User talk:ATS/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The reasons of deleting "MaxTV - Telling It Like It Is"

Hi, please tell me why did you delete an article named as in subject ? The owner of MaxTV - M. M. Kolonko doesn't understand your intentions and asks for help other wikipedists here: http://www.facebook.com/M.Max.Kolonko/posts/807750325983068 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubala95 (talk • contribs)

@Kubala95: See "A note to followers of Max Kolonko" above. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It is only your private judgment. Wikipedia requires a source. The proof is in the great audience Max Kolonko confirmed the number on YouTube.178.43.245.98 (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@178.43.245.98: ironically, you are quite correct in that Wikipedia requires a source—and Kolonko using his own YouTube channel to verify his own numbers does not constitute a reliable, verifiable, secondary source. This is not a private judgment; it is encyclopedic policy. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please note- Neither MaxTV nor Max Kolonko owns a YT channel. You Tube is owned by Google and the statistics are provided by Google Analytics not by MaxTV. The statistics provided in MaxTV post deleted by you were therefore provided by a reliable, verifiable, secondary source in full compliance with Wiki policies. Considering the outcry of the internet community about your deletion would you consider retracting your deletion, restore the content of the post and allow an open discussion to take place?Media2000 (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Media2000: unfortunately, you are incorrect: the statistics as used in the article were provided by Kolonko himself and were not vetted in any way—the pretty graphics gave YouTube and Facebook as sources, without providing a precise link to the actual source where the reader of an encyclopedia article could independently verify their veracity. I would invite you to read the note above: if you believe you (or anyone else, for that matter) can rewrite this article so that it passes muster within the construct of an encyclopedia, you can request its re-creation—but it cannot under any circumstances be restored as it was. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from using Max Kolonko’s name in any sense shape or form in the context of editing its own articles as there is no evidence of that. As far as I can see the article was well referenced. Lack of source to an information should not constitute the reason for deletion of the entire article. Since you deleted the article could you please restore it ( minus your objections) as a gesture of good will and allow for the wiki users to contribute to the subject? Media2000 (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I never said Kolonko edited the article; he provided those numbers in one of his own videos, then sourced within the article in contravention of Wiki policy. In addition, I did not delete the article; it was merged by consensus to Max Kolonko, where the verified data remains. Again, only a completely rewritten article that passes encyclopedic standards could take its place, if such a request is granted. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I have researched your activity on MaxTV and Max Kolonko articles. All of your contributions to MaxTV article were about deletion of the information rather than making improvements to the subject created by a large number of users. You have violated therefore the basic principle of wikipedia which is improve – not delete, contribute not destruct. The article was well referenced and lack of a source to the enclosed graphic should not constitute grounds for deletion. You were also the only user pushing for deletion of MaxTV article and the one who went on to question Max Kolonko’s notability setting grounds for removal of the creator of MaxTV. When faced with public outcry over the deletion you have violated wiki policies by revealing personal information about wiki contributors who questioned your activity on Max Kolonko and MaxTV. When reprimanded by administrator, you have violated wiki policies again by calling MaxTV’s creator, Max Kolonko, a “pseudo-journalist”. Also your recent edits to Max Kolonko article are false, quote wrong sources and under-represent the position of MaxTV among opinionated news channels on YT. Your bias is obvious. I have contacted therefore administrators to investigate your behavior and motioned that you’d be banned from Wikipedia community and stopped from making any edits to both Max Kolonko and MaxTV when the article is restored. Regards. Media2000 (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

First, I'm sorry all your reasoning is pretty ridiculous. I also see no notes to admins in your contributions. I have a great idea for you, go to WP:DELREV and start a deletion review process. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Whats even stranger is that as you aren't an administrator, you can't see his edits to a deleted article such as MaxTV... Stop lying and instead re-draft it or take it to DR as I linked above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EoRdE6 (talk • contribs)

• First, my thanks to EoRdE6 for the response.
• Second, Media2000, virtually everything you've stated herein is an exaggeration, a misdirection, or an outright lie, which itself is a violation of guidelines admonishing us all to assume the good faith of fellow editors. My "push", as you call it, to delete the MaxTV article was based on exactly one thing: it was not an encyclopedia article. Your continued insistence that it was "well referenced" will be laughed right off of any administrators' discussion you choose to begin; nearly every citation linked to one of Kolonko's own videos, which constitutes an utter failure to provide vetted, secondary sources as required by policy—and the only source that wasn't Kolonko tooting his own horn failed to establish any notability of his "television channel". My edits to his own article meantime use the data supplied by the cited source, which does not support the puffed-up numbers within the article; the guidelines and policies with respect to biographies of living persons requires editors to remove data that could be considered controversial or improper within the construct of an encyclopedia. Meantime, you have an account and the ability to edit and are perfectly capable of adding data that is supported by whatever reliable source you include within the edit. We're all trying to build an encyclopedia here, and nothing is stopping you from joining us.
• Third, with respect to pseudo-journalism: the first personal-information salvo was fired by Kolonko himself, who complained to his Facebook followers about the "editor from California". What does the fact that I was born and raised in California have to do with any of this? (Meantime, my inclusion of personal data was intended to assist administrators trying to determine who was behind the personal attacks and vandalism; it was ill-conceived and properly deleted.) His attack was aimed strictly at me, leaving out any details about the process that ended with a proper vote to merge the MaxTV page to Max Kolonko. Go back and read the language in his posts, then come back here and read the pertinent discourse; his was a carefully crafted, deliberate call to arms. There can be no doubt that Kolonko included just enough information—and, more to the point, omitted just enough—to rile up the faithful. This is the hallmark of phony journalism, and Kolonko did a far better job of proving it than I ever could have done.
• Finally, the MaxTV page cannot and will not be restored as it was. Ever. As I have stated repeatedly, a completely rewritten article that establishes sufficient notability by using—and only by using—reliable, verifiable, secondary sources can be requested and, if granted, can become a real encyclopedia article. And I will have no problem with that. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The FB post you’re referring to is not posted by Max Kolonko but by a fan who operates the fan site. You have to log on to FB to see the author of the post. I have not found on social media any posts, comments made by Max Kolonko himself which would mentioned this discussion. NONE. Public figures bare no responsibility for actions, comments, and/or opinions of their fans. Facebook grants “official” status to hosts of fan clubs according to their own standards such as number of fans, posts etc. When a celebrity adopts a fan club formed spontaneously on FB – he/she doesn’t adopt the intellectual content it represents because of the liability issue. Your comments about Max Kolonko on the other hand are public statements for which you are personally responsible and which might be considered defamatory as they harm the reputation of this public figure.Media2000 (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Kolonko and Kolonko alone is responsible for the content on his confirmed official Facebook page, regardless of who actually posted it; I would sincerely hope he would take responsibility for his remarks as I do mine. Now, either help the rest of us build a legitimate encyclopedia or move on with your life. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

re Shitburger

Greetings! I'm looking toward whether this article would pass a theoretical GAN, and Ritchie333 has suggested that this sort of thing may be right up your alley. No puns are intended. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 19:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks quite well sourced at the moment. My apologies, but I've got a bunch of other Quality improvement projects on my plate right now. Good luck to you, — Cirt (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: thanks for the reply! I'll check out the project when I have a chance but, in all honesty, my participation likely would be minimal. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, ATinySliver,

The Editing team is asking very experienced editors like you for your help with VisualEditor. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list • Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter • Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Done! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shitburger

The article Shitburger has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

An article clearly and unequivocally about a slang term - hence per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary not an encyclopaedic subject

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: I respectfully object to PROD and instead request you take this to AfD if you believe in its deletion. True, this is a slang term, but i believe I have made the case that it is more than that, and can apply any improvements as raised in a theoretical AfD. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The AfD will not be theoretical. And Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is policy: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide". Anyway, this isn't the appropriate place to be discussing the article - that is what Talk:Shitburger is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, and okay. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Your TfD Proposal/Subpage edit

Hey ^{(I mentioned this at the TfD but its busy there so you may have missed it)} I thought it might be a better idea to transclude your proposed new template to the discussion instead of copying the code, that way future improvements carry over to the TfD. This would involve putting <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the first sentence on User:ATinySliver/Template:Maintained so it doesn't transclude with the template, and then replacing the code at TfD with {{User:ATinySliver/Template:Maintained}} which will display ^{(without the first sentence once your wrap it with noinclude)}: User:ATinySliver/Template:Maintained

Just an idea! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 22:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@EoRdE6: I forgot all about transclusion. Thanks! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar

Thank you! I was really impressed by the constructive and non-acrimonious tone and contributions from everyone involved in the recent AFD discussion on the Alliance of Women Directors article. What could have been—with the wrong editors involved—a very nasty debate, turned into a very positive discussion. Even editors who strongly felt that the article should be deleted worked hard to find sources and fix problems with it. This is the kind of positive collaboration people don't hear a lot about in Wikipedia-land and I'd like to recognize it. Carl Henderson (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Carl Henderson: very much obliged! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Volunteer

I have gone ahead and created a /doc page (Template:Volunteer/doc) and changed the code a bit to allow omitting the image. That being said, village pump doesn't seem overly positive about it (nor am I truly), but I figured it may as well have documentation for now. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 05:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, thank you. Of course, even should this not survive, moving forward was the goal. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 07:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I've nominated it for speed deletion as a recreation of {{Maintained}}. Kanguole 08:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kanguole: I really wish you hadn't. The purpose was two-fold: one, this was a replacement, not a re-creation—and it is not—and two, the premature deletion of this replacement may squelch the discussion under way and intended to drive a solution to the issue. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 09:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Johnny's Theme

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Johnny's Theme you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Beatleswhobeachboys -- Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Johnny's Theme

The article Johnny's Theme you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Johnny's Theme for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Beatleswhobeachboys -- Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, changed at your request; I should have given you more time. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

My thanks, Beatleswhobeachboys. With my apologies for stating the obvious, please be careful when adding data/cites to the article that you don't orphan data that's already there. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Asking a help

Hi, I'm Apettyfer I just want to ask some help because I don't know how to request a semi-protected lock. And I wanted to put a semi-protected lock to an Article which was always have a vandalism by a new users. Please message me if you want to help me. (talk) 1 May 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 01:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Apettyfer: hello! I cannot help directly as I am not an administrator. There is an administrators' page for making protection requests. Happy editing! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit: I've requested page protection for Liza Soberano. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apettyfer (talk • contribs) 03:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Apettyfer: you're welcome! The protection will expire after one week. A couple of things: the level of vandalism was pretty minor, all things considered; usually there needs to be something more serious to warrant protection. Also, please remember to sign your edits to talk pages by using four tildes ~~~~ to help other editors see who you are. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Apettyfer (talk) okay, sorry i just forgot. 06:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification scheme

Hello. I pinged you at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Voting round 3 (runoff), but reverted my own comment after reading your post more closely. I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I am unsure about how different notifications are displayed. I guess I never looked closely enough. Am I to understand that only messages left on one's talk page trigger the orange box with the text? For example, if we get reverted, the only thing that changes is number and color of the little box around it? If so, I may consider changing my vote. Thanks. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Racerx11: greetings. It has been my experience (I use the monobook skin) that notifications trigger the number only, and not the text. I'll clarify my comments at Village pump if needed. Cheers! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. I will think about it. If I change my vote, I will certainly mention this as the reason why. Thank you. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Forte Tenors

Hi, I appreciate greatest your help with the Forte Tenors page. As I find this whole WikiPedia thing very laborious, and the politics of it quite confusing, I was wondering if I could ask your help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.35.152 (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

You may ask ... —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Since you hadn't yet returned to specify how I could be of help, I read over the article to see if any changes were warranted, and there were. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Cheers! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Johnny's Theme

Hello! Your submission of Johnny's Theme at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Yoninah: replied. Cheers! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I haven't heard back from you; are your concerns addressed? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 17:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, everything's fine. I saw the note you added under my approval tick; it doesn't change the approval. Best, Yoninah (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Johnny's Theme

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dodgerfilms

The article Dodgerfilms has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A handful of article about a one-time event does not make someone notable (everybody is famous for 15 minutes).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, I reject PROD per my explanation at the article's talk page. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Dodgerfilms for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dodgerfilms is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dodgerfilms until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Non-Dropframe _talk 04:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

James Horner

I know you deleted your question but felt you should get an answer. I protected in response to a request at RFPP (seen here). At the time, his death was not confirmed but editors were still putting in a death date. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: sounds good. I had seen it happen three times, if memory serves, and it seemed to have stopped—then again, I didn't even notice PP when it happened. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 18:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

WP ratings

I'm not a "new user", I'm an experienced editor who prefers to not log in for simply tasks. 189.225.21.90 (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: ... which, I have to say, makes no sense in this case. It has long been my understanding that article ratings within the scope of a Wikiproject are done by people associated with that project. To do so while not logged in gives the impression that someone is, instead, randomly offering an otherwise detached rating. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely preferable to have users that are associated with wikiprojects doing the assessments. Dawnseeker2000 02:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dawnseeker2000: you mean, it's not a requirement?! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue with that :) Dawnseeker2000 03:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Clint Grant

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Clint Grant you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BenLinus1214 -- BenLinus1214 (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Clint Grant

The article Clint Grant you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Clint Grant for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BenLinus1214 -- BenLinus1214 (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Clint Grant

Hello! Your submission of Clint Grant at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Clint Grant

Gatoclass (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

—ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 00:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Assessments

Look. I've been doing this for years, most WikiProjects follow a standard assessment guideline--including this. WPCA says "Any member of WikiProject California is free to add—or change—the rating of an article, but please follow the guidelines.", and the only requirement to join is to simply add my name. If you really want me to join a WP to do a simple job, I will do it. If you persist to revert me, or ask others to do it, admins will be contacted. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 10:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: Threats are so fun! I love threats! You want to contact admins, be my guest. However, as you so kindly point out, "Any member of WikiProject California is free to add—or change—the rating of an article, but please follow the guidelines." Viriditas is listed as a member of the project and, as such, is entitled to add a rating made demonstrably on its behalf—or remove one that is not. You are not, and you are not. Meantime, your choice to ignore BRD, should you choose to revert me, will speak volumes—as will joining the project after the fact. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 10:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Valid "threats", edit-warring is not allowed. Now, child, I'm [1] in the project, and reverting me, as you said I can "rm rating [removed] by editor not listed as member or WPCA and previously added by editor who is so listed". © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 10:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Your claim of an edit war is laughably invalid, given that it does not exist unless you thus create. There is, however, the issue of personal attacks which, I'd hasten to add, is a Wikipedia policy. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 10:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I see no personal attacks. BTW. BRD is an essay, not a policy. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 10:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I did not say BRD was a policy; as an essay, however, it has gained considerable weight among those of us who actually prefer to avoid edit wars, as opposed to thus engaging. You, as a then-non-member of a project, reverted a member of the project, with the rationale that the removal was unexplained; my reversion—carefully explained, given the circumstances—was correct under the guidelines of the project, which you were kind enough to quote. Meantime, I have not engaged in personal attacks, as have you with your assessment of my age and/or mental acuity and/or abilities—a singularly ironic occurrence given your assertion that you are entitled to make assessments. Speaking thereof, let us assume for the moment that you restore your article ratings; you are perfectly entitled as a new member of the project. I would suggest with all possible strength that your edit summaries reflect this fact, rather than constitute a reversion. The latter would demonstrate an edit war. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 11:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Is Tbhotch engaging in purposeful disruption here? I ask, because first he assesses these articles while logged out. Then, when his curious assessments are reverted, he logs in and reverts back to the IP. As far as I can tell, his behavior makes no sense, nor do his assessments. Would User:Tbhotch care to explain his strange behavior? As far as I can tell, Tbhotch is acting exactly like a disruptive sock puppet. For example, his repeated, disruptive assessment of Chain Reaction (sculpture) as "low importance" on both the Anti-war and Southern California projects, both of which he has no activity or membership on, makes no sense. First off, the "importance" parameter is highly disputed, to the point where many projects no longer use it. Second of all, why would the first work of public art designated as a historic landmark in the City of Santa Monica be rated as "low" on both projects, when this important work represents one of the most important anti-war monuments from the era of nuclear disarmament in the United States? I can't help but think Tbhotch has some kind of ulterior motive here. He isn't active on any of the projects and he has no insight or role to play in any of these articles. Yet, he shows up out of the blue to add "low importance" parameters for no known reason? Something isn't right here. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume good faith—after all, this is no newbie: Tbhotch has been on WP going on six years and made nearly 180,000 edits (with that account, at least). That's why, as you note, this makes no sense. I would add: threatening administrative action that he must know would not go well for him; calling someone a "child" when he must know that's a personal attack; and acting surprised that someone would call him out on all this when he must have known it was coming eventually. On top of that, when he did engage in discussion, he attempted a deflection. I'm lost. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 02:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Bobbi Kristina Brown

Hey thank you for the text on the Bobbi Brown page. Question on Redirects, if a person has multiple names (Bobbi Kristina Brown(proper), Bobbi Brown et al) what is the proper way to add the "name aliases" to just drop to the proper content-filled page (instead of making useless redirect pages or whatever) ? Thanks//User:Badboyjamie

@Badboyjamie: Bobbi Brown is an existing article for a different person. Apologies, but I'm not sure what you're asking ... —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 05:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Not in American English ...?

If you want to be understood use whole sentences. You want people to guess what "Not in American English ...?" mean? The end of a sentence is marked by a dot. You may not like it unless you use woos up instead of what's up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radosław Wiśniewski (talk • contribs)

@Radosław Wiśniewski: Your assertion that it is not a "whole sentence" is incorrect. A "whole sentence" is capped with some sort of punctuation mark, but not necessarily a period; it can close with a question mark or an exclamation point as well. See The Punctuation Guide for further reference. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

"Use whole sentences" referred to "Not in American English ...?". So I ask again, what you mean by "Not in American English ...?". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radosław Wiśniewski (talk • contribs)

@Radosław Wiśniewski: I used the phrase just in case doubled-up punctuation is used in other languages; it saved me the hassle of actually doing a night's worth of unnecessary research.

Meantime, please remember to "sign" your edits to talk pages by using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Death dagger

Hello there, we both are editing the late Bobbi's page and as I went through the edit history, I noticed that one editor added a dagger (†) to signify Whitney Houston's passing. You reverted the edit stating it was not encyclopedic, how so? I added some of them on Whitney's page since other editors awkwardly added Bobbi's DOB and DOD's. Idealtype 00:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Idealtype: I've begun a discussion here. Cheers! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 00:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

MRSA article

Hey man,

I was wondering if it would be appropriate to add the colloquial name for MRSA 'Golden Staph'. I noticed that you did the last edit, so figured you would be best to ask.

I couldn't find your watchlist 😳 so just wrote anyway. I won't be cut if you don't reply.

Cheers,

Kaii K.fallander (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@K.fallander: I did some quick checking, and the colloquialism "golden staph" refers to any strain of staphylococcus aureus, as noted within that article. To add it to the MRSA article as if it refers specifically to MRSA could be misleading. Cheers! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 00:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Hello! I think that Bianca Ryan is still signed to Tuned in Music because that label released her single All of Me. I'd appreciate if you write that. Also, I'm new on Wikipedia and I don't understand some things like why her America's Got Talent era can't be written in Bianca Ryan (album) section Background. Sincerely, MusicLover2207. MusicLover2207 (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@MusicLover2207: please see Wikipedia's relevance guidelines; the background data is already in Ms. Ryan's own article, where it belongs, and is not relevant to her album's article (Wikipedia is an encylopedia and not a fan site; there are policies and guidelines for individual articles). Meantime, there is a steadfast policy on the use of original research and, as a peripheral, synthesizing a conclusion that is not supported by a reliable source. In short, we cannot conclude that, because Tuned In Music and Media released Ryan's single in 2010, the affiliation remains in place in 2015—in fact, the available evidence shows the contrary. Unless you can provide a reliable source that shows beyond a doubt that the affiliation continued beyond 2010, this violates encyclopedic policy. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 07:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Bianca Ryan

Thanks for the assist. Moosehooey (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

My edits

Please stop erasing my edits because I spend much time editing pages and then you erase that! For example, Tiffany Evans. I edit something on those pages and it's not good when I go to Wikipedia and found out that you deleted everything. Could you tell me why are you doing this? Sincerely, Hy.O2 Hy.O2 (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hy.O2 is one of several accounts created by blocked user Farell01, which means you are evading your block. You continue to edit with zero regard to what Wikipedia is, and what it is not. Until you finally get it—that additions to any article must be reliable, verifiable, and encyclopedic—I will revert everything you do, because no one on this project has the time or inclination to pore over each edit for compliance with policy. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 07:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing: you've been advised of this repeatedly. Yet, you continue to make new accounts so you can go on and cause more damage to an encyclopedia. Either you're a complete idiot, or you don't give a fuck. In either event, the damage will be repaired. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 08:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

His mother is black

His mother, Laurel Harper, is black. His father is white. [2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)

@DHeyward: the passage I removed said, "Law enforcement sources said Harper-Mercer identified as mixed race." That was inaccurate. Nothing more, nothing less. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 08:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Self-trouting ...

... as deserved.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

violation of WP:Outing

Hi. It appears that you are a more experienced user than me, and I wanted to verify whether this post is a violation of WP:Outing and is a banworthy offense. Thanks 74.88.36.181 (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

For now I am not going to delete the post from Patricio Lorente's user talk page, but, in case you don't speak spanish, it identifies 2 users by name. 74.88.36.181 (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not know nearly enough Spanish to help. In any event, this should go to the incidents noticeboard. Sorry I can't be of further help. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 05:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Modern shootings, as we understand them.

A Kitchener guy was killed by an arrow yesterday morning. Unfortunately, as with old news, details are sketchy. He might have been stabbed, or it could have fallen from the sky. It hasn't stopped this spectator from speculating it indeed counts as a (non-mass) shooting, like the Calgary one in June.

Just thought you might find that somewhat interesting, given our chat. Doesn't count one way or the other toward Oregon's history. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Yeah, it does speak quite a bit to our comprehension of events contemporaneously as opposed to historically, and how to properly represent them within an encyclopedia. It reminds me: one thing I missed completely in my attempts to define these events (yeah, right!) even in a historical context is, what we now consider a "mass murder" or "mass shooting" is the involvement of one or two people. Any more and it's an "attack" if not a "terrorist attack". Cheers! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 07:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

When one person is involved, the proper term is suicide. But seriously, you've got a point. Someone (not me or you) should still probably get around to writing an article on that Indian thing, though. #WardLivesMattered InedibleHulk (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

One can hope. I'm already wasting way too much time on this shit. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 07:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You call that a waste of time? This is a waste of time! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Pfft. Not even close. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 08:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Photos

The point I'm trying to get across is that "subject [is] adequately conveyed by properly sourced text" arguments are pointless and useless in practice. A strict reading of policy would require removal of most of the 15 or so images in Vermeer because that many are not required for an understanding of Vermeer. But nevertheless each of them provides some value to the reader, if only as eye candy. So we choose to look the other way on policy when it serves the reader to do so. In my opinion it serves the reader to know what CHM looked like, even though I can't articulate why aside from "a picture is worth a thousand words". His physical appearance is at least as informative as most of the background fluff that we feel is significant enough to include. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, I fully understand and respect the point, my own attempts at humorous observation notwithstanding. The difference here is two-fold: one, this is an extremely high profile case now that will turn into WGAF in a few months; two, leaving policy aside, the addition of the image could be inflammatory. One particularly disturbing point made by George Ho (yes, please weigh in if you wish) was that in the picture, "he looks lighter skinned." This demands the answer to three questions:

1. Is that he "looks lighter-skinned" important to you?
2. Is this important to the reader?
3. Why?

As such, SYNTH screams "Wait one damned minute!" Light-skinned means what? He's mixed-race but light-skinned? He's mixed-race but not dark-skinned? It forces the reader to a conclusion; perhaps, "he's mixed-race but he hated black men—oh, wait, look, he's light-skinned, that explains it"? As InedibleHulk just pointed out, this will potentially "piss off racists and antiracists". In the end, this leads to one question: how is this encyclopedic? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 07:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Every trendy tale must piss off someone, but it just seems excessive to stir that pot. The story seems to be taking the religious angle this time. Let's continue to follow the mainstream's lead, per tradition. The OK mainstream, not Breitbart and The Daily Mail. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:OR doesn't mention non-free images very much. However, there is a policy about original images, and this image is neither original nor of a Wikipedian. It would not apply. Also, photo manipulation is against rules. George Ho (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Not what I said; the image itself could force readers to a conclusion. This is one of the two prongs that—as I've noted from the beginning—lead to the same question: is inclusion correct for (an encyclopedia in general/Wikipedia in particular) or in violation of policy/ies? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 08:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That's up to consensus for now as average Wikipedians are oblivious to policies and guidelines. Id est how we interpret rules differently or similarly. --George Ho (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I would point out in response that, during the discussion, you reinserted the image for no reason other than the "other editor won't re-remove it." In my experience, this is considered combative if not directly insulting by the participants of a good-faith effort to gain a consensus. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 08:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so the main objections have a lot more to do with editorial judgment than policy, and policy is merely the club being used to achieve the desired goal. I'm understanding better now. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

See my reply to George Ho: that I approach one question from multiple angles does not dilute either the question or its answer. SYNTH and COPYVIO are equally valid thereto. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 08:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH doesn't apply because it mentions just sources and body text, not images. WP:COPYVIO is a little too vague or inadequate about images, especially non-free ones. Even image-related rules, like WP:IUP and WP:NFCC and WP:NFC, can be interpreted differently or vaguely. What about WP:NOT, including WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY? --George Ho (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

SYNTH refers to anything "not supported by the sources"—and this refers not so much to the inclusion of the image in the article but to your reasoning therefor—and, by extension, any notion that the reasoning of the reader is/should be the same. Meantime, your wikilawyering falls on deaf ears; policy is policy. Period. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 08:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Forte Tenors

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Forte Tenors you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Johanna -- Johanna (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Johanna: thank you so much! Allow me to note that there is a handful of invisible comments on the page. I look forward to your review. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 03:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64#Images of victims and/or perps on crime pages

Central discussion has started; I invite you to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)