User talk:Bigtimepeace/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.

Excellent ...

rag mana - Excuse my delayed response — never heard of "rag mana" before (have now LoL will learn today). I don't yet know if you win or not, but that was an excellent rhetorical move. Bravo. -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 20:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, but unfortunately I only make 2-3 excellent rhetorical moves per calendar year (that's if I'm lucky!), and I'm a bit disappointed to have used one so quickly in 2010. I was hoping to save all of them for my upcoming appearance on the soon-to-be-a-disastrous-failure reality television show Americas's Got Excellent (Rhetorical) Moves. Shit...I think I just wasted another one. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

ROFL! (yep, you sure did!!! That's three asterisks.) ... Still haven't had time to figure out if you won yet ... But I'll figure it out eventually. [Busy delightful day today.] :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 02:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Related aside: Practice for reality show? :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 02:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

... fear ore prod 77

..fear ore prod ...

Tell me about ore? (infinite possibilities LoL) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 21:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Films about suburbia

I have nominated Category:Films about suburbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Ikip 03:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello. Would you be so kind as to revisit an article you had been involved in the past? We are having some problems and going back in the history I see these are some old problems that were solved before. There is one editor who you worked out some agreement about the use of some references that is a point of contention again. I think if you can review the situation, you would be best able to help sort out the conflict we are having with this one editor. The article in question is Mao The Unknown Story. Thank you.76.14.42.191 (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Currently it's you and me. John Smith's (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Ihaveteeth.

Please block this user, his IP and his sockpuppet account. He is trying to get more views for his stupid YouTube video. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The sock was already blocked for a week by another admin and I won't mess with that for now, but I have blocked Ihaveteeth. indefinitely. The IP does not appear to be doing anything right now so let's just leave that alone, but if it crops up again just report it to WP:AIV. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I would have brought it to WP:SPI but the user was editing too quickly and I could not take the time to start up an investigation. Thanks again, Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Pssst

Seems like a good DYK candidate. Grsz¹¹ 04:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought about that, though I once nominated a "current events" article for DYK and was told it would be better for "in the news." I've already nominated one Haitian-related article for DYK, but I might see if the editor who significantly expanded National Palace (Haiti) would be interested in nominating it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Haiti Palace Destruction

Per your concern re OR: the photographs I have examined have been posted on the news blogs of The New York Times (which I cited originally). Further photographs were posted today on the New York Times, showing the damage from a different angle. I also have looked at Reuters images as well as well Agence-France Press images. No OR has been done, ie seeking out unofficial images not posted on official news sites. By comparing these approximately 12 photographs, it is clear that the three rear wings of the palace still appear, in some sections, to contain uncollapsed sections of second floor. Therefore it seems best to err on the side of caution, ie stating that some sections of the second floor have been fully collapsed, not that ALL the second floor has collapsed.Kitchawan (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The two Times references you removed showed clear photographs of the damage to the National Palace. Since it a blog and the individual sections of that blog cannot be cited clearly, one must go to the blog and scroll down to the located the time entry about that damage and the photographs of that damage.Kitchawan (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I might have missed something, but a search of the blog entries did not reveal any text about the palace. Daily blog entries on the NYT do have specific links, so you should be able to direct me right to the appropriate link that discusses the palace if I indeed missed it.

As to the photos, there might just be a policy misunderstanding here. My concern is with original research, and what you are doing in terms of the photos is indeed that. Namely, we cannot simply look at a photograph, draw a conclusion about it, and then put that conclusion in an article. This is a textbook case of original research and is not appropriate, particularly when drawing extremely specific conclusions. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so we do not do our own primary research (as an historian or journalist might) and then publish the results. For the most part we only report what secondary sources say. What we need in order to describe the damage of the palace is some secondary source—a newspaper or magazine account for example—that details the way in which the building was damaged. This might not exist right now, in which case we will just have to wait. What we absolutely cannot do is say "you can tell what's going on from these photos, just look at them" and then put that in the text. This is a pretty firm rule. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this not however an obvious visual statement, ie the White House is painted white? News organization photographs make it clear as to the damage inflicted. Perhaps it would be best to delete any and all specific mention of the damage that has occurred in favor of a simple "seriously damaged" and let the posted photograph tell the rest.Kitchawan (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not nearly as obvious as "the White House is painted white." The phrasing I removed was "with its attic story and most of its second floor fully collapsing into the first," which is not I think something that can automatically be inferred from the photograph. I fully agree that simply saying "seriously damaged" (adding "partially collapsed" is probably okay too, as I'm certain the word "collapsed" has been used in news reports) and letting readers look at the photo is the way to go for now. Eventually we'll have exact information explaining precisely what happened to the palace and what will be done about it, it's just that we might have to wait. It's obvious from the article text and the photo that the building is in dire straights, but we can't provide the full info at this point. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Syrians

FYI, I left a message for you on my talk page re use of term Syrians. The immigrants then actually were "Syrians" in the sense of citizenship. Lebanon was then part of the French Mandate of Syria and the people born there were Syrian by nationality. Should the sentence you added to Cincinnatus Leconte be adjusted slightly to reflect this or have it merely footnoted? Syrian wasn't just a general Haitian term for people from the Middle East; it is what those people had on their passports as their country of origin. I have seen the passports and visas of Lebanese friends' grandparents and great-grandparents and their passports call them Syrian. And they never went anywhere near Haiti. This use of the word Syrian was also explained to me i an interview I had with Najeeb Halaby, the father of Queen Noor of Jordan; his family was the same, Lebanese Christian by culture and geography but Syrian by nationality, thanks to the French Mandate of Syria.Kitchawan (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just going off what the article by Plummer said, which is the main source for the entire bit about Syrians. She said "most of them were not true Syrians, but Lebanese Christians...Haitians and others commonly called them Syrians, however, and made no distinction among people of Middle Easter origin." I don't see a reason to not believe Plummer (she is well regarded as a historian) but I should probably shorten that a bit and leave out the part about Syrian being a general word for Middle Easterners. The imperial policies in the Middle East (or anywhere else) do not necessarily define one's background—i.e. just because the French say you are "Syrian" and put that on your passport does not mean that you don't identify as a Lebanese Christian. I think we should stick with what Plummer says since she is the main source on this, and since if we do not say that readers will assume they were "from Syria" which is simply not correct. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Plummer the sole authority on this? Just wondering if he can be challenged in any way by anyone else, say Edward Said's work on the subject. Also According to New York Times reports of the day, the Syrian community took their grievances to the American consulate and threw themselves, as a community, under its protection.Kitchawan (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Also I guess all I'm trying to point out, re Syrians, is that whatever country they immigrated to, they would have been commonly described as Syrians for their country of origin. I'm just hopeful that would be made perfectly clear, either in a footnote or in actual text.Kitchawan (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Plummer is definitely not the sole authority (it's Brenda and therefore a "she"), but it's the source we have right now. I'm not sure what Said has to do with this, I doubt he wrote much of anything about Middle Easterners in Haiti. You might want to look at the recent edit I made and see if it works for you. Basically I just said they were called "Syrians" but were actually Lebanese Christians without explaining why—I think the why is too much info for a bio article on a Haitian president, but would be it great for the article Middle Easterners in Haiti or something similar. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

New York Times citations removed/National Palace Haiti

"a low straggling house" whose rooms were "pretty and decorated à la française" ...two of the 19th-century NYTimes citations you removed are the sources for the quotations cited here ... now the quotations don't have references. Would you please put them back?Kitchawan (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're confusing references here. The source removal I did happened in this edit, which were two recent NYT sources about the earthquake. I'm pretty certain I did not remove any 19th century NYT articles, and indeed what you are looking for seems to be there in footnotes 11 and 12. Let me know if I'm missing something. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I just added the two back; one from 1900, once from much earlier. all set!Kitchawan (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

They were probably just lost in the shuffle. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day NYC

Wikipedia 9th birthday coin

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA/2

Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! --Jayron32 01:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your PROD Proposal at ANI

Hi Bigtimepeace. In your proposal you say, “unreferenced BLPs cannot be removed until the article is adequately referenced.” [Italics added.] The way that reads, it suggests that merely moving an article from a state of {{Unreferenced BLP}} to a state of {{Refimprove BLP}} would not be sufficient since, by definition, an article with {{Refimprove BLP}} is not adequately referenced.

Later, you use the word properly, which again suggests that the article must be better than {{Refimprove BLP}}.

With either wording, that would require all BLPs with either {{Unreferenced BLP}} or {{Refimprove BLP}} to be PRODed and deleted in one week. Is that your intention? Thanks for any clarification you can give! — SpikeToronto 08:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

My intention would be for only unreferenced BLPs to be deleted, though the definition of "unreferenced" would sometimes be up for debate. For example if there are two terrible references added to "save" a prodded article, that may still count for some as "unreferenced." On the ANI thread User:Sandstein suggested the the following language be added: "in the event of any disagreement about whether an article is adequately referenced, it shall be referred to AfD." I think that makes sense. What this change would let us do is delete a ton of unreferenced BLPs where no one is willing or able to provide sources and where there's really no dispute about that. If there's a question about whether something "makes the grade" in terms of sourcing I think going to AfD is the right way to go. I don't think articles that have the "refimprove" tag should be included in this proposal and language I tried adding to the policy page (which was reverted) did express that. Hope that answers your question, I'll be going offline soon but can followup tomorrow if need be. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You have clarified it, thank you. As I said, I think a bulk way of dealing with unsourced BLPs is a grand idea, especially when there are 50,000+ of them, but not if it sweeps up under-sourced BLPs in the net, and not if it is done outside of policy. I also think that Sandstein’s corollary — go to AfD if there is doubt — really fleshes out your proposal. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 08:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Rollback request

Hi! :) Wondering if you can provide me with rollback privileges? I am getting increasingly annoyed with having to manually revert vandalism and non-productive edits, and I saw your name on the list of admins willing to grant rollback privileges. I appreciate you help. By the way, I've been an editor since 2004. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 02:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think you can be trusted so I've granted you rollback. Just be sure to read through WP:ROLL, especially when to use and not use. Usually you'll just want to use this for overt vandalism, not edits that are merely "non-productive" in some sense. As the guideline says you should err on the side of caution and not use the rollback button if it's unclear whether or not it's appropriate. Happy vandal fighting. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for granting me rollback, and thanks for the advice! Cheers. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 13:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

PROD

I fully endorse some sort of solution, but asserting that there's consensus for what is being inserted into PROD is entirely false. I would have no trouble throwing my support behind something like what is being proposed at WP:Deletion_of_unreferenced_BLPs. Having clear, direct policy is what I care about and cramming in a poorly thought out stop-gap just to have something there isn't helpful, in my opinion. But do whatever the fuck you want. I'm tired of trying to improve this place. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I support WP:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs too—I think it's better than my original proposal on WT:PROD though I'm also fine with the latter. So it seems like we're in agreement, and if consensus develops for that former alternative I'll undo the change to WP:PROD myself. I have no idea why you feel the need to get hostile. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Just frustrated. Just seems like every time I try to make a return to Wikipedia, I get caught up in some bullshit drama where people act in the heat of the moment instead of taking some time to actually stop and craft some well written policy. Not that different from real life, really. Poorly written policies inevitably have unintended consequences, and I do think that it is poorly written. I would have liked the oppotunity to at least discuss the wording that was being inserted. Wikipedia policies have an inordinate amount of momentum. If you can get something into the policy, for a couple days or more, it'll suddenly become etched in stone and changing it becomes very difficult, regardless of how much or how little support it had. That's why I prefer to get it right the first time. But I seem to be alone on that point. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with you, but this is a peculiar circumstance where acting quickly is almost required. The ArbCom motion (which I agree with in spirit, but which I think faltered severely by not formally enjoining deleting admins to chill for awhile) basically gave a license to admins to delete unsourced BLPs at will, which is extremely unfortunate given that there are useful discussions happening about how to fix the problem in a more organized fashion. The deleting admins have argued that nothing will change, so by actually coming up (quickly) with an approach that is a positive change we remove any reason for them to be doing deletions. As I said somewhere else, to someone of your view this would probably seem like (and be) a fait accompli but it's just sort of where we are right now. I think they key now is to kick start some sort of process for dealing with with the unreferenced BLPs and then tweak it as we go. For all of the vitriol in the discussions, I think most parties are a lot close than they think, so that actually might not be that hard. Also my apologies if my original comment to you on your talk page was too harshly worded as was probably the case. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

CoM

You're probably aware that just shortly after his RFC was closed CoM was blocked for the same kind of behavior that was laid out there. Also I could've commented in the RFC directly as an involved party I chose not to do so but rather gave him some kind of slack (on the RFC's talk page) as he pretty much stopped his behavior in question [I don't count little slips]. The closure statement of the RFC makes clear, that he is a good and valuable contributor when not in a "misbehaving mood" (as I would call it) and I agree, yet it seems to me that he thinks that this gives him a free-card to "crap-around-as-long-as-his-article-work-compensates-for-it". I have no clue what steps can and/or should be taken or if they're possible already in work. Just getting out my thoughts on this. Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk)

Actually I did not know that but I'll take a look at the situation at some point I suppose. I'll be out for the evening within the hour and probably won't have much to add if a block has already occurred, but obviously if the problems continue something will have to be done. The RfC was useful in that regard in at least establishing the pattern and the fact that a lot of people have a problem with it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh? You really didn't know? Not trying to be a smartass but you should pay more attention to RFC's you've started even if they take about 4 weeks to get at least some result.  ;) BTW, the block he got wasn't imposed because of his RFC (I don't think the blocking admin is even aware of this) so that is on of the reasons I thought to give you a heads-up; And as it turned out, it was a good idea. Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny, but as I'm going over responses from comments I posted today I came to this one where CoM is commenting on a post I made on Grundle's page and I didn't mentioned him at all over there as he had nothing to do with it, till now of course and by his own choice. Guess there might be even more to come, just having a hard time catching up with "crap". So anyways, cheers and have a good night, best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC) PS: I made clear to CoM that as long as he doesn't comment on me I will not "bother" him on his talk page and this was our last talk page "conversation" we had besides one at Obama's talk (I guess) which was on subject. Anyways, on one side I couldn't care less but on the other side he's going on and on with the same behavior and not only "trying" to attack me but pretty much every editor HE doesn't agree with, although he usually tries to "tweak" it[his favorite word] to the opposite and his favor.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually after looking at it I don't think I would have blocked C of M for making that comment, which is not to say it was acceptable (it wasn't), just that he should have been told to knock it off first and then probably blocked if he didn't. It's obviously problematic behavior though. And I must say that your behavior on Grundle's talk page was quite problematic as well. Obviously you two disagree and don't get along super well, so pestering him about a link he left on someone else's talk page (whether or not it's offensive, I did not watch the video) is a pretty terrible idea. You might want to try disengaging from C of M and Grundle completely, because frankly the latter would have cause to say that you were harassing him on his talk page (also, as I've had cause to say recently, telling another editor they don't or can't read is basically always a bad idea and sounds more like a way to pick a fight than have a serious conversation). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

1. I already disengaged from CoM 99.9% a while ago and I couldn't care less about him.
2. I won't disengage from Grundle and I shouldn't (unless he tells me to do so) as there is no real problem from my side and I think neither from his side. Sure, my last posts at his talk page weren't phrased in a very polite way but those had nothing to do with "the other editor" and if Grundle has a problem with it he will let me know and I will respect it.
3. You sure got the wrong picture about what I wrote and my intent was but that was my mistake as I didn't lay it out as I could and should've. All I really meant to tell you was to give you an update about an issue you might be interested since you're involved [bc of the RFC]. My apologies for that.

I could say more but I leave it there since less is usually more. One last thing though: I didn't contact you as an admin but as an editor who might want to know about something going on (at the time).

Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's fine, there was no problem with letting me know about the C of M situation. And if Grundle doesn't care about you writing pointed barbs at his talk page then I guess it's okay (kinda), but it just struck me as a completely unconstructive form of communication, and sometimes when editors leave notes like that it means they need to take a break from interacting with the other person. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was "a completely unconstructive form of communication" and I did take a brake from his talk page and not only because of the week-end  :) . Hope I cleared some more .... out. ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• (Might fit into the "Related" section below too but I'll keep it here for the flow.)

BTW: There you go. Slapstick as pure as it gets [I've quit watching the show at 23.08. Have fun making it your problem if you choose so or even better, just enjoy the soap opera as I do [pay attention to the re-factoring and his response when ask to provide diffs]. Isn't it funny? Well, if not for you then still for me *LOL*. And no, no response to me from your side expected or needed. Just writing and sharing for fun. Sincerely, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Related

The new battleground. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to not getting involved with any of that! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For sourcing restored articles Thomas T. Matteson, Leo A. Berg, and Guðmundur Gunnarsson. Thanks! Milowent (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for the barnstar! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice work

Great to see some proper attention being given to "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense". Cheers,  Skomorokh  19:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I might try to do a bit more at some point (the article would probably be best served by including reactions to the essay from prominent modern philosophers), but at least I was able to add in the bit about "Truth and Lies" influence on postmodern thought, which is usually the way it's talked about. Though it's far afield from what I do now, I studied Nietzsche pretty intensely as an undergrad and have always meant to do some work on articles about his thought. Lots of serious Nietzsche scholars don't care much for "Truth and Lies" (and it's definitely nowhere near his best work), but it's still an interesting and fairly accessible essay. It seems that the article had been filled with a bunch of OR in the past. In a similar vein I recently had to strip out a large essay someone stuck in our article on Fear and Trembling. Apparently encountering these 19th century semi-existentialist thinkers leads a lot of folks to want to write their own essays in Wikipedia article space, though I guess in a way that's encouraging in the grand scheme of things! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Very true, that. I too recall encountering "Truth and Lies" as an undergrad, and having my confidently rationalist education quite shaken by its epistemological novelty. If you're ever inclined to put some serious effort towards getting one of these articles up to scratch do drop me a note; Kierkegaard has looked rather lonely for quite a while.  Skomorokh  19:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Will definitely do that if I ever decide to put in some heavier work, obviously our coverage of philosophy is less than stellar, to say the least. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Cincinnatus Leconte

On January 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cincinnatus Leconte, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible "Family of Andrew Jackson" page

I carried out the merge of Andrew Jackson, Sr. to Andrew Jackson before reading your comment at Talk:Andrew Jackson, Sr. I'm sorry for any apparent slight of your opinion; I have made further comments at that talk page.

I have begun a discussion at Talk:Elizabeth Hutchinson Jackson on the possibility of creating a Family of Andrew Jackson page. Your opinions are most welcome at that discussion. Cnilep (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and no problem in terms of doing the merge, it was the outcome of the AfD. I'm responding over on the talk page now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

BLPs

How exactly are you dealing with the various problems? It would be useful to know. Gatoclass (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

For example, I don't want to be trying to reference articles that someone has already been unable to ref. Don't you have a page to co-ordinate the activities of people trying to clean up the backlog? I think you could use one. Gatoclass (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree, and I answered here in greater detail just so it would be on a page that more people would read. Speaking just for myself, any of the unreferenced BLPs I did anything with I logged here (whether I could reference them or not). If I could not reference something I put it up for deletion, and probably that should be the standard in any coordinated cleanup effort (assuming the editor who looked at the article really made an effort to add references and simply could not, or otherwise felt the article does not warrant inclusion given our policies). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Nexx page

Hi there! Having noticed that I had a message here on wikipedia, and then finding out that the Nexx page was removed, I'm writing this now. I am in no way affiliated with Nexx nor have I any sort of connection with the company, its owners, relatives, friends or foes. I am a motorcycle user and regular member of a few internet forums on scooters, and decided to create the Nexx wikipage based on the fact that it it a popular brand here in Portugal, and that has managed to make its products well known abroad, and had no wikipage. Being an avid wikipedia user, and because I do tend to create pages of things that I'm interested in, decided to create one for Nexx.

Although sad to see it deleted, I can understand the views you might have had on rule infringment, and thus can only ask you to allow me to re-write it on a neutral point of view, as I have no interest in the brand other than the fact that it is a sucessful company from my Contry, and would like to see it having a wikipedia page. The portuguese page, that I have also written at the same time, is still online, from which I can see as a possible error from my side some unintentional language use that was not neutral enough. In-apt (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Best Regards Pedro

Hi Pedro, what I've done is userfied the deleted page such that it now appears out of article space and in your userspace at User:In-apt/Nexx. This will give you the chance to work on it, writing the article from a neutral point of view. Be sure to remove some of the more advertorial sounding language, for example phrases like "trendy and popular line of motorcycle helmets" and "an innovative and quality-oriented brand" as those are part of the reason why this was deleted. You also need to make sure that you can find reliable secondary sources which discuss this company/brand (it's actually not clear if the article is about the company Nexxpro, Lda, or their "Nexx" brand and that probably needs to be clarified—I'm guessing the former makes more sense). This obviously means sources beyond the company's web site. The second source cited might be an example of that but I'm not sure if it's reliable and neutral, and you'll need more than that.

Assuming you are able to rewrite the article and source it to at least some degree, we can probably move it back into the article space (though it's still possible someone will challenge its notability as a topic). If you do end up working on this, maybe drop me a note when you're done and I'll come take a quick look before you consider moving it back to a live article. Hope this helps and let me know if you have any questions. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Political candidates

Hi there. I noticed you participated in the Articles for Deletion discussion for Graham Jones (politician). I have started a discussion regarding a consensus position for candidates in legislative elections (by way of amending WP:POLITICIAN, in case you are interested in putting forward your views there. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Chill out dude

C'mon BTP, you are taking things a little too personally here.[1] I think User:Geo Swan tends to "think out-loud" via his keyboard and gets to rambling a lot, and there's nothing terribly wrong with that, as once in a rare while I imagine he stumbles upon something profound, just not in the example you replied to, of course. Oftentimes besides, editors who want to have the last word might have nothing left relevant to say and might just say something just to say something purely off the top of their heads, which is probably all that prompted Geo's musings on academia. As an editor who has flown off the handle myself now and again due to getting just a tad over invested, my sage advice is you shouldn't let such ramblings get to you on some visceral level. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm done with the discussion, and a one-off comment would not have been a problem, but being accused (without any justification) of wanting to whitewash articles about WWII internment camps (???) and then accused of somehow lording status as a grad student over other editors is not something which I can abide. Possibly GS doesn't even realize comments like that are rather disruptive to a discussion, and calling them on it seemed to me to be a good idea. In any case I've said my piece. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, he specifically said on the WWII thing, that "I am not trying to put words in your mouth." Of course, to take a literal reading, he went on to do just that, but you might want to consider that English possibly isn't this chap's first language, and he might be using the accusative case by default to simply try and get a more general point across (there's technically no plural of "you" in English). I dunno, try reading what he wrote again in a funny accent and see if it's still that bad. On top of that, his talk page is stuffed with endless prod's, many of which are extremely dubious, imo, so he's probably a little frustrated and paranoid. I'm working on a note to him too. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Lies and abuse

You know you've promised to disengage from me several times now BTP. Yet you're still coming after me. YOU were the one who launched that RfC bullshit and you've never once addressed any of the abuse I've suffered by Tarc and others.

In fact, the AGW article space is similar to the Obama dispute. We have abusive administrators pushing their point of view and going after those they disagree with. Remember how Reverend Wright was removed completely along with anything else controversial? How when Obama's lack of foreign policy experience was an issue every leader he'd ever shook hands with got added? I remember. I remember how you and your ilk turned the article into unencyclopedic spam.

And stop lying about me and what I've said. I did not "disregard" or whatever word you used the RfC YOU initatiated to pursue me. I acknowledged I'm not perfect, but tried to put it in context. And I pointed out the many comments identifying problems with the actions of other editors. These were WHOLLY IGNORED in the closing. Funny thing that.

I'd like to tell you what I think of you, but I'd most certainly be blocked for it. But obviously promising something repeatedly and then violating those promises repeatedly makes you big fat liar, does it not? I have no interest in interacting with abusive, disruptive, or dishonest admins. Your utter disregard for keeping your word and your contempt for appropriate conduct is disgusting and despicable. I can't stop anyone for blocking me for having the audacity to point out the truth. You and I know what it is, and it's much harsher than what I've layed out here. You should be ashamed of yourself, your conduct in pursuit of conflict and aggression towards me is sickening. STOP IT ALREADY. We don't work on any articles together. It wouldn't surprise me at all if you were involved in the socking that goes on here to push propaganda. See if you can't find a little integrity would you? Leave me alone and stop acting like malicious bully. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly dude, I feel sorry for you. I really do. This is a website, and no one should ever get as worked up as you do above. Almost nothing you are saying is true, and really it's the kind of comment you should be blocked for, but it just makes me feel bad for you so I hope that doesn't happen. If you want to tell me exactly what you think of me (beyond being abusive, disruptive, dishonest, a liar, disgusting, despicable, probably a sockpuppeteer, malicous bully, etc.) then please send me an e-mail and lay it all on the table. I'm serious about that, I won't mind and if you need to get it off your chest then by all means do so.

For what it's worth, I haven't had much to do with the Obama articles for quite awhile. When I did I never removed anything about Wright (which definitely belongs there) or a lack of foreign policy experience (I didn't even participate in a discussion like that). You might be confusing me with someone else. My recent comments on the Obama talk page were ones like the following [2] [3] [4] where I said we need to discuss the criticism of the awarding of the Nobel to Obama and his falling approval numbers. I'm guessing we would have been in agreement there. As to working on articles, hopefully Nathan Glazer (which I recently expanded significantly while sourcing some BLP articles) will be on the main page via DYK soon. Feel free to take a look at it. It might help you to remember that I'm here in good faith to help improve things around here just like you are, and that I'm not automatically an evil bad guy just because I think you need to work on the way you interact with your fellow editors. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

KEEP YOUR WORD AND LEAVE ME ALONE! We don't work on articles together and if there should be an occasion to cross paths I'm sure there won't be any problemas long as you don't come after me with abusive and intimidating threats like you have in the past. If you just steer clear I don't think we will have a problem. You can say I'm lying all you want, but you know the truth about your promises. Nuff said. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see here, particularly the first paragraph, where I first replied to your "you promised to leave me alone and stop harassing me" fiction. That never happened. I said I was done interacting with you after you likened a number of other editors (including me, implicitly) to Nazis (surely you remember that). That statement was out of disgust at the fact that you could seriously claim that Wikipedians were acting like Nazi storm troopers—I never said I would not comment about you, so please stop making that claim, and no one has ever commented that I've treated you unfairly and inappropriately except for you. It's not insignificant that 30 people signed-on to my summary of the RfC, and surely if I was treating you as shabbily as you suggest that would not have happened. I'm disappointed that you ignore the substance of what I said above about the Obama articles—it would be nice to at least get an acknowledgment from you that I was never a POV-warrior admin over there (or anywhere else). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

e-mail?

Are you sure you sent something? I just checked, but see nothing flagged "wikipedia". But either way, as I said in the response at WP:AN, interaction bans are pointless and a drain on everyone's time. If there is conduct of mine or CoM's that you feel is unbecoming in any interaction we have had, then do what you feel you must to address it. CoM routinely name-drops me in the "OMG LIEZ AND ABUSEZ!" novels of his across the project..and you too at times y'know...and so far they have resulted in failure. One AN/I report that was so thorough rejected a few months ago that someone expunged it before the section reached the archives. One silly bit that originated with Noroton trawling through my edit history a few days ago and CoM chiming in wound up as a "no admin action needed" by Atama, with an odd after-the-fact "suggestion" of a warning by Trusilver. Anyways, let's deal with the problem editor himself, which certainly is not me. Tarc (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I started a sub-thread on figuring out a way to address the issues with C of M here, so we'll see what if anything comes of that. I did definitely send you an e-mail, but who knows if it went through properly (I did get a copy). The basic gist was a suggestion that you just avoid talking to or about C of M. Interaction bans definitely have mixed success (sometimes they work) and that's not what I was suggesting in the e-mail, but I think it would be better if you and C of M avoided each other. Basically I don't think you need to turn up at practically every thread (it does seem to be pretty close to that) where C of M is being discussed and/or tossing around heated comments. It's not that you're violating a rule or anything per say, it's just that I don't think it adds much since you two really don't get along, and since C of M is bothered by it, so taking a bit of a break would maybe be reasonable. Speaking for myself I'm just trying to follow through on the ending of the RfC since I started that process, but I'm hoping others can come up with some ways to deal with these problems going forward. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The only ones I weigh in on are general-population places like AN/I or RfC/U. If I were to tagalong now over to this Climate sanction thing then, yea, that would be definitely crossing a line as I have had only the slightest input into global warming issues, and only one 1 article. I hear what you're saying and I respect your opinion. If a full-blown ArbCom case develops, I'd have to chime in there of course, but apart from that, I think I've said my piece for now.

Sorry to hear we're no longer BFFs though...worst Valentine's Day gift ever! :( Tarc (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's just a shitty corporate holiday anyway, so no one can ever truly be happy on it. Luckily, me and my girlfriend's anniversary is a week later so I don't really have to deal with it, plus she pretty much agrees it's a shitty corporate holiday, which is probably part of why we get along. Seriously though I hope you weren't bothered by the "not buddies" comment—'twasn't meant as a slight on you at all (I'm not really "buddies" with anyone around here, it's hard enough staying in touch with my real life friends!), rather as a means to knock down the silly notion that I colluded with you to draft an RfC, which obviously is untrue. Anyhow, Happy Valentine's Day (tomorrow)! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, was kidding about the buddy bit, no worries. The "OMG RfC collusion" bit was odd, as I obviously had no hand in the creation of that. WP:CABAL to a T. Tarc (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP HOUNDING ME

On this very page in one of your many discussions with my stalkers and harassers who you're in league with you say "I already disengaged from CoM 99.9% a while ago and I couldn't care less about him." So stop lying and just leave me alone. You promised repeatedly that you would disengage and leave me alone, but you seem to have a very very serious problem. I hope further remedies won't be necessary. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Facts are stubborn things, as a smart fellow once said, and in this case the fact is that I never said "I already disengaged from CoM 99.9% a while ago and I couldn't care less about him," another editor did (check further up the page and see for yourself). You ought to read more carefully before railing against people for supposed hypocrisy. And you seem to be studiously ignoring my point above (see my last comment there) about the notion that I "promised repeatedly that you would disengage and leave me alone." Again, facts are stubborn things, and I really think you need to drop this point of yours because it has no relation with reality. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom statement

Just a point of order - I did not cite a lack of consensus for overturning the indef block. I think there was no consensus for anything found; blocking or unblocking. My reasoning for the reversal was the lack of reasoning by Gwen Gale, even under pressure from several editors to give an explanation. I'm not here to debate that with you, but to ask you to clarify on the ArbCom page. Thanks! Tan | 39 04:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement amended accordingly, sorry for the mischaracterization. Obviously had consensus been strongly in favor of the block you would not have unblocked though, so the lack of any consensus played at least a partial role, but still the reworded version of the statement is more accurate. Anyway the issue of the block is closed now as far as I'm concerned and I'm sure the Arbs won't take the case. I asked Hell in a Bucket to withdraw the request but we'll see. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nathan Glazer

Hello Bigtimepeace, I have reviewed your recent submission at DYK... and have some questions regarding it before promotion. Thanks in advance. Kindly Calmer Waters 08:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, replied here with a couple of alternative hooks. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Akron politicians

I went ahead and merged the unique information from List of Akron politicians into List of people from Akron, Ohio, and left a redirect behind. Regards, PDCook (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Nathan Glazer

On February 17, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nathan Glazer, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 18:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Accused again

I am accused again on the Arbcom case request page of "repeated violations of Arbcom's restrictions", "a long history of stalking and antagonizing", and "trying to harasms... via proxy since [I'm] no longer able to do so directly". This is at least the fourth or fifth baseless accusation arising from discussions that occurred on this talk page on December 3-19, 2009 and January 2-3, 2010. This puts me in a bind, because I do not wish to be a party to the new case, nor do I want my editing history and good faith sullied like that before ArbCom. I don't need any advice on this - I just want it to end. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I just saw it, but really no one would even know what he is talking about without knowing the full background. I really don't think anyone is going to take it seriously, and I don't think you are going to be a party to an ArbCom case if there is one. The specific accusations made against you (implicitly, again most people won't understand that) are largely bound up with accusations about me, so if a case proceeds I'll be sure to speak to those points, i.e. to say that they're not based in reality. I'm quite certain that the Arbs will see the notion that you (and others) were using me and my talk page to harass C of M by proxy as patent nonsense, meaning we should not worry about it. These absurd accusations by C of M are exactly why we had an RfC and might well have an ArbCom case now, and we have to expect that more will be forthcoming against you, me, and 45 other people before this is all over, but hopefully we are on our way to a remedy at this point. I think I may have linked to this before in a conversation we had, but I would argue that the first sentences here are particularly appropriate advice (though I know you said you don't need any) right now. Again I don't think you have anything to worry about. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the accusation could just as easily have been referring to me, rather than Wikidemon. The lack of specificity/diffs makes it hard to know for sure. The editor in question has recently taken a more active position in the topic of climate change, of which I'm an occasional participant (I only edit on one particular article, rather than the entire topic), although we have avoided each other (with perhaps one exception). Certainly the editor in question is constructing a defense that attempts to deflect ArbCom's attention from the behavioral problems by attacking good faith editors within that realm. I think the recent RfC/U makes it clear where the real focus should be, however. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite certain that the accusation is meant to refer to you both. And I don't think it will work in terms of deflecting attention away from what the case is really to be about—indeed two arbs have already specifically said they want to "restrict to CoM's behavior." If this case proceeds as it now almost certainly will, you can count on more accusations being thrown out, but they are not going to have much (or even any) credibility and since I can participate I will make a point of disputing any inaccuracies, which is largely a matter of linking to previous statements. "Water off a duck's back" is the appropriate response to further comments, at least in my view. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice work on Nathan Glazer

I've got his Beyond the Melting Pot three feet from me right now. I was going to use it as a source when I was thinking about expanding Political machine over a year ago, but never got around to it. Skimming through it, I saw it would be a joy to read (lots of entertaining passages on the Irish-American experience), but never got around to that, either. Anyway, great write-up. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad someone read it! I actually came by his article completely by chance when working on cleaning some unsourced BLPs and decided to turn it into a proper article instead of just throwing in a source or two and moving on (he's considerably more important than the minor athletes and musicians that populate much of the unsourced BLP category). I'd come across mentions of him all over the place in the past but have never actually read anything by him. I don't know that I agree with Glazer about much of anything really, but he's been quite an important figure in the recent history of mainstream policy and sociological debate and strikes me as a pretty honest intellectual, from what I can gather. One thing I definitely want to check out is this documentary on Glazer and his buddies at CCNY, a school I used to live a couple blocks from and which is quite different today than it was in the 1940s when he was eating soup and talking Trotsky in an alcove of the cafeteria. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's always extraordinary when you find concentrations of very talented people in the same place, seemingly at random. (Even when it isn't at random, it's fascinating, but just not as much). Now, it's a bit less random that they would all be there, because that generation of Jews (was Bell Jewish?) was often shut out from other universities, and CCNY was free, and New York City is big -- but it's still fascinating. Fifth century Athens is probably the best-known example, but there's late-19th/early 20th century Vienna (maybe a lot of that that is just what goes with being one of the major cities of the world -- when did London or Paris not have a lot of talent, or New York after about 1850?). Jefferson, Adams and Franklin were all on the drafting committee for the Declaration of Independence (no one biographer has ever really comprehended all of Franklin's intellectual contributions, according to Walter Isaacson, one of the biographers who tried), and there was George Washington's administration. Maybe the only bigger concentration of political talent was in the late Roman Republic (Caesar, Pompey, Cato, Cicero, Augustus; but the first two may be more military geniuses, and Cicero's genius wasn't really in politics). It isn't all that fascinating that certain classes of major universities like Harvard or Oxford would have a lot of well-known talent graduating at the same time (although Yale Law School had both Bill and Hillary Clinton, Robert Reich(?), Clarence Thomas and maybe Robert Bork at the same time, often in the same classes; I think Bork was teaching). Emile Zola and Paul Cezanne were childhood friends, and neither Paul Gaugin nor Vincent Van Gogh were famous or even successful when they were rooming together; of course, a bunch of Impressionist artists became famous together. I think I remember Robert Duvall saying somewhere that it wasn't quite true that he was rooming with both Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman at the same time, before any of them were really successful, but they came close. David Frum once said that his father, a dentist, worked on Howie Mandel's teeth back in Toronto. There's a well-known movie actress in my hometown who was the babysitter for another actor, but I think connections sometimes account for young people getting acting roles. List of people from Greenwich, Connecticut is huge, but for the most part it just means that wealthy people move to the nearest spot to New York City that's got relatively low income taxes. The American expat community in Paris in the early 20th century had a lot of literary and artistic talent, and there were connections with Picasso and Joyce, I think. Look at how much of 19th century American literature might have been in the same room at the same time (well, probably not quite that close) in Concord, Mass.: Hawthorne, Emerson, Thoreau, maybe Longfellow, just possibly Louisa Alcott. Probably the most amazing connection of any three people in all of history was Plato knowing both Socrates and Aristotle. The article Weston, Connecticut is about a town of 10,000, with at least 28 people in the "Notable residents" list with articles (not all of them living, but almost all of them with footnotes). That's, what, one per every 400 people (like Greenwich, it's a wealth thing, but still...). And Samuel Johnson knew David Garrick when they were both poor and obscure. Sorry this is so long, but it was too interesting and I couldn't stop. I love trivia. And part of the fascination with this type of thing is that we always wonder: Can we isolate the circumstances, recreate them, bottle them and spread them around? Freedom seems to explain some of it, and local inspiration, and maybe some kind of other tension that creates an urge to excel. And, of course, chance. (I think if you open up Glazer's "Beyond the Melting Pot" to any page, you'll find it interesting and well-written, and much of it is actually (still) surprising.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Getting the page source of an old deleted article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Curtis_Loftis

Is there anyway I can get this emailed to me again. My email account erased it from last time.

ForrrestMaster (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

E-mailed again. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Comments on Giano's talk

Hey Bigtimepeace. Thank you for your kinds words on Giano's talk. It's very hard to tell sometimes what the "general attitude" is among Wikipedia users... especially when even asking seems to be enough to anger some. Like so many areas in life, it's more common for people with strong opinions to comment, making it a difficult question to gauge. I wish that some of these processes were more documented and more standardized, so rather than trying to guess how people "feel" I could apply some framework. Even the recent thread on Roger Davies highlights that there is no consistent way these issues are handled. Tis the nature of the beast, I suppose. Your summary of the thread is, I think, an accurate one. As for the harassment concerns... I'm not sure how to judge that either. Much of what went on in that vein was off Wikipedia itself, making the situation sticky. Assumedly people who looked up my details still have them, and could use them again. It's a shame that the anarchy of the internet - which gives it its beauty - also means that violations of privacy are unpoliced, and justice is often kangaroo-court style. I'm thinking especially of things like hivemind at this point - such an unfortunate and unwarranted attack on people's real lives. Well, now I'm rambling, so I should close up. As ever, I appreciate your advice and consistently level head. FlyingToaster 22:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, and you're right that there is a fuzzy line when it comes to plagiarism both on Wikipedia and in the real-world, and I was actually commenting on the Roger Davies situation as you wrote the above note (basically I think we still need more info on that, but there is cause for concern). However often it's pretty clear cut when it comes to determining whether or not the line was crossed between drawing info from a source and plagiarizing from it.

Hopefully the harassment you faced before was a product (obviously an utterly unacceptable one) of the previous situation and will not crop up again, though I guess there's no telling what some people will do, unfortunately. As I've said I sincerely hope you continue editing here, though of course that's up to you and I would understand it if you found it to be not the best choice for you at this time. Best. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Unbecoming approach

Your entire approach throughout this discussion has been unbecoming of your position. You chose to further your unsubstantiated claims at AN, and completely ignore the misconduct that occurred from the only user in the entire discussion who supported your witchhunt. You also chose not to politely asking Durova or Ironholds personally and preferred the controversial and high drama venue. It is no wonder that the community wanted a desysop method of its own. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Gonna have to disagree with you there. I don't think I'm the one (or ones) who turned this into high drama, I just continued a conversation where it was already happening. Obviously you and I have a small amount of history (just a couple of incidents from what I can recall) and I gather you do not care for me all that much given how personally you seem to have taken this whole matter. As to community desysop you've surely noticed I'm available for recall. I'm not sure how exactly you think I've "abused the tools or authority granted to administrators" (per my criteria and process for recall) but you could start by explaining that to me here (more specifically) and then pursuing recall if you are not satisfied with my response. I think the better option is to step back and realize you're pretty invested in this issue for whatever reason and maybe you are a little over the top in your response (for starters "witchhunt" is not really a word most objective observers would use to describe the question, "can you give me the gist of what was said in IRC? if it's no big deal we'll drop it."). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Recall is not a satisfactory desysop system by any stretch of my imagination, and in any case, you not responding to the concern doesn't really inspire confidence. You made no effort to personally ask Durova or Ironholds for more information - especially for a conversation that did not involve you, nor was particularly any of your business for that matter. Still, as a legitimate question, that would've been the ideal way to proceed - if admins want things discussed with them rather than taken straight to a noticeboard, they need to practice what they preach and take it to a user's talk. Given that the rest of the discussion was closed completely, "continuing a conversation" doesn't cut it - the motion to close was not for everything except your and Unitanode's curiosity. It's called judgement, and if you genuinely weren't after a witchhunt, you miserably failed to exercise your judgement satisfactorily - admins who lack judgement may not be fit to retain their position; tools and usage of tools is only one component of that. Incidentally, Unitanode was also in no position to close or maintain his close of the discussion as he was strongly opinionated on the matter and dominating the discussion, and I'm sure an independent body would seriously consider whether rollbacking during a content dispute was accidental. I also note that you made no mention of his edit-warring, and that was quite deliberate given that he was acting in a manner that advanced your own position here. You really have no basis to claim that I'm invested in any of this, anymore than you can nonsensically suggest that an IRC conversation might've took place to get at an arbitrator. And in the event some of your comments/actions were unintentional, reconsider your approach and you might find you should take (even) more care with what you choose to say and do. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not you think recall is satisfactory, I assure you I am indeed open to recall. I support a community process of some kind and it's not particularly my fault that we do not have one. I am trying to address your concerns both above and below, despite some rather nasty comments about me on WP:AN.

It might have been better to talk to Durova first, but she did not participate in the conversation on IRC so I did not expect to get any more information from her. I think it was a valid question to ask on WP:AN (and like every other volunteer here there are any number of things that are "my business" including discussions about Arbitrators and copyright), but given that it ended up in a huge, acrimonious discussion I very much regret asking it—I seriously thought the reply might be "there was some chatter about it but nothing really came of it" (this kind of reply has been given before re: IRC) and I absolutely would have left it there. Unitanode was indeed wrong to edit war (as were you, which you have not admitted), but I see no need to doubt the fact that the rollback was unintentional, particularly since it was promptly reverted. You could use a healthy dose of good faith when it comes to this whole matter and your assumption that the rollback was malicious is just one example.

You made a number of serious accusations against me on WP:AN and I responded here (scroll down as there are two replies there). I have no idea how you could possibly get so worked up over a question on a noticeboard to the point that you make completely unfounded accusations about editors acting as "agents" and me intentionally maximizing drama, apparently in some self-serving effort to get my concerns addressed since they are more important given my admin status (or something). The fact that you start throwing in comments like "ChildofMidnight might have a point after all" (importing a completely unrelated dispute) suggests you just wanted to be in a fight, or at least make your "opponent" look bad. I'm not interested in a fight, and am completely astounded that you have reacted the way you have to this entire affair. I mean that quite seriously—you're reaction seems way over the top to me and I do not get it. Perhaps I could have asked the question in a different fashion or forum, but you ought to be open to the possibility that your responses to it have been less than edifying and have indeed dramatically escalated the situation.

As you know this is the second time (the other one being an interaction ban discussion relating to Obama articles many months ago) that you have lit into me on a noticeboard for some perceived malfeasance (the other time you did not even bother to discuss it with me first, you were proceeding from false assumptions, and you actually technically "undid" an administrative action even though you are not an administrator). I don't know where this vitriol comes from, and I do not think it's warranted, but if you feel you have a dispute with me then please pursue dispute resolution. I do not feel that I have a dispute with you, and I consider the immediate matter relating to the IRC issue closed, despite the fact that no one was willing to answer my question. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If I thought the recall system was unsatisfactory, what would possibly make you think I would care if you are open to recall or not? I'm not blaming you for us not having a desysop system, but I do think it's this sort of approach employed here that has led to the need for editors feel the need to seriously create one.

"might have been better"? It's pretty obvious that it would have been better had you contacted both of those users directly and personally; especially if it was not clear. Had any other user seen you lecturing others about not discussing your comments/actions with you personally first, and then seen the way you'd went about this issue, you would've been deemed something to the effect of "hypocrite". You were greeted with a predictable response after singling my name out for an edit war where I did not support your position. I don't consider it an overreaction at all. This is not my first interaction with Unitanode, and this is not the first time he's "accidentally" used rollback in the way that he did either, btw. The lack of apology was enough for me.

Having read more into the CoM case, I see that you have had quite a few other squabbles with him and I can understand why you think I might've referred to a separate dispute, and apologise if I accidentally gave that impression, as it was unintentional. ChildofMidnight made a comment regarding the approach of administrators on a number of occasions at the same noticeboards, and your approach seemed to fit the description in part - that he did not make a comment to that effect in this particular discussion does not make the point any less relevant or different, or so I considered. I'm quite confident that your approach would not have been any different had my responses been any different, and even now, it's taking a lot of good faith to let me contemplate that you might just 'get' the issues with your approach and be open to the possibility of taking steps to fix them to avoid a repeat in the future. I'm not interested in games or fights, but if you want to think so, knock yourself out - it really undermines any point in me talking to you directly though, especially given our history. I also find it quite sad how you remember our negative interactions but don't seem to have recalled or mentioned any positive - maybe I shouldn't be shocked by that though. I think any suspicions I considered (or what you term as accusations) weren't any different to the sort you seemed to be considering, but now that you have responded to them, I guess I believe you. I do not feel I have a dispute with you any longer; based on your responses, even with the indirect digs/disclaimers, I think you might've finally had a taste of the sort of damage a wrong approach can have on individuals and the project, and just might appreciate why more care should be taken to employ the right approach. Perhaps if you enquire in the right fashion, in the right forum, and with the right sort of motivations, you'd find what you're looking for - though either way, I can only guide someone to the well; I can't force them to drink. Ironically, the one positive interaction I can remember with you involved you coming to the wrong forum. It seems we're done. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I think we are done, and in general I don't really agree with most of your comments above, at least those which are not so vague that I simply do not understand what you are saying. The "something to the effect of 'hypocrite'" jab is not at all appreciated by the way (actually it's completely out of line), and I'd ask you to leave off commenting here for now, though feel free to bring other issues to my attention in the future, hopefully with more civility than you have done here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Curious

Hi, Bigtimepeace. Out of curiosity, seeing your comment at Roger Davies' talk page, do you mind saying what the issue here is with BLPs? It seems potentially there is a concern that Roger did not put some material sufficiently into his own words, although it isn't clear to me that it is widely considered to be an issue that should have been treated at all in the way that it was. Either way, I'm just wondering if there is something obvious I am missing as to why this would be a reason to look over BLPs in particular. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

My comment there might have been unclear, but what I was referring to was a completely separate issue from the plagiarism concerns. I looked over a number of articles Roger had created or expanded including a number of BLPs (not in particular, it's just that there were a decent number of them). A few of these were unsourced and I tagged those as such. Since they were created a few years ago (and had not been tagged as unsourced during recent efforts to tag those sort of articles) I figured Roger probably had not looked at them in awhile and had not really even remembered that they were unsourced originally (we did not really have a problem with that, or much of one, back then). Obviously the issue of unsourced BLPs has become a major concern of late, and it was completely by chance I noticed Roger had a few of these in his "back catalog" so to speak. In my note to him I was actually pointing out that I did not really see issues with plagiarism (or even borderline plagiarism) in the articles I looked at, but that he should check on BLPs he's created to make sure they are at least minimally sourced, an issue quite distinct from plagiarism problems. Hope that clears it up and sorry for any confusion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok good, maybe I read too quickly. I don't even know how to look through all of the claims, which is a bit annoying, but I agree what I saw did not look at all like what I would have expected for such a strong initial claim. Thanks in any case for clarifying. Mackan79 (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

re: Articles

Hello, Bigtimepeace. You have new messages at Roger Davies's talk page.
Message added 06:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Climate change exaggeration

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climate change exaggeration, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 16:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Grundle2600

• With the exception of duration (obviously) and the ability to edit discussions or talk pages, the community sanction in force is pretty much identical to Thatcher's expired sanction. This means Thatcher's comment remains largely relevant to the sanction in force, but Grundle has misused it or gone beyond its limits for whatever reason. You may wish to refactor the first part of your comment in light of this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine, my point was that in referring to Thatcher's comment Grundle could have given the impression to some that his topic ban had expired months ago when this was not the case (he knows this, but for clarity's sake we should be citing the more recent, indefinite ban). Thatcher's comment still gives a general sense of the matter, but the latter community ban was in fact different, particularly as it related to any pages rather than just articles as the first one did, which is to say Grundle cannot currently edit talk pages relating to politics either. This is a significant distinction given Grundle's tendency during the first topic ban to be disruptive even on talk pages. Actually I probably should have mentioned this on ANI. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of User:Parasane

Afternoon, Bigtimepeace. Today's the first time I've logged into Wikipedia in quite some time, and was surprised to see that my user page had been deleted. Come to think of it, aside from perhaps a couple of messages back-and-forth with editors, I don't even think I knew I had ever created a user page. Any chance you might be able to send me a copy of the deleted content? I'm rather curious to know what was being advertised there in the first place, since I don't especially like things attached to myself or my name without my knowledge (call me weird). You can reply back on my talk page when you get the chance. Thanks! (Dan/Parasane) 20:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, okay. I do remember that stuff. Hadn't intended it as promotion, only as a user profile, but that's fine. Thanks for checking into it so quickly. Very much appreciated! (Dan/Parasane) 01:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

James Powell (basketball) deletion

Big Time, I completely agree with you that this page is unencyclopedic and is a good candidate for deletion. I went back into the history because I didn't remember creating the page. It looks like I created James Powell as a redirect page pending adding a golfer with the same name. The current article somehow took over the name.--Hokeman (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, no problem, it was actually an editor named TylerDrohan who created the substantive article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Other venues

That is funny. Clearly a mistake; as anyone could tell you, I have a poor sense of humor. I've revised the rationale.[5] Cool Hand Luke 21:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix, though I'll miss the previous version. :-) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for help

I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

Request to WP:AN

"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:

• User:Peter Damian (old)
• User:HistorianofLogic
• User:Logicist
• User:Here today, gone tomorrow
• User:Renamed user 4

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP sticky PROD

Hi Bigtimepeace/Archive 4!. Every attempt to rescue a Wikipedia article is a noble gesture. However, there may be occasions when, with the best will in the world, it is just not possible to accord even a minimum of notability to an article or stub, or find a proper source for it. Most regrettably, even the most dedicated inclusionists will have to concede that the article may have to go if the creator or major contributors cannot justify their work.
For new and recent unsourced BLPs, some users are now working at WT:BLP PROD TPL on the development of templates that are designed to encourage contributors to source new BLPs, without scaring away the newbies who might not be aware of the rules. This template is certainly not another a licence to kill for the deletionists, in fact the very idea of it is to ensure that you are not fighting a losing battle. It would be great if you could look in at the prgogress and maybe leave a word of encouragement. The workshop page is essentially a template development taskforce, and is not a place to engage in a hefty debate on incusion/deletion policy. See you at WT:BLP PROD TPL?--Kudpung (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Politeness

Hi. I don't know why I read so much of that thread, but your 10:26, 7 March comment at AN/I (about needing basic levels of civility in any civilisation) were spot-on. I'm dismayed there wasn't a sea of agreement following. That's all, no reply needed. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm generally dismayed by the way we deal with questions of "civility" around here. Some people think being polite is not important, which would be ridiculous were it not such a commonly held view. Others feel that we can block our way into an enforcement of civility, but that has not really worked, and often civility blocks themselves do much more harm than good. It's quite an unfortunate situation and has been an ongoing problem since forever, it's just that the cast of characters changes with time. I've often thought that if editors who freely fling vitriol at one another could simply sit down and have a conversation in the real world it would make their on-wiki interactions much more pleasant, but of course it's difficult or impossible for that to happen. Anyhow thanks again for your note. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The terrorists have won (2nd nomination).Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Malleus/ANI/threats

I didn't want to re-inflame that thread, but I did want to reply to your remarks there. The main thing I think I did wrong here was taking the bait and talking to Malleus at all. Usually I just ignore him but I thought it was so lacking in class for him to keep commenting on Chillum's talk page that I let it get the better of me and I responded to it. As you correctly pointed out, he had made a rather threatening remark already, so it's somewhat ironic that he responded to my pointing out that he was in more danger of being blocked that Bugs or myself by going to ANI and trying to get me "busted." I imagine Malleus feels the same about me as I do about him, namely that Wikipedia would be better off without him, I'll try to take my own advice and just ignore him in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for avoiding further comment in the thread, which I know cannot be easy in those circumstances. Really the only reason I commented over there was that I think Malleus does have a point in general—namely that incivility in admins is generally more tolerated that it is in non-admin users. While your comments were hardly egregious, they were (as I think you would admit) not really civil, but in the ANI thread folks were basically ignoring that (perhaps because of feelings about the person who filed the "report"). I guess my goal was to simply say, "Malleus is right, that was not appropriate," but then of course point out that Malleus had made inappropriate comments as well, and that none of it required action other than the parties just dropping the matter. That observation about Malleus obviously fell on deaf ears which is not surprising, but it was worth a try and was indeed an effort to treat the comments of admins and non-admins equally. Overall this was a minor incident, and of course everyone can get carried away with their rhetoric from time to time. If that happens more for you with Malleus then generally trying to ignore him is probably for the best. Thanks for dropping me a note about the matter. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 21st, Columbia University area Last: 11/15/2009

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Crossing sweeper

On March 16, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Crossing sweeper, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Computhink and ViewWise

Excuse me, but why would Computhink and ViewWise be deleted? This is no different than Laserfiche having it's own page. I demand an answer. Your policing techniques are poor at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharnden (talk • contribs) 19:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sharnden, these articles were deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computhink which happened in January (you were notified about it on your talk page here). I cannot say whether the situation with Laserfiche is analogous or not, but there was in my view a consensus to delete the articles on Computhink and ViewWise. If you disagree with that assessment you can put the articles up for deletion review where it would be discussed whether or not Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computhink was closed correctly.

Alternatively, if you want I can restore both articles to pages in your userspace, what we call userfication. This would not appear in the Wikipedia article space, but it might give you a chance to improve the articles such that they could again go "live" as articles (or perhaps at least one of them). In the discussion the main problem expressed was that the topics seemed to lack notability given that they were not covered extensively in reliable sources. If you can establish that this was not the case, significantly reworking one or both of the articles in the process, then it might be possible for them to be restored, though I cannot guarantee that.

While I understand your frustration, please note that we deal with these kind of issues at articles for deletion all of them time and administrators who close discussion there are simply trying to implement the consensus decision of a group of editors. It's certainly not a perfect process, but it is one of the primary means we have available to weed out articles on subjects deemed unworthy of encyclopedic coverage, which is a necessary component of maintaining Wikipedia.

Please let me know if you have additional questions or if you are interested in having these articles "userfied" so you can work on them further. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Mlpearc

Message received and understood, My apologizes, won't happen again Mlpearc MESSAGE 15:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I want all involved to know that all and I mean ever single edit I made was in good faith. I misunderstood the overlinking. Mlpearc MESSAGE 17:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

IAR

thanks for giving us the best explanation of IAR yet, at the Deletion Review page. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and I'm glad it made sense. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I also found it quite insightful. Thanks. –xeno^talk 18:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Brews ohare appeal

I believe you understood my arguments, but felt that I had not proved myself well enough to take the great risk to WP of lifting these sanctions. I don't understand your reservations, considering I have a rather clean record, especially where namespace discussion is concerned. It is my view that there is no evidence of disruption on my part, and all the sturm und drang is due to Wikilawyering by Headbomb, unfortunately supported by Sandstein and Ucheda. However, you don't see it that way.

You have at least expressed the reasons for your support for sanctions, a courtesy not observed by others. Thank you. Brews ohare (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and I'll elaborate a little bit here with some advice that you can obviously take or leave as you see fit. From what I've seen you've crossed the line (or danced near it) when it comes to your restrictions on at least a couple of occasions. Your reaction afterward (and even more so the reaction of some of your most vocal defenders) was to cast aspersions on others and question the whole basis for the restrictions in the first place. It was hardly the end of the world, but given that you were already under sanctions it certainly did not look good. Given that, I think the best way forward is to simply show that you are willing to abide by the restrictions rather than arguing against their legitimacy and violating them in admittedly minor ways. There's nothing complex about it at all really (basically it's asking for what could be deemed a "good faith" gesture on your part, even if you think that ought not be required of you) and as I said it should not be difficult. If you decide to appeal again down the road I for one will be much more inclined to support if there have been no issues in the interim.

If you do appeal the restrictions later, I advise against re-litigating their origins or calling out what you perceive to be the misbehavior of other editors, even if you still think they were in the wrong. Simply say you've held to the restrictions imposed by Tznkai for x number of months with no problems and would like the community to consider rescinding them. I think a lack of drama (forget about whose fault it was) for a considerable amount of time will make people much more amenable to your appeal and more likely to focus on the fact that you've obviously done very good work to help the project, rather than the fact that your name keeps cropping up in drama-filled venues of late. Hope that helps. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe my present appeal is phrased this time exactly as you have suggested above. There is a tendency of the mind to lump past and present, and to meld all the statements by all parties supporting me as what was said by myself, and as what is operative on the present occasion. That is human, but it is also inaccurate. Brews ohare (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there was nothing wrong with the way you phrased the appeal, and my apologies if my previous comment seemed to suggest otherwise. However your first and particularly your second comment in this subthread on the same page were more problematic and evinced the "re-litigating their [the restrictions] origins or calling out what you perceive to be the misbehavior of other editors" kind of response. That's what I had in mind in writing the above, and you'll have better luck if you avoid those kind of comments in the future, even when frustrated by the actions of others. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have your viewpoint in mind now. I would point out that my appeal was in place with zero comment from me for a week, and already had led to the kind of confusion I have just mentioned despite its very innocuous and neutral tone. The subthread you mention was my response only after very impolite comments had already been made by several administrators, and SirFozzie had glided over the point of the appeal, and made a count of (trivially based) blocks the entire basis for a decision, ignoring the appeal in its entirety as well as some very cogent points in the comments by others.

Although your advice to me is clear, it is not germane to my behavior in this appeal. Brews ohare (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Panic

• I saw your mention of this on Jimbo's talk page. Nice work! Twitter is great for gauging the immediate reaction of the world to an event, but its quite difficult to recreate a work like this even a day after the event. (I don't know about you, but searching for tweets on anything even slightly dated is very laborious, assuming its even still searchable.) Great job.--Milowent (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I stumbled across the comments quite by accident while doing a google search; I'm not a Twitterer myself (except during the Iranian Green Revolution last summer). I guess it was the historian's instinct in me to capture some of those remarks (what I would deem "primary sources") before they vanished into web obsolescence. I thought the level of freakout was pretty striking (even for Twitter), though one could draw a pretty wide range of conclusions about Wikipedia and its effects on our society from the reactions. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bigtimepeace. You have new messages at Hell in a Bucket's talk page.
Message added 04:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bigtimepeace. You have new messages at Hell in a Bucket's talk page.
Message added 14:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

April Fools

Just want to say, this made me crack up. Thanks for the laugh, and the assist with the block. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 03:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the user blocked is apparently an alternate account of User:KyleRGiggs. Probably a good idea extend the block to that account, or at least to keep an eye on him. Not sure if blocks are transitive in cases like these. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 03:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I left a note for KyleRGiggs. It's possible that the alternate account was compromised, though I'm guessing this user just thought they were being funny. The main account might need to be blocked too but we'll see. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw. He's in a sticky position there. If he says the account is compromised, he loses it forever. If it isn't, then the main account might get blocked. I'm betting he doesn't respond. Any takers? —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 03:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, if it actually is compromised and the password changed by the new "owner", then he's got nothing to lose. Guess we'll see. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 03:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Giggs for Temporary indefinitely and KyleRGiggs for the original duration you'd blocked the alternate account for - it seems fairly clear from the articles being targeted and the edits by the alternate account that is was being used for bad-hand socking. If necessary, we can use checkuser to confirm the connection, but I don't think it's needed just now. I just wanted to let you know. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem and thanks for the notification, I agree that it was almost certainly bad-hand socking but was erring on the side of caution (perhaps more than necessary) in waiting for a response from KyleRGiggs. Oddly, I think it's possible that that editor thought that some April 1st vandalism was perfectly kosher and an example of getting into the spirit of April Fools' Day tomfoolery. It could be that a language barrier is part of the problem and the editor genuinely did not think they were doing anything wrong, but regardless a block was obviously needed and extending it to the main account a reasonable precaution. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification

As an user who commented at this discussion, you may wish to weigh in on Grundle2600's topic ban modification request. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

I wanted to thank you for the detailed explanation you gave to User:JohnsoKr at Talk:Donner Party regarding original research and the use of primary sources. I thought you did an excellent job of explaining the issues in a cool, dispassionate way. Also, your suggestion of creating a list of issues was wonderful - thank you for introducing a new editor to Wikipedia's often confusing rules! Perhaps we could both continue these conversations at her user talk page? People feel more welcome that way, I think. Awadewit (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem at all, and I actually wanted to ask Ms. Johnson about an issue I brought up at the FAC page so I'll be dropping her a note at her talk page at some point in the near future. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for userfying deleted page

Hi Bigtimepeace, would you mind emailing me the text of these two "speedily" deleted pages?

• Tsutomu Chida
• Aikido Renshinkai

My address is paul /at# justlikeswimming.com

I found you on the cat page for admins who have this privilege. Thank you in advance

peace

paul 06:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've e-mailed you the deleted text via the Wikipedia e-mail feature meaning it will have gone to whatever e-mail address you associated with your Wikipedia account—if you do not get it for some reason just let me know. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday May 22nd, OpenPlans in Lower Manhattan Last: 03/21/2010

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bigtimepeace. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minister for the Civil Service.
Message added 08:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bigtimepeace. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minister of State for Security.
Message added 08:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 08:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

quoted

Hi ... I've quoted you here, and wanted to pay you the courtesy of letting you know.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up—I just scanned the request and take no position on whether or not the point I had previously made applies in this particular context or not. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries -- it was just an fyi, and no request was made or implied that you get involved. Your words spoke for themselves. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Dramaout

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd#Participating_Wikipedians

and also a mention on WP:ANI. I would love to have you participate! Remember July 5th, the starting date! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The 3rd Great Wikipedia Dramaout

Coming soon to a Wiki near you...The Third Great Wikipedia Dramaout will be July 5-9. Please join us for serious content creation! Signup is here. You have received this message because you participated in The Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout.

RFC

I noticed that you participated in a previous RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events). I was wondering if you might share your opinion here: RFC: Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Thanks! Location (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The return of CoM

Looks like you've been a bit inactive lately, but on the off-chance you check in soon, take a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_ChildofMidnight and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChildofMidnight/Archive#24_August_2010. You're probably the most familiar with CoM's style and brand of hostility, do you think Freakshownerd here is his sock? Tarc (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm still logged in a good chunk of the time and caught your message soon after you posted it, my comment on the Arb page is here. It seems extremely likely to me that this is ChildofMidnight--I can think of no other editor who writes quite like that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe all of us can share some Jonnycakes, one of these days. Nice find, BTP--very sharp. Odd that I missed it, though by 24 August I had lost interest in FSN and the Maxine Waters issue. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh, that's interesting that you guys were disagreeing on Maxine Waters, I did not know that. I'd be curious if you thinks this sounds like C of M, though if you'd prefer to hold your tongue on the matter that's quite all right. In the discussion here FSN's question to you "Are you some sort of foreigner?" seems like some intensely personal snark given that ChildofMidnight, assuming that's who it is, knows a bit about your background.

Unfortunately I have a terrible fear of Jonnycakes—can't even talk about it really it's so bad! But I'd be happy to share any number of other baked goods and/or beer. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Btw, thanks for chiming in, I think we're in pretty firm "obvious sock is obvious" territory now, so hopefully some of the arbs ho commented early will read all that and revise. Tarc (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'd rather not have gone into as much detail as I did, but I was pretty taken aback that most of the Arbs didn't see an obvious connection. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday October 16th, Jefferson Market Library in Lower Manhattan Last: 05/22/2010

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I need help

I am sorry for distracting you from your work and if I am disturbing you with my question I am terribly sorry. I tried myself to find answer on two below questing by browsing wikipedia, but I was not successful:

1. How can I list of new articles created by myself or another user
2. How can I see my (or someone's else) status (Autopatrolled, Rollbacker, Administrator...) on wikipedia.

Thanks in advance and again sorry if I am bothering too much with this question. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No bother at all. To see a list of new articles created by a given user (you can include redirects or not) go here. To check a given user's status go here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Is there possibility to check a given user's status without having to check each possible status, since in above written link it is possible only to check if someone has certain privileges, but only by checking one by one privilege?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You can also go to Special:ListUsers and just enter in the user name in question in the "Display users starting at" box—it will list out various privileges the user has. There might be a better way than that but I don't know it. As an administrator I have a page that lets me manage user rights so that's what I always use if I want to check a given user's status. Is there a certain reason you're looking for this info, i.e. either for a certain user or for some other more general reason? Depending on the reason there might be some easier way to handle this, though I might not know it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I like this new link better. While browsing on wikipedia I red information about one user who declared himself as administrator on some WikiProject (on WikiProject Serbia) page, but after I tried to check if he is really administrator, I do not get this information. It would be better that people have some kind of badge with their status who could be associated with their signature automatically. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Most administrators have a box on their user page and/or say explicitly there that they are an administrator. Also WikiProjects are a completely different matter: I don't know what kind of titles are given to people who help run WikiProjects, but perhaps some use the word "administrator" to describe someone who helps lead the project. Probably they should not do that as it's confusing—being an "administrator" on a WikiProject would have absolutely nothing to do with being an administrator on en.wikipedia as a whole. The latter grants the user access to certain tools (delete and block button, etc.) while the former would just be an informal position. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not a big deal, I just wanted to clarify motif for my question. Thank you for your reply anyway. I look forward to successful future cooperation with you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure

Good closing statement, good close. Thanks for the effort. Hobit (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, happy to help—I started an AfD that ended up becoming a kajillion words long so I figured I owed a lengthy close in order to keep my karma right.  :-) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing. On the whole was well thought out and rational. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to use a better photo for the following reasons

Girl, 15, Dies in Gun Accident And a Bronx Man Is Charged Published: July 10, 1989 Sign In to E-Mail A 15-year-old girl was shot and killed yesterday by a man who was cleaning his gun in an apartment in the Fordham section of the Bronx, the police said. The girl was struck in the face and was pronounced dead at the scene at 2:30 P.M., said Sgt. Peter Berry, a police spokesman. The man, Vidal Calderon, 21, of 2358 Webster Avenue, where the fatal shooting incident occurred, was charged with second-degree murder because he did not have a license for the .25-caliber automatic pistol, and and with illegal possession of a weapon, Sergeant Berry said. The police said Mr. Calderon, who had recently moved into the apartment, was cleaning the weapon when it went off and fatally wounded the girl. Her identity was being withheld until her parents were notified, the sergeant said.

THE MAN WEARING AN OPEN CHECKERED SHIRT WITH A WHITE T SHIRT IN THE PHOTO IS THE GUNMAN LISTED IN THE ARTICLE ABOVE. I LOVE LITTLE ITALY IN THE BRONX, AND I ENJOY THEIR YEARLY STREET FAIRS - WOULD YOU AGREE THAT A BETTER PICTURE CAN BE USED TO REFLECT THE WONDERFUL STREET FAIRS OF ARTHUR AVENUE? TO MANY BRONX RESIDENTS ARTHUR AVENUE REPRESENTS FAMILY, GREAT FOOD, WONDERFUL CHILDHOOD MEMORIES- WHY NOT HAVE A PHOTO TO REFLECT THAT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.82.251.229 (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

To be frank I have no idea if what you are saying it true or not, and I don't think it particularly matters even if it is true (the event you describe was over 20 years ago and it was an accident). If there is a better picture of Arthur Avenue during a street fair then I would have no problem with it being added. Also if you reply please do not type in all caps as it's distracting. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

More help needed

Is it possible to see how certain page looked like before it was deleted? I am particulary interested in Franjo Malgaj article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It was just a short sentence listing his birth and death dates and adding that he "was a Slovenian officer and poet." The article was deleted about three and a half years ago after it was prodded. If you think this person is worthy of an article you should feel free to recreate it, but there's really nothing to build off of from the previous version. There is an article at the Slovenian Wikipedia, if you are familiar with that language. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Good AfD close summary

Though I was starting to think that deleting the article and then creating it anew with different title, stricter criteria and fresh format would be better perhaps, I still should thank you for your work on this close summary, and say my sorry that you had to read all these recurring arguments and wikilawyering from me and others. WP:SALAD idea sounds interesting, btw, and I have spent pretty much time using WP:SALAT before realizing that it is SALAT, not SALAD. GreyHood ^Talk 10:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if you were coming over to the delete side of things in the end—which is a bit surprising—the suggestions you make can be implemented by normal editing: changing title, different inclusion standards, etc. In the grand scheme of life and Wikipedia it doesn't really matter much, I think, but it would be easy to alter/correct the current list. At any rate, thank you for your thank you and your participation in the AfD. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought this was one of the most thorough AfD summaries I've seen in quite a while. Bob A (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4

We meet outside by the trees at 5:00 PM.

Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

On terrorism, attribution and forkery

Long time no speak! I would like to ask your advice about a minor dispute at Left-wing terrorism. I've been volunteering at WP:MEDCAB and this case popped up on the list. At first, I accepted the role of mediator because the matter seemed to be a simple dispute about whether or not attribution was necessary when applying the label of "terrorist" (or similar). After reading through the article and some of the discussion on the talk page, I decided to withdraw as mediator because I felt that I could not be impartial. After reading the article, I have formed an opinion that it is basically an ill-conceived POV fork. Would it be possible for you to take a look at the article, read this RfC and give me your personal opinion on the matter? Before I "wade in" and become an "involved" editor, I would appreciate a little perspective from someone skilled at dealing with controversial topics and editors with entrenched positions! Kind regards, Scjessey (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Scjessey, I don't have time to look at this right now but will try to do so in the next day or two—feel free to remind me if you don't hear back. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :) -- Scjessey (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Scjessey, just responding again after a necessary reply (below) to a query regarding an AfD I closed. I still have not had time to look at this due to that-time-of-year stuff and some unexpected stuff on top of that. If it's helpful I can still try to look at this next week but I don't think I can get to it before then. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The dispute at that article has fizzled out, so there is no great urgency. That being said, I still have concerns about the article in general since it seems to arbitrarily label individuals and groups as "terrorists" in Wikipedia's voice (which used to be a Wikipedia no-no). Perhaps it's something we can look at together after all the fuss has died down. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

How to undo an AfD merge?

The AfD proposed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure was ended in a "merge" result. Not unpredictably, I would say, the book has returned to prominence in the news,^[6] and is set to become the focus of a major clash between free speech principles and an attempt to ban "obscene" text. Is there a formal process required to undo the AfD in the face of this renewed notability, or can a person just start editing? Wnt (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

As with any Wikipedia discussion, consensus can of course change. I think merging was clearly the consensus at the time, regardless of whether or not continued media attention was predictable (frankly that's not really relevant). But perhaps consensus will be different now. I would not recommend simply restoring the article—I don't think there's a hard and fast rule about this but the previous AfD was just four weeks ago and it was quite contentious, so a unilateral action by one editor (or even a couple) is probably not wise. Certainly the book has created more waves, but you cannot assume that the arrest of Mr. Greaves now means consensus is for a standalone article.

I'd suggest starting a discussion on the Amazon.com controversies talk page and perhaps setting up a formal request for comment there. You could contact folks from the original AfD about it so long as you contacted editors regardless of where they fell on the question of retaining the article (or you could not contact them). If there's a rough consensus to restore the article then there's no problem at all "undoing" the merge—my previous close would be moot in the face of a new consensus.

I also see that the article Phillip Greaves has been created. That will likely be contentious as well, and it's probably smart to discuss that article while you discuss the possibility of having The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure as a standalone. Some people will want both or one or the other or neither, and it probably makes a lot more sense to have one central discussion.

Note that this is just my advice rather than any sort of "instruction from the closing admin" or anything like that—I just think a new discussion covering all of the issues makes the most sense at this point. Hope that helps. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Impact (security)

Would you mind dropping a copy of the deleted article as a sub page of my User:Pastore Italy? I will try to build an article from that stub.

Thanks --Pastore Italy (talk) 09:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, see User:Pastore Italy/Impact (security). I blanked the text since there were copyvio issues—you should really start from scratch on this. And the AfD was pretty clear in terms of favoring deletion, so please don't simply restore the article without first getting a bit of feedback from someone. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Translation

I found one very interesting text on French that I believe can be valuable source of the information for the article I edit. Is there possibility to have this text (whole or just one part) carefully translated by submitting the link to some noticeboard? I know there are pages that can be marked for translation from wikipedia on French to wikipedia on English language. But in this case I need to translate text that is not from wikipedia. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a noticeboard where you can ask for something other than a Wiki-article to be translated or not. All I can think to point you to is this category of editors who say they can translate from French to English. There's lots of editors listed there, perhaps you can contact one who seems active. I'm guessing you'd have much better luck asking them to translate the one paragraph rather than the whole document. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saeko Matsuda

I know its my own fault for not finding time to reply until the AfD had been open for more than 7 days, but I was still pretty disappointed that it was closed before Erik got a chance to see my last reply, especially considering that you seem to have put a lot of weight into his arguements. I really felt that his arguements were incorrect and were only due to him being unaware of the reliable sources that regularly review anime. I was hoping for an explanation of why you think my comments didn't address his. Also, I'm not really sure what you are suggesting when you say the article can be recreated if it is sourced. While I'm not really sure what sort of sources you were looking for, I basically feel like I disagree with your suggestion that there aren't currently good enough sources but that good enough sources could potentially be found. I think it would be easy to provide sources merely listing him as a producer of some of the works he worked on (in fact, the links I provided did that for two of his works), but probably impossible to find sources with more about him other than just listing him as a producer. So I feel that the article either should have been kept now (if WP:CREATIVE applies to producers, and that is sufficient to keep an article without direct coverage of the person), or that there is no hope of finding sufficient sources and no point in userfying it (if coverage directly discussing him beyond just listing him in credits is needed). I was hoping for an explanation of what sort of sourcing you were looking for. Anyway, thank you for any clarification you can give me, and I'm sorry to bother you about this. Calathan (talk) 05:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a bother at all, and I'm happy to try to clarify my thinking on this, particularly since you had a comment that came in at the last moment which was significant to the discussion. You seem to admit that Matsuda fails the general notability guideline, and that would be my read as well. So the issue as you say is WP:CREATIVE. Prior to your last comment, I thought "consensus" (which is to a significant degree based on strength of argument) was clearly that Matsuda did not meet that guideline either. Some editors simply said producers should not be viewed as falling under the CREATIVE guideline (a position for which one can make a valid argument, certainly in some cases). Erik made the point that they probably could fall under that guideline but that Matsuda's work was not "significant or well-known" so he still failed said guideline.

Your final comment was responding to this one point and was the first one to do so, but I definitely took it into consideration. You brought in links from two different sources. The second, mania.com, simply does not provide reviews as I would understand them—they are basically just short descriptions (and this doesn't even go that far). So you are left with some reviews from one site, which may or may not be reliable for our purposes (I genuinely do not know, and that question was not at all determinative). Even if they are reliable, that's only one source. Erik pointed out (I think correctly) that in order to be "significant or well-known" we need "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Not to play mindreader, but I think Erik would have replied that you had not found multiple reviews, and the one(s) you did are arguably questionable. This is part of why I decided to go ahead and close—Erik's response was in some respect predictable based on what he had already written.

Given all that, my reading was that the there was still consensus for the delete position based on superior argument. The fact that some opting to keep really said nothing of substance is part of the problem here. Now, if you want to try to work on this article you are welcome to do so in user space, and if you find enough reviews you might be able to make a case that Matsuda passes #3 of WP:CREATIVE. Or not. It might not be worth it, and I think you are right that there are not going to be enough sources on Matsuda himself which is something worth bearing in mind in terms of how important this article is, all arguments and policy questions aside.

I hope that helps, but if you other questions or concerns let me know. If you do want the article userfied I'm quite willing to do so. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I think you have misunderstood what I was linking to at Mania.com. Those are the index pages for the titles, which link to the reviews. If you click on the link for each release for a given title most (though not all) of them will have reviews. For example, for Kamichu! the page I linked to lists 6 releases, 4 for individual DVDs, and 2 for collections of the whole series. In this case, there are reviews for the four individual DVD releases but not for the two collections (here are the four actual reviews for Kamichu!: [7], [8], [9], [10]). There are likewise actual reviews for the other two titles linked from the index pages I provided. I linked to the index pages instead of the individual reviews because I was trying to save time and post before the AfD was closed.

I also only linked to two sources because I thought the AfD might be closed at any minute and was trying to hurry. There are other sources that regularly are used for anime reviews that cover some of his works. One of those is Animefringe magazine, which now that I've checked it, I see actually ran a featured article on Kamichu! [11]. Another American anime magazine, Newtype USA apparently ran a 4 page article on Kamichu! (Unlike Animefringe, I don't think Newtype USA is available online, here is a cover that lists Kamichu! as one of the shows covered in that issue [12]). Another source that is generally considered a reliable source is Ain't It Cool News, which also provide a little coverage of Kamichu! ([13], scroll down). For Bobobo-bo Bobo-bo and Xenosaga: The Animation, THEM Anime also reviewed them ([14], [15]), and is generally considered a reliable source due to having been featured on Attack of the Show!.

About the reliability of Anime News Network, Mania.com, and THEM Anime, all three of them have been accepted as valid sources in featured articles on anime and manga (e.g. School Rumble and Tokyo Mew Mew). I consider being accepted as a source in a featured article as a clear indication that a source is considered reliable. Calathan (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the additional info. I'm in way over my head when it comes to anime and reliable sources, so I will take your word for it that some if not all of these are considered reliable (for Wikipedia purposes) as far as sources of reviews. That would suggest that it would, according to my reading of the AfD, be good to re-open it and allow Erik (and others) to respond to your (now post-AfD) comment—that would be as far as I could go in terms of reversing the current result since your "keep" argument is entirely predicated on consensus regarding #3 of WP:CREATIVE.

But I would also ask you to think seriously about whether you (or anyone) really want to spend time using reviews to justify the retention of Matsuda's article based on WP:CREATIVE, which may or may not work in the end. When I think to myself not as the closing admin but just as an editor of the encyclopedia, I note that Kamichu!, Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo, and Xenosaga: The Animation could all use some real work. These are the actual products, the art with which readers will be most concerned. Matsuda was involved in these productions (to what extent we really have no idea) and it will arguably take as much work to justify his notability as it would to add good review information to the articles folks will actually read. I'm willing to relist the discussion at this point, but I'm not sure how worth it is, and I'm also not sure there's much difference (from your perspective) between that and adding in some of the reviews you've found to a new article you work on in userspace. If you choose the latter course I'd say you could move it into article space once you are done working on it, so long as you inform the AfD participants that you've done so (not really a rule or anything, I just think it would be wise to get feedback from folks who already gave it). Personally I think that's the better course of action, and it would probably actually make it less likely that the article would be deleted in the end, though there are no guarantees on any of this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again for replying to my comments. As I mentioned in the AfD, I'm not really sure that WP:CREATIVE applies to producers (or at least producers for whom there is no evidence that they had creative control of the work . . . I've noticed that one of the other producers for Kamichu! is described as a co-creator, while Saeko Matsuda is not). My concern was that Erik in particular seemed to be basing his comments on his view that the things Saeko Matsuda worked on were not very well known, which I felt was incorrect. However, given that I don't think the article on Saeko Matsuda could ever grow beyond just a list of the titles he was a producer for, I'm thinking now that it isn't really necessary to restart the discussion. Perhaps someone else from Wikiproject:Anime and Manga would be interested in working on it further, but I don't think I want it userfied to my user space. I certainly agree with you that it would be a much better use of time to work on the articles for the anime titles in question, which could be brought up to a high quality. I've also noticed that the directors for all three of the anime I provided sources for don't yet have articles, and they would probably be better people to work on articles for (WP:CREATIVE certainly applies to directors). Again, thank you for taking time to discuss this with me. Calathan (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Bigtimepeace/DraftRFC

User:Bigtimepeace/DraftRFC, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bigtimepeace/DraftRFC and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Bigtimepeace/DraftRFC during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. HeyMid (contribs) 23:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-direct of Mark_Wright_(politician)

Bigtimepeace, about a year ago you re-directed Mark_Wright_(politician) after it was deleted in the cull of articles on candidates in the 2010 UK General Election. Regardless of that, Mark Wright has since become an notable advocate of Open source and OpenDocument standards in the the Pubic Sector in the UK. E.g. see Google [16] for some of the speaking events.

I am wondering, if I want to add this new stuff to the old page, do I just use the edit function on the history to restore the old page and start adding all the new stuff; or will I fall foul of some wiki rule there? Do I need to formally ask for it to be undeleted? 78.147.9.164 (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry for a bit of a delay with my reply. You could just begin editing on the version of the page that existed prior to it being redirected, though there would probably have to be some removal of old, overly specific election material there (I haven't checked). I'm not completely convinced of Wright's notability though based on the google link you provided. If he is truly (or even marginally) notable based on open source advocacy then restoring/adding new info to the article would probably not be a problem since the article would be substantially different from the one in the AfD. But do you have some more specific links that establish his notability, i.e. some fairly detailed coverage of him in reliable secondary sources? Drop me a few links if you can. If his notability is dubious, recreating the article is not really advisable—if you could provide a little more info that would be helpful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Here are a better collection of links relating to open source, open document formats, and open data (and Wright welcoming Jimmy Wales to the city to promote "open knowledge")

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/22/bristol_city_open_source_microsoft_mix/ http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/9/24/bristol-over-dead-body-source/ http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/money-s-going-understand/article-2720099-detail/article.html http://www.westminsterforumprojects.co.uk/forums/agenda/open_source_and_free_software_agenda.pdf http://www.bristol247.com/2011/01/13/wikipedia-founder-in-bristol-to-celebrate-10th-anniversary/ http://www.openforumeurope.org/press-room/press-releases/uk-government-pushes-for-open-standards-and-open-source-software http://www.herefordshire.lug.org.uk/node/68

I am intending to use them as references in the following paragraph: "Since taking the responsibility for IT at Bristol City Council in 2009, Wright has become a vocal proponent of Open Source, open document formats, and open data in UK local government. He has kept Bristol at the forefront of adoption of open standards, and speaks at IT conferences to highlight the problems still faced by public sector organisations wanting to break free of vendor "lock-in", particularly to Microsoft."

The only mention of elections in the original article is "He will be the Liberal Democrat candidate for Bristol South constituency at the 2010 General Election." which it seems sensible to change to "He was the Liberal Democrat candidate for Bristol South constituency at the 2010 General Election." 78.147.9.164 (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on those links, I'd say his notability is pretty dubious. Personally I would not recreate the article on him even with the additional info, but there isn't really a formal prohibition on you doing so since it would be a different version. None of the sources really offer in-depth coverage of Wright, rather he is just quoted or mentioned in a larger story. Basically he's still just a local political figure, albeit one who has gained some (definitely minor) attention for advocacy of a larger cause.

Even more so than for non bio articles, we tend to have a high bar for notability for biographies of living people, in large part because of the potential for defamation in articles about little-known people which are not carefully watched by editors. There's a lot of debate about this among Wikipedians, but I'm one who thinks folks of very marginal notability should generally not have their own articles, and I think Wright qualifies (that's nothing against him personally obviously).

So again my advice would be to not recreate for now. As I said I don't think there's anything really prohibiting you from doing so given the new content you propose, but it's entirely possible the article would be put up for deletion again. I don't think it's particularly important, as of now, that we have an article on Wright, so it might be better to wait and see if he garners more attention.

Finally, if it were to be recreated, your proposed addition above isn't quite neutral enough, I would say. "At the forefront of adoption" is certainly debatable and probably not sourceable. Also phrases like "break free of vendor 'lock-in' don't exactly have a neutral tone since it casts aspersions on whomever (like Microsoft) Wright wants to break from, and does so with the voice of the encyclopedia article, rather than by citing Wright. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for your help. There is stuff offering in-depth coverage of him, like this text from a double-page spread in the local press: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-231605103/mr-wright-can-do.html (Needs a US postcode to get to the full text, bizzarely!) But since I'm interested in him because of his open standards advocacy, I'm not sure I have time to recount his life story from articles about him just to make the point on open standards. I'm a bit surprised that you say you don't think it's particularly important that we have an article, given the zillions of bizzare wiki articles. But in any case I'll think about this a bit more at some point, but if I add to the old article I will take your advice on making the text more neutral (it's pretty difficult to talk about vendor lock-in without mentioning Microsoft - there is a wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock_in that does too!) 78.147.9.164 (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Bigtimepeace. Would you be so kind as to look over this dispute? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_and_state_terrorism#Very_long I looked back and saw that you had been involved in sourcing this content. As I explained on the discussion page, I felt the removal of large amounts of sourced content from that section should have some discussion prior to removing the bulk of the section at the very least. Currently I don't see a valid justification for its removal. Thank you in advance for taking the time to look into this little dispute. 21:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.68.203 (talk)

Hasan Ali Khan

Hi

I noticed you commented on the Hasan Ali Khan page that you've made numerous edits because it is based on copyrighted or false material. I have also found evidence that proves much of the article's content is untrue.

As a new contributor to Wikipedia - I am unsure of how to best go about editing this article, at least to remove the false claims. Should I just delete them and replace with referenced details?

Many thanks for your help

Jack —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smvseo (talk • contribs) 09:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!

You could be having this much fun! Seriously, consider coming.

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

confirmation afds

The nominator of that article supports it, AFD is not for confirmation. not at all Its a viod nomination of no value at all. - Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the nominator or why they are nominating it as I am not familiar with the debate and the positions of those involved. If you are saying they simply want to confirm the validity of the article then, yes, that is not a valid reason for AfD and it could be closed quickly. If others step up and argue for deletion then it should probably continue to run (a bad nomination does not automatically kill off an AfD). Regardless, no editor (admin or no) should unilaterally be blanking an existing AfD.

Originally the AfD was not even listed correctly, though I think I fixed that. I suggest you make your point(s) on the AfD page, and if there is a quick and obvious consensus that this was some sort of improper nomination that no one agrees with then it will probably be closed pretty quickly. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are unclear and I see you have not been editing much recently then please leave it alone - you have also commented in the review as overturn and list at AFD - if you want to nominate it yourself then please go ahead - add your rationale and nominate it - it will clearly be kept and nominating with deletion in mind i not an option. Keeping at AFD will only strengthen the articles existence here. Which is the reason in this case for nomination - and AFD is not for confirmation. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You're not hearing me. I get what you are saying, but you are not the arbiter of what is or is not listed at AfD. You have no authority along those lines whatsoever. It is not for you to determine the intentions of another editor in nominating an article for AfD, even if you are certain of what those intentions are. Rather it is for you to comment and say "this is clearly a pointy nom, speedy close" and explain why.

I have no interest in nominating the article for AfD personally, I was just completing the process another editor started and reverting your unwarranted blanking. Your personal beliefs about "strengthen[ing] the articles existence here" mean absolutely nothing except to reveal why you don't want an AfD open. You've gone way over the line, edit warred, and are trending into block territory if you don't knock it off. Consider this a formal warning. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Kiwi Bomb

Obvious sock puppet is obvious. It's a major theatrical trolling operation with the usual suspects in tow. Don't let it get to you. Most edited pages so far:[17]

• User talk:Kiwi Bomb [WP] (12)
• User:Kiwi Bomb/Bernard Lewinsky [WP] (11)
• Lewinsky (neologism) [WP] (10)
• Template:Sexual slang [WP] (3)
• Monica Lewinsky [WP] (2)
• Lewinsky [WP] (2)
• Bernard Lewinsky [WP] (2)
• Lewinsky scandal [WP] (1)
• List of eponyms (L-Z) [WP] (1)
• User:Kiwi Bomb [WP] (1)
• User talk:Dreadstar [WP] (1)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Lewinsky [WP] (1)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewinsky (neologism) [WP] (1)

Give it a week or so and they'll put their foot in their mouth or someone will slip up and login with their primary account. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and I do agree that this account is not here to help the project (honestly beyond that I don't really care). Also I agree that it will probably be dealt with sooner or later (likely the former) and in the meantime I'll keep an eye on the situation to the extent I can do that. Also don't worry about it getting it to me--this is pretty trivial stuff in the long run and I'm not all that easily get-to-able, if that counts as an okay pretend word. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me for the intrusion. I just wanted to say this was beautiful. Actually your argument and expression all through that page is superb. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, and no need to apologize for intrusions that end with nice things being said! I'm not super hopeful about the outcome of the AfD given some of the other comments, but I tried. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the AfD process but if it's based on logic and evidence, you're a shoo-in. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hah, well AfDs can indeed be based on logic, evidence, and overall consensus--in theory always and a lot of times in practice, though I could not at all quantify how much for the latter. Technically it's possible for one person to argue for keeping and 50 to argue for deletion, yet the article is kept because of the strength of the argument on the side of the former. The "head count" of editors commenting in AfDs is, as a rule, much less emphasized but is a factor to some degree, which is appropriate. I've closed a decent number of AfDs but really just don't know how this one will end up. More likely than not it will have two or more "valid" means of closure and will somewhat depend on which administrator happens to do the close and their particular "read" of the AfD, which is something that can vary considerably from admin-to-admin (which is probably a good thing). "Interpreting consensus" is pretty fuzzy territory on these kind of discussions so often there is more than one "right" means of closure and a couple other interpretations which also would have been acceptable if rationalized in a sound manner. It's a crappy and also not-as-bad-as-some-other-possibilities system for dealing with existential (to be all dramatic about it!) content questions. Anyhow again thank you for the nice note(s). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Lewinsky close

Totally legit way to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Lewinsky and indeed I probably agree with you there in terms of the best read of consensus, even though I was firmly in the delete camp. Also thanks much for reading through that minor tome, much of which you can blame on me (sorry about that).  :-)

I'm wondering though if you can provide a bit of a rationale for your closure. Often in lengthy and contentious AfDs like this one I think it can be useful for the closing admin to provide some insight into their thinking as to why they closed the discussion as they did. Both in terms of editorial decisions about the article going forward and any possible future AfDs it's good to have a rough summary of the deletion discussion from the closing administrator's perspective.

Not a huge deal, but just something I'd suggest if you are so inclined. Thanks again for taking on that oversized AfD. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudos. As for my rationale, I'm not sure how much I can add. Personally, I tend to be a deletionist when it comes to BLPs, and I thought it fell under WP:BLP1E, as several people argued. But at the end of the day the keep !votes I counted outnumbered the !delete votes, but not by enough to close as keep. Luckily, the "no consensus" result of the AFD does not preclude someone from merging or redirecting. Regards, causa sui (talk) 05:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Well that thinking seems a bit problematic both in terms of referencing your own opinion on BLPs (which is irrelevant) and the vote count (which is not all that important, relatively speaking). I guess I was hoping more for your read of the AfD, i.e. summarizing the specific arguments, their basis in our policies and guidelines, and the extent to which they garnered favor among the participants (which at some level does become a bean-counting exercise, admittedly). I do think "no consensus" was likely the best close and have no objection at all to that, but am now much less certain about the thinking that went into your decision to close it that way.

In any case, I won't bother you about this further--thank you for your reply. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you're reading me right, but you don't seem too bothered by that either. Take it easy, causa sui (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

On the request of Hobit (talk · contribs), I added a closing rationale to this AFD. [18] causa sui (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of NYC 2nd edition (2010)

The 2nd edition has now been printed and published; see Talk: Prospect Heights, Brooklyn#Ending the border wars. Regards. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on that. I had actually seen somewhere that the new edition was out and briefly remembered about that neighborhood boundary dispute. It's the kind of book I should really own, so I might buy it or else possibly get it from the library and see if there is a more "definitive" view as the borders in that part of BK. Thanks again for dropping me a line. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Gargoyle Router Firmware

Your close at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gargoyle_Router_Firmware stated there was no consensus to keep. Got that backwards don't you? There was no consensus to delete. It should've ended as No consensus. Many said keep based on the sources found. Widefox finds sources and adds them to the article, saying they are sufficient coverage. Dcxf agrees with Widefox. Dream Focus agrees that the sources are reliable. Hobit states those sources are also reliable. DeVerm is the only one that says Keep without mentioning a reason at first, but then after speaking to someone mentions the four references. DGG says coverage is fine. So every single keep said keep do to the sources found and added to the article. I know it was a lot to read through, but please do so before making a closure. Dream Focus 08:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not a particularly helpful tone Dream Focus, and it doesn't sound like you are actually trying to open a discussion with me but rather, you know, tell me what to do. In the last sentence you basically accuse me of not reading the AfD, which is rather less than collegial. I assure you I did, some parts more than once. While I tried to be pretty explicit with my rationale, I'll elaborate on it here.

I did not ignore the keep comments, but part of closing AfDs is weighing strength of argument based on our policies, as you undoubtedly know. Some very detailed arguments came in after the initial close was reversed. They were the most substantive part of the AfD--and I'm including responses from Hobit and DGG, for example--and they exposed problems with the early keep arguments, including yours, relating to the quality of the sources. Neither you nor Widefox engaged with those later deletion arguments, and frankly had you done so I suppose this could have ended up closing this no consensus. Your early keep comments did take on a bit less significance because information was brought in that called into question your rationales (which were somewhat limited to begin with).

I'm not saying closing as delete was a no brainer, and I could imagine another admin maybe would have closed as no consensus. But my read of the AfD is that the arguments against the reliability and quantity of the sources outweighed the basic keep arguments in a policy-based sense while also garnering explicit support from a number of editors. I think it was a perfectly valid close for a somewhat fraught debate.

I hope that helps. Finally, while I know it isn't fun to be on the wrong side of an AfD close, when it happens it's generally not a good idea to run over to the closing admin's page and say "Got that backwards don't you?" and accuse them of not even reading the AfD. I'm always happy to discuss an AfD close, but it is quite easy to do that in a civil fashion which assumes good faith. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing is "no consensus to keep". Its either Keep, delete, or no consensus to delete. Some argued the reliable sources were enough to keep it, others argued against that. There was clearly no consensus. Dream Focus 08:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you are perhaps misunderstanding what I meant by that. In any AfD, we obviously determine consensus. The last sentence of my rationale was laying out a simple point, i.e. it was clearly, without question, the case that the consensus for what to do with the article was not "keep." I think you even agree with this since you say above that it should have been closed "no consensus." Given that we were not talking about redirecting or merging, I was pointing out that really the only possible closes were "no consensus" or "delete." My reading of the AfD is that there was rough consensus that the sources were problematic to a sufficient degree that we needed to delete the article at this point in time. Could another admin closed as "no consensus" and come up with a valid rationale? Yes, I imagine so. Multiple possible outcomes are often a reality in contentious AfDs--it's just a reality of how the process works.

This AfD had been sitting in the queue for awhile unclosed, I guess because it was long and a bit of a sticky one. Some admin had to close it, and I happened to be the one to do that, which I did to the best of my ability after reading through all of the discussion and considering the relevant policies. I have no problem at all with you disagreeing with the close, but I would in turn disagree with you if your argument is that the close was invalid and blatantly incorrect, rather than that it isn't what you would have done. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Your close was invalid and blatantly incorrect. The sources were discussed along with the size of the articles and nature of the coverage. There was no reason for every single person who said Keep based on sources, to copy and paste the same comments others had said about them. Arguing back and forth with certain people you've have insanely long discussions with before is pointless, since you know you won't convince each other of anything, and no new user is going to see a long discussion and bother to read through it all. Most just made their cases, and that was it, nothing more to say. The keeps had valid arguments, which can not be dismissed. Thus there was no consensus between the two groups. Thus you should've closed the AFD is no consensus, not cast a super vote in favor of one side or the other. Dream Focus 09:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint, I just disagree with it. Arguments, detailed ones, were laid out about the nature of the cited sources, namely that they were little more than boilerplate, press-release type stuff with one (possible) exception. That point was central to the entire AfD and you, and several others, did not engage with it at all. Others favoring deletion explicitly cited those arguments as convincing once they were brought in, and overall this tipped the scales into a rough consensus for deletion as I read it. I really think it strains credibility to call this approach "blatantly incorrect"--note that I am not saying the same thing about your view of what should have happened.

I'm not going to reverse my close and I have a feeling you are not going to accept it and move on to something other than trying to preserve a tiny article about firmware, so I'm guessing you're going to end up taking this to DRV. Obviously that is your right, but I kind of doubt it will end up with consensus to overturn, and even if it did we've maybe already spent more time on this then we ought. But it's up to you. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Marcus Bachmann

Just wanted to say thanks and give you props for working hard to stay civil in a heated debate that has attracted a fair amount of rudeness and incivility, even from longtime editors who should know better. It's good to see there are people who can make a point about a contentious issue without needing to be nasty. TDiNardo (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and I would say the same to you. I think my username probably helps me a bit on the civility front, because if I ran around being rude it would make for some obvious and no doubt rather devastating comebacks/charges of hypocrisy. Perhaps the solution to all our civility ills is to require everyone to name themselves "realnicegal25," "friendlyfellow32," and the like (errr, maybe not). Anyhow thanks again! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I will second that thanks for the following message: could everyone, pretty please, knock off the accusations of bad faith? I suppose with Tarc's behavior during the AfD, I was pretty much done with AGF with him. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Tarc was particularly bad on this score in the AfD and I e-yelled at him about it there, but he certainly is not the only one (and I really don't think he's acting in bad faith). Rather than assume people are lying or pushing an agenda I think it makes more sense to assume that some people genuinely think we should have an article about this guy and some people genuinely think we shouldn't and that there can be a number of plausible and good-faith reasons why someone would adopt either position. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Came here to echo the above. You really are a good role model. Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Similarly. It's hugs all around here, isn't it! Nice job. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to you both, Viriditas and Aaron, for the propers. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Kate Oxley AFD closure

I'm curious about your closing rational at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Oxley

WP:NRVE is for the GNG only. "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." It can meet the GNG OR the secondary guidelines to be notable.

The secondary guideline listed for voice actors, is WP:ENTERTAINER. As I said in at the top of the discussion with my rational for keeping the article, WP:ENTERTAINER is clearly met since this person has had significant roles, such as the main character in one series. Consensus was that they met this requirement. The four who said Keep agreed on this, they having significant roles.

Many of the delete votes mentioned the person didn't get coverage to meet GNG requirements, which has never been a requirement for an article if the secondary guidelines are met. Some stated their opinion that voice actors aren't as important as other entertainers. The guideline for Entertainer is for "Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities". So their bias against voice actors isn't a valid reason to delete something. Dream Focus 16:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

For starters I'll refer you back to the part of my closing rationale which states "the notion of "significance" is never explicated by those in the keep camp, and no secondary sources demonstrating significance are offered..."

The fact that several editors assert--and that's all that happened, some assertions--that a person meets the WP:ENTERTAINER guideline is not automatic grounds for keeping, particularly when those arguing in favor of deletion argue that the subject does not meet the GNG and point out that there is no evidence whatsoever of significant coverage in reliable sources--an argument not addressed by yourself or anyone else.

Your comment suggests that you think the general notability guideline was irrelevant to the discussion in question, which I think is not a correct reading of consensus. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is judged by the valid comments. Someone stating it didn't meet GNG, is irrelevant, since it does not have to. Consensus was that the person had significant roles. You don't need a secondary source to tell you that. Common sense that the main character of a series is a significant role. Dream Focus 17:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Editors did not merely state that it didn't meet the GNG, they pointed that there was zero significant coverage in secondary sources so far as we know. This is correct, and you have not even attempted to address this point.

You are under a mistaken impression when you view the GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER as nothing more than two possible paths to keeping an article, and if a few people walk down one of those paths (so to speak) in the discussion then the article is kept. In this debate, the GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER were set against one another, and the arguments for applying the latter (which theoretically could have prevailed) were incredibly weak while the arguments for applying the former were quite straightforward and based on a basic fact that you do not even deny--significant coverage in secondary sources is non-existent.

This was not a close that I view as particularly difficult, rather deletion seemed to me to be the clear outcome. I'm not sure what more I can say beyond that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• I put this on deletion review. [19] Dream Focus 18:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Can't say I'm surprised. Statement/comment left here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No Molestar!

I count 3 votes supporting deletion (counting me, a 75% against a 25%) against one voting keep; the four sources added that are "reliable" are promotional, and look like press releases. There was consensus to delete the article. The other two sources are WP:PRIMARY. You can still delete the article so I came to deal it with you here. The artist is not notable, the album is not notable, it did not chart anywhere (Chile has no official charts), and it did not even sell well.  Diego  talk  03:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your take on the discussion and let me explain why. First of all it's not just a matter of counting !votes as I'm sure you know. Other than your nomination, the next deletion comment came in before any sources were added. That editor did not rejoin the discussion, and to some extent I discounted that comment as a result since new sourcing was brought in (this is common). The third person in favor of deletion initially misread a source, and while still holding for deletion acknowledged that there was some coverage present. After that, a couple of additional sources were brought in which is at least somewhat significant (and was not really debated--had this not already been relisted I may have relisted again but it did not seem worth it).

So this was more of a 2:1 in favor of deletion, but frankly most of the discussion was between you and Moscowconnection. I think you both made valid points but there was not really a consensus that the sources available were or were not sufficient to establish notability of the album. The fact that there are not charts in Chile doesn't make a case either way really. Conceivably this could have been closed as delete, but I think no consensus makes a lot more sense.

Another reason for that was noted in my brief rationale--merging this article to the bio article on the artist is still certainly a possibility and you don't need AfD for that. The BLP on the artist was kept, and since, even had I deleted the album article, a redirect to the BLP from the album title would have been appropriate, very little is lost in terms of options by closing "no consensus." Perhaps give this a bit of time, and then consider starting a discussion on merging the album article if you still think it's not notable down the road.

Hope that helps, let me know if you have other questions. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Leonard Brand

Hi Bigtimepeace. I just wanted to make what I hope will come across as a constructive suggestion and nothing offensive with regard to your Leonard R. Brand AFD closure. It seems the main reason that you went with no consensus is the fact that the AFD discussion was longer and more disjointed than an AFD should be, which made it difficult to establish consensus. I would just warn that I feel this could set a bad precedent for future AFDs. The main reason that the AFD was so long was that DonaldRichardSands (talk · contribs), a strong defender of the article, kept repeatedly leaving long, rambling arguments that were unsolicited (meaning, not in response to anybody) that did not address any particular Wikipedia policies. And due to the no consensus vote, the ultimate result is that the article was kept, which was Donald's goal. The precedent I'm worried about is that people who wish to defend articles in the future will simply bombard the AFD with so much text that it will generate a "No Consensus" result in their favor. Already on Donald's talk page this strategy seems to be being celebrated, as one user wrote to him, "Verdict is in!!! The result: you bored him into no consensus, lol!" I'm not suggesting you overturn the AFD or anything -- I had considered taking it to WP:DRV, but I really don't have that strong of an opinion about the article staying anyway -- I just think it should be kept in mind for future AFDs. Thanks for listening, and no offense intended to you! (This was indeed a tough AFD to review.) — Hunter Kahn 16:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hunter and Bigtimepeace. Hunter has a valid concern. A review is one possible solution. Tweaking the policy on AfD's would help too. I have addressed my faux pas on my own user page. User:DonaldRichardSands#A time and place for everything: conversing.

The concept: Do not be conversant about life on notice boards. Other people have to read those boards to solve a Wikipedia concern. They don't want a lot of story-telling and philosophizing about life in general.

Probably the AfD already advises this? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I gotta agree with Hunter Kahn's assessment here. From the look of it, the debate is quite misleading to the closing admins because the actual arguments are glossed over by needless ramblings. Originally, I intended to close this debate as delete because the odds are in strong favor of the delete side, but I suspended from doing so because of DonaldRichardSands's sincere request for a short extension period so that he could provide more appropriate sources to prove the notability of the subject. However, DonaldRichardSands, as enthusiastic an editor as he is, still fails to carry out this task. Most of the sources cited in the article, while reliable, don't have significant coverage of the subject in question. Leonard R. Brand were only mentioned in passing and there are not enough secondary sources to prove that he's unique or his works have any significant impacts. That being said, I don't have any intention to bring it to WP:DRV. Just some of my thoughts about this matter. Cheers. @pple complain 17:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

To Hunter and @pple, I think your concerns are valid ones, and it would hardly have been a stretch to close this as delete. Leaving aside all of the chaff though--which frankly was mainly provided by Donald--there was a split as to whether the sourcing was significant enough to warrant inclusion of the subject. While Brand has clearly been discussed in secondary sources his notability is borderline at best. Delete arguments were, on the whole, stronger--frankly Hunter probably made the strongest argument in the AfD--but not to the point where I thought there was actual consensus for deletion, though I did give some thought to closing as delete. Part of the problem was that I imagine a number of people were discouraged from participating in this AfD due to its excessive length. This was sort of an exceptional situation, but my take is that this AfD was "broken" in a sense and that it was thus ill-advised to have it be the basis for a firm conclusion of delete.

It's extremely easy to run this again in a couple of months--actually it doesn't even have to be that long, so long as we get a bit of distance from this outcome--and that's exactly what should happen. Donald in particular should severely curtail his participation when that happens, perhaps to the point of making just a couple of comments. It's not a big problem if this article continues to exist for awhile longer, and I suppose it's possible it will be sourced sufficiently to allay concerns about notability.

All that said, I don't think this AfD should be taken as precedent for anything. The huge number of words Donald spilled onto the page was frankly borderline disruptive, but I don't think intentionally so (he probably should have been called on it sooner), and I've rarely if ever seen something along these lines, i.e. where there was not only a lot of discussion but a lot of extraneous text added.

I don't think this close was ideal, but I think basically calling a "do over" made the most sense. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think under the circumstances Big's efforts should be applauded. He spent 2 hours of his life reading that mess, 2 hours he'll never get back. He deserves a raise! At the very least a week off with pay. This whole thing was an aberration. Donald, bless his heart, was doing everything he could to save that crummy little article not knowing we were running out of disk space. There was no "strategy": in fact I told Donald all you need need are 2 more sources. Anyway, with or without Donald's wall WAAAAAAAAAALLLLL of text it was no consensus. Look at the brght side: Donald has more confidence, and improved morale. And let me tell you: he is an editing machine. He edits round the clock. We want to keep this workhorse happy--even it means delaying the inevitable demise of Mr. Brand by a month. I have a long list of articles he's going to help me get to GA and FA. Just remember one thing: I saw him first LOL.– Lionel ^(talk) 01:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Good close. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

And here. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The Dixon discussion was short. Hey Big, if you add Dixon and Brand together I think you break even. ;-) – Lionel ^(talk) 02:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Bigtimepeace: I think this apparent reversal in view by one of the few 'keep' !voters may alter your opinion of the 'balance'. But then again, you may decide that it's better to let the matter rest. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Big wrote "I see this as 'no consensus' not so much because of the !vote totals..." Exactly how many admins are you trying to piss off? – Lionel ^(talk) 08:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

A few days after the AfD I don't think it's appropriate to reverse the close just because one person is somewhat altering their view. Again the AfD should just be re-run a bit down the road, even in a few weeks if you want. If and when that happens feel free to contact me, and I can try to help monitor the discussion to make sure that Donald does not fill it with too much verbiage. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 13:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here!--Pharos (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Gargoyle Router Firmware

Please can you provide me the text of the deleted article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gargoyle_Router_Firmware . Thanks, Widefox (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Send me an e-mail and I'll e-mail you the text, as the e-mail user option is not enabled for you (or if you enable that let me know and I'll send it to you). Also, this article has been re-created under a slightly different title. I'll probably look into the similarities from the deleted article to see if it warrants being speedy deleted or not given the relatively recent AfD. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

E-mail enabled. Thanks. FYI there's a new AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle Router Firmware (2nd nomination). Widefox (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You should have mail, but if not let me know. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Cain again

I've been trying to add one sentence to the main Cain article that has to do with the scandal. Yes, I know most of it is supposed to be in the campaign article, and it is. But I explain why I think this one sentence is important on the talk page, but it's reverted and the reasons given are general, not specific to the content I'm adding or to the argument I'm giving. Can you help resolve this one way or another? I'm coming to you because I don't think I've ever disagreed with anyone who was more reasonable than you. Okay, maybe User:Hesperian. But you're in good company, believe me. Thanks. --born2cycle 10:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad I came off as reasonable enough in our exchange, I'm pretty busy the next few days but I'll try to have a look over there and weigh in. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

National Archives ExtravaSCANza

You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success! This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

MSU Interview

Dear Bigtimepeace,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk)23:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Bigtimepeace. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You're invited to Wiki-Gangs of New York @ NYPL on April 21!

Wiki-Gangs of New York: April 21 at the New York Public Library

Join us for an an civic edit-a-thon, Wikipedia meet-up and instructional workshop that will be held this weekend on Saturday, April 21, at the New York Public Library Main Branch. Venue: Stephen A. Schwarzman Building (NYPL Main Branch), Margaret Liebman Berger Forum (Room 227). Directions: Fifth Avenue at 42nd Street. Time: 11 a.m. - 5 p.m. (drop-ins welcome at any time) The event's goal will be to improve Wikipedia articles and content related to the neighborhoods and history of New York City - No special wiki knowledge is required! Also, please RSVP!--Pharos (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Black Supremacy

Hey, sorry to bug you about this, but ever since you and other Wikipedians reached consensus on how the first sentence in the Black Supremacy article should read (a consensus which included the word 'racist'), the article has experienced continual back-and-forth editing, mostly from IP addresses that seem to not take too kindly to the agreed-upon sentence. I've recently thrown my hat in the ring by trying to monitor the page and correct it following "drive-by" edits, but I wanted to alert you to the situation too, mostly because another user has accused me of sockpuppetry (which I am not), so I might not be able to edit the page in the near future. Hopefully, you can throw an eye every now and then just to check that it is the consensus version that is presented and not someone else's. The way the article is now (per my most recent edit, reverting another user that went against the consensus version) is the way I believe most closely follows the agreed-upon version that you and others came to in the past. Anyways, thanks for reading. Accreditor (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Celebration and Mini-Conference in NYC Saturday Feb 23

Doing the "Open Space" thing at one of our earlier NYC Wiki-Conferences.

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)