User talk:Laser brain/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Iwane Matsui GAN

Iwane Matsui, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

It's that season again...

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Warmest Wishes for Health, Wealth and Wisdom through the Holidays and the Coming Year! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd like some input

I've been asking around, but I'd like your take. In your view, what, other than a ban, would be a good outcome here? As for my interest, I'm a professional proofreader and editor. I've focused on pages that concern my area of expertise. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: The desired outcome is that any page that provides advice to editors (MoS) or reference to readers (article space) is free of disruption. I think protracted disagreements that play out in a production environment, rather than on Talk pages exclusively, are disruptive to any person who comes by seeking advice or reference. Your average editor doesn't know or care about the intricacies of LQ and whether it is a purely stylistic or possibly nationalistic issue. Nor should they be made to care by being privy to the dispute, when all they were trying to do is figure out where to put a period. I believe you want to do what's best for the encyclopedia, but I think you've lost sight of that goal in that you're personalizing the issues, you're focused on winning the dispute, and you haven't demonstrated that you know when to walk away and find something else to do. This may be selfish but if you're a proofreader and editor I'd rather you focus on helping us at WP:PR or WP:FAC. Proofread and edit some pages that might actually show up on the front page some day, you know? I detest solutions that amount to force (blocks and bans) but I don't see any other way forward that doesn't involve you continuing the same behavior. --Laser brain (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You will see that most of the complaints made against me concern talk pages. In those that involve info page or articles, I'm usually the one initiating talk page discussions.[1][2][3] The ones that I had with Dicklyon concerning MOS:SUPPORTS were highly productive and led to each of us compromising with the other on substantive points.

I happen to agree that the average editor doesn't care about this rule.

I actually stopped general gnoming on Wikipedia once I found I was not allowed to do so using correct English, and I don't feel like using punctuation that is incorrect per its context serves the reader. I still do a bit here and there. A few years ago, I tried to find a filter that I could use to edit articles on British subjects, in which the current rule would be correct, but I didn't find one.

The way I see it, I've done nothing wrong, but you clearly don't feel that way. So what do you see as a positive change that I could make here? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you should lose the focus on getting your way and just edit some articles. However, your statement above "I found I was not allowed to do so using correct English" indicates that you're not willing to drop the issue. In my experience, editors who see Wikipedia through this kind of filter always end up disappointed at best, blocked/banned at worst. --Laser brain (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's what I mean by that. My aunt is a speech therapist. Spanish class drove her nuts because her teacher had a Castillian lisp. "But that's what I try to fix all day!" That's why I gave up gnoming. It feels too much like undoing my own work and that's just not how I want to spend my time.

So what do you see as something I could do here? Ed Johnson said he wanted me to make some kind of voluntary pledge, but he didn't say what he meant by that. You're the only one who's answered any of my questions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I've already answered that question, haven't I? Maybe you have a fundamentally different style of discourse from the people you've encountered in this community and that's the cause of your conflicts, but that's Rhetoric 101. I think people have gotten frustrated with you because it feels like you're being obtuse, but I can't really tell. I don't know what else to say, sorry. --Laser brain (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for what you've said so far, but I'll be more explicit: @EdJohnston: says he wants me to make a voluntary pledge. What does he want me to pledge to do or not do? Or you? I've asked him, but he hasn't answered. I get the impression that everyone wants me to just guess what they're thinking, but that hasn't worked out so well so far. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

My answer is more or less the same as KillerChihuahua's. I can't guess what Ed meant exactly, but if it were me, I'd ask you to formulate your own voluntary restriction so one doesn't have to be thrust upon you. I think it's a moot point, though, because you haven't instilled any neutral administrators at AE with confidence that you even recognize the problems with your behavior, let alone are capable of crafting a meaningful voluntary restriction. --Laser brain (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• See also: User_talk:KillerChihuahua § .22Voluntary.22_means_what_exactly.3F
  KillerChihuahua 17:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Killer C suggested one edit a day for a specific period. That's the sort of thing that I'd find feasible. As for "figure it out on your own," that's where I got the "support but don't initiate" policy that I've been using for the past few years, but it doesn't seem to meet everyone's standards. Expecting me to perform or stop performing an action is one thing, but I can't read anyone's mind. I can only ask them to tell me what they think. Or look at it this way. I heard "Jump." Now I'm asking "How high?" Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• It's not correct that the complaints about this editor are primarily about their talk page disruption. They're about editwarring and PoV pushing in MOS itself, in the FAQ and other pages relating to MOS, and most importantly in mainspace at Quotation marks in English; plus also (since Sept. 2015) now even Wiktionary. It's just incidental that the largest amount of evidence for tendentious campaigning comes from the associated talk pages. This is almost always the case, because WP:3RR prevents constant revertwarring. A "one edit per day" restriction would, for someone playing a 6-year WP:CIVILPOV and slow-editwar long game like this, not really be a restriction at all, but an invitation to continue the campaign for another 6 years with the "legal imprimatur" that they're allowed to raise the matter tendentiously anew every single day for eternity. This TB needs to be cross-namespace, and to result in the editor taking a lengthy break (under indef terms that require a showing that their understanding has changed and behavior will differ per WP:STANDARDOFFER) from the topic area in which their behavior has resulted in them chasing off other editors' participation so that they effectively dominate MOS, MOS:FAQ, MOS:SUPPORTS, MOS:REGISTER, the article, and all their associated talk pages, on this topic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You cannot trust what SmC says. You think I've got a problem with WP:LQ? Well SmC has a problem with me. As for the article space, he wants to use his biased wording and his own conclusions in Quotation marks in English, and he's annoyed that I told him he needed a source and not just his own beliefs. In that page's older, heavily inaccurate form, it was mirrored and cited by several off-Wikipedia sites. If I get topic banned, someone needs to keep an eye on it.

Everything I've done to QMiE and other pages has been fully consistent with WP:V, WP:NPOV and all other regulations. I don't think I should be topic banned at all, but even people who do should see that the I've been an asset in the article space. My problem is with Wikipedia's rule requiring writers to use only British punctuation. The only relationship that has to the articles is that I was able to use the sources I dug up to improve them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I assure that I am capable of reviewing the facts and making up my own mind about things. I can also assure you that I'm uninterested in the content dispute aside from its effect on other people. I wish you would reflect on that fact that you continue to personalize disputes and focus on winning, which is why you're going to end up with this topic ban. You've set it up so it's the only way forward. --Laser brain (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing the facts for yourself sounds great. Here's the effect it's had on other people: [4] [5].

I assure you, it took a lot for me to say anything even this personal about SMC. I've been turning the other cheek for months. But frankly I'm not sure how I'm supposed to defend myself from his accusations if he's doing and saying things that I'm not allowed to do and say. He's outright called me a liar and delusional, and I'm a bit at a loss for how to respond to all that. This is why I asked for advice on AE etiquette at the AN noticeboard. Look at what Izno is saying. Look at Dicklyon and Tony. None of those people agree with me about WP:LQ either. Then look at SmC.

I don't know what you mean by "focus on winning." I am saying this because I want to understand your thought process. What do you think I'm trying to win? Which of my actions do you find "focus on winning"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding topic ban of Darkfrog24

I am contacting you because of your involvement in the topic ban that was placed against me. I would like to make the best of the next six months and am requesting your input on how best to do so.

What do you see as the appropriate way to oppose a longstanding Wikipedia MoS rule? My own take was to initiate no new threads or RfCs but participate in those started by others (which happens once or twice a year). This clearly was not something that you guys consider acceptable. What do you think I should do instead? Is it just that there was too much of it?

I notice that my offers to engage in a voluntary restriction were not accepted. What would you have seen as more suitable? Is it that I was asking you guys what you wanted me to do instead of making my own guesses?

What can I do over the next six months to give you guys confidence that I can be allowed to return to work?

I am understanding the topic ban to cover both MoS pages, articles concerning quotation marks, and their respective talk pages. Is this the case? Before I became involved, both Quotation marks in English and Full stop contained significant amounts of unsourced material and I am worried that that content will be returned. If I should happen to see such a case, am I allowed to notify someone else that the unsourced material is there?

I also feel that user SMcCandlish was not honest with you and should be treated as an outlier. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• See also: User_talk:KillerChihuahua § Regarding_topic_ban_of_Darkfrog24
• KillerChihuahua 00:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Source review

Laser brain, it has been awhile since I saw you. I hope you've doing well. I have an article nominated for FAC. It's Juan Manuel de Rosas. It's all good, except that it doesn't have a source review. Would you mind doing it? I'd be very grateful. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lecen: Sure, I'll look at it tonight. I hope you are well also! --Laser brain (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Rosas is now a FA. Thanks for doing the source review. I appreciate that! --Lecen (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hard Justice 2008

I saw the above was archived. I have to wait 2 weeks to renominate right?--WillC 01:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wrestlinglover: Yep. I notice these always have a difficult time attracting reviews. I'd like to get more eyes on them. Can we work with folks at the WikiProject to look into how to conduct an FA review and maybe participate more in the process? --Laser brain (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I post the articles on the project page. I tell people I've nominated it. We are just low on editors. I think I and 1 other person even expands PPVs. He reviewed the article. I reviewed his. Most of our editors don't expand or don't review. They just do upkeep and don't really know or understand the process of peer review. They tend to have a limited mindset of not wanting an article to be accessible to all types of readers. We've had problems with in universe style and jargon for years so most editors just stay out of the review process. I'm used to it by now. It took several nominations to get Lockdown (2008) and Turning Point (2008 wrestling) to FA and that was years ago. I'm going to try to review some nominations to get some reviews but I'm always busy with school to even get around to that. Wrestling is just not an interesting topic at FA.--WillC 01:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wrestlinglover: Let me know when you relist it and I'll recuse/review it. I was a huge wrestling fan in the late 90's. I'm remembering some of the classic plot lines in the WWF involving the Undertaker, the Corporation, Degeneration X. Great times! --Laser brain (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Briarcliff Farms

I was like just going to ask people to do quid pro quo reviews of the Briarcliff Farms article. Can you waive the two week restriction for renominating as Ian Rose did to the Briarcliff Manor article for me? Seems I can never get enough attention to these reviews (the closing due to lack of attention and successful renomination has happened to me twice already), so someone suggested the quid pro quo earlier today, which I was going to do when I got back home... ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 00:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing! --Laser brain (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Signature

Hi, I just voted below you in an RFA. I use this syntax highlighter, and because the font tags in your signature have an extra space, it caused everything below your signature to be highlighted, making the highlighting useless. Could you change both closing font tags to remove the final space, so that the tags are closed correctly (</font>)? Thanks. kennethaw88 • talk 05:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kennethaw88: Fixed, I think. Thanks for the heads-up! --Laser brain (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA per WP:NETPOSITIVE. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Your revert

Your revert, - I assume that was a rather new editor, - at least I welcomed them only today. How about explaining on the user's talk page why you find the addition "unhelpful"? (I found it helpful, but will try to stay away.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I left a message for the user a full 45 minutes before you left this message. So, I'm unsure what reaction you're looking for here. --Laser brain (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, missed that, my watch list is long, possibly too long. I like your recommendations of edit summaries, but don't find yours extremely specific. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

That's weak point for me. It's something I've needed to work on for a long time. I hope I'm not too much of a hypocrite for asking others to use them when removing text. --Laser brain (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The user added, though, something that some find helpful, me included. It was not perfect, but could have been polished instead of reverted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to the infobox? There exists inline text in that article asking editors to obtain consensus before adding an infobox. I assume there must be some reason for that, including past consensus and/or the preferences of the article's principal editors.

I try to avoid the (loaded) word and to find a better one ;) - Some love a box, some hate it, I simply find it useful. - I experienced a revert myself (Pierre Boulez), which is discussed at length on the article talk, and which made me start a proposal at project composers (linked from the other, in case you are interested). The project ran a RfC in 2010, well before I knew what that is, and some project members (still) interpret the result as a solid reason to be different from the rest of Wikipedia. Rather recently the project received Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 38#A Statistical Note on Infoboxes, showing the minority in numbers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I find it useful when it's useful. One of my FAs (Steve Lukather) has had an infobox in place since the day I started working on it and I like it because it provides good information. I have resisted it on one of my other articles (see here) because it adds nothing that's not available in the first 1–2 sentences of the article. I feel the same way about Bizet, but I wouldn't be too troubled by its existence. --Laser brain (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding AE

I was not intentionally "monitoring" DF, I can assure you. I'm the one that filed the MfD for the relevant page, and so saw Smokey Joe's ping. I had no desire to get involved in yet another DF saga. Regardless, I shall unwatch DF's talk page, and shall not participate in any further enforcement of the TB, even if I'm directly referenced. I appreciate your swift action in this matter. RGloucester — ☎ 23:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I've taken a few days to think about this: When I mentioned SMcCandlish's statement as a major contributing factor to the topic ban, you said I was off-base. Do you mean that you already knew he was misrepresenting the situation and took that into account when you looked at the diffs or that you do not think that his assertions were misrepresentations? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

No. I mean that it doesn't matter what SMcCandlish's assertions are. We look at only your own behavior. SMcCandlish's opinions on your behavior don't matter in the slightest when an admin is determining whether your behavior merits a block or topic ban. I've already said as much, though—where is the disconnect here? --Laser brain (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The disconnect is that I don't see why it wouldn't matter, for three reasons: 1) You looked at my actions but you were given a dirty lens. If a viewer sees the description "This diff is crime X and was made for malicious motive Y" and then an innocuous or ambiguous edit, that viewer is more likely attribute malicious motive Y to that diff than if he or she had seen it cold. If the viewer reads an 8000+ word screed first? Only a robot would make it through that completely unaffected. 2) Even if it didn't affect you, it definitely affected me, if only in what I wrote down for people to judge. I had to spend valuable time, space, and readers' patience explaining things that I shouldn't have had to explain, like that no I didn't remove a dispute tag without attempting to resolve the dispute and saying "you need a source for that" isn't WP:OWN. The fact that he made different kinds of accusations also made it a lot harder for me to figure out exactly what I got banned for. Yes, there seems to be a consensus that something about my talk page MO wasn't Wiki-compliant, but what about the rest? Was Ed talking about SmC's claim that I tried to recruit someone? Well Thryduulf mentioned the user space, so does he think the WP:OWN claims are merited? I'm still in the dark on a lot of that. As a side matter, I didn't know that I didn't need to wait for permission to write a full-length response, so I didn't write one. 3) In almost everything else I've seen at AE, misconduct by all parties is acknowledged. Hijiri wasn't supposed to file that complaint against Catflap. Catflap was assessed on Catflap's actions and Hijiri on Hijiri's. H only got a warning, but the slipup merited a mention. I don't see why deliberate lying isn't taken as an attempt to subvert the process. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, I just looked at your actions. There is no "lens" and I don't care how anyone else described your actions. I just clicked through your edits. You were topic banned because you engaged in battleground behavior and indicated your intention to continue your MoS battles indefinitely without regard to the disruptive effect on the environment and people around you. I'm not in a position to speak to why anyone did anything or what they meant by their comments, so please ask them. At this point everyone involved in this enforcement has gone far above and beyond the expected level of explanation of their actions, to the point where I at least feel like I am repeating myself and getting nowhere with you. I don't have anything else to say about the topic ban, so please take this as my final message about it. --Laser brain (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

So you're saying you could not have been affected by SmC's claims because you didn't read them and that, while you don't speak for other admins, the accusation of WP:BATTLEGROUND is the only one that you considered? I am asking because I need to know where to focus my efforts for the next eleven months and change. If you don't feel like answering, I will consider these conclusions likely but unconfirmed. Be assured that you're not getting nowhere. Your thought process has gone from complete mystery to partial mystery. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal Art vs The arts

Hey,

I noticed you did quite some edits on The arts, wanted to let you know I opened a discussion for potential merger between Art and The arts, based primarily on the large overlap between the 2 articles. I can understand there's nuances between those 2 terms from a dictionary point of view, but not sure if that warrants 2 seperate articles. Would appreciate if you could give your input.>>>Discussion here<<< 92.71.13.2 (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Granville Anderson

I know you're probably all over it but any chance of getting the 'tribs nuked ? Mlpearc (open channel) 18:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: I'd say they can all be rolled back but I'm a bit wary about doing a mass rollback because they do make the odd useful contribution. This is one of the more interesting cases I've seen, as this user has persistently done these things for a long time flying under the radar. They have also socked using IP addresses from multiple libraries. Can't tell if we're dealing with a troll, a kid, or what. --Laser brain (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I've pinged an Admin in IRC for some help. It would seem if they have made constructive edits then someone else will make them, looking at all the date templates that have been disrupted. Thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 19:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe GB fan could help out ? if not I can go thru and do it manually. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

All done! --Laser brain (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Saw the mention after it was done. -- GB fan 20:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 20:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

FAC ...

"FAC has a specific policy that there are a limited set of people whose opinions matter regarding NFCC." I was not aware of any such policy at FAC? Have I been out of touch that long? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: No, you're correct. I've never heard and certainly have never condoned any such view. I'm certain Ian hasn't either. --Laser brain (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

AE regarding TripWire

Hi Laser brain, TripWire left a note at AE that he is leaving for a couple of days on a personal business and will not be editing during that time. Looks like he forgot to pare it down or maybe did not have enough time due to some emergency. Maybe you want to consider the longer response this one time.

Also, if you can be kind enough and consider my statement left at User talk:Spartaz#Statement by SheriffIsInTown and move it to that AE discussion since Spartaz asked me not to comment and only leave a message at his talk. If you cannot move, please consider my statement while making your decision. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Laser brain. You have new messages at The Wordsmith's talk page.
Message added 17:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Knight Lore/archive1

Hey LB, I think this FAC is ready to be promoted, but wanted your feedback. (Does the @FAC ping no longer work?) Also would I still need to wait two weeks after a successful nom to nominate another ready, peer reviewed article? czar 15:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: My apologies—it does work but I have not had the opportunity to go through the list since I saw your note. You can always nominate another article right after a successful promotion. If you have one ready now, you can go ahead an list it since it doesn't appear you have outstanding comments at Knight Lore. --Laser brain (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Request reconsideration of comments at AE

Respectfully request at AE a reconsideration of your comments at AE. I have recently completed my statement, at your urging adding a thorough explanation of the reported edits. Sincerely, no topic ban violation or boundary testing was intended. Respectfully request good faith consideration of the context of a re-focus of my volunteer work in the area of climate change. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Question about TBAN scope

Laser brain, you were involved with this recent ARE [6]. I think the editor in question has again violated the TBAN but I also think my recent frustration with his various edits and behavior may cloud my judgment. Thus I'm asking this as a sanity check and based on a suggestion here [7]. Please note after asking Dennis, I asked Bishonen who wasn't sure[8]. Two edits to the Exxon Mobil article were made by the editor in question almost immediately after the related ARE was closed[9], [10]. These edits seem very similar to and include the same article as edits identified by another admin as violations [11], [12]. The ARE topic block was expanded: "I am enacting Dennis Brown's topic ban extension, and explicitly expanding it to include addressing conservative politics on non-conservative-politics articles." As a sanity check would you read the new edits as likely violations? Thanks Springee (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Laser brain, having discussed the issue with the editor below, do you feel this is something that should be reviewed further? The editor is still active on the ExxonMobil climate change talk page and has been editing in a way that is not conducive to consensus building. [13] Springee (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Springee's project, continued

Thank you for notifying me of the ongoing campaigning; I was not pinged into the notice. Sorry you have been dragged into this. I'm vexxed, too, and have been for going on a year now. I was sure by now every Wikipedian was aware of Springee's long history with their project of sanctioning HughD. For background, forgive me if you are already familiar, please see for example:

1. 23 August 2015 3RR User:HughD reported by User:Springee (Result: declined)
2. 14 September 2015 ANI filing by Scoobydunk Reporting user:Springee for Hounding and Tendentious editing; to avoid sanction, Springee proposed a "voluntary" interaction ban
3. 24 March 2016 ANI Springee campaigning
4. 25 March 2016 ANI Proposed Interaction Ban between Springee and HughD; uninvolved colleagues propose an interaction ban; to avoid sanction, Springee proposed a "voluntary" interaction ban
5. 11 April 2016 vexatious report of Canadian think tank as violation under AP2

I take to heart all advice offered by colleagues; if only some of my colleagues took a similar mature attitude.

• 18 October 2015 Callanecc asked Springee to cease harassment:

You need to avoid this in the future, I can't see how you would have found this unless you were monitoring Hugh's edits. Therefore stop doing that and avoid commenting on Hugh's edits.

Springee has been reminded of this multiple times sadly to no avail.

Respectfully, a reminder: I am banned from recent conservative American politics; I am not banned from climate change or politics or topics that some may consider political, which is of course all topics. Last winter our arbitration committee cleaned up and consolidated areas of dispute; they may be interested in a case which might provide a basis for further consolidation by subsuming climate change under American politics, or perhaps clarifying that conservative politics is subsumed under politics.

Springee brings two specific edits at ExxonMobil to your attention claiming they demand administrative action. First, please understand the important context of Springee contacting you: their relentless project to sanction HughD. Next, please understand the context of this particular article, that Springee followed me, to ExxonMobil, then followed me to the POV split ExxonMobil climate change controversy, then harassed me with such vigor that ExxonMobil climate change controversy became his top edited article! Next, recognize that my area of interest, climate, the term "denial" is often vandalized, and the intention of my edits was to revert one such vandalism. Please note my edit made no reference to conservative American politics in any way. Please note I called on the Mother Jones source to hopefully help prevent additional future vandalism. Finally, please note that my reversion of the vandalism was an improvement to the article, as witnessed by to date withstanding community scrutiny. Bottom line, only the most obsessed user could think these two edits worthy of anyone's time or attention.

I am proud of my article space focus, my good articles, all my edits, and in particular my superb edit summaries, and my exemplary participation and focus on content in article talk page discussions. Despite continued following and harassment, I am attempting to head advice and conform to an interaction ban to the extent possible; please understand, Springee believes all my contributions are disruptive and ban-worthy. I have at all times been civil and never been disruptive. All of my edits are good faith improvements to our encyclopedia and respectful of the topic ban; I respectfully request specific diffs of edits you feel are not, and an opportunity to discuss and self-revert.

Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@HughD: So, just as a thought exercise, if for no other reason, I would like you to attempt to modify the above, removing all references to Springee and their actions. Then, I would like you to address my specific points. I recognize that everything can be considered political if one pushes the imagination. Let's not include this particular fallacy, and let's focus on what I asked about. --Laser brain (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

You seem rather dismissive of my reply which I assure you is sincere and thoughtful. As requested I have explained the two edits in good faith above; there is no topic ban violation. May I respectfully suggest a measured appropriate response to this report on your talk page: you could help everyone involved were you to remind Springee of our harassment policy, in particular "The prohibition against harassment applies equally to all Wikipedians" WP:HARASS; remind Springee to focus on content and not editors WP:FOC; request Springee to kindly limit reports to edits that harm the encyclopedia WP:HERE. Or, you could take a hint from the other admins Springee shopped this transgression around to and beg off. Or, Springee needs an admin for his project, you could be his guy if you want. Up to you bro. BTW Sklar rules. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@HughD: I'm dismissive of the parts of the reply that deflect my questions into a discussion of Springee's behavior. You mistake the purpose of my request for you to refocus your thoughts. It's not that I don't care about Springee's behavior—it's that I didn't ask about it and it has no bearing on whether you need to be sanctioned. Instead of inserting politically charged sources into controversial articles and fighting with the same belligerents, why don't you go bring Leland Sklar up to a decent standard? I'm betting even Springee won't follow you over there. --Laser brain (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"whether you need to be sanctioned" I get it, ok? you are an admin & I am not, you need not orient the mop cocked above my skull as we discuss.

"fighting" I am not fighting with anyone. I am at all times civil and focused on content. Civil disagreement on content is not fighting. Requesting comment is dispute resolution, not fighting. I am a humble content creator; my article space % is 68. If you are working yourself up to a sanction for battleground, I respectfully request we move to a venue where our community can assess your interpretation of specific diffs, in proper context: I am being followed; if that is irrelevant to you, fine, but we may need to widen this discussion. Thank you.

I will include an atypical more personal note, since you & I may be the only two Wikipedians to actually own a "Section" album. I am a volunteer. Life is short, perhaps you are also aware if you are old enough to know who Sklar is. All of my edits are only after careful consideration of where I can do the most good toward improving the encyclopedia. I would pitch in at Sklar, but I can't take the lead. It needs work. No mention of his sound. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@HughD: I think you'll find that I'm quite a reasonable administrator and I certainly didn't mean to hang sanctions over your head. I'd rather have a discussion with someone than reach for the block button, hence why we're here having a discussion. I only asked you to talk about your edits. I can see for myself the history of interaction between you and Springee. As for Sklar, sources are difficult to find. As with many unsung session musicians, he's both everywhere and nowhere. --Laser brain (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, more general comments on my edits, in response to your observation, "you jumped from one topic area under DS to another (climate change)" You've been around long enough to remember the pre-DS era. Many editors avoid DS areas altogether. I don't blame them. I can testify attempting to improve the neutrality of articles in DS areas is higher stakes. An unfortunate unintended consequence of this is that many articles calcified in extraordinarily non-neutral state; many articles in DS areas need work. Improving articles in DS areas is nothing to be afraid of if one can simply maintain civility and focus on content. Hope this helps. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hugh, you say above that "All of my edits are good faith improvements to our encyclopedia." Could you please explain this edit in that context? In that edit, you copied verbatim my "areas of interest" section from my userpage. This appeared to me to be harassment, specifically "Harassment can include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place." It seemed particularly odd since I've not ever observed you to make edits to celebrity pages. I didn't bring up your edit at the time because I was attempting to ignore you so you would hopefully begin to do the same to me. I only bring it up here to remind observers that your self-described martyr-like career as a Wikipedian has more nuance to it than you've suggested. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Very clever. Extremely subtle. + 100. At least you're not attempting to deny harassing me, you're just doubling down (while accusing other users of harassing you--quelle horreur!) Safehaven86 (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright

I do not know which is copyright and which is free. How can I dishistinguish between them? Can I use the reference or not?PhysicsScientist (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.PhysicsScientist (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Help please

Hi Laser brain,

You kindly closed this AE request Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive190#Monochrome_Monitor about 10 days ago.

The editor has come back to the same page with some continued unusual behaviour:

(1) Modern Hebrew 04:12, 2 May 2016: Without warning or discussion, reverts the same bulk changes that were subject to the AE.

(2) Talk:Modern Hebrew 07:50, 2 May 2016: Angrily removes a talk page post discussing addition of the ARBPIA tag.

(3) Talk:Modern Hebrew 08:16, 2 May 2016: After being told that removing talk page threads is unacceptable, the editor removes the same again.

Please could you let me know how you think I should proceed here? The editor does not wish to discuss, and continues to be highly aggressive in their behaviour.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: I already said in the AE filing that this article doesn't fall under ARBPIA. So you are being disruptive by adding it to the Talk page and then edit warring to keep it there. If you keep that up, you are more likely to be blocked than Monochrome Monitor. As for your other problems, you are expected to resolve your conflicts like everyone else, using appropriate steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution as needed. I have no interest in getting involved in the topic area, but I will be monitoring the article for further disruption. --Laser brain (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Where did you say that at the AE? I cannot see it?

The question of whether this topic should fall under ARBPIA has not been discussed anywhere that I am aware of. All I expect is that proper consensus is built around this question.

Oncenawhile (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: I commented at the bottom of the AE filing that discretionary sanctions do not apply to the article. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. ARBPIA was meant to be broad, so there are bound to be articles that fall into grey areas, but I don't think this is even remotely related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. If you think it is, the burden is on you to establish such consensus on the article Talk page before adding templates. --Laser brain (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Laser brain. I would like to do that. But my attempt to do so has been removed twice - the editor seems to think it's ok to remove other people's talk page threads. So not only will the other editor not discuss with me, they won't even let me discuss with others. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: He was correct to remove the ARBPIA template as disputed. He was wrong to remove your remarks. --Laser brain (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Explanation please, redux

Explanation please

Hugh, as you're probably aware, Springee has left messages for various admins who were involved in your last AE report asking us to examine your recent edits at ExxonMobil. His message to me is here. I'm vexxed, frankly, and I have trouble understanding why you don't believe you are continuing to play around the edges of your TBAN. You received good advice in the last AE report that although you are not editing politics articles, the nature of your edits is political. I fully agree with this assessment. You also received explicit advice from Ricky81682 that inserting a source such as Mother Jones into articles is political in and of itself. Your TBAN aside, you jumped from one topic area under DS to another (climate change) and politically driven edits to those topics are troubling on their own. My inclination is to block you but I'd like to hear your side. --Laser brain (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

   If you could, @Laser brain:, please take a look on the automobile safety talk page. Same thing going on, I think. Anmccaff (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I appended this bit above to your message on @HughD:'s talkpage, Hugh "responded", and yes, them scare quotes belong, by blanking both our messages. Could you take a look at this, please? Anmccaff (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: I'm tired of dealing with him, to be honest. If you believe he's violating his topic ban, please open a report at WP:AE for wider input. --Laser brain (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Reger Requiem

Should I have pushed the reviewers to switch from comment to support? Reger's centenary of death is next week. What's next? I have no experience with a failed nomination, - would like to see it as TFA on 16 July, centenary of the premiere, as Brian knows. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Generally I will prod reviewers for declarations if I feel they are close, but your reviewers were outlining more substantial issues that I don't feel were moving toward resolution. Based on the feedback you got, I think you will need to work on the prose, perhaps with an independent copyeditor, before renominating. I have not reviewed the article—just assessed consensus based on the comments you got. --Laser brain (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry not to understand, because prose was not even mentioned. To my knowledge, I dealt with every concern. Could you be more precise? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: When multiple reviewers mention prose issues without supporting, they are generally indicative of further problems that should be addressed with a copyeditor. Jim, Wehwalt, Jaguar, and Lingzhi all mentioned writing issues, along with "there are places where the text is perhaps a bit clunky or wordy" from Jim. You might consider a Peer Review or just have an independent copyeditor go over it for remaining issues, and then renominate. --Laser brain (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I requested at GOCE and asked Corinne who had copyedited the article in a previous state. I don't care about the star but want to have the article in best possible shape by 11 May (as expressed in the nomination). As both requests might not get a fast reply, you perhaps may want want to go over it yourself? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

ps: In invite Jim, Wehwalt, Jaguar and Lingzhi to informally let me know what outstanding issues could be fixed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

While it's a fine article, I did not feel the prose was up to FA standards and did not feel I could fix it in the context of a FAC. Had there been a copyedit, I would have resumed the review, and will be happy to review it in full once the prose is up to snuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I did not understand that from your review, sorry, may be my lack of language. I saw specific items to which I responded. What did I misunderstand? - Corinne copyedited now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I did not actually want to say that in the middle of a FAC. But I was spending much time working through prose. Under such circumstances I often step back and await developments (and supports).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I rather need direct open communication. Sorry I am bad in mind-reading. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I don't have time to do a full review of this article, but just a quick glance at once section reveals a lot of issues. With due respect to the GOCE, it needs quite a bit more than a surface proofreading. There are basic problems with how the article is written, and I feel it will need significant rewriting before it is at FA standard. I started reading at "Sections". Here are some random pot-shots:

• "reminiscent of the openings of Bach's St John Passion and St Matthew Passion" This is not supported by the source cited. The source mentions that the text "Wenn ich einmal soll scheiden" is similar to St Matthew, but you're writing about the pedal point here. I think you have misinterpreted the source.
• "In a pattern strikingly similar to the beginning of A German Requiem, the bass notes are repeated, here on an extremely low D, lower even than the opening of Wagner's Das Rheingold on E-flat." You have cited the score as a source here. You can't make an analysis and comparison here without citing a secondary source. Also, can we be more precise than "extremely low D"? That is a subjective term and we can say exactly which D it is.
• "In the autograph, Reger wrote the many necessary ledger lines (rather than using the symbol an octave lower), perhaps in order to stress the depth." Again, there is no citation here other than to the score, so this is your own speculation. We can't do that—we need a secondary source to speculate why Reger used the notation he did.
• "on a melody as simple as a chorale" Unclear as to what this means.
• "in a fashion reminiscent of Heinrich Schütz." The source cited doesn't seem to mention this. Schütz is mentioned a few times in the paper, but I don't see where it compares this section directly.
• The way you cited the FitzGibbon paper is inconsistent. In one citation, you listed the page number as "16,25" which I'm taking to mean page 16 of the PDF which is actually page 35 of the paper. Another citation is simply to "17" which doesn't follow that pattern.

These are just from two paragraphs, so I suspect there is a lot of work to do in checking sources, making sure they are accurately represented, and then thoroughly editing the prose. --Laser brain (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for looking, I am on my way out but will try to respond later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Back: I have little time, because until Reger's centenary of death in three days, I want to improve both his biography (which came with a refimprove-tag until last week), the list of his works and the major work Der 100. Psalm. Therefore only general remarks. Similar questions came up in the GA review and the FAC, and the GA review of Requiem (Fauré), with Tim riley, - perhaps look there also.

Speaking of music compares to speaking about a painting or a book. For a book, the plot section doesn't need any source but the book itself (as far as I understand). In this case, the source is the score, with the first page of the manuscript even pictured, showing the ledger lines and which low D that is, D1 in scientific pitch notation. That is low, objectively so, but I am afraid that a reader who doesn't read the music would not be helped by that information either. - I asked Brian if I have to source that the Mozart Requiem is in D minor and the Brahms Requiem has a pedal point on F in the beginning, - but don't recall an answer. These familiar works are mentioned to explain the unfamiliar by comparison. Of course the article could live without such help, but I also might decide I better leave it helpful and without FA star. - On the Main page right now: "DYK ... that Max Reger dedicated Der Einsiedler to conductor Philipp Wolfrum and his choir, but they performed the premiere only after the composer's death, together with his Requiem? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

(←) I'd like to say that User:Laser_brain has made excellent comments above. Commenting about the nature of a work based on your reading of its score, for example, is obviously WP:OR. I should have looked closely (as he did) at these connections between the article and the sources, but alas I did not. Sorry. I did copy edit one section for you. Unless I am mistaken (which happens often), you frequently have problems with German "time-manner-place" versus English "place/manner, time". You also have problems with "coherence" (e.g., sentence order, keeping like topics together, connecting ideas to text above/below, etc.). But as Laser brain said, WP:OR is a deal-breaker, whereas as sentence order is much more amenable to repair... I have to go to sleep now...   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You are right, both, about OR, only I am not aware that I said anything about the nature of the work which the score doesn't tell anybody looking there or at the image of the manuscript. If I did without intention, I could have dropped such things, but I would have needed to be told. If I was required to source that Mozart's Requiem is in D minor, or Bach's Passions begin with a pedal point, I could have done that easily (still thinking that such a ref would be clutter), but I received no answer.

• To the above: removed the Bach Passions (although it could be sourced that they both begin with a pedal point).
• removed "extremely", added the D1. - The comparison to Brahms is cited, the one to Rheingold is in the same source, mentioned for the Latin Requiem (p 13), also it's no interpretation, just saying that D is lower than E-flat (by alphabet).
• "perhaps"-phrase dropped
• "on a melody as simple as a chorale" was copyedited several times, says right now "simple melody" (not by me), as opposed to a more operatic melody one might expect from a soloist, - one note per syllable, simple intervals, as a look at the music shows.
• Ref: "the solo quartet, chorus, orchestra, and organ act as four separate “Klangapparate” in a way evocative of Schütz and the polychoral style." (p 13)
• Page numbers given are those of the pdf, in the first case it's on two pages. They could also be consistently the numbers of the paper if preferred. I chose the others because they are more easily seen on top.

Next time: please let me know sooner. There will probably be not be a next time for this piece. I kind of needed the work for private mourning, but probably should have rather created 30 stubs on some of his other compositions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Just as an aside, I've never had a problem with using a primary source (the score) for things that are obvious like the key or tempo—as long as we get it right. I wish I had a dollar for every pop song article I've seen where the editor used the sheet music to cite the key, but got it wrong because they didn't understand relative minors or how to read music. Once we cross into interpretation and analysis ("in the style of" an so on), we need secondary sources. --Laser brain (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Fine, so we both agree in general. Is there - after I made some changes according to your comments - any "interpretation" left that is not sourced to a secondary source? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Today:

• ... that among the late works by Max Reger are a fragment of a Latin Requiem and the Hebbel Requiem?
• ... that Max Reger had the proofs of his eight-part motet Der Mensch lebt und bestehet open next to his bed when he was found dead on 11 May 1916? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Track listing

Hello. Are you sure about the track listing? I've read about plot, but nothing on WP:ALBUMS styles guides suggests track listing are free from needing sources. I know for films it's a matter of watching a film to state whether the plot is accurate or not, but it's not so simple for singles. For me, it sounds like not having to reference a home video section for a film because "oh just buy every copy!" Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion on FAC, please

Our review processes (all of them) are pretty much dictated by the interests of any given reviewers. Sports and entertainment are big everywhere. I had an FLC fail last year pretty much for lack of interest. And I think I'm not the only one this happens to. However, I have Margaret Lea Houston at FAC and would really prefer it not fail for lack of interest, which looks to be a good possibility at the moment. Other than this post, can you offer suggestions on what I can do to keep this nomination from dying? — Maile (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Maile66: Ironically, sports and entertainment articles have not been very popular at FAC. See any pro wrestling, auto racing, or pop music nomination in the list at any given time. I would first advise you not to despair, as we don't seriously look at archiving nominations for lack of interest until they are at least 3-4 weeks old. If we see something lingering without review for too long, we will generally add it to the Urgents list which can attract attention. Other than posting at relevant WikiProjects, I find that most FAC nominators attract interest and good will by performing reviews on other nominations, and sometimes by making use of the Peer Review process prior to nomination and inviting interested editors to comment in a lower-stakes environment. Hope this helps! --Laser brain (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. — Maile (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Impactguru - Suggestion for restoring please

The page I created for Impactguru was never intended to be a promotion. I have been following them for last six months and think that they should be on the list of crowdfunding websites. I have contributed a lot of times and they are the only ones in India who sends you a report about the funds usage. They might not be leading, which I should not have written and I take that back. Promotion was never the intention. Wikipedia is for knowledge and I think people visiting the page should know about upcoming sites as well. Especially offbeatr is on the list while its defunct. Please guide me how to edit content so that its not a promotion and please restore the page quickly. Let me know. Akansharathi (talk) 05:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

a question

I'm curious. Squeamish Ossifrage Opposed baleen whale, but you promoted it. Was there a reason why? Tks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It's my job to weigh consensus for promotion and consider actionable opposes. Multiple editors were involved with addressing SO's concerns, and numerous attempts were made to follow up with him, which went unanswered. If a reviewer never revisits their comments or declaration, I have to do my best to consider whether to promote over their opposition. Since I had at least two other reviewers looking at the sources, I felt it was a reasonable course of action. --Laser brain (talk) 04:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

the reason I stopped commenting was 'cause I was waiting to see what would happen with Squeamish Ossifrage's comments. But I guess that was the wrong tack to take. I'll do it differently next time. It's OK. Tks, and Later  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Battleground issues

I wrestled on where to ask about this example, so I think I'll leave it off the RfC talk page for now and also invite The Wordsmith here. First, thanks for cracking down on the aspersions issue. Besides that and imposing a word limit, the other main issue needing admin supervision for the RfC is just the overall personalization towards editors and battleground behavior that pops up in this topic. After David Tornheim's post on Jimbo's page, that seems to have encouraged another editor involved in the dispute to go on to respond saying "KingofAces has made changes to this encyclopedia that should make you shudder. . ."[14]

As I've said before, I'm more interested in ignoring wrangling with various behavior issues at least until the RfC is done and leave it up to you two to decide what to do. However, using that as an example, do you two think there's anything more we can add to the RfC rules to actively discourage that kind of personalization? Otherwise, do you think we've done our due diligence with the setup where anyone engaging in this behavior can already be considered amply warned (obviously even though it should be common sense not to)? Many editors you two have encountered here have been previously warned for this behavior even though it has persisted for years in the background, so I just wanted to make sure you two were aware of that this is likely to pop up given the history. If either of you think there's something worth adding, I'd be willing to find some wording to strengthen and maybe discuss on the talk page detached from the above example. Asking this on the RfC page with that example might have just inflamed things more. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

At a certain point, I don't think more words are going to help. The most effective deterrent I can think of is being judicious about warning and removing editors with behavioral issues. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, my thoughts are pretty much the same at this point. I was mainly curious how either of you plan to tackle it, so that sounds plenty reasonable at this point. I probably won't bother with proposing additional changes in that regard. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with The Wordsmith. Actions will be important, as each user is well aware of what constitutes acceptable behavior. --Laser brain (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks like this example above did spiral out of control and now Petrarchan doubling down at the RfC page[15] and continuing the personal attacks after your warning.[16][17] Sorry that you and The Wordsmith are having to deal with this much drama, but it's unfortunately only a taste of what us regulars have had to try to sort through. You two are doing a huge service though.

I've had to be really careful not to cross the line while still being able to respond to some behavior issues creeping in. I'm going to keep trying to ignore Petrachan at this point. Just for reference, the paper Petrarchan references directly commented on some individual studies and also commented on the broader literature. For some reason, Petrarchan keeps denying the later half (even though we had talk page consensus for it) to the point it goes beyond a content dispute calling me a liar, etc.

With all this in mind, I'm about at the point of asking for a one-way interaction ban (due to one-way antagonism) given their history at ArbCom.[18][19] I know those can be tricky to enforce sometimes though. I don't edit in other topics they frequent, though I guess a topic-ban might create less ambiguity too. Just wanted to let you know I'm open to the interaction ban option if you're considering something along those lines, but I'd mostly just like to see this behavior stop one way or another. If you've got something in mind besides a ban, that would be great too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

King is not speaking truth, and this is important as it is the very crux of the issue here. Just for reference, the paper Petrarchan references directly commented on some individual studies and also commented on the broader literature. For some reason, Petrarchan keeps denying the later half...

Shortly after I complained on the talk page about his edit, Trypto made a change to the article, saying" we should not imply that Panchin actually analyzed every study. I think the wording KofA added does have a flaw in that regard, and I am going to correct it now." King did not object.

From the talk page section, Tsavage notes, "After attempting to verify Kingofaces43's addition by reading the source, it seems entirely misrepresentative ... [The paper in question] make[s] clear what they're trying to support with their six-study review. Let's avoid the OR of nuancing degrees of...extrapolation, as Tryptofish put it, and either say what the study did as far as actual research, or say what conclusion it wants to infer from that research. The latter, that therefore ALL studies are (likely) invalid, is an exceptional claim. The former is that they looked at six studies."

To put it simply, this was a very weak paper for the claim being made: that literally all GMO feeding studies that have shown any cause for concern have been debunked. The gravity of this intentional misrepresentation was not lost on the editors at the page, and I hope the continued misrepresentation of facts here on this talk page is not lost on those who have volunteered to help sort out these ongoing problems. petrarchan47คุก 06:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 makes an excellent case. I strongly suggest the hostile, poorly conceived warning on their page (currently being questioned by other editors) be struck through and King's attempts to shut down discussion be ignored. The issues being brought here are highly notable. Jusdafax 07:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, if editors are going to compliment me on what a fine job I did at revising Kingofaces' original edit, I will point out that what happened was simply the normal editing process and not a case of me needing to come in and fix something awful. There is much too much posturing that tries to make it sound like there is some kind of misrepresentation-of-sources case against Kingofaces. I could make a much stronger case about Petrarchan's representation of her source in Proposal 3 at the RfC draft page. Laser brain: your warning to Petrarchan was appropriate and the subsequent attacks upon you are inappropriate, as are her continuation of the conduct for which she was warned. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed on the posturing. I wasn't picky about what part of the text stuck in the end because there a bunch of things that source could have been used for (including what Petrarchan is going on about). It's being made to sound that I was fighting to include something tooth and nail when the only thing that happened were iterative edits by different editors on what part of the source to focus on. I would suggest Laserbrain forward any email threats or attempts of editors to be vindictive towards admins enforcing DS to ArbCom. We don't need any of that in this topic if you've been subjected to it, especially when on-Wiki or off-Wiki attacks are now delaying the RfC. Something this severe shouldn't be ignored. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Sample

Roughly 30 seconds into this song (NSFW) your name gets mentioned. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

I have learned a key lesson in grammar today. Thanks, my friend. SilverAlcantara (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The Purple Barnstar

		The Purple Barnstar
		For enduring a difficult situation and getting bruised but not broken, I award you this Barnstar. Rest easy, brother. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

And that message speaks for me, too. Laser brain, you did nothing wrong, and I am horrified that you are being threatened with outing. I look forward to seeing you back. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

PS: I bet you already did this, but if not, please forward those emails to ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

GMOs

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I just did this to put to rest, once and for all, the claims that there isn't the authority under DS. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

ARCA

A clarification request in which you were involved has been archived at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (June 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Help and advice needed

If u see on administrative noticeboard for edit warring on this discussion u will see that whatever edits I had made were in good faith and not vandalism. However the IP whom I had helped create that article reported me because I had made some good faith edits which he considered vandalsim. He thinks I am WP:NOTHERE. There may have been incidents in the past that may have depicted me as here not to build an encyclopedia but then I learnt and mended my ways. Still I am being seen through the image of a guy not here to build encyclopedia. The way the IP reported me was retaliation because i had written the help desk telling them that the IP had taken credit of an article that was mainly written by me - anyway i closed that discussion. When i made good faith edits to that article -removing dead links and stuff he reported me. Users showing opinion there are still viewing me by that image of a nothere guy. What do I do? Can you please help me? I am too new and too small just a 13 year old. I have told you everything and I seek help. Many thanks and sincere regards --Varun ☎ 14:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Very unhappy with Loch Ness decision

I just want to make sure it's noted that I feel your decision regarding me on Loch Ness was way off base, and unfair. I don't feel you took everything into consideration. You certainly have the power enact what you did, and I will absolutely abide by it, but coming back from vacation and seeing the ruling was quite disheartening and disappointing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): I decided to protect the page so you'd be compelled to discuss the issue rather than continuing the edit war. Edit warring is the wrong thing to do, even if you think you're correct. The alternative is that both of you were going to get blocked. I don't know what you mean by "I will absolutely abide by it". You have no choice but to abide by the page protection, because it's locked from editing. If you mean that you will abide by my warning not to continue the edit war, that would be wise. --Laser brain (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I would abide by the 1R. I didn't and don't see it as an edit war on my part since I joined in with multiple others against the warring editor. I made two edits along with other editors, realized this was a problem user and brought it to your attention properly. Some time later, a different editor made a change, was reverted and I again made two edits to help him out. The problem editor of course continued his crusade. You'll note all of the problem editor's edits remained as I would go no further than a couple edits, just like others. To lump me in was wrong and very poor judgment on your part. As I said, of course I will follow it, but his attacks against me and his personal edit war against multiple editors (not just me) are on a far different level. So my disappointment is high right now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): I take your point, but my action was designed to de-escalate the situation and encourage discussion. Blocking people should be a last resort as their participation has to then cease. I suggested 1RR as a way for everyone to moderate their behavior and follow WP:BRD. The edit-warring noticeboard is not for larger content dispute resolution or for dealing with alleged behavior problems that span longer periods of time and multiple pages. If you have content disputes with other editors, you should follow the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If you believe a particular editor is exhibiting a long-term pattern of troubling behavior, you should raise the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Make sure to collect and present diffs illustrating the problems you are describing. Pinging Bloodofox as your behavior is being referenced by Fyunck. --Laser brain (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Understood. But I stepped in to help a couple editors who appeared to be bullied into stopping their edits (editors Moriori & LuckyLouie). The difference is "I" decided to bring the situation to administrator's attention since I was dared to bring it to an administrator by Bloodofox. So what happens is I come back from a holiday and see my name next to Bloodofox. Not a personal mention on my talk page where all you had to do was ask me anything you'd like me to do to help, or not a general note on the LNM article for "everyone" to follow a 1R who edits the LNM article. You'll note Bloodofox's opinions are pretty much all that remain of the conflict. I don't think that's the way wikipedia is really supposed to work and I still think it was unfair to me. What it will likely do as a consequence is also scare me away from continuing to edit that article as it's not worth my time to make it better or more accurate, when I'd have to work with that type of uncompromising editor. Thanks for explaining your rational... I just don't agree with all of it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

This is revisionism. If this is worth dwelling on, someone might want to look at LuckyLouie (talk · contribs)'s edits (@LuckyLouie:) and compare them with Fyunck's comments here. For reasons I've outlined at Talk:Loch Ness Monster, this guy seems to be attempting to inject a pro-pseudoscience position into the article, which we've got firm policies about (WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, etc.). While his anti-climate change opinions would get quickly reverted on the climate change article, more obscure areas of the site continue to suffer from a lack of eyes and familiarity with cryptozoology as a pseudoscience. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you still continuing to fabricate my climate-change positions? You know nothing of them and I've asked you to refrain from that type of baloney. I guess asking doesn't really work with you does it? This is why it's not worth hanging around the LNM article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

"conversely articles like global warming are written almost entirely by global warming alarmists to the point they tag team anyone out of editing the articles"—I'm sorry, did you say "fabricate"? :bloodofox: (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

That's what you took away from that quote? So a comprehension problem it would seem. So yes, you fabricate, tell falsehoods... what ever way you want to slice it. Please stop. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawing to insults isn't helping. The quote, combined with another recent quote where you complain about having to deal with academics on Wikipedia, displays a certain bias toward pseudoscience, which also explains your pro-cryptozoology edits over at Loch Ness Monster. We're not here to promote pseudoscience. In fact, quite the opposite—we're supposed to fend it off whenever it rears its head. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Academics of a particular subject are sometime the worst for people to deal with on Wikipedia as far as article ownership. Global warming alarmists are among the worst. Heck, major magazines and newspapers have documented that fact. Kooky Global warming deniers don't even deserve a seat at that table, but no one can get a seat, no matter the sourcing. But now your lies and off-topic digs are getting too tiresome for me to deal with. I'll let Laser brain handle his own talk page whatever way he wants and let your ownership and bullying at LNM go whatever way you like. I've seen it before so I'll sign off from this ridiculous conversation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

This nonsense is still going on? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

uFundingPortal

Below is a copy of "talk" between DrChrisWilliams and me for the same subject and contents you deleted. I guess that DrChrisWilliams gave up and passed the issue to you. I think that you and other editors should treat all the postings/edits/additions equally and fairly. If the data I entered should be deleted, other data in that table should be deleted too. If you do not want to delete other data, you should Allow our data to be presented.

---

(1) Hi Drchriswilliams, I do not understand why you have kept deleting the changes I made for uFundingPortal as you indicated in today's email. In this morning, I only inserted uFundingPortal, an equity crowdfunding platform, into the table that shows all equity/debt crowdfunding platforms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_crowdfunding_services). But, now the newly inserted row for uFundingPortal is deleted. If listing a platform in the table is inappropriate, should you delete other rows in the table as well? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom ufp (talk • contribs)

(2) Your edits appear promotional. Wikipedia is not a directory, see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(3) In the table of "Money for business ventures" on the page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_crowdfunding_services, there are 17 rows that have similar data entered as I did for uFundingPortal. Should they be classified as "promotional" and be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom ufp (talk • contribs) 15:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(4) I have explained to you why I reverted your edit and have pointed you towards relevant Wikipedia policy. Since you ask, I have previously removed similar material from these pages - where it appears to be promotional - and other editors do likewise. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(5) If you or other editors want to enforce the policy, you should make consistent for all data entries. Otherwise, it does not seem to be fair. In other words, when you delete my data entries, you should delete other data entries with the same problems. If not, that will certainly create confusion because the data I entered are in the same format as others. I would like to know when you will delete other 17+/- rows in that table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom ufp (talk • contribs) 15:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(6) If further edits appear promotional, I will attempt to deal with them in an appropriate manner. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(7) I do NOT think that it is fair! If you do not want to delete their data, you should NOT delete mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom ufp (talk • contribs) 16:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom ufp (talk • contribs)

@Tom ufp: Hi Tom, I don't have anything to do with Drchriswilliams and I've never corresponded with him to my knowledge. I have been active in monitoring Comparison of crowdfunding services for some time, and it appears that he has also. There are a couple things you seem unclear on. First, the notability threshold for inclusion on that list. You'll note that the entries there today all have their own Wikipedia articles, which means they have demonstrated themselves notable per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (a point I urge you not to attempt to remedy). Second, the crowdfunding list and related articles should be maintained by independent editors who do not have a conflict of interest (COI). COI editing is strongly discouraged here. You may wish to review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. We've had at least two accounts (you and Ufundingportal) registered here with the sole purpose of promoting the business on Wikipedia. That's not the purpose of this web site. I hope this clears up the matter. --Laser brain (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

Your interpretation is much more clearer than Drchriswilliams. If the COI is a major issue for Wikipedia, you should take "Edit" button away from files and only provide "Suggestion" button. Although people may put in some promotional materials either explicitly or implicitly, the materials would be supplementary to the contents of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom ufp (talk • contribs) 02:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tom ufp: We have something like this called Wikipedia:Articles for creation. If an editor is unsure about whether their submission is acceptable or they are new, they can use this process to get feedback from others before the article is published. For normal contributions to existing articles, we rely on users to declare their conflict of interest and operate within our standards and guidelines. Thanks for your time. --Laser brain (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Response to post on August 16, 2016

My apologies - I still make mistakes when editing by clicking 'Save' in the Source editor instead of checking to see if I had completed the edits properly. Haven't made any misleading or poor edits and have consistently sought out vandalism and fixed it. No need to say my work is not help to others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xx041424 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

ARCA

A clarification request in which you were involved has been archived at [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (1) (August 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Second ARCA archived

A second clarification request in which you were involved has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (2) (August 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Edit warring question

I think you prematurely deleted my question which was not discussing behaviour, but requesting assistance with the definition of "edit warring". Is it OK if I re-post the question, or can you direct me to a better forum to find an answer? Either is OK by me. Santamoly (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Santamoly: That noticeboard isn't for asking questions, it's for submissions reporting edit warring or breaches of WP:3RR using the predefined template provided. If you're looking for administrator attention to a specific incident, please use WP:AN/I. I see that you opened a thread at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard which might be a good place to get a sanity check from outsiders on what's going on at Talk:Pokémon Go. Let's see what response you get. I looked there briefly but haven't had time to read everything and provide an informed opinion. --Laser brain (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Santamoly is referring to Talk: Pokémon Go#The CIA - bottling up the discussion!. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

ARCA

I have filed two actions at WP:ARCA of which you are named party: action 1, action 2 --David Tornheim (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

RE SageRad

You might want to consider removing their talkpage priviliges for the duration of the block. Their recent rant/diatribe is getting ridiculous now. Otherwise I will just nominate their entire talkpage at MFD for because of WP:POLEMIC. I have already had to remove in the past month blatant links to offsite personal attacks (bear in mind the 'we have a problem' title they keep harping on about is the name of a website that hosts attack material) and blatant polemical rants. They were completely off my radar until they decided to spam their rubbish across numerous talkpages which I had watchlisted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I would advise you to either ignore him or leave it to an uninvolved administrator to deal with. I assure you that many of such are watching his Talk page. --Laser brain (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

His attacks on other editors continue. Throughout this editor's history, he has demonstrated that he regards his own opinions as more important than Wikiprocess. No matter how many bullying admins gang up to attack him, he is in the right and Wikipedia is no more than a nest of miscreants spreading false information. Only in death 's suggestion above is a good one. It seems quite clear from reading his user pages that he is not here to work with others but rather to insist on his own views regardless. His continued use of his talk page to attack other editors is disruptive; rather than take an enforced break from Wikipedia, he is participating as best he can, inciting others to act on his behalf. This is not useful or productive behaviour. --Pete (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Page edit with satire

Hello Laser brain, I've attempted to report a user that is adding satirical edits to Elgin, Illinois. However, because the person is editing from an IP address, I was unsure of how to do this. Could you provide advice on what steps I should take? Thank you in advance. Ramenfox (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ramenfox: I've semi-protected the page for a week. Hopefully they will get bored and find something else to do. --Laser brain (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI

The two latest ones I added (currently 18 & 19) have already been blocked, so theycan be closed immediately, cheers _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

That's... a lot of reverts. Thanks for your efforts! --Laser brain (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Only... thirty????! any time :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi!

I restored a few reverted edits to my user page which I do not believe to be obnoxious. I left out the diacritics, though. Mage Resu (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello & Thank you

So I got back from traveling to find out I was blocked from editing by Wikipedia LOL. Just wanted to leave this message thanking you for unblocking me, also wanted to give a chance to explain circumstances as I was AFK this whole time. I placed multiple requests for page protection and requests for Administrator intervention against vandalism at the page Young Thug discography that's how I ended up interacting with MegaMan###. He placed the protection template on the page which I had requested, when I went to thank him found out we both were blocked. Not necessarily sure of the details beyond that (I'm sure there's more than the bit I know about), just wanted to make myself available in case there were any questions since I'm back home with my computer. Weweremarshall (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

16 July 2016 thank you

16 July 2016

Thank you for helpful comments after the first FAC! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there

What edits of mine don't you like? Are you going to block the sock? Sepsis II (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Please keep correspondence about this matter on the AE page for visibility and organization. --Laser brain (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Please respond there, most of the diffs were mischaracterized or content disputes, I`d like to know which edits were wrong of me to make so I could improve. Sepsis II (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

GoldenGuy23

Can you look at this editor history because this editor keep adding content with unreliable sources, and some editors (including myself) try to tell him or her about reliable sources, but ignored us by keep on adding content with unreliable sources after the edits been reverted. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

WhoSampled.com is a reliable source, as the website allows members (& visitors) to listen to both the track that uses the sample and the original song (on which the sample is based. For example, the drums (or drum machine) sound from 2Pac's "Ambitionz Az a Ridah" can be heard on the Kanye West song "I Wonder" from the album Graduation GoldenGuy23 (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@GoldenGuy23: I don't see in the guidelines saying don't add WhoSampled in articles, you could be right, but I like to hear another person opinion about this. However, you keep adding Discogs which is in the guidelines, stop adding Discogs in articles WP:ALBUMAVOID, you need to follow the guidelines like everybody else and be get along with other editors WP:CIVIL. And if another editor reverted your edits because the same reason, you need go to the talk page first before restoring your edits, that's now it work here. And please stop adding arbitrary line breaks. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts:, as I explained to GoldenGuy, the website was found unreliable in the two discussions of its reliability at WP:RS --> Archive 120 (in 2012) and 206 (in 2016). It is essentially a user-generated and non-expert source. Dan56 (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dan56: I have reverted this editor edits at the Graduation article, but this editor keep restore it back up. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Music-related edits

You've been very helpful in the past with editors who have added unsourced content to music-related articles. I suggested to an editor that an administrator assist with an issue, and the editor agreed to have another editor help out. Would you have a moment to look at User talk:TheMagnificentist#Category additions? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You didn't have to be so rude when responding to my edits on Axl Rose's page. Sorry I forgot to reference accurate information. I was a bit surprised when you said you'd have me banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razzle02121960 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Two editors

Would you have a moment to look at the recent talk page messages at User talk:JayPe and User talk:JustDoItFettyg? Both these editors are hard working and have made huge contributions to Wikipedia's music articles, but get frustrated when asked to source their edits. I'm writing you because the editing behavior is similar to this editor. I edit a number of rap music articles, and it's quite the effort keeping these articles encyclopedic. Thanks a lot. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I second that. I see a refusal to understand that WP:V is a core policy. This is disruptive because I have to constantly keep a watch on some of their edits. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll be able to take a look within 1-2 days. If you feel the problem is particularly urgent, you can gather diffs and open a thread at WP:AN/I. However, I don't recommend this unless you have a strong stomach. --Laser brain (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

This didn't help. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

This as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok Lazer Brain (Andy), I hope you know that Magnolia stalks my contributions every day. And you claimed that everything on Wikipedia needs to be verified. Well take a look at this edit Magnolia added here. Adding SoundCloud links to prove that it's a single [which does not indicate they are singles]. Then i made a edit here adding "Reliable Sources" from iTunes itself. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Same thing applies for Lemongirl as she stalks my edits everyday. And even when we add sources to our edits she deletes them anyways, and would also threaten to block me when editing (I would later add refs but they're still not satisfied). JayPe (talk) 21:19, 1 December, 2016

I wouldn't say you have much of a case for claiming "stalking" or harassment. If I notice an editor adding unsourced information, I will usually check their other contributions as well. That's just being a responsible editor. I urge all of you to review WP:V carefully. Is it an absolute requirement that every single thing on Wikipedia needs a source? No. But if something is likely to be challenged or questioned, you need to include a source. If someone does challenge it (by removing), you absolutely should never add it back without providing a reliable source. Doing so is disruptive and can get you blocked. Asking someone to take your word for it, or telling someone to go look it up themselves, is not acceptable. Getting frustrated is understandable but resorting to personal attacks will also get you blocked. Clearly all of you are interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of music topics, so I'd much rather you learn to get along and work together than have to resort to blocks. --Laser brain (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Peer review

Hello Laser brain, I saw you listed at the Peer review volunteer list. I requested a peer review for Post (Björk album) at here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Post (Björk album)/archive1. If you are interested, I would be very grateful. Regards!--Bleff (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Bleff: Sure, I'd be happy to. I may not get to it for a few days. If I don't leave any comments within a week, feel free to nag me. --Laser brain (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Bleff (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Laser brain: It's been a week. I hope I'm not being bothersome! --Bleff (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Quick Question about FAC

Hello, I have a quick question about the FAC process. I have placed the episode "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?" as a featured article candidate near the beginning of the month. Unfortunately, it has not attracted any attention after being open for a couple of weeks, and I have a feeling it will be archived soon. I was wondering if you have any advice or suggestions on how to attract more attention to a featured article candidate. I have voted on a few featured article candidates as I thought that would help. I understand that there is not much that can be done, as it is really up to a user's preference and interest on whether or not a FAC gets attention, but I would appreciate any advice (especially since I am still relatively new to Wikipedia). Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Peer review

Hai, I recently worked on the article Maheshinte Prathikaaram and have requested a PR for taking it to GAN. If you are interested, please spare some time for it. --Charles Turing (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

In case you find interest

Hello Laser brain. We recently participated in a discussion which motivated my filing of an Arbcom request. Although you are not a named party, your interest in the RFC mentioned juxtaposes to potential interest in the Arbcom request as well. I am therefore, inviting you to consider your own interest in the matter, and welcoming your involvement should you find it desirous. Best--John Cline (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I don't agree with your pessimistic analysis of the infoboxes wars. Tell me one recent instance of what you describe as proxy battleground behaviour, please. To my observation, all it would take to end the battles was sticking to normal editing in good faith and without edit war. I have an example: a long-standing infobox was removed. If that had been considered a bold edit, reverted and discussed, things could have been easy. It wasn't because some would not accept that it was a rather bold edit. I said so on ARCA, but you could probably not read it all. - What is your opinion on the RfC on Holst which brought the need for clarification? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

ps: It pleased me to see (yesterday) a composer as TFA with an infobox, - improved to FA by the same editor as in my example. Obviously, compromise is possible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It pains me every time I see content editors arguing about infoboxes. That's what I mean by "wars". You are included in this pain. I'd like to see you building content and not starting conversations on pages like Holst where the principal editors (Brian and Tim) obviously made an editorial decision to omit an infobox. Personally, I don't care about infoboxes that much. Look at my FA's. Two of them have infoboxes. I added one deliberately to Elderly Instruments. When I started working on Steve Lukather, it had an infobox, so I left it there. I resisted putting one on Joseph Bishara because there is nothing to put there. Someone added one consisting of just his name and birthday which is silly. I'm fine leaving it to WP:BRD and editorial judgment. But when editors choose to make a larger issue of it, we all have a problem. --Laser brain (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Very nicely put LB. Sadly, the removal of the box at Butler (which preceeded a complete re-write of the article, led to the usual flash mob suspects turning up en masse. And this to a subject I'd lay good money that they had never even heard of before (none of them had ever edited before, not have they done since, despite the open PR). And no, gerda, the IB at Ketelby wasn't a "compromise": it was naked bullying and ownership. And the least said about your claim at ArbCom that "if I know the preferences of an author I respect them": I see no evidence of that at all. For the record, a very decent proportion of the articles I have worked on (including up to FAC) have included an IB where one is advantagreous.

And the less said about your use of BRD, particularly when you add an IB on 9 May 2016 to an article that has never had an IB‎, see it removed on 3 June 2016‎ and yet claim "editorial choice of a main contributor to the article" when you revert. If you want to criticise other people's actions around their approach to IBs and BRD, perhaps you should get your own house in order first? – SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to add more to talk on infoboxes ;) - A few corrections have to be made.

• I started no discussion on Holst. (I started one on Jean Sibelius - in 2015 btw, because one of the Main editors supports IBs.) I watched the Holst page for years without any talk, IB or else. My watchlist told me that the hidden text was removed, and moved back. I didn't do a thing. My watchlist told me that an RfC was started, so I commented. In the RfC, someone said that a consensus was established not to have an IB. THEN and only THEREFORE I described how a concise infobox might look, to find out about the consensus. Please don't call that "starting conversations".
• Reger: as long as some Main editors claim that they have the right to remove an IB because they improve the article, I claim the right to insert when I improve the article. I modestly claim that I did a lot CONTENT about Reger's compositions in this his year, including a TFA.
• I am sad to hear Ketèlbey was no compromise, - it looks like one. I added some CONTENT on his pieces as well, such as Bells Across the Meadows, - needs a DYK review, hint hint. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Seriously? You thought that when I said "It's a ghastly step backwards, but if you really wish to own the top right hand corners of every article, you'll only bully, bluster and lie your way into doing so, as you have done time and time again", that is indicative of a compromise that I supported? Come on Gerda - that's a dodgy claim to make, even for an IB discussion! - SchroCat (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• I didn't follow that discussion, only saw the result which looks like a workable compromise to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Please try and stick to the truth Gerda: you commented in the thread - SchroCat (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for helping my memory, - I didn't sign and forgot, also I didn't reply to you, - sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Gerda Arendt: You started a new section on Talk:Gustav Holst titled "Infobox?" with the apparent aim of stating your opinion and suggesting an infobox. How is that not "starting a discussion"? --Laser brain (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• I am sorry that I did (at all. I was angry about the comment about an alleged established consensus, which is what the new arbcom clarification is about, or should be about. I should at least have given it a level-3-header to make visible that it was not a new discussion but one that was caused by the RfC. I thought that I explained how, in the introduction and just above, mentioning here the years in which I didn't touch Holst and many others where I know a preference of a group of authors authors, which is not the same as an established consensus). It was not what I would call a new discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

There is going to have to come a point when this infobox issue which seems to crop up daily becomes a non issue. Whether it is a change in technology on wikipedia or something, I don't know, but it's really silly to keep having arguments over things so trivial. We're not google, we're an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are traditionally written almost entirely with text/prose summaries. Reflecting what Yngvadottir said recently, which was the most intelligent and correct statement about the situation I've seen in a long time, in cases where there is genuinely a lot of information to relay which is difficult to put in prose without creating a mess, sportspeople, aeroplanes etc or some buildinging/place where a map locator is needed then they're of use. When they're there almost entirely for decor purposes, then they become of much lesser value. An emptyish infobox in my opinion tends to make the encyclopedia look more amateurish. The bottom line is that editors who bother to develop an article to GA/FA level should really call the shots on something like an infobox. It's gravely concerning when editors put in an enormous amount of time in expanding articles to FA quality, and then rather than congratulating them, it becomes a negative situation in "why was the infobox removed?". Get some perspective Gerda, it's just not a healthy approach to encyclopedia building.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) You may remember that the question why was the infobox removed came up before improvements in the Butler case, and not by me. - I am perfectly willing not to mention the word infobox, at all: just I don't add, you don't revert, and let's see what happens. (By "not add" I don't mean operas and "my own articles", of course.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

AE

Regarding your "That way if someone behaves badly in this domain, other editors can file a report at AE and it can be dealt with." - I would file no report, ANI or AE. AE is a place to avoid, look for "AE " in my archive. Life is too short ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I agree that these are venues to be avoided, especially ANI. I appreciate AE because it is more efficient in dealing with problems when there are already established Arbcom remedies like Discretionary Sanctions. To be clear, I don't want any of this. I want people to edit peacefully and mind their own business. --Laser brain (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with peaceful editing. If you see me doing something else please let me know. However, just read the summary of the close to understand that I have reservations about the efficiency of AE. I liked the close, but the long procedure leading there was a complete waste of time, imho. I appealed then, had been too proud before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Close

I agree with your close on ANI but what will the arbs say that you call the restriction they gave me "silly"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I doubt the Arbs are much bothered by what I have to say, but I believe your restriction was silly as well. Obviously the Infobox arbitration case was ineffective because the troubles persist. --Laser brain (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, what I wanted to hear ;) - The arbs failed then, because they didn't look at the problem: reverts. The problem is still the same. The alleged attacks of FAs and GAs by an infobox militia are a myth (or need substantiation). DYK that one of the hot topics in the arb case was that an infobox had been inserted in Cosima Wagner while her name was still on the Main page, two days after TFA day on 24 December 2012. Look. I had a DYK about ice breaking, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Food for thought.

Laser brain: Not too long ago you left a comment on a page that I monitor, stating "If your first instinct is to revert the other editor instead of addressing the problem, then you are being disruptive.". How very true! I love this aphorism and wish it could become a precept of WP's editorial policies. You and I have occasionally crossed editorial paths in the past and I think if you know my work then you will know I try to be a very neutral editor interested in helping new users and just generally improving the encyclopedia. I do not always succeed, Wikipedians are only human after all. That being said I would like to ask you to "walk a mile in another's moccasins" and consider the following:

Proposition: While the above quote -- in this case offered as rule-of-thumb -- was offered in extremely good faith to the user it was addressed to, and with equally good cause, that same quotation might be just as appropriate to be offered to other editors who interact with the first.

IF this proposition is true then consider the frustration it would engender to be told as an editor "This is the rule you should follow." and yet meanwhile watch other editors behave in exactly the same "disruptive" way as you are being told not to act. Certainly whatever rules and advice which apply to one editor should be equally applied to all. I ask you to consider this when you see the first editor's responses. Yes, he has much to learn, but I would hope we who have more experience can be sensitive enough to try and see his point of view and recognize any issues that might be valid points of exasperation which then contribute to his ongoing bad behaviors.

I absolutely would not change the rules for the first editor or in any way excuse his behavors, but if all I have said makes sense then you might want to determine if any other interacting editors may need to hear the same rule-of-thumb and offer them the same advice ... thus preventing needless escalations which help nobody in the end. Thanks for listening. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 14:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Koala Tea Of Mercy: I agree with your premise and I'm considering how it applies in this case. I wanted to let you know that I'm not ignoring you—just pondering the points you made. --Laser brain (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that and if you want no further reply is asked. It was after all food for thought rather than a specific request. If you have questions or wish to discuss of course I will be here though I may be offline a lot more soon with the next semester starting and my academia responsibilities taking up my time. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of fictional beverages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steven King. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Request

I noticed your edit summary. I did not edit through protection which should be obvious if you look at the time stamps. I am not sure what your edit and the summary added to a difficult situation and you might want to think more careully before making such an allegation another time. You did in fact end up doing what you falsely accused me of. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@John: The edit in question was after full protection was applied to the page. So I'm not sure what the time stamps are supposed to be showing. I realize that you may have begun the edit before protection was applied and you may not have received the protection message when you clicked Save in that case. Hence my assumption that it was a mistake, which is clear in my edit summary. I'm quite within my right to reverse an edit that was improperly made through full protection by an admin who's involved in a conflict on the page. Have a nice day. --Laser brain (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Your summary said "You should not be editing this through protection--I'll assume a mistake." I am not sure how I was supposed to know it was under full protection. I think my edit was simultaneous with full protection being applied; I certainly receieved no warning or notice thereof. I imagine you examined the content of the edit you reversed; did you think it was in any way controversial? --John (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I assumed your edit was started before the protection applied. I'm sorry that my edit summary seemed confrontational. Tagging an article is certainly potentially controversial, especially when you are involved in disputes on the page. The only edits that should be performed through full protection are things like typo fixes or things that have clear consensus on the article talk page. --Laser brain (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Urgent FACs

Andy (and pinging Ian since I can't remember where the coord page is), I've just done a review of one of the two urgents listed and am going to try to get to the other tonight. If I have any leftover energy over the weekend, are there others you'd like reviewers to look at? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thank you so much! I'm planning to scan the list today and I'll update the urgents box with anything I see. Your participation is very much appreciated. --Laser brain (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Heh, great minds, I just started going through the list myself to close a few and perhaps add a few to urgents along the way -- don't worry, Andy, I'll leave some for you...! My tks as well, Mike -- your reviews are a great help, just don't burn yourself out...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mike, Ellie (The Last of Us) could use further review if you're able -- there's plenty of support but not much in the way of actual commentary, and I recall some opposition at its previous FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I can get to it, possibly today, but if not then within a few days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your great work at FAC ... I've noticed. (I goofed yesterday on Mike Christie's nom ... I thought the page was showing no edits for a long time ... somehow I missed Ian's timestamp.) I was sick this year off and on with an undiagnosed gall bladder problem, but the gall bladder's out now and I'm tackling a wider range of articles at FAC, like I used to. Hope that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 13:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! And I always appreciate a ping on a page I might have overlooked or might be stagnating a bit. I really appreciate all the work you do in the Featured article process and am glad you're feeling better. --Laser brain (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

taking it off that noticeboard...

to somewhere a little more discrete.

1. Firstly, I was done. I had considered it closed, but of course when someone addresses me, I will have the urge to comment. 2. The implication that there is some bias towards giving admins/established users a break, was not directed at you, it was directed at Wikipedia. It doesn't matter which admin closed it and decided not to block John, the outcome was already predetermined the moment the complaint was filed. If you don't like the implication, then I'm sorry it offends you, but hey...in my eyes it was the wrong choice to make, would you prefer I said " good job, thanks!" ? 3. I have never to my knowledge encountered John, before the 2CV article, when he came whining to my user talk, and wouldn't accept that I didn't agree with him. I have no axe to grind with him. 4. Ignoring all the personal drama, you have a bad admin, who gets away with things, because he's an established admin, if you don't see the problem with that, or you are unwilling to address that problem, then you're part of the problem. Sorry but I want to have some faith in the admins here, but it's getting increasingly hard, when you see one admin breaking rules (or the spirit of rules) and other admins unwilling to take action over it.

Now, I'm done. Unless you have something to say that requires a response, I see no point in dwelling on this issue, and consider it in the past. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

But Softlavender, another of that same clique, can come back after the close with yet more ad hominem of "motivated by retaliation, ill-will, and other personal motives" on top of their earlier "The people trying to get John in trouble have never edited the article" and there's no comment? Cassianto (now who'd have expected him to chime in too?) then pops up (8 posts on just my talk:!).

There is a problem with John. It is the same problem that has been there for years. But WP is always incapable of addressing it. There are a handful of very rotten admins, he's one. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I'd argue that a bigger problem on Wikipedia is that we've lost sight of the fact that this is just a web site, we are all human beings, and treating each other with care and compassion reaps many more benefits than treating each other with contempt. Please keep your insults to yourself. --Laser brain (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

We are not all just human beings, some people here are superior human beings, because they're admins, and they never tire of making this clear to the untermensch. You've seen John's behaviour. You've seen his threats. Why is solidarity amongst admins so much more important than maintaining the standards for all editors, including the elite? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't share your cynical view of this community so I doubt we will be able to have a productive conversation. --Laser brain (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Let me leave the following links on your page, (in regards to John's conduct, not yours) and then you might understand why he could/should have been dealt with differently and why this whole situation has left a bitter taste for some editors. (me for one)

"Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others" WP:ADMINCOND

" Administrators and other experienced editors should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another." [20]

" In general, Wikipedia's administrators are held to a higher standard of behavior than other users" [21]

" Administrators are expected to lead by example and set a standard of engagement for others to follow." [22]

"Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses may be overlooked, but consistently poor judgement may result in desysopping. Administrators should in particular avoid actions that are likely to be disruptive. Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved, such as by blocking others with whom they are in a dispute. See Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, and Wikipedia:Protection policy. All editors deserve to be treated with the utmost of respect by administrators." [23]

I don't see the attitude of John, or the treatment of the complaint against him to be in line with any of the above. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Spacecowboy420: You're not wrong to point out that administrators should be held to higher standards of conduct, and I don't disagree with you. However, Wikipedia suffers from a bit of a challenge in selecting venues to pursue resolution for such issues. The edit warring noticeboard is a binary page. Are one or more people edit warring? If so, what should be done to stop it? The page was already protected, so I closed the report. That board isn't for more advanced dispute resolution or dealing with long-term patterns of editor conduct. I don't think editors should have to experience pain dealing with other editors and feel like they have nowhere to turn—that's an opportunity for reform here. If I used AN/EW as a shortcut to sanctioning an editor outside the scope of the specific report, I would be as irresponsible as any other admin who acts incorrectly or considers themselves above the rules. If you're looking to have John sanctioned for his long-term editing behavior (which I have not examined), you should open a thread on WP:AN with clear accusations supported by evidence, and a clear goal you are seeking. Pinging John as a courtesy since he should be aware you are discussing his behavior here. --Laser brain (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I would have been very satisfied with another admin saying something along the lines of "John, you're an admin, don't edit war, you should know better" and then closing the report. A minor scolding would have done the job. You saw the attitude when you commented on his post-protection edit. As an admin, you can deal with that, because in the Wikipedia scheme of things, you're his equal. It's far worse when a lowly editor has to put up with that kind of thing. But, thanks for addressing this here, it makes things much easier to understand. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Trouts, but...

I like trout... Re [24], my intent was to keep it a non-issue rather than to have any of the other persons involved in the RFC there decide that something should (not) be archived, after I was reverted... and knowing the personalities and general contention regarding the subject, that seemed like a really good idea. I would really rather not use ANI as a bat (seeing as I basically never have cause to review it much less watch it much less have the desire to do any of the above per WP:DRAMA), but that's what it's there for in cases like that, IMO. Maybe I'm wrong.... --Izno (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Laser brain. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

BPS Australia

The Black P. Stones are known to be prominently African American, African Australian or just African by descent travelling to Australia, there has not been known reports by news reports or newspapers yet, but they are here and growing.

Mentoring proposal

I think we should now go live with the voluntary mentor scheme for FAC. This means I will transfer the instructions for the scheme from my sandbox to WP mainspace. There should then be a prominent link in the FAC instructions, directing mew nominators to the mentor page. I also hope to have a permanent note on the FAC talkpage performing two functions: advising novice nominees about the scheme, and encouraging experienced editors to sign up as mentors.

Ten have signed up so far, which isn't many, but I haven't begun my general recruitment drive yet; the early signers are mainly those who participated in the original talkpage discussion. I hope to double the numbers after my trawl, and perhaps take in more when the scheme is established and there are results to show. Of course, it's not necessary to sign up on this list to be a mentor, and I suspect some who support the scheme may prefer not to sign up formally.

If you have no further queries or reservations, I'll create the WP page approximately 24 hours from now, and will then begin my recruitment drive. (Copied to Ian). Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to advise you that I have now created Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC. A link to this page within the FAC instructions will be important if this scheme is to reach its target clientele. I am currently sending out a note trawling for mentors to add to the list. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Thank you for taking on this initiative. Are you comfortable editing the FAC instructions or would you prefer Ian or I do that? --Laser brain (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather you or Ian did. I will fashion a note for the talkpage, which could be kept at the top permanently, advertising the scheme and encouraging mentors to sign up. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Let me know what you think about the placement. Some of the other instructions are in need of updating and I had to resist the urge to make "while I'm in here" edits. I suppose that's a discussion for another time. --Laser brain (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you give me a link? I couldn't find anything on the FAC page. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: A caching issue might be to blame for the FAC instructions template not showing the updated version on the main FAC page. The edit I made is here. --Laser brain (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, got it now. Looks good, and we'll see in time what effect it has. Could you archive the long mentoring discussion on the FAC talk, which I will replace with a short statement that the scheme is under way. 21 mentors signed up so far, not bad for the first day's recruitment effort. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification of ArbCom Amendment Request

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment_request:_Infoboxes and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 06:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

reinstatement of deleted page

Hi I saw you had deleted a page gigrev after I put a link in a page Direct to Fan I'm trying to understand how the Gigrev page is not notible enough and think I can help add enough information to make you happy its not advertising.

Would you be able to undelete it for me, so I can do this?

Regards

Kzoo 14:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapfs (talk • contribs)

On leaving the project

Centralized message for Cassianto, SchroCat, and Tim riley: First off, I'm guilty of not doing enough to thank editors like you for your contributions. I suppose my way of saying thanks is to volunteer to be an FAC coordinator where I can facilitate content through the process with hopes of becoming Featured. But, I'll say that not a week goes by when I am not impressed and inspired by the quality of content you produce. To me, that's the entire reason to contribute to Wikipedia—inspiring a thousand moments of joy and discovery for readers when they encounter a product of your effort. The second part of my message is where I urge you to continue contributing and, in the words of Gold Five, "stay on target". Some of us are operating within the system to bring an end to these disruptions. I'm asking you to trust me when I say that it will work. Like other areas of sustained contention on Wikipedia, the underlying disagreement never really goes away but the disruptions can certainly go away. Once DS are authorized, editors learn quickly that if they can't operate in that domain without being disruptive, they are removed from that domain. Please stick around. --Laser brain (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Laser brain, and thanks very much for your very kind comments. I obviously can't speak for the other two but, for my part, my leaving is not solely down to the IB matter (although the relentless ongoing grief has played a part), but a more general lack of enjoyment I now get from editing. There are too many tendentious individuals or small groups who want to force their way onto such minor matters without any grasp of a subject, that they slowly take their toll. I don't want anyone to think I am doing some sort of diva quit because of IBs (although if the IB 'wars' weren't there, the rest of the grind would just have taken a little longer to work its way through), but just because the enjoyment isn't there any more. I urge you to carry on pushing for some calmness around the IB matter—you've been making some very pertinent comments in the right places from what I've seen—because this sort of festering sore will only ever drive people away. Until there is some central agreement in IBs, we'll continue to have the problem. ArbCom say 'consensus on each article', and a proper consensus can only be reached by reference to guideline or policy: the guideline on IBs is that they are not compulsory, except by consensus, so there is a loop whereby consensus can never truly be reached in the status quo. Unless some form of guidelines are actually drawn up to say when we should or should not have an IB, or in what circumstances some group or sub groups of articles are exempt from the requirements of having them, this will continue. (Except if there is an RfC, in which case people don't bother to read the arguments, probably don't bother to actually look at the article in question and give a pre-conceived ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT answer: the closing admin will then lazily vote count and add a 10% margin dependent on his or her own preference). Yes, all very cynical, but we've all seen it time and time again, and a little bit more enjoyment is removed from our connection to the project whenever it happens. Cheers – Gavin (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I"m actually in total agreement with SchroCat for once about this "consensus loop" problem. That's a very good way to put the "article-by-article" ARBINFOBOX ruling.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

re:close

Hello, I apologise for brushing over your close at AN3. I didn't take in that you were recommending someone to create a BLP discussion on the noticeboard so just made the same edit at Jared Taylor as I still saw it as a BLPvio and hoped editors would wait until the talk page discussion was concluded before trying to re-add again. I didn't mean to create more work for you--judging by the fact that you were pinged into the subsequent discussion just to be insulted makes me think that being an admin is already a thankless job as is. Zaostao (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

TAGTEAM evidence at AE

Laser brain: You collapsed my section on WP:TAGTEAM at AE. I don't object, however I'd like to understand if you collapsed it because (a) it was irrelevant to the particular request or (b) it was irrelevant to the particular request and would be unconvincing in any future request.

I'm admittedly unfamiliar with TAGTEAM beyond what's specified in policy but this appeared to be arguably convincing evidence. It's also disconcerting that MVBW retired shortly after I posted my evidence then un-retired once it was collapsed. VM mentioned similar requests in the past which I'm unfamiliar with. If the same evidence has been presented and dismissed elsewhere I won't pursue it; if not, I'd ask you to direct me to the appropriate venue as I may. D.Creish (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@D.Creish: I collapsed it only because it's not germane to that particular request. I'm not sure how much traction you'll get elsewhere trying to convince people of tag-team editing. It seems like this very concern was brought up some time in the recent past (Volunteer Marek and MVBW tag-teaming) and not much came out of the discussion. I can't remember if it was at a noticeboard or AE. I've lost track of how many times I've seen both users at AE, ANI, and other places. --Laser brain (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

That was me, sorry. I was probably trying to copy it. Bishonen | talk 16:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC).

No problem! --Laser brain (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

BPS Australia

There are known to be Black P. Stones in Australia and can too be known African American, African Australian or just African by descent. 120.151.230.91 (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You can't post things like that without a reliable source. Please see WP:V. --Laser brain (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Can't find any news reports or anything this time, do I have to wait until a source of coverage is available? 120.151.230.91 (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. --Laser brain (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixing page

I was fixing the page, how could you say it was unsourced. The other edit you could say so, but that last one was only just a fix. Get that I was adding Latin Kings (gang) and not just Latin Kings to some kind of redirect page. Do you know what you're doing or does someone else need to give some help out to how you think that quick fix was unsourced. You can't just claim that as unsourced, but too you can't say it doesn't exist. 120.151.230.91 (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)