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is any one person thinking they alone can present an unbiased and neutral perspective on anything. Only by cooperating with others, and I do not mean with our political and ideological allies, can we find balance. Our tendency lately has been to issue one sided topic bans and interaction bans or site bans that entirely and unequivocally prohibit that from happening.

The rule of civil POV pushing goes like this: remain calm and dismiss your opponents concerns in the most simplistic and patronizing way possible. Whatever it takes to get an opponent to slip. Because once they slip, you have a direct line to their nerves. Civil POV pushing is a cancer to this project and no one is willing to address it and sysops routinely play their role in the strategy.--v/r -

TP 20:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Those first two sentences describe well how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Nobody is neutral but everyone should try to be. Collaboration is supposed to compensate for any one person's inherent biases and allow collaborators to point out and compensate for each other's biases. This process is disrupted by POV pushers because the collaborative equilibrium is thrown out of whack when one party isn't trying to be neutral and the other parties are. It doesn't matter how civil the POV pusher is because the effect is the same in the end. I'd love to see POV pushers banned entirely but I'm not sure how to frame a policy in a way that is fair to everyone, even if such a policy could ever be accepted by the techno-libertarian-utopianists who equate freedom with being able to act like an asshole online and make up a large percentage of vocal Wikipedia editors. Not the least problem with framing the policy is how we decide who a civil POV pusher is. I have some names that I could share privately with you and I'm sure you do as well, and we'd probably vehemently disagree about our respective lists. Gamaliel (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Probably would. On the other hand, we'd also be aware of some of the behaviors and we'd be able to be more aware on our own. The issue I find is just about everyone claims they are the ones trying to be neutral while the other isn't. And, I'm sorry to say and I don't mean it as a pejorative, but most of our admin and editor base hold liberal beliefs. I do not know of any other admin that is openly conservative. According to isidewith.com, I am just left of center but on Wikipedia I am described as conservative. That tells me something. If a barely liberal sysop like me is considered conservative on here, then our center isn't matching up to the world outside of this project. Perhaps it's because the American center is to the right of most of Europe? I don't know. But I do know that, depending on the topic, there is a hostility toward conservatives. I also know that depending on other topics (such as religion) that there is a hostility toward liberals. I don't know and your perspective is probably completely different then mine.

But from where I am sitting, I just don't see any way at all to get this project to take any claim of an overall political bias seriously and it's been draining on my faith in the project. There are only two ways forward, I could start whining everywhere that we're dismissing claims of bias too easily and become disruptive or I can just quietly bow my head and humbly leave. I don't want to leave is some kind of anger and frustration over the issue and so I gave everyone a 6-month heads up. But I would have left the day I decided to leave 12 months ago if I didn't think the project would think I am just some radical-conservative who has been playing nice for so long finally blowing up. I'd rather just shake hands with everyone and leave as friends and so I set a date far enough out where no one's shock would cause them to become defensive over my views and think ill of me.--v/r -

TP 22:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't doubt that what you say is true. However, I have the opposite impression of editors here, having witnessed hordes of conservative editors constantly scrubbing clean the articles of conservatives and advocating the use of Breitbart as an RS while deriding the New York Times. And I think we're both right to an extent, as perhaps, due to their inherent biases, people are more likely to notice and remember abuse of a certain type. I think after years in the trenches a battleground mentality develops, despite good intentions and efforts to the contrary. After years of seeing and being the victim of POV pushing and abuse, an editor is less inclined to see a well-intentioned editor of a different political persuasion as a collaborator and more likely to see them as as more radical than they really are. (Which I think may be in part why some people like myself have perceived you as more conservative than the actual you.) It would be nice to get rid of the well-poisoning POV-pushers so well-intentioned editors could collaborate in a harmonious atmosphere, but I have no idea how to accomplish that. Gamaliel (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you've added two perspectives to it that I hadn't considered before. One being that you are seeing the exact same thing from the other side, which I always assumed to be true, but you frame it in a different context with the same conclusions. The second is that what you describe is essentially that editors have become jaded - and understandably so. I don't know what the solution is either, but I think open discussions like the one we're having is the start.--v/r - TP 01:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Stupid as it sounds, and believe me I know it sounds stupid, the best thing I can think of to help address POV concerns and WEIGHT concerns and other matters is to just see what as many of the relevant well-regarded reference works as we can see say on a topic, and try to balance them out and include as much of the relevant content somewhere, in some article. Even that will only work for content old enough to be included in such, of course, and the article at the title of this thread isn't one of them. But I can honestly say that even looking at all the good reference sources can be a terrifying undertaking. The ALA Guide to Reference website lists somewhere over 3,000 well-regarded reference sources, and it doesn't cover very well a lot of reference works related to material not regularly of interest to Americans. John Carter (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I've had my issues with NYT and I've had my issues with Fox and all the others. I do not trust any source based on its origins. Wikipedia needs to adopt that stance, but as long as people are thinking of reliability and verifiability being tied to a publisher or brand... well, its going to be shitty. I do not even trust NRHP listings, because people make errors or assumptions that get picked up by mistake. I am free from much politic bickering in NRHP, but East District School has incorrect dates and the NRHP nomination bungles quite a bit. I try to keep out of political arguments because they are described as two halves of a coin which is really a die. You want to know a scary progression of Wikipedia thought mirrors philosophy and we are to subscribe to Kant's flawed concepts of intention-based morality. The cynics may like Thomas Hobbes's notions, but thankfully neither that or John Stuart Mills theories hold out. Its a bit of game theory and true morality which governs the interactions of the good-natured. Most people, in the wider community innately follow the same path, but those with a mission deviate and cause the most disruption of those who normally would defend themselves. Shame its not a perfect analogy for real life. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Would appreciate your viewpoint

Hi TP, I consider you a "cut through the BS" kind of Admin and there's a situation that I think could benefit from your perusal.

There was a recent ANI involving this article Vehicle registration plates of Pennsylvania (that presented as simple content dispute) with one particular User who has been disruptive, Edit Warring, and non-communicative after numerous messages and pings on the article Talk page and the Users Talk page. This person has gone so far as to blank their Talk page, so we know that they have seen the messages. In fact, when I informed this person of such, my comment was blanked again with an edit summary that I was making a threat.

Rather than take this again to ANI or another Noticeboard, will you take a look? Thank you in advance for any help or insight you can provide, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look. On the subject of admins, though, could I entice you to endure one of my admin reviews for an RfA?--v/r - TP 21:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that was a swift and decisive response...!--Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amortias (talk • contribs) 22:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI

[[34]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hell in a Bucket (talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I haven't always agreed with you, but I appreciate that you understand that "No one loves the messenger who brings bad news." Messengers such as myself will lose a fair officer when you hang up your mop.

Lightbreather (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kitten. After I didn't receive a response to my last email, I was afraid I'd scared you off. Figured you identified as a liberal christian on your user page and said you had your bible handy, so I felt pretty confident that I wouldn't be encroaching on your beliefs by quoting from it, but when you were silent I was concerned I'd offended you.--v/r - TP 21:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No, you didn't offend me. I was just tired. Lightbreather (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Very Respectfully

Ok, I'm finally taking the time to ask this since I see you use it in your sig. Is this a military thing signing this way? I've noticed my military clients use this a lot. God Bless them however. They sure as shit beat my commercial customers. Professional, courteous and always reasonable. They could pay their bills a bit faster, but it's a bureaucracy after all. I do like some of the naval jargon. I think the next time I misbehave I'm gonna go to an admin and say "My compliments to the admin, but I just called so and so a douchenozzle". Happy Paganchristmahanakwanzika.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 16:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty common - at least in the Air Force. You forgot Festivus.--v/r - TP 17:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't stand hipsters. Always texting at red-lights and missing the green and causing someone to have to wait.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello

I am hoping that you can help me or, failing that, point me in the right direction. There is a picture of Kit Carson, the lede picture, that says his uniform is ca. 1860, but I think it is earlier than that. Can you take a look, and offer an opinion or a next step? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You are definitely talking to the wrong person. I have no idea about uniforms from the civil war era. Your best bets are User:Buistr, User:Adamdaley, or User:Berean Hunter.--v/r - TP 19:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It is because you blocked me (some time ago) that I trust you and I knew you'd have a direction for me. Thank you and Ho Ho Ho. Carptrash (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Haha, I had no memory of that. Looked at your block log and didn't see my name. Found a topic ban in your archives :). I really try not to (or rather I don't make an effort to) remember past interactions with people.--v/r - TP 07:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Pardon the intrusion of a talk page browser, but User:Carptrash I'd say that uniform is likely a slightly-earlier pattern worn by Carson when he was the colonel of the 1st New Mexico Cavalry (or possibly earlier when he was commander of the 1st New Mexico Infantry prior to the 1862 consolidation). Given the proliferation of uniform types at the start of the war, especially with Western units, I think the caption is valid in terms when he would have worn it. Sorry again for the intrusion, TParis. Intothatdarkness 18:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Paris, my blocking was a minor speed bump in th road of life, one that taught me to . . ... drive slower. Intothatdarkness here is the problem that I have with the early 1860 date for the picture. A photo of Carson in 1868 reveals him as a tired, wornout man. The one we are discussing appears to show a vigorous man in his prime. But after hearing the uniforn folks, whom I have asked for an opinion, I am inclined to let this one lie. thanks, Carptrash (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

His rank insignia seems to depict Colonel still. I'm not sure if Brevets wear the rank they are supposedly entitled with the authority of, but if they do then you could track down the date that he was made a Brevet Brig Gen and you'd know it was before that date.--v/r - TP 20:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec)You also have to consider the rather active campaigning he did for Carleton during the Civil War, User:Carptrash. I've seen some pre-war pictures of Carson that look similar to how he appears in that article picture. The rank also appears to be correct for his rank at that time. I'm not aware of him having any military rank prior to that time. There are other versions of that picture of better quality that clearly show the rank (colonel) and aren't as fuzzy...making it clear that he is likely older than he appears in the version we're using. And, yes, TParis, brevets did wear their brevet rank. Intothatdarkness 20:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, the truth, according to Oscar Wilde, "was seldom pure and never simple." Sort of like wikipedia. Thanks again. I am not going to make any changes in the picture caption unless ... something else happens. Carptrash (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Your AE comment

Hello TP. Regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement by TParis. Can you say more? In the linked thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#Factchecker atyourservice isn't here to build an encyclopedia you were saying both (1) Brianhe's charges against Factchecker were excessive, (2) the 2011 warning to Factchecker was renewed. Which of these observations did you want to bring to the attention of AE? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Brianhe referenced a comment I made and I was only linking to that comment for context because Brianhe didn't do so.--v/r - TP 17:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, TParis. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hi. I got a notification that you patrolled me, which is certainly fine, though I must admit I don't know what that covers. Hopefully, it checked out okay and thank you!

Anyway, thought I'd use this opportunity to ask you a question. If I make an edit from my other (policy-compliant) User account by mistake, is it possible to have it erased from that pages history? It's not a serious mistake, though it could reveal my other Username to a curious viewer. Thanks, ProfGray (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Patrolling is a flag on each and every page on Wikipedia that requires that it be flagged "okay" by a Wikipedian with patroller or "authpatrolled" userright. Your user page hadn't been patrolled yet, or marked as free of attacks, copyright violations and spam, and so I did so. If you email me or an oversighter with the page and username, we can certainly blank it out.--v/r - TP 17:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, just emailed you some diffs and explanation. Cheers, ProfGray (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 on armoured reconnaissance and German scientists, Nick-D on time travelling historians Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the World War I Christmas truce Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello TParis, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Mele Kalikimaka

Have a bright Hawaiian Christmas!--Mark Miller (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

From me too...! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeffing Sirriasrar and HelpGod

Hi TParis, you indeffed User: HelpGod and User:Sirriasrar as sockpuppets. Yes they were, but this was a newcomer who did not know the rules of Wikipedia and tried to edit constructively (even if his proposed edits incited a fierce discussion). He was initially blocked temporarily for violating 3RR and edit warring. Me and other editors was trying to educate him/her - indefinite block is fully justified in cases of vandalism, but here we didn't have that. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 10:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The user was blocked because they were trying to add unsourced negative information repeatedly into a WP:BLP. They seem to have an issue with the subject and want to push their POV. It's a WP:SPA account that is only interested in smearing one person. There is absolutely no reason to waste your breath. Their only purpose and the only reason they are here is to attack the subject of that article. Once you take that away from them, either through a block or convincing them that Wikipedia won't allow it, they'll be gone.--v/r - TP 16:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually Kashmiri, as per WP:SOCK, "If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the sock puppet account(s) should be blocked indefinitely. The main account may be blocked at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator..." This is exactly what has been done with the sockpuppet accounts being blocked and the newcomer should be advised to revert back to using the sockmaster account, and this account only.

Also as per WP:ILLEGIT, the user knew exactly what they were doing here after being told my other editors that consensus on the issue was reached. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agreed in principle, but I objected - and am inclined to continue - to indefinite blocking of the principal account, on the grounds that this was a newcomer who clearly did not understood or bother to read the rules of Wikipedia. I would perhaps look into a week's block initially. This was not a vandal but someone who tried to push his own agenda in a single article, against Wikipedia's internal rules (consensus, verifiability, 3RR, etc.). However, this behaviour alone does not normally justify an indefinite ban from Wikipedia IMHO.

BTW, I have tracked and reported countless socks and am pretty strict when it comes to intentional rule-breaking. However, I insist that except in most obvious cases, the four warnings process is respected. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 00:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Good for you but for your information the principle account, User:EditorIslam, has not been blocked and the user is free to continue using this account. Only the sock accounts have been blocked. Therefore, what exactly are you objecting to? Are you suggesting it is OK for the user to operate more than one account? Tanbircdq (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User: HelpGod and User:Sirriasrar has another editor account: User:AnotherEffort. He's written a long comment on the Hamza Yusuf talk page. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of the EditorIslam account. But yes, it is perfectly OK to have more than one account as long as it is declared and not used to violate WP rules, see WP:VALIDALT. As to AnotherEffort, I am placing only warning on their Talk page, I see a SPI is already under way. kashmiri ^TALK 14:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of VALIDALT, but if you are able to read between the lines I said "the user" as "in this instance", indicating that this does not apply to EditorIslam because he/she has not declared this on any of the account and he/she is violating Wikipedia rules, which you are aware of obviously. Tanbircdq (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Your argument is coming down to 'well this editor wasn't trying to break the rules and deceive us' for which case Tanbircdq proved that they were indeed trying to deceive us into believing that they were two separate people. Then your claim is that the master shouldn't be blocked for which Tanbircdq proved the master isn't blocked. Now your claim is that they are allowed per WP:VALIDALT but WP:VALIDALT specifically says they are not using it for a valid reason. So, on what policy point are you in contention with us? Because, to the rest of us, this is looking like a single purpose account intended to smear a living person and abusively using sockpuppets to do it. This isn't a battle worth fighting, especially because policy isn't on your side.--v/r - TP 17:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: Where did I say that this particular user falls under VALIDALT? I only quoted a general rule which Tanbircdq didn't seem to be aware of. Honestly, as I wrote above, the problem is that you imposed an indefinite block without a single warning for, as you put it, "trying to add a negative connotation to the biography of a living person without any citations".[35] I won't try to fathom what's so "negative" about being non-academic. An account can be blocked for sockpuppetry without warning, for vandalism after at least one warning, same goes for edit war and 3RR (normally, 4 warnings are recommended). But when dealing with editing against consensus, the normal procedure is to educate users and, after a series of warnings, impose temporary blocks. While I was explaining WP rules to the user,[36][37] you just drew a gun and killed. That is likely overusing your admin privileges. Alternately, if you blokced the account for sockpuppetry (which would be a valid reason), you might want to rephrase the reason of indefinite block given to that user. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 18:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

No, standard procedure for editors who are only here to write negative material into an article about a living person is to block on sight. Asserting the use of "non-academic" despite all of the sources supporting "scholarly" is an attempt to use a negative on a positive to create a negative connotation. It'd be the same as saying "half of all Wikipedians are non-American". It's not a bad thing, and almost definitely it's true, but what's the point of saying it? To get certain people to have a negative view. That's what the editor is attempting to do. They have one purpose and that is to find a way to discredit this person. They are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. You are wasting your time arguing this, but if you think they deserve 4 warnings that they'll continue to ignore just like they have ignored the arguments on the talk page because it doesn't suit their purpose, then feel free to bring it up at a noticeboard. Again, though, I think you are wasting your time.--v/r - TP 19:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Tanbircdq, I've reverted your edits to the user pages of these accounts. It is the job of an SPI clerk and/or an administrator to tag (or not to tag). Please don't do that again. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and Happy Hanukah!!!

TP, Season greetings and I hope you are enjoying your holiday time off with your friends and family. I have interacted with you previously in a minor disagreement under another IP (my changes and I have no control over that) and we both had productive exchanges. I am contacting you because I have seen some very hard to understand behavior by another editor that you have interacted with. You know her as Lightbreather and she seems to have some respect for you. What I have noticed is that her issue is with pushing her POV's (somewhat common here). That in itself is not the issue but the level of disruption she causes in order to force her POV upon the community by baiting other editors into endless drama and by using the Wikipedia bureaucracy in order to get her way. She frequently steps up to line of being uncivil and even crosses it and frequently brings out the worst in otherwise useful editors. She has also frequently broken rules that she often accuses other editors of as witnessed by her bans. She is an agenda warrior, pure and simple. Her agenda warring is often disruptive and she seeks to game the system in order to push her agenda. A lengthy review of her substantial conflicts will demonstrate her behavior. So what can be done besides a ban? Can she be instructed to try to work more collaboratively with other editors? Can she be instructed that further disruptions and gaming could result in further bans? I do not have the knowledge due to my sporadic editing and outside commitments to know all the possible solutions. Could you offer her friendly counsel, maybe in private, although she may turn that against you? I just cannot believe the level of disruption is tolerated for such a long period of time. I have not seen a sincere change for the better unfortunately in her behavior. It is entirely possible that may never occur and thus the dilemma of what to due when an editor either by personality or conscious intent continues to cause substantial disruptions. If this was a paid job it is my opinion she would of long ago been dismissed for causing so much hate and discontent in the workplace. I felt it was necessary to put in my two cents to a reasonable administrator involved with the aforementioned editor but I admit I have no easy solution as a block would only result in her reappearing as new editor and conflict seems to be something she thrives in.

Again Happy Holidays!!! Retired Military and appreciative of your service to the nation. 172.56.41.115 (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

X! Tools, now in Romanian

Hi. Can you please add "ro" in the language list of http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/?&uselang=en ? I've just finished translating the interface. Thank you. --Gikü (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I no longer have access to the tools, you'll have to ask one of the other maintainers.--v/r - TP 19:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year TParis!

Happy New Year!

TParis,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

I need your assistance.

Hey! I was hoping you might get on IRC sometime in the relatively near future. Basically, I'm wondering if your offer still stands to help me prepare for adminship in the next year. My channel is ##T13 ^connect, and I would appreciate a /query if/when you have some free time to discuss this matter with me. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 133#Custom notices on user .js and .css pages

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 133#Custom notices on user .js and .css pages. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy new year!

This might sound crazy, but have you considered, you know, not leaving? The secret to my longevity here is frequent wikibreaks, not just from the encyclopedia as a whole but from particular parts of it: article topics, projects, etc. When I get tired of editing political articles (none of the angry partisans who think I head up the Wikipedia Politburo seemed to have noticed I hardly ever edit political articles anymore!) or writing about obscure 19th century lawyers or sick of DYK or ANI or whatever, I just shuffle on over to some other part of the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia and its users are often infuriating and discouraging, but there is much to work on and much to be done. If I participated in Wikipedia the same way now I participated in it in 2005, or even 2012, I would have grown bored and discouraged and left a long time ago. Gamaliel (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I've considered it several times. I can see bias in all areas of the 'pedia on both conservative and liberal sides of the scale. But political and social articles in particular are strongly controlled by the left. I could accept that except for the small matter of editors specifically smearing living people who are conservative and shielding articles or whitewashing them for liberals. It's one thing if this happens as some underhanded tactic or some sort of WP:MPOV where someone is just unaware they are doing it - but from my perspective, the bias on politics has become so obvious that editors don't even try to hide their politics anymore. Instead of backing up their arguments with sources, editors routinely call conservative viewpoints as idiotic, racist, sexist, or biased opinions. Liberal viewpoints don't get any of that same sort of labeling, ad hominem arguments, or blatant dismissiveness.

I just came across a bit on George W Bush in the article on CBS. The bit was about criticism of CBS. Some editor didn't like that smear on CBS and so they added a sentence to the end of the paragraph as a cop-out. To paraphrase, "Even though CBS was entirely wrong and did not verify it's sources, there are still questions about Bush's service." The source didn't support the material at all. And the material itself is entirely vague. It's about a living person and has been in that article for almost 2 years. No one thought to verify an attack on a living person. And then I compared Fox News to CBS. Comparing the criticism sections should open a few eyes. There is an entire paragraph on Fox News article about specific allegations from Media Matters for America. The problem is, Media Matters for American is an openly anti-conservative website. The article presents the bit from MMfA as unbiased independent criticism - when it is actually a primary source. Media Matters for America openly admits it was created to counter Fox News. What's even worse, that little bit from MMfA is given an entire paragraph - and a long one at that - despite being a primary source and without any evidence of notability of the dispute from MMfA itself. Then I go over to RealClearPolitics where editors are still trying to paint the living people who founded it as conservatives despite not a single source saying that the people label themselves conservative. I read New York Times criticism section and it's littered with "Conservative <blah> says <this>, but MMfA says <this other thing> and LA Times says <this thing>". Editors make a specific effort to label conservative viewpoints and also to avoid labeling liberal viewpoints thus giving liberal viewpoints the image of impartiality (fyi, I was the one who added the "liberal media "watchdog" group" part to balance it). Skip on over to Rick Perry where editors were insisting on every bit of negative information about Rick Perry's indictment while removing any defense of Perry including that Liberals were defending Perry. They also wanted to remove the bit about the Travis County DA having a drunken driving charge which is the basis of the entire issue. And please, don't even get me started on Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism when You didn't build that. The entire article on You didn't build that is a defense of President Obama's speech while an attack phrase that some liberal opinion columnist made up one day explains why Santorum deserves it and why it hit off so well. What actually drove the stake home for me, though, was when Sue Gardner openly endorsed the ad hominem attacks and casting of aspersions against conservative editors in the Manning case. She spoke to Arbcom, she spoke in the mailinglists, and she spoke to the media openly endorsing attacking conservative editors for not supporting to move to Chelsea.

No, Gamaliel, I've avoided targeting specific people for several reasons. One is that people are fallible and so am I. I'm not going to hold others to strict standards that I myself cannot keep to. None of us can be expected to be neutral all the time. It's by working together that we find neutrality. But what often happens is that liberal editors believe that they, by themselves, can find the balance without the need for input from the conservative editors. Two, I believe that it is a systematic problem and it cannot be blamed on a specific editor when the system quietly endorses it. And number three, I believe that is a lot of blame to put on any single editor.

The fact of the matter is, this project is full of people who openly hate conservatives and conservative editors. Either they feel conservatives hate them and are projecting their fears or they have a personal dispute with a conservative social platform and they feel they are in a battle for humanity. Either way, I've realized a long time ago that I am not welcome here, even as a center-left libertarian, and if I feel unwelcome here then I can only imagine how true conservatives feel. There is simply no way to be anything less than a rank and file liberal and be an administrator, and there is increasingly little opportunity to be a conservative and a regular editor. I consider myself a center-left liberal or barely a conservative. Even still, there is a strong chilling effect against editors who are not well into the left side of the spectrum from editing political articles and so I've avoided editing them, myself. Even as an administrator, I've feared the harassment and bullying on those topics.

I've left the door open for myself to edit articles about my local community and perhaps a return in about a year or two if the atmosphere in here changes but I don't have high hopes. At this point, I just plan to say my goodbyes, try to explain a little about the other issues (this is only one of them) that have led to my departure and then sign off on good terms. It's better than hitting the eventual wall and being driven off the project by an Arbcom case or a topic/site ban which is what happens to many conservative editors. Thank you for being my friend despite our differences, I've always appreciated having friends who challenge me and allow me to challenge them. It makes me feel good to know that there are people who can think critically and be open to argument without taking it personally.--v/r -

TP 00:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You know from previous conversations we've had that we have very different perspectives about political bias and Wikipedia, and I could provide many examples, but we won't solve the problem by dueling anecdotes. You've been one of the few editors who have been able to make me consider the conservative perspective of an editing dispute and say "Hey, you know, you're absolutely right there." I don't think that's a matter of my entrenched bias, but a matter of the polarization here and your ability to cut through that, an unfortunately rare quality here on Wikipedia. We're doing too much yelling and gamesmanship, and not enough honest discussion, and the possibility of honest discussion is constantly poisoned by political edit warriors on both sides. The crap that gets slung at me makes me less likely to consider the crap slinger's perspective and unfortunately more likely to write off even an honest perspective which agrees with that crap slinger's. I think that anyone who edits only political articles should be summarily banned from Wikipedia, but I know that's a pipe dream. I have my politics, but I'm not here for my politics, and to me that's what makes the difference between a political edit warrior and somebody who is trying to do the best they can to edit neutrally. The thing is, there's so much more to edit and work here on than politics. If there wasn't, I'd be long gone. The less I deal with political articles, the happier I am. Gamaliel (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I would certainly love to see a day when editors who edit politics exclusively are - at a minimum - topic banned. That might be a great day. A WP:SPA political account should be enough evidence of partisan editing. Perhaps you and I should write an essay titled WP:SPPA? I know there are anecdotes to be found. The Historicity of Jesus article and the Genesis creation narrative articles are probably the most recent best examples of conservative control. I've wanted to throw my support to changing "narrative" to "story" and oppose any move to myth - but I bite my tongue and try to imagine how I'd feel about a Pegan belief of the same subject. Regarding the much more to work here, unfortunately political bias (from my perspective) is only one of the issues I'm dealing with. At the moment, it's probably the strongest one that is affecting me but there is another issue of the recent terms of use changes and the changes to WP:COI that have effectively endorsed opposition research, outing, and harassment against other editors. It openly allows ad hominem attacks against editors who have a conflict of interest. Editors who were unable to gain a consensus on this project for their changes undermined the entire consensus culture here and went to the WMF to strongarm their changes. Efforts to create an RFC, as allowed by the terms of use, to return us to the status quo have been disrupted, filibustered, and simply roadblocked by those editors. That's my second major concern right there and it wouldn't affect me so greatly except that those three have gone on to label me as a paid-editor and forced my name on their bad boy list at the top of Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest despite not a single one of my edits being paid. They've routinely harassed me when I give my opinion using ad hominem remarks about being paid as a way to ignore and dismiss my argument instead of having to address it. Diffs can be seen on my user page. So - politics is one bit, but not all of it.--v/r - TP 00:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I don't know when you're going exactly (and most of your activity has been on the decline), so I wanted to make sure you got this. Your efforts on improving Wikipedia have been invaluable, you've been a great admin. Thank you. AmaryllisGardener talk 19:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Duck's dagger

Lol.

HAHAHAH!!!! We all knew Florida State were nothin.--v/r - TP 02:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you hear me yelling in Kansas? --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha the entire country was yelling for Oregon to shut FSU up. Ducks heard it all!!!--06:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Nick Saban is popping veins right now.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Best New Year's Day ever.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I know, right? Our neighbors are Ohio St fans. So we have a neighborhood rivalry on now.--v/r - TP 06:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

A buddy of mine hooked me up with tix to the Winter Classic. Watched the ball drop, kissed the wife and then an ungodly flight to DC. I've got to be at Quantico at oh six thirty. Then off to Detroit this afternoon. Then off to Dallas for THAT game. Never been to Jerryworld before, but if I get lucky I might there again the following week. Im probably talking 2 years off of my life by doing this, but it seems like a fair tradeoff. Sleeping is for cats.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 09:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Haha, that sounds awesome. I have family in Dallas. I'd love to make it there for that game. Ohh well, too late to try.--v/r - TP 20:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• poetic justice!. Looks like I'm bailing on the game tomorrow, but I'll be there in spirit. Wish I could run out in the locals faces, but I'm not dropping 1k for the ticket.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 01:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Lakshmin & Indiaproperty

Hi, I'm writing to you w.r.t. a user you unbanned with a warning not to indulge in promotional edits in favour of his employer, Indiaproperty. I'm afraid that he appears to have now gone and done exactly that.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/

Hi, In this tool you need to fix this dead tool link : https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikiviewstats/ and replace it by https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikiviewstats2/ (the only difference is the "2" at the end of the address). --Loup Solitaire 81 (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)