User talk:Gigs/Archive 7

To contact me, write here. I will reply on this page.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sigs

Thanks. Hopefully it works now? --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It does. Thanks! Gigs (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

• News and notes: $2 Million donation, cybersquatting, comScore statistics and more

• In the news: Macmillan's Wiki-textbooks and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Mammals

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP/Content RfC

Gigs, do you think that this: User:TransporterMan/Sandbox/3 might help focus discussion at the RfC? Or is it just TLDR bait? If you think that it is useful, do you find it to be unbalanced? Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's the most useful question to ask. Everyone would agree that Slackster was being disruptive in your scenario. A "good faith search for a reliable source for the assertion and cannot find any such source" would be universally agreed upon as a valid challenge to information on verifiability grounds, in any article, BLP or not. The burden is on Slackster to provide a good source at that point. That's not really a controversial scenario, that's the normal, accepted scenario for removal of contentious information.

What some people want is to be able to remove information without any good faith search for a reliable source, or indeed without any doubts about the claims being made at all. They want the ability to just delete every claim that isn't followed by an inline citation. They want to do this in bulk... and without any regard as to the nature of the information that is being deleted. They claim that the mere fact that they removed the information makes it contentious. They, in effect, want to say "I challenge every statement in every article (or every BLP) that isn't followed by an inline citation". I'm not sure you realize that that is what you were agreeing to when you agreed to the "View by Kevin", but their position really is that extreme.

So a more appropriate scenario is that Steelplate is reverting every unsourced addition to the president's BLP, merely because it's unsourced, without considering whether the claims are dubious or problematic or trying to search for a source. Steelplate treats WP:BLP and WP:V as a license to ignore WP:PRESERVE. Do we accept his behavior? What if instead of doing it to one article, he goes on a mission to delete material from masses of articles merely because it's unsourced? That is a more realistic scenario and one that is closer to what people are actually arguing about. Gigs (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that you and I may be focusing on different issues. To me, the issue in the RfC isn't whether unsourced information can or cannot be removed; because of WP:BURDEN it can always be removed if the person making the addition doesn't eventually come through with WP:V sources. Instead, the question is about immediate removal enforced by the nonapplicability of the 3RR and edit war rules. That is, the question is when, if ever, unsourced BLP information can be "shot on sight": removed immediately under rules which make it a blocking violation for the person who added the information to add it back to the article without complying with WP:V. The 3RR paragraph at Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material already has the enforcement part of that in place, and the issues before the RfC are, first, as you say, whether any editor's good faith objection equals contentiousness (thus eliminating the contentiousness requirement for all practical purposes) and, second, if that's not the case and "real" contentiousness must be present for immediate removal, whether "contentious" should be specifically defined and, if so, how.

I do indeed understand and support the "View by Kevin" (and everything you say in the first 3 sentences of your second paragraph above, except that I don't support bulk deletion without a chance to remedy the lack of sourcing, see below). I do so simply because it provides a bright-line standard: if BLP information is not sourced in a way that clearly meets WP:V, then the information ought to be removed; if that leaves the article in an unsupportable condition, then it should eventually be deleted. I am, however, sensitive to the loss–of–information and bulk-deletion issues and thus support the idea that (a) if you're going to immediately remove unsourced information that you ought to have to mention the deletion, without having to try to justify it, it on the article talk page and (b) that if removal of unsourced information blanks an article or makes it unsuitable for retention that a decent period of time should be allowed for the information to be sourced before the article is deleted altogether. I feel that way because it is my belief that even innocuous–seeming information about living people can be harmful to them.

Having said that, however, I would frankly have little objection for the contentiousness requirement (or some variant thereof) to always apply to immediate removals of BLP information if it can be defined in a way that also provides a bright–line standard. The problem, from my point of view, is that few or none of the possible definitions do that but instead leave room for substantial disagreement in particular cases. Once you screw the definition down tight enough to avoid such disagreements, you either are so loose that the "View by Kevin" applies or so tight that the only information which is clearly defamatory is removable.

At the same time, I have the concern that I expressed to Maurreen (here) that leaving the status quo in place would be very troubling, indeed. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Always can be removed does not mean always should be removed. Editors must exhibit discretion. WP:PRESERVE and Wikipedia:Foundation issues are not mere suggestions, they are the core basis of this project. Destruction of content should be a last resort, not an automatic reaction. Half of Jimbo's BLP is unsourced. I don't see anyone stubbing it. It says on my user page that "A challenge to unsourced statements should be based on good-faith doubts about the verifiability of a statement." This wording isn't quite right because there's other valid reasons to remove material, but I think it conveys the point. We shouldn't be removing information unless we believe it to be false, doubtful, or potentially damaging. Removal of accurate unsourced content damages the project. Gigs (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And that, exactly, frames my position: Unsourced BLP information is, IMHO, always "potentially damaging" and should, therefore, be an exception to the policies and positions you note, above. (Having said that, I don't expect you to agree. Indeed, I'm having this discussion with you because I expect you not to agree. Your objections help me work out what I think about things, and I hope that mine may do the same for you. If I'd just wanted a gentle massage I would have posed these questions to Kevin or someone else of my ilk.) — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sourced BLP information has way more potential to be damaging. "Do no harm" was explicitly proposed and rejected as a BLP policy. As such, we regularly include adverse information when it has a source. Negative claims and claims that would be libel if false are already removed on sight when they are unsourced. Gigs (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just gutted Kevin's argument that the policy as currently written and supported by consensus supports the notion that unsourced BLP information can be shot on sight, as I called it in our previous discussion, above. I still take the position that that's what the policy ought to be, but I no longer believe that it allows it now. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Yeah a lot of policy changes are just followed by WP:SILENCE which can indicate consent, but it's the weakest form of consensus. Gigs (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gigs. You have new messages at Freshacconci's talk page.
Message added 23:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

freshacconci talktalk 23:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

(Sorry I took so long to respond.) Just wanted to say thank you for the Barnstar you gave me. I never thought I'd get one so soon! It's really helped to keep me motivated about the whole process. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Meatspin et al.

I'm not erasing coverage. If someone types in Meatspin and gets pointed to a page that doesn't even mention Meatspin, he or she will certainly be confused. I'm eliminating that confusion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Just seems like a sort of end run around process to merge all these to the main list, then delete coverage out of the main list, and then nominate the remaining redirects and history for deletion. I know this was spread out over a long period of time and was carried out by multiple editors so it's not like you had this master plan all along, but this is the end result. Gigs (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Mistagged project

I am confused. I see articles on the link you directed me to. I see references on them, but they are still listed as unreferenced. What does it take to remove the (%#$) tags? If I remove them, will I have more people threatening to ban me for cleaning that stuff up?OsamaPJ (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The tags can be either removed or downgraded to {{BLP sources}} if there are truly references on the articles. Not every external link is a valid reference. Not every article on that list has references, it was generated by a bot that detected articles that look like they might have references. After you check the articles, even if you decide to leave the unreferenced tag on, please remove them from the list. We definitely want people to do the kind of work you want to do checking and fixing BLPs but we need to be careful when we do it. Why don't you try doing 5 of them and then I will double check your work and give you feedback? Gigs (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

• Reference desk: Wikipedia Reference Desk quality analyzed

• News and notes: Usability, 15M articles, Vandalism research award, and more

• In the news: Idealizing the Star Spangled Banner, Curious Announcement, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Severe Weather

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed

OK, I removed the tags to Yeoh Kean Thai, Xiao Jiangang, Yoo Won-Chul, Wilbur Young, and Robin Young

Jeffrey Wood is the worst attack article I have ever seen, and fully referenced.

I got a bunch of people pissed off by using IMDB. What is a reliable source in entertainment?OsamaPJ (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you did a pretty good job. Just a few comments:

• Wilbur Young, I added {{BLP sources}} because the source only backs up the claim that someone by that name is a high school coach. I wonder if it's really the same person. Could definitely use more references on that one. Don't be afraid to use {{BLP sources}} on ones that have at least one useful reference but need more.
• In Robin Young, we don't let articles reference Wikipedia itself. I removed that reference. Removed the one to the front page of the here and now site too, since the front pages of sites like that change too often to be a useful ref. Considering the short length of the article, the couple remaining sources are fine.
• You should use an edit summary of some kind. It doesn't have to be long. Even something like "ref maintenance" would be better than nothing. When experienced editors see an edit without an edit summary they look at it with more skepticism and will be sure to look at it under a microscope. If you explain what you are doing and why people are less likely to revert you.
• On the same note, create a user page, even if it only says "Hi". Having a red name in your signature makes people suspect your edits.
• Regarding IMDB, it should probably only be considered acceptable sourcing for basic information about credits and filmography.

Other than that, looks OK. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh don't forget to remove the ones you did from the list on WP:Mistagged BLP cleanup Gigs (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing of complex policies

Would you take a look at User_talk:SlimVirgin#From_Talk:BLP:_Editing_of_complex_policies? You might want to throw in your two cents. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You, fun, really?

Gigs! Who would have ever thought that you would defend fun? I didn't know that you had it in you! Are you a fellow member of The Department? (I'm not stalking you, but I just keep running into you in the most interesting places...) — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: who

I don't know what you are on about. {{who}} is a perfectly standard tag. I hope the bodies of the victim(s) will be identified at some point, and then our sources will reflect that reality. Modern forensics are quite amazing! I will pray and keep hope alive!! -- Kendrick7^talk 05:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

inactive mailer bot

Sorry for the delay, I haven't been very active. I finally found the password for en.wiki.inactivemailerbot@gmail.com, do you want me to email it to you? Throwaway85 (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I need it. Gigs (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

• News and notes: Financial statements, discussions, milestones

• In the news: Pentagon shooter used Wikipedia, soon iPhone OS will too

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Java

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:Editing policy draft

I saw your latest version of the WP:PRESERVE/WP:HANDLE merged section... I made a few tweeks, but I think we are very close to agreeing! Hopefully the other editors at WP:EP will do so as well. Blueboar (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC on RFCs on ...

Hi, I do like your changes. But I should make clear that I didn't start the page. Maurreen (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hot stain

The Ziehl-Neelsen stain is most certainly is nicknamed "Hot stain" by biologists because it is the most common of hot staining methods. How many references do you need? Go take a simple biology class. Gigs, Please quit harassing me. It's really getting annoying now.  kgrr ^talk 21:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You can't even follow the rules considering repeated AfD nominations. "Any article that has received a solid consensus to Keep shall not be renominated for AFD for a period of one year from the closing of the previous AFD." Wikipedia:Repeated_AfD_nomination_limitation_policy  kgrr ^talk 21:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not a policy, and the last AfD was no consensus. I waited 6 months before renominating it. Still no use of the term in the sources outside of Barlow's work. Just accept that it's a protologism that will probably never catch on. Regarding Ziehl-Neelsen, it doesn't seem likely that someone will look for it under the name "hot stain", since I can't find any instance where it is called that, and it's not mentioned as a name for it in that article either. Gigs (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Your argument of it being a protologism is completely irrelevant because you are not following policy. You say it's not a policy? Well then tell me why is the title of the section "Repeated AfD nomination limitation *policy*? Why don't you point me to the real policies instead of all these fake policies? Why did you renominate the article within 1 year by you since the first time the result was keep? Simple - It's clear you can't respect Wikipedia policy. May I remind you it's still not 1 year since the initial *keep*. You still should not even be able to renominate the article for the second time according to the policy. This means you have no basis for your argument until the 1 year is over with. Then, we can discuss whether it's now a brand name for a product that several authors are supposed to be marketing, it's a protologism, or a neologism.  kgrr ^talk 18:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Rejected policies are kept for historical purposes. I'll rename the page to reduce any future confusion. Gigs (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

So where is the *current* policy dealing with AfD renominations? In a sense, what I'm hearing is that if the article gets a 'keep', you will simply continue to re-nominate the article ad infinitum until you 'win'. This is really nonsense.  kgrr ^talk 23:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There isn't one. It's considered polite to wait at least a few months before renominating. If someone were to nominate one immediately after it closed keep then it might be speedily closed, but there's no policy or guideline about it. Gigs (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

re: your message

Hi, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gigs, I've left you another reply on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

• News and notes: A Wikiversity controversy, Wikimedian-in-Residence, image donation, editing contest, WMF jobs

• In the news: Studies on collaboration and student usage, Main Page drives traffic to Time.com

• Dispatches: GA Sweeps end

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Ireland

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Pat Patriot

Thanks for adding to the Prostitution in Rhode Island discussion on Pat Patriot Picture. You Can't Clap with One Hand (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of section from Work aversion

Gigs, please do not edit war and discuss to see if there is consensus to remove the section you have been trying to remove. I think it can be modified, but it does not have to be completely removed. Hellno2 (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The burden is on you to provide sourcing for these highly dubious claims. I don't need consensus to remove unsourced and factually doubtful information. In any case, discussion should happen on the article talk page. Gigs (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mistagged BLP cleanup

Just stopped by to say howdy. It looks like you and I are the only two still working the mistagged BLPs. Maurreen (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think many more people are doing it judging by the ones I check that are already done, but not everyone is bothering to update our list or maybe they are working from a different list entirely. I saw Okip mention a more powerful heuristic bot that was detecting a few hundred that were extremely likely to have references. Gigs (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I can provide further information on this front. Most editors, including myself, have moved to using Category:Unreferenced BLPs as this allows sourcing by date, which is useful as older unsourced articles are more likely to be deleted. If we happen to come across an article which is already sourced we naturally remove the tag, but usually forget or don't bother to update the mistagged list. However, as I feel rather bad about leaving just you two to sort out the problem by yourselves, I've decided to come back. Hope this helps. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as it all gets done in the end, it doesn't matter as much what list people are working from. I can run a script to purge the Mistagged list of ones that no longer have a unsourcedBLP tag on them. Gigs (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates. Like Gigs said, it doesn't matter which page we work off. I hope I didn't seem like I was complaining or implying that others weren't doing stuff; I was just making a social call. :) Maurreen (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It didn't come across like that, although it did make me feel quite guilty... Alzarian16 (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

• Wikipedia-Books: Wikipedia-Books: Proposed deletion process extended, cleanup efforts

• News and notes: Explicit image featured on Wikipedia's main page

• In the news: Campaign for video, costs of crowdsourcing, iPhone app, brief headlines

• WikiProject report: Percy Jackson Task Force

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice

For some reason, you have not been notified of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gigs. I've commented there. Seems really flimsy to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I've replied, thanks. I figured it was coming when I saw the IP nominate it for AfD again so soon after I did. Gigs (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Gigs, thank you for the barnstar. I needed it! Maurreen (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		for know what needs to be nipped Maurreen (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Gigs (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

• News and notes: Usability rollout, downtime, admin phishing, Wikimania scholarships and more

• In the news: Overdue correction, Critical Point of View conference, brief headlines

• Sister projects: A handful of happenings

• WikiProject report: The WikiProject Bulletin: news roundup and WikiProject Chicago feature

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

romanization for shanghainese

2007, the Latin Phonetic Method of Shanghainese was removed after the discussion by English Wiki. But I want to emphasize, none of people who voted for the removal speaks English.

This year, Mr. Ryulong asked other language versions’ Wikipedia to remove “the Latin Phonetic Method of Shanghainese” as English Wikipedia did. In Chinese Wikipedia, the Moderator called for a discussion just to show some respect to Mr. Ryulong, though his request was thought to be a joke. result of this discussion was: nobody doubts for the Nobility of this Romanization version of Shanghainese (“the Latin Phonetic Method of Shanghainese”).

In the same period, French language Wiki started a similar discussion and poll, Many people who can speak Chinese joined and voted. There were only 2 people who voted for removing “the Latin Phonetic Method of Shanghainese”, they are Mr. Ryulong and Mr. Rjanag.

Mr Rjanag feels embarrassed. As a administrator, he is obliged to defend the decision of his team.

reopening or delete

thank you. --ZHU Yeyi (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Mr Rjanag feels embarrassed. As a administrator, he is obliged to defend the decision of his team."

Interesting psychoanalysis... rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

FUD

I had to look that up. But it's fitting. :) Maurreen (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You have a lot more patience than I do. Maurreen (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

My head is literally spinning at this point. I did have a nagging headache but it's gone away into a tingly floaty feeling. Going to have to call it a night soon. Bizarre day when the so-called inclusionists are fighting tooth and nail to get a new deletion process in place. Gigs (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting up a good fight, in more ways than one.

It's also bizarre that some people so sensitive about BLP stuff think this is actually a weakening.

Well, have a good night, at least. Maurreen (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP

I have just seen the message you placed on FG's talk page. I agree entirely and I had already placed a prompt on the workshop page this morning. Please do not take offence if you felt that you were included among the 'latecomers' - I was of course referring to the apparently disruptive ones.--Kudpung (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I may not have participated in the workshop proper, but I had been keeping an eye on it and didn't have a problem with its direction, or I would have jumped in earlier. At this point I just want to see it get rolled out. As someone who's working the unreferenced BLP backlog, getting rid of the incoming new ones is a priority for actually getting the problem taken care of. We are slowly reducing the backlog even with the influx still running, but it's masking our true progress. Gigs (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Gigs, I realize how strongly, and why, you are opposed to an RfC on WP:STICKY but I think this has moved far enough from what the last RfC agreed to (which I still think was railroaded) that we need a new one. I don't like stepping on toes, especially of those I like, but I just don't see how there can be a realistic claim that the last RfC covers all the stuff in the policy as it stands. The 7 vs 10 day thing is one minor part, but the issue of reliable sources vs. sources opens up a huge can of worms where newbie editors are going to get bitten badly and arguments are going to develop and I just don't think there is wider consensus for it all. Just wanted to let you know as I don't want to make you think I'm stomping you or all the work you've been putting into this. I don't expect the policy to "stop" existing during the RfC (I neither have the power to do so nor the inclination), just trying to find out if there is actual consensus for it. Hobit (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI I'm waiting until I hear back from Wordsmith on something... Hobit (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

We need to get this up and running. More eyes on it will keep the scope of it from growing past what was agreed upon at the RfCs. If anyone tries anything funny, they are going to get called on it. Have some faith. Gigs (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem is the longer I wait the easier it will be for folks to claim "This has been settled, it's been policy for X days!". Honestly on the BLP issue I find that there are enough folks who have such strong opinions that it's hard to have faith in rational outcomes. I think we already have "funny" things in there... Hobit (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Marking up the diff

Thanks. Before, I could barely tell what had been changed. It was too hard, and I might not be the only one. -- Rico 21:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For patience and smart reasoning about BLP-related issues. Maurreen (talk) 09:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Gigs (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your note

Calling regular editors "disruptive" is disruptive in itself. If you revert a core policy to a non-consensual version, you will be reverted. The way to achieve change is by gaining talk page consensus, not by revert warring, calling your fellow editors disruptive, or displaying other forms of incivility. Crum375 (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the earlier change from "private individuals". The last version that had consensus was the one I reverted to. Continuing to edit war on this policy and on other ones is indeed disruptive. Gigs (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There is indeed consensus for it, and this was the stable version. Reverting and edit warring over it, instead of gaining talk page consensus for your proposed changes, and labeling people you disagree with as "disruptive", is counterproductive at best. Crum375 (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Where is the consensus to change from "private" to "all"? This section was where it was discussed briefly. I see no consensus formed there. Gigs (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My changes are not "proposed". I'm trying to restore the version that existed before this contentious change. Gigs (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.