User talk:Epeefleche/Archive 1

Fangraphs

I have no strong opinions either way. The one time I saw that "secured site" message was from my office PC (gasp!) which suggests there might be something different going on with it which only my office PC's version of IE detected. If I were forced to cast a vote, I would probably vote Yes, just on the principle that the one guy who's so adamant against it also promotes his own pet spam site about Black Sox baseball cards. Baseball Bugs 08:47, June 7, 2007 (UTC)

Well now, I wouldn't want to force you of course. But I've never had anything like that show up when I access the site. And I'm not even sure what "secured site" means on your office's system. In any event, its not a site that's a sales site, or one that requires registration, which I think is what you are (rightfully) concerned about. Nothing spam about it at all. Feel free to check it from a non-office PC. (BTW, my office PC used to block all emails from a Monsieur Le Cock in France, until I had our techies address it). If you do believe that it is a helpful site to have, given that it has 69 unique categories of data and Tecmo was deleting it on the basis of it having no unique info, that would be great. But vote your heart. Tx. --Epeefleche 08:57, June 7, 2007 (UTC)

I now see that User talk:Tecmobowl has decided to stop editing for awhile, facing at least two 3RR threats, probably over this same issue. I'll take a further look at Fangraph when I get the chance. Baseball Bugs 09:02, June 7, 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he was blocked for going over the line – he violated the 3RR rule with regard to two baseball players (your guess was right), and is being punished. Tx for taking a look, as sanfranman is counting heads to see if we have a consensus on this or not.--Epeefleche 09:09, June 7, 2007 (UTC)

You're right. It's ironic he was taken down over an argument over a minor leaguer. And the "speculation" complaint was a mis-read. The article didn't say such-and-such was going to happen, it said so-and-so announced it was going to happen, which is factual (if somewhat trivial). I can only assume the user was going through some of what I was going through about a month ago when I came close to throwing in the towel. I came back with a somewhat better attitude. One key is not to be watching too many pages, as it can drive you crazy. I was watching over 2,000. Now I'm watching a hundred or so. I hadn't expected to run into trouble so quickly, but after too many arguments with that guy I mostly backed off and let the others do battle with him, figuring he would eventually go over the line and pay for it. Baseball Bugs 09:36, June 7, 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the way I read it, he has been suspended. For two violations. 48 hours.--Epeefleche 09:48, June 7, 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Consecutive rather than concurrent terms. I posted an article on User talk:Tecmobowl that someone had posted on my old page User talk:Wahkeenah when I said "I quit" in exasperation in mid-May. It's a bit painful to read, but it's worthwhile. Too many pages watched... getting too close to it... losing self-control... and especially the part about the middle of the night (and probably the wrong end of it, i.e. not waking early like I did today, but being up too late). Baseball Bugs 10:02, June 7, 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Tx. Yep, of course ridiculous stats, no matter how unique, wouldn't rate. But infield hits? To me, more important – with someone like Ichiro especially – than a day/night split. I had listed the stats that were unique in the discussion. Those familiar with baseball stats would recognize them from their names, and those unfamiliar with baseball would be able to go to the url and see the description of each category. Tx.--Epeefleche 02:09, June 14, 2007 (UTC)

Attention to a conversation

If you would like to discuss the merits of FG for inclussion, please do so here. //Tecmobowl 16:56, June 10, 2007 (UTC)

That would make no sense. There is an ongoing discussion of the subject, since May 31, with 7 other editors, at. Opening up discussion elsehwere could only confuse and dilute it. I would suggest that if you have any comments you bring them to the existing discussion, which already contains I might point out quite a number of entries by you on the subject.--Epeefleche 17:36, June 10, 2007 (UTC)

Dispute

Hi. It seems that you and Tecmobowl are currently engaged in a dispute. I am sure that you want to resolve this amicably, so can I please suggest that you review Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and have a go at following the process described. Leave me a note if I can be of further assistance, but hopefully you can sort it out yourselves. I have left exactly the same note for Tecmobowl. Cheers TigerShark 17:34, June 10, 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tiger Shark. Thanks much! I've tried Avoidance, Talk to the other parties involved, 3 Disengage for a while, Discuss with third parties, Informal mediation, and conducting a survey. Have also appealed to admins to mediate. Do you think that I should bring this to arbitration, and if so how do I do that? Tx. --Epeefleche 17:41, June 10, 2007 (UTC)

And this might interest you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#behavioral_problems_at_wikiproject_baseball:_Epeefleche.2C_Baseball_Bugs_and_Tecmobowl

So might this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tecmobowl_and_possible_sockpuppetry

Tecmobowl's an obsessive nut. Can they ban him? He degrades Wikipedia under some delusion of content ownership. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guilpert (talk • contribs) 20:16, June 25, 2007.

I have opened a request that he be blocked indefinitely for persistent disruption at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard .--Epeefleche 05:41, June 28, 2007 (UTC)

Update – he has been banned indefinitely.--Epeefleche 04:03, July 30, 2007 (UTC)

Fangraphs

I hope to avoid having to come to your talk page any more but this is just wearing on me. If you want to continue this discussion, I will watch this page and we can do so. However, I am very hesitant to communicate with you beyond this because of recent activities.

First, you might want to spend some time at WP:TPG. It will give you a great deal of information on how to handle long discussions, when to break up comments and when not to, and how to handle your own talk page.

Second, the existing conversations regarding the varioius EL sites are there and available to anyone who wants to read them. This discussion is an attempt to remove all of the fluff and personal attacks and bad blood floating around the other discussion. Furthermore, the other discussion is exteremly difficult to follow for several reasons. Per TPG, please leave it alone.

Third, as an extension of the fangraphs/url inclusion argument, there are a number of things that have been "left" out of the conversation. Because it has been so hard to get peoples opinion on the content relevant to wiki guidelines, I have been unable to see a useful discussion. I believe that I mispoke when i said "There is a consensus on ...". I was speaking specifically to the group of people engaged in the discussion and NOT toward the concept as described at WP:CON. Please spend some time reviewing WP:CON. It will be very helpful.

Lastly, there are a number of things that will have to be considered regarding all the sites being discussed. In fact, a number of the 'questions' that must be answered are simple Yes/No questions. They include, but are not limited to: a) Does said site include any unique information? b) If there is any unique information, is it significant enough to necessitate its' inclusion in the EL section? c) Would said site's unique information be useful to the laymen? d) If the purposed site also contains a significant amount of information already contained in a site that is already accepted, should the new site simply replace the old site? Again, there are a number of other questions to be asked, but that should give you an idea. All of this is geared toward figuring out whether or not a site meets the criteria laid out in WP:EL.

Let's just keep the discussions focused on the topics at hand.//Tecmobowl 10:07, June 15, 2007 (UTC)

Despite a consensus on including the Fangraphs url as an EL in baseball bios, and despite prior comments by you evidencing that you agree that the formatting there is unique, and despite the heavy evidence of unique data, you are filibustering. This is disruptive.

You also opened up discussion of that issue, already discussed on one place, elsewhere. That only has the effect of confusing people who try to follow the discussion, and contribute. They are best served by it being in one place. Just now, when I sought to centralize discussion, you RVd my change. The relevant revisions are on the history page at, focusing on today's revisions. This is disruptive.

Released from your 3rd or 4th block of the month today, you are again deleting Fangraphs ELs, as well as others – for example, Hank Greenberg and Ichiro Suzuki. This is disruptive.

Deletion of urls, without consensus, causes more harm than retaining them. Let's assume there is a 50–50 chance that consensus will be reached either way, as to any of these urls. If it is decided that they should not have been deleted, who will go look for ELs that you have deleted, and restore the ELs? How will one easily find them? This is a highly labor intensive process. How does one find the ELs if people have deleted them from different user names? Even if one seeks to only restore the ELs that you have deleted that had, say, Fangraphs and url X, we would have to search your edit history. And then search in the history of each baseball bio for the EL. Or else, as to the second step, perform an independent search for the Fangraphs (and other) ELs to recreate them. Notably, the problem with finding the deleted EL in the history becomes greater as time passes, and there are more revisions on the history page.

It is not the same the other way. If it is decided by consensus that any retained ELs should be deleted, one need only search for the url. The bios, with the ELs, all then pop up quite readily, and the ELs can be readily deleted.

Given this, if nothing else, such ELs should be maintained, as consensus is sought, not deleted. Great disruptive damage has been done already. And even today, you have gone on to create even more disruption.--Epeefleche 10:19, June 15, 2007 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One is the content. One is your behavior. Your behavior, such as your failure to follow consensus as to Fangraphs, interferes with our ability to address other urls, and impacts the content that appears on the bios. There is in fact a relationship between the two. But you are correct, in that even if your behavior is addressed, either by you or by an admin, there is still the issue of addressing the content. Your actions that I refer to above have the effect of slowing down that process.

I, as others have said, expect that were you to put your mind towards postive additions to articles, rather than deletions of materials that most of us believe should not be deleted, you would be a helpful addition to Wikipedia editorial efforts. And given that you are interested in the same subjects as the rest of us, that would be appreciated by those who have expressed displeasure over your deletions. As it stands, however, you are un-doing the positive work that people have put into this effort. That troubles people, and disrupts forward movement.

Are you going to add back the urls that you have deleted as to which consensus exists, and will be established in the future?--Epeefleche 10:45, June 15, 2007 (UTC)

I am again forced to stop discussing this matter with you. I don't care who does and does not like my behavior. I don't care who does and does not like your behavior. I do not care who does and does not like IrishGuy's, Miss Mondegreen's, or Baseball Bugs behavior. All i care about is that content is well based and that the guide lines are followed. I have been banned once for knowingly reverting your edits more than 3 times because you have spammed that site to a ridiculous level. Go look at this] version of the Greenberg article. Go click on some of those links. See what happens. Then go and see how many of them fail WP:EL. I am not going to discuss my behavior anymore. I will unilaterally eliminate fangraphs in the EL section for significant articles and leave it in the insignificant articles. Unique presentation of the information IS NOT grounds for inclusion in an article. Sorry we could not have a better discussion on the matter. As another note, I love how you just reverted the edit on Chipper Jones article when it included a site YOU WANTED IN. You really are deserving of a personal attack. //Tecmobowl 10:55, June 15, 2007 (UTC)

As was already mentioned, Fangraphs, uniquely, has hitters' 1B, BB%, K%, BB/K, ISO, BABIP, RC, RC/27, GB/FB, GB%, FB%, IFFB%, HR/FB, IFH%, BUH%, GB, FB, LD, IFFB, Balls, Strikes, Pitches, IFH, BU, BUH, WPA, -WPA, +WPA, BRAA, REW, pLI, phLI, PH, WPA.LI, and Clutch. Also uniquely, Fangraphs supplies the following for pitchers: BS, K/9, HR/9, BABIP, LOB%, FIP, GB/FB, LD%, GB%, FB%, IFFB%, HR/FB, IFH%, BUH%, GB, FB, LD, IFFB, Balls, Strikes, RS, IFH, BU, and BUH, WPA, -WPA, +WPA, BRAA, REW, pLI, in LI, gmLI, exLI, and Pulls. It also has sorts for starters vs. relievers. Fangraphs also provides some spring training stats, and Bill James, CHONE, Marcel, and ZIPS projections. It has a game log, play log, compare players feature, news articles, and unique graphical presentations. Furthermore, the unique graphical presentation that other editors have found to be particularly helpful there is ground for inclusion in their views; I don't see any support for your view, expressed for the first time above, that it is not grounds for inclusion. --Epeefleche 11:00, June 15, 2007 (UTC)

Update – Tecmo was banned indefinitely for disruptive editing.--Epeefleche 04:05, July 30, 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL supersedes that discussion.

That's all there is to it. You and the other editors that have a problem with me (and you know who i'm talking about) – absolutely refuse to focus on the content of the discussion in a simple and focused matter. FG is fine for referencing, but it is not going in the EL section when B-R, ESPN, MLB, & The BaseballCube all do a better job of adhering to the EL standards. You can stop warning me. //Tecmobowl 17:45, June 27, 2007 (UTC)

There is an overwhelming consensus on the Baseball Talk page expressing a view that differs from yours. Kindly respect the consensus, and the possiblity that your interpretation may not be the correct one – it is certainly not agreed to by the consensus of editors. Thanks. --Epeefleche 17:47, June 27, 2007 (UTC)

There is NOT an overwhelming consensus. Until you focus on content, I will not discuss this with you any further. Plastering this conversation in 50 different places, breaking up comments, moving content around at your discretion has rendered those conversations unusable. //Tecmobowl 17:49, June 27, 2007 (UTC)

• To the contrary. The vote was 9–2 in favor of Fangraphs. Plus conditional support from Caknuck. There have been comments of support by Sanfranman59, Nishkid64, Wizardman, Alansohn, Baseball Bugs, No Guru, me (Epeefleche), ►ShadowJester07 , and Jackaroodave (whose analysis I found to be especially incisive). And of those 2 negative indications, only yours had any analysis (other than Howe's comment that FG is "essentially a blog," which is manifestly wrong). And your stated rationale for deleting Fangraphs – your contention that it is not unique – has been disproven.--Epeefleche 18:08, June 27, 2007 (UTC)

Update – Tecmo was banned indefinitely for disruptive editing.--Epeefleche 04:07, July 30, 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts; [Longlevi, commenting below, was banned as a sockpuppet of indefinitely banned user Tecmobowl]

I have to say that I am not inclined to agree with you that any consensus was reached on those discussions. That really was not a well conducted conversation and most of the people involved acted very poorly and as others pointed out, the straw poll was faulty. I do not agree that a consensus was reached, nor do I think those discussions should supersede WP:EL if they do not address the circumstances. I am also not sure why you simply reverted the entire edit as the two biography sites can, and should be, used as references. I think you are very close to this topic and it might be best if you took some time off and let others get involved. I think it reflects poorly on you when you continually harp on someone that is not here anymore and you should leave their name out of the edit summaries. People will be more inclined to engage you if you keep to the content being discussed.  Long Levi  00:33, July 12, 2007 (UTC)

You said I do not agree that a consensus was reached, nor do I think those discussions should supersede WP:EL. That is pretty close to this edit summary wouldn't you say? IrishGuy ^talk 00:50, July 12, 2007 (UTC)

Update – Longlevi was banned as a sockpuppet of indefinitely banned user Tecmobowl.--Epeefleche 04:09, July 30, 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of Articles and your revert of Lou Sockalexis; [Note: editor 75.203.180.191, who has made entries below, has since been banned from Wikipedia]

It seems you are upset, but please don't undo perfectly good edits. You tagged two Negro League teams for CSD and restored an older version of the Sockalexis article which was obviously weaker than the newer version. 75.203.180.191 08:28, July 19, 2007 (UTC)

Note: The above user 75.203.180.191|75.203.180.191 was found to be a sock of indef banned user Tecmobowl, and was banned himself per WP:BAN.--Epeefleche 05:51, July 22, 2007 (UTC)

The above is a Verizon Wireless user, which Tecmo/Levi made a point that he is. Baseball Bugs 09:55, July 19, 2007 (UTC)

• My edits that you refer to were reverts of edits made by a banned user (Longlevi, a sock of Tecmobowl) after he was banned. And the application of a tag to articles he created after he was banned. My edits were made pursuant to WP:BAN, which provides as follows: Enforcement by reverting edits Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users....It is not possible to revert newly created pages, as there is nothing to revert to. Such pages may be speedily deleted. Any user can put a {{db-ban}} to mark such a page." --Epeefleche 14:15, July 19, 2007 (UTC)

I can see that it's a struggle to get that article in shape. If Tecmo/Levi did, in fact, put unsourced superlatives in there, he should be slapped again. He had a problem with comments in the Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Cy Young, etc., articles stating openly that these players are considered among the greats... that it was POV-pushing. The little hypocrite, as usual. Baseball Bugs 01:09, July 23, 2007 (UTC)

Merkle

Because the previous version of the article was more complete and informative. It was only whacked when some other user decided to make separate articles for Merkle and for the play. Since that decision was reversed, it seemed best to restore what he knocked out – especially, since as I said, the older version is more informatie and more complete. So that is why.

Not anything I'd care to battle over, though, so if you really like the other version better, then very well. I put it back. Mwelch 04:23, July 23, 2007 (UTC)

Hi --If you want to go through the differences between the two, borrowing the best of each, great. My problem is that I made interim revisions, such as the one that I pointed to. Which you have now reverted. Those revisions were good ones. It is not a matter I think of which version is better – now that I have made revisions in the interim. If you think "your" version is better, you should included the proper revisions that I had made in the other version, such as the one I refer to above. Does that make sense, or am I being unclear at this late hour?--Epeefleche 04:29, July 23, 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I don't have time to do all that now and likely won't for another week or so since I've got a business trip to take tomorrow. In the absence of being able to amalgamate the two like that, I'd respectfully disagree that it's not a matter of which version is better. One will have to stand until what you suggest above is done. Seemed to me that that one should be the more complete one (not "mine" since much of it I did not write, and even parts I that I did were not my own contributions, but edits of others'). I hadn't expected that call to be particularly controversial, but obviously I was mistaken. As I noted, my feeling about that version to stand in the interim is not strong enough to put up a fight over the matter. If I get time next week, maybe I'll worry about it more then. But in the meantime, if you prefer the newer version to be there instead, that's fine.

Cheers! Mwelch 05:20, July 23, 2007 (UTC)

Hi M. I'm happy to wait for you to do it – you seem to be reliable and reasonable. Tx.--Epeefleche 05:24, July 23, 2007 (UTC)

And guess which user insisted on separating into two articles after the issue had seemingly already been decided once? In fact, Mr. Welch had an "early" encounter with Herr Tecmobowl on this matter, about the first week of May. Little did we all know how that would turn out. It's fitting that Tecmo was working on an article about a "bonehead play", yes? Baseball Bugs 05:32, July 23, 2007 (UTC)

Links on Dave Matthews

It looks like fansites aren't specifically mentioned at WP:EL anymore, but I really don't see how they are more than just specialized personal web pages. Farm Aid is already linked to from his page, and people can find their link from there. If it has to be there, I'd prefer to use the link as a reference about his being a director and remove it from the external links. The file sharing site...I guess that one's fine since they are one of the few bands that don't mind people recording at their shows. I suppose I don't have a problem with the tabs or almanac links either. --Onorem♠Dil 21:11, July 25, 2007 (UTC)

Curious; Banned Editor Tecmobowl

Was reading up on an old post of yours here. Could you tell me the original account of Tecmobowl? He's still at it. Durova^Charge! 15:14, September 8, 2007 (UTC)

I thought Tecmobowl was the original account of Tecmobowl. Now Jmfangio is also Tecmobowl but I don't know of any Tecmobowl before Tecmobowl. Also, what do you mean by linking to the Craigslist section of WP:ANI? Did you mean the "Blocked User:Jmfangio as a reincarnation of User:Tecmobowl" section? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:18, September 8, 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl started out as User:Blacksoxfan, although I'm not sure if that's what Durova is asking. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:33, September 8, 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha, I was not aware of that. Good to know. Did he confess to that somewhere? I know that's the name of his web site. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:54, September 8, 2007 (UTC)

I think his cover story was that that was a friend's ID or something, just like his story that the black sox website was owned by a friend. I've forgotten some of the details now, as I try not to dwell on that stuff too much. User:Irishguy's investigation indicated that they were all the same guy. Just as a side note, in addition to his interest in sports, Tecmo and his recent clone were both interested in video games. Tecmo was specifically into something called Tecmo Super Bowl, which is where he got that handle from. I'm not sure where Jmfangio comes from as a name, but he seemed to like Joe Montana. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:04, September 8, 2007 (UTC)

Chipper Jones

The Chipper Jones article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. – Jreferee ^(Talk) 08:13, September 16, 2007 (UTC)

Manzanar

		The Half Barnstar
		Thank you for your contributions to Manzanar, which is now an FA. I know we had our differences on the terminology thing, but we were able to reach a compromise that, while not ideal from my point of view, works. Nice work! FYI: if you're not familiar with the half barnstar, check out WP:BS for the explanation. – Gmatsuda 22:27, September 17, 2007 (UTC)

Ryan Braun is a GA

Congratulations on the Good Article status! I noticed you adding the article at WikiProject Wisconsin. I'm glad to see that one of my images is attached to a Good Article! Keep up the great work! Royalbroil 13:34, December 25, 2007 (UTC)

Viktor Barna

Can you please check this page, the number of World Titles he won was changed last year and the references seem to dispute how many, as you're the person who created the page I assume you're the best person to ask. --Jpeeling (talk) 09:32, April 7, 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. There seem to be divergent references. I've not time at the moment to determine which seems the soundest. If I get a chance ...(or feel free to yourself). Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:44, June 16, 2008 (UTC)

Archives

Please note that to create talk archives, you should use a forward slash "/", so as to create a subpage. I've fixed this with your user talk archive (hope you don't mind): recently a lot of these pages have been deleted. Regards, --RFBailey (talk) 22:54, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update on Sada Jacobson

Any chance you could do the same for the other medalists? I tried to add a section on 2008, but they need to have their sections updated with 04 stuff as well if you can (or indeed expand the article in other directions). SirFozzie (talk) 01:42, August 10, 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Braun [Note: editor Jackal4, who has made entries below, has since been banned from Wikipedia]

Stop reverting my edits on Ryan Braun. Most of those awards in his infobox are not notable, a nickname goes after the birthdate, his bbcube page, which doesn't even link to the correct Ryan Braun, is http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/B/Ryan-Braun-1.shtml his name is capitalized. He doesn't steal a lot of bases or score any more runs than average, and his infobox should be like every other MLB player's the stats are updated through the 2008 season not Oct. 1 and it should have his birthplace in it. If you revert them again I am reporting you. Jackal4 (talk) 20:20, November 17, 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you as to notability, and agree with the others – including those who gave this an A rating when it had those attributes. If you like, leave it as it has been and demonstrate support for your position, or bring in others to arbitrate this. Stop reverting us. Your views are your personal subjective views, and not in accord with the rest of us.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:24, November 17, 2008 (UTC)

What other changes would you suggest, and for what reason? Those – and the stats and your view of their notability – seemed to me to be your primary changes. I would be interested in hearing what others you would like to make, and on what basis.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:02, November 17, 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Braun (pitcher); Dispute re Jackal4 Failure to Follow Image Placeholders Directive

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ryan Braun (pitcher). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:19, November 20, 2008 (UTC)

Re: Jackal4; Various Wiki Violations, Including Those Detailed Below

Thanks. Sure – one example – is this use of profanity when dealing with those who criticize the innapropriateness of his edits; see, for example, his accusations of those who criticize him: "You wouldn't have triggered an edit war if you didn't ... fuck up articles".

A second example – is his violation of the image placeholders directive, which mandates that one not put up the ugly blank in lieu of a picture. The examples are replete in his revisions over the past months.

One (of many) example can be found at.

I asked him to clean up his dozens of innappropriate additions. His refusal can be found at, where he said, in part, "You'll be fine doing it yourself."

A third example – is his penchant for deleting perfectly good quote boxes that I have inserted in articles, and then continuing to do so when I reinsert them. An example of this activity on his part can be found at.

A fourth example – when another writer complained about Jackal4's innappropriate behavior on a third party's talk page (where the third party had warned Jackal4 in the past for similar behavior, Jackal4 deleted that complaint from the third party's talk page. See. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:10, January 23, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there's some seriously inappropriate behavior. The profanity, and saying you have a "fetish" for those articles, were way out of line. I'm not sure exactly what I can say that you and several others haven't already, but I will think on it.

I have to admit, though, that I'm sympathetic to removing those quote boxes. I'm visually impaired and have my font set pretty large, and those boxes make the article look pretty chaotic and hard to read for me. Just my preference, of course, and not a justification for their removal. Then again, that's the same reason I support removing those placeholder pictures. I did not know that there was consensus to remove them, and I will do so gladly wherever I see them from now on :) . -Dewelar (talk) 03:33, January 23, 2009 (UTC)

He's really starting to get on my nerves. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=265853109&oldid=265852196#Disruptive_edits_by_Jackal4
I say give him the ol' banhammer. =P – Eugene Krabs (talk) 04:04, January 23, 2009 (UTC)

I see you've posted this at WP:ANI, which is a good course of action. However, please refrain from the accusations of vandalism, because good-faith edits are not considered vandalism no matter how much you disagree with it. Continuing to do so is uncivil and bordering on a personal attack. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:54, January 23, 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Jackal4 has – as clearly evidenced even in the few examples set forth above – engaged repeatedly in massive vandalism. Jackal4's vandalism includes, inter alia:

1) Jackal4's use of obscenities/profanity (which is per se vandalism, and is also considered "Userspace Vandalism" and when used in edit summaries as Jackal4 has done – "Edit Summary Vandalism" by Wiki when – as Jackal4 has done – it is made on a user page),

2) deletion of legitimate content without any non-frivolous reason, including "Discussion Page Vandalism" in which Jackal4 has deleted posts of other users from talk pages other than his own; and

3) insertion in massive numbers of articles of material/images (and refusal to subsequently remove material) that the above-cited image placeholder directive instructs should not be added

--Epeefleche (talk) 23:19, January 23, 2009 (UTC)

Yet another, fifth, example of Jackal4's violation of Wiki guidelines are his violations most recently of the Wiki Guideline on Honesty.

When I indicated that Jackal4 had used profanity, and deleted others' communications on others' talk pages, Jackal4 deleted my comment, falsely writing in his edit summary "(removed false accusations)." See. In fact, as detailed above, the accusations were correct.

I responded by asking "... how can you delete my comment that you used profanity on the basis that it is a false accusation? What you deleted details its veracity."

Jackal4 engaged in further duplicitiousness when he, in further discussion of this issue, wrote "(cur) (prev) 22:38, January 23, 2009 Jackal4 (Talk | contribs) (11,197 bytes) (Undid revision 266041160 by Epeefleche (talk) I didn't say what you said that was false)"

But in fact, Jackal4 clearly did just that. His edit summary, which you inserted to explain his deletion of my true statements, says precisely that. He was untruthful, again, which is against Wiki rules. See [WP:HONESTY]. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:18, January 24, 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ian Kinsler

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Ian Kinsler you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 10 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:09, May 28, 2009 (UTC) Tx!--Epeefleche (talk) 09:09, May 29, 2009 (UTC)

Hello, just wanted to notify you that I've started listing items for review and improvement at the Ian Kinsler GA review page. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:56, June 2, 2009 (UTC)

FAC

Hi Epeefleche. I just want to let you know some of the protocol surrounding WP:FAC. When you want to nominate an article, don't forget to transclude the nomination at WP:FAC so that reviewers will be able to find it. Please note that the rules as stated on the FAC page currently permit only one article nomination per nominator; this is to ensure that a) the nominator has time to resolve any issues that may come up, and b) reviewers aren't overloaded with articles by the same person, which may contain similar issues. I've removed the FAC for Ryan Braun, as another one had already been entered at the FAC nomination page. Welcome to FAC, and if you have questions, feel free to ask on my talk page or at the FAC talk page. Karanacs (talk) 15:52, May 29, 2009 (UTC)

Non-English citations; Ehud Banai

Thanks for the info. I did not know about this. --Kbob (talk) 01:17, June 4, 2009 (UTC)

Braun FA Nomination

I haven't had a chance to get on Wiki the last week or two, so I just got your message... I checked the nominations page but it looks as if the discussion has passed. I was just wondering how it went, sorry I couldn't give my two cents. At the very least his article is very close to being FA-worthy. Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 07:54, June 8, 2009 (UTC)

Tx. It was put on hold as there was another nomination pending from me (see above discussion). I did not know that I personally could not nominate two at once. But I gather that if you would like to nominate it, you should feel free to do so! Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:32, June 16, 2009 (UTC)

Your responses on CfD

Hi there. I'm an admin who monitors Categories for discussion. I'm Jewish, and I have frequently sparred with Otto, whom I often find abrasive. I'm going to say this so that it is crystal clear: stop suggesting Otto is an anti-Semite. Instead of swaying people on the merit of your argument, you're ginning up people against Otto's nominations based on spurious and ugly intimations that he dislikes Jews. This is a group discussion, not a flame war. He has every right to attempt to get you banned, and I will support him if this continues. Am I clear?--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:18, June 16, 2009 (UTC)

• Mike, all I've pointed out in that regard is that: 1) Otto has singled out Jewish categories for deletion in his last 500 edits; though his arguments related to all nationalities/ethnicities/religions, and 2) that he has lied. Those are both worthy of consideration. If you have a problem with that, I think it is wrong-headed, and urge you to seek the involvement of an administrator immediately. I think that it is quite appropriate to point out when someone lies here, it is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and your suggestion/threat that you would seek to have me banned for it is clearly innapropriate. Again, I urge you to involve an admin at the earliest opportunity.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:33, June 16, 2009 (UTC)

• Otto wrote, well before you attacked him: "The category was discovered while looking through Category:Jews by occupation. If there are other models by ethnicity categories that should be eliminated, then they can certainly be nominated." Then you wrote: "Is it the case that you have in fact focused on seeking to delete categories of Jews by occupation. And not all ethnicities and nationalities and religions by occupation? If so, why would that be?" So I'm not suggesting that pointing out when someone is lying is worthy of banishment. I am directly stating that alleging an anti-Jewish (or anti-any-other-ethnicity) agenda on another editor's part, when you have no evidence that such exists, is.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:50, June 16, 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps I'm not being clear, or assuming that you've followed the whole convuluted conversation without clarifying it. And btw—your use of "attack" is innapropriate, but that's just an aside. But here is the relevant material, as I see it. 1) Otto suggests in his discussions with another editor that his reasons for seeking deletion of a number of Jewish categories is not a focus on Jewish categories per se, but that his reasons have to do with his (innacurate, I would argue, and typically lacking citating to WP guidance) views on whether it is permissible to have categories of regligious/ethnic/national groupings). He also innappropriately calls the other editor "paranoid," but I don't address that. 2) I ask him Otto, therefore, if it is the case that he has in fact "focused on seeking to delete categories of Jews by occupation. And not all ethnicities and nationalities and religions by occupation? If so, why would that be?" 3) In his response to me, Otto lies. He writes, in a blanket scarcastic denial to a very direct question, devoid of the vitriol of Otto's writings: "Exactly what word in the phrase baseless and without merit is confusing to you?" 4) I then take a look at his last 500 edits. I note, and report to him, that despite his denial the facts show a quite different picture. He in fact sought to delete the categories of Jewish surnames, Jewish American models, Jewish astronauts, Jewish chess players, Jewish shutterbugs, Jewish conductors, Jewish economists, Jews by occupation, Jewish travel writers, Jewish fashion designers, and Hebrew names. But at the same time he did not seek to delete any categories of other nations, religions, or ethnicities. Sadly, while I assumed good faith, that is a rebuttable presumption, shaken by the facts. Lying is unethical and hurts the project. An honest Wikipedian does not say things they know to be untrue simply to support their argument. 5) The good faith guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence, and assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism, such as what you are seeking to chill here. But instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticised to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice.

So I asked again why that would be. That is all reasonable discourse, devoid on my part of flaming, vitriol, and bullying, assuming good faith, soliciting Otto's explanation rather than branding him, and devoid (on my part at least) of personal attacks, threats, and bullying. For you to seek to quash my reasonable discussion through threats of blockage is curious, and as I said I don't think it is appropriate. I do think it appropriate, however, for you to address the personal attacks by editors in regard to this, such as characterizing other editors publicly as paranoid or, here ..... as insecure. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy, and has not place in a reasoned discussion, and as an admin I think you might help the discourse (if so inclined) by taking appropriate action to quell such activity.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:53, June 16, 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a debate, and I'm not looking for feedback. I've made my position clear to Otto on his poor choice of words. It's up to him to decide whether he wants to hear that. It's also up to you whether you want to hear what I'm saying. You've left it for other editors to decide whether you mean to label him an anti-Semite. If you truly mean you don't, then revise or clarify your comments so there's no question.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:34, June 16, 2009 (UTC)

• How could Otto be an anti-semite? He has stated that he is Jewish. What I did say, which the evidence supports, is that while suggesting his efforts to delete categories is not specific to one religion/ethnicity/nation, the evidence of Otto's last 500 contributions suggests that that is not true. Failure to tell the truth bears on the good faith presumption, as does motive, and both issues are manifestly appropriate for discussion. I note that I've never asked Otto (or you) if he (or you) were Jewish (though you have both proffered that you are Jewish). I've laid out the facts, and asked Otto what his motive is. His response has been in stark contrast with his last 500 diffs, and has raised questions of honesty and motive. I don't see that any of the above calls for any additional clarification, and the good faith guideline manifestly does not prohibit discussion and criticism, such as what you are seeking to chill here. Whether he has an anti-specific-ethnicity agenda is an open question, thought his honesty issue and diffs are evidence are pertinent. Personal accusations such as "antisemite", "paranoid", "attack", "insecure" are poor personal attack word choice, and those personal attacks have been part of this conversation—but they are not my words.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:32, June 16, 2009 (UTC)

• * I never said I was Jewish. I said that my grandfather was Jewish, and while the Nazis would have agreed with you that I am Jewish, Judaism is passed matrilineally and so I am not. "Liar" is also a personal attack word, as is "singled out" and those have certainly been a part of your conversation. Otto4711 (talk) 20:58, June 16, 2009 (UTC) I have restored the preceding comment to its proper place in the thread. Please do not atempt to distort the thread by moving comments from their original position. Otto4711 (talk) 04:56, June 18, 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – of my last 500 edits as of the timestamp 17:33, June 16, 2009 (UTC) – 11 of which will appear on the second page of my contribution history after this edit is completed – 61 of them have been related to Jewish-related CFDs. I am including in that count edits relating to categories like "Hebrew surnames" but I am excluding edits relating to my ANI complaint about Wasserman. It also includes my comment at DRV regarding recreation of Category:Fictional Jews, a category that I supported keeping when it was nominated at CFD. That's about 12% of my last 500 edits. I feel constrained to point out that many of those edits would not have happened had I not been compelled to split a group nomination into separate ones. I have made, if I am counting correctly, 65 edits to other CFD discussions in the same 500 edits. A cursory, non-biased review of my edit history would reveal that I nominate categories relating to any number of areas of interest and do not focus or even pay that much attention to Judaism-related categories. What frequently happens at CFD is that a category relating to a particular area of interest will be nominated in isolation by one editor. Over the course of that CFD, other editors will review other similar categories to see if the issues regarding the first apply to them as well. If so, then those categories may also end up being nominated. A good recent example of this is the Category:Accused spies structure. One category was put up for deletion and was deleted. Since the issues that led to the deletion of one "accused spies" category probably apply equally to the entire structure, the rest of the structure was put up for deletion. There was no "anti-accused spies" agenda at work. Similarly, Shawn in Montreal has been putting a good deal of work in on the film awards categories. He does not, to the best of my knowledge, have an "anti film awards agenda". As I stated, with the recent nomination of a number of Jews by occupation categories, I looked at the parent and nominated those for which I saw no encyclopedic relationship between being Jewish and the occupation. I still do not believe there is, for instance, any link between being Jewish and being a fashion model, nor is there a Jewish way to model clothes. For this I am branded an anti-Semite, a conspirator and a liar. And I see that you are continuing in this attempt even now in the various CFD discussions. I will see you at ANI, as I believe your actions have now risen to the level of disrupting the project. Otto4711 (talk) 20:10, June 16, 2009 (UTC)
• This may be too late, but I'll try anyway. Mike asked me to take a look at this situation. You two have a bigger problem than a few CFD's. I think both of you could do with some time apart. You've both been threatened with blocking by Rlevse, and I don't see that either of you have taken those words to heart. If this ends up at ANI (it may already be there, haven't checked), you'll both probably wind up blocked. If so, when the blocks expire, please think about what got you here. Epee, you need to stop being concerned about why anyone nominated a category for deletion. Deal with the issue at hand. Give reasons why you think it should be kept. Don't comment on the nominator, whoever it may be. Because speaking as someone who closes a lot of CFD's, if your arguments to keep are based upon the nominator's beliefs, I'm going to discount your them as irrelevant. And Otto, tone it down. You are frequently abrasive when you clearly don't need to be. Same with you: present your arguments in a levelheaded tone, don't comment on the editor. You two are not going to agree, that much is clear. Which is fine. But if you are to convince others to agree with your arguments, you'll both do well to stick to the issues, and leave the other out of it. And if all else fails, WP:DR is thataway, give it a shot. --Kbdank71 20:34, June 16, 2009 (UTC)
• Otto – what I said was that of your last 500 edits, all in which you sought to delete an ethnicity/nationality/religion category were focused on deleting Jewish categories. You maintained that that was not the case, which is at odds with the evidence. Truthfullness is a hallmark of appropriate editing here. And Mike (and Mike's invitee), the assumption of good faith is not meant to chill discussion. If Otto were to seek to delete all African American categories, and only African American categories, though his argument were that there should not be categories of any race, then I believe it would be appropriate for people to consider as to his motive. It is not a violation of Wikipedia guidelines to point that out. Nor to point it out when someone's words are at odds with their practice. Nor, as I have done with Otto, when they misstate Wiki guidelines, or make up standards that do not exist. I have discussed all of this at the CFD in level tones. I'm completely within my rights when pointing out dishonesty, with specific evidence. And I'm completely within my rights when asking questions as to motive in circumstances such as these. If the person deciding the CFD sees things differently than I do, that of course is their perogative, and they can discount any of those points as they see fit. But it is by no means a violation of Wiki standards for me to have done what I have done. I've never been blocked (though I note Otto has many times). The reference by Mike's invitee to Rlevse misses entirely the fact that I invited Rlevse to weigh in (rather than engage in an edit war), and that I followed the precise Wiki directions as to how to resolve the edit dispute, which was resolved properly. I've not violated Wiki guidelines in tone or content. I've also discussed the substantive issues in depth.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:26, June 18, 2009 (UTC)

• what I said was that of your last 500 edits, all in which you sought to delete an ethnicity/nationality/religion category were focused on deleting Jewish categories. This is a deliberate mischaracterization of my history, as immediately after splitting out the group Jewish nom I nominated several nationality categories (the "accused spies" tree) for deletion.
• If Otto were to seek to delete all African American categories, and only African American categories – this statement is based on a false premise, as I have not sought to delete all Judaism categories, nor have I only nominated Judaism categories for deletion. This is a base and deliberate misrepresentation of both my actions and my so-called "motives".
• You have repeatedly violated Wikipedia guidelines by calling me a liar without justification. This is an absolute violation of WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I have explained time after time after time the process that led to these nominations. I have no doubt that you understand exactly what happened here, but it serves your goal of falsely painting me as an anti-Semite and a liar. Your examination of my edit history in no way supports your ridiculous assertions and your continued wide-eyed insistence that you're simply asking a question would be laughable on its face were it not for how disgusting it is. The only reason that this isn't at ANI already is because of Kdbank's blocking threat, but if you continue in your deceptions and false accusations then taking a block to put an end to your poisonous attacks might end up being worth it to me. Your behaviour here and at CFD is reprehensible and a strong indication that you have no sense of personal shame. Otto4711 (talk) 04:56, June 18, 2009 (UTC)

• Help me here, Otto. Looking through those 500 diffs I saw ones relating to your efforts to delete the categories of: 1) Jewish surnames, 2) Jewish American models, 3) Jewish astronauts, 4) Jewish chess players, 5) Jewish shutterbugs, 6) Jewish conductors, 7) Jewish economists, 8) Jews by occupation, 9) Jewish travel writers, 10) Jewish fashion designers, and 11) Hebrew names. But at the same time I did not seek you in any of those diffs seek to delete any categories of other nations, religions, or ethnicities. If I missed those, can you please point me to them? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:05, June 18, 2009 (UTC)

Invite; University of Florida

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

• Jccort (talk) 21:54, June 27, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; Italian-american

I have added my input at the Italian-american poly deletion over there. Thanks for the warning. Wm.C (talk) 03:04, July 10, 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Youkilis

Hey. The Good article nom on him is now on hold – I'll give you a week to fix all the issues, hopefully that'll be taken care of. Wizardman 01:40, July 27, 2009 (UTC)

Good work on the article. :) Enigma^msg 00:41, July 31, 2009 (UTC)

98.15.150.182; Block

I have declined your block request at WP:AIV for 98.15.150.182 (talk · contribs). If you wish to continue the discussion, please use my talk page. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 23:00, July 30, 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I actually have no idea what to add to what I've already said. The user was warned twice. Then blocked in June. He then followed by making at least 5 mored vandal edits; at least half of his 10 edits since his block have been vandalsim. Received 3 more warnings. Seems pretty standard support for another block, especially since vandal edits are being made to a bio of a living person – and we are especially concerned with those.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:07, July 30, 2009 (UTC)

As noted at the top of the AIV page, "unregistered users must be active now," however this IP's last vandalism edit was 17 hours ago, which is clearly not "active now." Regardless, AIV also requires that "the user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop." The IP's last vandalism edit was at 22:21 on 7/29, for which you issued a level-two warning at 17:08 on 7/30. Since the IP has not vandalized since receiving your {{uw-vandalism2}} warning, it would appear that the person took heed of your warning and stopped their disruptive editing. To block the IP now -when he or she has actually followed the instructions in your level-two warning and stopped vandalizing- would be both punitive and an assumption of bad faith. However if you still do not like my or Enigmaman's answer, and you wish to continue admin shopping, there are about 1700 other admins to choose from; I am sure you could eventually find one willing to issue a punitive block. — Kralizec! (talk) 00:05, July 31, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. It's not clear to me that "now" in that regard means a period shorter than 17 hours; I would think that anything within 24 hours would be fine, as the concern seems to be a response to a long-gone user. Suggesting that 17 hours is too long seems arbitrary; even a once-a-day checker of the article would not be expected to see the vandalism is less than 24 hours, and here it was caught in less time than that. As to sufficient recent warnings – we can only warn him after his vandalism (which was done). He was warned and blocked in June. Again, I guess "recent" is up for interpretation. But this seems to be the same guy, as he is vandalizing the same article he has been warned for in the past. Surely we are not following an approach that allows him to vandalize it once every six week, without ever being blocked. As to your last point, the vandal was just given my last warning minutes before she was reported. The sequence is always (is it not?) vandal-warn-report. Here, it is vandalize multiple times-warn multiple times-block- .... and now vandal edit 3 more times (since the multiple prior warnings and block, including to the same article), 2 more warnings ... but no block?--Epeefleche (talk) 00:16, July 31, 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Enigma^msg 02:08, August 2, 2009 (UTC)

Category Deletion Discussion – Italian Americans

Hi, Epeefleche.

I missed all the fun, huh? Oh well.

I perused the discussion, because this issue of supposed overcatting/multiple intersections is an important one. Judging by that discussion and its outcome, there seems to be no consensus on the matter. I'm a bit confused. SamEV (talk) 01:36, August 7, 2009 (UTC)

As am I, as am I. I suspect that little is as simple as it seems.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:09, August 7, 2009 (UTC)

Ian Kinsler

On the surface, the article looks fine. If I can find time I'll give the full GA review. Wizardman 16:05, August 24, 2009 (UTC)

Scott Feldman GA

I've now passed the article, great work.--Giants27 (c|s) 19:36, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

Davis Cup rankings

I deleted them because some of them were out of date, but if you want to update them for next week you can go ahead add them back. I like your suggestion for "ranking as of..." although maybe we could wait until the new rankings are out next Monday, since they will be the rankings the players will have when the ties are played? Morhange (talk) 20:29, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Either way works for me. I understand your point about things becoming dated, but the Wiki way in all infoboxes with dated info seems to be (one could imagine a different approach) to allow people to include info, but just require them to have an as/of date. Sometimes the info is terribly dated, but the reader can then see that. I understand your personal initial take, but I think that as far as these specific semi-finalist are concerned, that information is among the most interesting that readers might read going into the match. I may not have time to handle this for more than a country or two, but now that at least I know we have a meeting of the minds I will do that. Feel free to update at will. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:25, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Blocked; Block lifted on Appeal

You have been blocked for 1 month for violating Wikipedia's sockpupppetry policy, as evidenced by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Epeefleche/Archive. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. NW (Talk) 15:25, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Epeefleche (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am falsely accused of sockpuppetry, because a user named “Holtzman” voted on an AFD that I voted on. “Holtzman” is not me. This was apparently confirmed by the checkuser, which indicated we were not related. I do not know them, and have not had contact with them. Indeed, their name and use suggests a clumsy user, commenting on an article (Scott Holtzman) by the same name as the name they chose as a username (which by itself should independently raise possible COI issues), who for all I know ended up at my page because – as pointed out – they previously edited a page I edited. They would not be the first editor to follow me, and edit what I edit – in fact two users in the instant AFD debate have done precisely the same thing. Even their edits did not add to to the discussion; if this were a vote that would be one thing, but we all know that an AFD is not a vote, but based on thinking advanced, and that user advanced no new thinking. I in contrast have never been blocked for disruptive editing (until this), am a constructive user with years and over 20,000 constructive edits under my belt, a few barnstars, and a few GAs. While I have at times used alternative accounts so that I could have watchlists specific to certain areas (for example, one on “dates” to make date revisions, one on the “VMAs” for music related edits, etc. – sort of a file system for type of edit), and while my computer has been shared with roommates, and at times I have edited from their log-in (my sister EthelH up till a number of weeks ago when she left for Iraq; replaced by my new roomate Applegigs – but neither of them used the name Holtzman), I have not used any alternative account for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent the enforcement of Wikipedia policies. Indeed, I’ve also taken care not to comment on any votes involving either roomate. None of my accounts other than VMAsNYC commented on the AFD at issue. The only indicated party that did do so is Holtzman, and he/she is not connected to me. I believe a look at my record will show me to have been a constructive editor without any blocks for disruption, and further that it will demonstrate that I am not related to the Holtzman editor other than through the fact that we have a revised page in common and votes on an AFD in common. I worked on the Scott Holtzman article because I read his book, which was a bestseller (so presumably I’m not the only one), and thought it great. Just as with others of the thousands of articles I’ve edited, it is not because I am Holtzman (as your checkuser will show), or the band, or the baseball player, or the politician, or the tennis player, or the criminal … I’ve just had reason to read about them, and have interest in them. Thank you for your time.

Decline reason:

Perhaps you missed the bit where the checkuser confirmed you were operating nine other accounts that weren't initially brought up at the SPI. Would you care to comment on those, since those are the accounts that led to your block? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:25, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Only one account that I am connected to in any way (in the sense of emanating from my computer) weighed in on that AfD – Applegigs. I understand that it would have been incorrect for me to weigh in on the AfD with more than one account, and for that reason and to avoid any question I did not then in addition weigh in from any of my accounts. Had I realized that someone would think that edits to the article would be the same as weighing in on an AfD I would not have done that either. (I would note that a number of editors, including ones seeking its deletion, made edits to that article along the way, so I'm not sure that edits by themselves neccessarily are tantamount to a vote against an AfD). I would be happy to just edit out of my main account from now on if that is suggested, to avoid any confusion. As I said, I believe I have a stainless track record, and I'm happy to proceed as told.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:12, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

As to The Shells, I simply started thinking about the VMAs/trios/the Shells while under my main user name, and then subsequently when I realized that it would likely spawn an independent music watchlist that I would want to segregate in its own right I created a VMAs name for the bulk of those edits (much as I had a 10isfan name for a tennis-specific list, another name relating to numbers for when I wanted to bring edits into conformity w/the wiki guidance on dates, etc.). I didn't try to hide anything – just the opposite; I went directly to the same editor (Mazca) under my new music-specific name when I had issues re starting the article, having contacted him just days before under my main name re the same article. My focus on Holtzman and the AfD are because those were the touchstones given in the block decision, which I was directed to read and respond to. And yes, I thought that (and perhaps this used to be the case) that was fine, as long as I was not involved in double voting, etc., and I was very careful never to do that. As pointed out by the checkuser, many of my accounts had no crossover whatsover. They were just my file system, spawning issue-specific watchlists. I see now (is this new? I don't recall reading it, but my reading was some time ago) that where that is the only reason, I should declare the other accounts. I didn't recall that, wasn't on top of that, and didn't do it. Am happy to now. I didn't in any way mean to influence any vote or consensus by edits of different accounts, or in any other way use multiple accounts "for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent the enforcement of Wikipedia policies", and I'm happy to make sure that doesn't happen again by either (whichever is preferred) never using additional accounts for such purposes, or only using them for such purposes if I make mention on my home page (which I only now see is preferred). As I said, I have over 20,000 constructive edits and some GAs and barnstars without a block for disruptive editing, and I have no interest in flouting the rules of the very encylopedia I worked so hard to improve.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:39, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

Dates; SmackBot revisions to YYYY-MM-DD format

No SmackBot is not converting any dates to pseudo-ISO. Although I agree with their limited use on the "accessed" field – partly since it is meta-data that should maybe be hidden altogether. Now you say there is consensus to convert pseudo-ISO into full dates, can you point me to the discussion? I saw a sniff of it over at Mosnom and might tie it into the unlinking of pseudo-ISO dates I've been doing. Rich Farmbrough, 11:19, September 27, 2009 (UTC).

Apologies if I made a mistake, but how about this example of Smackbot converting dates to YYYY-MM-DD format?: here [1]. And I see that User:Yobot is doing the same. As to the discussion, I thought I pointed it to you, and in any event I see you just joined it. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:10, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

Baseball dates

Following up on your side comment at Rich Farmbrough's talk page, I think a date format like 9/28/09 is a really poor choice for baseball, since it's records go back so far. Perhaps the decision was made by some of those Überfans who recognizes the name of every single player who could possibly be worthy of mention, and so could disambiguate the date based on who is being written about. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:15, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

• I'm referring to the format used by MLB.com, the official website of major league baseball (not to baseball fans). It uses that date format in all of its articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

Reflecting Seventeen magazine review in album article; Form

Hey! I'll just cut straight to it, block quotes are discouraged in this instance, it makes things trivial. The way it should be done is publishing their opinion in our words, backed up by an in-line quote – so we can maintain prose. Take this recent simple section for example. It's by no means perfect, but it gets the point across, provides quotes with citations and is written coherently. The problem with the review in question is that it is very brief, it barely provides an opinion, so you're going to have to suckle something out of it. Just give it a go, more info the better, I've watched the page so I can come around and help out later on. Cheers. k.i.a.c (talktome – contribs) 10:07, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Very helpful. I'll trash the block quote.

And perhaps to shorten it I should leave out mention of the two songs were the magazine's favorites (then again, you say the more info the better, so feel free to let me know if you feel it best to include it).

That would leave me with something like the following ....

Seventeen described the album's music as indie folk-rock mixed with some R&B, characterizing it as "Very Dixie Chicks meets Indigo Girls", and gave the CD a favorable review, writing: "Why you should listen: These three gorgeous girls wrote most of the songs on their new album themselves! Their original sound was dubbed "cosmo country" — a blend of city pop with folk. Love it!"

Yep and just wikilink the Dixie Chicks, etc. No need for the bolds, or even the "Why you should listen" part, that part is pretty self-explanatory. You could work that into your wording actually. Something like: '... gave the album a favorable review; saying that readers should listen to the album because: "These three gorgeous girls wrote most of the songs on their new album themselves! Their original sound was dubbed "cosmo country" — a blend of city pop with folk. Love it!"' I'm guessing Seventeen is a mag for girls a long way under the age of 17? It's a pretty simplified 'review', but I guess it's notable if they're the only publication interested in the band at this point. I'm assuming once the album is released more reviews will fly in; you might even have to scrap this depending on their success, it is a debut let's remember. k.i.a.c (talktome – contribs) 11:54, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks for your help. Yep, Seventeen magazine is geared to people around the age of 17 – it is the # 1 magazine subscribed to by college freshmen (ahead of People, Cosmo, Time and Vogue), reaches 3.9 million women in the 12–17 age range, and has the 39th-highest circulation in the US (22 million).--Epeefleche (talk) 12:26, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

Re: (2)

I think your argument gives undue weight to very recent events, and in any case, the doo wop band is indisputably notable, whereas the new band's notability continues to be questioned by other editors. The only real question I'd have here is whether The Shells should be its own disambig page or just head back to Shell; on that issue, either is fine with me. Chubbles (talk) 19:34, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

Well, for starters, can you pls put The Shells on its own disambig page (I'm not sure how to do that; an admin took the step of initially directing the pg to the modern band)? Then maybe you can help guide me as to what needs to be done for the next step. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:38, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to fight over genres; you can call them whatever you want, and take as long as you like (but I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes along and truncates "pop/folk rock harmony trio"). As for "modern", that is time-specific; we should choose wording that does not become obsolete. It's also very, very vague; "modern music" is still used to describe concert music of the early twentieth century. Chubbles (talk) 20:26, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Excellent point. If you could change it to pop/folk rock harmony trio (matching the article and footnote), that would be great. Thanks much.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:29, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

That's your call, man. If you wish it changed, you've got to take care of it. Chubbles (talk) 20:32, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

Happy to – can you pls direct me how? I've never done that, in all my edits as far as I can recall, and can't seem to be able to figure out how.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:38, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason to change the name to something so detailed; per the naming conventions, article titles should be short and to-the-point. For example, Clint Eastwood would never be titled Clint Eastwood (American actor, film director, film producer, and composer), even though he is all those things. The title only needs enough to distinguish this article from others, it doesn't need a full description. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:05, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination by Rjanag of Category:The Shells albums: Result – Keep

Category:The Shells albums, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:48, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag, please stop proposing everything I create for deletion, and then appealing the non-deletions, and then "promising" to re-propose for deletion, and then proposing the related articles for deletion or merge, and then proposing the related categories for deletion. As to this category, it is appropriate—you're an experienced editor who I would expect would know that. Why jump at everything I create to try to tear it down? This has been going on for some time now, and I wish you would stop. If you have a question, why not try to discuss it first? But most of all, I feel that you are following me around and challenging everything I do, and that's not IMHO appropriate. I kindly ask that you stop, as its disruptive. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:17, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

The "Written Roads" article is on my watchlist, so of course I saw when you added a category; if keeping an article on my watchlist is inappropriate, then guilty as charged.

I may be a somewhat experienced editor, but not with categories—I almost never touch those. So my being unaware of Category:Albums by artist is an honest mistake. But it doesn't change the fact that this album is clearly non-notable and you are clearly on a crusade to promote this band through Wikipedia. I have no interest whatsoever in your other activities here, I am only watching your activities related to this band article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:20, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

I note that an editor has suggested that this be a keep, as part of Category:Albums by artist, where all albums should appear," and that you have in reaction withdrawn the CfD (which I thank you for). I would echo his second point: "The album will be out before this cfd finishes. Why the haste?" Really, I don't know why you are jumping to delete my work. But I'm trying to be a good editor, and make constructive edits. Where appropriate, I try to seek wider input as to appropriateness of content. I just want to make the project a better one. I've edited thousand of articles (many of them of people/teams/musicians/books/subjects that I am a fan of and that interest me), and made tens of thousands of entries, GAs included a few barnstars received, and just wish to be constructive. I'm not on a "crusade" to promote any of them any more than any good fan editor is—this is how articles come to light and get improved and ultimately reach better status. You have just been hounding me however, and I've simply never seen an admin do this. It interferes with my ability to edit helpfully, and I would again beseech you to stop if you would have the kindness in your heart to do so. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:27, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm not interested in you and I don't care about following you around; I'm only interested in the article. Just like you, I am trying to improve the encyclopedia—I believe that letting non-notable stuff get in for free advertising is a detriment to the project. We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether the band is notable (and I'm not interested in hearing your arguments about why they are, as I've heard them over and over again). Don't take content disagreements personally. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:46, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag, I'm happy to work with you to make sure that articles don't have free advertising/innappropriate material. I understand that you felt that way. And material that was objected to – including some material that IMHO was appropriate – was deleted. I'm willing to assume good faith on the parts of all, and that's fine. And in the interest of getting on I've sought to move on. The articles/categories that we are discussing now I believe follow eminently Wiki standards, and have had input and been reviewed by many Wiki editors. I'm happy to work with you to make certain that they continue to not have innappropriate material.

My objections go to other matters that we've discussed that go beyond that. But I'm happy to work with you, and in fact would love it if you would work with me, and find ways to improve the article. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:25, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

Dates

How do you do that script assisted date thingy? – Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:11, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Date formatting

Could you explain why you changed all of the dates on Chase Utley? The article used a consistent format and there was no reason that I can see to alter the format. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:24, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explaining, I understand. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:39, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Glass

The edits to the Daniel Glass edits were mostly to remove POV and essentially useless information (such as Glass' family winning a NN "family of the year" award) that was added to the article by multiple users with the same name as (and thus probable ties to) Glass' record label. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:25, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Yep – I noticed that name and had that thought. Someone should leave him a note. But I thought the Billboard and USA Today articles (and the material taken from them, if accurate and not inflated) were eminently reliable sources, and so that material (and anything like that) should probably stay. Do you agree?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:28, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. Those were possibly lost in the shuffle of my removing of fluff paragraphs wholesale from the article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:33, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'll take a look. If you disagree, feel free to revise or discuss. I'll also leave the editor a note.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:34, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

• Done (both). Some of the other material looks as though if properly sourced it could remain. I didn't take timne to look. Just left it deleted, and in my edit summary indicated that it could go back if properly sourced (I'm of course thinking of the more notable deletions, not the family of the year award).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:44, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

The Shells

Because the album release has passed and there has been no further significant coverage, I have re-nominated the article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shells (folk band) (2nd nomination). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:12, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

MOSBIO

It's not stated explicitly that it shouldn't be in there, but I think it's generally accepted that it's not because it isn't mentioned in the guideline. All Hallow's (talk) 01:07, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion about it here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#There_was_once_a_rule.... All Hallow's (talk) 01:11, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding; Accusation of disruptive editing for asking question (note: this is my (epeefleche's) header, for purposes of maintenance/indexing of my talk page, and does not reflect Rjanag's view)

And may I ask what is the meaning of this? Are you going to go disrupting other people's AfDs and making POINTs just because you have a personal bone to pick with me? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:14, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

• Are you still wikihounding me? Please, I beseech you, stop.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:27, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

• The first message was regarding the AfD discussion. As for the second, looking at someone's contribs during a discussion is not wikihounding. Are you going to answer the question? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:28, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

• I have no idea what you're talking about. Precisely whose AfD are you accusing me of disrupting? And precisely how are you accusing me of disrupting it? And precisely what are you telling me I did wrong, and should not be doing?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

• Apologies, I meant to say disrupting Kww's RfA, not AfD. The point is that if you're not there to judge Kww as a candidate, but to find ammo in one of your own disputes, another person's RfA is not really the right place to do that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:35, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
• Anyway, suggesting that my looking at another user's contributions during a discussion constitutes "wikihounding" would have absolutely no basis, as I know you've also looked at my contributions during at least one of our past meetings. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:39, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

• I'll ask you again, as I've asked you before. Please stop wikihounding me. Please stop trying to bully me into not communicating with others in a way that you prefer. Please. It's disruptive. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:44, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

• Did you not just read what I said above? It's not hounding. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:48, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

• It is my view that you are Wiki-hounding me by singling me out and joining discussions on pages or topics I may edit or debates where I contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit my work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to me. You are disrupting my enjoyment of editing. You're following me around has been accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, and other disruptive behavior. Please stop.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:05, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first time you've done it – as here, where you were chastised for such behavior. That's classic wikihounding. I've asked you to stop in the past, and you're simply refusing to do so.

One last point – you deleted my header. This is my talk page. Please stop.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:05, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

How can you think to know my motives for posting a message? I didn't leave the message because I don't want you to enjoy editing; you can go on doing all the other stuff you do here and I don't care and won't interfere. I posted a message to ask you a question about an edit you made that was relevant to the current discussion—a question which, I might add, you still have not answered.

About your header: you have the right to do stuff with your talk page, but you don't have the right to edit other people's comments, including creating fake headers for them (for the specifics, see WP:TALK). But I don't care, keep the stupid header if you want, that's not the main point of this message. Nor are the ridiculous wikihounding accusations, which I'm going to ignore from now on because I know you look through other user's contributions just as much as anyone else does. Mainly I'm just looking for an answer to my RfA question which you have still avoided. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:10, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Please stop following me to other discussions and trying to bully me into not asking completely legitimate questions of others. That's bullying, and disruptive. I don't believe I owe you any more response than that request. And if this isn't the poster child of wikihounding, especially given the circumstances, I don't know what is.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:17, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you shouldn't ask questions of anyone. I just asked for your explanation of why it's a legitimate question for that forum. If you don't want to answer, fine; I'll just keep on thinking it's not legitimate. You have your opportunity to change my mind, but oh well. I guess I tried. Not my fault that at every turn you have insisted on turning the discussion into a personal argument over how I have personally wounded you and am personally out to get you. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:28, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Untrue. Rjanag – you're writing to me, not some editor who didn't read what you actually wrote, and may not notice the difference. You not only wikihounded me to that discussion, you then once again used a bullying tone and accused me of "disrupting other people's AfDs". I've asked you repeatedly to stop telling untruths. I've asked you repeatedly to stop bullying me. I've asked you repeatedly to stop wikihounding me. You simply don't stop. This is innappropriate and disruptive.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:33, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you can't read. Like I already said, looking at your contribs is not wikihounding (you do it too). And apparently it's "inappropriate and disruptive" when I don't respond to your repeated requests, but it's perfectly fine when you don't respond to mine (specifically, my request that you answer my question, or that you not screw with my edits by making fake headers). So there's yet another bit of hypocrisy from the massive fountain of hypocrisy you've been spewing all day.

But by now we're just going in useless circles around each other, and it's become obvious that you either have not been reading my messages or lack the faculties to understand them. So I see no further point in continuing to respond to one another; I'm going to make an effort not to anymore. And I sincerely hope that after this AfD ends I never run into you again. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:47, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

(out) Judging by your contributions to other recent RfAs, I guess I can take it on good faith that you were posting these questions to Kww and RayaYang because you decided to vote in support of admins who you feel share your views about how AfDs work, so in that case your question wasn't disruptive—when I first saw it I had the impression that you were just going around to RfAs gathering "ammo" to use in the AfD, but perhaps that was wrong. So I withdraw my concerns about your RfA messages (although I still object to your wikihounding accusations, but that's neither here nor there). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 09:16, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Response to Rjanag; His two communications with the closing admin protesting the admin's close of the first AfD

Answering Rjanag's question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shells (folk band) (2nd nomination), but moving it here to give that page a rest (since Rjanag apparently does not agree with my suggestion that we focus on WP:BAND and WP:DELETE issues at the Afd), Rjanag twice protested the close of the first AfD to the closing admin (without success) as follows:

First: On September 28, 2009, at 00:21 (UTC) Rjanag wrote to the closing admin: "I'm a little surprised at your closing this as keep, since almost all the keep votes (when you discount the one made by a blocked sockpuppeteer) were, as far as a remember, a recourse to a non-notable award they were nominated for and didn't win (and the article on that award has since been blanked and redirected), and did not get featured on television or anywhere on the MTV video music awards website...."

The admin responded: "I didn't see either argument on either side come up on top as I stated in the AFD closure (hence the "no consensus" close). I did read through it, and I don't think it would have made much a difference with the sock !vote in there or not, as the registered users on the "keep" side made their point clear."

Second: On September 28, 2009 at 00:25 (UTC) Rjanag wrote: "... not meaning to criticize your judgment or anything, I just don't agree in this case."

The admin responded: "No problem. We saw two different things." --Epeefleche (talk) 08:57, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

That's not two separate protests, that's part of one discussion. (When grown-ups have discussions, they listen and respond to one another.) Besides, the second message wasn't even an attempt to protest his deletion to him; it was just notifying him that I was opening a DRV. Quit misrepresenting the facts (to borrow your own turn of phrase). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 09:04, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

• Those are two separate messages. Sent at two different times.

You disagreed. He responded. You sent a second message, again expressing your disagreement with his decision. He responded to your second "I just don't agree" with a second response. I may not be great in math, but two I can count to.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:12, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you may not be great in thinking, either. Two messages in the course of one discussion does not mean I protested two separate times. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 09:13, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Your continued incivility is not appreciated. As to the substance, I disagree. Your two separate messages, sent at two different times (with a response in between), are above, along with the time each was sent and the response each received.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:18, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't help it if you refuse to even attempt to understand a simple conversation. My second message, Ok, thanks. I will list it for DRV; not meaning to criticize your judgment or anything, I just don't agree in this case., was clearly not a new request that he reconsider a second time; it was a response to his latest message, letting him know what I was doing. There is no other explanation for this than that you are "misrepresenting the facts", again, by trying to claim that I protested more times than I actually did. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 09:21, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. You had already told him you disagreed in message one (and that your were considering appealing it). And he had responded. There was absolutely no reason for you to send a second message saying that you disagreed with him. But you did. And he obviously felt obliged to respond to your second expression of disagreement by saying he saw things differently.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:26, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Did you ever stop and consider maybe some people have different communication styles than you and like to end a cordial discussion with a quick wrap-up or closing? Or do you always presume to know what's best in other people's conversations? Since you're such an expert, do you think you can go through all my old discussions and teach me which of my messages were unnecessary? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:43, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is as much a social thing as it is logical; COI

It appears to me that the fix was in and you can cry “foul” now. One first stop would be to check the rules of AfDs. I’m rather skeptical that it is standard practice for AfDs to run for only one week. On RfCs (Request for Comments), two weeks is normally the standard. So to cut off voting and declare an outcome on a vote while it is still active smacks of calling the game early because one side has a two-vote advantage and the fix is in. Moreover, on Wikipedia, a 13/11 split would never be considered to be a consensus to do something. It’s also important to note that a “consensus” on Wikipedia is as much the weight and logic of the arguments as it is simple vote counts. Any rational reading of the arguments would not lead a rational person to conclude that the ‘delete’ proponents “discredited” the arguments of the other side. That is just so much garbage. Any band that had been mentioned in Seventeen magazine and had been a top-three finalist in an MTV contest is clearly notable.

So… What happened? You did, after all, go up against an admin and these people are quite socially active. This isn’t at all unusual. You might consider going to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard if this injustice bothers you. I’m sure they will direct you to go to a more appropriate venue to “formally” do something, but I’d start there given how flagrant this appears to me. I personally think it might be time to de-Sysop some admins here. Greg L (talk) 16:22, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Greg, I don't know where you get your bad information, but you should really do some reading before you go around crying foul. 7 days is the usual time for AfDs, see Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Articles_for_deletion_page and WP:AfD#How an AfD discussion is closed. Secondly, complaining that "a 13/11 split would never be considered consensus" shows that you clearly don't understand that AfDs are not votes. As for which arguments are "better"... of course you think the keep arguments proved without doubt that the band is "clearly notable", and of course people like me think that the delete arguments did the opposite. That's the whole point of having uninvolved closers judge it; both your opinion and mine are worthless by now, as we're quite involved. The issue isn't whether you think your arguments are better, it's whether they convinced the closer.

You have already given Epeefleche inaccurate "advice" before; perhaps you should reconsider continuing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:50, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Stop with your ranting as well as your long-standing battle with Epeefleche. It might also help if you could read what I actually wrote as opposed to what you imagine I wrote. I wrote “One first stop would be to check the rules of AfDs. I’m rather skeptical that it is standard practice for AfDs to run for only one week.” I didn’t state that the standard was longer than seven days; I suggested he first check the rules to ascertain the facts. As for the “logic” of arguments on both sides of the issue, yeah… ditto. Anyone who has been around Wikipedia long enough knows what happened here (where a AfD is called while still quite active and with a 13/11 split); it should have been extended. So please don’t ride in here like a cowboy who is all tall, proud and handsome, wearing a hat that is whiter than white and act all indignant. It doesn’t impress. And don’t bother leaving “you’ve got mail” tags on my talk page; I don’t look forward to hearing from you since I find your behavior as an admin in this latest matter to be abhorrent and feel soiled dealing with you. Greg L (talk) 20:21, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that 7 days is standard: I don't think it's long enough either. I wouldn't blame a closing admin for wanting to stop the discussion and make a judgement after exactly 7 days: the page was about 134KB long already – that's a lot of debate to review, and when we also consider all the linked material which needed looked at, it's an awful lot of work for some poor soul. However, check the times of the nomination and closing. WP:AfD#How an AfD discussion is closed clearly states "After seven days have passed, the discussion is moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old...". After seven days, not "on the seventh day". Another 4 hours or so might not have made any difference, but in a case as contentious as this one, I think it especially important that proper procedure should have been observed.

I do try to assume good faith but I'll be honest with you Epeefleche, some of the behaviour I saw surrounding this AfD discussion did look to me more like a vendetta. Well done for standing your ground and defending your position with rational and intelligent arguments. There are those of us who appreciate that being right is sometimes more important than being on the winning team. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:08, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

• Greg/CMP--Where there's smoke, there's fire. See my discussion of the unusually close relationship at "Highly disconcerting: close relationship between Rjanag and closing admin" in the now-closed AN/I, which I've incorporated by reference into the just-started Rjanag Arbitration.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:33, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

• This just gets worse and worse. Very disturbing. See the discussion as well now at the Rjanag Arbitration, which reflects that the closing admin was the one (in his first positive RfA vote) who recommended Rjanag for admin. And he has contacted Rjanag on his talk pg twice as much as any other editor on wikipedia. In reverse, the closing admin's talk page is Rjanag's 2nd-most frequent talk page.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:27, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting request

Hi Epeefleche. I wondered if I could ask you a favour. I've been doing some work with Relendog on the "Mr. Tambourine Man" article, which is also currently undergoing GA review. I didn't have as much to do with the actual prose as I did on the Sweetheart of the Rodeo article but I wondered if you wouldn't mind having a look at it and working your copyediting magic on this article as well? No worries if you don't want to though. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:41, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the explanation. I'm not sure about how to handle this correctly. To clarify, what I'm trying to say is that The Byrds' version of "Mr. Tambourine Man" came out within two weeks of Dylan's because they had access to the song before its official release on the Bringing It All Back Home album. So, unlike other artists, they didn't first hear the song on the Bringing It All Back Home album and then decide to cover it. This is how they were able to get their version out so quickly after Dylan's release. Indeed, had Columbia Records not dragged their feet on the release of The Byrds’ version, which had been completed in January 1965, their version could've conceivably been released before Dylan's. The close proximity of the two releases was specifically due to the fact that The Byrds had access to the song before it's official release. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:49, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've given that a go. I've reworded slightly for accuracy but kept the basic gist of what you've suggested. Hopefully that's better now. I have to say, that I think you'll find when you're copy editing the article that there's a few things that need sorting from a syntax or grammatical point of view. Some of the prose in the article seems a bit bitty to me – you know, lots of short sentences. Maybe it's just me though, as I say, I didn't do too much of the writing on this article myself (with the exception of The Byrds section). --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 19:46, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Tambourine Man

Yeah, that's also fine. It doesn't matter too much to me how it's said as long as it's a) factually accurate and b) meets copyediting requirements. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:38, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll go through in a bit and standardise the formatting of dates and have a look at the references too. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:23, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Palestine

I noticed on wp:cfd that you created a category with "Palestine" in it. Please notice that there is no country called Palestine and the closest thing we use on Wikipedia, if you absolutely have to, is "Palestinian territories". Debresser (talk) 21:31, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Epeefleche. You have new messages at JRA WestyQld2's talk page.
Message added 12:12, November 4, 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JRA_Westy

YYYY-MM-DD script

I see Dabomb put you onto a script which converts to dmy or mdy. Does it work well? From what I see, it converts only those which are parameters within citation templates. Is that the case? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 18:14, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

It works pefectly well in certain instances, but appears to have kinks in others. I'm not sure what all the kinks are, but some I've noticed are 1) it only works on the footnotes not the main body of the article (this may not be a "kink", but intentional, but it would be helpful if there were a way for it to work on text of the body of the article); 2) while it allows, for example, changes, of all YYYY-MM-DD dates to month dd, yyyy script, I don't think it will change american to british and vice versa; and 3) every now and then there is a date or two that doesn't get changed, and I don't know why.

All that said, its pretty neat, and better than doing it all by hand. It's especially helpful as a number of articles that I've worked on have inconsistent format types within their citations.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

That confirms what I thought. I looked at the code and saw lines which looked like it only acted on the '|date=' and |accessdate=' parameters. Converting date formats is very painstaking by hand, and inconsistent. Check out the two links on my userpage to scripts written by Lightmouse for the purpose of converting/unifying date formats. You can just import these lightmouse scripts into your monobook as you have done with the other script above:

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');

Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:10, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. Am trying it. Definitely an advance. It strikes me that I may have to use both the old and then new-- or am hitting the wrong icon. When I hit "all dates to mdy" it does not, as the name suggests, convert all dates to mdy (I also note, which is fine, that it delinks dates). Also, garbage in/garbage out ... as in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Russell-Cowan&action=submit

• No. That button won't touch ISO dates. There were too many complaints, so Lightmouse disabled that part of the code. However, the "all dates to mdy" button should activate the script which converts all dmy dates (properly formatted or not) to properly formatted mdy dates. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:43, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

• False positive here ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usher_(entertainer)&action=submit ... but haven't seen many of those.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:12, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

BB Notability

Hi, concerning baseball notability, is there something I'm missing? WP:WPBB/N seems pretty clear in allowing MiLB players (to a reasonable extent) but Muboshgu says there is a "consensus" among WP:BASEBALL about MiLB players saying they're not notable unless they're prospects. I haven't gotten a reply after a request for some conversations between members, or something in writing confirming the consensus. I wanted to ask you (because you seem knowledgeable) if you knew of anything. Thanks. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 03:34, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

If there is, I'm unaware of it. I'll ask JRA Westy if he is aware of anything. I actually think that the notability language used to be even stronger in favor of the page staying, as long as a ballplayer had played professional level baseball.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:38, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, finally a clear answer. WP:ATHLETE states "people who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport..." and I'm not sure what "fully professional" means. MLB or any professional league? WP:WPBB/N seems to clear it up but I don't know. I just don't want to be arguing against consensus. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 03:54, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

That has always been my understanding. I've asked Westy to leave a note here as well w/his thoughts. Btw, as to baseball specifically, thought I hadn't seen this before I now note this discussion (mostly from over a year ago) here [2].--Epeefleche (talk) 05:08, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Well really, according to WP:ATH all minor league baseballers are notable (due to their professional nature), but WP:WPBB/N provides a better guideline to what articles should be created as the minor league system is so large if all player articles were created, many would be of a trivial nature. The user Muboshgu is incorrect, not all, but many minor league players are notable. I hope this helps. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 08:08, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks

I apologize if my comment seems antagonistic, that wasn't my intention. I was just trying to clean up and didn't realize your plans to begin pages for those redlinks. Supertouch (talk) 17:44, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Looks good! When I approached the redlinks initially on the Johari page I thought I was noticing a trend – either users beginning pages for Islamic organizations or planning to do so via redlinks. These fledgling attempts would then be left to clutter up various pages for the apparent purpose of promoting that organization if not an entire ideology. I was simply trying to preempt that. Anyway, looks good – I was thinking of throwing in some headings unless you beat me to it? Supertouch (talk) 21:21, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

I would choose the word proficient to describe my Arabic. Supertouch (talk) 21:33, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

In general, there is no difference as a proper name is definite regardless – `Abbas is the same as al-`Abbas. This point was discussed in the in Ibn `Aqil's explanation of Alfiyyah Ibn Malik. However, in the case of a name consisting of a possessive structure, i.e., `Abdur-Rahman, then this would change things if you said `Abd Rahman. (Nidal Hasan apparently had an e-mail address of Abduwali as discussed on "his" talk page.) That being said, convention may dictate – if a person simply prefers being referred to as az-Zubair as opposed to Zubair then perhaps that would have some bearing. Hope this was helpful. Supertouch (talk) 21:48, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Because the name al-Awlaqi is not proper name but a nisbah, or tribal ascription, it should be preceded by al-. This would be the difference between saying Amriki – an American – and al-Amriki – the American; this of course in the context of identifying a person and not describing them. So the difference between this and what I said previously, is that Zubair is a definite, proper name regardless and Awlaqi is only definite with the addition of al-. AlSayid (sp?) is a difficult example because it is both a noun – meaning mister – and a proper name (in this specific case it is a proper name, so perhaps this would apply – although this is an unusual name to me (Egyptians in general are unusual to me). From what I have seen though, it is always al-Sayyid (sp?) when used as a name, for example, al-Sayyid Sabiq an author for the Muslim Brotherhood- I have only seen it written that way, Supertouch (talk) 22:08, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

American Congress for Truth

Good work, thanks! – Gabi S. (talk) 14:55, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Anwar al-Awlaqi

I found this link to a religious, "Salafi" response to Awlaqi: The Salafee response to Anwar Al-Awlakee. While personally, it does not seem to be the best reference for Wikipedia, and may enter into a discussion of POV -it may actually improve the page to have "Islamic" commentary in light of the POV discussion – I thought the first page was interesting in in tying him to the Muslim Brotherhood, controversial, at best, Islamic organization. The rest of the article – I skimmed it very quickly, seems to an Islamic refutation of suicide bombings and not particularly relevant to the Awlaqi page. Since you seem to be "running" things at that page (most edits) I thought I would put the ball in your court. Supertouch (talk) 11:56, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Hotcat

Sure, it'll change your life. It's easy to turn on and use. Click on "My preferences" at the top of your page, then the Gadgets tab at right. You'll see the box for Hotcat about halfway down. Check if off – and anything you might want to try, like Twinkle – and then hit the save button and bottom to record these changes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:34, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Paper and pulp industry in Dryden, Ontario

Thanks for the message the other day regarding this page. The article looks great now, and I would vote keep, but seeing as the discussion is closed as keep, I guess it doesn't matter. Good work! PDCook (talk) 19:56, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Epeefleche. You have new messages at Nbahn's talk page.
Message added 02:55, December 3, 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It only hurts when I laugh. <br. />--NBahn (talk) 02:55, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

You have no right to remove my comments, and if you do it again I will be going to ANI. When you do not know what you are doing stop doing it. nableezy – 02:59, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are a banned user, who was banned from making those comments on that page. That fact was confirmed to you two days ago by an administrator. On what possible basis do you believe that you – in the face of that – have a right to have your comments on that page?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:03, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. I was topic-banned for 2 months on articles and 1 month on talk pages on October 29. I am not currently banned from commenting on articles. In the future, before proving yourself ignorant of the facts, ask somebody who knows. nableezy – 03:07, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Here [3] the Arbitrator who ruled wrote, with regard to the applicability of your ban (reduced on November 3, to a) 2 months from all pages within subject areas relating to the Palestine-Israel articles case, except article talk pages, from which you were banned for 1 month) to the AfD in question:

"AfD discussions about IP-related articles quite clearly falls under "participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles". There is no grey area. An AfD is about as perfect of an example as you get for a "community discussion substantially concerned with such articles". Even less broadly worded topic bans are treated in a broad fashion. If ArbCom or the community says that an editor is prohibited from editing or discussing certain articles or topics, that editors should not edit or discuss those topics. Shifting discussion over to user talk pages or other venues is at bare minimum a gross violation of the spirit of a topic ban. I, individually, consider shifting discussion to another venue as an unwelcome attempt to skirt the edges or jump through loopholes of the sanction. As far as I'm concerned, the confusion here is only arising from splitting hairs and trying to look for grey areas where they do not exist. The topic bans are perfectly clear and AfD is unquestionably included even in a strict reading of the sanction language."

--Epeefleche (talk) 04:21, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Wow, it is like you don know when to stop. The request for clarification has not been "ruled on", one of many arbitrators has said their piece. And that is not even the point, an AfD on a topic related to the conflict would clearly fall in the topic-ban being discussed (hint: my topic-ban is not being discussed, I was not banned under the Judea and Samaria case which the request for clarification was about). Dont dig any deeper, you clearly have no idea what it is you are talking about. nableezy – 05:05, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

The above arb clarification concerns your ban as well as the bans on the other two. Your ban is of course broader than the West Bank. After the admin found in your case that your "presence on the Gaza War article is not a helpful one",and you were "not one who has a helpful influence on the article-building process", you were banned for varying periods of time "from all pages (including both article and article talk pages) within those topic areas which relate to the Palestine-Israel articles case." This AfD falls squarely within that area, as the Arbitrator found. Yet even after that finding, you continue to edit that AfD page. I'm somewhat amazed by your thumbing your nose so flagrantly at the arbitrators, and indeed at the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:33, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Again, you really dont know what it is you are saying, but if you feel this way feel free to go to WP:AE and request enforcement of my "ban". If not, kindly desist from saying that I am "banned" from that page. Put up or shut up. nableezy – 05:41, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

What is it that I am saying that I "do not know"? My comments consist almost entirely of quotes. Are you saying they are innaccurate? If so, what part was so? I'm perfectly willing to review what I wrote, and to admit any misquotes/misstatements if you point them out to me; with appropriate apologies.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:40, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll bite. The request for clarification was filed to clarify the scope of the topic bans handed down in the Judea and Samaria ArbCom case. My topic-ban was handed down to enforce the older Palestinian-Israeli articles ArbCom case. The scope of my topic ban was any edits for 1 month and for one more month I may edit talk pages. The Judea and Samaria case topic bans were much wider than that, it was any edits about the topic anywhere on Wikipedia indefinitely. In that case AfD clearly applies, there is not even a question about that (the question is whether or not this AfD applies, a question you have already expressed an opinion about). The request for clarification in no way applies to my topic-ban. The reason why I see the AfD as simply an extension of the talk page is that it is a discussion concerning the notability of an article and the discussion could just as easily be had at the article talk after somebody were to place a notability tag. That is my personal interpretation of the topic-ban given to me. nableezy – 06:47, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

1. You say your ban does not apply to the AfD because after one month it no longer applied to talk pages And then ...
2. You assert (without any support other than your view) that an AfD is a talk page. It's clearly not, as should be obvious to everyone. AfD pages fall within your "all pages" prohibition. AfDs are not "talk pages". AfDs do have their own talkpages – called discussion pages (where you moved some of my comments). When you do a search under "Wikipedia talk", AfD pages do not show up. Only AfD discussion pages show up.
3. As to timing, your ban was first handed down on October 29. In its original form it was for four months, " all pages within subject areas relating to th[e] arbitration case."
4. It was then shortened on November 3. To "2 months from all pages within subject areas relating to this arbitration case, except article talk pages, from which he is banned for 1 month."
5. You were editing the AfD page by November 28. Even if the 1 month ban started on October 29 (and not on November 3, the day it was handed down), and even had the AfD been a talk page (which it clearly isn't), you were editing on a page on the subject before you should have.
6. But, most importantly, its clear that AfDs are not talk pages.
7. Also, the Request for Clarification mentions you as an involved party, the statement speaks to editors banned from editing on the Arab-Israel conflict, it discusses your topic ban specifically, the discussion is replete with references to you, and the Arbitrator's decision relates to you.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:52, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect on multiple counts. The 1 month was from Oct. 29th (and if you look you can find that), and the request for clarification does not apply to me as that arbitration case does not apply to me. My one edit to the page prior to the one month expiring is was to restore comments that were removed, an edit I regarded, and still do, as vandalism. And I said the AfD as an extension of the talk page, I dont much care what you think is clear. nableezy – 07:56, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

The date of the 1 month start clarifies matters. But I was not incorrect. I said "even if the one month ban started on October 29". Which you have confirmed was the case. I've deleted the following parenthetical, as you've clarified elsewhere that the initial assumption was correct. I've asked for clarification that the request for comment applies to you. Furthermore, separately I see a request for enforcement was opened, which I commented at. Your permission to edit only extended to talk pages. You are not saying the AfD was a talk page. (which it wasn't). Therefore you were not allowed to edit it. In any event, I've never heard of the phrase "extension of a talk page", and don't know what that means. But if its not a talk page, you're banned from editing on it.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:42, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

AGK's revised decision said specifically that I am banned from "editing article content" for 2 months and that I am banned from "editing article talk pages" for 1. If you say that the AfD fall in neither of these than I was free to edit it whenever. nableezy – 08:45, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Not so. He never reduced or otherwise altered your four-month ban on pages other than article pages and article talk pages.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:56, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Apparently not. Would you care to retract any of the many statements you have made in a number of places about this? nableezy – 03:13, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

I note that he did not foresee the ambiguity, and that the other admin said I was technically correct.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:00, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Well, That Was Embarrassing

I'm terribly sorry about that; I obviously wasn't paying enough attention!
--NBahn (talk) 02:31, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

No worries at all my friend. It happens to the best of us. I do appreciate the note. I hope I wasn't unduly harsh in my evaluation of the sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:35, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

I just saw your minor edit.
;-)
In regard to the present debate I fear that we will have to agree to disagree (With all of the utmost due respect, of course! If any any of my postings have been even the slightest bit uncivil, then I request that both you point out them to me and at the same time to please accept my humble apologies.). Thinking back about it, now, it seems to me that this last posting of mine was a little snarky. For that I apologize.<br. />--NBahn (talk) 02:19, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. From your first note to me, I determined you were a good egg. (you might consider posting it to that discussion, so others can conclude the same). You'll note that in my comment responding to your post, I made no mention (snarky or otherwise) to your too-quick citing of non-RSs. I understand that was an honest mistake. We all make them. I'm trying to raise that AfD discussion out of the politics, btw, which I think are irrelevant, to a focus on whether the article meets the notablity criteria. If I'm swayed, I'll change or soften my vote.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:32, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a general thanks, you've edited about 30 of my articles in the past few days, doing general tidy-up and such; thought it deserved some recognition. Thanks! Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 09:56, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Cook

Hi Epee, thanks for the comment. I kind of enjoyed that you kept arguing against the sources even after you voted keep; it's nice to see principle in action. I had recently linked Jonathan Cook in a discussion, and I think that is part of what pushed BrewCrewer to nominate it for deletion, so I guess I felt a little obligated to go look up some sources. Didn't really know how it was going to go at first, but now if we run across any more of his pieces, we can say we knew him when... I've worked on a few of these types of bios actually, one was Rashid Khalidi, who suddenly exploded into the papers in the last U.S. presidential election, which was interesting for me as someone who'd gone around before that searching all of the sources that discussed him. It definitely made me wonder, also, what if I had never cleaned up that bio before it happened? A butterfly flaps its wings and maybe Sarah Palin would be the most powerful person in the world. I'll try to clean up the bio a little more, although in truth I don't have so much of a problem with the sources in how they're used. If those are his sources, why not include them? If the material itself is too fluffy then perhaps it can be mellowed out. I tend to be on the "spin things positively" side of bios, though, so it's possible our sense of improvements might differ. See you around, Mackan79 (talk) 08:57, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

I voted keep at the end of the day because of the RSs (largely surfaced by you). But that's not to say that there weren't (and aren't still) non-RSs listed. There are, IMHO. For example The Palestine Telegraph is a blog-like work run by a non-notable 23-year-old, its predecessor self-identified in the past as a blog, with an all-volunteer staff of volunteer reporters that includes "citizen journalists who do not take assignments from editors or paychecks from corporate controlled media." Doesn't seem to come close to the WP:RS criteria. The same for a number of others. I didn't push the point on them during the AfD as I didn't want to unduly impact the result or raise hackles as the discussion was taking place, but any non-RSs should be deleted IMHO.

As with the misstatement about the number of books he has written that we fixed, or the bit about the Nazareth Press Agency which I guess is non-notable at the moment, it appears that over-exuberant effort may have led to such additions. Frankly, I think that sort of stuff not only doesn't belong (Wiki standards frown on inaccuracies and non-RSs), but they hurt our Keep argument – giving the opposers something to hang their hat on. Its something some of the ancient philosophers paid heed to in their argumentation—if you have four good arguments and one lousy one, don't trot out the lousy one or that is all the other side will talk about. Sometimes less is better IMHO in these circumstances.

As to the bio stuff, I think I've been highly sensitized here by some of the over-the-top puffery in editing and argumentation (even leaving out the participation by the two banned editors). Frankly, its a bit odd in my experience for the sort of stuff that is cited not to appear in anything other than his personal webpage.

I'll take a look at the article you mentioned above with interest. Do you spend much time at AfDs? You would be a great knight in shining armor, saving some articles that should be saved. A good place to find some of the best candidates, in my experience, is here. The goal there is to do exactly what you did here – see if there is in fact RS support for an article, that simply has not yet been spotted. Another approach is to look from time to time at the deletions lists in whatever your area of interest may be. But you may know all this already.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:32, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

I enjoy Wikipedia, in a way, but then I face the problem that there are really always other things I should be doing. Often it's the kind of thing where I'm thinking, dear, please don't let me get sucked into this. I appreciate the comments, and I suppose I'm familiar with these AfDs to some degree. One point with the sources is just to consider the alternate issue, where we're sanitizing the sources that cover him, and making it look like his influence is primarily in Oxford-published journals and the like. A source like Electronic Intifada probably doesn't belong in an article, but maybe in describing a journalist it's ok. I feel like it's probably more representative than a comment I found somewhere like The Herald. It depends how they're used, of course. Mackan79 (talk) 09:53, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

'1'

I was wondering why you did this, citing MOSNUM. Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Numbers_as_figures_or_words in fact states: "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals" (my emphasis). Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:35, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

• Sure thing. If you keep on reading MOSNUM, it says a little further down:

"However there are frequent exceptions to these rules."

... and then a bit below that:

"Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs."--Epeefleche (talk) 09:38, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I guess you're right! But I think it looks silly! Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:42, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

One for me! Giving me the right, which I shall avail myself of as quickly as possible of course, to even the score by getting one wrong.

Well, yes, many rules of grammar, syntax, and style looked silly to me at first blush. But you'll find, if you "fix" it when you see it, over the course of some years it no longer looks silly any longer, but actually quite normal! (reminds me of a conversation I had some months ago w/someone from what I believe may be your side of the pond who asked me ... didn't I think that the US date format of MM DD, YYYY, simply looked odd? Well ... no ....  ;-) --Epeefleche (talk) 09:47, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

It does look odd. Wrong in fact! GedUK  13:28, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha ... now it would, wouldn't it ... to some one w/UK at the end of their handle.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:39, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

RE: Another imam

While the name Mahdi Bray does ring a bell I am not that familiar with him in particular. Seeing that the website in question is either his entirely or run by his followers, it would seem that the term Imam is used to extoll him and evaluate his position within the Muslim community. It would seem, per Wikipedia standards, that if a person is going to be lauded as an imam there should be reference to support this. If you look at some of the Islamic pages, for example Mujaddid, Shafi'i, Salafi..., these become mere fan club lists for people to list their favorite religious figures—same problem different manifestation. Supertouch (talk) 12:49, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

AE

Hi, Epeefleche, thanks for the comment. I suppose you see this as the natural course of things, to ask for a clarification and then ask for enforcement based on the clarification. I usually see it differently, that if the matter is clear enough to warrant enforcement then it shouldn't have needed to get clarification. It all depends, but generally Wikipedians ask, why do I need to punish this person right now? Unless there's a direct purpose, then it generally isn't done. Following this clarification, I think that attempting to add a punishment here isn't necessary. You may think that there need to be punishments so that people will continue to take sanctions seriously, but I think that's an overly simplistic (and as you can see from their responses, a bit insulting) way to deal with these editors at this point. There have actually been several requests for enforcement on this case; I think so far all of them have resulted only in warnings. I've complained that people seem to have had quite different impressions of what the topic ban meant, and have suggested that the remedy needed to be clarified. Nickh and Nishidani are certainly not wikilawyers, as they could easily point out that they did not vote, sought to limit the scope of their comments, and that the article was not directly in the area of conflict. They readily acknowledge that under their understanding of the topic ban, they should probably avoid the AfD. But of course under their understanding there are incidents where editors on the other side should have been sanctioned as well, and yet haven't been. My point, in sum, is that there have been significant problems with the enforcement of these sanctions, including the involvement of socks, which I'd hoped may be resolved following this clarification. No problem about the sock, as I assumed you had missed it. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 00:00, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't ask for the clarification. I'm with the arbs on that – I thought the issue so starkly clear, that a clarification was not at all necessary. But yes, I did see it as the natural course that if a clarification were requested, and the arb response were as resounding as it was here, and the arbs (as here) intimated that sanctions were appropriate, that (given that sanctions had to be meted out elsewhere) AE (which I've never before commented at, let alone brought) would be the natural next step. I checked with an admin on that procedural point, and received confirmation that AE would be the appropriate next step here.

The clarification didn't do anything to chill the editors' bad behavior. Without more, the ban-flouting editors can chuckle away as to how they flouted their bans to influence results in just the area they were banned from – and nothing was done.

I'm not sure I can imagine a more flagrant, knowing, intentional flouting of a ban than what we saw here, with avowed intent to vary the results of the working of Wikipedia. Intent is generally difficult to divine. Here, it's not. Sanctions can dissuade editors from intentional flouting of the rules, with intent to disrupt the project. Here at least one editor has even agreed that this was his intent. And that sanctions are therefore appropriate. I agree with him on this.

I've not been involved with these editors before. And am not familiar with their other problem behavior. But apparently whatever has been done to this point has not dissuaded them from knowing ban violations, with the intent being to alter an AfD they knew they were not allowed to comment at. That's not good. Something different seems to be necessary to influence their behavior, because whatever has been done to this point clearly has not been sufficient. If there have been several requests for enforcement as you say, resulting in warnings, and in the wake of that the behavior I saw takes place, there is a problem. As with the sock, if editors can't be encouraged to change their behavior to accord with the project, ultimately a last step after all else has failed is to no longer afford them the right to contribute to the project (and thereby help the project by stripping it of disruptive editors).

As to your suggestion that they are not wikilawyers, that's less clear to me than to you. When an editor characterizes his AfD edits as Nishdani did at the Request for Clarification as a "spontaneous disconcertion", and says the AfD "made me loose my self-restraint for a few minutes", while in fact he left his inappropriate comments up for 7 days, only crossing them out a few hours before the AfD closed, that suggests to me an opposite conclusion. And in fact some have made wikilawyering comments to suggest that their AfD contributions may not have been within their bans, which the arbs resoundingly rejected. Plus, the behavior by some of them on their talk pages subsequent to this AE being filed did little to assure me of their good behavior and civility. As to the remarks made with regard to other editors and their misconduct, I'm not familiar with them and they don't bear on the propriety of these intentional ban violations, though I do support all editors on both sides of this issue being held to the same standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:13, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

And Nableezy's most recent comments here [4] are classic wikilawyering – albeit surprising, in the wake of the quite recent arb admonition against his engaging in just that sort of behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Glad to do it; thanks for alerting me to that discussion!

I tell you, given the popularity of this site and the fact it gets hammered so badly by genuine idiots, it isn't always possible to maintain decorum. If someone starts out as a vandal,odds are good he/she will remain one. I've seen precious few reformed vandals in my time here. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:27, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. But I have to say, its unusual for me to have two consecutive good experiences at the noticeboard, as I did just now. I've had the misfortune more of running into people who say, for example, "Well – since you just warned the person (for their fourth vandal edit in a row), I can't block them, because I have to wait to see if your warning did the trick.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:31, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

That is one of the good points of Huggle. If they are already AIV'd it knows, if they are on warning 1,2,3,4 it knows (though I'm not sure it interoperates with TW properly?). 1 keystroke to warn and revert is pretty good. If I knew all the short-cut keys I would be dangerous with it. Rich Farmbrough, 02:49, December 16, 2009 (UTC).

Unfortunately

There are people who think a bot welcome is rude. I would agree it's not ideal. In a recent discussion we (I ?) did talk about using a bot to create a list for the Welcoming Committee. Not sure exactly how that would work. Rich Farmbrough, 02:46, December 16, 2009 (UTC).

AfD nomination of Punchball; Kept

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Punchball. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

• An example of why some noms, who don't follow wp:before, should not have the right to nominate articles for AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:04, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

• Their approach seemed to be, "I've never heard of it, so let's delete it." I'm ashamed to admit I had never heard of it either, but the first rule is to see if it's for real, and it is. I gather it's mostly a city sport, like stickball. Now we'll see if they consider guys like Koufax and Robinson and Gould to be notable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, i've checked the new version of the punchball article per your request, have changed my vote due to the noticeable improvement.--Brunk500 (talk) 05:39, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, the nominator withdrew the AFD.

All it took to save it was to punch it up a bit. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:23, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

My compliments

My compliments for your work on the Abdullah el-Faisal article, it really grew up into a nice article. I almost made some edits to the three indented quotes per MOS:QUOTE but held off as it seemed they were almost in mini-list format at that point in the article. Is there an exception to that guideline? Supertouch (talk) 23:53, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting request

Hi Epeefleche! Not sure if you'll remember me but you did some good copyediting work for me on Sweetheart of the Rodeo and "Mr. Tambourine Man" when both articles were undergoing WP:GA review. I'm thinking of nominating The Notorious Byrd Brothers for GA review as well and would be grateful if you could perhaps cast your copyediting eye over it? No major rush though – just whenever you've got the time. It still needs a little work – pictures, audio files etc, etc but it's not too far off I don't think. Of course, if you have any suggestions about how I could improve the article, please feel free to tell me.

I also have a copyediting question for you. In the first sentence of the Sweetheart of the Rodeo article there's the phrase – (see 1968 in music). The italicizing of the word "see" was done by you and I've followed suit whenever I've added a similar phrase to an article. But recently, another user has questioned this use of italics and I have to be honest and say that I don't know why it's necessary to italicize the word "see". Could you please explain to me why it should be formatted like this? Many thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:14, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification regarding the italicized "see" Epeefleche. That does make sense and it's good that I now understand the reason for it. Thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 20:15, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Notification

Thanks for letting me know about your inclusion of posts from my talk page in your complaint against the other user. Very courteous of you. Breein1007 (talk) 05:12, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Talib Islam

I would say that his page should be consistent with others like it – I really can't remember right now if most Muslim Convert pages have the names translated – I think it might be half and half. His name would be written: طالب إسلام – Ṭạlib Islām. Have you seen a page for the five kids from Virginia who went off to Pakistan? Supertouch (talk) 14:19, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much. As always. As to the five kids, I haven't noticed—though I have of course seen it in the news a bit. I've wondered as to where else to ref it, but haven't yet felt certain enough as to where to do so. If there is such a page, I'll be happy to help copy edit it.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:21, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Also, I just Googled his name in Arabic and found nothing relating back to him so it doesn't seem much would be gained in included his adopted name in Arabic. Supertouch (talk) 15:40, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, just checked and you added it, no problem I suppose, additional info is a positive. Supertouch (talk) 15:42, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Yes --- I was just writing you a note at the same time that you wrote me. Oddly enough, also beginning w/the phrase "whoops" (btw, how does one say that in Arabic?). In any event, here is what I was writing: "Whoops. Done already. But hey – I think I may have noticed an English version of an Arabic website already picking up his case, and I expect that that will happen as his case proceeds to trial, so I imagine its not a bad thing. Unless you disagree. If so, let me know and I will be happy to revert myself."--Epeefleche (talk) 15:45, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember any direct translation for "whoops", usually people tend to "Subhanallahu", "Ma Shaa Allahu" or "Qadar Allahu Ma Shaa Fa'l" – a sort of religious rememberence. Supertouch (talk) 15:50, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Odette Krempin

Thanks, I read the explanation and it can be argued that Frankfurt can be included in the "from" categories. She's been there only since 2007, that's why I was wary. Btw no need to explain in detail on my talk page, because my crappy old 'puter almost freezes when I open multiple windows, which I do when the message of new talk page notes appears. And thanks for being so complimentary on the little work, but the only skill was knowing the language. So you speak some German? You shouldn't bother with the German Wiki, they bite, don't get to the point, like to argue – oh, and they hate the EN-Wiki citation standard, which means I had to remove a lot of references for an article to be considered for DYK there. Weird, or not? Regards Hekerui (talk) 19:30, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, a little German. Enough to get myself into trouble. But not as good as my English, Spanish, French, even my Arabic. And you deserved the kudos – you not only used your language skills, but you added the sources and inlined them, and without more the article was in trouble in its last day at AfD. I'm a bit surprised by the admin in that discussion arguing without basis that English sources are required. He should know policy better, and/or respect it more. I've spent enough time in Germany not to be at all surprised as to your running into very strong views on the German wikipedia as to rules of absolutely no consequence, with special concern about following any English or American approach. Would have been surprised by anything other, quite frankly. Americans (think failure to accept the metric system) and English can be guilty of such to an appreciable extent themselves, but in my experience they lag considerably behind Germans/French (think the French calendar/the French resistance to Greenwich mean time) in that regard. Of course, generalizations can be dangerous, but this is just my experience.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:40, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but now I feel bad for criticizing because we're not THAT bad lol Hekerui (talk) 20:35, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

:) --Epeefleche (talk) 20:38, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this, Epeefleche. With luck, if it gets kept, we can keep it from being a maintenance nightmare. Maybe a couple of our German-speaking friends can keep it watchlisted for a while. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:39, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your collaborative spirit. Yes – our German-speaking friends have done an outstanding job on the article today.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:51, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Redlink

I think that is only a point of view and not a guideline or a policy, I have done it to reflect that this orgaisation as yet does not have an article , perhaps because it is not notable and also I have done it to encourage someone whilst the article is in high profile to write an article about this org...if it is notable that is. Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I had in mind a guideline. wp:redlink. Per that guideline, which (as I expected might perhaps be the case here) as I read it it's not appropriate to create a redlink to point out that you don't think the item is notable (and I'm guessing that you have no reason to think it is notable).--Epeefleche (talk) 22:03, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Hounding

If you want to make an accusation like that you better back it up. I first edited that page months ago and it has remained in my watchlist. Whereas I could actually make a case that you followed me here and here. Dont make stupid accusations. nableezy – 23:43, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy--Are you having a bad day? You make no sense. As to the first article you point to, I had no idea that you had edited it until you mentioned it just now. And I can't for the life of me understand how you could view my edit there as disruptive. As to the second article, similarly, as you did not sign your comment (which preceded mine) until after I had made my comment, I had no idea that you had commented at that AfD. But even more to the point – that's an article that I RESOUNDINGLY have suggested be deleted (with the entry "Snow/Speedy Delete. Per the above. This is an embarassment. CAn someone please come along and put it out of its misery?") which, yes ... you guessed it ... comports with your delete vote. How in the world you view my vote there, which is the same as yours (but more so), as disruptive—even if I had known you had edited there already (which I didn't)--escapes me. Even paranoid people have enemies, but in neither case did I edit the article with knowledge that you had done so beforehand, and in neither case can you have viewed my edits as anything other than ones you might have made yourself. I suggest a cup of tea. Your unwanted comments, inserted into a conversation between me and another editor on his talk page, are, however, the sort of disruptive edits that wikihounding is made of.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:52, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Did I say it was disruptive? And you would know if you were looking through my contributions. But I dont care, my point here was for you not to make stupid accusations that are clearly false. I suggest stop making foolish comments. And pointing out how silly your accusations about edits being in violation of a topic ban is disruptive how? Because it makes you look like a fool? Or because of some unknown reason? nableezy – 23:56, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Ummm ... disruption is a necessary element of "hounding". If you are accusing me of following you to an AfD and voting emphatically the same way you do, well .... that's not hounding (even if I had followed you, which was not the case). Your comment that I was hounding you in the above examples is, at best, distinctly odd. As to your topic ban violations, I've already addressed that at the AE. Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:21, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Ummm ... following is a necessary element of "hounding". If I had edited a page before you I could not have "followed" you there, making the accusation of hounding, at best, moronic. Bye. nableezy – 01:22, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

My conversation with another editor on his talkpage was between us. It was not a conversation that you were part of. Whether you followed him into our conversation or me, you were not a welcome participant. You're parachuting into our conversation and interceding in it was disruptive and unwanted. I would appreciate it if you were to not do it again.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:22, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

If you raise my username and I see it I may very well respond. So, no. nableezy – 04:15, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Please don't. Just as you asked me not to comment on your talk page.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:25, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

If you see me discussing you on my talk page feel free to step in. If you do not wish me to edit this page I will not. But if you raise my username I think I have a right to respond to any of the inane accusations who have made about me. nableezy – 04:34, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Feel free, on my page at least (for the moment), to open a new string. But please don't again butt in to the middle of a conversation that I am having with another editor. If you have the right, as you did before, to tell me to stay off your page, I think it is only fair that I have a right to keep you out of my conversations with others.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:37, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Not when they are about me. nableezy – 04:55, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Please stay off my page.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:56, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

That was quite the flip-flop, but as you wish. nableezy – 05:00, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Cordoba Academy

I just stumbled upon Cordoba Academy and noticed that most if not all was simply cut and pasted from the Academy website. I learned to look for this sort of thing in the paste with promotional style/POV type issues. This would seem to me to be a Copyright violation, what do you think? Supertouch (talk) 06:27, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Though what to do about it is another question (as is whether it is the sort of copyright violation that leads to concern). I think many wikipedia editors who completely lack legal training view themselves as experts on this and other legal issues (e.g., libel/slander). In short, in situations like this, as with people using the precise language that a company provides at the bottom of their press releases, there is little liklihood that the company would be upset with someone using their precise language. They've crafted their precise language in the manner that they have precisely because they think that this is the best way to describe them. They would typically be delighted by cut and past of their language—revisions would likely be less good than the language they chose. This issue is too involved for most self-appointed-non-expert-experts, however, so the safest thing to do is to vary the language sufficiently with similies and sentence restructuring to say the same thing without raising copyright violation issues even for those individuals. At the same time, I agree with your implicit point that promotional/POV issues should be addressed. Some editors seek to delete such articles – for the points made above, I think that's the wrong road to go down. Any of that make sense to you?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:21, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

I also just took a stab at deleting some of the more heavy handed fluff and ad-like material.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:26, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

With such clear copyright violations, there is no wiggle room. Article now tagged for speedy deletion. Free free to remove the tag if you feel the subject is notable and you are able to rewrite the article, removing all copyrighted material. Simply changing the odd word here and there will not acheive that objective, it will need to be completely rewitten. Regards. _wjemather^bigissue 09:20, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche: I do agree with you while simultaneously agreeing with the articles deletion. I think that while the Academy in this case, or any other organization for that matter, would probably see the copying of their own promotional material as a service and therefore not object to the practice, I do think it diminishes the integrity of Wikipedia to allow this practice to continue. This ambiguity of mine is precisely why I referred this issue to other editors. Supertouch (talk) 01:50, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

What I don't know is whether the subject of the article is notable. So I won't be the one to delete the tag. The longer discussion goes like this. Companies typically have a tag paragraph on news releases about the company. RSs in some form (often quite close, without copyright concerns for the foregoing reasons) often repeat that language. Wikipedia picks the language up from the RS, changing it enough to avoid copyright concerns, which actually don't exist in the first place as to the language describing the company which the company has published so that others will pick it up. I think this is analogous. But some editors (wjemather, above, for example) will not agree, as we can see—my guess is not on the basis of legal education in most cases, but on layman's understanding. In any event, that's not an issue here at this point, as the issue is one of notability. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:07, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

No, the issue was copyright. This particular article was copied word for word from the academy's website, which contains a clear copyright notice. You changed a handful of words, but that was insufficient to alleviate the copyright problems. That is why I tagged it and that is why it was summarily deleted. It had nothing to do with notability. I urge you to read the relevant policies & guidelines (WP:C, etc.) so that you can garner a better understanding of copyright issues. Regards. _wjemather^bigissue 13:18, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

If it were deemed a copyright issue , it would be – at best – silly. For the reasons stated. I'm just guessing that there is no requirement of those writing the section you pointed me to or construing it that they have a JD with a specialty in copyright law and intellectual property. For those editors to opine on a copyright issue would be considered malpractice/unauthorized practice of law in the entire EU, the US, and Canada, for starters. (Though the UK is a bit odd in this respect; while on the one hand it suggests that even a paralegal is permitted to practice law, as long as he or she does not violate or break the law, under The Solicitors Act 1974, s20-23, provisions for foreign lawyers or law graduates to be eligible to practice law within the UK make clear that there is a necessary legal academic requirement, at minimum) All they're doing is (unfortunately) using legal terms for what isn't a legal concept – but rather a bastardized wikipedia group think principle. That's probably a bad idea, come to think of it; another name might have been a better idea (copyright-heavy?). But it probably makes some people feel important.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:20, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

I can only suggest you check your facts and read the whole policy not just a small excerpt. _wjemather^bigissue 13:57, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

Done. I stand by what I said. Anyone not qualified to practice law in the US isn't qualified to give a legal opinion on US law—which would at least in part govern any Wikipedia intellectual property issues.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:58, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

Image in NWA 253

OK. I just assumed that because it had been removed separately earlier without complaint that it would be fine, but I see what you mean.  fetchcomms☛ 03:57, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

Tx. Look at the last change I had to make, where someone who I expect has a POV turned a NYT statement on its head and improperly reported what it said. That, coupled with the statements I indicated being deleted, suggest to me a serious POV editor bordering on being a vandal. Same applies to the pic. I would appreciate your vigilance as well against this, if you will be editing your article. Many thanks for your understanding.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:02, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

You've already broken WP:3RR. Please do not make another revert and use the talk page. Grsz¹¹ 04:56, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

Also, please do not make blatantly misleading edit summaries, such as this one. Grsz¹¹ 04:58, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

Apologies on the edit summary. Not sure how that happened, as I was trying to change the section title (which should be suspect, not perp). As to 3RR, I've not broken it. Note that the pic title has changed. And I've suggested that others who wish to discuss leave the pic and join the conversation on the article talk page. You've failed to do that. As I've asked on your talk page, pls revert your deletion of the article and join discussion on the talk page. The POV editors here, who have deleted properly sourced RS statements of a Congressman re the cleric, have lied as to what the NYT article says about the cleric, and deleted the pic are violating all manner of WP policies. I'm troubled to see you join in that effort.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

Northwest Airlines

Because of your many edits to the Northwest Airlines Flight 253 article, consider helping out on a related new article, NCTb. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:18, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:19, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Your comment

Please remove this personal attack. Not only are your accusations false, but they have no bearing on the discussion there. Grsz¹¹ 19:23, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

For starters, my objections to the image at the 253 article were in the preliminary hours when the mentions of him were mere speculation, and not after more information and a definitive connection were discovered. As far as any other accusations, they're all talk and attacks if you don't provide evidence. Grsz¹¹ 19:31, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I had a bit of a dispute with that IP user last night. He seems to be atleast a little more accepting of a version I attempted last night, that I don't feel differs much from yours. I've most recently only incorporated it (partly) in the first paragraph of the section. If you have further issues, why not mention on the talk page and the three of us can hash them out, rather than just reverting? Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 04:51, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I see. I'll keep my eye on the talk page.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:53, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Hey sorry, but I removed your comment about Flight 253 at the Fort Hood talk page. I see you've posted on the Flight talk page. Don't worry, people will work on it eventually. Remember, there is no deadline. Grsz¹¹ 06:15, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

I know there's no deadline. But I wanted to leave my comment there, as they are related events and I believe my comment appropriate. Please never remove my comments in the future without asking me first, unless it is from your talk page.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:50, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if I offended you, it wasn't intentionally. But Talk:X is for discussion of article X, while Talk:Y is for discussion of article Y. There are other venues to make your comments, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, or just ask a certain user. Grsz¹¹ 15:15, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I know you know better than to delete another's comments without speaking to them, and that there is not deadline, as you had just suggested yourself in another less controversial matter discussing rather than reverting.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:03, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

CAIR

I closed the discussion since the move I think you wanted was not nominated. You wanted the article Council on American Islamic Relations moved, if I followed the discussion. You nominated CAIR to be moved. Feel free to make another nomination if my analysis is correct. Note that would be a multipart nomination since both Council on American Islamic Relations and CAIR would need to be moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:49, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I gather I didn't list it properly. What I would like to suggest be done, is that a search for CAIR point to "Council on American Islamic Relations". Since, as evidenced, that is what most people searching for CAIR are looking for. And that then Council on American Islamic Relations have a hatnote pointing to a CAIR disambig pg. How would I suggest that? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:03, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Littman

You appear to be simply adding worthless content for the sake of it, the article is starting to appear a bit excessive, perhaps it is your favorite subject but your excessive additions are imo beginning to make the article unreadable, rambling and like some kind of attack page, there is no need to insert every little detail as the major points get simply swamped. Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out for it, but I don't believe I've added any worthless content. And nothing that resembles an attack page. As sections become larger, however, we should look to sub-section them.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:54, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Larger, you have got to be joking, I am gong to open discussion and look to remove some of you more excessive additions. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Well, we'll see where the sources take us. But as you know, many have yet to be mined. Your POV is fine as a POV, but phrases like "worthless" strike me as odd – the most recent adds relate to material covered by multiple sources. That you think the issue worthless doesn't warrant your deleting the material.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:01, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

note; COI and Neutrality template-bombing because you don't like the views of the subject of the article

Please do not remove my template again, if you do I will report you. Off2riorob (talk) 00:05, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

You are template-bombing the David Littman article. You've provided—despite this now having been pointed out to you multiple times—absolutely no basis for the COI assertion you make when attaching a COI template; neither here or elsewhere. You seem to think that you can template-bomb the article with templates that have no basis whatsoever, and that others are (for some reason that I've not seen you articulate) forbidden from deleting the template when, after multiple requests, you fail to supply any reason, let alone a cogent one, for the template. I'm not sure where your understanding arises, but I suggest we bring in a sysop to discuss the issue, as your course seems to be to instead edit-war without any rationale.

You also have indicated that you don't like the thinking of the subject of the article. And believe that that is reason for you to delete material from the article, or tag it with a "neutrality" tag. Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of that tag. It doesn't mean that the subject of the article can't have a point of view. What is required is that the article fairly reflect the sources. That, it does. Your desire to delete material form the article on a "I don't like it" basis is not countenanced by Wikipedia policies. Nor have you supplied any cogent reason for the neutrality tag.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:14, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for deferring to the consensus/sysops on the article's talk page (now, if your co-editor would only do the same).--Epeefleche (talk) 01:25, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

Mosque

"We already went round and round about this, and what you changed was what we had agreed to – The mosque itself and other RSs refer to it as being in Falls Church. I think the language we had is best.-"

• 1. Who are "we"? – I do not remember editing this article before
• 2. Reliable sources typically use the United States Postal Service address city name (123 Main Street, Anywheresville, TX) in describing the location of a place. The thing is, the USPS address does not necessarily correlate with the actual location of a place. People editing articles related to the United States need to understand this and accept any edits that, while using reliable sources (maps + street address), demonstrate that the actual municipality/CDP/location is not within the city indicated in the USPS address. Sometimes reliable sources do refer to the real location, and those are very helpful to use too.
  • For instance "Bid to close mosque viewed as bigotry." says "Photo, The Dar Al-Hijrah mosque in Seven Corners might be closed down by Fairfax County because of zoning violations." (this isn't seen in the subscriber preview, but I saw this in a Google News search results page, so I know it exists in the article)
• 3. However in an article not specifically about "Dar el-Hijrah" one can say "Dar el-Hijrah, near Falls Church" – that is fine, as it states the major city associated with the mosque and states that it isn't really in the city.
• 4. However the lead of the actual article needs to clearly state the real location of the place. "Falls Church area of Northern Virginia." isn't sufficient. "In the area" suggests it could be in any one of several census-designated places. It also doesn't state what county that the place is in; stating the county isn't important if one is considering a place in an incorporated area. But the mosque is in an unincorporated area, where there is no municipal government, so the county is important to the topic.

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:16, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to look through the edit history to figure out who the editor was w/whom I discussed it (or starting off had the view that you have). The problem is that multiple RSs say it is a Fall Church mosque, or in Fall Church. And – to top it off – the mosque itself does so, and lists its location as Falls Church. Your original research is of course quite interesting, but the only way we figured we could be accurate and in line w/the RSs (who you will say your independent research shows are wrong) was the approach taken. Your point # 4—is that how you feel, or is there a policy that states that?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:36, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

1. It cannot possibly be original research now – I just found a Washington Times article (area newspaper) that refers to it as being in "Seven Corners," so

2. That's a simplification based on the USPS address. Because the postal address says "Falls Church, VA" the mosque is stating that it is in "Falls Church, VA," even though the mosque is clearly outside of the city limits (Go look up the mosque on Yahoo Maps and you'll see that it is in Fairfax County – In Virginia cities do not reside in counties, so the mosque is clearly outside of Falls Church). Whenever you see that, remember that it is just an approximation or a simplification. In many cases newspapers from the Washington DC area refer to the specific place name (in this case Seven Corners) – However, because RSes often refer to Falls Church, the lead should state that the mosque is near Falls Church.

3. In regards to point number 4, there isn't a policy stating that (policies control few aspects of Wikipedia) – However I will say that the lead must state where a place is, and saying it is in the "Falls Church" area is not helpful to the reader.

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:43, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

It's not an easy one. The mosque itself says it is located in Falls Church.[5] There are thousands of references to it being in Falls Church, including in RSs such as the New York Times.[6][7][8] I don't see anything close to that weight of coverage referring to Seven Corners.[9][10][11][12] Even without accounting for the chaff, a glance suggests that perhaps as many ast 100 times more references are to it being a Falls Church mosque. It's address is Falls, Church. Is there a noticeboard that you think would be a good one to post this to to get an outside view?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:04, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

1. "The mosque itself says it is located in Falls Church" – I already explained that it is simply saying that based on its USPS address. A lot of people aren't bothered with specifics. The Washington Times clearly states that it is in Seven Corners.

2. "RSs such as the New York Times" – Based on its postal address. A newspaper not from the area, such as the New York Times, will not care about specifics like that. They want to simply give a location, not a precise location.

3. "Is there a noticeboard that you think would be a good one to post this to to get an outside view?" – Well, there is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Virginia. Having said that, I worked on the Tysons Corner, Virginia article and the editors agreed to state that things were specifically in Tysons Corner, even though many have "McLean, Virginia" or "Vienna, Virginia" postal addresses. A lot of companies are based in Tysons Corner, but many of the addresses of the HQ buildings list other place names.

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:12, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

1. I understand that you say you believe you know why the mosque says it is in Falls Church. That may be the case, but still they're word is of weight I believe. 2. The Washington Times, while I view it generally as an RS and some others do not, is not as reliable as The Washington Post – which generally says the mosque is in Falls Church. 3. I was thinking more along the lines of a noticeboard that would address the issue of the vast, vast majority of RSs calling it a Falls Church mosque, but you feeling they are wrong for the indicated reasons. Maybe a geography or lead noticeboard.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:50, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this will do the trick:

This from the Washington Post talks about the Fairfax County zoning board being involved in a dispute regarding the mosque http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-951508.html

Fairfax County would not be involved with a property within the City of Falls Church (remember cities in Virginia are not in counties) – The Dar al-Hijrah mosque cannot be in the City of Falls Church

In regards to a noticeboard about reliable sources, there is the noticeboard of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, but I think they will say what I say too.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:22, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

What a bizarre issue. I suppose the source of my own confusion on this matter is, quoting Census-designated place: "Further, as statistical entities, the boundaries of the CDP may not correspond with local understanding of the area with the same name." I tend to agree with listing Dar al-Hijrah as being in Falls Church upon this (from CDP): "CDPs are delineated solely to provide data for settled concentrations of population that are identifiable by name but are not legally incorporated under the laws of the state in which they are located. The boundaries of a CDP have no legal status." However, that is general, pertaining to the understanding of the relationship between a CDP and city or town. At the end of the day I agree with Whisper based upon what it says at the Seven Corners page: "Seven Corners has a "Falls Church" mailing address but is not within the independent City of Falls Church, Virginia." And from the Falls Church article: "A broader area around the city has long been considered part of Falls Church, though these areas were not incorporated as part of the current city. These include Seven Corners..." Supertouch (talk) 23:28, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

In regards to it being in the Falls Church area, when mentioning dar al-Hijrah in other articles I would try "Dar al-Hijrah, near Falls Church" – addressing that it is considered to be in the area/a part of the fabric of the area culture, even if it is not technically in the city limits. Within the lead of the Dar al-Hijrah article I stated "near Falls Church" to address this.

Epeefleche, in regards to "Whisper's view is that the RSs in question and the church are wrong," – Well, not really wrong – more like that they approximate and are not giving the precise, actual location. It's like a guy saying "I'm from Washington DC" when he's really from Arlington County, Virginia.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:53, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

I think "in the Falls Church area" is preferable to "near Falls Church."--Epeefleche (talk) 05:18, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

In the Falls Church area is a good option :) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:51, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Lloyd R. Woodson appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Ridernyc (talk) 02:03, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

That's your response to the note that I left you on your talk page? That's certainly not responsive. There was no POV in that edit. How, pray tell, do you divine POV in my referring to a killing as an "attack" rather than a "killing"? Your above note fails to explain how that would be the case. I would suggest that you not slap warnings on users' pages without reason to do so.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:19, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

your edit to Judaism

Hi, I want to make clear that I know your edit was good faith. Malik Shabbazz removed it and another user restored it and I removed it again. First – and parenthetically – you should know I do not fully agree with the wording. But second, and far more important, the reason Malik removed it and I removed it a second time is that there had been so much conflict on the page that it was protected, and when it was unprotected it was because we all agreed to reach consensus on the talk page before making substantive changes. So, if other editors express support for your addition, on the talk page, we can put it back in.

I explained my removal here and this is where I hope discussion of your proposal will occur. I hope you have time to read my comment and see why I disagree with the wording. It could just be that you and I disagree. Or is it possible that we could play with the wording so that you and I equally like it? Jayjg raised a question about sources, but otherwise seems not to object to what you wrote. I think it would be a good idea if a couple of other longstanding contributors to the page chimed in. But the key thing is just for there to be some discussion first. It is quite possible that people will agree to put what you wrote back in.

I see you recently made an edit further up ... given how many arguments have been raging on the talk page, I wonder if many people missed your edit. I could be wrong but I hope creating a whole section dedicated to discussion of your ocntribution will encourage more people to chime in. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:27, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Quite frankly, given that I made the point, and most people (other than you and the the one or two editors you indicate, apparently) seemed to be focused on listening to themselves rather than others, I stopped looking at the page. I'll take another look when I get a chance. Generally speaking, your notions sound good, and I appreciate your moving the matter forward.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:14, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

I frankly am surprised that other editors did not comment (whether positively ornegatively) on your line. My problem is with the use of the word faith. You may considerit s quibble. I genuinely would like to know whether my qualms make sense to you and if you see a way around them. I don't see any need to rush, I think some people get addicted to the instantaneousness of Wikipedia. If other people like your sentence there is no reason it cannot go back in. People really should be capable of thoughtful discussion. Some people are. So I do hope you will check out the section and comment perhaps – when you get a chance! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:25, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

See also

Essentially, there are guidelines for see also sections. See WP:ALSO. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 22:36, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Your edit summary was to the effect that the dab was not necessary. That is not the standard. Nowhere does it say the dab must be necessary.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:41, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

The dabs do nothing to explain the relevance, hence they are unnecessary. _wjemather^bigissue 23:06, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

They need not be necessary. Where does it say that they must be necessary? Where is that indicated to be the standard? Are you making that up, as the standard?

As to whether they are helpful, IMHO they are.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:08, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Ahmed Mansour

You could move Ahmed Mansour to Ahmed Mansour (journalist) and then redirect "Ahmed Mansour" to Ahmed Subhy Mansour and leave a hatnote

{{for|the Al-Jazeera journalist|Ahmed Mansour (journalist)}

{{for|the Al-Jazeera journalist|Ahmed Mansour (journalist)}

At the top of the "Ahmed Subhy Mansour" article.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:33, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Copyright/plagiarism concerns.

Two articles that you have recently created appear to have concerns regarding copyright/plagiarism, as well as some inappropriately sourced/cited information. I have identified my specific concerns on the talkpages of the articles concerned, here and here. These issues of "copying" of material have been identified in the very recent past to you by another administrator as problematic It is very important to take these various issues of policy seriously, as I have mentioned before. --Slp1 (talk) 23:34, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I have time. But at first glance, with all due respect, the first point you raise appears highly specious. First, you are suggesting that a U.S. statute is being plagiarized, as that is the primary source to which the secondary source relates. Second, what would one change that has not been changed? Would you use another phrase for "U.S."? For "branch"? For "subsidiary"? Of course not. If you did use a different phrase for any of those, you would be less than accurate. What words are left that are the same? Foreign is not used (instead non-U.S. is). Institutions is not used (entities is). I think you are wildly off-base that there is a legitimate copyright/plagiarism concern there, at least one that a U.S. lawyer who is a copyright/intellectual property expert would find. By the way – what is your level of legal background. Do you have a degree in law, and if so at what level, and in what country? I think I may have asked you before, but don't recall an answer.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:06, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

I think you may want to consider 17 U.S.C. Section 105, and its applicability to U.S. Executive Orders and other U.S. materials.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:00, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

No you haven't asked me before if I had a degree in law, what level and country. I would have remembered. If you seriously question my comments and advice please feel free to get another opinion at WP:CP or even WP:AN.

The problems do not just relate to (unattributed, un"quoted", uncited) copy and pastes of sections of Executive Orders etc as you suggest above. The bulk of the problems I identified refer to copying or too close paraphasing from books under copyright. Simply adding a link to an executive order does not solve this issue.[13], and in any case the quotes from public domain documents need to be attributed. See Plagiarism- Public Domain Sources for appropriate practices with this kind of material. Reading WP:PLAGIARISM and WP:COPYRIGHT (if you haven't already) may help explain things further where I have failed. --Slp1 (talk) 14:23, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Americans for Peace and Tolerance

An article that you have been involved in editing, Americans for Peace and Tolerance, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americans for Peace and Tolerance. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. _wjemather^bigissue 21:37, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

• Wjemather – I'm concerned that, in the immediate wake of our testy exchange on another subject, your next act is to AfD an article I created.

That you would single me out, by AfDing a page I just created, suggests an apparent effort to confront or inhibit my work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:53, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Please do not take it personally. I thought about leaving it to avoid further confrontation, but on balance decided that it does not appear to be a notable subject – there is nothing in the article to suggest otherwise – and it would be best listed at AfD. That is all. _wjemather^bigissue 22:14, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

That you singled me out to nominate an article I just created for an AfD hours after our testy exchange is not appropriate, under the circumstances. It's not a matter of taking it personally.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:17, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Take it how you will. You have not been singled out. Please feel free to explain why the organisation is notable and provide

the necessary evidence, and I will gladly withdraw the nomination. Regards, 22:34, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

• Here are the facts. We had a terse conversation. Hours later, you AfD'd an article that I had just created. How, pray tell, did that happen except for you having singled me out? On its face, I can see no other explanation.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:37, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • I had POV concerns with some of your contributions, as raised previously. I have had the same, if not more serious, concerns with others as you can see from my contributions. _wjemather^bigissue 22:50, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

• So you admit you singled me out.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:51, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • No. As an aside, it would be helpful if you provided complete edit summaries, to make it easier to follow the development of this article. I don't appreciate your comments at the AfD either. _wjemather^bigissue 23:02, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • You just indicated that you AfD'd the article as a result of concerns you had with some of my contributions. So you admit that because of those concerns, you singled me out.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:04, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Rather then arguing here why don't you first fix the article, second make a rational argument to keep the article at AFD. Time for you to move on from this persecution complex. 23:11, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

So you don't deny that hours after our testy exchange you followed me to the articles that I had created and as a result AfD'd this article, which I had just created.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:13, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you both relax. As an independent observer, I see one person AfD'ing another's brand new article simply because he does not like supposed POV edits of the other. On the other hand, the apparent victim here is pushing too hard in the opposite direction since the AfD will work its magic and the article will stay or go accordingly. And so far it looks like it's going to stay. So how about you guys just get along now and improve the article together. I'll tell you one thing, I sure would not appreciate someone following me around deciding my edits were POV and seeking the removal of my work. Too bad there's not a barnstar for putting up with that kind of behavior. I do that and everyone does that in clear cases of vandalism, but not POV. That would be POV in and of itself. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:41, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. (I had a much longer response, replete with diffs, which of course you would have found to be an instance of me proving the point you are making ... but that would have suggested I am a strikingly poor listener). Am repairing to pour myself a cup of tea.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:11, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Accusations

Please can we keep discussions to the subject in question without throwing around random accusations. They do nothing to aid in reaching a consensus and I am beginning to feel like you are just baiting me. _wjemather^bigissue 20:45, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

How, pray tell, did you end up at that discussion unless you are following me around? As you admitted above you have done before, directly following our conversation in which I voiced an opinion contrary to yours? --Epeefleche (talk) 20:52, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

I have previously made you aware that I have policy concerns with regards to some of your (and others) edits, and I will continue to raise any concerns I have in the expectation that consensus can be reached one way or another. Obviously, given our sometimes conflicting interpretations of various policies and guidelines, on occasion it may be wise to just advertise the discussion with the associated wikiprojects and leave it to others to resolve, rather than having us go round in circles, which is what has happened too often. _wjemather^bigissue 22:03, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

First, we had testy exchanges. Then you immediately began singling me out. You followed me around. I don't recall if we've ever met before, but just hours after our testy exchange you AfD'd an article I had just created. I asked you to stop this sort of behavior. You've now repeatedly continued, by following me to other discussions on pages I am editing, and joining debates where I am contributing. In each case, confronting my edits. This is quite annoying. Please desist. Thank you.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:34, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

I see that you are taking this personally but as explained earlier, you are not being singled out for special treatment. Following the closure of the Woodson AfD, I was checking (between 08:13 and 08:30, February 3, 2010) for articles to which you and others had added details about Woodson, when I came across the article you created. I gave it a quick read and my initial thought was that the organisation did not meet notability guidelines, but as it had only just been created (08:18, February 3, 2010) I left it alone rather than tagging it. Later that day, I returned to it to find that it had not substantially changed. I then did some research before properly nominating it for deletion at 21:37.
Finally, just so we are clear, If I see policy violations, then I will continue to raise my concerns. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 23:17, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

The last two discussions that you followed me to had nothing to do with the Woodson article. I can't imagine your suddenly appearing, directly after our testy exchange, at discussions I am having (and taking contrary positions) unless you are singling me out. This is annoying and not appropriate. Please stop.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:23, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

I suggested you both stop in the above section and it appears you did. Now I see Wjemather has just continued his behavior in a new section.

I love this: "I left it alone rather than tagging it. Later that day, I returned to it to find that it had not substantially changed. I then did some research before properly nominating it for deletion...," Wow! "Later that day"! Big of him to allow a new article a few hours to grow!

I am so sorry Wjemather continues to hound you. Actually, I am afraid he's going to start hounding me now just for pointing out how he hounds you. I don't edit much at the moment so maybe I'm safe, for now. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:51, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

He (and a few others) hounding me and a bunch of other editors too, and getting together to cooperate to oppose what they view as "POV terrorism edits". I've seen editors like this before, and it's like they're enforcing a topic block. They only way to get around these guys is to not edit at all since everything that is written is simply reverted. There was an objection that Woodson was not linked to a JTTF. So I added a reference that stated "JTTF was called in to investigate", at which time it was reverted again saying there was no connection. They are enforcing a threat that any attempt to mention the arrest of Woodson be met with some sort of retaliation. Why is adding a well referenced edit on a notable event worthy of wiki-capital punishment? The Woodson deletion was an abomination. Anyone that wants to find information on the incident will find a big nothing on WP, even though there are many, many RS articles published in many countries on this so-called non-notable event which was important enough to merit a JTTF investigation which now cannot be included anywhere on WP in its own or in any other article "by consensus". They would delete the assasination of John F. Kennedy if they could get enough people to vote on it since it was only one event that got international coverage, and nobody concluded it was terrorism. These guys forget there is nothing wrong with a particular POV, and NPOV means presenting all sides of a controversy. Simply reverting all edits which conflict with a point of view is enforcing a one-sided POV as well. All I had to do was complain about the deletion, and I was threatened with a block for attacking other editors. Bachcell (talk) 05:43, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

I find this troubling: Bachcell (talk) 05:48, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Following users contributions due to legitimate concerns regarding policy violations is not hounding. It is evident that I am not the only one who has these concerns. I repeat what was said above, some of the disagreements with Epeefleche have been down to a different understanding of the policy in question, and it could be argued that on occasion there has been some gaming of the system. I was hoping that since the root cause had been identified, the friction may subside, but judging by comments above (and elsewhere (diff), that does not seem to be the case.
Bachcell, if you have a problem with the warning (not threat) you received from Orangemike, I suggest you take it up with him instead of complaining about it here and elsewhere. _wjemather^bigissue 12:48, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Civility again

How about you keep discussion to the subject instead of continuing to throw around baseless accusations. Given your past history, if you genuinely believed that I was acting inappropriately, then I am quite sure you would have taken it to another forum by now. Instead, by questioning my actions and/or intentions in order to discredit my opinion, you are acting in an uncivil manner which borders on violation of WP:NPA. Please consider this a final warning.

As far as the Islamic Association of Long Island article goes, I was requested to comment by another editor due to your offhand and excessively defensive dismissal of their concerns. I reiterate what I said there, the article as it stands is a coatrack and does not establish the notability of the subject. "oldest mosque in the area" is the only indicator but it is very vague – what is the area? a street, neighborhood, hamlet, town/city, county, etc. Please try to address these concerns. If nothing can be done, then I or someone else will list it at AfD. _wjemather^bigissue 10:35, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Your pattern of wikihounding is clear, and not at all baseless. I could provide the diffs, but you are well aware of the instances. As is your pattern of tag-teaming with said editor, votestacking as in that discussion is as I expect you are aware a no-no as well. There is nothing uncivil in my pointing out your misbehavior, and "how about" you consider acting appropriately yourself, rather than engaging in the aforementioned behavior? The mosque is notable as reflected in the fact that it has had multiple RS coverage, relative to more than one incident, and it is not a coatrack in that it fairly reflects the portion of RS coverage. --Epeefleche (talk) 10:52, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

You are well aware that incidental coverage is insufficient to establish notability. The position you are taking is commonly known as gaming the system. _wjemather^bigissue 11:08, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I found a source that clarifies it as the oldest on Long Island and have added it to the article. As far as I'm concerned that is a sufficiently broad area for it to meet notability criteria. _wjemather^bigissue 12:03, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

A cup of tea. Have a pleasant day.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:18, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Lloyd R. Woodson

I have nominated Lloyd R. Woodson, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd R. Woodson. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:03, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

• Robofish wrote: *Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:109PAPERS. I'll change my mind if this is still getting media attention in a week... This deletion surprised me, and I will add my voice in a DRV. Geo Swan (talk) 08:08, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

• Gregg McDonald (Tuesday February 2, 2010). "Reston man faces federal weapons charges". Fairfax Times. Retrieved 4 February 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Barnstar

		The BLP Barnstar
		message Supertouch (talk) 21:24, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

• I was surprised that an article as well-referenced at the Lloyd Woodson article could deleted when so many—BLP and otherwise—unreferenced articles remain. Just sayin'... Supertouch (talk) 21:33, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

• Many thanks. Yes, I'm surprised from time to time as well, and this was just such a circumstance. A rather stark one. It's somewhat bizarre to me that a subject covered by hundreds of articles, and in many countries, is deemed non-notable. No doubt, other forces at work in some editors' minds than what I would hope for. And in at least one case a lack of seasoning (we do afford high school students the same deference as those with greater experience). And some of the edit-warring (insistence that the word "attack" suggests an incendiary POV that the word "killing" does not) was truly inscrutable to me.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:43, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

• We should get a save for when the FBI finally admits it was a terrorist incident (when pigs fly....) At least they're not deleting Fort Hood shootings... yet Bachcell (talk) 06:25, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Najibullah Zazi

Hi there. Just a quick note: Great job editing the article. It now looks complete. Thanks! Tuscumbia (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Muslim Students' Association

No problem. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:38, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Time to bring back Lloyd Woodson??

• Grand jury indicts man on weapons charges from Branchburg incident; NJ.com – ‎Feb 25, 2010‎; By The Messenger-Gazette The Somerset County Grand Jury returned an indictment today charging Lloyd R. Woodson, 43, with a variety of weapons charges ...
• Virginia man is indicted for allegedly having weapons arsenal stashed in NJ ... NJ.com;
• Ex-Va. man indicted in NJ weapons case; The Associated Press – ‎Feb 26, 2010‎; Lloyd Woodson, whose last known address was in Reston, Va., faces numerous charges — including attempted robbery and multiple weapons offenses — in the ...
• Man Formerly from VA Indicted in NJ for Weapons Cache; WHSV – ‎Feb 26, 2010‎; Lloyd Woodson, whose last known address was in Reston, Virginia, faces numerous charges including attempted robbery and multiple weapons offenses in an ...
• Virginia man indicted in Somerset Co. weapons case Dailyrecord.com;
• Three Branchburg Police Officers to receive official commendation for capture ...; NJ.com – Amanda Peterka – ‎Feb 18, 2010‎;
• So the people who captured the heavily armed Lloyd R. Woodson last month will be honored by the Township Committee at its annual awards ceremony. ...; NJ.com
• Branchburg will salute 3 policemen for important arrest; NJ.com – ‎Mar 3, 2010‎; ... these patrolmen at the Monday, March 8, Township Committee meeting for their persistence, valor and efficiency in the apprehension of Lloyd R. Woodson. ...'Serving the goals of al Qaeda when we criticize Obama; Canada Free Press – Laurie Roth – ‎Feb 9, 2010‎
• There was the total minimizing and 'moving swiftly on by' Lloyd R. Woodson who was arrested in New Jersey Jan. 25th. No one mentioned with this ...

There was the total minimizing and ‘moving swiftly on by’ Lloyd R. Woodson who was arrested in New Jersey Jan. 25th. No one mentioned with this administration anything at all to do with Islamic terrorism, yet that is exactly what he was obviously setting up, an Islamic terror attack. Let us review a few ‘non Islamic terrorism facts.’ Woodson had a modified to fire .50-caliber weapon designed to fire from beneath his jacket. He was wearing military-style fatigues and a bulletproof vest and had tons of weapons and ammunition in his hotel room. There was Islamic Jihad material found in his room. Gee…….moving right along. What slaughter was barely avoided this time?

The last article is an RS speculation that it might have been ... a terrorist related attack. I think most of the votes on the delete were posted before there was anything in the article, any new votes to delete if it were to be put back up would look truly ridiculous. Bachcell (talk) 00:05, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Yep ... I see there a number of more articles. You might check w/one of the non-POV nay-voters from the AfD, to see if they think that now is the time. No doubt, articles will continue to be written on the future court events as this proceeds through the court.

And I would suggest waiting until this disruptive editing matter has run its course, so as not to confuse the two issues.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:51, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. Other than correcting the spelling, can we thank Wjemather for doing anything else positive?? Bachcell (talk) 16:25, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Res ipsa loquitur. The highly negative reaction to his editing at the recent ANI brought on his editing was interesting, as well as the similar comments made at the Woodson AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:06, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Lloyd R. Woodson; Kept

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Lloyd R. Woodson. Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd R. Woodson (2nd nomination).--Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Numerous reverts

I have again revered a number of your contributions. Please bear in mind Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which I know you are aware of, before adding information regarding people and events to other articles. The addition of mostly unrelated material in order to overstate the importance of certain events or individuals does not benefit the encyclopaedia. In short, just because something has been mentioned in the press does not in itself make it worthy of inclusion in every single vaguely related article on Wikipedia. Verifiability in itself is not a criterion for inclusion. Regards. _wjemather^bigissue 02:27, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your revering my contributions. But please, there is no need to go so far. Simply bowing your forehead to the ground every now and then in an act of homage is sufficient.

I will take a look when I have a moment. But if this is more of your disruptive wikistalking, and disruptive editing such as I and a number of editors have warned you about in recent past, I would urge you to amend your disruptive ways.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:39, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

You are gaming the system. Please, as I have suggested to you before, read through the relevant policies and guidelines, and associated helpful essays.
Woodson is not notable and never will be. Even the notability of the incident he was involved in is debatable, and unless something is done to the article it will be re-listed at AfD. I will leave it to you to revert your hijacking of unrelated articles. If you fail to do so then obviously dispute resolution is the next course of action.
In addition, accusing others of vandalism over content disputes is simply unacceptable, and you have been notified by others about this before. An apology will be fine. Thanks. _wjemather^bigissue 09:42, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

A cup of tea. Have a pleasant day.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:55, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Taking your advice

Taking your advice, I've rolled back my own edit. That aside, please respond to me instead of blanking this message. I have been civil with you, why can't you return the favor and discuss this with me?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I should have checked the history of this page, and for failing to do so, and assuming bad faith, I apologize. It is fine if you remove this message of course, now that I know. Again, I am sorry. I hope you can forgive me. I understand the need to not have clutter, I just wish that I was so insistent upon it that I could manage to clean my room. I'm actually considering a wikibreak because-(this will continue in email, if you don't mind). I'm experiencing too much stress. I'm even considering changing my 'oppose' to a 'support' regarding the interaction ban with Mb. I don't want there to be an indef ban, but considering things, and .. other things, I may just resolve to, instead of reverting their edits, responding to them, instead, I will simply report the edits to the admin who placed the original 24 hour ban, and let them decide for themselves. If this user continues to personally attack others, then they will get sanctioned.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinion

I am not sure whether being an offensive or defensive rebound champion is a big deal. Look at Evan Turner and tell me if it looks out of place in the championships section. Also, is it important enough to create a championship section for DeShawn Sims or should I leave it in the honors section?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:32, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, it is worth reflecting. Many basketball stats pages reflect the two separately (as well as combined). Plus, IMHO, they reflect different player approaches (those who get the offensive rebounds aren't hanging around on the outside calling for the ball so they can score). Just my opinion, of course, and reasonable people can differ. I would reflect it under "Records", as more appropriate than honors or championship. If you can help get flickr pix for Scheyer before the Final Four, btw, that would be great – there seem to be just two photogs who have good ones up. Perhaps you have dealt w/one of them already. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:37, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Sandwiching text

Wikipedia:MOS#Images: Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other. This also applies to right/left floating templates/tables. – Sameboat – 同舟 (talk) 04:13, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

There are conflicting directives when it comes to application at times, and when that happens (eg, that guideline conflicting in application w/the ones that suggest rotating right/left, and the one that suggests that if the focus of the photo is to the right the pic be put on the left, editor discretion is of course required. But what I was most surprised by was your move to the right of a pic (towards the bottom, perhaps the very bottom, with the caption "President Dmitry Medvedev visits the Lubyanka Metro") that I had on the left ... where there was not sandwiching issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:04, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. The default alignment of embedded file objects is right. And the left is provided when there's a collision with the right-aligned object. So if the embedded video of President Dmitry Medvedev isn't collide with a right-floating object, I don't feel there's the necessity to intentionally align it to left. Also because the writing direction of English is starting from left to right. Align the embedded object on the left will confuse the importance/focus between text and thumbnail, while the later is just a supplementary material to the article. – Sameboat – 同舟 (talk) 05:56, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

As MOS images says: "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left". Both of those reasons support that image being on the left.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:58, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Anwar al-Awlaki

Please see the relevant section of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy:

In order to ensure that information about living people is always policy-compliant (written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources) the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. Editors adding, restoring, or undeleting material about living persons that was deleted on good faith BLP objections must ensure it meets all Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. If material that was previously removed or deleted is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

If you'd like to discuss the content edits I'm making, I'd be happy to go over them with you one at a time. In the mean time, the content should stay out until we can reach a compromise version. Thanks. causa sui (talk) 21:45, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Bring it to the talk page there.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:51, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

I want to assure you that my desire to discuss this is completely sincere and I believe we're both acting in good faith. However, policy/convention on BLPs is clear that burden of proof is on you, as the person restoring the content, to explain why it should be in the article. causa sui (talk) 21:54, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

I've done so, in my edit summaries. If you want to make changes, bring them to the talk page.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:57, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

I was considering reporting causa sui at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for what seems to be violation of the WP:3RR rule. However, I am unsure if using the undo button constitutes a revert—my reading of that rule: " It states that a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period..." is that this includes "undoing". I am reluctant to take on an admin in a matter I am not entirely clear on. Do you think this is overreacting?--Supertouch (talk) 22:12, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

I would expect that Causa is watching this, and sees you note. Causa might argue that he is protecting a BLP. But I think that his comments are off-base. One can't willy nilly delete material from BLP articles and expect to be able to edit war on that basis, unless their view is reasonable. His does not appear to be so to me. I will leave word to that effect on the article talk page. Nor do I believe his edits reflect consensus. I'll leave word to that effect on the talk page as well, and wait to see what others' views are.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:22, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

latest edit; The Causa Matter

Please confine discussion of article content to the appropriate talk pages. Thanks. --causa sui (talk) 21:51, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry – are editor talk pages not appropriate, where one has a comment specific to an editor's editing? I had not realized. Where can I find the guidance that states that my posting on your talk page is "not appropriate"?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to be rude. I like to keep article content discussions on the article talk pages to avoid confusion and allow other editors to participate in the public discussion about the article. Thanks. --causa sui (talk) 22:04, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

I was honestly flabbergasted by your request, which: a) wasn't to my knowledge rule-based, and b) didn't indicate that it was simply a personal prediliction of yours that you want me to follow. By your using the phrase "the appropriate talk pages", I had understood you to be saying that my leaving a message on your talk page was not appropriate. I had precious few clues that you meant anything other than that.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:08, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Glad to have cleared up the confusion. --causa sui (talk) 22:18, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Block; Immediately lifted as "Highly Inappropriate"

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 48 hours, for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. causa sui (talk) 15:32, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you've used the correct template here? It links to WP:Vandalism. –xeno^talk 15:50, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|This is a bit odd. I've never been blocked for "editing abuse" or vandalism. In nearly 40,000 edits. I've no idea why I was blocked. Nor has Causa provided any detail that might give us a clue. Causa is a sysop about whose editing I've raised questions at a page he and I have both edited heavily; that of Anwar al-Awlaki. My most recent edits included questioning why he, without seeking consensus, deleted the text in the article mentioning that AA was noted for actively working to kill Americans. As Causa used the unhelpful edit summary of "trim". Is this a response for that? We can't tell. Is this the use by a sysop of his sysop powers with regard to a matter in which he is heavily involved? That would appear to be the case. This is a baseless block, that on top of it involves an abuse of sysop powers by a sysop who is in the middle of an editing dispute. Where the sysop himself was making controversial questionable edits without using the talk page, as I used the talk page to discuss that very same edit.}}

See this diff for Causa's deletion of the reference to AA being noted for actively working to kill Americans, coupled with his unhelpful edits summary of "trim".--Epeefleche (talk) 17:12, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) FYI causi sui peculiarly left a rationale for this block at Talk:Anwar_al-Awlaki#Epeefleche_blocked with the unhelpful comment that they are "not interested in discussing this matter with [Epeefleche] (or anyone else) on this page anymore". I commented there to them: "Given that others have debated your application of BLP here and you are involved in the content of this article, do you really think you should be the one taking administrative action? imho to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, you should recuse and report to ANI. " –xeno^talk 17:17, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed Causa sui is a highly involved admin and really should be counseled by someone about how any administrative-type powers on these articles should be exercised only by an outside and objective admin. I really rather hope that Causa sui would have the wisdom to seek out an unbiased admin like you, xeno—anyone so long as they are clearly eager to listen objectively to both sides of all arguments. If Causa sui can’t abide by WP:INVOLVED, perhaps it will be time to to take it to the next level. Greg L (talk) 17:40, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

• What's more, there does not seem to have been any prominent warning. Only some exchanges and disagreements on the article talk page with Causa. Highly problematic action from a highly involved Admin – it's no wonder they (admins) are generally opposed to any community-based de-sysopping. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 17:57, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have left a note for Causi sui, suggesting he recuse from further administrative action with respect to this article. –xeno^talk 18:01, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

• Read it. I am truly impressed.

  I think the cognitive dissonance Causa sui might be experiencing here is a perceived conflict between Wikipedia:Administrators#Exceptional_circumstances, (which allows that material deleted because it contravenes BLP may be re-deleted if it continues to be non-BLP-compliant) and WP:INVOLVED, (which holds that In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved.) The former prescribes what administrators can do. That latter prescribes that Cuasa sui can’t be the administrator performing such actions. Short of a true emergency (Epeefleche re-inserting someone’s Social Security number in the article) Causa sui can hold his wild horses and should have no problems convincing an uninvolved admin to step in if he has a meritorious (read: genuine) concern.

  His blocking rationale (I am not interested in discussing this matter with you (or anyone else) on this page anymore) is a showcase example for why WP:INVOLVED exists in the first place: getting wrapped up in an edit war until one looses objectivity and is highly biased (and confrontational). Moreover, his declaration of I am declaring him topic banned from this article for two weeks shows that Causa sui is exhibiting a profound lack of appreciation that he is now just a regular editor over there. And finally, his declaration that he’s not interested in “discussing this matter with” “anyone else” shows that he fancies himself as having some sort of carte blanch entitlement to edit as he pleases and block those who oppose him. Such a statement is also an excellent showcase for how the community should exercise greater care when granting Sysop powers to Admins.

  My personal contribution to this particular article has been minimal at best; my involvement has largely been to weigh in on the talk page, offer my 2¢, and challenge some of Causa sui’s reasoning. His statement that he thinks he no longer needs to discuss anything with anyone strongly indicates that if anyone should step back from the article for two weeks, it is Causa sui.

  I encourage Epeefleche to not be intimidated by such an unwarranted and provocative action, to edit as he normally would with an eye for encyclopedic prose that is germane, topical, and authoritatively cited, and I encourage both editors (yes Causa sui, you are just a regular editor on this article) to explain the basis for your edits so your reasoning can be sanitized by sunshine of scrutiny by the rest of the Wikipedian community. Greg L (talk) 21:39, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

• Yes – that just about sums it up. I might just have a look at the Causa sui RFA to see what level of scrutiny took place then. In defence of Causa sui, it's worth mentioning the tightening up on BLPs, but obviously this tightening is intended to be within the rules. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:32, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

• Lots of short comments in support – little criticism. Good vandal fighter. Perhaps to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Having said that, he was looking at Race and intelligence a while back, so perhaps he could knock a few heads together there! Stephen B Streater (talk) 23:11, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

• I edited there a couple of times. Escaped without my ass on fire too. Greg L (talk) 23:21, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Does Causa sui have a record of incompetent blockings, and/or of breaching WP:INVOLVED? Tony (talk) 02:21, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Damned good question. Greg L (talk) 02:43, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

I might be able to make this process easier: I won my RFA back in 2005 largely due to my work in RC patrol. The standards back then may have been more lax than now, though I'm not sure since I haven't participated in RFA in awhile. 99% of my blocks, accordingly, were due to vandalism. Offhand I can vaguely remember one that was contentious, but it wasn't reversed and nothing came of it so unfortunately I'd have to dig through all 15k or so of my edits to find it. I still do RCP sometimes but not nearly as much as in the past so I doubt that it's "hammer-nail" syndrome as you described. --causa sui (talk) 06:26, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

@Causa – What other wp names have you edited under, if I may ask (and when)? And have you ever been blocked or otherwise censured?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:18, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Although it is not mandatory that Causa answer this question, an answer would nevertheless clear the air and allay suspicions. I note that WP:SOCK policy says: "The general rule is one editor, one account." It is not an inviolable rule, but there should be no coyness, especially for an admin, in disclosure. Tony (talk) 08:52, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but it's hard to keep track of all the threaded discussion on this issue. I've been renamed twice, but I never changed accounts, aside from occasional gnoming around as an anonymous user when not logged in on public computers. To my recollection, I have never edited this article under another account. You can see my full block log as it is associated with this account, and renaming does not affect it. --causa sui (talk) 18:54, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

@Causa – Apologies for not having been sufficiently clear in my above questions. What other wp names have you edited under? And during what periods did you use each of those names? And have you ever been censured (under any name), and if so what were the details? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:18, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Causa Sui's reply

Hi all. I appreciate you all weighing in on my controversial decision to block this user. Before we start a witch hunt, I'd like a chance to throw in my $0.02. My understanding of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy is that users who repeatedly re-introduce contentious and poorly sourced material into biographies of living persons are to be blocked.

Administrators who suspect malicious or biased editing, or believe that non-compliant material may be added or restored, may protect or semi-protect pages in accordance with theprotection policy. Editors who repeatedly add or restore contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced may be blocked for disruption; see the blocking policy.

Further, the burden of proof is on those restoring the content to win consensus that it does not contravene the BLP policy:

In order to ensure that information about living people is always policy-compliant (written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources) the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. Editors adding, restoring, or undeleting material about living persons must ensure it meets all Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. If material that was previously removed or deleted is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Most importantly, administrators may enforce the provisions of the BLP policy by any means necessary, even if they are involved in editing the article:

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should bring the matter to the BLP noticeboard. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked.

Now, we can have an honest debate about whether the policy should be this way. But in point of fact, it is this way. We usually do expect administrators who are involved in content disputes not to use their admin powers to advance their own positions in the disputes, but both the blocking policy and the BLP policy unambiguously state that this expectation does not apply when the content dispute is about potentially libelous or defamatory information about a living person. That was the case here, and it's still the case: the article is still riddled with poorly sourced information that the user in question seems determined to restore without discussion no matter how many times we take it out. The relevant policies are again unambiguous about what should be done here: the content should be removed and the user should be blocked immediately. If this is a test case that shows the BLP page is in error, then we should amend the policy. I may well have been wrong to block him, and I'm open to having my mind changed on the best way to deal with editors who persistently restore BLP-problematic content: but I cannot understand the point of view of people who think I acted abusively. According to the letter and spirit of the BLP policy, what I did was absolutely right, and I would do it again in similar circumstances. --causa sui (talk) 06:09, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond. Perhaps the next step would be for Epeefleche to take his ideas about updating the policy to the BLP policy discussion pages. As I mentioned above, BLP is a sensitive area, and one where Wikipedia is quite strict about policy enforcement. As I understand it, the question is whether publicly available official documents in this case can be used as reliable sources. Is that right? (Edit: It seems to be more about alleged abuse of sysop tools Stephen B Streater (talk) 12:44, April 20, 2010 (UTC)) Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:18, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

PS I apologise for my hammer speculation. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:20, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that is exactly the question. The problem I am consistently encountering is that statements in the article substantially run-over the citations to which they are attributed. This is a particularly pernicious sort of BLP-violation because it creates the impression that the content in the article is meticulously sourced, as the citations sort-of do say the same thing as what's in the article, but not really; the article often says quite a bit more. Even worse, several times (and I'm still combing through the article; reading every citation is a laborious process) there will be one citation that supports the claim, and then a whole bunch that have nothing to do with it, which creates the impression that the claim is better sourced than it is. (There are other, more subtle problems as well, but we can go into further detail on the talk page.) If you'll take a look at the talk page history, I think I made extensive efforts to solve these problems through discussion, and I was generally met with bald reverting and accusations of pro-terrorism POV warriorship. At least one editor boldly argued that the BLP policy does not apply because the subject is an accused terrorist, an argument so patently ridiculous that it indicated to me that I was going to have to do something. My effort to draw more attention to the article through a post on the BLP noticeboard also attracted some attention in favor of my efforts, though not the attention of any neutral admins. So when this user, for the Xth time, restored contentious material without winning consensus (as the policy clearly requires him to) I didn't see any alternative.

Now, if I had one thing to do over, I wish I would have more carefully worded my "I won't discuss this further" statement. I think this may have given some folks who came in later the impression that I was unwilling to have my use of sysop tools peer-reviewed. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I meant to communicate there was that I wasn't interested in having further debates about whether the BLP policy applies to accused terrorists. Since it was the sole argument being advanced in favor of maintaining the status quo, I wanted to make clear that anyone with this view would have to challenge the applicability of the BLP policy to articles about accused terrorists in front of Wikipedia's other governing bodies-- I was not going to waste time discussing an issue that I feel is completely settled. --causa sui (talk) 17:12, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

I have not looked at any user's edits in particular in this article, but I have found several cases of sources not fully supporting the claims being made, or being subtly misrepresented in various ways. There are also some questionable sources being used that probably have no place in a BLP, especially when the site in question is admittedly hostile to the article's subject. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 19:28, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

• Also, consider the following recent ArbCom ruling. Some interesting findings:

That the policy on biographies of living people, and this Committee's ruling in the Badlydrawnjeff case, call for the removal of poorly sourced and controversial content, and places the burden of demonstrating compliance on those who wish to see the content included...That Wikipedia, through the founding principle of "Ignore All Rules", has traditionally given administrators wide discretion to enforce policies and principles using their own best judgment...That administrators have been instructed to aggressively enforce the policy on biographies of living people.

The user was then commended for cutting through the red tape (and even objections of other editors) to get BLP-noncompliant content out of the project:

The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns.

Much more extreme than anything I'm accused of here; this was a case of not only blocks following edit warring over BLP-related issues, but actual wheel warring. It seems quite clear that we are to handle BLP problems with urgency and not wait for discussion or procedures before getting dubious content out, and arbcom has ruled that use of sysop tools to interfere with BLP cleanup is the incorrect behavior. It seems that my mistake was that I did not, and have not, acted fast enough. --causa sui (talk) 19:43, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should seek comments/clarification at the administrators' noticeboard. Remember that with over 800 active admins, there is no need to 'go it alone'. –xeno^talk 20:04, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

(*sound of sipping coffee*) Wow. (*sound of sipping coffee*) I’m recognizing a pattern with you Causa sui. It appears that once you get a mindset, you pretty much can’t see past it. You seem to exhibit a profound inability—or refusal—to understand and address what others trying to tell you. Above, you persist at quoting from BLP, which is intended to ensure “sensitive” treatment to living individuals and preserve their “privacy” rights. BLP underwent an expansion after Wikipedia briefly read that Senator Byrd had died. Now… to the actual circumstances in your case:

You provide politically correct oratory such as “we can have an honest debate” but flout rules left and right. The only way to keep you from wriggling off the hook is to laboriously and meticulously examine the facts bit by bit to get at the true facts here. Such treatments tend to be lengthy, but I’m up to it. Now…

You gave your lip service to WP:INVOLVED by saying this expectation [that involved admins go get another admin] does not apply when the content dispute is about potentially libelous or defamatory information about a living person. Hmmm… Also, while blocking Epeefleche, you flouted Wikipedia:Blocking#Notifying the blocked user, which requires that Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason which indicates why a user was blocked. All you did was include a link in your block tag that linked to Wikipedia:Vandalism. Vandalism?!? Your omission (read: failure to do what is required of you) now presents a bit of a hurdle for us because no one can prove why you blocked. We can nevertheless, turn our Common-senseo-O-meters on ‘HIGH’ and use WP:COMMONSENSE. So let’s attempt to sanitize this stinker with the sunshine of some facts:

Epeefleche wrote that you deleted the text in the article mentioning that AA was noted for actively working to kill Americans. His last significant edit was to restore text you deleted (your ∆ here) and his reversion made a paragraph read as follows:

---

“ According unnamed U.S. officials, "Christmas-Day" bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab implicated al-Awlaki in some elements of planning or preparing for his failed attack. According to an unnamed U.S. official al-Awlaki is "working actively to kill Americans", and President Obama has authorized his targeted killing. ”

References

---

So let’s go look at the Washington Post citation. Why, right there in the Washington Post it says precisely that: "He's recently become an operational figure for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," said a second U.S. official. "He's working actively to kill Americans, so it's both lawful and sensible to try to stop him." Accordingly, "working actively to kill Americans" is factual, germane, notable, and properly cited. It clearly is not vandalism by any stretch of the imagination.

You wrote, above that We usually do expect administrators who are involved in content disputes not to use their admin powers to advance their own positions in the disputes, but both the blocking policy and the BLP policy unambiguously state that this expectation does not apply when the content dispute is about potentially libelous or defamatory information about a living person. To that, I respond that there was clearly nothing libelous or defamatory Epeefleche quoted from the Washington Post. It was factual and, again, properly cited.

BLP at Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material states that Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should bring the matter to the BLP noticeboard. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material

Also, Wikipedia:Administrators#Uninvolved admins states that In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion.

Clearly what Epeefleche wrote can not be considered blatant vandalism, which is an exception in WP:INVOLVED. Clearly, it was germane, topical, factual, and authoritatively cited to multiple sources. Just as clearly, you were not, as BLP provides an exemption for, involved in an edit war over potentially defamatory that was poorly sourced. In fact, you were simply involved in an edit war with an editor who was doing a proper job here and defied you (a version of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT that is applicable to some admins) several times in a row.

I’ll repeat the part you need to understand or there is going to be consequences for you.

I think the cognitive dissonance you are experiencing here is a perceived conflict between Wikipedia:Administrators#Exceptional_circumstances, (which allows that material deleted because it contravenes BLP may be re-deleted if it continues to be non-BLP-compliant); and WP:INVOLVED, (which holds that In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved.) The former prescribes what administrators can do. That latter prescribes that you can’t be the administrator performing such actions. The BLP exceptions you cite as backing your actions are colossally inapplicable here and I find your assertions to be a metric ton of weapons-grade bullonium. Short of a true emergency (Epeefleche re-inserting someone’s Social Security number in the article), or real vandalism (not the case here), you can hold your wild horses and should have no problems convincing an uninvolved admin to step in if he has a meritorious (read: genuine) concern.

You clearly didn’t have a meritorious reason with this last block (where Epeefleche quoted information cited to the Washington Post and two other sources). This is why you will behave like any other editor over there—you have zero admin powers in this situation because you are clearly biased beyond all reason and your “issues” with Epeefleche run deep. You wrote Now, we can have an honest debate… which suggests again that you aren’t listening and think posturing oratory will save your skin here. There is no more debate; wake up and smell the coffee or we’ll just have to take it to the next level to reign you in. Greg L (talk) 20:36, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like to begin an arbcom case or an administrator conduct RFC, it's your right to do so-- and I will certify it for you. --causa sui (talk) 21:23, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn’t like to. I’ll leave that to Epeefleche, who has demonstrated uncommon patience and maturity in dealing with your flouting of just about every expectation there is for admins. Greg L (talk) 21:40, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Does Causa sui now believe that he may have been over-zealous, given the reputable source of the material? Would he, now he has had time to consider the matter, agree that including this material is not an infringement of BLP? Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:15, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Reputable sources (plural). I think it particularly funny how Causa sui, when he deleted Epeefleche’s “potentially libelous or defamatory information”, had only one word in his edit summary (∆ here): an innocuous little “(trim)”. Really? Not “remove hateful words and potentially libelous, poorly sourced accusation” or anything like that?? We all know what was going on there. To accuse Epeefleche of vandalism, and block him, and declare that he is off limits to that article for weeks, and to not provide an explanation for the block (he couldn’t because it was unjustified), and his persistent ignoring of what other admins are trying to tell him, is all quite telling about his suitability to even remain an admin. I see zero contrition, which Stephen B Streater seems to be trying to rally Causa sui towards in the preceding post. Such an effort appears to be in vain, for all we’ve seen so far is that Causa sui instead fights back with great oratory about how there is room for “honest debate” (well, there you go; a good defense requires a strong offense). I note also his declaration that he is not interested in discussing the matter with Epeefleche or anyone else. Methinks Causa sui needs to dismount from his high horse since he blocks the sunlight down here. Greg L (talk) 22:35, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Mediation?

Hello. I made a post over at Talk:Anwar al-Awlaki asking if the involved parties (that's you!) would be willing to submit to mediation. Will you please reply? Thanks, --causa sui (talk) 19:18, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Would that be the proper forum to address abuse of sysop tools?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:32, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Depends if you want to fix the problem or just your pint of blood I suppose. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:35, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Or it may depend on what one views as "the problem". If I'm walking across the street at a yellow light, and a cop beats me over the head with his billy club ... and then invites me to a town hall meeting he is calling on yellow light rules, it's just possible that he may not apprehend the nature of the problem fully. Especially when he says—despite consensus criticism from sysops and other editors: "what I did was absolutely right, and I would do it again in similar circumstances".--Epeefleche (talk) 05:28, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

• Stephen: Quoting you: “Depends if you want to fix the problem or just your pint of blood I suppose.” It’s more than that. Suppose there was a cop who heard an APB and was looking for a guy wearing a purple shirt and white pants because he just robbed a bank. The cop spots someone matching that description and does a felony stop. And it turns out it’s the wrong guy. That’s an “oopsy” that can be forgiven. In the heat of the search, the cop might even be forgiven for remembering to say “Sorry… my mistake. Gotta go.” Perhaps some people might still want their “pint of blood” but that’s not what this is about.

  With Causa sui, we are seeing an admin who is flouting the most basic expectations of admins, such as explaining the basis for a block. He, of course, couldn’t because Epeefleche had simply restored highly germane and well-cited text in defiance of Causa sui’s wishes, who had earlier removed the text with an edit summary of (trim). Then, when Causa sui pronounced his block to Epeefleche, he said he wasn’t interested in discussing the article’ contents with Epeefleche nor anyone else. Then, after other admins are rapping their knuckles on Causa sui’s noggin saying “Earth calling Causa sui,” he responds with “What I did was absolutely right, and I would do it again in similar circumstances.”

  Causa sui was vetted back when our process for granting sysop privileges and powers were less selective than today. This isn’t about the content of the Anwar al-Awlaki article and whether mediation is indicated for settling upon it. I could care less about that. It’s time to figure out now what we are going to do with Causa sui to best serve the interests of the Wikipedian community. Greg L (talk) 16:17, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

In this case, mediation would be the wrong venue. A post at WP:AN or taking Causi sui up on his offer to self-certify an admin-conduct RFCU would be more appropriate. –xeno^talk 16:26, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Causa previous usernames

Hi, I appreciate the legitimacy of your bringing up my previous usernames to illustrate the point you are making. However, the reason for the most recent rename was to deal with a harassing situation a year or so back where aspects of my Wiki-life and my personal life were being improperly mixed. I requested that rename so that my real name would no longer be associated with my Wikipedia account, and accordingly, I would appreciate it if we could avoid actually naming names unless absolutely necessary. Thanks. --causa sui (talk) 20:54, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

I think we could grant Causa sui this small comfort here by not mentioning his name overtly; however Cs, please see Wikipedia:RTV#What vanishing is not. You didn't vanish – since you retained your editing history your old username is obviously still peppered throughout your earlier contribution history. Causa, do you mind if I create Wikipedia:requests for adminship/Causa sui as a redirect to your original RFA? –xeno^talk 20:59, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be fine. --causa sui (talk) 21:21, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually troubled by Causa's request. It is only by knowing his former names that I was able to find what little I could – though it was highly relevant, as it reflected his willing refusal to follow wiki guidelines. I think other editors should have the ability to see that and – quite frankly – his prior talk pages, which we cannot see now (redacted, of course, for any harassing statements). So I do think it is appropriate to state his name. Furthermore, the name is a quite common one – its not as though it is Alistair Oligosh, or something like that.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:04, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you would need to learn my prior names to learn more about me. I don't know if you are aware of this, but renaming preserves edit history and all the relevant logs, including block logs. It's quite literally the same account: the only difference is the name of the account is changed. --causa sui (talk) 21:21, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

I see your talkpages under your prior name, to the extent that you deleted them while using your prior name. Also, should I wish to search for edits by others that relate to you (as you were previously named), I need to know the name(s).--Epeefleche (talk) 21:32, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem determined to dig up whatever dirt you can possibly find on me, at tremendous expense of your own free time, I'll consider undeleting my old talk pages for a temporary period of time, if you agree not to use my real name in future discussion. How long do you think you would need? --causa sui (talk) 21:36, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's not just for me, but for all who may be mistreated in the future. I'm happy for some other sysop to determine whatever MUST be deleted, for appropriate reasons of legitimate privacy concerns (your highly common name not being one of them), from those prior talk pages (you could indicated them to the sysop, he/she could make the decision, nobody else including me would have to see the information). But it should be searchable in the same manner that it would have had you not deleted those pages and then changed names twice.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:42, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that you feel wronged and you want to do due diligence on this, but I don't think you should be willing to accept the ethical consequences of associating my real name with this account – especially since the person in question knows I am a Wikipedia editor, and as far as I know, is still conducting Google searches to find potentially incriminating information to send to my friends, relatives, co-workers, and employers. To my knowledge, this person has not yet detected my change of username, and may have in fact given up. But at minimum I learned from the experience. So now, putting aside this Wikipedia drama, I am asking you as a human being to consider that what you are doing may have real, serious consequences in my real life. I've offered to lift restrictions on you going through my old talk pages so that you can find the information that you're looking for. Once you've done that, outing my real name shouldn't serve any purpose except carrying out a personal vendetta. Please consider the ethical ramifications of what you are doing. --causa sui (talk) 21:57, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I don't fully follow this story. Someone was harassing you when you used your .. name?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:03, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I don't want to go into it too much but there was a person who was doing Google searches and obtaining information that would be potentially embarrassing: condoms on my Amazon shopping list, for instance. It included examining my Wikipedia editing history, content of articles and talk pages, to fish for juicy tidbits (did I edit some articles on porn stars? Deviant sexual or drug related content? etc etc) and forwarding them on to people in my real life. Needless to say that's drama that editing Wikipedia is not worth, but I found that renaming my account did the trick and it hasn't recurred since. I don't have any knowledge of whether this person is still doing it, since I've locked everything down pretty tight, but I don't have any interest in finding out. --causa sui (talk) 22:09, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

So this editor knows your ... name already?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:24, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

He knows my real name and knows that I edit Wikipedia, or at least, knew. (If I'm lucky, he's forgotten about this whole thing by now, but I don't know for sure and would rather not open myself up to future exposure.) He is not an editor of Wikipedia to my knowledge. --causa sui (talk) 22:28, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

So, he already knows your real name. But you don't want others to know your real name?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:21, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

(undent)No, I don't want him to discover that I am now editing Wikipedia under another name. This is all moot anyway, since xeno (talk · contribs) noticed what I'd forgotten, which is that I did not delete my old talk pages: either I or the bureaucrat doing the rename (I don't remember which) moved them, so my entire talk page history is preserved on my current talk page in plain view. Have at it. --causa sui (talk) 23:23, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Some users are sensitive about admins supporting each other in cases of abuse. I noticed these general complaints against admins here. Do these look like an isolated incidents? Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:43, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking me, or him? I think you should notice the general outcome of that RFC. Other disruptive users I've been involved with in an administrative capacity have started RFCs against me with similar tone, and with similar outcomes. --causa sui (talk) 22:49, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

What? Other users have started RFCs against you with similar tone, and similar outcomes? Diffs please. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:24, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

When I say "similar outcomes", I mean similar outcomes to the Silverback one posted above. Take a look at it and you'll see what I mean. --causa sui (talk) 23:52, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

I was asking away from the long page and away from your account page in a place you could both see. I think there is a general feeling that Admins should serve the users not just the encyclopaedia. The users are also a valuable resource, and like admins, are volunteers. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:56, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

You and I are in complete agreement on that subject. I'm not sure what point you are making. --causa sui (talk) 22:58, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Before your comment above gets misinterpreted, kindly clarify you did not imply or mean to imply Epeefleche has been acting disruptively vis à vis your interaction... Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:35, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason to read that into what I said. I'm not one for innuendo. --causa sui (talk) 04:54, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

It seems your concise style can be a cause of friction. People interpret words differently, as was evident on the ANI thread. If your words above are unclear enough to anyone for them to ask for clarification, then that of itself is a reason to issue a clarification. There may be others who similarly interpret what you've said. The only alternative is to leave doubt about what you meant. The irony is that you have clarified when asked, but only indirectly (as here), which leaves some readers unsatisfied. More flexible communication in the style of your reader may help in future. PS My only reason to raise this original point was to give you a chance to comment on it, as the case has superficial similarities. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:16, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

It's a two-way street. The tendency to attribute bad motives is doing most of the work here. Once a person is assuming bad faith, anything I say will reinforce their assumptions. --causa sui (talk) 15:37, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yes – I've seen that many times. A different way of looking at things is interpreted as an evil intent. It's happened to me too. Changing actions a bit and improving communication style makes life a lot easier. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:15, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

BLP

Epeefleche, please see User_talk:Greg_L#BLP. Greg L (talk) 19:48, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of George Michael (professor); Kept

An article that you have been involved in editing, George Michael (professor), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Michael (professor). Thank you. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

The Enemy of My Enemy

I asked for opinion/clarification from User:DGG on his talk page. He's apparently quite knowledgeable about the policy. Feel free to contact him (or others) as well. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 06:40, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

• A wise man, that fellow, despite his tender years.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:34, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

WP:HOCKEY viewpoint

See our debate on their talk page. Also see my pending proposal. Do you have any advice for me regarding User talk:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Hockey mafia issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:40, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

First, I laud you for the effort. Second, I believe (and gather you do), that as with our federalist system where states rights are retained to an extent, if the hockey guys have smashed into the boards so many times that they don't want to comply with an overarching approach, nobody will force them (on the issue of templates). Overall, my leaning would be to be somewhat more inclusive than you would be ... I might be in favor of a good number on your "no" list being included (MLB Player of the Week; State All-Century Team). But I will of course bend to the will of consensus, whatever that may be. Let me know if that is enough for now. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:50, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

BLP/RS issue

Thanks for the message. To start with, I don't think FAIR and Sugg should be mixed together. Sugg's words are his opinion, not necesarily FAIR's. Also, the way the article is currently written is loaded with well poisoning, in addition to really poor sourcing.

Claims that "Emerson said X" should be properly referenced to reliable sources, if possible, and especially if those statements are contentious or BLP violations. Things that other people said about Emerson should be cited to those people.

Sugg isn't a 1-article author just because he only has one article in FAIR. He described himself as "a print journalist for thirty-eight years, [who] held senior editing and writing positions at The Miami Herald, Palm Beach Post, Atlanta Constitution, American Lawyer, Tampa Tribune, and the Creative Loafing alternative group." He's left-wing for sure, but that, by itself, doesn't make him non-notable or non-reliable.

I've been hacking at these paragraphs, trying to separate out the things that can be attributed to Sugg, and the things that should be cited to the original source, while cleaning up some of the language in general. Please have a look. ← George ^talk 22:01, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

• Right. Concerning our RSN conversation here, I agree FAIR and Sugg are different. I don't think either is an RS for facts (per the prior FAIR discussion, as to FAIR).

I think that had this been a FAIR op ed (which it's not), FAIR could be cited for its opinion. As to Sugg, I didn't mean to imply he was a 1-article author, just that he had written only one for FAIR. That lowers the possibility even further that this is a FAIR opinion.

It's not clear to me that Sugg himself is notable enough for us to cite his controversial opinions. His full-time job at the time was as editor for Creative Loafing, an alternative newspaper, according to FAIR's bio of him. As to him being left-wing, I agree that his politics are unimportant.

Especially where by doing so we would be introducing controversial facts about a blp – You know, it's not quite cricket to say, it's just an opinion when that is a trojan horse for introducing controversial facts that are not supported by an RS. Otherwise, we could have quotes like: "Alternative newspaper writer X said he really does not condone E raping his neighbor's goat ... that was, in X's opinion, poor judgment."

I also agree completely w/your second para. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:41, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Howdy. Thinking about the paragraph you removed from the George Will article, I still don't agree that it is not (or at least couldn't be reworked to be) acceptable from a RS perspective. But between your concerns, the lack of any citations, and the fact that an apparently single negative comment from FAIR on the issue isn't really notable enough to count as a controversy in a BLP of someone with a four decade career, I've gone back and re-removed it. If a discussion breaks out on the RS noticeboard as to the overall acceptability of FAIR, I may participate. However, as the whole thing seems to be currently sidetracked by annoynmous' inability to understand why everyone is saying he is clearly wrong about the specific Emerson article (and his repeated insistence that you be punished), I'm giving up following that discussion. Cheers! --CAVincent (talk) 07:23, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Hi CAV. Thanks for the note. I saw your revert on the Will article, and appreciate your dropping by here as well. I'm thinking of leaving a post on the RS/N page to clarify things, as there seems to be some confusion that I might be able to address. But let me try the short version out on you here, to see if it makes sense to you. 1) FAIR is not an RS for facts. 2) FAIR is also not an appropriate high-level source (as required) for contentious BLP entries. 3) FAIR is fine to use (generally; Jimbo thinks not in the Emerson article) for its opinion. 4) Sometimes a statement has both opinion and either a contentious statement of a BLP, or a statement as to fact. If they can't be teased out, and especially if it is a public person (where mainstream sources should have picked up any notable fact), then it can't be used.

I have a raft of policies that support the policy side of this. Your comment about the lack of citations and question as to whether it is really notable enough bring to mind, for example, WP:BLP; Public Figures which says: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article.... If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."

As to Annoy—I'm sorry that others have to deal with what I have been dealing with for much longer. It's really somewhat amazing. I wonder if he is just knowingly filibustering, trying to drive people like you away? I'm sure, btw, that your continued involvement can only help matters. Would be interested in your thoughts on the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:36, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts: 1) I'm inclined to agree with you that FAIR is not an acceptable RS for facts, though I'm not 100% (maybe 95%) and would listen to arguments for it. 2) As a notable organization, criticism of media figures by FAIR could be notable enough to include in a BLP. However, I am less worried than you seem to be presenting FAIR's claims, so long as we are very clear that it is in fact FAIR's claim of facts and not wikipedia's claim of facts. Indeed, I think we would often need to present FAIR's claims to properly explain just why they are leveling criticism. Obviously, the more contentious the criticism, the more delicate our treatment would need to be and some possibly couldn't be used at all. But "FAIR criticized Will for insufficiently disclosing his wife's employment" (for example, and fine IMO) is less worrisome than "FAIR criticized Will for killing and eating his neighbor's children". And I do think it would be necessary when including their criticism to qualify it for readers as something like "the left-leaning media watchdog FAIR said..." so readers know that FAIR has its own political agenda. --CAVincent (talk) 08:29, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Thought about it some more. I think you may be taking the position that if an allegation from FAIR is notable enough for inclusion in a BLP, there will be third party reliable sources. If there are no such third party sources, it is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. Stated that way, it's a pretty compelling argument. Haven't decided if I agree, but compelling. --CAVincent (talk) 10:03, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing to consider the issue. Yes, that is part of what I am saying. Certainly as to public figures. As WP:BLP; Public Figures says: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article.... If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."--Epeefleche (talk) 15:42, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Steven R. David; Withdrawn

A tag has been placed on Steven R. David requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Anowlin (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thoughtless prod. Chairs of Political Science Departments at major institutions such as Johns Hopkins are certainly notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

CSD Request Canceled. Apologies. Anowlin (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Jon Scheyer's infobox

I am unable to remove the blank line without screwing up the first bulletpoint. You may want to talk with those who code the template. If it is changed let me know because I am the main editor on at least a half dozen college basketball player pages.

Done (hope I found the right place) here [14].

What about the unsightly blank space to the right of the new rookie box -- can that be addressed?

Also, can the needless extra blank line above "Note" within that box be deleted? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes Template_talk:Infobox_NCAA_Athlete or the help desk are the places to go. Aske them all your questions and let me know about any resulting questions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to follow my lead with Scheyer. The following are the guys I am the main editor of: Turner, Collins, Manny Harris, Demetri McCamey, DeShawn Sims, E'Twaun Moore, John Shurna, and Kevin Coble. Watch those Chicago-area or Michigan guys and you will see what I think is correct.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Clever fix.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the standard should be to bulletpoint each line or not. As I work on Collins' article, it is getting difficult to see the multiline honors.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep -- I agree with that.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have two more formatting questions. 1. In Collins' championships, should I merge the multiple years on one line as they are now or should I go back to separate line for each year? 2. Do you think the tournaments are laid out correctly or should we give each a line including result (such as #2 seed Elite eight, #1 seed championship, or what have you)?

I've left out a number of Scheyer awards (e.g., less notable papers) and records ... without checking, I think on the records front limiting to top-10 for example for ACC/Duke. And I haven't listed every single tournament he has been in, as that strikes me as not sufficiently notable, even though the infobox calls for it. With Duke as the winningest team ever, I think that's ok. I don't interpret record as meaning he has to be number one, but rather as top-10. One general comment I see from time to time is "hey, person x is more important, and doesn't have an article, or as long an article, or we don't reflect his records or awards." The answer I generally come to, is let's improve that person's article. College basketball player articles I've seen are generally in suprisingly poor shape, especially given the number of views they get. Of course, if it is true cruft, like the infobox saying "Scheyer led the team for 2009-10 in the following eight categories, and here are his numbers", then I would agree it is proper to scale back the infobox. But, as I said, I will take a look and give a think, with your helpful comments in mind. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep -- without even looking at it, I think that the NBA infobox will have different criteria, leading to culling. Agree we should revisit the culling issue upon infobox change. tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding 2000 points, top-10 in points scored is notable. It is the kind of thing you could easily mention in the WP:LEAD. My thinking on articles is that the vast majority of people only read the WP:LEAD and Infobox. Let's get key information into those areas. For Scheyer, at this point in his career, he could have a full WP:LEAD (4 paragraphs is the max) if so desired. I would lay it out as A general accomplishment paragraph, 1 paragraph on high school, 1 on college team accomplishments and 1 on college individual accomplishments. When he goes pro the two college paragraphs will need to be merged and so you might want to keep him at 3 right now. In the LEAD (and Infobox now that I think of it), you don't need to mention USBWA All-District after he is USBW All-American, following your greatedst accomplishment principle. In the LEAD, you could mention as many as five of his most important statistical accomplishments. 2000 points and its rankings could go there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I'd be willing to work with you on filling out the WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. you should also note, that you can request image consent from photographers on www.flickr.com and get this guy a decent image. Look at the images of all the guys that I do. I hound the flickr guys to re-license their images. About half of non-AP and non-school newspaper photographers will consent. Even about 20% of school newpaper photogs will consent. If you want, I can give you a copy of my consent requests.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Sure -- that would be great. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw at some point during the game that Scheyer is 22/24 in Free throws during the tournament. It seems that he may take over the Duke all time NCAA tournament free throw percentage lead (min 35 att). Do you know how he is doing on the Duke (and possibly ACC) NCAA tournament lists?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Noticed that as well. No idea, I'm afraid. Do you have a prediction for Monday?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I predict Scheyer will tie the consecutive games record. P.S. If you are a really big fan of Scheyer you might compile his NCAA tourney game logs on ESPN and see how he is doing against the Duke records, because he may have the Duke NCAA Tourney free throw percentage record.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Good one! You are good at this prediction thing. I predict Singler will cover Hayward--and neutralize him, that Butler will be over-anxious on defense, that Duke will capitalize by first getting some easy layups off good passes, and then start sinking the threes to put them away. Scheyer will lead both teams in assists, Zou will lead both in offensive rebounds, and one of the Duke guards will lead both teams in scoring. There, I said it ... eight or nine predictions.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Duke career NCAA Tournament FT% record is only 86% by Mark Alerie. Even JJ Redick only shot 85.7% in the tournament.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Query

Hey there. Looking at this case it appeared that some people affiliated with Mohammed Daniel's were commenting on the deletion review, rather than it all being one person. The chances are that the check came back as likely because Mohammed Daniels knows all these people, so they were all in the same area, or editing form the same company IP, however, they would not appear to be sock puppets. This conclusion is largely based upon this edit: 1. There would also not appear to be any violation of meat puppetry, as Daniels does not appear to have asked these users to support him, and whether or not their has been any correspondence between them is undefined.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 01:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. First, maybe I'm naive, but why do we think that the person who left that comment was actually MD? Second, I never said that it was MD himself who was socking -- just that a sockpuppetry appeared to be taking place. Even if we assumed that MD himself had left the message (which is not clear to me), it appears that sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry is taking place, as evidenced both in my suspicion and the checkuser results here [15] -- note, I had no way of knowing w/the named accounts that they were in the same location.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

We think that because they said so. I can't think why they would have said that if they weren't him, as they were encouraging the deletion of the page, contrary to what the other users there where doing (I could have believed that they were lying had they been saying that the page should be kept, but saying that it should be deleted just doesn't fit in). If you wish to press the meatpuppetry issue the AN/I is a better venue than SPI, but I personally wouldn't bring the matter up, as their does not appear to be much active disruption. But in the end it's up to you. Also, I know that you had no way of knowing where the named accounts were editing from, I didn't expect you to. :) Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"We think that because they said so". Really? I'm somewhat surprised.

As with this edit I just saw, it happens all the time, for sundry reasons. The reasons one may impersonate another are many, but the easy answer is the most typical reason is to get others to take the steps they would take if the real person were saying those things. As in the example I just cited to. You say "I can't think why they would have said that if they weren't him, as they were encouraging the deletion of the page". Imagine that the person saying it wants the page deleted, and thinks that the best way to do it is to impersonate him, and say that.

The reliability of the person being who they say they are is nil -- which is why the project affords off-wiki means to verify if the person is who he says he is.

I would ask that you reconsider the result in light of what I've said, and take action on what the checkuser indicates are likely socks, or ask another sysop to review. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

I apologize again for what I said and how I said it. I was rushed, and in my mind I melded the two ANI threads together so did not see the need to notify you. Before you replied I noted that Annoynmous, I and other editors had committed the same or worse error in saving the offending statement in the article itself. I noted that it does appear that you did accidentally make the same error in the later post to RSN I pointed out at ANI, though; just pointing this out in the spirit of misery loving company. Regards,John Z (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I would still ask that you raise it at the relevant AN/I, as I've requested.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack; or not -- ChrisO

Please retract this gratuitous personal attack: -- ChrisO (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've responded there. Please be assured that I in no way was suggesting that you personally are pro-jihad. And, in fact, I don't recall having had enough contact with you to even form a personal -- "this is the way I feel, but I won't say it, because it is not polite to call a spade a spade" -- opinion in that regard.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that is disingenuous, frankly. You have no reason to call or imply that any Wikipedian is "pro-jihadi". -- ChrisO (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Your refusal to retract your remarks is noted, as are the diffs, for administrative action. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I in no way was suggesting that you personally are pro-jihad. Nor, obviously, was the comment directed at any Wikipedian, because at the time I made it none were in the class of those who had not agreed. It certainly wasn't a personal attack. Furthermore, just as in the real world, I would expect that there are many people on wikipedia who are pro-jihad, proudly so, and would not view it as a personal attack for someone to note it. Why you would think it was directed at you, or any other Wikipedian personally, I don't know. But please accept my apology for saying something you felt reflected on you personally, and in a negative manner. Also -- children read this page. Please reign in your language to a more civil form of disagreement, should you feel impelled to disagree. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As a good-faith gesture, I'll accept your apology, and I've amended my earlier comments. I've also taken the liberty of notifying you of the WP:ARBPIA sanctions, as you don't appear to have been notified previously. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, on behalf of the children especially, and I look forward to our continued cooperation.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Epeefleche, I trust that you noticed the wording of the final sentence of the ARBPIA template, and are well aware of the status of certain people in terms of being desysoped. Cheers :) Breein1007 (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• No, I imagine I missed that. Who was de-sysoped, and why?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe that Breein1007 is referring to ChrisO. Specifically, ChrisO (talk · contribs) is no longer an admin, he's heavily involved in disputes in this topic area, and clearly is not in any position to be handing out WP:ARBPIA warnings. There's also a discussion about this ongoing at the ARBPIA talkpage. --Elonka 20:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Fascinating. Why was ChrisO de-sysopped, if I may ask?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2. --Elonka 20:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm. So ChrisO was desysopped because he had been admonished or made subject to restrictions in 3 prior proceedings by the Arb Committee -- the Israeli apartheid case for abuse of administrator tools; another case for edit warring and rollback abuse; and a third case for WP:BLP violations and inappropriate sysop actions. And combined with his actions in a fourth case, he was found to have exhibited a long-term pattern. And was desysopped as a result. Curious that he is now energetically telling others how to behave, threatening admin action, and oddly showing up to combat them at an AfD; and all in a general topic area in which he has previously been admonished by the arbs.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Jihobbyist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jihobbyist Now nominated for deletion by a familiar user Bachcell (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Abdul Rahman wasn't a terrorist, therefore I'm surprised you're interested, and any POV you claim I have is bullshit. Grsz¹¹ 02:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious why you would take a perfectly valid deletion argument (which others have pointed out) and turn it into another claim of POV? What POV? Like I've stated above, I've favored deletions for guilty people, innocent people, with no particular side favored, Yet the best you can come up with is to argue that my comments are invalid because you think I am biased? Grsz¹¹ 00:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

How do we know that? I wasn't aware there was an adjudication.

Kindly refrain from using profanity on my talk page, as children play here from time to time.

I'm not sure what your last para relates to, but if it is the Abdul AfD, everyone voted against you. That doesn't seem to be a "perfectly valid deletion argument". I've discussed my views as to some of your other efforts as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Jihobbyist (2)

I've raised a concern about the hook at Template talk:Did you know. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I regularly contribute at DYK, though recently less often. Sorry though, I won't not comment on something just because you don't like me to. As far as "supressing", you never responded to my comment above, though I'm not surprised. Grsz¹¹ 03:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall it -- will look for it when I get a chance. I don't dislike you. I just found your effort to suppress the Nidal Malik Hasan page, and similar efforts, to be other than what I would hope for in a fellow editor.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't categorize anything I've done as "supressing", more like making arguments on reasonable grounds related to various policies here. Your tireless accusations of bias (unsubsantiated) are just as unbecoming, as I'm all over the board as far as deletions go. In fact, the one you pointed out (in relation to DGG) was a group of nominations I made because I thought users were creating pages of innocent people at Gitmo just to have articles on them. To me, that's just as inappropriate as having articles on marginally relevant individuals who actually did something. Grsz¹¹ 03:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said at the most recent AfD, not only do I see a pattern, others apparently have not onloy seen it, but have been so troubled that they raised it -- as I said at the most recent AfD, at some point its time to go shopping for a saddle.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any pattern. Back in November I nominated a few Gitmo guys, you actually voted to delete one. Other than that, discussions over content are entirely different issues. A lot of the time, I'm on the consensus side, while it's you and Bach against. Grsz¹¹ 03:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

My memory differs ... your efforts to suppress the Christmas Day bomber article, and to suppress the al-Awlaki photo in that article, and delete the jihobbyist article, etc., and to delete this article--where DGG himself (whom we all know is as non-POV as one can get) said he hoped that the you were not making the nom because of Grsz your POV, and that of at least one or two others, concerned with what may be driving your actions (under the duck theory). With regard to the observations of others expressing concern as to your possible POV, which I join in, I am reminded again of this We can just wait and see if the future matches my memory, and then discuss it again then.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I raised concerns about Awlaki (as did others) only in the hours after the first reports and articles came out, simply saying: Wait and see. After there was more verification and elaboration, I no longer had the same issues. DGG's comment (more like a whole 3 words) is a non-issue, irrelevant to the same discussion. And one would be more inclined to look at your contributions and point out a particular POV (it isn't hard to tell) then with me, where I just stop in time to time and comment. I'm not sure what you mean by "driving my actions". Am I myself a terrorist? Like I said, it's a lot easier to tell in your case. Grsz¹¹ 04:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to wrap this up so I can get to sleep. I'm not going to avoid any certain article or page, and I will continue to make legitimate comments based on concerns I believe there to be. While I probably won't find the time to substantially contribute to an article anytime soon, we have the same interests and therefore can expect to interact with each other in the future. I will continue to counter blatant POV content (which isn't so much an issue for you as with others), and if the best someone can do in return is to say I'm the one with the POV, so be it. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 04:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• We could go back and check the discussion. But my distinct recollection was we had a clear RS reporting that a Congressman who would get the highest level U.S. government briefings was the source, and you pooh-poohed that. I thought then that it was a ridiculous position, though I couldn't tell if it was a position driven by your judgment or POV. In hindsight, it was still obviously an unreasonable attempt to filibuster, and keep out RS info that reflected negatively on certain interests. Your efforts to in addition suppress the Christmas Day bomber article, and the jihobbyist article, and (I'm sure I'm missing one or two at least) leave me wondering the same thing DGG was wondering. As to your above comment, nobody told you to disappear. And legitimate comments, as you call them, are always welcome. Comments that are not legitimate, and noms such as the DGG AfD that get zero support, are of lesser interest, as you might imagine. I don't dislike you in the least. I think you're bright. I just don't get the sense that you are using your intelligence to reach NPOV results in the above examples. Something else seems to be at work (and I know, whenever anybody else says that, you turn the tables and say it must be them ...) Its fine for you to have your private views, but to wikilawyer filibusters and AfDs with zero support doesn't, IMHO, best serve the project--and actually does it harm. As to DGG's comment, it was perhaps more than three times that, and almost half of his entire AfD comment. And if you've been around, you know DGG does not raise the spectre of POV lightly. As to whether you are a terrorist -- where in the world did that come from? I don't think terrorist hand around these parts. They're busy buying sugar-based fertilizer, or some other good stuff. But your edits have shown a strong tendency to seek to suppress the reflection on wikipedia of RS-supported information about terrorists. For whatever reason. And the strong tendency seems peculiarly centered on that group.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Replacing "Passengers" with "Activists"

Interested to know the reasons for replacing 'Passengers' with 'Activists' on the Gaza flotilla raid. [16]. The change does not seem very Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Firefishy (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Passenger is a "set" used to distinguish between crew member and others who are not crew members. But it is less descriptive of the role of the people and their purpose than is the term activist. Most passengers are not activists, and it is not the activity that the term passenger brings to mind. But here the purpose of the activity was one of activism. The preferred approach is to use the most descriptive term that is accurate (we could also use the less descriptive term "people", but wouldn't for the same reason).--Epeefleche (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thank you for the explanation. -- Firefishy (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your unclosing of an AE thread; Railroading

Please do not edit closed threads or unclose them after they have been processed by administrators. Their content remains viewable even in archived form.  Sandstein  06:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I refer, as you know, to that precise thread in my edits in the immediately following thread. As I wrote in my edit summary, it is helpful to have the thread viewable.

For you to railroad a close of the thread of course interferes with the ability of readers to follow my comments, as well as their ability to do a word search on that page which would include at the same time both that thread and other threads on that page, if you close that thread.

I'm especially concerned, as you know as well, with your puzzling effort to railroad a close of the discussion regarding Nableezy's ban violations in under 40 minutes, and how that contrasts starkly with your inconsistent treatment of report of the other editor in the immediately preceding thread.

It does the project little good for you to hide the discussion that we should all be able to view for purposes of comparison. In fact, it has the appearance of seeking to reduce the ability of editors, sysops, and arbs to view your and others' handling of the prior thread, and draw conclusions as to the consistency of your application of wiki policies in reports regarding violations of bans by editors that are part of the very same general subject.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The subsequent section is now also closed. You mistake AE for a discussion forum. It is not. It is a place in which to request action by administrators. Commentary by non-admin editors, especially those involved in conflicts, is most often distracting and unhelpful, and contributes to the place's battleground atmosphere. If that does not change, I am considering imposing restrictions on editors involved in conflicts from editing AE requests started by others. You (as well as all other editors on both sides of the conflict) would therefore be well advised to limit your commentary on AE to the absolute minimum required to substantiate any request that you yourself make.  Sandstein  06:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned with your having 1) first tried to railroad a close of the discussion within under 40 minutes of it being opened; 2) having sought to hinder review by editors, sysops, and arbs of your prior comments to cf them to those in the Nableezy report; and 3) with your now -- after your lack of consistency has been criticized across reports, reacting by railroading a close of a highly active discussion in the midst of the first day of input. I would like to offer you the opportunity to reverse your acts 2 and 3 above. It's inappropriate for a highly involved criticized sysop to react to criticism in this manner.

Furthermore, I find your suggestion that comments by editors other than sysops at AE is unwelcome inasmuch as it is "distracting and unhelpful" to be not only hostile to non-sysops, but to reflect a misunderstanding of your role and a disrespect for non-sysop editors and the importance of consensus. If you are threatening me, as you appear to be, I would ask that you clarify the basis of your threat, why it is appropriate, and how it is not simply a hostile reaction by a criticized sysop to a mere editor pointing out the sysop's failings. I am concerned that you are running afoul of your obligations under wp:admin, and compounding your errors by first railroading a close of the AE, and then making a baseless hostile threat that is completely lacking in legitimate basis.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur. There is the appearance of bias in the way in which the AE cases are handled (just look at how long Breein1007 has been open). I stated my opinions in both Gila's and Nableezy's AE filings, but they were summarily ignored. I know there are other constructive editors (with clean records) who have been driven from editing certain areas of wikipedia by the AE mess, like I have. Perhaps its time for some of us to speak out, instead of allowing what has become a charade to continue. Maybe then someone will listen and realize that AE is broken and that some of the Admins need to step aside as they have become too involved to be considered impartial. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 06:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I also concur. What started out seeming like strict but fair application of the rules, which could have helped the IP area immensely, is quickly turning out to be strict application of the rules towards one side only.

Perhaps someone should pull a tiamut and start threatening and abusing every admin that dares to sanction one of their buddies. Unfortunately that sort of behavior seems to get rewarded around here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

NMMNG,both sides are equally as guilty of the offending behavior, so its unfair (and possibly incorrect) to single out specific editors. My main concern(s) is (are) that the current admins servicing AE have become too involved to be "impartial" and are essentially becoming pawns of those who wish to use AE as a battleground in a game of "gotcha". The game of "gotcha" too must be stopped...I'm just not sure how to go about it. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 12:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I was expecting the game of "gotcha" to end when harsh punishment was meted all around, removing the most problematic editors for long periods of time. That's what looked like was going to happen until certain users started threatening and badgering admins when people they like got banned. Now, I think some people will get different treatment than others at AE, which sucks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if opening an RfCs on the AE process would be helpful...or if it would be summarily ignored and closed. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 18:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That's one possibility. Another might be an admin clarification as to certain aspects of the arb enforcement process, that could for example include inconsistent application or wiki rules by certain sysops across different parties in the arb enforcement process, railroading by certain sysops, etc. It may just be that arb review of this aspect of the arb process could better the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

They should just put User:Georgewilliamherbert in charge. I find him to be strict but fair (apologies to Bree), and not intimidated by the bullies. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Jon Scheyer GA

Congratulations on the GA. Here are my suggestions for conversion in June:--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Jon Scheyer
Scheyer vs. Long Beach State (December 29, 2009)
College	Duke
Conference	ACC
Sport	Basketball
Position	Guard
Jersey #	30
Class	Senior
Major	History
Nickname	The "Jewish Jordan"
Career	2006–10
Height	6 ft 5 in (1.96 m)
Weight	190 lb (86 kg)
Nationality	American
Born	(1987-08-24) August 24, 1987 Northbrook, Illinois
High school	Glenbrook North High School, Northbrook, Illinois
Career highlights
Awards
Honors
2006 Illinois Mr. Basketball 2006 All-American (McDonald's, Jordan, PARADE) 2x Duke team captain 2x All-ACC Tournament First Team (2009 & 2010) 2009 ACC tournament MVP 2009 ACC Academic Honor Roll 2009–10 All-ACC First Team 2010 Consensus All-American (second team); 1st team: Lowe’s Senior First Team and Wooden (10-man team); 2nd team: AP, NABC, TSN, USBWA; 3rd team: FOX, YS 2010 Award lists: Robertson (Top-16 finalist), Wooden (Top-10 finalist), Naismith (Top-30 midseason), Cousy (Top-6 finalist), Lowe's Senior CLASS (Top-10 finalist) ACC single-season minutes record (1,470; 2009–10) 2010 NCAA Championship 2009–10 ACC statistical champion (free throw percentage, three point shot/game, assist/turnover)

Jonathan James "Jon" Scheyer (born August 24, 1987, in Northbrook, Illinois) is an All-American 6' 5" guard, who was selected by the XXX with the Xth overall selection in the 2010 NBA Draft. He led his high school team to an Illinois state basketball championship and the 2009–10 Duke Blue Devils to the 2010 NCAA Basketball Championship. He was a prolific high school scorer who earned numerous individual statistical championships in Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) play, ranging from free throw percentage and three point shots/game to assists/turnover ratio.

A high school All-American, he once scored 21 points in a game's final 75 seconds of play in an attempt to spark a comeback. The 4th-leading scorer in Illinois high school history, he led his team to a state championship in 2005 and was named Illinois Mr. Basketball in 2006. He chose Duke, for whom he moved over from shooting guard to point guard towards the end of the 2008–09 season, and was the Most Valuable Player (MVP) of the 2009 ACC Men's Basketball Tournament.

In his senior year in 2009–10 as Duke's captain, he led the team to ACC regular season and Tournament championships and to the NCAA National Championship. He led the championship team in points per game, assists, free throw percentage, and steals per game. Scheyer was a 2010 consensus All-American (Second Team), a unanimous 2009–10 All-ACC First Team selection, and was named to the 2010 ACC All-Tournament First Team. He played the most consecutive games in Duke history (144), and holds the ACC single-season record for minutes (1,470 in 2009–10) and the Duke freshman free throw record (115), shares the Duke record for points off the bench in a game (27).

Scheyer was drafted by the XXX with the Xth pick of the X round (Xth overall, if 2nd round) of the 2010 NBA Draft. If there was a trade to get the pick to select him mention it here. (He is represented by XXX if he has a famous agent like Rob Pelinka or something).

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks

This user helped promote Jon Scheyer to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Issue with me?

Okay, now your making me mad, if you have an issue with me, then directly tell me (which you are doing on mecos talk page), dont just go around talking about me, i may be sixteen but what the hell does that matter?, im in collage already, so stating my age as a negative is just plain idiotic. ALSO, are you seriously implying that lil and are are the same account? check are history, we dont edit the same articles, the only thing regarding edits that we do similar is with both write GA's and actively edit music articles. And do you honestly think i would talk to myself on my talkpage and his daily? Im not claiming ownership of the article im clearly stating the facts that its not relevant. Now im not someone who normally assumes bad faith, but honestly, please grow up. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 07:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful to hear. Best of luck in "collage". And I understand your statement to me: "check are history". I'll carefully work on your suggestion as well that I grow up, and appreciate that you feel that my comments are idiotic. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well i apologize for making a spelling and grammar mistake, my bad. Regarding the idiotic comment im sorry but is it completely uncalled for to call myself and lil-unique's age into play, what does that matter? (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 08:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

On wikipedia, it does not come into play per se. This differs from how other institutions, such as countries, are run. There, as a general matter 16-year-olds do not have the same !voting rights as adults (with some limited exceptions). Your country will not allow you to vote for two more years. If you were to live in Uzbekistan, you would not be able to vote for another nine years; the same in Italy, for Senate elections. Here wp does allow you to participate fully. As long as your comments are sensible, it matters not what your age is. If they are non-consensus and appear to the majority of editors to be well off the mark, conjecture might perhaps focus on external factors that are not a bar to !voting, but are in other spheres deemed to be such a bar. In fact, if you were eight years old, I can't think of a wp policy that would prevent you from banging on the keyboard as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Triple Crown Stats

The infobox does allow for up to six statistics, but those should be used in only the instances of players with records of some sort. This was discussed.--Muboshgu (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a conversation that has been had for years. I see a number of the usual participants didn't see or take part in this one. I've just added my thoughts. I think your original comment was spot on -- I remember the days well of only batting average being mentioned in print or TV, but those are long gone. No harm will come from allowing editor discretion. It is retrograde to suggest that BA should be reflected, and OBP or SP or OPS not.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Zab Judah edit warring about archiving

I noted that we seems to do a bit edit warring at Talk:Zab Judah about archiving. The reason is that the talk page is listed on the IndexerBot log file as non-working. As I open the page I see that also MiszaBot is both not working and configurations aren't good. Also WP:TPG thresholds for arcihving aren't met. So, the result is that I remove the configs to save bot resources. I see, it is better to remove the non-working configs for now and insert working configs when WP:TPG thresholds are met. --Kslotte (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If it is not working, I have no issue with you making it work. On the other hand, to the extent that you have been changing working parameters without consensus, I would suggest that you seek consensus first.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You also reverted these: Talk:David Newhan, Talk:Sam Fuld, Talk:Jon Scheyer, Talk:Jesse Levine, Talk:Bucknell University. Several based on the guideline WP:TALKCOND (no consensus need, if guideline exists) and secondly do not revert back non working messed up configurations. You are wasting bot resource on this. --Kslotte (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes -- as I said a number of days ago, if it is not working I have no issue with you making it work. On the other hand, to the extent that you have been changing working parameters without consensus, I would suggest that you seek consensus first. That guideline does not mandate that you change the existing parameters without first generating consensus to do so. If you want to tell me how to fix what is "messed up", I will be happy to fixit for you -- otherwise, you should follow wp:sofixit yourself.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no point in fixing bot configs on places that do not met the guideline thresholds. You can re-add working bot configs WHEN there is need for it. There is only a very small percentage of pages that has need of bot configs. No need to have them hanging for several years without a mission. --Kslotte (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to ask for consensus for everything you do on Wikipedia, then you didn't get much done at all. I'm being WP:BOLD by following guidelines and initiate WP:BRD if needed (Wikpedia way of working as usual). --Kslotte (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

For the reference, adding Talk:Aafia Siddiqui to this dispute. --Kslotte (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand. There is no guideline threshold that those pages fail to meet. On the other hand, you are changing long-standing parameters unilaterally, without consensus support. In doing so, you violate a core wikipedia guideline. Your boldness violates a core guideline -- and the guideline of consensus is more important than the guideline of boldness, especially when (as here) you know your view is disagreed with. Otherwise, the boldness guideline would lead to throwing out all the other guidelines. This is wp 101.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you read WP:TPG? Isn't that a guideline? and common sence (WP:SENSE) is to don't have non-working code snippets laying around (trash), that gives bot warnings/errors. I'm trowing trash away, you want it back in. Trash may have been there for quite a long time, but at some time it is time to throw it away. About WP:BOLD I was talking about from an overall point of view, not this specific case. We have now a dispute that has to be resolved. I was thinking of calling for an outside opinion (WP:ANI), if you still hold your position on this case. --Kslotte (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Kslotte, Epeefleche, it appears you both have legitimate and even compelling arguments. In this case, I would say it is reasonable to remove nonworking elements. However, it is also reasonable to leave them in until adequate replacements can be devised and implemented. It's a balancing act.

Where the removal is apparently without consensus, I say the thing to do is to leave in the long-standing nonworking elements that haven't been fixed before so what's the rush now. It only causes contention.

Judge Wapner says leave the nonworking archival elements as they were and try to fix them instead of just removing them and causing contention. Bailiff? Please escort the parties out the door. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Kslotte (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Also Talk:Ian Kinsler belongs to this dispute. --Kslotte (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Kslotte, I see the AN/I board was not the right place to bring your concern. An RFC was suggested. But I ask you, is such a procedural step really needed? You two look like you can both reason this out. And I'm leaning towards the other guy's idea as this point. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, I don't know if you are neutral to this dispute. --Kslotte (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Good, then I am. If I were not, you would say so or it would be obvious.

I think you make an excellent point. Why keep something that is not working. On the other hand, its been nonworking for a long time and now that you seek to remove it, its removal is causing problems/friction. The problems can be avoided simply be leaving things as they were. I can't imagine why you would really care since the bad code has been in place for so long.

And a good reason that I am neutral is that I simply do not even understand the underlying technical issue. I am merely looking at the trouble it has caused between you two and saying, given the long history of the bad code in place, just leave it as it was since some other editor is complaining. Besides, the best solution is to fix the nonworking code, and both of you seek that, as do I.

So neutral is not the issue. Rodney King is: "Can we all get along?" Editing WP is more important than us all spending time on this minor spat. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion: Well first, I can tell you that this discussion has been going on for quite some time in various forms. The question essentially is whether or not to archive if the talk page doesn't meet the size requirements. My personal opinion is that archiving old conversations is preferable, in that it stops people from responding to really old conversations. On Talk:David Newhan#Comments, for example, Epeefleeche responded to a comment left by someone 14 months prior. The first person is long gone, probably, but the old thread is still there. If the recent editor feels that strongly about their question, then can start a new thread; it's pretty trivial.

And it's not like archiving is that big a deal anyway. We have all sorts of templates that you can put on the page to make accessing the archives easier, including {{Search archives}}, which gives you a textbox where you can put in a search term. There's a category of these templates, too, so you can pick the one that works best.

Personally I see no problem with removing old cruft from a talk page. We don't keep other dead things (templates, headers, etc) around. But then the question becomes, do you remove it and just let the status quo exist, or do you get rid of the old nonworking stuff and replace it with stuff that does? I think the latter is better, to be honest, though I don't see that happening here.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding; aside from not meeting size requirements, is there any reason not to archive? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The above was from a request I made on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Yout point "We don't keep other dead things (templates, headers, etc) around" is quite essential. Here is the thing that no one of us is willing to fix the nonworking stuff. So, assume the resolution then is to remove the bot snippets? Reason not to archive are 1) occasional users may want to reply 2) you don't need to click an additional time to see old threads 3) maintenance overhead for administration and organizing of archives. Shouldn't rules and guidelines like WP:TPG apply here? My own view here is that Epeefleche has taking a Wikipedia:Ownership of articles to these articles. --Kslotte (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"My own view here is that Epeefleche has taking a Wikipedia:Ownership of articles to these articles." If that is the underlying basis for what's happening here, then I now side with Epeefleche on this issue. If it were true that Epeefleche is owning articles, you address that head on. You don't do what's happening in this particular instance as a means to use WP procedural means to sidestep addressing the ownership issue head on. It's like wasting everyone's time just to accomplish a personal goal you seek to achieve by subterfuge. If Epeefleche is owning articles, address that directly. As far as I'm concerned, this matter should now be closed in Epeefleche's favor. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you take my view on this that seriously. Maybe not ownerhip of article, but of talk pages. And it is minor side note since I haven't even given any proof of it. --Kslotte (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I feel better. I'm back to where I was before then. All this brouhaha for little gain. Further, besides Epeefleche, it appears myself and HelloAnnyong are mildly favoring Epeeflech in this particular case. Further, your AN/I complaint went nowhere, if I recall. Why not just drop it for now? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the good points made by Third Opinion above. In addition, Kslotte has been unilaterally changed all manner of talk page archive parameters -- not only those where he says there is a format error. As to where there is a format error, I've invited him to follow WP:sofixit, rather than delete. He has failed to. I've also volunteered, on those few articles where I've addressed his edits, to fix them myself if he tells me what the error is and what he would like fixed. He has failed to do so. It's curious as well that he is the one crying "ownership", as a review of his edits suggests that he has sought to exercise ownership not only over those few articles that we discussed, but over a wider swath across wikipedia. In each case, changing parameters unilaterally to parameters that he personally prefers. He seems to care little for consensus, including the consensus in this discussion. As to him making uncivil accusations and then calling them minor side notes, I would suggest that accusations be handed out more judiciously in the future, as people could take offense. Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy

I find it facinating that Nableezy, just coming off his lengthy topic ban, makes this [17] very provocative and contentious edit without so much as uttering a word on the discussion page. Technically, he didn't violate the letter of the law but he certainly violated its spirit. Your thoughts please.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts are that if someone gets a ban that specifically says it includes not being allowed to revert vandalism, then that someone immediately announces that he's going to ignore that part of the ban, then actually goes and ignores it, then when the issue comes up before the people who put the ban in place they do nothing, that someone would probably feel he can get away with anything. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/No More Mr Nice Guy. Sysop Sandstein, who railroaded the close of the Nableezy complaint -- after Nab had effectively told Sandstein to go f_ck himself [letter redacted] w/regard to Nab's ban, and that Nab was going to do what he damn well pleased and intended to violate the ban -- encouraged poor behavior with Sandstein's own happy (or intimidated?) acceptance of Nab's belittling of Sandstein. I mean -- under the circumstances, if you were in Nab's place, what reason would there be to have even the lowest level of respect for that sysop, or be concerned that he would enforce wiki rules against you? Nab is reacting quite logically, under the circumstances.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Tx

It's no problem. I'm an article writer myself, and I can certainly understand the frustration if one spends hours upon hours on a single article, only to see someone come along and destroy most of it effortlessly. The trimmed article got rid of exactly how much I thought should've gone away: 10%. Spasm was deleting content because of a petty grudge, which is unfair to the subjects of these articles. I have tried to use the GA-Class article Billy Pierce as a model to expand baseball player articles on Wikipedia, and he brought it up out of nowhere threatening to hack that down to start class as well, just because Pierce was "less important" than Mickey Mantle and Hank Aaron and therefore has too big of a file size. He failed to mention that those extra KB in the Pierce article was attributed to 100+ reference citations. He seems to leave out a lot of facts whenever arguing his side of thing. Oh well. Two months+ from now I'm not going to put up with his crap if he does it again. Vodello (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Assassination

In my opinion there is no consensus shown for a separate page for the term targeted killing. If you want to create a new page then first lets hold an RFC on talk:assassination and see if there is a consensus for such a page, because at the moment it is not at all clear that there is. The reason for this is that it can be argued that it is an euphemism for assassination. If the consensus is that it is then creating a separate page is a POV fork. -- PBS (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

We already had that discussion on the talk page of assassination. A clear consensus was shown. The material in the targeted killing page is over 100K -- we are not of course going to make that a subset of a page that people say it does not even belong in the first place. There is zero question it is notable in and of itself -- a google search will show you that. There is absolutely no reason for it not to have its own page. Blanking the page because you do not like the consensus is not acceptable either. This is not a place for POV blanking of the page; nor would a prod or an AfD hold water. This has nothing to do with forking -- as the article sources make clear, and the consensus discussion makes clear. Idon'tlikeit is not reason. "It can be argued" -- that's certainly not a reason. Why in the world would you seek to cover up information regarding a subject of great public interest? Really -- what is your motive? Your comments go beyond wikilawyering.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have created an RFC. If there is a clear consensus then it will be reflected in the RFC. Rather than argue it in different places. lets see what the outcome of the RFC is. -- PBS (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't strike me as a good faith RFC. There is a clear consensus shown. You assert -- against reality -- that it is not clear. You are wasting peoples' time, and being disruptive.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There is not a clear consensus shown and if there were to be one then it would be reflected in the RFC. Let the RFC play out and if there is a consensus then we can have a page. -- PBS (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, that's absurd. There was a vocal, extended, talk page discussion of the issue with a clear consensus. You seem from what I can see to have a history with this article. Be that as it may, it shouldn't cloud what is as clear as can be. There is no need for the community, having discussed it, to have another discussion now that the first has been concluded. Just because you don't like the result. There is no need to delete a 100K article with 150 footnotes, because you don't like the result. The RFC should be ignored or rolled up -- the discussion has been had.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In reverting my edits to targeted killing you have used the phrase "Reverted 1 edit by Philip Baird Shearer identified as unconstructive to last revision by Epeefleche." The link under unconstructive is to Wikipedia:Vandalism. I refer you to the section in How not to respond to vandalism and the bullet point: "Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing, or to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns with them. Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal comments." If I were not a party to this dispute with you, and another editor bought such behaviour to my attention after a warning if you persisted I would block your account until you agreed not to accuse another editor of vandalism, when such edits are made in good faith. I suggest that in future that if you are in a content dispute with a fellow editor that you think very carefully before you accuse another editor of vandalism. -- PBS (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

PBS, first of all I ask you yet again to stop edit warring and to stop blanking the 100K page and attendant talk page. Second of all, inappropriate blanking is indeed vandalism. Third of all, the scrip chose the specific words--if you don't like it, take it up with the scrip writers. It is the standard language. Fourth, good faith is an assumption that you are in a position to rebut. You've done a fine job rebutting the presumption with your bad faith edit warring, etc. I suggest that you, in the future, stop deleting 100K articles with 150 footnotes without a good faith reason, stop edit warring, and stop accusing editors of using the commonly used scrips to be used for deletions without good reason of entire articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the name of the template? Either you are using it inappropriately, or the template is incorrectly linked. -- PBS (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What is inappropriate? You deleted an entire article without legitimate reason. That's vandalism. You are also edit warring. I've asked you many times to stop both types of misbehavior. You are also violating wp:admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me what is the name of the template? In what way do you think I have been violating WP:ADMIN-- PBS (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If its the warning template we're talking about, it reads "uw-delete [page blanking, removal of content]". If its the wp:vandalism admonition on the same, you can find it at wp:vandalism, which in the very first example of what vandalism is describes blanking -- which was precisely what you were doing. As to wp:admin, I would bring your attention to the following: "Administrators are expected to lead by example .... Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies .... sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.... if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies ... while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct of his or her own.... Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: ... edit warring, ... etc) ... Failure to communicate – this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions) ... Repeated/consistent poor judgment." BTW, have you now read what I pointed you to (more than once) in the article and in the prior discussion, that answered your prior question?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope that you will take a look at the wikibias website.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockvilleMD (talk • contribs) 15:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to participate

User:Wuhwuzdat has made a very WP:Pointy deletion nomination of List of management consulting firms after two of his wholesale deletions of article content were reverted and explained here. Since you participated in the 1st AfD, I am notifying you of the 2nd AfD in the event you wish to participate. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Warning

If you are going to continue to edit here, you need to both understand the letter and spirit of the biographies of living people policy and accept it. If you continue to disrupt article talk pages arguing the consensus can override BLP, I will open a user conduct RfC on your behavior. Yworo (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? Your comment is absurd. OK, first of all let me warn you for a wholly inappropriate warning. Take that, given the inappropriateness, as a final warning. Level 11. It goes to 11. Second, there is nothing at all disruptive in what I have done. If you think there is, I urge you to bring it to a noticeboard immediately, and submit yourself to sanction if your bullying inappropriate warning is found to be absurd. Third, you don't display in your comment a firm grasp of what a talk page is used for. Fourth, you don't display a firm grasp of the importance of consensus. Fifth, you don't display a firm grasp of BLP vs. wp:cat. Sixth, you don't display a firm grasp of the proper use of warnings. Seventh, of civility. Eighth, you appear to be trying to threaten me with sanctions for expressing a legitimate view which -- quite frankly -- IMHO is more legitimate than your view. I urge you to bring this to a noticeboard, as I would be happy to have the community comment on what I view as your less than appropriate behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Blabbing about consensus as if you knew what it meant is pointless as consensus can never override BLP. Yworo (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Others' understanding of BLP can always override your understanding of BLP. And please desist with your incivility. Again, I urge you to make your threatened report, and submit yourself to scrutiny by the community at the same time.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been scrutinized before and am not afraid of it as I've done nothing wrong. Yworo (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Then please make the threatened report. Your threat was inappropriate. Your incivility is not appropriate. Your personal attacks are not appropriate. IMHO. You've made your threat, and I've invited you to follow through on it so that the community can provide you feedback on whether it was appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll get around to it; however, I made no personal attacks, nor was I uncivil. I merely told you that I thought your behavior was disruptive to Wikipedia. And I believe that in good faith. I'm not the only one to think that. You are always welcome to discontinue the disruptive behavior. Yworo (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

We have starkly different opinions of the appropriateness of your behavior. And mine. I look forward to you making your threatened report, as I have been unable to explain satisfactorily to you why your threat was not appropriate. I would hope that community input would better clarify to you why your baseless threat, your incivility, and your personal attack are not appropriate. Please let me know when you have subjected your behavior to that scrutiny, as I would be happy to participate in the discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to provide a diff of the alleged personal attack. In fact, if you really think I've been incivil and attacked you, please take it to the Wikiquette noticeboard. It may be a while before I get around to opening an RfC/U. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahah. I see. Not only was your threat not appropriate. It was pure, empty, impotent bluster, when you considered that it would lead to a review not only of the fact that it was wholly without merit-less, but also to a review of your behavior, as evidenced in this string. I would urge you to desist in baseless threats, personal attacks, and incivility. Please take this as a final warning with regard to such behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As you've still not substantiated your baseless accusations, same to you. I will file the RfC/U if your inappropriate behaviour continues. Yworo (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see my above comments. Res ipsa loquitur. Given your behavior on this page, I ask you not to make entries on it in the future, other than to alert me to any reports relating to me. Have a great week.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread

Since you have refused to engage me in discussion on your talk page and deleted the discussion I attempted to have with you, I have started an ANI thread about your recent canvassing actions. You may want to read and respond at WP:ANI#Canvassing by User:Epeefleche. SnottyWong ^chatter 00:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Baseless. As you know. As is your statement that I "refused to engage" you in conversation. Just the opposite is true.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so next time you delete an entire discussion from your talk page, I should take that as a sign that you'd like to continue that discussion? Yes, you did respond to my comments, although your responses consisted mostly of explanations about why you don't feel the need to explain yourself to me, followed by completely deleting the thread. I don't believe my claims are baseless, and neither do the majority of editors who are currently contributing at the ANI thread. To clarify, I'm not out for blood or anything, but I need to know that you understand that your actions were disruptive, so that you don't repeat them in the future. To this point, I haven't seen any indication that you understand why your actions were disruptive. SnottyWong ^prattle 01:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for epee, but I imagine he doesn't fully understand that his actions were disruptive because there isn't a particle of truth to the assertion which is itself, ironically enough, disruptive. To the extent that you have a point, you've made it. Best to move on. IronDuke 02:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean that I'm wrong or that I'm lying when you say "there isn't a particle of truth"? Which part of my accusations are untruthful? SnottyWong ^chat 04:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for clear canvassing violation. Any admin can lift when Epeefleche demonstrates an understanding that posting 65 messages related to AFDs is case of indiscriminate messaging, especially after it has been demonstrated that he was using off-wiki messaging related to the same AFDs.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 05:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Epeefleche (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

On behalf of Epeefleche, I point out that blocks are not to be used punitatively only preventatively, and no one has made any allegation that Epeefleche was likely in the immediate future to cause any damage or disruption to the project. "Teaching someone a lesson" is not an appropriate reason to block. See WP:BLOCK. I note also that this block was made in knowledge of, and contrary to the consensus of, an ongoing AN:I debate (link). – DustFormsWords (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. Epeefleche has a working keyboard, presumably, so he can file his own unblock request when he is ready. Interested community members who wish to request consensus to unblock him can do so at WP:ANI where there is a vigorous discussion on this issue. Please comment at ANI if you wish to see him unblocked. Jayron32 06:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• All editors have an interest in the fair administration of justice, and all editors have an interest in having the absolute minimum of blocks administered necessary for the protection of Wikipedia. As far as I'm aware neither WP:BLOCK nor WP:GAB require than an unblock request come from the blocked user, and requiring Epeefleche to appeal his own block imposes an administrative burden on him that is only justified to the extent that the block is justified to begin with. – DustFormsWords (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Because all editors have an interest in justice, there is a discussion at WP:ANI over lifting his block. I see you have already found that discussion. When sufficient people have commented, and consensus has been reached on how to proceed, we will proceed. --Jayron32 06:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Although I agree with Jayron32, that unblock request should not be granted, if it is filed not by a blocked editor themselves, but a wrong block as that one is should be lifted with no unblock request at all.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Agree 100% that wrong blocks may be lifted even without an unblock request. Whether or not this block is wrong is indeterminate at this stage. Which is why there is a discussion underway at WP:ANI to determine if this is a wrong block. Once that decision has been made by community consensus, we can proceed. --Jayron32 06:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC) But wasn't the appropriateness indeterminate when the block was made?--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Epeefleche (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here

With all due respect, I think this was a decidedly inappropriate block. I'm certain the blocker acted in complete good faith (I can't recall our prior interactions, and therefore have no reason to think otherwise). But I'm puzzled. An AN/I on the same issue had just been opened. This also had the unintended effect of depriving me of the ability to correct mis-statements at the AN/I. Which appear to have misled some editors.

As requested, below is my understanding of the policy and its latest interpretive guidance. Which indicates that in a strikingly parallel situation, a notice to 50 editors was appropriate.

The blocker is correct in implying that a necessary factor, for a posting to be considered "excessive" under the guidance, is a lack of discrimination. But he appears to not perhaps have been aware that the notified editors were in fact picked with discrimination.

This was certainly not a "clear canvassing violation" (the rationale for the block).

I apologize if I in any way created even an appearance of impropriety. That was not my intention. My postings were an effort to do precisely the opposite (to dispel even the faintest suspicion that some—but not all—editors had been contacted). I read wp:canvass and its related talk page guidance carefully before proceeding. I acted strictly in accord with my understanding of them. I am committed to following the guidance, in whatever form it may be written now or in the future.

I respectfully request an unblock, with an edit summary reflecting that it was not appropriate.

Background

1. Concurrent AfDs are discussing deleting 6 lists of Jews. The discussions include related issues. (rules for deleting lists of religions, ethnicities, and nations; whether Jews fall into all 3 categories; the effect of that w/regard to deletions of Jewish lists; who is a Jew; impact of a Jew saying he did not want to be noted for being a Jew; etc.). I !voted keep at all 6 related AfDs. Bulldog, Snotty, and Yworo !voted delete at all 6.

2. Bull asserted at a number of the AfDs–incorrectly–that I had canvassed. His "evidence" was an on-wiki note to DGG, in which I mentioned all 6 AfDs. And the fact that I had mentioned to DustFormsWords off-wiki that he had commented on 1 of 2 co-extensive concurrent AfDs (entertainers and actors). DGG had not !voted. Dust had !voted, split keep and delete, at some AfDs.

3. The editor-response to the Bull accusation was largely negative. See the AfDs.

4. I responded to the Bull accusation. Pointing out I had not canvassed. That his accusations violated wp:agf & wp:civil. And that the only editors other than me to have commented at all 6 AfDs were him, Snotty, and Jayjg—with 17 delete !votes and 1 keep !vote among them.

5. Bull's complaint, if true, would have raised the possibility that keep !voters had been made aware of the related AfDs. But that delete !voters had not. So I also noted that I would

"be happy to leave all editors editing/who edited related AfDs a note about related on-going AfDs".

Nobody objected. I then proceeded as I had suggested.

6. I used a neutral notice.

7. I was discriminating in whom I contacted. Contacting only editors who had commented at 1 of the related AfDs (but fewer than all). I did not contact editors who had commented at the DGG string (inasmuch as there, all AfDs had been mentioned).

8. Noteworthy: Contrary to what an editor intent on "getting out" the keep !vote would do, I did not also (or instead) contact editors who had participated at the prior AfDs of the lists–which had resulted in !keeps. (Unless they participated in this week's AfDs). Despite the fact that it would have been a totally acceptable alternative (or addition) under wp:canvass. And would have resulted in contacting a more keep-heavy group.

9. The editors contacted were not keep-heavy. If anything, the opposite. Nor did the notices result in keep-heavy !votes. Just the opposite.

My understanding of wp:canvass (emphases added)

1. Purpose. wp:canvass is meant to protect against: "canvassing ... with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". This clearly was not such a case.

2. Acceptable notices. Per wp:canvass: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." That was my intent.

3. Note at AfD regarding notifications. As wp:canvass suggests is good practice, I "left a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made". Actually, I did better than that. I left the note before making the notifications.

4. Neutral wording of notice. The notice, as suggested by wp:canvass, was neutrally worded and brief. It did not even say "You are invited to join the discussion at ...", as the guidance's template does. Instead, it was far more neutral. Saying only:

"Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians."

5. Selection of those notified—known opinions. As suggested by wp:canvass,

"The audience [was] not ... selected on the basis of their opinions – for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then similar notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it."

I did not leave messages for users selected on the basis of their opinions. Precisely the opposite.

6. Selection of those notified—connection to topic of discussion. As suggested by wp:canvass, there was no posting of "messages to users ... with no particular connection with the topic of discussion." To the contrary, all users were ones who had edited this week at one or more of the related AfDs. As suggested, the notices were "On the talk pages of individual users ... who have participated in previous discussions on ... closely related topics".

7. What "excessive cross-posting" means under the guidance: Indiscriminate Notification, and Uninvolved Editors. wp:canvass provides that one should not send notices to an "excessively large number" of individual users. Wp:canvass then clarifies what that means, stating the elements that constitute prohibited excessive cross-posting:

Excessive cross-posting

Important discussions sometimes happen at disparate locations in Wikipedia, so editors might be tempted to publicize this discussion by mass-posting to other Wikipedians' talk pages.... indiscriminately sending announcements to uninvolved editors is considered "talk-page spamming" (or e-mail spamming) and therefore disruptive.

There was nothing indiscriminate about the posting here. Those posted to were a highly select group. Specifically, those editors who had posted at one of the related AfDs this week. Nor were they "uninvolved editors". Precisely what the guideline indicates is meant by "excessive" cross-posting–the 2 necessary elements of indiscriminate notification, and uninvolved editors–was not the case here. Rather, the polar opposite was the case.

8. Guidance terminology vs. common parlance. I understand terms can have different meanings in common parlance, from how a guidance instructs us to understand them. "Excessive" is such a term. Had the guidance (and its interpretations) not described its meaning, my initial instinct (without any objective foundation) might well have been that "65" would be "excessive" (in normal parlance). I took care before acting, however, to check what "excessive" means under the precise guidance language. It is indeed a wiki-specific interpretation of the phrase, as reflected above.

9. Footnote. A footnote says "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice. However, excessive cross-posting goes against current Wikipedia community norms. In a broader context, it is unwiki." See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK#Principles." To understand what "excessive cross-posting" means, see the above para. Not the case here.

Furthermore, the footnoted case is plainly distinguishable.

The editor there violated the principle of "Aggressive use of Wikipedia forums to mobilize support for point of view". He sent notices that were "calls to action". The opposite was true here. This was a neutral message. Sent to all editors, without regard to their view, who had edited at the related AfDs this week.

In addition, in the footnoted case there was no rationale for why those particular editors were contacted. That distinguishes it. And as the guidance indicates, indiscriminate posting is a core element of "excessive cross-posting".

It is noteworthy that the editor in that case was not even, btw, sanctioned for canvassing. He was only sanctioned for personal attacks.

10. Guidance on wp:canvass talkpage, in parallel matter: 50 notices is in accord with the guideline. In July of this year, a starkly parallel matter arose at the wp:canvass talkpage. An editor complained when editor Collect contacted 50 editors on their talkpages as to an AfD. Collect had used a neutral notice. He sent it "to everyone practicable" who had participated a prior AfD. Collect felt, the same as I did here, that it "avoided any possible cavil that people were "selected" for the message". He relied on the same guideline language discussed above. The feedback on the guidance talkpage by Kotniski (with which nobody disagreed) was that since Collect sent the message to people on both sides of the debate equally, nobody should have any objection. Kotniski added:

If people have contributed to a discussion, they have a right to know if the same issue is being raised again (essentially, if they are not told, then they are being disenfranchised, by having their previously expressed views ignored). If you're going to inform some, you have to inform all, so if it turns out to be a few dozen (quite a large number), that's just slightly unfortunate. The disruption (if any) comes from the people who continually re-raise the same issue when the previous result went against them.

11. Additional guidance on wp:canvass talkpage. The notion that multiple postings (to all RfA !voters) are not excessive if they: a) are not solicitations to !vote; and b) are made to editors who had previously participated in a related discussion, was discussed at the guideline talkpage here.

12. Common sense. Common sense, which accords with the stated purpose of the guidance, suggests that one should not send notices to so many users as to lead to a disruptive influx of opinion. There was no disruption here.

13. Following the guidance. I'm keenly interested in adhering to the strictures of the guidance, now and in the future. Were the guidance changed to say, instead: "Editors should not contact more than X other editors per any AfD, and more than XY editors per a related group of Y AfDs ... even if the notices are even-handed, and made to parties who have been involved in related discussions", I would be happy to follow that new rule. Or any other new guidance.

Thank you for the opportunity to express my thoughts.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This block is being very actively discussed at WP:ANI (permalink) and there is, at the very least, no consensus to overturn it. Instead, even after you have posted your overly long unblock request, most editors (including those who I have no reason to assume are or were involved in any dispute with you) agree that both your canvassing and your above attempt to justify it are inappropriate. Under these circumstances, an unblock is not currently indicated. I recommend that you wait until the ANI discussion concludes and then make another unblock request which takes into consideration the outcome of the discussion, and especially the opinions expressed by uninvolved users.  Sandstein  20:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Epeefleche’s posts on user talk pages weren’t cherry-picked in the slightest; editors on both sides of issues received polite notices on their usertalk pages. Moreover, his posts were exceedingly benign and neutral, like this one that the complainant in the ANI used. Wikipedia:CANVAS uses a handful of criteria that must be taken together to paint a paint a picture that someone is trying to *game* the system to their advantage. The totality of the evidence could not possibly make it any clearer that Epeefleche’s only objective was as is described in the very first sentence of WP:CANVAS; that of In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Many of the articles on which Epeefleche edits suffer from a chronic lack of participation by the wikipedian community and that makes it exceedingly hard to discern a valid consensus. His approaching the wider community that had weighed in on related issues only points to the fact that Epeefleche is more-than-willing to accede to community consensus—whatever the outcome—rather than slap {{I DON'T LIKE IT}} tags and insist that things go his way. This block is unconscionable and needs to be quickly reversed. Greg L (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC) No, as the guideline page makes clear by means of a diagram and the linkers "OR" in the inappropriate section. A message is appropriate if it is Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open, and inappropriate if it is Mass posting OR Biased OR Partisan OR Secret. Mass posting is a violation of WP:CANVAS. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC) In addition, contacting users off-wiki to inform them is a violation of the "Secret" criterion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Oops, my mistake on the “and”/“or”. The posts show that he went out of his way to be unbiased and neutral. Moreover, there is no bright-line rule in WP:CANVASS to what is “mass” posting and what is limited. Given that it is clear he was just trying to broaden input (via his contacting editors on both sides of the issue; that is, including those who had previously voted against him on issues), how can an indefinite block be justified? I personally was involved in a policy battle on WT:MOSNUM because there was a small group of editors insisting that Wikipedia use non-standard language like A computer with 256 MiB of RAM. RfC after RfC was conducted and the cabal kept at it for so long (with still more objections and more RfCs), that the community tired and no one checked in on the matter, which had been moved to its own sub-page because of the tedium. I recall having posted a perhaps 15 posts on user pages that amounted to “(*sigh*), There’s another vote on the IEC prefixes. You might be interested in weighing in.” Under the circumstances, that seemed perfectly appropriate and even those IEC-prefix fans didn’t rake me over the coals for that since they could see first-hand that there was voter fatigue. As for contacting users off-wiki, I note you enabled your e-mail feature. In fact, I just now e-mailed you to say “Hi”. Do tell, have you never exchanged e-mails with your wikifriends to strategize? Ample electronic white space is provided below for your candid and honest response. I had some black guy e-mail me (there’s my e-mail link on my user page) and appeal to me to reverse a vote of mine in an RfC over a graph showing the bell curves of intelligence for the different races. I didn’t posture with feigned great wikidrama grief and make a stink out of that; I politely responded that I had no intention of changing my vote. Let he who is without sin throw the first stone. All Epeefleche did was get WP:BOLD with who he contacted rather than engage in the standard dance with months-worth of beating around the bush and feeling each other out in one’s e-mails until one knows whether they have a trusted friend and ally. So I’ll have none of this hypocritical garbage about “Secret”; it’s just a catch-all tool used to whack someone who has made some enemies—which one can do when they specialize on religious and terror-related articles. The appropriate thing to do here would have been—at most—a 24-hour, first-time block and warning that he should better familiarize himself with the guidelines regarding mass postings. This is an obscene injustice right now. So just pardon me all over the place for saying what is exactly on my mind, but it seems that Epeefleche accumulated some enemies who are now exploiting some “payback” time here and have somehow managed to pull out a ridiculous indefinite ban in place of something more limited and appropriate. Greg L (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC) It would be better if you knew the difference between a block and a ban before making comments like this (WP:BLOCKBANDIFF). Rd232 talk 20:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC) It would be better if you didn’t pretend to have insight into what I do and don’t know ‘before making comments like this.’ I’ve seen “indefinites” that have gone for more than a year. Greg L (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Epeefleche, you need to address the email issue. You also base your lengthy disquisition supporting your position on the view that editors participating in one AFD were "involved" in closely related AFDs they hadn't participated in, which is extremely shaky. I can see why you might think that, but perhaps you can also see that policy should not be interpreted that way. Rd232 talk 20:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Well, I’ll start out here for him by proxy, as I have great distaste for hypocritical behavior on Wikipedia or anywhere else for that mater. I’m speaking in general terms and am not targeting you specifically with that comment. See the last three paragraphs of my above post regarding e-mails. Greg L (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC) The existence of email does not negate the existence of policy against abusing it. And judging by your comments so far, Epeefleche is better off without your intervention here. General discussion should stay at ANI. Rd232 talk 20:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC) You are entitled to your opinion. That doesn’t mean it is valid, however. And now that you saw fit to weigh in as you did, I see that you too have your e-mail feature enabled. So, do tell: Have you ever exchanged secret e-mails with wikifriends? To strategize, perhaps? To ask for assistance or guidance, perhaps? Do tell: do you use your e-mail feature with other wikipedians to discuss only the weather??? Ample electronic white space is available below for a candid and honest answer. I am very much looking forward to seeing your answer. We’ll compare it to your above comment taking Epeefleche to task for e-mailing other wikipedians. In order to further explore just what in the world this e-mail feature is that wikipedians can enable, I just e-mailed you too just to say “Hi” and tell of the weather here (the snow is melting). That is, after all, all you use your e-mail for with other wikipedians, right? That is your position? Greg L (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. Just in case it is not obvious, I am employing satire for effect in order to comment about rampant hypocrisy on Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC) What GregL has described as Epeefleche's behaviour (selectively contacting people off-wiki to sound them out as potential future allies in specific topics), regardless of the topic involved, is disruptive, period. It has little to do with making enemies, that is just a smokescreen being used by supporterd to try and hide the real problem. I also tend to agree with Rd232 in that GregL is only helping to dig a deeper hole by trying to justify Epeefleche's actions. The block will be reduced/lifted if and when Epeefleche acknowledges that this kind of behaviour is disruptive and it is accepted that they will not induldge in the same in future. wjematherbigissue 20:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC) It is not too much to ask, Wjemather, that editors practice what they preach. Would you agree with that statement or not? And please don’t accuse me of throwing up a “smoke screen”; that is a failure to assume good faith for I believe it is entirely appropriate to expect that rules be applied evenly. Rd232, please answer my question above. Have you exchanged e-mails with other wikipedians before? Don’t duck the question. You are taking Epeefleche to task for using the e-mail feature to e-mail other editors. So, have you received and/or sent e-mails using Wikipedia’s e-mail feature (which is available to all registered wikipedians) and do you now exchange e-mails directly with wikifriends and simply bypass Wikipedia’s e-mail feature for convenience? Have you every “secretly” strategized with these friends? If you expect to be perceived as taking the high road, let’s see if you really practice what you preach and really take the high road.” Greg L (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC) With respect to Sandstein whom I respect as a fair, if tough admin: Isn't it inconsistent to refuse an unblock while an ANI discussion is ongoing ( which makes perfect sense), unless the block, and an indefinite block at that, was carried out during that same ANI discussion. What was the status of the editor before the ANI discussion. Isn't that the stable, pre ANI position? (olive (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)) Administrators should not lightly overturn another administrator's action. Per WP:ADMIN, "Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators. Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion." In this case, the discussion is very much ongoing and an unblock would therefore be premature unless the discussion shows clear consensus for an unblock, which is not the case. After the discussion has concluded, another unblock request may be more usefully evaluated in the light of the outcome of the discussion.  Sandstein  21:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC) I respect, and of course understand that position. My concern is that the block itself was carried out during that same ANI discussion. Perhaps an unblock does not correct what may have been an initial mistaken action. I'm not saying the action was wrong just that I personally think it was hasty carried out as it was in the middle of a discussion, and probably too severe if a block was warranted at all. Thanks for your reply.(olive (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)) Holy smokes! You are all walking right into this one. I see that you too, Wjemather, have your e-mail services activated. So the above questions apply to you. Do you exchange e-mails with other wikipedians and not reveal the content of those e-mails on your talk page? Have you ever strategized with any of your wikipedian friends or requested their assistance with an on-Wiki matter? If you have done so, couldn’t that be seen as a violation of rules? Since you have your e-mail feature activated, and we are discussing another editor’s use of that feature (and you are criticizing that conduct), this seems a probative and fair question under the circumstances. Greg L (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Recommend reading the first two sentences of WP:CANVAS, Greg. Canvassing involves notifying users of ongoing discussion; none of the rules surrounding canvassing apply to anything else. Using e-mail is not a problem; using e-mail to secretly inform users of ongoing discussions is a serious problem. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Nice oratory. Well played. Let’s all acknowledge the 800-pound gorilla in the bedroom (a topic so sensitive it’s better to just not touch upon the issue). But many of us have our e-mail services enabled. And many of us have used that service to establish behind-the-scenes communications with people who are wikifriends and with whom we have private communications. For the most part, the wisest of us play a “feel ‘em out” game of ever-increasing boldness until the parties have gained mutual trust. In this case, Epeefleche didn’t exercise such caution and used Wikipedia’s built-in e-mail feature to contact editors who A) didn’t appreciate it, and B) ratted him out. That’s like a politician playing hanky panky with the interns: About the only response behind closed doors is “Ha! You damned fool! You got caught! Don’t be so careless next time.” Greg L (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Greg L, you seem to be very well-versed in the finer points of successfully conducting off-wiki strategy sessions without getting caught. You seem to be very interested in whether or not different users have their email option enabled. What you don't seem to understand is that contacting users by email is not, by default, "against the rules". There is nothing wrong with using email to contact other users. However, contacting users off-wiki in an attempt to stack votes at an AfD is against the rules. So, accusing other users of hypocrisy simply because they have enabled the email option on their WP account is clearly ludicrous. If you can prove that another user here has been shown in the past to conduct off-wiki votestacking campaigns, then you might have a case to accuse other editors of being hypocritical. Until that time, however, I think your comments are doing Epee more harm than help. SnottyWong babble 21:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC) let us sum So what's really going on here. A good content editor with no block record at all is blocked for alleged canvasing. Let assume that canvassing really happened. Why the editor is blocked indefinitely? Was wikipedia threatened by their actions so much that an urgent block during AN/I discussion was warranted? What this block is going to prevent? This block is wrong, it is punitive. It created unnecessary drama. A blocking admin misused his administrative tools. I simply cannot believe that almost 24 hours later the editor is still blocked. The editor was blocked with no consensus by a single cowboy's administrative action. Surely they could be unblocked with no consensus either, and besides what Sandstein has missed in the unblock request is that the editor did apologize. To keep the editor blocked after an apology is not warranted at all. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC) We don't want an apology, we want recognition that they violated WP:CANVAS and agreement not to do so in future. As long as we have that, they can be as unrepenting as they want. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Well, it is a wrong approach for lifting blocks. The offense, if any was not a very big one, indefinite site block, and probably any length of block was absolutely unwarranted. In a worse case scenario a topic ban could have been just fine. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC) The "length" of the block is until the user agrees not to inappropriately canvas again. That's exactly how long the block needs to be. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Ok, first of all, have you actually looked at Epee's block log? Saying that there is "no block record at all" is... well, just incorrect. Second of all, the block is not punitive. This has been discussed ad nauseum on the ANI page, so I'm not going to explain it again. Epee has a history of inappropriate canvassing. Check the ANI archives. If this was the first time he had done something like this, then an indef would be way out of proportion. Thirdly, Epee has not apologized. He apologized if he inadvertently "created the appearance of impropriety". In other words, he apologized for doing something that might have appeared to be wrong or disruptive, when in reality it wasn't (or so he believes). He clearly still refuses to acknowledge that what he did was wrong, and he has not resolved to not do it anymore. No one is looking to force an apology or anything. We just need to know that he understands what he did, why it was wrong, and that he won't do it anymore. I don't think that is very difficult. The fact that he is still blocked is his own fault, since he has not been very active here today. It appears he is just trying to wait it out. Unblocking now would not only reward him for minimally engaging the community, it would also send the message that what he did wasn't that bad. An unblock should not be performed until the blocking admin's instructions have been satisfied. SnottyWong spout 22:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Yes I read the editor block record, and repeat the editor has no prior blocking history. Have you read and understood the editor's block record?--Mbz1 (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Correct, but irrelevant. Rd232 talk 22:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Comment - What I find frankly amazing is that someone can be indef blocked for a single incident, an incident that can be interpreted in two possible ways, without any thought or consideration of his/her contributions to this encyclopedia. Editors here seem to be real disposable. One disputable incident and you have a bunch of "Queens" shouting Off with his head!. Some of you think nothing of knocking people off the playing board left and right. Wake up and smell the coffee, folks. You need experienced editors at Wikipedia in the worst way. This business of knocking people off for months or years at a time is not only unfair, but it goes against the the very spirit of Wikipedia and gives Wikipedia a black eye. Look at the whole person, not at one incident in a person's Wiki lifetime. Admins are supposed to act as judges to help move this project forward. Judges are supposed to be discriminating, to consider ALL the evidence. The evidence includes the past record, not just of reprimands but also of full body of work accomplished. The admins not supposed to act as executioners. Please reconsider this block. 172.190.87.241 (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Another editor who doesn't understand the difference between an indefinite block and a permanent ban... perhaps we need some kind of "Blocks Vs Bans Education Week"! Anyway, see WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. Rd232 talk 10:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC) I would support all of the above. Let Epee just submit to the maunderings of a random lynch mob, and he can be restored to freedom. If a technical violation that does no harm doesn't result in an indef-block, what on earth will? We can laugh at racism, anti-semtisim, anti-Arabism, homophobia, but excessive posting? Thank our Intelligent Designer we've drawn a line. IronDuke 04:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC) I don't understand insisting that a person grovel in order to get a block lifted. Rd232 suggests that Epeefleche is "put off" from understanding what WP:CANVAS means because he is distracted by others' comments. The idea that because the "behaviour" is not detectable, the editor will necessarily repeat it unless there is a "declaration" to demonstrate "understanding" before offering the second chance doesn't assume good faith & on the contrary implies a rather low opinion of Epeefleche's intelligence. Rd232 may not have meant it in this way, but it can be easily interpreted this way. By the same token, it is possible to interpret Epeefleche's behavior in both a negative and a more positive way. Snottywong's rationale for not unblocking Epeefleche is that it would 'reward' him for being 'unresponsive', as if he were some Pavlovian dog. 172.129.7.50 (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC) First edit to Wikipedia? Somehow I doubt that very much, so who are you? It is a fact that the likelihood of repetition goes down if someone publicly acknowledges wrong doing and declares that s/he will not repeat the behavior. Whether or not that happens in this instance, it is certainly within the rights of a community to ask for this type of acknowledgement from someone who wishes to remain one of its members. From a practical standpoint it also reduces drama and wiki-lawyering should the individual repeat the behavior in the future, since there it is clear now that they are willfully misbehaving. In fact that is one of the deterrents that makes the likelihood of repetition decrease in the first place.Griswaldo (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC) {*No one is asking him to grovel. I haven't asked him to apologize for violating WP:CANVASS, or to claim that he was unjustified in doing so, merely to acknowledge that he did, because if he doesn't acknowledge that he did, it shows he doesn't understand it. This is important, because willful misbehaviour is more serious than accidental misbehaviour. If he never acknowledges his violation, then his next violation will also be an "innocent mistake", as will the one after that. It's important that such repetitions are prevented, and understanding is the key to that. It goes without saying that if he demonstrates understanding and repeats the behaviour anyway, he won't have a credible defense at that point.—Kww(talk) 17:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche comment

I apologize for not having left comment at the AN/I (the basis for my block). My block prevented me from addressing mis-statements there. To clarify certain matters:

1. On-wiki note. I appreciate blocking sysop Kww having left the following note, after my unblock request:

"I could be persuaded to listen to a defense that claimed that while the original e-mail contacts where wholly inexcusable, the follow-up of 65 postings was an effort to repair the damage. Claiming that both actions were acceptable is a non-starter, though.—Kww"

Yes, my 65 postings were an effort to repair the damage raised by the cloud of suspicion created by Bull's complaint. Had his complaint been true, it would have meant that Keep !voters had been made aware of the related AfDs. But that Delete !voters had not. By contacting all AfD participants, I was eliminating that possibility.

While that addresses the 65 postings, one remaining issue troubles the blocking admin. That issue, which he indicates is the wholly inexcusable clear violation that is the remaining basis for my indef block, is my email contacts.

2. 2 Emails—recipients. The emails, discussed here and at the AN/I, consist of 2 identical emails. They were to DustFormsWords and to Dougweller.

Though I was a straight-Keep !voter at the related AfDs, Dust and Dougweller held views contrary to mine. Dust had !voted both Keep and Delete. Dougweller had only !voted Delete.

The editors were ones who I recognized as thoughtful editors. My purpose in contacting them was—as they had commented at the entertainer AfD, but not the co-extensive actor AfD—to let them know of the existence of the co-extensive AfD. (The emails did not mention the other 4 Jewish list AfDs).

3. 2 Emails—contents. The emails were completely neutral. They said:

Hi. I saw that you commented on a similar AfD, so in the event that it interest you I'm letting you know of the existence of this AfD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_actors

4. Possible third email. I believe I may have sent the same email to a third editor, but can't recall for sure if that was the case, or who it may have been. Having sent the 2 (or 3) emails through the wiki email feature, where the default is to not retain the email, I have no outbox record to check. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

And your motivation for e-mailing at all?—Kww(talk) 19:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed--why not keep wiki stuff on-wiki for transparency's sake? Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

And why would you have only contacted those two particular users off-wiki, and not all of the editors who "commented on a similar AfD"? SnottyWong ^verbalize 20:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Why them? I noticed they had !voted on the entertainer AfD, but not the co-extensive actor AfD. I recognized them, specifically, as thoughtful editors. I don't recall if there were other editors at the time who fell into both those categories. The purpose was to let them know of the existence of the 1 co-extensive AfD.

Was this an effort to attract 2 Keep !votes? No, as is obvious. They held views contrary to mine. And the notice was eminently neutral. And related only to the 1 co-extensive AfD. Even ignoring wp:agf, these reflect that the purpose of the email was as I indicate.

Why email, and not on-wiki? I could have left the 2 notes on-wiki. They were the neutral mention of 1 related AfD, to a !voter w/a contrary view. Then again, it may have been one of those days in which I awoke to find Betsy rifling through my underwear drawer, Bull nosing through my trash, and Snotty dripping from my faucet—and may have in that moment thought, "why needlessly attract contentious behavior, from editors who I believe have aggressively conflated facts in the past"?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep votes are one thing. Didn't you believe that by encouraging wider discussion of the articles, you increased the chance of the articles being kept? If not, what motivation did you have to notify anyone of the AFDs?—Kww(talk) 20:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you're pressing a point that's not that worthwhile, Kww. Believing things should be kept is every editor's right, as is taking actions within community expectations consistent with that belief. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No editor is allowed to make contact with any other editor with the intent of influencing the result of a community discussion. If his intent was to influence the outcome, it's canvassing. "Improving the quality of a discussion", which is specifically allowed by WP:CANVASS, is a fairly credible motivation when it comes to tuning a guideline, figuring out which sources are reliable, a myriad of other things. For an editor that believes that there is an energetic effort to delete lists of Jews to state that his motivation had nothing to do with countering that effort begs credibility.—Kww(talk) 20:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

@Kww: No–I certainly didn't believe that by encouraging input from 2 editors with Delete views, with a notice mentioning only the 1 co-extensive actor/entertainer AfD, using a completely neutral note, that I would increase the chance of the article being kept. Even if one chooses to not agf, that would be highly counter-intuitive. My motivation was as aforesaid.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

@Kww: I did not contact the 2 editors to influence the result in an AfD. It begs credulity, IMHO, to imagine that the 2 neutral emails here, to editors with contrary views, serve that purpose. Even if you do not agf, and simply look at the facts. Just the opposite. If your other point is that I was supportive of the articles being kept, yes–that is accurate. But as to the 6 concurrent AfDs of Jewish lists, I don't think there is much question that the effort to delete them is energetic.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but that last bit is a pretty dumb answer. If you knew that on wiki notification would attract controversy, why on earth did you think that email would be any better? My personal approach? Strive to be above reproach and keep all dealings on-wiki, so there can be no questions like these. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

My reasons were as aforesaid. I did completely fail to anticipate that my 2 emails, eminently neutral, mentioning in each case the existence of 1 related co-extensive AfD, to 2 editors with views contrary to mine, would be construed by editors acting in accord with wp:agf as a wholly inexcusable clear violation of wp:canvass that warrants my being indefinitely blocked. I was not wise enough to anticipate this, and agree that I was dumb in that respect. Now, I am wiser.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sure you are wiser now, but I do not believe you were dumb to begin with. How for example should have you known that bulldog has no ability to assume good faith whatsoever?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope you have got the message, as you say, and we'll have to AGF that you didn't intend to change the AFD outcome in your favour. But it should be said, since your reply still leaves a little ambiguity as to your understanding: WP:CANVAS states simply an incontrovertibly that "inappropriate notification" includes "Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)". Contacting even one editor off-wiki is inappropriate notification, whoever they are and however the notification is phrased. In addition, we'll again AGF that you thought your 65-editor notification extravaganza was fine; again this breaches the pretty clear guidelines of WP:CANVAS#Spamming and excessive cross-posting: you might have seen these editors as "involved", but that's not a tenable definition and in any case with posting on that scale it wouldn't matter if they were. Rd232 ^talk 21:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

@Rd232 – I've indicated below my continued commitment to the stealth canvassing provision in wp:canvass, regarding attempts to persuade others to join in discussions. As to the "scale" issue, I refer you to my above discussion of it, and in particular to the guidance indicating that 50 such notices was in accord with the guideline. Finally, I think it is evident that the editors were involved in the general issue; that is reflected by the fact that the discussions at the 6 AfDs this week included so many common issues, and common commentators, and the articles were in common categories including common deletion sorting categories.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The "50 editors" case involved people who had participated in a previous AFD. That is quite different from people who have participated in similar AFDs. Be under no illusions that you pushed the envelope too far in your interpretation of the policy: it does not permit this. Rd232 ^talk 02:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still completely confused. If your intention wasn't to influence the result of the AfD's (whether pushing them towards keep or ensuring a no consensus close), then what exactly was your intention? Why would you notify users of an AfD, apart from some desire to influence the result of the AfD in some way? SnottyWong ^express 21:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

@Snotty–To paraphrase a saying of my father, "sometimes what Peter asks Paul, tells you more about Peter than about Paul." I recognize that some editors see the Project as one in which "winning" is achieved by "getting one's way". Some even lie to that end, or conflate circumstances wildly, as we have seen in this matter. Other editors, and I strive to be one of them, view themselves and their fellow thoughtful and honest editors—of whatever opinion—as judges on an appellate court panel, debating issues energetically in the belief that the collective decision made by such editors will be the best one. To that end, I think it best for the thoughtful/honest editors to know of conversations that may interest them, whether or not they have contrary views, and whether they choose to follow the discourse or not.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You probably want to monitor WP:ANI#Epeefleche is at least talking, where I have solicited input as to whether you have met the unblock criterion. I don't believe you have, but I'm willing to listen to counterarguments.—Kww(talk) 21:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Epeefleche. Do you remember what was in the email you sent DGG; and was DGG !voting keep or delete in other AFD's? Anthony (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I first contacted DGG on his talk page. At the time, he was not involved. After he !voted, I emailed him for reasons unrelated to how one might vote: such as to alert him to alert him to my having quoted him and others having mentioned him in postings (the AfDs were long, and I thought it polite to mention them as he may otherwise have missed them), and to clarify to him the Dust/Doug email (leading to his suggestion that I clarify their nature and number).--Epeefleche (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

that was indeed the nature & timing of the email. I think he did well to send it to me, because I have previously expressed some annoyance at being quoted (by various people) out of context, as the view quoted might not be my view about the current situation. I would much rather be asked first, when I will generally say to please let me express my own view myself at whatever discussion is in question, and give it after I form my own judgment. Of course, I would much rather be asked on-wiki. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The emails were my worry. As I said, the defense Epee made of the 65 is clear and logically valid, (though I can't vouch for soundness, as I've limited experience with WP:CANVAS), so at least the canvassing element of the RFC:U should be a relatively straightforward discussion about interpretation of how many is too many in a given situation. Anthony (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't make me regret this

I'll unblock you on a simpler condition: state that you recognize that contacting other editors via e-mail about AFDs is always inappropriate, based on the "stealth canvassing" language at WP:CANVASS#Inappropriate notification, and you won't do so again.—Kww(talk) 22:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I recognize, and commit to following carefully and completely, wp:canvass, which provides that the following is inappropriate (and may be seen as disruptive): "Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)."--Epeefleche (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You are unblocked. I'll assume good faith that your carefully and completely language won't be stretched to find specific reasons not to use talk pages. It's a vanishingly rare situation that there is a reason to discuss an AFD at any location besides the AFD itself.—Kww(talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've stricken the offending words, per your comment. Despite being somewhat perplexed as to why you would ever want me to follow the rule in a less-than-careful manner. Or in a less-than-complete manner.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back!

• Welcome back, but to tell you the truth I still have a very difficult time believing and accepting the events of the two last days. It was depressing to watch how an elephant was made out of a fly, and how much time was wasted. Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• I can only echo what Mbz says, It's good to have you Back. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Good to see that you were unblocked. Obviously, we've never met; I took offense at what I perceived as your unjust treatment during the discussion, and became involved. While I seriously doubt you've seen the end of this ordeal, I hope that the proposed RFC/U discussion turns out for the best. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• I'm glad that you're back, Epee. Rough two days. Now get back to work on those articles! :P Silverseren^C 00:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• I just looked at how many "those articles" you wrote, and realized yet another time how different are your contributions and contributions of your self-appointed judges. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Was busy with RL the last few days and was unaware of the hullabaloo. Just read the whole ANI and its just a typical ANI, full of editors that do little on Wikipedia except drama-monger. Thankfully saneness won out. It would be quite unfortunate if we lost an excellent content creator to the silly mobs at ANI.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Let me add to the chorus above in stating that it's great to see you back!--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• And here's another voice in support of your return. Jusdafax 04:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Despite the fact that we disagreed about these AfDs, and have had other serious disagreements in the past, I believe you acted in good faith, and also warmly welcome you back. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

 nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} has given you a falafel sandwich! Falafel sandwiches are a specialty of the Middle East. With a little tahini and maybe a spicy sauce, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.

Spread the goodness of falafel by adding {{subst:Falafel}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a falafel sandwich to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

• OK, now I am really jealous.☺Everybody welcomes you back, you are given wiki love and barnstar, and you are so famous! Good for you, Epee! You've got out of your ordeal better off than your self-appointed judges did --Mbz1 (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Good example

It has been suggested that consensus is impossible to find when there are too many participants in a discussion. This is not the case at AFD though as this has a simple binary proposition: to delete or not to delete. Examples of such discussions which had 100+ contributors but which still delivered a result include:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle — Keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Slater — Delete

Colonel Warden (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

		Wikipedia Motivation Award
		Thanks for your efforts to motivate participation in our discussions. These can become stale and unproductive if we just hear from the usual suspects and so it is good to encourage others to speak up too. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I presume this relates to something else, because otherwise you're thanking someone for breaching WP:CANVAS. Anyway, I'm unwatching now as this seems resolved, but I'll sign off by repeating that what the content issue needed, and still needs, is an RFC on the wider issue. All the best, Rd232 ^talk 11:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

you probably wont read this, but I feel that its necesary to point out that its unfair and unreasonable for you to just wade in and try to police how users compliment each other. User:Smith Jones 18:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any policing here either. It is indeed disturbing that Colonel Warden is giving out barnstars for activities that the community deemed disruptive and blocked a user for. That's not what we need around here. I'm also unwatching this page. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

you have absolutely no idea why Colonel Warden, a user in good standing with many hundres of edits, chose to give out this Barnstar. Im also not comfortable with the implication that he needs to be deemed "disruptive" and "have been blocked by the 'community'", but thats your opinion and its perfectly respenstible under here. perhaps it would be better to communitate these concerns to Colonel Warden instead of scurrilously them here where he might not see them. anyway, thats just me, so cheers and happy editing!! User:Smith Jones 19:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Um Smith Jones, see the ANI thread; his actions were deemed disruptive, and he was blocked by the community. I have had positive interactions with Epeefleche in the past and I hope (s)he continues to make valuable contributions, but that doesn't excuse canvassing and I'm glad that Epeefleche has agreed to abide by the canvassing guideline in future and thus has been unblocked. I don't think there's any doubt at all that the block was supported by community consensus at ANI, however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on the award.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I followed the ANI thread and there was clear consensus that the wording of WP:CANVAS is unequivocal, emailing editors to attract their attention to an AfD is canvassing and disruptive. Pinging 65 editors on-wiki for the same purpose was arguably canvassing and disruptive, according to the vague wording of the guideline at the time. (It is definitely canvassing, under the current wording.) Anthony (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Tainted AN/I; tainted initial conclusions. The AN/I was tainted. Leading to tainted initial conclusions. The AN/I consisted of "evidence" presented only by accusers and 3rd parties, and not of the accused. No reasonable system works that way. The intemperate block during the pendency of the AN/I ensured this would be the case.

Some accusers asserted untruths, on the basis of which they urged sanctions. Misleading some editors; impacting some initial conclusions. Build a house on sand ... When the blocking admin reviewed my response as to the 65 notices, and presumably the guideline language and the interpretation clarifying that leaving 50 neutral notes comported with the guideline, he sagely dropped his determination that that was canvassing. When the eminently neutral emails sent to 2 editors with contrary views were discussed, it became clear that accusers had spread untruths about them, and that they also did not reflect canvassing.

Any editors inclined to continue the spreading of mis-statements, or creation of misunderstandings, are invited to edit pages other than this one.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Drawing the attention of editors to an AfD by email, absent extraordinary circumstances, is canvassing. What were the circumstances here that made your emails OK? This is not a facetious question; I just don't understand. Anthony (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually WP:CANVASS does not state that "Drawing the attention of editors to an AfD by email, absent extraordinary circumstances, is canvassing." it says that it's "discouraged" not banned; and that it "may be looked at more negatively" than onWiki communication not that it will be looked at more negatively. For extraordinary circumstances, I would consider the 225 people who watch User:Dougweller 's page[18] and would have also been aware of any onwiki communication and could have affected the AFD's is a sign that neutrality was being considered. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

My condolences for having to deal with the latest rush of ridiculous bullshit

• There really needs to be something done around here about the constant rush to lynch people on WP:ANI before all the facts are in. Jtrainor (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• While I would not phrase it in the manner above, I agree with the general sentiment. Jusdafax 05:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Epee really took everything easy, and even thanked the administrator, who blocked them indefinitely. Way to go probably. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Hey I'm jealous. I never got a falafel☺--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oh, what do you know,Jiujitsuguy. I got even better present, when I was blocked on Commons for 6 months. The situation was kind of similar the one Epee found themselves in. My unblock was connected to a condition that I should promise never again to say what I said to get blocked, and I could not promise that because what I said was the right thing to say. When I have been blocked for about 3 weeks, one editor started a campaign to have me unblocked, and what a campaign it was! For example he did a photo-montage and uploaded the image to Commons. Of course they deleted it, but not before I saved it to my computer Here it is, this present of mine. And then one fair-minded administrator unblocked me.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Just wanted to thank you for the kind remark on my talk page. It appears that the crusade against you is over, for now. Good luck in the future. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Jewish sportspeople article

Hi. Since you seem to be the main editor of List of Jews in sports, I wondered if you'd ever considered creating an article on the topic of Jewish sportspeople? Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality states that:

Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category can be created, but that it must be at least possible to create one.

Given the existence of the list and of Category:Jewish sportspeople, such an article should be possible (and indeed the introduction to the list hints at some reasons for notbility). Would this be something that you might be interested in working on? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Larry. It's an interesting thought. But it may be too large a task for me to address at the moment. There certainly is a great deal of interesting material specific to the intersection. At least, interesting to me.

For example, to look at one sport -- fencing -- would if memory serves yield the following interesting narrative. Dueling to the death or to first blood used to be quite common in Europe, and it was in some parts (Hungary, Russia, etc.) considered great sport to wander into the Jewish quarter and challenge a Jew to a duel. Jews were generally not at the time allowed to fence in non-Jewish salles. Unskilled, they faired quite poorly in the duels, which was no doubt part of the attraction. As a result, in Darwinian fashion, the Jews were forced (as a matter of survival) to adapt. Which meant creating their own salles, and developing a proficiency of their own sufficient to defend themselves from random challenges to duels. If one looks at the number of Jewish Olympic medalists in fencing, one sees a presence that appears to far exceed their percentage of the population.

Stories of perhaps lesser interest also exist with regard to other sports, as traced in the recent Jews and Baseball documentary that Dustin Hoffman narrated, which had some interesting views as to how Jewish participation in baseball was a means for Jews to integrate into US society. And in the sport of boxing, more than one writer has noted how when immigrant groups came to the US, their presence was quickly felt in boxing, which proved a quick way to rise from poor immigrant to monied celebrity, albeit at a cost to one's looks (the same held true for the Irish and Italians, when they arrived in the U.S., for example).--Epeefleche (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, something to think about perhaps. Your reply make me think there is more to write about than I originally envisaged when I made the suggestion. Perhaps we could start the article in your userspace somewhere? That way, it wouldn't matter if it took a while to get off the ground. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Jews in sports - inclusion criteria

You have added a link to this list to lots of articles. The issue I have is that you have piped the link as "List of select foo-ers". What is select about them other than having an article and being identified as Jewish? The inclusion criteria for the list seems to be subjective since it is not specifically defined for each sport. I would certainly say that most of the golfers listed would not meet them, with David Merkow and Rob Oppenheim in particular having done nothing to warrant inclusion by even the loosest possible interpretation of the criteria.

As such, I think these criteria need revisiting. In the meantime, I have removed the word "select" from the golfer bios, and would suggest that you may wish to revisit and do the same for all the others. _wjemather^bigissue 10:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe I've asked you not to wikihound me. More than once, for nearly a year now. You've done it for some time now, and continue to do it, and continue to ignore my request. Instead, you dismiss my complaint that you are following me around as "random accusations". And "baseless accusastions" -- even as you continue doing it. I would appreciate it if you would stop. Many thanks. Also, please rather than post here, post at relevant article talk pages. Much appreciated.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I have posted at the relevent article talk page, but as a courtesy posted here also. I'll take this opportunity to advise you that it would be better for all if you contributed to discussion constructively rather than employing a battlefield mentality and dismissing others arguments based on a grudge that you refuse to let go of. I have removed your slanderous personal attack from Talk:List of Jews in sports and leave it to you to remove it from here. If you have an opinion on the concerns raised please voice them, but if you cannot do that without snide remarks, then I request you stay away. Otherwise ANI will be my next point of call. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 15:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see anything other than disruptiveness in your following me around wikipedia, and making POINTy edits such as the above-indicated. I've asked you to stop. You have refused, and continue doing so. Wikipedia is large -- surely you can find something else to do, instead of this. It would certainly be more civil. There is nothing personal in my pointing this out -- it relates to your editing, and your following me around for months now. Please stop. As to the gravamen of your "issue", there are sundry lists of "notable x" and "select x" throughout wikipedia, and the entries that you point to all have wikipedia articles. Again -- I ask again -- please stop following me around wikipedia to make these disruptively POINTy comments. I would appreciate it.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If I was being pointy in any way I would have stripped the list bare or nominated it for deletion, but instead I have given you the opportunity to have your say. Please use it constructively. This list states that it only includes those with outstanding acheivement (listing some specific criteria) and not all notable individuals as other lists of this kind do. I have raised concerns that those criteria are subjective and cannot reasonably be applied to all sports. I have also queried the inclusion of two specific golfers who would appear to have done nothing outstanding by any measure and certainly do not meet the list's criteria. If you have a genuine opinion on those issues they would be welcome, but your refusal to engage in constructive discussion purely because I raised the issue is not helpful, and your false characterisation of my actions is entirely unwelcome. _wjemather^bigissue 16:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

1) A year ago you were denying that you were following me around, and editing what I edited. Do you now admit that that is what you are doing? 2) You stripped out the word "select". It is the same in meaning as the word "notable". We have a great number of lists and sections of "Notable X" -- there was no reason for you to delete it. That was disruptive and POINTy. And wrong -- it is not a list of "All X". 3) Please stop following me around and editing over my edits disruptively. This has been going on for nearly a year now, despite your assertions that my "accusations" are "baseless" and "random". It is disruptive to me. I would very much appreciate it if you would stop, as I have requested many times in the past.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't take you long to realise that the majority of my edits relate to golf, so seriously cannot be surprised when these articles pop-up on my watchlist. As far as I know, there are no lists titled "List of select foo" and for good reason – inclusion criteria wold be subjective. Unless the criteria for this list are applied strictly and those not meeting them removed, the criteria need to be changed. _wjemather^bigissue 16:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't take look, looking at the above diffs, to realize that you have been following me around. These last questionable edits of yours -- on top of mine, shortly after I make them -- are just the latest. Most of course have had nothing whatsoever to do with golf. Most are on articles that you never, ever edited before. Are you trying to mislead people, and duck my question, with your above response? Do you still seriously deny what you are following me around, and editing over/contrary to my edits, as you denied it a year ago? After all the evidence that has piled on since?--Epeefleche (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

My removal of a single word in these articles was not questionable in the least. There have been and continue to be, to varying degrees of seriousness, numerous different and recurring problems with your editing, so it should not come as a surprise that there are numerous people, including me, monitoring your contributions. For the most part, I intentionally avoid interacting with you because your response is always needlessly aggressive and unpleasant. As always, I will continue to attempt to discuss things calmly and constructively however difficult you insist on making it. _wjemather^bigissue 17:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No -- other than one other editor, I can only think of you having a penchant for wikihounding me. In the above indicated diffs, you denied you were following me, aggressively referring to my assertions as "baseless" and "random". Now, you seem to be owning up to the fact that you were in fact doing what you denied. Your above indicated "removal of a single word" over many articles, directly after I put it in, was both questionable and POINTy, and the poster child of wikhounding editing -- that was completely inappropriate, and I again request that you stop.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Your incessant accusations remain groundless. Hounding is clearly defined on WP, and my action do not fall within it. For information, a draft ANI case is well underway. Be assured that I have much better things to do than collate your transgressions, but am not prepared to tolerate this nonsense any longer. _wjemather^bigissue 17:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please use the talk page to discuss any changes. You do not own this list and should not arbitrarily change the criteria to suit yourself and your prior edits. That seems to me to be the very definition of being disruptive to prove a point. _wjemather^bigissue 17:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I have used the talk page. I have discussed the list and its criteria with the other editors of the list as it has developed over the years, and have observed and continue to observe the application of the criteria (which I drafted in part in the past as well), and the changes reflect the consensus application of criteria to the list, as it exists, and as it has been applied for years.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

To wjemather: I think your wikihounding of Epeefleche got out of hand quite some time ago. I suggest you just take him off your watch list, or stop looking at his contributions history, or whatever it is you are doing that enables you to so frequently parachute in on his work with comments about how you are displeased with his activities and how Wikipedia’s criteria need revisiting so Epeefleche’s work can better conform to your desires. Contributors are supposed to be able to make their contributions to the project without having their own, private Pit Bull nipping at their heels at every turn. Has it ever occurred to you that you might just (breathlessly) watch what he does and let some other editor raise an issue first, and then you can jump in to second the motion? It’s high time for you back off. You are clearly using Wikipedia as a tool to use in a personal vendetta. With 6,917,334 articles on Wikipedia, you could find a thousand constructive things to do. Instead you obsess over Epeefleche’s work on Jewish lists as if you fancy yourself as the one and only being on this pale blue dot willing to rescue earth from these lists. I suggest you accept the simple fact that if these Jewish lists are something the project doesn’t really need, the community is perfectly capable of dealing with the lists in its own good time. If you don’t wake up and smell the coffee on this free advise and keep at it, I expect that formal remedies will soon arise to separate you two; you may not like the remedy. Greg L (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, really not interested in your opinion. In fact there are very few people on here who's opinion I value less, and I would have thought that was clear to you by now. Needless to say, it is clear you don't have the first clue what you are talking about. If you had posted this crap on my talk page you'd be getting both barrels right about now, but since you have butted in here I'll leave it at that. _wjemather^bigissue 20:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That sort of combative tone is about the best way in the world to show that you are disinterested in working constructively in a collaborative writing environment. It should not have come down to your receiving a 48-hour block 20 minutes ago for you to have seen reason. Greg L (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

?

I've added links for 4-5 people ... Not everything must be removed. Gradually, all will be. Not all at once. I've been working on an article a few months. We must respect the work of others. I understand the rules, but in other statya ethnic lists, too, there are red links. Талех (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed improper links from most if not all nation lists that did not belong, and will likely address the rest as well. Feel free to move them to your workspace to work on them.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Give the weekend I featured links. Please. Right now I can not restore such a huge material removal. Талех (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

We have been discussing this for a number of days now, and I find myself repeating myself. There is no need for the continued massive violation of wiki guidelines -- simply move the material that you wish to work on to your own user page. Violating the guidelines, and edit warring on top, is not an acceptable approach. Move it to your own page, and work on it as your leisure if you like. Do not continue to enforce wiki violations on article talkpages, however. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: List cleanup

Re your message: You would think it would be possible since there used to be a bot that watched the date pages and kept it clean of redlinks (I don't mean that bot-like editor =)). I think the biggest problem would be identifying all of the various list pages that would need to be monitoring, but I imagine that would be surmountable. I don't program bots, but perhaps one of the bot programmers would be interested in making something. Mufka recently asked Pseudomonas if PseudoBot could be resurrected. I would think that the code from PseudoBot could be adapted to look at other pages, but again, I don't program bots, so I have no real idea of the work involved. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I left a query at RF's page. Is there anyone else you think I should ask?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion is taking place here.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Hutus

Please see the discussion I have started here. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

As I've explained at that talk page, I think the time is ripe for a broader discussion on the meta issue. Unequal application of equal rules is, at least in English-speaking Western societies, generally viewed as inappropriate. As IMHO it should be.

That's what prevents cops from sitting on a side road, and only giving tickets to Black people who are driving even 1 mile over the speed limit. While smiling and nodding at the white folk who are doing precisely the same thing.

IMHO, we have to be on guard against editors singling out certain ethnic groups, or religions, or races -- and deleting in toto their articles or lists or cats, for "offenses" that exist in the vast majority of parallel articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

As I've also pointed out on the talk page, I'm not singling out particular groups. I've been consistently focusing on all manner of unsourced ethnic group lists. I would welcome broader discussion on the issue though. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Can I also kindly request that you stop telling me your speeding analogy? I've now heard it more than once (though I appreciate that you can't be expected to remember who you've told it to) and I object to the implication (whether you mean it or not) that I'm a racist just because I want to see unsourced ethnicity lists sorted out. See also my previous comments on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've responded on the talkpage. As I said there, I think from what you've said that you are not a racist. But that is not the thrust of the analogy. As I explain on the talkpage, even a non-racist non-across-the-board effort to delete lists of Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, etc., for having characteristics that are the norm on wp in other lists can lead to serious problems. The analogy is important, and not everyone who will read the Hutu talkpage is aware of our prior discussion of the analogy. But hopefully I've clarified sufficiently there that: a) I don't think you are racist; and b) that's not the issue at all, in any event.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the analogy is a bit misplaced in that case. Suggesting that focusing on unsourced ethnicity lists, regardless of the actual ethnicity involved, is akin to stopping only black drivers for speeding seems to introduce an unnecessary potential for confusion to me because it suggests that decisions are being made to target particular ethnicities, when in face I'm focusing on all ethnicity lists. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it apt. Focusing only on deletion of articles and lists and cats and entries of ethnic groups, and not on lists of other groups -- which suffer in the vast majority from the same "issue" -- raises the same issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but following the analogy, ethnic equals black and non-ethnic equals white. That doesn't really make sense. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I see things differently. The cop giving out tickets "only to ethnic-looking drivers" raises precisely the same issues. Uneven application of even rules is IMHO a clear problem.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

But everyone has an ethnicity, so "ethnic-looking" doesn't make sense. Surely a clearer analogy would be if the drivers were differentiated by something completely different, such as whether they were driving a car or a truck? Cordless Larry (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No -- it is disproportionately "ethnic" groups. It is more like someone deleting only lists of Yankees, but not of Red Sox. If an editor does that, and fails to put in any constructive work -- say, writing articles on Yankees, improving them, adding refs, etc -- that should properly raise eyebrows. Also, one has to look at the impact. When there is disproportionate impact on ethnic groups, the fact that an editor has drawn the circle ever so slightly wider doesn't obviate the fact that he can be having disproportionate impact on certain groups. (By analogy, if the cop said "I just gave tickets to anyone who looked dark, whether they were white people with a deep tan or black people", that might be good for a laugh, but not much more). We have to be on special guard against editors seeking to delete articles of groups that have been otherwise discriminated against, and who are protected by all sorts of laws across Western countries and the US, under the guise of uneven application of rules. It would be a horrible precedent, and a well-intentioned editor doing it could easily open up the floodgates for further editing that is disruptive in that it is completely uneven application of the rules.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree on your point about watching for people targeting groups who have been discriminated against. My point about the analogy is that it's a bit confusing when the analogy for ethnic group/non-ethnic group-related articles (i.e. articles about different concepts entirely) is white/black people (a categorisation within the same concept, i.e. race). It would seem that the white/black analogy works better in the case where people are acting differently in relation to articles about one ethnic group compared to another, rather than differently towards all ethnic group articles compared to unrelated articles (unless you understand "ethnic" to apply only to ethnic minorities, which some people seem to do). Anyway, enough! I probably haven't explained myself very well and I don't want to labour the point. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

White American infobox image

Hi again. You reverted my removal of the infobox image from White American, citing consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. The discussion there is about the general principle of using such images. My concerns with the image in this particular article are spelled out on its talk page. I didn't remove it for the reasons discussed on the WikiProject but because of concerns about the specific image. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest we bring it up at the wp page, as it is inextricably related to that discussion and many of the comments in that discussion bear on acts such as that deletion. Would you like to raise it there, or prefer that I do so?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I will add a link to the talk page of the article, since the concerns being expressed are about original research in that particular article. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

White American RfC

Hi. To try to resolve the "is it an official term" dispute, I've started an RfC for White American. Hopefully we can get some outside input. Please let me know if you think my summary isn't neutral (I tried to keep it short and hopefully people can read our discussion and make their own minds up). Cordless Larry (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No -- I think you neglected to say "RSs such as The New York Times report that the census measures the category of "white Americans".[ref] That's a key point. Again -- you're not respecting the fact that it is the RSs that we look to. In fact, at the request for comment, you're leaving that out completely. Making a statement as to what the census measures which is OR that conflicts on the key point with your OR of a primary source.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I had mentioned that some sources use "white American", but I've tried to make that more explicit and have included a link to the NYT article. If you still disagree with the wording, please feel free to suggest an alternative. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Here is a quick cut. It gets the issue out there -- 3 RSs, the primary source, the policy.

Is it legitimate to say that "White American" is an official term used by the US government? RSs such as the The Washington Post report that the census is a survey of Americans, and that it reports inter alia on "the typical White American household".[19], and RSs such as The New York Times report that the census reports, inter alia, on "white Americans",[20] and the St. Petersburg Times reports that the Census Bureau studied "White American households".[21] The term used in the census, the primary source, is "White". Some editors believe that in context that means White American, as is supported by the aforementioned RSs. Others disagree. See discussion above for more details and arguments on either side.

--Epeefleche (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That generally looks OK but I think that if we're going to mention three sources that use "white American", we could also mention that there are also those that simply reproduce "White" or use "white people", as I've recently pointed out on the talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure -- toss in three of those as well, for balance. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, done. I apologise if it's still not quite as you'd like it but I was rushing before anyone made a comment (though maybe it's wishful thinking that we'll have a deluge of opinions!). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to tidy it up further before any comments flow in. Also -- I would suggest putting a note linking to it on the guidance.

BTW -- I just realized ... somehow a sentence I crafted for the above is missing (though I referred to it). It should state the rule:

"WP:PRIMARY says, in pertinent part, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source."

--Epeefleche (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, will do. I did wonder where the "the policy" part of the summary you mentioned was. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to add in as well anything from the guidance that you think relevant which I left out. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm happy with the current wording. Let's see if we get any comments now. Fingers crossed. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, we've not exactly been inundated, have we? Not a single comment! It's a shame that while the deletion debate generated so much heat, people don't seem interested in improving the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Incivility by Bulldog?

What do you make of edits like this? That, and comments like this to an admin suggest to me that he simply enjoys attacking others and has no desire to conform to conduct expected. What do you think? Greg L (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least you (for your part) addressed the substance of an issue that Bull himself raised to the community, asking for input. Bull's response to your substantive comment appears to be non-substantive.

In addition, I don't have the faintest idea what his reference to a "blog" is all about. It looks from the context and tone like a throw-away effort to bait you. As it doesn't make any sense, I would suggest you simply ignore it.

In general, I'm puzzled by his hostility. He asked a substantive question. You gave a fair, reasoned, substantive response. In turn, he appears to have engaged in a non-civil, non-substantive posting.

As to his public insult to the admin, writing: "How you ever became an admin is a crime against good judgment" -- well, he is entitled to his opinion, of course, but that certainly seems to fall on the wrong side of the civility divide.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• And what do you make of this complaint by Bulldog about having someone watch over him. He outrageously slanted the evidence. Wasn’t Bulldog123 following you around literally ten times more aggressively? Wasn’t he starting AfDs on your articles and—if they failed—hen-pecked on them incessantly? Now that seems to be wikihounding. I’m not even editwarring with him; just encouraging him to not edit against consensus as he goes from article to article to push his agenda. I really don’t *get* this guy. Greg L (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes -- I've already complained to Bull more than once about his having followed me to dozens of articles (which he never edited before), only to revert my most recent edits there. More than one editor -- including a sysop -- reverted him in turn. That is to my mind was classic wikihounding on his part.

AN/Is call for focus on the editor bringing the AN/I. No doubt, if he brings an AN/I, that his behavior would come to light. It would serve as stark contrast to your substantive engagement of him in your substantive comments, and show that a fairly unusual double standard is being used. It does make one wonder whether he is seeking to simply silence you from expressing a substantive view that is at odds with his. I also note that at least a couple of sysops have indicated that they can no longer afford him the assumption of good faith, given his editing ... I expect that would be relevant in any dispute as well.

As to incivility, Maunus himself has warned Bull for it. It does seem to be an issue that crops up.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Long Beach High School (New York)

Is there a reason you reordered the list of alumni on Long Beach High School (New York)? It was intentionally sorted by graduation year. You appear to have rearranged it to be alphabetical, but your comment is only "ce" (which I take to mean "copyedit"). In the meantime, I'm going to revert it. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 00:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Alpha order is the standard order used on such lists throughout the project. Just take a gander. I could have commented "alpha" in lieu of "ce", but there was no need I felt as I anticipated that would be clear, which it was in your case. Although lists may be organized in different ways, the most basic form of organization is alphabetical or numerical (such as List of Star Wars starfighters), though if items have specific dates a chronological format is sometimes preferable (List of Belarusian Prime Ministers). The Prime Minister list is distinguishable because there we are speaking of politicians that replace one another. Furthermore, when using a more complex form of organization, the criteria for categorization must be clear and consistent, which is not the case in the indicated list -- it neither explains what the criteria is, nor does it even have the specific information for every entry.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

True, but those lists are generally much longer (and often sorted into categories), and they don't tend to specify the graduation dates. I can put in a comment to explain the order, but I don't agree that there isn't specific information for each entry on the list (unless you're referring to the one I just added, Ed Lauter, which I calculated based on date of birth—it appears he was in the same class as Larry Brown). There doesn't appear to be a concrete policy for these lists, at least not as far I could find. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 01:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The policy is as I described it above. See MOS:LIST. The application of the policy is as I said as well, which you can plainly see at the indicated lists, or by checking any half dozen schools at random. Even your short list suffers already from the problem that you already don't know the criteria that you would like to use for the sort with regard to one entry; that approach already leads to a less precise list, as a result. The list will get longer over time, and the risk of the problem compounding is not an unlikely scenario. I see nothing in the guideline, general application of the guideline, or our quest for accuracy in lists to support this non-standard approach. And much to suggest that following the standard approach is preferable.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I was here so I will. I think there is much to be said for such lists to be made per date of birth, as here. Surely the category will do the job of alpha-listing? Ericoides (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Eric--your comments are always welcome. The convention on these lists (I've edited dozens of them) is alpha listing. And there is something to be said, I think many would agree, for having a standard convention and following it, unless some rationale calls for a certain list to be treated differently than other similar lists. Cats and lists don't always cover the same people, and readers who look at a list may not look at a cat. Also -- while all entries have a name (a pre-requisite), the vast majority but not all entries reflect a date of birth. That said, were the convention changed to follow Eric's approach, though I think that is slightly less perfect, I would happily follow it ... if it were the convention. This seems to be the case, however, of an editor perhaps unfamiliar with the convention using an approach that he (with some logic to it) might think is just as good ... or nearly so.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

blogger?

How, exactly, does a multi-millionaire web mogul and talking head count as a mere "blogger"? The edit is inaccurate and obfuscating. You might as well call him a homeowner for all the helpfulness of that description. Or is this a POV thing? μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Two things. Most important -- that is what RSs overwhelmingly refer to him as, when reporting on him relative to this matter. See The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Fox News, CNN, ABC News, CBS, The Boston Herald, The Boston Globe, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Forbes, The Hill, The Daily Mail, The Toronto Star, Salon, WPIX ... etc. Second, it is the fact that he is a blogger that is relevant, not as you suggest what his personal assets are.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

And ... I see the person I reverted in my second reversion has now agreed with me. Thanks, Cube, for taking a second look.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Nine reverts in one day? See here: [22] μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes -- please do see there ... you're clearly way off base (again), and your accusation was completely unfounded (again) , as all commentators agreed. Including the closing sysop who wrote "this is just petty.... Seriously". Given your penchant for unfounded accusations, which can be disruptive, feel free to edit elsewhere than on this page. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

To wit

I generally keep my wits by posting my own thoughts and responding to other users cogently in one place rather than litter each smaller segment throughout. And as this isn't a mere vote count, I do think responding to one another is a valuable element that can help move a discussion beyond "A or B" or neither and to a different place between or beyond. I also seek to present a considered and contextual observation so there is less likelihood that someone will retort I haven't considered this aspect or nobody pointed out the fallacy of an earlier comment. I respect your work, but you listed a lot of scandals unrelated to each other or this; had you not, I'd not have spent several sentences refuting you! ;) Wit is fun to display but editorial consensus is better founded on wisdom, HOs notwithstanding, and I trust that any responsible editor interested in the debate will read every lucid argument presented. Conversely, the person who refuses to or gives the impression others needn't read a lengthy post with several valid points does not seem to be a responsible editor interested in the debate.

To that point, that page isn't the place to comment or respond to a comment on post length. I respectfully request that you self-revert your comment there as it is unhelpful to the discussion process and the development of a consensus. (If 22 fairly on-point sentences of mine were too much, three more by you to tell me so is not only off-point, but part of the problem, not part of the solution.) When someone who is or hopes to be viewed as a responsible editor (you) indulges in that sort of a comment, it has the dismissive effect of suggesting that not only was there nothing relevant or valid to respond to for you, but you'll point out to me and everybody there that you're not responding to it, and establish not responding to it, and so perhaps not even reading it in the first place, as a responsible editor's way to treat my post. It's very disrespectful to me, but more importantly to that thread, it's disrespectful to my points and to the discussion in general. To the pretense of constructive criticism in your comment, I take your point and I actually spend more time simply editing for concision than I do writing the thing, and more time than anybody would spend reading it. If someone doesn't have the time, let them skim or skip as they so choose, don't direct traffic around me.

I can be ignored for lengthiness all by myself, thank you!

I'll watch this page—and that one—for your response. Abrazame (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've struck out the 3 words that offended you, which related to your post that was 10x as long as any of the 18 other editors. However, I think there is something to the point that I made. Some of it is reflected in Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read. Your post is 10-x longer than the next-nearest in size. You say an editor is free to skip or skim your post as they choose, yet you at the same time ridicule an editor who does not read "every ... argument presented" as not being a "responsible editor". You equate length of post with "wisdom". You compare your 22 sentences with 3 of mine; the more accurate comparison is your 678-word post, vs. my 14-word post (with you objecting to only 3 words). All the other editors found a way to comment within 3 lines of text. You required 31 lines. If all editors were to take your approach, we would all have to spend 10x as much time reading posts (or, per your view, not be "responsible editors"). You disparage my comment that "brevity is the soul of wit in titles" by subjectively branding it "off-point". You say that the page where your post appeared "isn't the place to comment ... on post length", but don't clarify whether you are just making up a rule, and passing it off as "fact". You tell me how I should act, and yet you do not hear my advice, and turn Nelson's eye to the fact that your post length is dramatically out of synch with community norms. Your abnormally long posts focus the bulk of the written conversation unduly on one editor's view, as you take up 10x the discussion as any other editor. You're free to ignore my thoughts, and please don't feel a need to respond.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

edit war

Truly, if you want to revert every single edit I make because I am the one who makes it, feel free. But simply accusing me of edit warring with every edit I make seems like a personal vendetta. I will report your next reversion as edit warring, so be warned. μηδείς (talk) 05:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You are edit warring, and have been warned as to it by multiple editors. Your edits are against consensus, as is clearly reflected in the talk pages, and despite the warnings you continue.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Demos

Hi Epe, I like the edit you made diff - as you said, start there and see how it goes. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I had stayed out of editing anything but the tp, but felt finally that some small measure of non-partisan editing was finally needed. It is complicated, because of the layers of issues. One is issue is the apparent COI (which is denied, but that edit is disturbing, and difficult to explain away). A second is the apparent sockpuppetry (which is also denied, but perhaps the investigation will resolve that). A third is the edit warring, for which one editor (Brookster) has now been blocked. A fourth is the fact that more than one SPA -- at least one on each side -- is both editing/reverting and taking positions on the tp. And all of that is before we even get to sorting out the RS issues.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your summary of the situation there. I dived in and commented and removed it straight after from my watchlist only returning to see your edit. Good luck. Off2riorob (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Mike Seidman

First of all, don't use the word "warning". Have a little sense of perspective (and I shouldn't have to tell you that). Second, we've talked about this. The article should state Seidman's (and anyone else's) full background, not what someone calls him in a long list of Jewish football players without full explication of his background. I'm sure we can find thousands of sources that say James Earl Jones is African-American, but that doesn't mean his full background (Irish, Native, African) shouldn't be reported if available (it is). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what other word I should use. WP guidelines suggest that when an editor is improperly deleting RS-sourced material, it is appropriate to warn them. You are again engaging in unfathomable editing ... reflecting the religion of peoples' parents, sourced to meager sources, while deleting the reference to their own religion, which has been reflected robustly in sources. That's not appropriate. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not deleting material, I'm replacing it with other material that covers the same topic in more detail. Which you know. According to the most detailed source on Seidman, Seidman was raised with "little religion" and has a Catholic father and Jewish mother. So, if we're covering his religious/ethnic background, that is what the article should state. That a book or website that lists off famous Jewish football players includes him among a list of other Jewish players is probably irrelevant, but even if we include that, it certainly doesn't supercede his actual background. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That's untrue. Of course you are deleting material. Material that is robustly sourced. We can address another time whether what you are adding is notable; it may well not be, and it is thinly sourced. But you are deleting material that is robustly sourced to RSs, and material about the subject himself -- in contrast to the clearly less significant material about him -- give that this is, after all, a bio of him.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Crimes

Hi, I just wanted to draw your attention to WP:CRIME, as I reverted the part of a recent addition you made [23] regarding an alleged crime. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That guideline is the notability guideline to determine whether a subject of an article is notable, for wp purposes. It says that a person who is notable only for committing a crime should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article. But that has nothing to do with what you reverted. What you reverted was not the "subject" of the an article, that has to meet notability guidelines. It was a sentence in an article, the subject of which was not the person. Furthermore, the sentence did not even name the person in question. Basically, you've cited a great rule. But one which has nothing to do with the sentence you reverted -- that would apply if someone were to seek to write an article on the accused, which is not the case here.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

An alleged crime from 1990 with no reliable sources reporting convicting or confirmation of the crime amounts to grasping at straws to establish notability for the primary source of the article. As does the addition of materials about members baking casseroles in a local paper. I appreciate your efforts to establish notability, but please try to limit that effort to truly notable events, not alleged crimes that have never been confirmed or casserole baking which would be a rather non-notable normal activity for any religious group's organization members. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

As to your deletion, IMHO it was incorrect because of the misapplication of the wp guideline that I discuss above. If you have comments as to the notability of the subject of the article, that is perhaps most effectively shared with those !voting at the AFD. The theft of the torahs from that synagogue and others was, as the other RS sources reflect, a non-trivial story, covered by a number of RSs. If an RS writes an entire article about a synagogue's 10-year effort at charity, though you may denigrate it is would appear that the RS found it notable, which of course is what drives our notability analysis. That is helpful, as if we were to leave it up to individual editors' compasses, we would allow the possibility of subjective POV-creep.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Rashid

I have to say, I am very disappointed in your replacing that content to a BLP without any discussion. I was actually disappointed in you creating it with those opinionated sources and additions. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

There is zero conversation on the talkpage other than my post. On the blp page I saw, there is only a misstatement that does not relate at all to what I added (back) -- the assertion is that the comments were not attributed to any person other than a faceless person. The portion that I added back specifically related to a statement -- a quote, in fact -- in contrast, attributed by an RS to a Minister of the government ... quite different. (Not that I find the original "issue" compelling, btw). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Vassilis Tsitsanis

Hi, I don't think Vassilis Tsitsanis is a copyvio. The text seems to have organically grown in Wikipedia during the years. Most likely the other site is copying us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: Probably the same with Markos Vamvakaris. This edit [24] seems to have introduced most of the shared wording. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Both of those are completely deficient in refs. That, and the flowery language, usually seem to indicate copyvio--especially when it is not clear which site is copying the other.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

True, but the flowery language may also be a side-effect of non-native speakers working on these articles. You are right about the lack of refs, of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

May be, but in my experience it is often the sign of borrowing from non-encyclopaedic sites, which tend to use more flowery language (e.g., puffery), as their goal is different. Also -- what should be done re an editor removing a cv notice, claiming only that the article should not be deleted because the person is notable? Or another, because the person is not a BLP. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Plentiful application of freshwater fish. Preferably grilled with some oregano and lemon [25]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sherman

I see nothing in WP:DAB or WP:MOSDAB that allows for middle names, especially when the guy in question goes by "Bob". I'm not sure where your comment is pointing me to; it doesn't work for me/Firefox. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edit summary was not accurate. "We" do reflect middle names on such pages. I gave you a couple of hundred examples in which we do so.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well then, they're wrong (big surprise). People who use their middle names in preference to their first names belong on the corresponding dab pages, but as a rule, middle names are like partial title matches: outside the pale. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Why are we wrong? It strikes me that your statement was wrong. You said "we" don't. But "we" do. As I demonstrated. And it meets the criteria of wp:common sense -- middle names have progenies that match those of first names and surnames; especially, a name such as this one will be of interest to a reader at the project for much the same reason.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

From WP:DAB: "Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title". Dab pages have strict inclusion criteria, otherwise they could get awfully crowded. Unless this guy typically went by the name Sherman, he doesn't belong there. If you're still not convinced, we can take this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to take it to the wp, spelling out your thinking and mind (e.g., 200 such pages, wp:common sense, purpose of the page being the same ... ). Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Middle names. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Stop assuming

I am not a graduate of Brigham Young University. You assume too much. My page merely says that I attend or attened there. Beyond that your accusations are false. Deleting a category does not remove mention to something, because the thing is mentioned in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Epeefleche. You are being discussed at WP:ANI#Attacks on me based on my alma mater/ for seeking to have categories align with policy. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard comment

I have opened an administrator's noticeboard discussion about your uncalled for attempts to use the place where I recieved me education as a grounds for attack in AfD discussions. Your personnal attacks on me are both uncalled for and out of line with policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI

You're being talked about in reference to apparent bias against (or for?) Bigamy Young University. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Now, now, now. It does strike me as curious that this fellow creates articles of graduates from his university sans any refs whatsoever. While at the same time deleting mention elsewhere of people being of a religion other than his. Hmmmm.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Fish

Go to dispute resolution right now if you wish to continue this. I will be reverting on this ad infinitum. You know it's false as well as I do. Assuming good faith no longer applies here. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are you deleting -- repeatedly, now, RS-supported material. And the RS refs themselves. On the basis of what is clearly a non-RS blog. That is clearly not appropriate. You seem to have a habit of doing this. Would you like me to provide a series of diffs reflecting this? It seems to be a habit, which concerns me. You've provided no cogent rationale for deleting RS-supported material, and the RS-supported refs themselves, on the basis of a non-RS blog. None at all. What makes you think that is OK?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Go to dispute resolution if you wish to continue this. Don't forget to give them the link to the interview with Fish. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

AHW -- If need be, I'll pursue this as I have in the past when you sought to delete RS-supported material. We've had an editor with an approach similar to your at arb within the past year. But you have been around long enough that I thought you should be given a chance to explain why you think you should delete RS-supported material, and the RS refs, on the basis of a non-RS blog. Why do you think that is OK?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't need a chance to do anything. If you plan to continue this, go to dispute resolution. And show them the link. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know that that is quite correct. Editors are expected to edit in good faith. I've explained: 1) that you are deleting RS-supported text; 2) that you are deleting RSs; 3) that that is against wp rules without a proper reason; and 4) that the only reason that you proffer is a non-RS blog. In demonstrating that you are a good faith editor, you are expected to explain why you believe, in light of that, that your repeated deletions are appropriate. The only thing you have cited as a basis for your deletions is a blog -- what you do not dispute is a non-RS blog (though I have pointed it out to you many times now). You have a habit of deleting RS-supported material, which is reflected (though only in part) in some prior complaints brought in regard to your edits. As a good faith editor, your response here would reflect the good faith nature of your editing.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You need to stop making Wikipedia a laughingstock with edits like these. That's all I'm willing to say at this point. If you honestly wish to pursue dispute resolution about stating that a non-Jewish tennis player is Jewish, please do so at your own behest. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is it appropriate for you to delete RS-supported material, on the basis of a non-RS blog? And the RS refs themselves? Please, demonstrate your good will by explaining that. Reliance on RSs is a core wp principle -- I recall that this has been an issue with your editing in the past, so it is worth understanding why you think such an approach is appropriate. This is verging on becoming not just an article-specific issue, but a pattern of you ignoring our rules as to following the RSs, and not following non-RS blogs (and using them as a basis to delete RS-supported material). You continue, as in the past, to refuse to say why your behavior is appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion is lovely this time of year. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you won't even give a cogent response to my question, I believe there are other more appropriate venues to address editor behavior -- deleting RS references, and the text they support, while not disagreeing that the basis for your removal is a non-RS blog is a behavioral problem. As is your continued refusal to supply a good-faith rationale. Again, I ask you to demonstrate good faith by supplying a good faith reason for your removal of RS text and references, even after a final warning.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You are in no position to give me a warning, first, or final. I think after several months you would have understood that by now. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

When an editor edits disruptively, we tend to give warnings. It allows the editor to consider his actions, and whether he wishes to edit in a collaborative, non-disruptive manner. It also affords him the opportunity to explain why he is deleting RS-supported material, based on a non-RS source. I'm giving you an opportunity to do those things. We try to give an editor those opportunities before escalating to more serious measures. Your response of "I won't explain myself" and "you are in no position to give me a warning" is perhaps a bit short of collaborative. And of course any editor "is in a position" to warn you for deleting RS-supported material based on a non-RS blog--I can't imagine why you would suggest otherwise.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Rjanag arbitration-related

Encouragement

Please persevere through all the drama surrounding The Shells article and Rjanag. I believe such drama drives many good editors away, and I don't want it to happen to you. You do good work and I appreciate it. - Draeco (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For your your valiant efforts to defend The Shells (folk band) article with your reasoned arguments and perseverance, and for taking conflicts in your stride and continuing undeterred with your good work as a Wikipedia editor. Illegitimi non carborundum. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI--Rjanag; Rjanag Arbitration

With heavy heart, I have reported Rjanag at the ANI here based on what I believe was grossly uncivil behavior during the Shells affair. It is neither a personal attack against him nor a favor to you, but his behavior compelled me to act. As an involved party I think you should know. - Draeco (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your note. My heart too has grown heavier the more the relationship between the nom and the closing admin reveals itself.

As you know, now that that ANI has closed, I've opened up this Rjanag arbitration. Quick question as to your comment there. You indicated that you don't recommend de-sysopping as he didn't abuse admin privileges. My reading of WP:ADMIN, as I quoted it there, was that de-sysopping is one possible appropriate treatment of an admin who displays consistently or egregiously poor judgment, or who seriously, or repeatedly, acts in a problematic manner or has lost the trust or confidence of the community, including repeated/consistent poor judgment, breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring), "bad faith" adminship (gross breach of trust), and conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship. Did I miss something (in which case I should amend my request), or do you read it differently? Or perhaps just have a more lenient approach than WP:ADMIN? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

This may be too little too late, but I have left you a message with my apologies at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement by Rjanag. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Full reply @ Rjanag Arbitration

• I'm saddened that you did not do so many weeks earlier. But only after being completely unrepentant through dozens of requests/incidents involving me and others, an AN/I, an arb request being filed, evidence pouring forth regarding your extraordinarily close relationship with the closing admin, and arb voters indicating that they do not agree with your pooh-poohing of the matter. And even yesterday you were saying you do not need to apologize. It certainly makes it look as though rather than being heartfelt, this has more to do with your desire to avoid the scrutiny of an arbitration.

Finally, on further inspection, your "apology" is barely an apology at all -- as you fail to admit and to apologize for your persistent incivility, untruthful statements, bullying, wikihounding, gaming the system, edit warring, and knowing COI. Further inspection also reveals that your behavior spreads over a number of matters, and impacts a number of editors. They deserve better. My full comments can be found at Rjanag Arbitration. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A word in your ear

I participated in the first Shells AfD in question. AfD is a frequent stomping ground of mine, and I find it extremely common to see articles like The Shells to be put up for AfD, and just as common to see them deleted as a result of them not satisfying the basic notability and sourcing requirements of WP. Sometimes creators/editors who fail to accept that. There is occasionally dogged opposition to a deletion, which you demonstrated to see the article wasn't deleted, leading to bitter fights which may get personal. The Shells AfD was certainly one of those. I believe the tone set by Rjanag in the AfD was not appropriate, effectively winding up people who would have supported the deletion on the merits of the case alone that prevailed eventually. While I applaud you for your tenacious fight to keep the article, I believe that the lesson to be learned would be to strive for improved sourcing and better writing of an article to avoid the common pitfalls which lead to deletion. I have been upset when articles I have contributed significantly were put to AfD, because it's a natural tendency to want to look after one's baby. I know the above from Rjanag is not the unreserved apology you feel you deserve. But hard as it may be, I hope you will not take the deletion too personally. Perhaps one day, The Shells will be a notable band... I hope you will stay around for when that happens. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We can have different views as to the AfD merits. We're not alone--just look at the votes at the two AfDs. That's fair. And needn't be uncivil. I've created nearly 200 articles in my years here, and made more than a few thousand edits, so I have a bit of a sense for notability.

I credit you, however, for agreeing with those of us who believe that the tone set by Rjanag in the AfDs was not appropriate. Not many have crossed the aisle, stood up, and made themselves heard on that point.

Also, his misconduct included misstatements. That does not lead IMHO to the best decision-making by those who are trying to make a decision based on facts, not misstatements.

Many editors noticed his misconduct. At least 20 discussed it with him in the past few months, with communications ranging from complaints to warnings to AN/Is. Those 20 editors from what I can tell are essentially unrelated--joined only by their common concern over his misconduct.

As to the "ownership" point, I don't get the sense that Draeco brought the Shells AN/I, or that the other editors spoke up about the conduct that led to the Shells and the other AN/Is, because of "ownership" issues. Quite the opposite. Rather, they think as I do that misconduct is bad, they care about this project, and they believe that misconduct of this sort adversely impacts the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I sympathise. With all your experience, he still managed to wind you up. In my previous dealings with him, he's been pretty no-nonsense, occasionally blunt; he's never been abusive, but one can sense what lurks below the surface. I don't know what's got into him. I'll make a mental note but I'd rather not have to spend time looking into it for now. Happy editing! Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's not every day I see an admin write one editor: "You can go f_ck yourself" [letter redacted], use the same choice words to another editor, and also write "if you bring them to ANI … you will get bitch-slapped so fast it'll make your head spin … You f_cking moron”. [letter redacted]--Epeefleche (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No you don't. Whoever let the lord of the jungle out? ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 18:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Aafia Siddiqui

Some terrific work there on Aafia Siddiqui Bachcell (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Great work on Aafia, It's more factual now!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.88.140 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Cookie

Fiftytwo thirty has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

This cookie is for coming back so nicely to my somewhat harsh message. Thank you. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Eric Ely

Thank you for your Wikignome-like edits. What do you think, substantively? Bearian (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzling over why the article is up for AfD, frankly. Does the nom dislike you? I'm just poking around the article for the moment and looking at the sources, and curious what others have to say.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

As you can tell from my comments at the AfD, I found Greg L’s analysis somewhat short of what I think you are entitled to when someone reviews your article at an AfD, and suggests deletion of your article.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

2010 Times Square car bomb attempt

You've been doing incredible work on this article and I wanted to make it clear how much I appreciate your work on it. You've been prolific in editing the article, and adding in relevant information, and while I've followed this story myself, in all of your edits I've not disagreed with you once (maybe I missed something... or maybe I thought the police commissioner should be facing the other direction....). Thank you, and please keep up the good work. I'll try to help as much as I can. Shadowjams (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar suggestions for Jimbo

I've never given out a barnstar. But I imagine Jimbo deserves one for this.[26][27][28]

Can anyone suggest which template I might consider using? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Lacrosse

Hi, I noticed your contributions and thought you might be interested in joining WikiProject Lacrosse. If you are interested in contributing more to Lacrosse related articles you may want to join WikiProject Lacrosse (signup here). --Yarnalgo _talk to me 17:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Threeafterthree; Block

Just indeffed Tom for disruptive editing per your report. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. One down; it's a start.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Got a moment?

Hi. I noticed that you just answered a concern for a user over on the wikiquette alert page. Could I impose on you to take a look at my entry and advise accordingly? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Got your thoughtful response and I thought I should thank you here as well. I'll do what you suggest right away. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comments!!!

-- φ OnePt618Talk φ has given you a pie! Pies promote the kind of hearty eating that puts a smile on your face and a sustaining meal in your stomach. Hopefully this pie has made your day better. Spread the goodness by giving someone else a pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating! Spread the goodness of pie by adding {{subst:Wikipie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Seriously, you made my day. Thanks and I hope we can cross paths on here again soon!-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 06:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Jews in sports

Consider adding Sam Stoller to the list. He was an NCAA sprint champion and a remarkable man. Cbl62 (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Review request

It is a small world. Your DYK link for Cordoba House led me to the December, 2009, Times article--your source for the phrase, "its location was a selling point for the Muslims who bought the land." Although I don't recognize the building at all from the pictures, I shopped there when it was being operated by Sy Syms. I still have a couple of his coat hangers from that single trip in the early 1980s.

Curiously, Syms died last year, just about the time that Abdul Rauf was announcing his plans for Cordoba House--I don't think that was the cause.--Komowkwa (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the school webcam lawsuit article

Thanks for your work on Blake J. Robbins v. Lower Merion School District‎. Blue Rasberry 04:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney

nice work Decora (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If I can help...; sourcing

...with the sourcing of Targeted killing as per that conversation at WP:RS/N, let me know. Bigger digger (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

What a kind, generous, offer! Of course -- feel free (if you think it would be helpful). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't quite make it today, got a bit side tracked. But you really need to stop fanning the flames that PBS feeds on. There's no need to return repeatedly to the RFC, which will close in its own good time. The conversation at the reliable sources noticeboard could've been wrapped up quite quickly if you'd have said "ok, here are some page numbers". Or ignored it. You would have had to add the page numbers eventually (I figure if you didn't he would add dated fact tags and use that as justification to delete the info after a week), so why not just play his game? He's going to make you play it anyway so you should play in the easiest manner you can. The rules are skewed massively in your favour, and he must enjoy all the pointless forum shopping and pointless debating. Say your piece, do what's necessary, and let time take its course, as we all know there's no deadline! Sorry if this is a bit teaching you how to suck lemons, but I think for your own wiki-sanity it might need saying! And sorry not to reply to your email, but I don't have a suitably anonymous email address set up and don't think it necessary. Best, Bigger digger (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Off2Riorob

Hi -- I have noticed your comments about this editor in a few places, including Scottmac's talk page. You might have noticed mine as well: [29], on the Ed Miliband talk page, the Geim page, and [30] here. RFC/U requires that two editors have raised concerns with the user directly, on his talk page. I have already done that (the first link above, which he simply deleted). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes -- As Scott had been intensely involved with both the AN and the Geim page, I thought it would be quite appropriate to afford him the ability to take appropriate admin action. Unless he was too involved already as an editor, as may be the case (though he seemed to be involved in pleading Off2's case (as an editor), which likely would have allowed him to take some action). Scott has not responded. At the very least, especially given Scott's silence, I thought I should give Off2 the opportunity to consider my concerns with his behavior (whether or not I pursue an RFC/U ... which, as it turns out, is something that Scott has mentioned as a possibility as well). So I've just left word for Off2 as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have not taken any admin action as regards Rob. And I have not "pled his case" either. I archived a thread because I believed that the voluntary agreement covered the most pertinent points. Others were free to disagree with that, or indeed revert my closure. Closing or opening a thread is not an admin action, and if I'd been reverted I would not have closed it again - that would be for others to decide either way. As for Robb's actions, I've not examined them at all. However, it might be best to ask some neutral editor to do that. Generally raising behaviour questions once you are in a content dispute (and particularly one as vexed as categorising BLPs by identity) is more difficult. You will not be seen as objective. If you've concerns about my admin actions, feel free to raise them with me, at the moment I'm not sure I've taken any.--Scott Mac 15:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Scott Mac -- perhaps I misunderstand RFC/U, but I would have thought that the point is precisely to request comments from neutral observers. True, I would not be perceived as objective about O2RR at this juncture -- so the the point would be to request comment from others who would be perceived as objective. Is this not how it works? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was only suggesting that getting someone uninvolved to mediate might be useful.--Scott Mac 18:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yemen-Chicago Plot

Thanks for your work on this article! It's developed a lot since I created it a couple of days ago. There's an extra layer of depth now that I wasn't able to provide with just the BBC articles I was using. – Novem Lingvae (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is looking great! I've nominated it to appear on WP:ITN. The discussion is at [31]. – Novem Lingvae (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

ITN: 2010 cargo plane bomb plot

Yay!!! – Novem Lingvae (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah dude, I'm watching the page views too! Really I just started the article and you took over after the first day. Every time I refresh the page history there's like 20 new edits by you. Good job man! Talk about just diligently reading every newspaper as they put out an article on the issue and incorporating the new facts. I look forward to collaborating on IR articles in the future. :D – Novem Lingvae (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Geim article

Hi,

I posted a proposal for a cleaner version of the bio. I'm not sure if you check the talk page (plus it was moved up by a few anon. comments) so I though I'd notify you here. Basically, it compresses redundant info. and puts sources in refs. Like, instead of saying something like "The Forward and RussianInfoCentre and Physics World reported that..." it would say ""Several sources (link to footnotes) reported that..." That way it just seems a lot more professional, and the flow improves significantly.

Please check it out, and make any suggestions if you want. Regards, --Therexbanner (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In concept, it is certainly fine. But it may be that some who are not as quick as you are may need additional assistance.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed it in the text, with your notion and those expressed on the tp by others as the guide. Different working, but same concept and I hope it addresses precisely the point you range.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Geim; Jewish

Why don't you gey over yourself and leave living subjects alone, three Christian Grandparents makes him a whole lot not jewish, all the world can see he is a single quarter jew, the size of which is a minor genetic issue. Also if you are unable to discuss like adult and insst on adding silly templates to my talkpage then stay off my talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding of the matter seems, with all due respect, to be perhaps on par with your spelling in your above missive. In any event, please respect core wikipedia policies such as verifiability, consensus, and the Project's general distaste for disruptive editing. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to cite verifiability, best to read the sources. The RIC did not say he was Jewish, but "born to a Jewish family". I've corrected the text to reflect the sources accurately.--Scott Mac 14:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This brings to mind a conversation we once had regarding the possibility that you might be tag-teaming with an editor. I'm trying to recall his name. Also with regard to the propriety of you acting both as a sysop on an article and as an editor on the very same article, which raises perhaps questions under wp:admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck? What is this? Are not we all supposed to working for neutral verifiable content accurate to the sources? I saw a dispute between the two of you, and rather than jump in with blocks and templates I thought the best way to settle was to examine the sources. What's your problem with that?--Scott Mac 14:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

On my talk page, I would appreciate it if you would make an effort to find some other language to express yourself. Children view this page at times. It's a robust language, and in it you may well find similarly satisfactory expressions that they would find perhaps slightly less offensive. As to the substance of what I am saying, I assume your understanding of my comment is such that I need not provide diffs, and discussions of Arb Committee applications of wp:admin, and reference prior AN closes, and the like. This isn't an AN/I or an arbitration -- we're simply seeking to communicate with each other. So I imagine further explication is not necessary here.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed the material to reflect the given sources more accurately. The previous version seriously misrepresented the sources. Would you rather I had left the inaccurate version?--Scott Mac 16:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring your rather energetic exaggeration, I'll limit myself to suggesting that the beginning of your answers lie in WP:ADMIN and the arb cases decided applying the relevant principle.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've no idea what you are on about. If you think I've misread the sources let me know. Otherwise, I think I'll just let it go.--Scott Mac 18:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Plans; prior AN/I

Thanks for the heads up, I don't think they will succeed but it's good to know they're planning it. Did you let Jayjg know as well?Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• No -- only you. Jayjg and I have made complaints about each other at AN/I. To put it delicately, he is not really an editor I choose to converse with.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ike Davis

I watch all the current Mets players and I must say that the Ike Davis article is the best of the lot, by far. Have you considered taking it perhaps to GA?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A quick review of the article astonishes me. Well done! I'd be very surprised if it isn't accepted as a GA. I also suggest going for it. Jusdafax 10:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Why, thanks much. OK -- in the New Year I promise to give in to peer pressure and take it to GA. Happy holidays to all.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Tx for spurring me on.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

575th Signal Company

If you would like a copy of this article put in your userspace so you can include details within 75th Infantry Division (United States) or anywhere else, please do say so, and I'll do it. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind offer. Certainly -- that would be great. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors

I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Iranians

Hi Epeefleche, thanks for watching this article! Cheers.Farhikht (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a candidate for your list?

Sandy Cohen (ice hockey)? Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought. Good hockey player, but not IMHO quite notable enough (compared to the others on the list) .... Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Moe Berg

Are you sure that Rockefeller recruited Berg for the OSS? None of the references you cited there say that. Our Moe Berg article says "To do his part for the war effort, Berg accepted a position with Nelson Rockefeller's Office of Inter-American Affairs on January 5, 1942." Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes -- I have spent the last half hour of my life trying to unwind the edit conflict caused by us both working to improve the article at the same time. So it is going in in pieces. What I have reflects a ref that supports that statement -- I'm not in the habit of making material up, for purposes of inputting it in wp, or acting on what my father told me he knew to be the case. When I work through the edit conflict, it should be clear in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

List of African writers by country

Hello! I notice you've made a series of edits removing redlinks from this page. Do you mind if I revert your edits, temporarily leaving the unreferences redlinks you've removed, in order to work to provide references for those that I can? Many have entries in a single source, Killam & Rowe's Companion to African Literatures. Best, Dsp13 (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If that's something that you can do right away, as I'm guessing it is if it largely comes from one source, just go for it. If it will take more than a day or two, I would suggest that you copy it to a user page or the talk page, and work on it at your leisure. The guideline is somewhat strict on this, but either way you should be able to address it without too much upset I would think. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

ta. I'll userfy as you suggest - but if you could hold off doing more to that page for the moment for a couple of days, it'd be great.Dsp13 (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Nice working with you. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah...

Sometimes it is hard to see the wood for the trees. Having now seen Fæ's perspective on that conversation... I can't do anything but see it in a new light. I think I do now see where you are coming from, while there was no intention to push anyone away I basically ended up going into a rant about WP:V :S And I finally see what you mean about removing others work; and while that specific example was unintentional (and probably a reasonable removal) I did just offhanded it as "not part of this discussion" :S Damn. I appreciate you getting me to finally consider this appropriately. (More delicately; I don't want this to come off as a way to appease you, reading Fæ's words has made it click and I will reflect on this.. "enthusiasm"). As I mentioned elsewhere in the RFA my other most active online forum is a community where we spar over ideas/thoughts/proposals and I suppose vestiges of that still exists, even if I miss them. Will work on this. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your additions to Orio Palmer. Cullen328 (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Date styles

Heya Epeefleche,

I saw you modified some dates over on the List of home run records. I could care less, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't doing anything bad. I thought that styling a date as (example) 27 May was equally acceptable as styling it May 27. Have I been wrong in this assumption?

Hi. No worries. You might want to take a glance at the guideline entitled WP:STRONGNAT, which indicates in pertinent part: "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the US this is month before day". I would think that records in major league baseball have a strong tie to the US. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Poor form on my part not signing ... sorry about that. Thanks for the explanation ... I will watch that in the future.

Funny, that.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words

There should be more editors with your kind of good nature. You help make WP a better place to volunteer. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree from my part. Btw, I also like to do flèches but more often in foil than in epée ;). Best regards and thanks again for your comments. 95.23.42.162 (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Script tools

I use wikEd on the Firefox browser. Firefox underlines misspellings in red, and wikEd allows the use of JavaScript regular expression syntax to find and correct errors. I have some examples on my /regular subpage. I have many more regular expression scripts, in case you were looking for something special; just ask. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

RFA/boing

right church, wrong pew - I love that; well said.

"Is this the right room for an argument?" hehe.

Gods, I really do hate RfA, sometimes. Always, actually. Chzz  ►  17:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Classic. All-too-familiar. Really ... classic.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh. There's also a quote from Dr. Strangelove, "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" — which I think should be the motto of AN. Gotta laugh about these things, otherwise we'd go completely insane.  Chzz  ►  16:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is an idea--an "AGFN". Modeled on the RSN. Editors there discuss whether another editor has -- by his/her statements/actions -- rebutted the presumption of AgF. Perhaps that would help lower the intensity of the "War Room" discussions. As those editors on the "I've been shown to be not deserving of the assumption" list would have a lesser voice.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Careful now; allegedly, 2000 years ago, a guy was nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change.  Chzz  ►  03:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Golden Globes article

• You're welcome. Few things piss me off worse than for me or someone else to do substantial work on an article, and then getting the reaction "Big deal, I still hate it". Mandsford 20:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ntrepid

Hi Epeefleche, Just wondering – if you've any spare time – if you'd have a look at Ntrepid to see whether anything can be added etc. I'd like to take it to DYK but it's a bit on the short side; there's not much info on this shadowy organisation. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ike Davis

Just an FYI, posted a GA review. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Dates

Hi. Please don't make random formatting changes to the date articles as you have done here. The date articles conform to a template and the formatting shouldn't be changed without discussion to consensus at WT:DAYS. Thanks. – Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The formatting change you point to has nothing in it that's specific to dates – it is a dash formatting change that has been widely used and accepted across the project for years. There is nothing inherent in date pages that I can imagine would require that they be treated differently than other Project pages in this respect.

(And I can't imagine why you called it a "random" change – it was nothing of the sort).

Following WP:YEARLINK on date pages. But now that we are on the subject, I notice we have an overlink problem on the date pages. They fail to follow the project guideline relating to overlinking of years, which is set forth at WP:YEARLINK – the pages generally link the first mention of each year. Our guideline states plainly:

Year articles (1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter—that is, the events in the year article should share an important connection other than merely that they occurred in the same year. For instance, Timeline of World War II (1942) may be linked to from another article about WWII, and so too may 1787 in science when writing about a particular development on the metric system in that year. However, the years of birth and death of architect Philip C. Johnson should not be linked, because little, if any, of the contents of 1906 and 2005 are germane to either Johnson or to architecture. [emphasis added]

Can you please explain why raw years are linked on the date pages, in contravention of our overlink rules?

Others who care about such things watch this page I know – feel free to chime in.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll start with the formatting change. I understand that on its face this wouldn't seem like a formatting change but the date pages are kind of their own animal. The dashes are more heavily used in the date articles than anywhere else. Most users don't know the difference between &ndash; and – and usually would use - if given the choice. We had a mix of these before and changing to the common &ndash; solves the problem – passing editors don't have a problem copying the example set by all the other entries. It helps to keep the 366 date articles consistent. As far as linking years is concerned, the date pages are a bit out of the normal MOS in that regard as well. From the MOS: "not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter". In this case, the date articles are about dates and linking is appropriate. The WP:DAYS guideline does say that the year should only be linked once per section. And the only reason I called the change random was that you only did it to one out of 366 pages. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 18:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Following Project dash guideline on date pages. I see no reason for not following the Project dash guideline in date pages. We have many pages that have heavy use of dashes, other than dates, across the project, including "People from" pages and the like. Furthermore, the few hundred date pages are a fraction of the pages that use dashes. For purposes of respecting wp guidelines, and for consistency, those pages should follow wp guidelines -- that's the purpose of guidelines. And as to your assertion that: "The dashes are more heavily used in the date articles than anywhere else", while as I point out above that assertion is of questionable accuracy, it is also of no moment even if true -- we follow guidelines on all applicable pages; we don't suspend the dash guideline on "[dashes] more heavily used" pages, just because dashes are more heavily used -- any more than we would suspend any other format guideline on a page with heavy usage of the notation in question (whether it be a dash, quote, period, ref, etc.).

Following Project WP:YEARLINK guideline on date pages. Here again, there is no reason that I can see for the date pages to violate the clear wp guideline. Your assertion that "As far as linking years is concerned, the date pages are a bit out of the normal MOS in that regard as well" is not borne out by the MOS. There is language that is more specific,, that I had already quoted to you above, relating specifically to the linking of years. It makes clear that the linking at the date pages is not appropriate, and does not fall within what is "germane and topical to the subject matter". It says: "the years of birth and death of architect Philip C. Johnson should not be linked, because little, if any, of the contents of 1906 and 2005 are germane to either Johnson or to architecture. Yet this is precisely what you are doing on the date pages -- flouting the very precise language of the guideline.

As to your last point, there is nothing "random" in making a completely consistent, non-random change to every dash in an article, consistent with formatting across the Project for years. That is non-random. One doesn't have to change every date article to avoid the disparaging accusation of their changes being random. If I changed one of every three dashes within the article, that would be random, but wholly consistent changes across the article are obviously (I would have thought) non-random.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Remember that guidelines are just that. They are not laws and they need to be applied with an understanding of their principles and the reason why they are to be applied. In the case of the date articles, experience has shown that applying the suggestions in the guideline leads to inconsistency and a maintenance headache. Adhering to the guideline for the sake of doing so is not practical.

In articles about dates the date itself is relevant and so is a year. If nothing ever linked to a year article, they would all be orphans. They wouldn't even be walled gardens because they couldn't even link amongst themselves. Why would we have year articles if nothing ever linked to them? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Remember that wp guidelines are there for an important purpose. Wikipedia guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice. Here, the guideline speaks directly to the issue at hand. You haven't indicated any reason to flout the guideline other than IDON'TLIKEIT, and NOTLAW -- we don't build the project based on flouting consensus on that basis. There is no "understanding" of the principles that is lacking -- the example I have now quoted twice to you directly addressed the linking of years relative to a person's date of birth or death. And your "headache" article is no different that the "headache" suffered at other article -- this just sounds like a non-consensus approach being applied in a less-than-400-articles corner of a Project with millions of articles. I suggest that we bring the inlining of dates issue up at the guideline page that speaks directly to the issue, at the talkpage for WP:YEARLINK. I don't think you've addressed the conflict between the very clear terms of the guideline, and your "we follow our own rules" view. Would you like to kick off the discussion, or should I? In short, I think that the date pages should follow WP:YEARLINK, and don't think they do now.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It's very clear to me why WP:YEARLINK shouldn't apply to the date articles. I'd be shocked if the authors of the guideline intended that no year should ever be linked. By your argument I can see no scenario in which a year would be linked. I don't know how to express more clearly that a date article is of the same subject matter as a year article. Philip Johnson is a biographical article; it is not about dates and there isn't a year article about him. The date articles are about dates and therefore linking dates within them is entirely appropriate. I've given my interpretation of the practice and haven't implied that it's that way because I like it but it seems entirely reasonable to me. I invite you to begin the discussion in the appropriate forum so that you will have the full advantage of forming your case against this practice. I will certainly enforce any consensus that is reached through the discussion. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 21:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographical Content

Hello. You recently gave me a warning for unreferenced content in the biography of a living person. I can certainly understand your likely thought process in doing so, but I feel inclined to defend my reputation. When I read the warning, I was particularly confused because I never remembered reading, or editing, the article in question: Ryan Braun. Upon inspection, it was labeled as an edit performed with Huggle; however, I have no memory of reverting the deletion of information regarding Braun's sexuality. More interestingly, the automatically created edit summary says that I reverted four consecutive edits in one click. This last bit of information shows that something strange was happening. I believe I figured out what.

After looking through the recent edits to that page, I noticed one which I have a memory of seeing and reverting on Huggle. I made the controversial revert while scrolling back a bit to older edits made a few minutes before. The aforementioned edit, it seems, was vandalism built on vandalism; when I saw it, I clicked "revert". However, in the three minutes that had elapsed since 24.36.38.61's edit at 1:39, other edits had been made, including good-faith ones. Huggle, thus, reverted all edits made at and after 1:39, while I did not know that such edits had been made. In the past, I had seen Huggle stopping me from accidently editing pages that had been already reverted between the time I was seeing them and the time they were loaded onto Huggle, so I assumed that this would always be the case. Apparently it wasn't.

I apologize for any misunderstanding, and hope that I have explained adequately how my controversial revert was, due to partially human and partially computer error, reverting the wrong things. Thank you for reading. Marechal Ney (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ahah. Many thanks. Yes ... when I see an editor adding an unreferenced statement that a living person said they are gay, I tend to give a warning. But I totally understand your explanation, and am sorry that the computer snafu caused the misunderstanding. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright concerns

Hi Epeefleche,

Please if I can ask you for help regarding the issue of one particular edition, reflected on my talk-page. In my edition on the subject of J Street I was accused by user Malik Shabazz for Copyright violation As you are highly respected expert in this field I would like you to ask for your opinion regarding this issue. I am sure that my edition (which was removed by user Malik Shabazz do not constitute Copyright violation).

Here is my article that was written at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Street#Funding and later removed by Malik

According to the The Washington Times, J street has been co-funded by directors of organizations such as the Arab American Institute and the National Iranian American Council. Also, J Street funds have been raised from a lawyer who represented the embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington, and from Ray Close, a former foreign agent for Saudi Arabia, who was also a CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia, and have allegedly worked for the former head of Saudi intelligence service. The Washington Times reported that J Street had been paying Ben-Or Consulting, a company which is partially owned by Ben Ami, tens of thousands of dollars. This findings, presented by The Washington Times, are showing that Ben-Or Consulting , the Tel Aviv-based company partially owned by Ben-Ami, charged J Street at least 56,000 dollars in consultation fees, prompting charity experts to raise ethical issues regarding Ben Ami's conflict of interest and self- dealinghttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/30/jewish-group-pays-pr-firm-co-owned-by-president/?page=1

Objections stated by Malik Shabazz are looking non sense for me, and are written on my talk-page- Please can you give me your opinion on this issue? --Tritomex (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Will take a look when I have a moment, though I don't have one right now. As to Malik Shabazz, I have generally found him to be an editor with whom one can have a thoughtful conversation, and would suggest that you pursue that tack for the moment. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The Civil Wars

Hi Epeefleche - I've reverted your ndash changes as they didn't seem to make any sense. Some were changing the content of bot-generated text in citations, one was incorrectly changing hyphens to ndashes in a numeric date. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ugh, there are indeed editors out there who add dates that are out of line with our MOS! Not only do such dates generate confusion, they cause the dashes script to treat them like scores (and similar numerical strings), which seems to be what happened. You should try using the WP:MOSNUMscript, which is capable of correctly dealing with them. Cheers, -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 04:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Snow?

What does "snow" mean? In an AfD comment, you said "Keep. Perhaps even a snow, given the consensus above." [32] Pro crast in a tor (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• wp:snow. Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

doh! Thanks. :) Pro crast in a tor (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Danjel

User:Danjel

What is going on with him? I see you've run into him at your Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lockleys North Primary School, and you may have noticed he brought your schools AfDs up in Dream Focus' ANI recently. The guy seems perfectly willing to ignore the consensus from the zillions of previous school AfDs. Not only that, he accuses me of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:COMPETENCE because I reaffirm that consensus; at the same time offering a frankly ridiculous argument that age is a determinant. He also left a TLDR diatribe on my talk page that was essentially a borderline personal attack. Frankly, he's turning into Dream Focus Jr. Would you do me a favor and tell him to tone it down? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You pointedly refuse to engage with WP:BEFORE and quote non-existent policy (primary schools are "inherently non-notable") so this is quite categorically a WP:COMPETENCE issue and you treat an attempt to get you to follow the process as "TLDR". I'll leave it at that for now. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that he's here, would you mind explaining to him why BEFORE doesn't have to be followed 100% of the time, how not following it does not equate to incompetence, and in general why all the articlea you and I have nominated should be deleted or redirected? I know you, I and others have mentioned the working consensus to him several times...I guess he needs to hear it again Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

@Purple -- I've just been trying to understand where Danjel is coming from, at that AfD. It is helpful to at least understand his thinking. Only with that as a starting point can we work towards consensus. I think, at this point, that he has personal views that he feels strongly about, which -- at least much of the time, though not always -- are not in accord with the consensus at individual school AfDs that I've seen of late.

But part of our challenge is that we have something short of a bright-line notability guideline. Danjel isn't the only editor opining as to what our approach should be. And while some point to less-than-on-point-guidelines, or as to their personal view as to how the last x AfDs have closed (and I'm guilty of something akin to that), we've seen that matters are often not as black-and-white as many of us might believe. Editor x thinks there is a consensus for not having stand-alone articles in most cases, editor y thinks redirects are cheap while his colleague thinks we are not a directory, editor z thinks all schools of a certain age or enrollment should be kept. And, of course, (wp being what it) is most editors in such discussions state their conclusion as though it is ineluctable, and bristle at those who say ... "not so much". I would be very happy if we were to have a bright-line notability rule in this area, as it would streamline discussion -- that is more important to me than the particulars of what the consensus guideline might say.

As to the personal aspect of his communications, I'll at the moment let others weigh in as appropriate. (BTW, I would suggest crossing out the poke at Dream -- he is an editor in good standing, whose heart appears to be in the right place, and who has properly saved many articles ... IMHO). As to the personal stuff, I would suggest that to the extent you can you ignore it and take the higher road. Other editors reading such discussions can often understand them. If it becomes unbearable, you know the ways to address it. Best of luck.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Purple -- I've devoted some time in an effort to address the matters that you highlighted, but at the end of the day fall back to my prior comments, immediately above.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Danjel, again

You had said if Danjel keeps it up I should report him to ANI. He continues to lambaste my rationale for deletion, even when it isn't relevant. But most disturbing, he called Fmph a troll, for no other reason than disagreeing with him. I told him to stop that on his page; he rolled back my comment. I think the only way to get him to stop is to get admin action against him; but if I start an ANI thread; he'll BOOMERANG with accusations against us. Should I take him to ANI anyway? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't do it on my behalf! I'm fine now. I had good long cry this afternoon and followed it up with a half bottle of whisky, but I'm much better now. Fmph (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume you're joking... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Not when I say please dont refactor my contributions. Fmph (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

@Purple -- I believe what I said was that I had devoted some time in an effort to address the matters that you highlighted through talkpage discussion. But that as to the personal aspect of his communications I would "suggest that to the extent you can you ignore it and take the higher road. Other editors reading such discussions can often understand them. If it becomes unbearable, you know the ways to address it." Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is the policy I had in mind. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Danjel; DR notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "User:Danjel and school AfDs". Thank you. --Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll follow the discussion (at minimum).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've been told that DR wasn't the place for it, so I moved it to WQA Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Figures...I WQA him about him calling me "flat out wrong" and "incompetent" too much...so he responds by calling me "flat out wrong" and "imcompetent" (and you too, BTW). D00d don't get it Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Danjel; ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

It's Danjel again. He keeps bringing up those schools you nominated for deletion or merger pbp 01:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Danjel; December 2012

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Anglican Church Grammar School, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Despite your edit summary, you clumsily also removed content that was properly referenced. You also failed to account for WP:PRESERVE by seeking to find an appropriate source, which turned up as the top result in a google search. This is now the second time this has been raised with you, the first being Talk:All_Hallows'_School#Removal_of_House_System_section. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Agree that there was one cite and related material was mistakenly removed. As to the rest, it was completely uncited and clearly failed to meet wp:v, and that rule clearly indicates where the burden lies as to such material. Per the policy of wp:v, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. It has been tagged for its failure to have necessary citations for over five years -- since 2007. No need for you to add further information here if you disagree -- you can raise it at wp:v, if you wish to add uncited material. Many thanks for not doing so.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding I feel that this is the only way to get you to look for sources, rather than just delete tagged content, per WP:PRESERVE. The thread is Disruptive deletion of content. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjel (talk • contribs) date

Danjel; January 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. This has been previously raised with you here, here and at ANI here (where one of the outcomes was "Google takes all but a few seconds and is worth the effort", as it did in this case). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read that AN/I more carefully, and please stay off this page in the future. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Danjel; RFC/U discussion concerning you (Epeefleche)

Hello, Epeefleche. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche, where you may want to participate. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Danjel; Mention at AN/I

I have mentioned you at AN/I with regards to a request to block User:Danjel. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Danjel; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IZAK

Did you see that? It appears that, after the RfC/U on you wasn't going his way, Danjel is attempting to discredit the people who disagree with him. He's basically mentioned every single participant in the RfC/U except TParis and me. Dude needs to drop the stick and back away, and we need to get that interaction ban in place ASAP. Also, he probably should have notified you that your name was mentioned in an SPI pbp 17:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Was unaware. I see that the clerk/checkuser/closing admin comments include:

• 7754 writing to Danjel: "Please either add editors or leave them out entirely, don't say 'I'm tempted to add'... am leaning towards a decline/speedy close/deletion of report (as an attack)";
• Someguy writing: "it has become clear to me this is just a fishing expedition";
• Rachen writing: "Danjel, please either put up solid evidence or drop the matter entirely. It is bad form to rehash a SPI at ANI just because you disagree with the outcome ... it's not dropping the stick.; and
• Deskana writing: "Someguy1221 and Rschen7754 are quite correct (and in fact they were far politer in their declines than I would have been)."

Epeefleche (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• I see that the the request was declined, which accords with the above comments.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Epeefleche: Weird! Danjel is seriously considering accusing you of being "me" see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IZAK where I have answered and explained to Danjel's questions and accusations. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Curious. Epeefleche (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

For your heads up on phishing

Gimme danger has given you some kittens! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companions forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else some kittens, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kittens}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.

Kittens think fish are delicious. Phish, not so much. Danger (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC) PLease do not send unsolicited messages to this IP Addresss, it belong to the American Civil Liberties Union and we will take legal action against hacking. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.38.47 (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Sam Fuld

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your contribution to one of wikipedia's latest WP:GA's

This user helped promote Sam Fuld to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Fuld again

Wow, your talk page is almost as busy as mine! Anyway, I've passed Fuld. Nice work. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright concerns – fair use rationale for images

Hi there. You recently uploaded a number of images with claims of fair use. In case you were not aware, a rationale of "for use in the infobox" is not sufficient. You must provide a detailed and valid reason for including the image in the article (the purpose) to explain why it meets our non-free content criteria policy. For the images you have uploaded I would say they are "the primary means of visual identification of the subject or topic". Please also see our non-free use rationale guideline for further guidance. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 10:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

In posting yet again on my talkpage, WJE has ignored my clear request that he not do so. A request that I have reiterated to him.

WJE was blocked just two months ago for disruption on my talk page, following his hounding me. WJE protested his block twice, his block was affirmed twice, and he then deleted all mention of his block from his talkpage.

The first affirming sysop said: "It's really not a good idea to fixate on another editor and get into a prolonged conflict with them, which you clearly have done." Yet now, two months later, here WJE is—doing it again. The fact that WJE fixated on my very few recent image-creation edits is a clear sign. The sysop appears to have been correct. I have asked that WJE stop.

The final affirming sysop said to WJE, as to WJE's disruption: "you do not convince me that you won't repeat it". That sysop appears to have been prescient, as well. I have again asked that WJE stop.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As you have been told before, the raising of clear and obvious editing problems relating to policy is not hounding, and responding as you have with such accusations will not be tolerated. You would also do well not to quote people out of context and misrepresent what they have actually said.

Despite Greg reaffirming that you must provide proper rationale for these images and giving further guidance, and having had plenty of time, you have still not done so. In my view is is unwise for an editor with an open CCI case to demonstrate further total disregard for copyright issues. This is the final warning you will receive in this regard. Please do as requested and rectify this as soon as possible. _wjemather^bigissue 08:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Greg also reaffirms that you, WJE, by coming here less than 24 hours later to badger him about how he hasn’t reacted quickly enough—at least to your satisfaction—after you pointed out the shortcomings of his work, is poor form. You’re acting like a 12-year-old. To use your imperious style: Final warning. Greg L (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• I note the highly personal tone in this section, but can we just discuss the fundamental issue(s). The lack of references to specific images makes it difficult to assess the situation, as each fair use claim is highly context-dependent. For example, far use is almost never acceptable when it comes to even low-res images of living people, but are almost universally accepted to illustrate books and albums. So, could we have some concrete examples, please? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Fair question.

First of all, the truly fundamental issue is being discussed at AN/I here. The issue being, given the history of hounding and warnings described there, and the most current events in the wake of the recent 2-day block of WJE for same, how we should address matters.

Second, as to the substantive "image rationale" question you pose, the simple answer is that WJE failed to supply any diffs. But I would guess he is referring to my add of an image and rationale for a book cover (no images of people) of a book on philanthropy. And my similar adds of 5 covers/logos of local US Jewish newspapers (again, no images of people; let me know if you need those diffs as well).

He attacked my "use in infobox" rationale for the images. However, that is the accepted rationale for many thousands of such images.

Furthermore, I added those images and rationales only after receiving precise, detailed advice from senior editor Beyond My Ken (who focuses on images), which I followed.

See BMK advice, and BMK's comments on the substance of WJE's assertions here ("technically correct, but in my opinion is being overly pedantic. ... As far as I am aware, most people understand that "for use in the infobox" means "to visually identify the subject of the article" or whatever wordage the editor used. Per WP:BURO I don't think it's absolutely necessary to change what you did (on my advice)").

Inasmuch as WJE has been requested to stop posting on my tp, and I would hope he will comply with my request at this point so as to not violate wp:harass, I imagine if he wishes to communicate with you on this issue he will do so on your tp or in some other manner.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I would agree with the description 'pedantic'. He may have a point if there is no critical commentary on the cover itself within the article, but such use without commentary is largely ignored, or overlooked as being a mere technicality. Also, Mather doesn't seem to be previously interested in image use. Unusual enough to re-ignite suspected hounding as motivation, given history of bad blood between you two. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

referencing redlinks in lists of people

Hi, I know you help clear out unreferenced redlinks in lists of people - I have a question about the guidelines there on which I'd be interested to hear your view. Dsp13 (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

List of table tennis players

Hello again Epeefleche,

so I agree with you that a wikipage or a reference should be present for each player in the list. For this reason I'm beginning to create missing wikipages. Therefor I gently ask you to not remove random players from the list since the list is curretly acting as my reference point. If you would like to helo you could create missing players wikipages.Cialo (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - Hi, if articles of these people are going to be created later it should be easy to provide a single WP:RS that supports them being in the list. Other wise the redlinked names are worse than useless to the reader and encourage drive by additions of any name at all. Ivan Andreadis this for example (and others) sits there uncited and unexplained without any worth at all. Off2riorob (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

List of table tennis players

Thank you for your work with dab... I have created the table tennis players paged and linked ;) --Cialo (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice choices

I appreciate your taking the time to select some images for List of sports-related people from Mississippi (diff). Given the number of available choices, I like the selections that you made. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 17:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Danny Valencia/GA1

Started the review! Staxringold _talk

Polish music prods

Can you slow down with the prods of Polish musical groups and bands? Just looking quickly at the large number you recently prodded I can tell that you're tagging a lot of groups which are very clearly notable (anyone even vaguely familiar with Polish rock music would have heard of them - which is also evidence by the interiwiki links in some of them). But at the rate you're going it might be difficult to keep up with you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. All of them in fact failed A7 in my view. They lacked indicia of notability, such as 2 notable musicians, or albums for notable labels, or appropriate awards, etc. For example, Exodus (Polish band), which you just prodded, saying that the notability was "already indicated in the article" -- I can't find such an indication that meets wp criteria for notability of bands (and the article is completely bereft of references). If they are notable per wp rules, I'm happy for them to remain of course. Perhaps you can find support that is not reflected in the current sourcing, which is reflected in the Polish media. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

For that one, I'da thought that "one of the leading progressive rock bands in Polish rock in late 70s and early 80s" would've been enough. I realize that a lot of these are stubs and unsourced and I wouldn't have a problem with this if it was spread out over time but I (or I expect, others) am not going to have enough time to fix them all at once. Btw, can you leave a note about which ones you prodded/tagged at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland? I know about a lot of those, but some, especially the more recent ones, I am not familiar with and there's probably folks there that can help. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see anything that meets the guidelines. "A leading band" is not a criterion. And because we need a "credible" claim to notability, I think that when the only statement is "X band -- a leading band" -- and the like, without any support, and without even any indication of indicia used to to measure whether they are a "leading" band, that A7 is appropriate in any event. You can see what is PROD'd on my recent contributions list. I don't intend to prod any more this month, but may AfD some depending on how they look as PRODs are removed, so in that sense there is a bit of flux. And, of course, PRODs are removed, as well as tags, so the whole matter is in flux as a result of that. Feel free to look at what I have PROD'd, and leave the note you mention. It will be great if Polish-speakers can bring them up to non-PRODable status, to the extent that can be accomplished. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The Shipwrecks and The Bash (band)

I've restored both of these articles per a request at WP:REFUND. However, I'm curious as to why you used a CSD rationale as your PROD reason. If you think these 2 articles should be speedy deleted then why not just use {{db-band}}? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahah -- thanks for the pointer, Ron. I see -- I've been using the speedy rationale, but putting the articles through a non-speedy process.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: H'Sao

Hello Epeefleche. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of H'Sao, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Probably sufficient info to avoid Speedy. maybe PROD or AfD would be a better choice. Thank you. Alexf^(talk) 18:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What "sufficient info" are you referring to? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a simple thanks for your hard work! Regards, Tinton5 (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Just wanted you to know that I struck my delete vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaarei Tefillah based upon your improvements to the article. Good job. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Earl Williams (basketbal coachl)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Earl Williams (basketbal coachl). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - this was a tyop. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at this was a tyop - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Epeefleche (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Give me one good reason why I shouldn't block you per WP:DTTR :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That is the funniest thing I have read on these pages in MONTHS! Thanks for giving me a good belly laugh! Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing for Dan Grunfeld and Franklin Lakes

I saw your addition of Dan Grunfeld as a notable to the article for Franklin Lakes, New Jersey. No source was included to support his residence there. I know that his father Ernie Grunfeld lived there during Dan's early childhood to teens, as is stated and sourced in Ernie's article, but I can't find any reliable and verifiable source to support that Dan lived there. The same issue applies to his inclusion on the New Jersey notables article. I have very strong reasons to believe he did live in Franklin Lakes, but without a source there's an issue. What source were you relying on? Alansohn (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I was working off of its entry in his wp article, but it is further supported by a NY Daily News article ( "The kitchen of the Grunfeld home in Franklin Lakes, N.J.... On one wall is a family picture, puzzle style, with five pieces. Four of the pieces are Ernie Grunfeld, his wife, Nancy, and their children, Rebecca and Danny.") and a Newsday article ("The Jersey Kid Danny Grunfeld of Franklin Lakes N.J. is only 8 yet he emerged as one of the leaders of the Wildcats Maybe it's genetic his father Ernie..."), and a Jewish Tribune article ("Dan Grunfeld ... was born in Livingston, NJ, before moving to nearby Franklin Lakes."). Perhaps you limited your search to "Dan", and missed the RSs mentioning "Danny" and "Daniel" (there are more under Daniel as well)?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes have to remind myself of alternate versions of names and how Google doesn't think of that for you. There was a source staring me in the face in the article about his father that says he lives in Franklin Lakes with his children, including Danny. I realized immediately that I had missed potential sources, but I had what I needed. Thanks again for the other sources. Alansohn (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Cheers for writing the article Hanna Zemer. Please try to use the template {{WikiProject Israel}} and not WP Israel (for compatibility reasons). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Jack Mealey

Great work expanding the Jack Mealey page. Alex (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Sardinians

could you stop to continue to cancel part of the article? "There must be an article on the subject, or a ref--or the entry is to be deleted" is it a rule of wikipedia? if it creates proplems to you, begin to write an article about the subjects! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.250.134 (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes -- it is a rule of wikipedia. See WP:LISTPEOPLE. We don't encourage people to add names to lists of people, where there is no wp article on the person, and no refs indicating that the person is notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A neutral party would be invaluable

There is currently a dispute resolution open for a page I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to resolve, Heroes in Hell. The dispute page is located here and the relevant dialogue related to this dispute is on the talk page of the article. It would be helpful to get another opinion in here from someone uninvolved with the dispute. I must warn you though, you might want to get comfy before you start going through this material-- there's a lot to read. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Citation Strange Son

In the article Strange Son, the citation is the one that appears next. I'm not sure how it isn't clear that the citation with the sentence, "Nigel Cole (A Lot Like Love; Calendar Girls) has signed on to helm Strange Son for Revolution Studios, Variety has revealed." doesn't make it clear what is the correct citation for the sentence. Joe Chill (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple citations that follow the sentence, so without cluing in the reader they don't know -- just from looking at the article, without clicking through -- which applies. In any event, IMHO it is better to add a fn to the sentence. It is your hook sentence. Also, the sentence can always be separated from the sentence that follows it, by a later editor. This ensures that you will not end up with your ref in a a succeeding para, where it would not be seen as applying. Also, btw, this is a US subject -- which is why I changed the date format from British to US. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I understand your reasoning. I had editors repeatedly tell me to cite sources that way (must be British). I also had editors repeatedly tell me that the plot didn't need to be cited because the book, film, or whatever is the citation (must be confused, I can't find anything that says that). Joe Chill (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries. As to the first point, next time that happens you can direct the mis-informed editors to read WP:STRONGNAT. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks for your great work on Hebrew authors! Ijon (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Márton Vas

Hello!

Just wanted to say thanks for your kind words :) Actually, it was you who "forced" me to make the related article a bit better, as following you created the talk page it appeared in my watchlist and when checked the page I was so terrible upset to see in what condition the article is. (Duh, I hate to see one line stubs. Why did I not expand it earlier...)

On the other hand, as I saw, you edited a lot of Jewish related articles so I guess you have the knowledge and sources. Márton has a younger brother, János Vas, who has to be a Jew as well. Maybe is there a reference that supports it? It could be a good addition to the article. -- Thehoboclown (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

On Mike Morse (Baseball)

My reliable source on Mike Morse (Baseball) being engaged is I know the woman he is engaged to. It's not published in an article, but I do know for a fact that they are engaged. Please put that back up on Wikipedia.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.116.187.166 (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. But that is not how wp works. You need a reliable source for such an entry. Personal knowledge does not suffice. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

List of swimmers

I agree with deletion of swimmers with no articles or RS supporting them. I've expanded the intro to better specify inclusion criteria, and added a source for one of the redlinks.

Per WP:BURDEN we should do a cursory search on the web/news/books for RS before deleting the rest of the redlinks. Since WP:N doesn't apply to list contents, but WP:V does, how about using large athlete statistics websites as sufficient RS for inclusion or a news article? Stats sites have been used as RS in vast swaths of sports articles, so how about this one? Of course, wherever multiple RS are found, the athlete's article should just be stubbed and sourced. --Lexein (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Per wp:LISTPEOPLE, which is the most relevant guideline as it applies specifically to lists of this sort, the burden is on the person adding the name in the first place -- they should simply not add non-referenced redlinks ("A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met ... The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement... If a person in a list does not have an article in Wikipedia about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to establish their membership in the list's group and to establish their notability.... The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources....." Note -- per the above, the people on such lists must in fact be notable -- we don't add names of swimmers, for example, who exist but who are non-notable.

Per WP:BURDEN, as well, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds the material in the first place, and we may remove any such inappropriate unsupported material. This is especially true of BLPs. Lists of people are magnets for people adding red-linked names, lacking any sourcing whatsoever. There are thousands of such entries, though I've personally likely cleared out thousands. My problem is with the low-hanging fruit primarily -- those entries that lack any article as well as any RS refs ... I have no problem with using reliable sports stats sites, such as sports-reference. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. I'm well aware of the problem with additions of redlinks, such as at List of indie rock musicians. WP:BURDEN also asserts the good practice of trying to find RS before deleting an unsourced claim. I tend to apply this, because I'm big on preserving, but fine with deleting unsourceable material after checking. WP:LISTPEOPLE does indeed answer the general question, but at List of swimmers you'd keep low hanging fruit items which are delinked and possess an inline RS citation? I'm thinking mainly of Olympic and Nationals placers. --Lexein (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The way that I read it, wp:LISTPEOPLE is the more specific applicable guideline, and the one therefore in my mind to focus on most. It is pretty clear on this. BLP issues raise the bar even further -- and encourage on-sight deletions of unreferenced material. The talk page discussions at wp:LISTPEOPLE are even more draconian -- many editors read it to require deletion if there are not multiple refs per entry, saying one ref for a redlink is not sufficient. Further, some (minority) editors believe all entries should have refs, whether a bluelink entry or redlink. In any event, the general language that you point to in the more general guideline is of course a nice, good practice thing to do -- but that language is not as strong as the other language, which is more specific, and common sense makes it impractical for me to check all such entries on lists. There are tons of inappropriate bare redlinks -- a high percentage are not appropriate, and the entering editor can't go around foisting responsibility on good-faith editors who are cleaning up a list, by making them do research where the entering editor clearly violated the rules with the add in the first place. And little is lost -- we are speaking about bare entries here, completely content-less. If you wish to spend time researching all such entries, that is of course fine, but its not something that is an obligation under the guidelines for other editors to follow. If you think my view is not the common understanding, however, feel free to raise the issue at wp:LISTPEOPLE at the talk page, and just let me know and I will join the conversation. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. I certainly didn't intend to take up this much of your time. The LISTPEOPLE Talk archives are illuminating. I was not imposing any expectation on you about sourcing! So far, the redlinks at List of swimmers#Lithuania seem appropriate - they all seem to have records and strong placings, so I've unlinked and sourced several. (I prefer to use the word violation only when real harm is probable or real mal-intent is evident which could expose WP to legal liability). I see your point about foisting, and I resent it when it's clear that that's what's happening. And have no fear of me delving into a career as a redlink rehabber . --Lexein (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Rehabbers are always welcome!--Epeefleche (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Kurt Epstein

Hi Epeefleche. Thanks for the kind words. I did the date formatting based on him being born in Czech and representing them at the Olympics, but I have no issue with your rationale for the current format. Another really interesting article on an Olympic athlete! Lugnuts (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some editors can get bogged down in trivial edit wars over formatting issues, etc. As long as the dates are correct that's the main thing! Good question about the Olympic athletes for 2012. I guess most of them would already be notable - IE they're already established in their sport and have now done enough for Olympic qualification, so there should be some sources to show general coverage. I aim to finish off the Olympic fencers from 1992 onwards, before picking another "minor" Olympic sport and working through the years on that. Lugnuts (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Tx. I, of course, applaud your focus on that "minor" sport. Nice work. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No probs. WP:STRONGNAT might help with regards to the date formatting. I think I mentioned it before, but it's really interesting to read about former Olympic athletes, esp. those who fought and died during the wars. Still alot of work to do! Lugnuts (talk) 08:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

your comment at AE

That whole sentence-in-each-article has to be revisited. It's the strangest thing I have ever come across Wikipedia. Templating dozens of articles with some new-fangled verbiage with RS's not on the direct subject? It violates all kinds of wiki-policies, let alone that no other encyclpedia has anything similar. Then editors are blocked if they don't follow the guideline? It's really wacko. Where is this discussion anyway? I found this discussion about proposal to add the word "settlement" into the first sentence of dozens of article and that failed as "no consensus." How and where did this happen? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it could my attention as well. And I had the same question as to where it "happened". I posed that query prominently in the AE discussion. And I agree -- it does seem to be at odds with our guidelines on synth. If it is an agreeable practice, and not a violation of synth, I do have a few thoughts (as also indicated) as to verbiage that we can agree on in a discussion, and then place in all articles that are related to -- but not mentioned in -- the source we use.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with you.I think its obvious violation of WP:SYNTH.I think it should be revisited again.--Shrike (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to be part of any discussion revisiting it. Any thoughts as to how best to initiate such a discussion? My thoughts are two-fold. One: It would be good to understand why such a result is not a violation of WP:SYNTH. Two: If it is not a violation, it would be interesting to apply the approach to a number of other areas.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

My 2¢ with Mkativerata

I thought I should let you know I have honest concerns about Mkativerata’s conduct and honestly and frankly expressed them on his talk page (∆ edit, here). Greg L (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruption of the WP:CCI process. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. T. Canens (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Epeefleche (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I certainly didn't intend to disrupt the CCI, and don't intend to in the future.

Just the opposite. I had already firmly committed to assisting the CCI.[33][34] And I've already started to help out at the CCI policy page.[35][36]

I (mistakenly) honestly thought Mkat (M) was an involved editor in the I-P area. Because that is what his user page says. I also honestly was concerned that his blankings of bios of Olympic athletes were retribution, as I recalled reviewers leaving 1-line stubs instead. I now understand from M that he is not in fact an involved editor, and from Moon that blanking is the norm. I apologize to M for my mistakes, and hope he can understand how I made them honestly.

Further details, below.

1. Voluntary Clean-up. I acknowledged my mistakes. And I volunteered to help clean up my inadvertent copyvios, as I mentioned at ANI. In whatever way others considered most helpful. See my conversations with Elen, Moon, and M, in which the details of my assistance—including how I can delete violations I discover, flag checked text for the benefit of reviewers (without making any determinations myself), and timing—are discussed.[37][38][39]

A significant number of commenting editors (Wizardman, Hut, etc)[40] seem to have missed this completely. Their comments indicate they thought the opposite was the case.

BTW—I appreciate that M himself indicated that my more recent edits, over the past year, did not contain copyvios ("Fact: Everything I've seen Epeefleche create since the CCI started is copyvio-free."). I take my commitment here seriously, and I appreciate the gravity of copyright issues.

2. Support CCI. I'm fully supportive of the CCI moving forward. And have been fully supportive of all copyvios being deleted (if not fixed.) I've said this at ANI as well. The pace of remediation will accelerate with my assistance.[41][42][43]

I'm also happy to volunteer to assist with an additional CCI, of Moon or Mkat's choosing, given the backlog they mention. I've devoted much of my time over the years to helping improve the Project in various areas, and I'm happy to do it here.

3. Voluntary CCI Policy Copyediting. As a first step in assisting pro-actively in CCI clean-up, I undertook to and already began to copy-edit our CCI policy.[44][45] For clarity. To be transparent and collaborative, I also opened up discussion at our CCI policy talkpage, explaining my effort.[46] Moon responded positively there.

4. CCI Article Edits. As to assertions of "CCI disruption"—my editing of CCI articles reflects that the opposite is the case. I've made only 3 article edits, ever, following deletions of text in CCI article clean-up efforts.[47][48][49] Each edit was an effort to respond to M's concerns. My last edit did just that, it would appear. I never made any edits at all that interfered with CCI cleanup; just the opposite.

5. Mkat and I generally agree. Interestingly, M and I may well agree on 99% of his deletions. In all of the sentences he (and others) deleted at the CCI, to this point we've only disagreed with regard to 2 sentences. In each instance, I was able to address his concern.

6. Efforts at talkpage discussion. After revising the 2 sentences mentioned above, to allay M's concerns, I did seek (without success) to engage M in talkpage discussion.[50] To better understand his reasoning. And better communicate my views. My effort was not intended to be disruptive; just the opposite.

Similarly, I (and other editors)[51][52][53] asked M this week, re 2 articles that he had blanked, which sentences concerned him.[54][55] I asked so I could address his concerns, if possible. I said that at the time. In the one article mentioned above in which we had worked together, he had done exactly that. I thought it a normal request. I didn't ask him about the deleted sentences at the TK article, because I knew which they were (and had not contested his deletion). I also inquired as to whether we have a review process if editors have different views (because we do have a review process for articles deleted at AFD, but I couldn't find one here.)

7. ANI. I opened the ANI because: a) M said a "close paraphrase" existed where I did not believe that was the case (I'm not alone in this view); b) he was not communicating with me at the talkpage; and c) I felt that in the absence of communication from him it would be helpful to have more eyes on our interactions.[56] A number who spoke to these issues at ANI raised the same points.[57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] Notably, that was all I requested. I didn't ask for any sanctions, as a disruptive battleground editor might. I asked for only one thing—simply more eyes on future interactions.[66]

8. "Involved Editor" discussion. My understanding that M was an involved editor in the ARBPIA area was based entirely on M's own statement, on his userpage.[67][68] If what he meant in that self-identification is not what I naturally understood it to be—which seems to be what he has said most recently—then I withdraw my comment, and apologize for any confusion. I wasn't making a personal assessment. I simply accepted at face value his own statement. I stated this at the ANI. I had no way of knowing that M's self-identification as an editor involved in the I-P conflict didn't mean what it said on its face. But again—while some editors (Prioryman, etc.) think I made a personal assessment of M in this regard, or even expressed a view as to his leanings, I did nothing of the sort (it may be that I've been confused with others). Given my mistake here, I'll avoid any future criticisms of M, for any reason (including those relating to wp:admin).

9. No canvassing. There was clearly not any "canvassing". I left a neutral note. At the talkpages of 3 editors. Editors who had divergent views. And who were involved in the CCI discussion to which the ANI related, and which M had referred to.

10. Others. As to the editor M says was "attacked", by me saying that the editor was hounding me? That editor was in fact found to be hounding me. And was interaction banned. While the CCI is appropriate, the editor was indeed banned. As to Spl—I don't recall that as having being part of this CCI, though we did have a strong difference of view on a substantive copyright matter.

12. Retribution and article blanking—withdrawn. I had the honest impression—based on my prior CCI experience of articles being stubbed to one sentence—that M was acting in retribution by not leaving such a 1-sentence stub.[69] I now accept what Moon has helpfully explained. Based on that, my initial impression was mistaken.

13. Close Paraphrase. There seems to be a wide divide between M and Hobit[70][71][72][73]/Geo Swan[74][75]/Stuart Jamieson[76] (for example), as to what constitutes a "close paraphrase".[77] That's the only substantive difference that M and I have had since the CCI was launched, as far as I can recall. I share the view expressed by Hobit et al. Perhaps someone can suggest a way to determine which view is correct—perhaps even (recognizing that they are busy at the moment) seeking input from one of the foundation lawyers.

As I mentioned to M and Moon a couple of days ago, I have limited access to computers until a week from now, and cannot add diffs from this computer at the moment, so please understand if you only hear from me intermittently (that's also the reason for the delay in this response). Also, if you could copy/paste this into the ANI, that would be appreciated Epeefleche (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As I now have access to a computer and the time, I've added the diffs/refs referenced immediately above, and will add those for the below posts as well. I also appreciate that the blocker wrote that "Any admin may unblock when they are satisfied that Epeefleche will no longer disrupt the CCI.".--Epeefleche (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Clearing the unblock requests, declining at this time but encourage user to continue discussion about possible agreement to unblock and resubmit when an accord has been reached. WGFinley (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The common sense thing to do here (and while I do think there's a good number of copyvios that Eppefleche was - probably out of ignorance - responsible for, see Targeted killing, I also think the indef block was excessive and unjustified) is to unblock him but request that he first participate fully and in good faith in the clean up, before he resumes normal editing. So...

• Unblock him
• Restrict his edits/posts to those related to the CCI issues which were raised.
• Once the CCI is successfully concluded, Epeefleche can resume regular editing.

That way it's a win-win. The copyvios get cleaned up faster and Epee gets to go back to normal editing. While copyvio is a very serious concern, 1) it's actually a Wikipedia wide problem and who knows how many people do it, a random selection of articles suggests that it's pretty common - and this is because we NEVER educate editors as to how not to commit copyvios (hell, "NO COPYVIOs" isn't even one of the main pillars!), and 2) these seem to have been made in good faith. I think at some point Eppefleche got a little defensive and rather than helping to resolve his old mistakes made things worse by his comments and posts - but still, I don't see how keeping the indef block in place would benefit either him/her or the project. Volunteer Marek  04:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology. But 6 and 7 miss the point why you were blocked: for incessant talk page and ANI badgering, questioning, pestering and text-walling. No-one can work sanely on your CCI responding to that kind of rubbish. And you need to accept that in light of your record you really don't have the right to a "different view" on copyright questions; you're going to have to accept the blanking, deletion and removal of your content pretty much without debate. That's the only way it will work. In light of the pretty much unanimous consensus in support of your block at ANI, I think you're going to have to recognise this. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Tripped over this while patrolling CAT:UNB; I am very concerned about the phrase "inadvertent copyvio". You can't copy something accidentally. You just can't. Copying someone elses work is always intentional, and if Epeefleche believes that his copying of the text written by other people was "inadvertent" I have little faith that he could stop himself from doing it again. --Jayron32 04:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You say that you "…have little faith that he could stop himself from doing it again." Actually I have considerable "faith". If an error was made sticking too close to wording found in sources—that can be corrected. While I understand your point concerning the word "inadvertent" perhaps one should not dwell on one single word to the exclusion of an entire message. Bus stop (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The copyvio is inadvertent when an editor has paraphrased it slightly, believing that they have done enough to prevent it being a copyvio. Epeefleche has generally reworded his contributions the problem was that up until CCI they were still too close to the original text. The editors undertaking the CCI have said that his newer contributions (since the CCI started) do not seem to have this problem. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine, but you are not requesting an unblock. He is. I would like him to explain why copying someone elses words, and changing a few of them, is still very very bad, and how that is different from "doing it right". I would need to see Epeefleche, and not you, explain why his purposeful, deliberate copying of text, and changing a few words, was wrong, and what sort of editing would be right. --Jayron32 21:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Posting on behalf of Epeefleche, with permission; copied from his email to me.

@Close Para issue, etc. Mkat (himself) wrote: "Fact: everything I've seen Epeefleche create since the CCI started is copyvio-free."[78]

I've been asked to share my understanding as to what constitutes a "close paraphrase" (CP). A CP is a copyviolation. One must, as described below, limit similarity in creative linguistic characteristics and structure to the point that they are non-substantial.[79][80][81]

US caselaw suggests that there is not a copyviolation unless the copying is "substantial" both in quantity and in quality. Courts consider additional factors that include: a) the size of the entire work vs the copied text, b) the level of creativity in the copied text, c) the uniqueness and intricacy of the copied text, and d) how "central" the copied text is.[82][83]

When CP has been asserted, I've sought to address concerns via good faith remediation. As Unscintillating indicates, I did this in the Berman article.[84][85] I've also tried to engage the asserter in discussion on the article talkpage, if remediation did not satisfy him. As suggested by our rules on CP. See the Berman talkpage.

As Moon said, "Sometimes there are good faith disagreements as to what constitutes a close paraphrase. It happens". As Hobit, Jamieson, and Geo's extensive comments at ANI indicate, this was the case with Berman edit # 3. They all thought that the text deleted in that edit was not a CP. Feist and its progeny are relevant US caselaw.[86][87]

5 But the key take-away is that even in that instance, I sought to remediate and address any felt concerns.

In the future, where a CP violation would otherwise exist, I'll apply more often Mkat's suggestion that "in-text attribution is a way around the problem". Excision is another solution. Another remedy is the use in accordance with our non-free content policy of a short quotation. Use—if available—of public domain or compatibly licensed sources avoids the issue, as does permission of the copyright holder. It can also be helpful to use multiple refs.[88][89][90]

As I now have access to a computer and the time, I've added the diffs/refs referenced immediately above.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

To avoid causing confusion, I'm not responding to any of his words in this edit, but just sharing them. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche, it concerns me a bit that your response here addresses US law more than it seems to address Wikipedia's standards. I'm sure you know, given your length of time here, that Wikipedia's standards towards non-free content are deliberately more narrow than US copyright law. You may be able to get away with closely paraphrasing a paragraph out of a 500 page book in a Wikipedia article legally, as it would qualify as fair use, but it does not mesh with community standards. Per copyright policy: "Wikipedia articles may also include quotations, images, or other media under the U.S. Copyright law "fair use" doctrine in accordance with our guidelines for non-free content. In Wikipedia, such "fair use" material should be identified as from an external source by an appropriate method (on the image description page, or history page, as appropriate; quotations should be denoted with quotation marks or block quotation in accordance with Wikipedia's manual of style). This leads to possible restrictions on the use, outside of Wikipedia, of such "fair use" content retrieved from Wikipedia: this "fair use" content does not fall under the CC-BY-SA or GFDL license as such, but under the "fair use" (or similar/different) regulations in the country where the media are retrieved." We are not simply concerned with US law here, or with such factors as may influence leniency of our use as our non-commercial status. I would suggest that you stop thinking, if you are, of "copyright law" and more of "copyright policy." What is a "copyright violation" on Wikipedia - a violation of our copyright policies which require that information taken from non-free sources be presented in your own language and structure, unless you are utilizing brief and clearly marked quotations - would not necessarily be an infringement of copyright under US law. It might not rise to substantial similarity to copy three sentences from a book, for instance, but it is certainly a violation of our policy, unless the material is handled as described at WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What concerns me isn't just the incorrectness of Epeefleche's view (as if the law, as opposed to academic dishonesty, was our only concern) but the fact that he/she continues to have the argument. It is continuing to have the argument that will continue to disrupt the CCI. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm also quite concerned with the legalistic, rather than the practical, comments by Epeefleche. The proper way to read sources, to use those sources to compose novel text which capture the idea of the source text while being the wholly original text of the wikipedia writer, and the proper sourcing thereof is how to do it right. I was looking for Epeefleche to explain how to read source texts, how to internalize and understand the ideas thereof, how to compose ones own writing based on those ideas, and to cite the source text. Instead I get a bunch of legalistic hoo-haa? I am not encouraged. No, I am not. --Jayron32 05:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayron32—have you posed any question(s) to Epeefleche? If not, then why are you saying, "I was looking for Epeefleche to explain…"? Why don't you pose a question to Epeefleche, and in that way move the process forward to unblocking someone (Epeefleche) who has been both a productive and a constructive editor? Much of what he has said in his request to be unblocked above is of a conciliatory nature:

"I certainly didn't intend to disrupt the CCI, and don't intend to in the future. "

"I apologize to M for my mistakes, and hope he can understand how I made them honestly."

"I take my commitment here seriously, and I appreciate the gravity of copyright issues."

"The pace of remediation will accelerate with my assistance."

"My effort was not intended to be disruptive; just the opposite."

"I now accept what Moon has helpfully explained; based on that, my initial impression was mistaken."

If you are going to focus single-mindedly on fault-finding you are going to find fault. I also think he should be able to explain the origin of certain misunderstandings that occurred between him and other editors. That could be of a partially exculpatory nature—those may be mitigating factors in what transpired. This is a social project—or at least that is in my understanding of it. If you wish to ask a question of Epeefleche—that might move the dialogue forward. Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche, who should be back at a computer with web access soon, sends the following:

@Mkat--I wasn't trying to continue an argument. I apologize if it seemed that way. Jayron asked me to reflect my understanding as to WP policy on close paraphrases.[91] I re-read our policy and Copyright FAQ, and what they linked to,[92] and tried to comply. I would certainly not have responded had I understood you would not want me to.

Unless you tell me otherwise, I will assume you don't want me to explain my understanding of WP policy further, other than to to assure you that I understand that WP policy requires that we present information taken from non-free sources in our own structure, presentation, and phrasing (unless it is a conforming quotation). Epeefleche.

Passed along verbatim at his request. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the issue and a proposal

The problem here has not been in your clean up work; the problem has been in your insinuative and aggressive stance towards Mkativerata and some of the others who have addressed copyright issues with you. I don't remember ever having any particular problems with you myself, but I've been shocked by the way you have pursued the recent work on your CCI and am actually impressed that Mkativerata is persisting in the face of it. I have seen CCI cleaners run off of CCIs before by aggressive CCI subjects; it's a major source of disruption in that thankless and understaffed field. You certainly would be welcome (by me, anyway) to rewrite problematic content from scratch. But you have to stay out of the way of people evaluating it and not follow along repeatedly asking "What's wrong with this article?" And you certainly can't personalize it in the way that you have. There are literally thousands of articles to be evaluated; nobody will ever be able to finish if you do that. And there is a growing body of evidence that there are problems in many articles.

CCI will undoubtedly cost some content that is not a copyright problem. That's unfortunate. One of the main purposes of CCI is to try to avoid this, by giving each article evaluation, but it is not completely avoidable since we cannot access all of your sources and we are not able to presume that any of the content you wrote in this period is free of problems. There will very likely be points in the CCI when somebody will blank an article you wrote because it looks like it might have been copied and the sources can't be checked. In the ordinary course of "copyright problem" board work, we don't delete content because it looks like it might have been copied. In a CCI, we sometimes must. CCI remains preferable to the alternative, which is the presumptive deletion of everything per Wikipedia:Copyright violations.

The most constructive way you can contribute is not to say "Prove this one is a problem" but to simply replace challenged text with new, rewritten from scratch. It may not be fun, especially if you think that the original text was fine, but it is the most expeditious way to get through the tedious work of evaluating each of these articles and replacing any confirmed or likely problems. Nobody wants to have to do this, but unfortunately your work in this period has required it. While it may not be a copyright standard you would adopt for Wikipedia, it is the one the community has embraced. Given your skills, I'm pretty sure you could be a force for good in this if you would just put your focus to the cleanup instead of challenging the need for it. :) Barring that, I think your only other option would be to just stay out of the way and do your work elsewhere.

To that end, I have a proposal. I'm not going to unblock you myself, but will reproduce this next paragraph at ANI for community input. It's possible that my proposal will be shot down. :)

I would support your unblock if you would pledge to stop slowing progress (1) by challenging (openly or by insinuation) the existence of the problem and/or (2) by casting aspersions on the competence or motivations of the people doing the work and would instead agree to focus (if you work on the CCI at all) on rewriting content from scratch. Alternatively, I would support your unblock if you were topic banned from the CCI - which would mean staying away from any article tagged as a problem until after it has been resolved and from the people who tag them in any venue. Because I'm never comfortable with silencing people, I would be okay in that case with your having one acceptable person to whom you can email, agreed upon by the community at ANI. This will avoid you becoming a target of an actual vendetta if somebody should choose to take advantage of your vulnerable position. Email to one neutral, designated person rather than on-Wiki communication would eliminate any unintended disruption, as public aspersions on a CCI volunteer in any venue may have a "chilling" effect especially if others are influenced by your accusations. If the person chosen for you to contact agrees there is an issue, he or she may raise it in an appropriate venue.

Apologies for the length. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche is not at his computer and is unable to post to Wikipedia but has emailed me the following, with permission to post it on Wikipedia:

As I indicated to you, Elen, and M in our discussion on your talkpage even before the block, I'm happy to assist in the CCI in whatever manner (if any) others see fit.

I agree to whichever of your suggestions is deemed preferable. And whichever it is--I agree, as before, that the copyvios should be deleted (if not fixed). I think that your safeguard makes sense as well, for the reasons you state.

I'm going to reproduce this at ANI as well so that others can see his input. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Moonriddengirl's proposal is sensible and realistic. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• I too think Moonriddengirl's proposal is sensible and realistic. A key nugget of that wisdom is encompassed in these two sentences of hers: The most constructive way you can contribute is not to say "Prove this one is a problem" but to simply replace challenged text with new, rewritten from scratch. It may not be fun, especially if you think that the original text was fine, but it is the most expeditious way to get through the tedious work of evaluating each of these articles and replacing any confirmed or likely problems. So long as Epeefleche conducts himself in a manner where his actions are part of the solution rather than amounting to objections over how others go about fixing past copyvio problems, there will be less wikidrama and faster improvement to the project. Greg L (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

An observation and some unanswered questions

I think it Epeefleche is to be unblocked he should not go any where near the articles that are being clean up, (s)he has been given months and months to do that and has been found wanting. I also think that there should be a moratorium on this editor creating or recreating any articles until there is a consensus at ANI that (s)he can do so. I suggest this because there is no evidence that Epeefleche has had an epiphany but rather the (s)he is mouthing platitudes under the duress of a block.

Epeefleche I asked you talk:Targeted killing "As you wrote and then created the article at 00:21 on 30 September 2010, and as it was so quaintly described 'shepherded it' for all these months, don't you remember which parts if any you copied? If you do then why don't you start by listing those pieces you copied from other sources?" You did not reply. So what is the answer?

On ANI you wrote "We are talking about Mkat's deletions yesterday -- years (and 50-80,000 edits?) after I wasn't familiar with our copyvio rules." I asked "Is Epeefleche stating the when (s)he wrote the Targeted killing article on 30 September 2010 (s)he was not familiar with the 'copyright rules'?" and if not familiar when did you become familiar? Well what is the answer to those questions? This is particularly pertinent given the statement given Greg L on on 8 Jan 2011 on Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Epeefleche where he in-part explains away your actions, because he explained that you have expertise on American copyright law (something that you did not acknowledge or deny at that time). -- PBS (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Having looked into it more I assume that Greg L reached his conclusion from a statement you made on 24 December 2010 on the same page, or have you made similar claims about your expertise else where on Wikipedia? -- PBS (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with PBS. It was clear to me after I unblocked him from his last indefinite block that he had simply said those things that I wanted to hear, and never actually understood that he had been canvassing. I regretted undoing the block.—Kww(talk) 15:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Since I tend to edit on a wordprocesser from various "copied" sources, often jumping between several files, I can see how despite one's trying to change things to avoid copy right violations, one could "inadvertently" make one (especially the way Win7 messes up Wordperfect, but den't me started). However, I also know that Epeeflech has been a very tenditious editor with a strong POV so I can understand where User:PBS and User:Kww are coming from. CarolMooreDC 19:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Just for context here, the scenario you describe certainly can happen, but this is not always what we are seeing with Epeefleche. Since I can't reproduce the whole thing here per our policies, this was the first paragraph in the source used for the article Benny Bass (now rev deleted):

Regarding Benny Bass, Jack Dempsey was quoted as saying: "He is the greatest fighter of his weight and inches I have ever set my eyes upon." At a diminutive 5' 2", Benny possessed a bull neck and extraordinary musculature around his shoulders & biceps. He was a powerful force & rarely fought at over 130 pounds. Bass was one of the hardest punchers ever in the featherweight & jr. lightweight divisions. Contemporary Ring Magazine writer, Francis Albertani, described Benny as "A deadly puncher, cool as the proverbial pebble under fire & a masterful boxer."

This was the first paragraph Epeefleche placed in the article. For clarity, I'm bolding precise duplication.

Regarding Benny Bass, Jack Dempsey was quoted as saying: "He is the greatest fighter of his weight and inches I have ever set my eyes upon."[citation omitted] At a diminutive 5' 2", Benny possessed a bull neck and extraordinary musculature around his shoulders & biceps. He was a powerful force & rarely fought at over 130 pounds. Bass was one of the hardest punchers ever in the featherweight and junior lightweight divisions. Contemporary Ring Magazine writer, Francis Albertani, described Benny as "A deadly puncher, cool as the proverbial pebble under fire and a masterful boxer."

The third to the last paragraph in the source says:

Benny was no dummy, however, and even though he lacked much formal scholastic training he had a sharp mind, as evinced by his fluency in five languages. Applying himself with the same resolve he had displayed in the ring, Benny passed a Civil Service exam and worked a desk job for the Philadelphia traffic courts for many years.

This the last paragraph Epeefleche placed in that section:

Benny was no dummy, however, and even though he lacked much formal scholastic training he had a sharp mind, as evinced by his fluency in five languages. Applying himself with the same resolve he had displayed in the ring, Benny passed a Civil Service exam and worked a desk job for the Philadelphia traffic courts for many years.

Some of the content between was original, I believe most of it was not. This remained in publication for years before it was detected, I'm afraid.

While this is among the more extreme set of examples, it is not alone. Epeefleche may have improved his practices in recent years (I'm told he has and don't doubt it), but his violations of copyright policy in articles like these are pretty blatant. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Moon. I've not contested that some of my earliest entries (which include the one you cite above, from over 4.5 years ago) were not appropriate. And I've agreed that any such copyvios should be deleted. I appreciate your comment as to not doubting that I have improved my practices in recent years.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Epeefleche. I know you haven't contested that. I don't mean to beat you up about it or imply any ongoing issues. I was just clarifying for CarolMoore. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty concerned by Epeefleche's response, which continues on with a previous theme that the copyright problems are from years ago. While it's true that the copying and pasting was especially obvious and egregious in the early years of Epeefleche's career, the CCI opened about a year ago because of copyright and plagiarism concerns with recent edits, where the violations were slightly more subtle but clear nonetheless. For example, Epeefleche's edits to Targeted killing, made September 2010, have recently been deleted due to copyright concerns. But only 2 weeks ago, Epeefleche denied that there were any significant problems with copyright in that very article."I don't see the copyvio that is claimed as warranted deletion of this article". This is the crux of the matter. Does Epeefleche accept that there were significant problems of copyright and plagiarism up to December 2010 that need to be cleaned up? --Slp1 (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Slp1—I think Epeefleche merely defends the article (Targeted killing) against deletion in the link that you provide above. My personal opinion is that the copyright problems at Targeted killing are relatively minor. There are limited acceptable ways of communicating information and it is a matter of judgement how far a restatement of the material found at sources should differ while still maintaining the original thrust of that material. Epeefleche has clearly expressed a willingness to try to clear up any remaining copyright problems. Bus stop (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but "defending" the article is exactly the problem, as it indicates that Epeefleche has not accepted that there is an issue to fix. Why would it be a good idea for him to "clear up" copyright and plagiarism violations that he (and you apparently) do not appear to accept exist. Here is some of the text that Mkativerata removed from the Targeted killing edits from September 2010. I've bolded the text that comes directly from Haaretz[93]:

The opinion, deciding a case brought by two human rights groups, the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel and the Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment, set forth [note: preceeding is not even mentioned in Haaretz, and thus is more of a problem with WP:V] what is allowed and what is prohibited, and the directives it gave assured future judicial oversight of all cases in which a targeted killing exceeds the limits of these rules. If it should turn out that a targeted killing was illegal, it might lead to a trial and the paying of compensation to the innocent civilians who were hurt by it. Under the ruling, those involved in causing terror are civilians who have lost the protection granted to civilians "for the period of time during which they take direct part in hostile acts." The question of whether they continue to constitute a threat must be scrutinized carefully before a targeted-killing order is issued. Such an order must not be issued as an act of revenge, punishment, or deterrence, but only in prevention. The information that a civilian became a participant in hostile acts must be sufficiently well-founded. The threat must be "strong and persuasive", and the person must be party to "ongoing action that does not limit itself to concrete sporadic or one-time action." Also, targeted killing must not be engaged in when an arrest may be made without real danger to the lives of soldiers; and targeted killing should be avoided if it will lead to disproportionate collateral harm to innocent civilians.

As you can see, Bus Stop, whole sentences have been copied verbatim. There is virtually no creativity and even the (acceptable) quotes are framed identically to the original source. It boggles my mind to think that you think that this is acceptable, "relatively minor" (as you put it), and that this is a situation where there was no other way to express the content. I really don't think you are doing yourself, or Epeefleche any favours here by arguing that this is a judgement call. Multiple administrators with expertise and experience in this area have determined that there is a problem.Slp1 (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Slp1—I actually didn't say that copyright problems do not exist. More importantly Epeefleche did not say that copyright problems do not exist. As I wrote above, Epeefleche defended the article against deletion.

You say "But only 2 weeks ago, Epeefleche denied that there were any significant problems with copyright in that very article."I don't see the copyvio that is claimed as warranted deletion of this article". [94]

I don't think you are correct in your above interpretation of what Epeefleche has written. I don't read Epeefleche denying in the above quote that there are "any significant problems with copyright in that very article". He is merely arguing that copyright problems do not warrant the deletion of the "Targeted killing" article. Bus stop (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, you need to stop this obfuscation. As I said, it doesn't do you (or Epeefleche) any favours, because despite what you and Epeefleche have claimed, the article Targeted killing and Epeefleche's edits did indeed warrant deletion. Or at least User:Moonriddengirl, who has lots of experience and expertise in this area, thought so.[95]. Do you want to contest Moonriddengirl's actions? If so, let me know, and I will help you figure out where and how you can contest this. --Slp1 (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Slp1—please don't jump to conclusions and claim that I am obfuscating when I don't believe that I am. Bus stop (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop I wrote out a reply here but as it is longer than I expected this is deeply intended I am moving it down. But it will have the same time stamp as this edit -- PBS (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at discussion above and the web pages, I see it was far more than inadvertent. I am sure people POV pushing to get as much anti-Muslim (or perhaps pro-states that are anti-Muslim) material into Wikipedia find it easier to cut and paste from the hundreds (or thousands) of anti-Muslim websites out there chock full of such articles. Targeted killing being one example; others probably just not discovered in various Israel-Palestine related article where I've run into Epeefleche before. Under WP:ARBPIA Epeefleche could be banned from editing in any articles regarding Israel-Palestine-Muslims-Jews if further evidence of his doing copyvio was found in any relevant articles. If he was banned, I'm sure he'd find it easier to control himself on sports articles. I hope that whoever is reviewing his case is considering this as an option. As an advocate I am interested in seeing advocates learn to be "Wikipedia first" editors who avoid even minor POV/WP:RS issues. And this goes way beyond that. CarolMooreDC 18:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC—I think you are unnecessarily politicizing this discussion. The relevant questions involve the willingness of the editor concerned to work with even those editors who may hold contrasting political points of view. I think he has stated that unquestioningly. He has stated not only apologies to those that have deemed his edits to be copyright violations but he has stated a commitment to refrain from a repeat of the same and to help with the clearing up of remaining copyright violations. Why is he being sidelined from participation in remediation that he has offered to provide at for instance the Targeted killing article? Bus stop (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin or participant in that page and can't answer that. I'm just making a general statement that copyvio could or seems to be be a way of POV pushing that I was not familiar with but will keep my eye on for in the future. (And in some articles that the two of us happened to have edited in the past.) CarolMooreDC 05:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop the problem is this Epeefleche wrote "I don't see the copyvio that is claimed as warranted deletion of this article" (and much else like that). If (s)he were not obfuscating, and publicly recognising that (s)he was still breaking copyright policy as late as September last year, (s)he would not have put the word "claimed" in there, because if one accepts the evidence then the sentence would read "I don't see the copyvio(s) [in the article] as warranting deletion of this all of the article".

Even in his/her latest posting in this thread, while there is an acknowledgement of "some of my earliest entries ... [mumble 4.5 years ago] ... were not appropriate", there is still equivocation (as it may be that some edits last month were still "not appropriate"). Epeefleche has yet to answer the simple questions:

1. When did you become familiar with the Wikipedia rules (or US law) on copyright violation?
2. When was the last time, that you contributed text to this project that broke Wikipedia copyright policy/(and US law)?

We know that as recently as 30 September 2010 (s)he when (s)he created the article targeted killing (s)he was was still breaking Wikipedia copyright policy in articles on this site, and before we can go forward, we need to know when it stopped. (S)he is not helping other editors or herself/himself by fudging an answer to these questions. If Epeefleche has had an epiphany, then (s)he should be willing to stop fudging and give clear precise answers. -- PBS (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't think you are being a little too demanding? Must he answer those questions? Hasn't Epeeflech copiously expressed the willingness to move forward violation-free? Haven't his remarks all been conciliatory? Hasn't he offered to help with the remediation of any copyright violations which he has made? Were there no promises to clean up past copyright violations then I could understand your taking a different tack in the form of your questions posed. But given the already-provided assurances that past copyright violations will be cleared up, I think your questions seem out of place. I don't think we should be grilling someone with questions as those you pose above. Bus stop (talk) 11:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I’ve carefully reviewed this thread and ancillary issues pertaining to it. I have come to the following conclusions.

Epeefleche’s old copyviolations should be and are in fact being deleted. He apologized for his lapses. He reiterated that he does not intend to be disruptive. The community should give him the benefit of the doubt and Assume Good Faith. AGF is not merely an empty slogan and it should be applied here where the user has expressed genuine contrition for his actions.

Others on this thread have correctly pointed out that his recent text entries do not have those problems.

He has been blocked for over two weeks now and under the totality of circumstances an unblock now seems to be the appropriate way to conclude this matter. I am certain that the events that gave rise to this unfortunate affair will not be repeated.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Just one more observation. An editor's quality can be measured in part by peer recognition. Epeefleche has done some exceptional work on Wikipedia and the barnstars he's collected for various accomplishments from his fellow editors stand as testament to the quality of his contributions to Wikipedia. I think that should count for something and should act as a mitigating factor.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

@Bus stop. If I am being a little too demanding then from what Epeefleche has written about this issue, can you answer after what date did Epeefleche stop committing copyright violations?

The survey only goes up until the time it was initially run (7/Jan/11). Can you tell from anything that Epeefleche has written on the talk pages, that there are no copyright violations in Epeefleche's contributions for the rest of this year? The thing is that most people will assume good faith and if (s)he says there are no copyright violations this year, then it will be accepted. But without such a statement how do we know there are not more of the same? After all, clear violations were present in material as late as 30 September 2010, so how do we know, without a statement from Epeefleche or a further systematic sweep, that text added this year is clean? -- PBS (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been involved in contentious discussions where Epeefleche has impressed me with the cogency of his discourse. I am also often impressed with his industrious efforts as an editor. I find an indefinite block to be somewhat excessive and feel that in all probability the editor and wikipedia would be better served with a finite block and a limited range block. There are certainly areas that the editor could continue to be productive in without getting into the same area where he has gotten in to the trouble at issue here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Tony, that was one of the proposals on the table last time. :) It took me a few minutes to find the ANI thread; I think it's fallen into this weird bug that truncates searches on a page that is too large. It's here. I think at this point that an unblock would be fairly uncontroversial if Epeefleche would agree to the topic ban and just steer clear of the CCI and people who work it. I'd be happy to trot it back by ANI. Maybe this time the discussion will go more smoothly and not derail so that we can wind up with a consensus for how to move forward out of this limbo. Unfortunately, I have to agree with several who commented at the last ANI that some of Epeefleche's well-wishers wound up doing substantial damage instead of helping him out. :/ I'm sure they meant well, but distracting the conversation with 11th hour challenges of whether a problem existed at all (where clear consensus based on the evidence found that it did) only stopped talk of unblocking altogether. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

PBS—you refer to a "systematic sweep".[96] I think that you should ask Epeefleche if he would be agreeable to checking all his edits for 2011. I think that could be done in private by Epeefleche. You express a valid concern but I think that all that is needed is a statement of intention from Epeefleche to thoroughly review all of his edits for 2011 to see if there are any other copyright violations and to correct them if any are found. Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The last systematic sweep on Epeefleche's work was done on the 7/Jan/2011, his/her permission was not required. If you think my concerns are valid then why do you think it unnecessary for Epeefleche to answer the two questions most recent I put to her/him? -- PBS (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not looking back to see what the two questions are, but anybody can do a sweep. I've run the list from February to the current day ([97]; that link is not permanent but will last a few days). New articles are marked N. I've spent about 45 minutes doing spot checks into new articles and I have not found any issues or really seen any major red flags. Of course, that doesn't mean there aren't any, but from everything I've seen, Epeefleche is on top of the issue now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing the discussion, it appears that the obvious violations were in old articles, not new ones, and that Epeefleche has pledged not to disrupt CCI again. Based on this statement, unless something new comes to light in the next couple of hours, I plan to unblock. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

On what conditions will you unblock? Will you impose the topic ban for which there was consensus at ANI? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

On the conditions that he stay away from WP:CCI, and, as Jehochman put it, "be banned from complaining about any editors cleaning up his copyvio messes or otherwise obstructing their work". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. While I can only speak for myself, I'm fine with an unblock on those conditions. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for being the voice of reason here, Jayjg. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

While one can expect Jayjg to be reasonable, personally I wouldn't insult the other interested parties by suggesting that he is the voice of reason here. causa sui (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies to other editors who have contributed here. My point was simply that I feel Epeefleche has been blocked long enough. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

O.K., I will unblock Epeefleche based on the statements above. Epeefleche, as a condition of unblocking, please stay away from WP:CCI, and please do not complain about or hinder the efforts of editors who are attempting to ameliorate any perceived copyvio issues with articles you have created or material you have added. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back, Epee.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Sergy Rikhter

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 08:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Kiftaan

Just some friendly advice, but I think its pointless arguing with Kiftaan about Sunni percentages. This guy insists there are only two sects in a homogeneous islam, despite articles such as Islamic sects proving him wrong. I've tried, but debating him is circular. You just end up repeeating the same thing over and over but it does not enter his brain. Pass a Method talk 18:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right

OffToRioRob a.k.a. YouReallyCan left a late-hit snide remark on my talk page after he and another editor tag-teamed at Demi Moore. This, after one snide, childish remark after another. Ah, well — at some point Wikipedia will mature and we'll have to have credentials and our real names to edit here, and things will be better. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

173.179.213.86

I asked for temporary semi-protection of that vandal's target page, and they've granted it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant. Am embarrassed that I didn't think of that myself. Hopefully, he won't (continue to) engage in questionable edits on other articles, as he did yesterday. Thanks. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There's more than one way to skin a troll. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Heitcamp

Yes you're right about it. I too wondered if there might not be another page, but I had to leave the computer before I could follow it up. Article deleted. fwiw, the deWP page is probably a copyvio also. Does your unified password work there? I cant recover the password I used for it. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ... I'm glad we successfully addressed our difference in views. As to the "deWP" page ... apologies, but I'm not sure what that is.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Page: Sekolah Kebangsaan Bukit Sekilau

Dear esteemed Epeefleche,

I humbly seek clarification concerning the email I received from MediaWiki Mail on Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:48 PM, entitled "Wikipedia page User talk:Bluesguy62 has been created by Epeefleche." The email informed me that "The Wikipedia page "User talk:Bluesguy62" has been created on 22 December 2011 by Epeefleche, with the edit summary: Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Sekolah Kebangsaan Bukit Sekilau. (TW)"

Further details concerning the issue are as follows: 20:23, 22 December 2011 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "Sekolah Kebangsaan Bukit Sekilau" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of )

At this juncture, allow me to clarify that the official website of the school at <http://skbs.freehostia.com/> was deleted by Freehostia in May 2010 after two successive successful hacking attempts; because (according to Freehostia) the website posed a security risk to other users of their free webhosting service.

Next, with regard to the deleted article and website, allow me to confirm that I, Abdul Aziz Sanford (bluesguy62@gmail.com) am the webmaster and sole copyright owner of all materials contained within; as well as a teacher at the school since 2004. All the text is my own composition, and all images were either scanned by me from old photographs/documents or captured by the school's photographers or yours truly.

I may be contacted by email <bluesguy62@gmail.com>, my cellphone 012-9855262 or the following mailing address: Abdul Aziz Sanford, Sekolah Kebangsaan Bukit Sekilau, 25200 Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia.

Kindly also allow me to share the fact that my exact text has been reproduced without my permission on websites such as: (1) <http://www.thefullwiki.org/Sekolah_Kebangsaan_Bukit_Sekilau>, (2) <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sekolah-Kebangsaan-Bukit-Sekilau-Kuantan/327828849169?sk=info>, (3) <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sekolah-Kebangsaan-Bukit-Sekilau/139262229434679> and (4) <http://wn.com/Sekolah_Kebangsaan_Bukit_Sekilau>.

Last but not least, I do declare that the sole intention of creating the Wikipedia page in question was to share information about the school with the world, and nothing else. It took me one year to gather the needed materials. I thank you for reading this humble submission. God bless and take care.

Yours humbly, Abdul Aziz Sanford @ bluesguy62Bluesguy62 (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, friend. I am not an admin, but you may wish to contact User:Fastily, who is the admin who addressed the apparent copyvio issue. As to the photos, from your description it is possible that you do not have a copyright interest of photos that you did not take yourself (but just scanned, etc.), but I would not know the answer without knowing more. Best of luck.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Epeefleche: Thank you for the advice. It is much appreciated. bluesguy62Bluesguy62 (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Ferns (2nd nomination)

At the last AFD I proposed that article issues could be addressed procatively, but did not do it myself at that time. I am so glad that being an asmin allowed me the ability to look at the copyvio-deleted versions so I could better understand how it could be best addressed... a total rewrite based upon the one remaining sentence. And in the year since the last AFD, just enough new sources were available (un-found by the nominator) to allow a better article. And too, I disagree with the nominator's insinuation that the notable BAFTA Scotland is both non-notable and somehow not a part of BAFTA... making that organization's recognizing and encouraging New Talent as dismissable. The mop is a handy thing to have. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

AfD nominations

Rather than take so many primary/elementary schools to AfD, under the principles of WP:BRD it would be much better if you dealt with them directly i.e. delete the content and merge/redirect to the appropriate school district or community. If anyone objects to a particular article being dealt with in this way then revert it (assuming they didn't) and take it to AfD instead. If you do redirect then remember to leave {{Redirect from school}} on the page. --Bob Re-born (talk) 09:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I gave your suggestion some thought. I prefer to not be so bold as to redirect these articles, as at times some editors have questioned the general premise that such schools should be deleted. Out of respect to them, and since they may follow afd pages but not the individual articles, in general I think it better to allow them the transparency of an afd.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to congratulate you on this superb AfD rationale. It brightened my day. A little latin makes things look so much classier. ;-) bobrayner (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I tried to think of a classy Latin rejoinder, but failed.  ;) --Epeefleche (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Surrey primary schools in AFD

I was wondering if you were intending to nominate the other schools in Category:Primary schools in Surrey in addition to the 2 you've already done? Fmph (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

They are certainly worth looking at, with that in mind. But I'm giving the schools a chance to breathe, as I noticed that some of the school AfDs don't have any !votes as of yet, and don't want to overload the community. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:2 5, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what selection criteria you are using? Random? ;-) Fmph (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever a search of primary schools reflects, with a focus on those that are unreferenced or lack historical aspects or architectural aspects or were tagged for notability or lack of refs, etc, and holding off some if they prompt greater controversy until it is addressed (eg, Ofsted reports). But as to the ones you question, most are appropriate for a nom, I think, once the controversy on Ofsted reports has been addressed, and the community has had a chance to !vote on the others so as not -- as I indicated above -- to overload them. There was at least one that I might not myself nom, given its historical significance, but others might.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

All primary schools

If I may make a suggestion: why not simply blank and redirect obviously non notable primary schools as most editors and admins (who are aware of the precedent) do anyway according to the rationale I keep putting on all the 100s of sudden AfDs that are turning up this week? It's an uncontroversial operation and a totally accepted procedure even if it's not written in policy. If the creator complains, it can easily be reverted and then sent to AfD. Boldly redirecting would save all the unnecessary bureaucracy, and me and other editors the time having to paste 'Redirect' votes, and another admins having to close all the AfDs - we have huge backlogs of far more complex AfD to cope with that sometimes take an hour or more to resolve.. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to not be so bold as to redirect these articles, as at times some editors have questioned the general premise that such schools should be deleted. Out of respect to them, and since they may follow afd pages but not the individual articles, in general I think it better to allow them the transparency of an afd. Also, as you suggest, not all editors are aware of or agree with the precedent (one vociferous senior editor in particular markedly disagrees with it), and there have been some discussions (e.g., as to 10th grade schools) where some editors have asserted a consensus but not pointed to where such consensus exists when the request was made. We would benefit from a bright-line rule in our org notability standard, reflecting what people think is the agree-upon view as to schools below high schools (or below 10th-grade schools, if that is the consensus). Even then, as schools which special attributes -- e.g., historical, architectural, etc, will be treated differently, there will be areas of gray. Finally, while you and I have agreed on the vast majority of recent AfDs, even we have disagreed at times, and I would rather have the oversight of editors like you to confirm my view than act unilaterally. AFD insures that, while the other approach does not. Perhaps that is why we do not have unilateral deletion even for completely clear copyvios, or advertising, or the like. One thought though -- is there a way to, for example, nominate for afd all articles in a category (or all except "x")? That would streamline the process.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• The process for group nominations is described at WP:BUNDLE. It shouldn't come to that though, as it seems that all of these nominations should not have got through WP:BEFORE which urges editors to "... consider merging or redirecting to an existing article." The result of this nonsense is that Wikipedia is accumulating large numbers of pages about these schools but that these pages are disruptive deletion discussions rather than productive content. It is a sad waste of everyone's time. Warden (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche, you don't think we should have the articles. Warden does not think we should have the articles. Kudpung does not think we should have the articles. I do not think we should have the articles. In fact, almost everyone at WP agrees that we should not have these articles. The question is then what is the best way to remove them. The easiest and fastest and least controversial way is to redirectmerge preferred & possible, a/c WP:BEFORE -- better than deletion. Deletion tag removed. to the district or town or whatever may be the most appropriate administrative unit, You wouldn't be excessively bold to do so, you would be acting reasonably and responsibly in full accord with consensus. It is possible that someone may revert some of the redirects; the solution is then to use WP:PM. or conceivably WP:AFD on those that are restored--the outcome will almost always be that your redirect/merge is confirmed; if it happens often, it will have become clear that whoever is reverting them is acting against consensus,and we can deal with it. Why force an argument first, when it almost always will not be needed? It makes it look as if you'd rather argue than deal with the situation directly DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• DGG, as you without question are aware, having participated in some of the AfDs at which I've observed this input, there are editors with different views. As you are also well aware, if it were so clear, you could speedily close any primary school AfD. I've never seen you do so, on any such AfD. Nor have I seen any other such AfD closed that way by anyone else. Furthermore, the best way for you to address this, as you also know, if such clear consensus exists is to have it reflected in a notability rule for schools. An essay is just an essay - you are well aware of how limited it is in effect in comparison to a policy. You may have an appetite for being bold here -- I've considered your suggestion in the past as you know, and responded to you in the past (sometimes without any response whatsoever by you). As you also know, you yourself have !voted keep when I thought we should not have such an article. As has Warden. As have various others. At least one, in a majority I believe of such AfDs as which he has !voted. Given the level of conflict I've seen here by some editors involved in this process, having considered your suggestion I don't see it as the appropriate approach for me to take. I don't wish to redirect such articles, only to have another editor who doesn't share your view attack me for it.

As to whether a redirect is better than a delete -- while I generally don't have a problem with a redirect, I fail to see why it would be the case that it would be "better," and nobody has articulated a persuasive reason. Many of the redirects are to pages that just ... in terms of pertinent information ... state the name of the school that the person was looking up. Zero further information on the school. Why that is particularly helpful to the reader remains a mystery, when they are clearly looking up information about the school -- not seeking to have communicated back to them the search term they typed in. Alongside, perhaps, other schools as to which they are not searching for information.

You feel I would not be excessively bold to do so. But they again, others in general don't always agree with you. If such action were as you say -- and I do feel you exaggerate here, which would only make your point stronger to those who are unfamiliar with the facts -- "in full accord with consensus" -- then I wouldn't face the disagreements that I've faced at AfDs by you and by others. One of whom has since hounded me around the Project.

If you wish, I can provide you or anyone else a list of primary schools I think should be deleted or redirected, and you (or someone else) can be so bold as to take such action. For me to follow your advice, it strikes me, would be suspect, as your suggestions as to such behavior being "in full accord with consensus" seems unsupported by the facts. I've considered your suggestion -- for a long time now, as you obviously are aware -- and have reasonable reasons not to follow it, which I've explained to you over and over.

Furthermore, as I've suggested to you over a year ago, if consensus is so clear then please put forth a suggested notability rule, and I will be happy to participate in discussing and adopting some form of it. You've not seemed to thing that you could muster sufficient support for such a rule, however, which has left us in the current situation.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hotels

Must you really drill me multiple AFD warnings? Kindly give me the links to the AFD pages afterwards. Thankyou.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I nominated 1 article you created for AFD, and am required to notify you of the AFD. The link to the AFD is enclosed in the notification. I also nominated 1 article you created for speedy deletion, and as I am required to I notified you of that. The information you need is at that article page, which is linked to in the notification. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Remove the speedy tag of Absheron Hotel please, pretty sure its a notable skyscraper in Baku.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It has been moved. Unless I am incorrect, it appears that both articles that raised notability issues and lacked refs have now been redirected.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep is for the article as it is merged into one about the company. I would withdraw the nomination if I was you, the article on the company won't be deleted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I commented at the AfD. The AfD relates to whether the article you merged into another article warrants a stand-alone-article, and is not a !vote on the article into which you merged it. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

AfD

One of the fundamental flaws in the management of Wikipedia is the very mantra that it's 'the encyclopedia anyone can edit'. Personally, I think that is a wonderful founding philosophy and it's what has made it the world's largest online knowledge base. However, it needs controls, so unfortunately it has policies and guidelines, and admins to enforce or implement them. Hence the next flaw is that anyone can vote in sensitive areas such as AfD or RfA. This occasionally results in the paradox that you have illustrated: The majority vote by tally is achieved by the people who turn up to vote, and that the apparent consensus, due to their ignorance of existing policies, guidelines, or precedent, or due to not wanting to recognise those rules, guidelines, or precedents, is in conflict with an existing policy or precedent.To quote TerriersFan:

Firstly, it is predicated on a misapprehension; no-one claims that high schools are 'inherently notable' just that they should be kept on pragmatic grounds, as are designated settlements, fauna and flora, named bridges, numbered highways, airports, super-regional malls, railway stations, high court judges, peers of the realm, religious saints etc. When there is so much work to do on Wikipedia the thought of fighting 50,000 high school articles only to prove that most of them are notable makes me shiver! We have had several attempted standards on schools (and if we are to try again why not include all schools?) and they have all failed in the face of the determined opposition of a minority of editors. What we have is a pragmatic position (redirect most elementary schools (except those clearly notable) and keep high schools (except those that can't be verified)) which allows us to move on to more urgent stuff.

So what is a closing admin to do? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Some astute points. I agree with all you say as to the fact that we can have mismatches between broad consensus, and consensus at any particular AfD. The problem is especially prevalent I expect: a) when there are few editors who !vote at a particular AfD, and b) in some contentious areas. At the same time, we do tend to recognize that consensus can change, and have mantras such as IAR ... which editors seem to invoke simply when they dislike some rule. One way we address this problem is by editors at an AFD addressing any ignorance of existing policies, guidelines, or precedent by supplying an inline link to the policy or guideline -- or the discussion that reflects the precedent, if one exists. That allows a closing admin to adhere to the more policy-based and guideline-based approach, I expect, though if there are a number of !voters and what is "pointed to" is not a guideline but rather something looser and less clearly articulated, I expect a closer might give it less weight. In any event, I think the best course if a consensus exists in precedent but not in a guideline is to supply the community with greater clarity by writing it into the guideline. I think that the consensus as to schools would benefit greatly if it were articulate in the guideline itself.

I would be happy to work with you (and the rest of the community) at fashioning something that the community could !vote on, for addition to the notability guideline. I have a sense that broadly speaking the community believes that in schools through grade 9, absent special historical or architectural information, we do not keep an article on the school as a standalone (but rather either redirect/delete/or merge it). My sense, though I know some editors such as you have a different view, is that generally this is the approach for schools through only grade 10 and 11 as well. And that for high schools (through grade 12) and above, we keep the articles presumptively -- as long as there is RS support for its existence. Do you think that the aforesaid might have in it the kernel of something that could be improved (first by you, and then perhaps by some of the other regulars at school AfDs and others with interest?) and turned into a draft guideline addition to our notability standard that could be !voted on the community? A guideline would have more clarity than the varying statements we've seen at AfDs as to what precedents are, and (whatever it is) would allow a closer to more confidently close such AfDs in accordance with the consensus as articulated in a guideline ... rather than taking your or my word as to what the precedence shows, and how clearly it reflects consensus opinion.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably nobody is more aware of the paradox surrounding school notabily than TerriesFan, CT Cooper, Tedder, and myself as we have basically been the driving force behind the WP:WPSCH project for a long time and we are all admins and hence are supposed to have some clue on policy. However, we are in a quandry. Alone today, two near identical school AfDs have been closed with opposite results just on the fact that different people turned up to vote. Closers can only really take into account the local consensus, whatever policy or precedent says - What would happen for example if the consensus was to delete Barack Obama; can an admin legitimately say "I'm closing this as 'keep' because you're all wrong" ? The unwritten consensus for schools is very clearly established in precedent and is: non notable primary and middle schools (grades 1-8) get redirected, and secondary schools (generally grade 7/8 - 12/13 or grade 10 where they don't have a 6th form but teach to school leaving age, such as GCSE 'O' level) get kept if they are proven to exist. This precedent exists mainly to avoid the unnecessary bureaucracy of sending every single school through AfD and making them GNG compliant. Let's face it, any school is more notable than some 17 year old who has played one game as a reserve in an obscure football league but who gets procedurally kept on a simple name listing on some soccer site, or some 6 month old baby who was used as a prop on the set of Coronation St. and is listed in the cast at IMDB, or an X-factor kid who made the semi final and never got a record contract. Personally I don't care what the criteria are for schools, but I would like some firm ruling either way because as an admin it leaves me completely frustrated. The problem however, is that every single discussion to get some ruling laid down is a WP:PEREN and has either ended with no consesnsus or just simply died out as has the most recent attempt at WT:WPSCH before anyone could even agree on a proposal statement.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC).

A number of issues there.

1. Schools are not listed on WP:PEREN. maybe they should be, but for now they are not.
2. The 'unwritten consensus' that you quote can and has changed, as far as I can see. But there is very good reason for the change. The idea behind merge and redirect is that the encyclopaedic matter from the source articles should be moved to the merge target. Unfortunately with most of the current crop under Afd, there is no encyclopaedic content to be merged. Whether a school has 357 pupils or 380 is not encyclopaedic. For a start, these numbers are time-dependent. They are a census count of a spanshot in time. They may be used to pad out an otherwise notable article, but are not suitable for inclusion in a locale#Education section. So all that generally happens would be the addition of a redirect from merge. So what? Why is that of any benefit to the reader or paedia. IMHO, it's a waste of space and only encourages those who wish to create unreferenced stub after stub and give the project a generally bad name.
3. If it is proving impossible to achieve consensus on a notability guideline, then maybe the regulars need to take some the blame for this. Perhaps the current crop of dogmatic standpoints need to be wiped away and a new, and different, consensus found. For instance, instead of trying to pass a huge big all-encompassing guideline, why not try a short snappy one that only covers the areas where there is agreement?

Just a thought .... Fmph (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• AFD is an inefficient system and seems quite moribund now that the participation is derisory. The idea of pure Wiki deletion seems better. Now that revision deletion is available to admins to handle the serious cases of copyright violation and defamation, PWD should be reconsidered for all the other stuff which isn't suitable for speedy deletion. Warden (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

  PWD was badly needed when participation was high. Now that it isn't, the need is critical. causa sui (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have seen several promising notability guideline proposals [98], [99] shot down as "failed" because some editors objected to what several editors had developed, with them (edited to add: the guidelines, not the editors) being tagged as "failed" or as "essay." A different crew of editors show up at proposed guidelines from the cadre who watch AFDs, so established practice/common outcomes/consensus at AFD is hard to make into a guideline. It seems easier to add a criterion or sentence to an existing guideline than to get a new guideline accepted. One of the rejected notability proposals mentioned above, Wikipedia:News articles, may have led to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#2.9 Wikipedia is not a newspaper. A bold (but carefully crafted) addition to WP:ORG for high schools versus primary schools might prompt some discussion on the talk page of that guideline, leading to a sensible compromise criterion which would implement the presumption of notability for verified schools going through grade 12, and redirect for schools through grade 8. The devil is in the details: Is the presumption of notability granted to schools which only educate to grade 10, when that is the highest level people in some country typically get? What about junior highs educating to grade 9? What about 19th century US grade schools, when that was commonly the highest grade of education completed for 95% of the students, per Secondary education in the United States? Re=reading WP:ORG it is pretty hardline deletionist, with the stipulations of "no inherent notability," the general "multiple reliable independent secondary sources with significant coverage," and the killer: "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." If a school is a "noncommercial organization," then a requirement is "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale." (This would lead to stretches such as "the school choir toured Spain last year, and there are exchange students from various countries.") How can any assertions "All schools are notable" or "This grade school won the Good School award given to only 5% of the schools" get past the strict requirements of WP:ORG cited by some editor when an admin goes to close the AFD? The question is not "Why are most grade schools/middle schools merged or deleted," but "How do many high schools survive AFD?" Edison (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

CSD A7

Your recent posting on my talk page seems uncivil, appearing contrary to WP:HARASS and WP:DTTR. For example, advising me about creation of my first article is redundant and demonstrates that you are not reading what is posted in your name. CSD A7 has a very low threshhold and that topic passed it easily in my opinion. For more details, please see this survey which advises that "As a general rule of thumb, if there are references, then the article probably is not deletable via A7.". So it proved in that case, but I expanded the article to make sure. This was personally inconvenient and that's the trouble with speedy deletion - it does not provide any time for a response and so is discourteous. Please see WP:WIHSD for more advice, if you are new to this activity. Warden (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't feel that way. There is nothing personal -- I didn't even know that you were the creator of the article until the automated system gave the standard automated notice to you, which is crafted it would appear with civility in mind. To my eye, there was no claim to notability in the article. It is easy to create an article on something that exists with refs, but in my experience not everything that exists meets our notability standards. For that reason, simply having a ref does not confer notability status on an article that otherwise appears to not demonstrate that its subject meets our notability standards. Apologies if your feelings were hurt -- that is certainly not intended. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

[Pardon me for butting in...] Well, the Colonel is certainly right in some aspects, though harassment should be judged by intent as well, and I'll take Epee at their word that such was not the intent. Colonel, I absolutely agree that the automatic templating sometimes causes such notices on the pages of seasoned editors. Colonel, you also know, of course, that Epee is not new to the process--certainly you have crossed swords before. Epee, maybe it's a good idea, next time you nominate one of the Colonel's articles, to manually adjust or even remove the template; it's a courtesy that they deserve, IMO. As for the Colonel's comment on what is generally deemed speediable, I think I have to agree with them: with a couple of references in this version, including one from Billboard, it's pretty likely that the CSD nomination will be rejected--I personally would not delete it, since believable claims to notability are made, besides it having references. Best to both, Drmies (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

SNOW on elementary school AfDs

Well, since an editor has voted "keep", I guess SNOW is out. What I've decided to do is AfD the larger articles; and just BOLD merge/redirect the stubs, as no consensus is needed for a merger and there's already a consensus for those type of edits Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that all primary schools and elementary schools and junior high schools, absent material unusually notable circumstances, should (per what I am told, and see, is convention) have their stand-alone article text deleted. There are some editors, however, who I understand disagree, and think they should in general be kept. Or whose criteria for keeping the articles is much lower than that of the rest of the community -- so low, in fact, that the vast majority of English primary schools would be kept as stand-alone articles. Given that, I've personally not been inclined to take bold action in this regard, but preferred to let the community speak, though some editors have suggested precisely the bold action you are taking.

If the stand-alone text of the article is in fact deleted at AfD, I've seen varying close outcomes -- split between redirect, delete, and (less frequently) merge. Absent consensus on that in !votes and in closes, I personally am hesitant to make that choice myself. But I'm just speaking for myself, and recognize that some editors are bolder.

My understanding is that all high schools and above are, by convention, to be considered "keeps", with the exception being if there is a lack of RS evidence of their existence.

As to schools that end in grade 10 or grade 11, I had thought that they were treated in consistent fashion with primary/elementary/jr. high schools. But there seems to be a lack of consensus among editors on this point, and some think that they should be treated as high schools. Some think that that depends -- in some countries treat them as high schools, and in some as lower schools.

As to defunct schools, I was under the impression that their inactive status does not impact our determination, but at least one editor opined (and !voted) otherwise.

I think that the process could be streamlined if we were to have a notability guideline reflecting consensus as to the above. Some editors are unfamiliar with convention, some may mis-state it, and some may not trust other editors' assertion as to what convention is or whether it may have changed. And some statements of convention have in fact failed to reflect the on-the-ground consensus (or lack of consensus) that I've seen. Perhaps that is a reflection of the adage that "consensus can change". In any event, if we do have consensus on some of this, it would be helpful to state it in a guideline.

Also -- If there is in fact consensus during an AfD, sysops could also close such AfDs as Snow closes, which would streamline the process.

My main concern here is that we should have a common, consistent approach. Whether it is that we redirect such articles, or delete such articles, or merge such articles is less important to me that that we generally, if this is indeed the consensus, delete the article as a stand-alone. A secondary consideration is what we do not -- and we can determine that the result should be delete, or merge, or redirect either by following some yet-to-be-written guideline (preferred) or, in the absence of consensus/guideline, at the AfDs as we do today. In any case, a guideline can only help.

Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll never get a SNOW close, as another editor always votes the "all schools are notable" ticket to get my goat. And proposing "only high schools are notable" will lead to a big bucket of syrup with him. I don't think we'll be able to get the hard-and-fast consensus on it at this time, because things are looking keepist in general at the moment. The outcome 90%+ percent of the time is redirect to a higher-level article, which is why I think a BOLD redirection, particularly of the smaller or unsourced articles, is the way to go. If someone doesn't like it, then AfD it, but I've done that 4-5 times now and never been challenged Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

List of Turkish architects

• Hello. I noticed that you edited the List of Turkish architects article. I have two questions that I'd like to discuss:

- I noticed that all the additions that were made by various users have been reverted. Some of the very important Turkish architects were deleted from the list. I believe the reason you did this change is because none of these articles were created in English Wikipedia otherwise they'd be on the list. Am I right? Otherwise for instance Sedad Hakkı Eldem is undoubtedly one of the most important Turkish architects of its time.

- Also I believe what each architect designed should not be a part of this article. If you look at the other countries, they only listed the name of the architects only. Therefore I deleted the building names. Thank you. Mimar77 (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Mmar. As I mentioned in the edit summary, I deleted entries which lacked both wp articles (i.e., redlinks) and appropriate independent RS refs, per WP:LISTPEOPLE which indicates that one or the other should exist (some people actually read it as requiring multiple refs, if no article exists. Some editors do accept links to other wikipedias -- while others do not, saying that they do not necessarily have the same notability requirements. None of these had such links, however, and personally I take the more liberal approach myself here, and do not delete such entries (though I don't challenge others who do). You should feel to re-add such names if they either a) have a wp article you can link to on english wp (to be safe), or have appropriate refs. You can find discussions of those approaches on talkpages. As to what each architect designed, I agree that it is unusual to list the building names, but as I am not aware of a prohibition against it I did not myself delete those names.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the explanation. I will either create english wp articles for the architects that I believe are notable. Or I will add them to the list with redlinks with appropriate references. Mimar77 (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Joseph's School, Oamaru

For shits and giggles, see the latest contribution. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Going a little bit too far now

Would you like an ANI about your iinsidious suggestions - and a few other things to boot? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just read your first diff -- you are joking, right? And forgot to put a smiley face at the end of you sentence?

Did you really think that that was anything other than a joke? If so, how is that possible?

First of all -- what could the COI possibly be? Oh was seeking deletion of a school that had the name Confucius in it. People with real COI seek to create non-notable articles about themselves or something they are connected to. Not delete them. That's pretty obvious, no?

Plus, As you can tell from the top of this page, Oh has corresponded with me for years.

Plus, and most importantly -- in case anyone somehow didn't get it, there was a smiley face at the end of the joke. That means, in common parlance, the same as "jk, jk, jk", and "LOL", and "the aforesaid is a joke". I'm completely thunderstruck, Kud. --Epeefleche (talk) 09:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Mea culpa. Severe oversight on my part! --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Logical conclusion I'm afraid - everyone here knows I live practically just round the corner from KK uni (I also used to teach there). Perhaps you should make it clear whom you are addressing, and for safety's sake keep the chat off serious discussions ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• But I did think I made it clear whom I was addressing. I addressed my comment to Oh.

Plus, the comment clearly related to a similarity between Oh's username and the name of the subject of the article. There is certainly a similarity between the names "OhConfucius" and "Confucius Institute at Khon Kaen University" -- but no such similarity at all between the name "Kudpung" and the name of the institute.

And I certainly have no idea what corner you live on. And apart from the other points made above, I added a smiley face (as you just did, just now). I remain thunderstruck.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• I guess it's true what someone once told me: across the internet, many cues are absent (visual and tonal, etc.). Add to that, the cultural aspect, and results can become unpredictable and misunderstandings can potentially crop up anywhere. I'm mildly tickled by this episode, and I hope you all can be too. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

oh 1 |ō|

exclamation

used to express a range of emotions including surprise, anger, disappointment, or joy, or when reacting to something that has just been said : “Oh no,” said Daisy, appalled | : Me? Oh, I'm fine | : oh, shut up. New Oxford American Dictionary

There's certainly a connection between that and the post that immediately preceded it. Oh well... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Kud -- You and I both indent when we want to refer to an immediately preceding comment. That wasn't indented. So -- as usual -- my comment referred to the initial statement of the nom . (Clue 1).

And the nom was named OhConfucuius, which would explain me calling him Oh, just as I call you Kud, and as many call me Epee .(Clue 2).

And the entire content in my note is pointing out the similarities between the names of the "subject of the article" {Confucius Institute ...} and that of the nom. Well, that name isn't even mildly similar to the name "Kudpung". But is starkly similar to "OhConfucius". (Clue 3).

And you have no reason to assert -- as you did -- that I (and "everyone here"?) know what corner you live on. (Clue 4).

And the post had a smiley face at the end. (Clue 5).

I had thought that with all of these contextual clues, there might have been a small chance that perhaps upon reconsidering them you might say something along the lines of ... "whoops, I erred, apologies for missing that (we all make mistakes), and for not assuming good faith (that might have led to a more friendly message from you even if you had still missed all 5 clues), and for the above message that was based on my misunderstanding." To which I would have responded: "No worries at all, mate -- I join Oh in being mildly tickled by it, and appreciate the note, and view the matter as completely behind us."--Epeefleche (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm just an old and wrinkled conservative, cantankerous, poker-faced Pom with absolutely no sense of humour. I thought you would have known that too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha, Lot of Laughs, that's funny. :-} _{[Previous message is meant for Kudpung; Note: OhConfucius -- please don't misinterpret it to think that I believe that you are funny].}--Epeefleche (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Dominik Büchele‎

I don't understand how WP:Music has any say on a reality tv show. WP:Music should stick to music. Kingjeff (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't refer to WP:Music. I referred to the music notability guideline talkpage, where the notability of contestants -- especially those who did not place in the top 3 -- in a Pop Idol-like contest was discussed. Wikipedia:Notability (music) does seem the correct church, and correct pew, as best I can tell. The guideline already speaks to when one is notable, depending on how one fairs in a major music competition. Feel free, though, to join the discussion there. Of course. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

But there are 4 distinctive phases. There is the auditions which is the first round, the recall which is the second round, the Top 15 (for Germany) which is the semi-final part and the Top 10 (for Germany) which is the final phase. So, he clearly qualifies under notability. Kingjeff (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll follow up on your comment at the Notability/Music talkpage linked to above, so as not to birfurcate our conversation. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You might want to check for albums and singles charts. I know he has done some. I don't know if any of them have been succesful enough. Kingjeff (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Right. The reason that I only tagged the Dominik Büchele article, and did not nominate it for AfD, is because while I think he may not be notable, I am not yet decided. His article failed (by the above criteria) to demonstrate notability. But at the same time, I saw enough in my review of the coverage of him to suggest that a deeper exploration was necessary -- there may be elements of notability in his case that are not reflected in the article. As you suggest. I'll not nominate it unless I am comfortable that I've been unable to find such other indicia of notability. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:MUSICBIO states that he "may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria". Point 2 states "has had a single or album on any country's national music chart". He's been on Germany national music charts. I hope this solves the problem. Kingjeff (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi King. I agree that meeting Point 2 would solve the problem.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Date format changes

What was the point of this edit[100]? The Cite News template enters the access date in the d Month year format. Even though I grew up with Month day, year, I don't see any good reason to take the time to hand enter the dates.--Hjal (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Then let me introduce you to ... WP:STRONGNAT.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

We've already met. However, at the top of this edit box is a set of templates for citing newspapers, journals, websites and books. For the access date, the "cite news" template uses the date format preferred by the U.S. military, as follows: <ref>{{cite news|last=Lastname|first=Firstname|title=Article title|url=www.foonews.com|accessdate=17 January 2012|newspaper=Foo News|date=January 3, 1927}}</ref>. It doesn't seem to use my local time, either. Perhaps you should try to get the template changed to do something different. The template's usage guidelines say, "accessdate: Date when the news item was accessed, if it was found online. Should be in the same format as the rest of the article. Must not be wikilinked." However, the version of template that this editing form provides does not have that functionality, and I doubt that it could be easily automated.--Hjal (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Help me, here. We are in agreement as to what the guideline says. But your problem is that the template that you are using has a default to a date format that is other than the one suggested by the guideline?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes... But it's not just "the template that you are using," it's the template provided by whatever authority creates the article edit box. Is there a policy somewhre that clarifies whether guidelines take priority over the actual infrastructure of the project? Regardless, I'm OK with you or others going around correcting the date formats. And I don't think that I will live long enough to understand the link that you sent me.--Hjal (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I see you are making many date format changes. By consulting WP:DATERET & MOS:DATEUNIFY & WP:STRONGNAT, you can see that YMD format for accessdate=s & archivedate=s is acceptable & thus should not be changed w/o consensus. There are scripts that avoid making changes to these fields.--JimWae (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Michael Henrich article

Another IP address originating from Italy has again removed the same well-sourced material from the Michael Henrich. Either Henrich himself is editing his article (as it's hockey season and he plays in Italy) to omit any published material that cites his lack of ability to make an NHL team, or someone who follows him around Italy is doing it. I suspect it's actually him, as all the IP addresses used since User:Casaroo was blocked originate from Ontario where he lives (the same material was removed from an IP in Toronto, Ontario and from a public library in Tiverton, Ontario in July - assuming home and while on vacation - which if that is the case is a bit disturbing IMHO). I requested that the page be semi-protected previously and was turned down - would you think that a new request is necessary? Clearly warnings do nothing to deter this user, and blocking IPs isn't helping. Semi-protection for a few months would solve the vandalism that is persistent on the article. Thoughts? --Yankees76 ^Talk 23:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sound idea -- though I would imagine you would be more likely to receive protection for a shorter period, at least initially. I support your thoughts -- feel free to link to here when positing your request. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks! --Yankees76 ^Talk 23:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Adelbert Range Trek

That article didn't see it coming. A move in 2005 then blam! Put'er down! I'm going through a backlog, would it be cool if I ask your opinion if some seem deletable? - RoyBoy 02:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Paradise Park, Cornwall

I've taken out about half of Paradise Park, Cornwall, a page you tagged as a copyright violation. I think that the remaining stuff, while similar to what is on their website, passes on the safe side of WP:Close paraphrasing, so I removed the G12 rather than deleting. However, if you have time, it would be great if you could take another look at it and see if maybe I'm just missing more copyvios. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Q. I've looked around, and can't find an original source that would indicate that what remains is a copyvio. It may well be -- it has zero refs, and I often find that unreferenced long text is a copyvio; and it may suffer from meeting our verifiability policy, but I can't find a primary source that it is copying. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Army Public School and College (Pakistan)

Would you mind clarifying your stance on the copyvio to the other editor in yes/no since the current list does not mirror the format of the original (actually it is pretty ugly here) and I've been reverted on re-adding - also see my edit summary. [101]. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, just started adding refs. I will try to add more refs from now on. --B for Bandetta (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Schools

If you go to any outback Australian town, you'll notice that there are a couple of permanent structures which form the centre of the town: a school, a pub, a war memorial and one and/or another of a railway station, police station or another pub. Take, for example, Junee, population ~3000, Maps which was practically built around Junee Public School. It's likely the same all over the planet, not just Junee.

These schools are the centres of their communities. Through their existence they have significant impact on the local history (and also, by definition, education) per WP:ORGIN. Now, for some schools its going to be hard to have anything but a stub verifying the existence of the school. In those cases it's better for the content to be merged into the locality (where, who knows, it may be able to incubate). But for schools where a bit more can be, or has been written, then that article deserves a little bit more consideration. Agree?

Junnee Public School, by the way, was founded in 1880 and is therefore one of the oldest schools in Australia. A number of its buildings are heritage listed. *shrug* ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Should this discussion not be taking place on WP:SCHOOLS? Notability is not decided in user space. The current definition of notability is quite clear - significant coverage in independent sources. If we don't have that then how would we 'know' that the school is notable? Fmph (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a discussion for the point of reaching a decision. It's just between two editors.

If we're going with significant coverage in independent sources, then half of what's been deleted over the past few weeks passes. I'd be happy with that, but I get the impression that Epeefleche wouldn't. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to dispute that. I think your interpretation of 'significant' and 'independent' are quite different from mine. Fmph (talk) 08:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What are you disputing? Independent significant sources? So Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle Harbour Public School (2nd nomination) passes, it had sources in SMH, a major broadsheet newspaper here in Australia. As I said, I think you're on the wrong track. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If that's 'half' then we are only disputing 2 noms, in which case I'd give you that one. Fmph (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

[102] Hey, I should say, I'm all for this. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What has any of that got to do with AfD noms? Fmph (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

All public primary schools in NSW have "public school" at the end of their name. About half of those results mention a school, like [103] (Ferncourt Public School), [104] (Gladesville PS), [105] (Rainbow St. PS), [106] (a whole bunch of schools topped by St. Francis Paddington Catholic School) and [107] (Rouse Hill PS)... All of these are notable because of the coverage they've received in an RS? If I can count on your Keep votes, I'll get started straight away. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, and back to what I was saying before, most of those schools are also interesting because they're quite old. From Ferncourt PS in 1886, Gladesville PS 1879, Rainbow St. PS (late 1890's?), and Rouse Hill (1875). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote count. As an aside, you seem to be concatenating numerous mentions of the term 'public school' with the requirement for significant references. Sure, most of this are independent sources. But significant coverage? I wouldn't think so. And anyway, my point was about your assertion that half the recent AfDs had significant coverage in independent sources. I just don't believe that half of them did have such. Else they would have survived. Show me a bunch of current AfDs with significant coverage in independent sources? Fmph (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

And having looked through those links, IMHO only two of them would help towards notability - Gladesville and Rainbow - but only if something else confirmed these were significant notability issues. A school which makes films? WP:RUNOFTHEMILL possibly. A Head removed by parental vote? Possibly, because the article mentions that heads were worried that it mighht set a precedent. Well if it had set a precedent and now there was a flurry of such votes, then as the first it would be notable. Have any of these been up for AfD? Fmph (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, OK. This is a problem. You don't have local knowledge. Principals are never voted against by their Parent groups, Rainbow St. PS is the only occurence I can recall in my history of having worked with NSW schools. Same goes for Ferncourt PS' Ethics program (Google for Ethics Schools NSW for a head slapping fun time regarding Religion-State relationship). As for precedent setting, Middle Harbour, pointed out above, set a precedent

I selected out those issues because they're pretty heavily covered in Australian media. You could find articles covering the same issues at various other Australian news outlets. *shrug* Therefore, you would suggest that articles on these schools should survive? As I said, cool. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You seem intent on putting words in my mouth. Where you see precedent, I see a one-off not-particularly-notable unusual occurrence. And we shouldn't need 'expert' or local knowledge to know if a subject is notable. The sources should tell us. Sorry, but you haven't convinced me of anything yet. 12:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You have quite successfully missed the point. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, nor am I trying to write an article in order to support the information that you should be able to see at the sources (seriously, you're suggesting that sources provide a complete justification for why schools are successful?). So, I'll recap:

I suggested that there be criteria for schools to fulfil in order to be considered notable, based on the relatively more subjective nature of WP:ORG. You suggested that schools be considered notable on the basis of mentions in reliable sources. I provided a number of articles mentioning schools in regards to fairly major and well reported issues (here in Australia) where I would worry that Epeefleche, among others, would not consider them to pass muster. You moved the goal-posts and said that they're not notable because we shouldn't need local knowledge to understand that the issues are major. You appear to have abandoned your first point that schools be considered notable on the basis of mentions in reliable sources, and therefore we can leave it aside as being a distraction like I first thought. Did I miss anything?

I'll return, again, to the point that Epeefleche and I were going to discuss: a more objective means of identifying notable schools. Per my point above, I think that schools are significant components of their local communities and am more inclusive. I would suggest that age, enrolment, and status be a simple way of approaching the issue. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 06:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I'm the one missing the point.

1. I never mentioned 'mentions'. I was very clear. significant coverage in independent sources.
2. You tried and failed to convince me that every mention of the phrase 'public school' in an oz context meant half of recent AfD decisions were wrong. I'm guess some editorial licence was used.
3. I'll return to my original point. discussions on changes to, or agreement about defining notability, are not for users pace. WP:SCH would be a good place to start.
4. i'm done. This is unproductive.

Fmph (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hi all. I'll just comment on the last point. I agree with much of what Fmph says overall, on a substantive level, but (unless I'm missing something, which is possible) it is I think perfectly fine for editors to discuss their views on what the current state of play is, and what changes might be made to it and how such changes might be effected, on editor talkpages. As you can see from above posts from a number of members -- just on this talkpage -- it is certainly not unusual. As Wikipedia:User pages says, "User pages ... are useful for organizing and aiding the work users do on Wikipedia, and facilitating interaction and sharing between users. User pages mainly are for interpersonal discussion, notices, testing and drafts". But, your point is well taken that to get the broadest consensus, other pages -- whether they be a project talkpage or a notability talkpage or the like -- will be more likely to attract more editors. Judging from just the above string, however, I think that might at this point become very long, very quickly. No harm thinking it out here (though note: I may well delete it at some point in time). IMHO, of course. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It has been discussed at WP:WPSCH in the past (several times), and I'm told that there's an RfC in the works. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, are you planning on actually interacting with this topic (except to reply to Fmph) at any point, or was this exercise in WP:AGF a massive waste of time/effort on my part? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Waiting for the dust to settle, and others to have their say.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Dan -- it was helpful to better understand your views. I've given them some thought. As with many of wp's approaches, the approach used generally vis-a-vis schools is not one where there is an objective "correct" way to address it, and an objective "wrong" approach. What we do have is some guidance in guidelines, some guidance in course of dealing as reflected in other AfDs, and whatever the community consensus is. A number of editors seem not to take this approach -- for this reason, some of the conversation has been polarizing. And there has been a bit of posturing, where some editors state their position as though it is an ineluctable conclusion, and anyone who doesn't see it their way is stupid, uninformed, or evil. That's unfortunate.

My view is I'm happy to go with whatever the consensus view is. One problem with this of course is that different editors describe the consensus view differently. But there seems to be a general consensus on most articles. A notability guideline on schools would clarify the matter further, and streamline discussion.

I hear your view, and if there were consensus support for it, I would actively support application of it. I don't see that support. If you can create it, I will support you, but until then I think it may not be in the best interest of all to apply a notability approach at AfDs themselves that is contrary to the notability approach we've seen garner consensus support at those AfDs that we both have been at. Better to seek to garner that support on talkpages, I think. IMHO, of course.

As to tone -- as I said, I think that conversation has become polarized, but there is no need for it. I don't think that personally directed remarks do much to win third parties over. Just the opposite. I would suggest that all tone down the snarkiness, to raise the intellectual level of the discourse. That's not giving in. That's just effective wiki discussion, IMHO.

Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have come to the opinion that half of the editors in primary school AfDs could/should be ignored as all they see are "primary school" and !vote accordingly.

The other half, I feel, have an unbalanced view of what is and is not notable in regards to wikipedia. As an example which I found while working on a draft in my userspace the other day, Alfords Point Bridge, which is a 4 lane minor bridge over the upper section of the George's River would probably be considered notable, even though it has barely any "significant coverage" whereas nearby Alfords Point Public School would be rejected out of hand, no matter what sources could be found (not that I'm saying it's notable, it's way outside my area of work). I am wondering what, then, would be enough?

Ignoring your deletion blitz over new years, and just concentrating on your recent AfD activity in regards to schools (where I assume that you have started following WP:BEGIN): you have rejected a school which was exceptionally highly ranked in standardised tests and involved in statewide significant programs (i.e., the Ethics program which has been widely reported in NSW and Australia) and you've rejected a school which has been on the receiving end of major grants. So what, then, is enough? What would make a primary school notable in your eyes?

Two points. One -- you've not taken on my suggestion as to personal attacks. I imagine you either don't agree as to my comments in that regard, or have some other driver. Second -- in both the AfDs you point to the consensus is that there should not be a stand-alone article. You might give some thought as to why that is the consensus view -- not just one editor's view, but the consensus view of the community at those AfDs. If you believe in WP:CONSENSUS, you might wish to have that impact your future !votes. All I see in your above post is that you disagree with others -- what I'm asking you to consider doing is to recognize consensus here, how your view has been a non-consensus one at times, and how you might bring your notability !votes into closer line with consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see personal attacks in what I've said above. I don't know what you're talking about. If you're talking about Purplebackpack89, then I've explained why I think that there are serious competence issues, and they're legitimate.

WP:CONSENSUS can only work as far as people participate in discussion from a neutral standpoint. As I said, AfD in regards to school seems to progress with people starting from a standpoint of primary schools are not notable and can not be proved to be notable (half of the !vote'ers won't stick around to continue the discussion, and the other half, seemingly or avowedly (in at least one case), believe that there is nothing that an editor can do to prove the notability). This is a place where a consensus, at least in it's normal sense here at wikipedia can't be achieved. Like WP:RFA, for example, there are some serious issues that need to be worked out.

Negotiation would be fantastic, and I'm more than willing to see if that can happen. But that can't happen when one party won't even spell out their position. So, again, my question to you in order to find some area where there can be compromise is, again, what do you think needs to be done to show that a primary school is notable? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

So editors who believe that primary schools are inherently non-notable won't even spell out their position? I would have thought that was about as clear a position as could possibly be. But you don't. C'est la vie. Vive la difference! Fmph (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It's also completely intractable. It'd be like a gay marriage discussion where there are a myriad of views possible between allowing gay marriage for various reasons and disallowing them for various reasons, and then the position that gay people aren't human. *shrug* ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Dan -- if you don't see you're personal attack, perhaps that is part of the problem. As to your substantive remarks, I would not agree that -- just because an editor does not wish to devote his Saturday brunch time to chatting with you -- his position is baseless. If an editor were to say: "I think that, absent special indicia of notability, individual football games are not notable", and choose not to get into a long discussion as to "why", that would be understandable. So it is here. And many like-minded editors have in fact discussed their views with you. If you wish to seek consensus for a bright-line rule that every school that is 50 years old, for example, or any other such view that you hold, that's fine and commendable. If you can gain consensus for it, that would streamline discussion. However, there is no evidence that that view has consensus support. Quite the opposite. In the interim, acknowledging what consensus is on points like that, and that while you sincerely hold certain views they are not the consensus views of the community, would perhaps be helpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If you are so sensitive as to interpret criticism of your and/or your colleagues' behaviour as criticism of your and/or your selves, then... *shrug*

If you had put thought to what constitutes notability for a school article (as is practically required by steps C & D under WP:BEGIN), then it shouldn't be too hard to spell out a scenario in which a primary school article passes by your criteria. I've laid out some of my criteria above, you should be able to do the same. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Your fellow editors have a right to dislike personal attacks and inflammatory statements, and be sensitive to them. A failure to AGF, and continued unfounded accusations of what an editor is thinking or what an editor's actions are off-wiki with regard to looking for sources -- especially in light of their disavowals -- is not appropriate. And may do little to help you make the point you are trying to make. As to your notability standards, I've already pointed out that they are non-consensus, as demonstrated in the very two AfDs you point to. Your view that being 50 years old makes a school notable does not appear to be a consensus view. If there were an RFC on the subject, I think that editors would be split as to whether some number of years would -- without more -- make a school notable, but I expect based on what I have seen at the AfDs that the notion that a 50-year-old school is per se notable would be rejected out of hand. In any case, there isn't a need to address hypothetical schools -- we have our hands and time full with real schools. Though I do think a guideline would be helpful. In the meantime, I urge you to consider in what way your views at those two AfDs are at odds with the consensus views of your colleagues, and perhaps let that influence your thinking as to what the consensus approach is at wp. We are a collaborative community; it is great to have different views, and discuss them, but at the end of the day if your view is not that of the community it does little good to retreat into disparaging others who don't share your view. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "personal attacks" when a user flat out states what his views are (i.e., that WP:BEGIN is beneath him, that all primary schools are "non-notable"). Equally it's not a matter of personal attacks when AfD nominations are made at such a frequency that any consideration of notability simply could not be performed as in your case between your nominations of Engadine Public School and Middle Harbour Public School. In any case, this is criticism of your behaviour, not an attack on your person. The continuing soccer-player style faking of injury for the benefit of spectators/"referees" is really quite tedious.

You still evade the question of what, in your mind, would constitute notability for a primary school. I've asked you directly several times now and put forward my views. WP:AGF can only go so far before your evasiveness begins to suggest that you're deliberately keeping your position nebulous in order to hide your real perspective. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a personal attack to ask an editor "do you do x off-wiki", have them respond "yes", and then assert blandly that they have not done x. It is also a failure to AgF. That's without even discussing any personalized attacking statements at AfDs and elsewhere. It strikes me that a number of editors have raised similar concerns with regard to NPA and AGF. As with giving a think to the consensus at AfDs, and how your views have differed from those of your colleagues at times, you might do well to pay heed to concerns about personal attacks. As a side matter, that could perhaps be a reason why some editors who disagree with your simply state their disagreement succinctly -- some might thing that they are "feeding" behavior by engagement beyond what is necessary. Editors, you may have noticed, aren't required to engage in you, though from the above you can tell that some have paid you that courtesy up until this point. But where questions have been answered, and you pose them again because you dislike the response -- as in your last query -- there is really little more to say other than "read the prior post". Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Gallery gun

I have started this, will give it more attention this evening.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice work.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not real happy with it yet. I will probably make subsections on "Gallery gun", "Parlor gun", "Flobert gun" and when I get better source material "Saloon gun" (A larger caliber rifle with a chamber insert to allow it to shoot smaller rounds indoors).--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can move it along quickly enough, you may well have a DYK.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Walter Bosshard

Hi Epeefleche. Was reviewing CSD and came upon Walter Bosshard. The article is certainly deletable as the text stands now, but there is a detailed article on the German Wikipedia about him. I will try to expand with my limited German and help from brother Google. -- Samir 22:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Joe Claussell

just a heads up on the article that just closed as delete at AfD. Don't know how you came across it but there were a ton of redirects. Just a heads up in case his article pops up again. StarM 23:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

YOur edit at my talk page

While I understood and accepted yor concern, the way you expressed it makes me wondering whether you spend too much time in wikipedia or simply disrespect the colleagues who are not well versed in policies, guidelines, traditions and other wikilore and wikilaw. Lom Konkreta (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Responded. Best. Have a pleasant day.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As I have already said, I understood what you really meant, despite a thick layer of accusation in vandalism, disruption and whats not. Hopefully my skin is thick, I can see through wikiholism. I made the comment above in hope you will take it easier on warning templates, which may be quite discouraging and for a newbie look more like fight than cooperation. I cannot believe that you really thought that my goal was to disrupt your nomination. Quite the opposite: I threw in a yet another article of equal quality. (Or did you think that it may be kept?) Lom Konkreta (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries. My concern was that you added -- into my post, preceding my signature, and altering the text that I had written -- the suggestion that a second article be nominated for AfD. That of course made it appear, to someone reading the post, as though I had suggested the 2nd album for deletion. While I had done nothing of the kind. And, as I indicated to you, would not have. I don't think that the 2nd article should be deleted. Changing another person's words, to make it appear that they said something that they did not say, is I would think obviously something that should be avoided. It doesn't matter whether it is a doctoral dissertation they write, a check they make out, a wikipedia AfD posting, or a note to their friend -- to alter their words, and have it appear that they said something that they did not say, should I would think be something one would obviously avoid. One doesn't need to be "versed versed in policies, guidelines, traditions and other wikilore and wikilaw" I would think to realize that this is something one might avoid doing. IMHO, of course. If you wish to nominate a second article for deletion, feel free to start an AfD on it. But please don't change my words, including changing the words within a sentence that I wrote, making it seem as though I took a position that it the opposite of my view. Much appreciate. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of GAA pages

I am questioning your decision to eliminate numerous GAA pages. Yes, these competitions are amateur, but if you use that rationale you should eliminate all GAA pages since the organization is an amateur body. You could use the same rationale to eliminate many rugby pages, but I do not see you doing this. Yes, some pages by some users are badly written, and contain elements of bias, but these articles contain important GAA info. If you understood the nature of the sport, you would see that the small parish club playing in its own local competition is as important as Kerry playing in Croke Park. I have tried to clean up some articles, but it takes time to get to to the hundreds of different ones that have been set up. Good manners are rather uncommon nowadays, but please try to provide some common courtesy. Pmunited (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Perhaps we have different views as to notability. For example, I see that I suggested that a page be deleted -- Limerick Minor Hurling Championship -- which apparently you created, that is about an amateur, county-wide, under-18 hurling competition that appears to me to be non-notable. It also happens to be bereft of refs, which falls short of meeting our policy at wp:v. I do think there is a place for notable amateur events, but this does not seem to me to fall into that class.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

When I first started with Wikipedia, there were extensive articles on these types of competitions in several different counties. I began to add the few I was most familiar with - Cork, Waterford, Clare. I would argue that to a GAA fan, these are important, as any club will on its own website will list not just their senior success, but also their minor, under-21 etc. I feel that Wikipedia should have this information. I have generally refrained from adding articles on "B" competitions, unless I have complete data. I am in the process of adding the sources that I have for many of the competitions that you have challenged. If I do not have sources at hand, I will notify you and understand if you proceed as indicated. One possible problem I do see is with the Waterford competitions. I began those, but several others have added lots of data since on teams, scores, etc. I am not sure if I have sources available. Pmunited (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Understood. The text for notability on wp is not, however, whether it would be notable to a GAA fan. It must meet our notability standards. These under-age-21, amateur, count-level competitions do not as best I can see meet our notability standards. We have many sports represented on wp that are themselves notable, but where such amateur, age-group, local competitions that do not meet our notability standards are not covered.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Epeefleche and Pmunited - I'm not unfortunately au fait with a lot of the language used around deletion policies and notability on Wikipedia. Just to suppport Pmunited's broad stance on the issue at hand. Some of the articles proposed for speedy deletion were created by me. I will do my best to supply sources and references. Best wishes. Heshs Umpire (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Greetings. Many thanks for your contributions. Unfortunately, many of the articles were completely or largely unsourced, bereft of indicia of notability. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Epeefleche, I still disagree with you concerning the notability of these GAA articles. I believe that you cannot get a full understanding of GAA from only the senior competitions. The whole ethos of the GAA is the local club. All competitions are amateur. The other grades are very important - indeed most clubs do not play at senior level. I will continue to add sources for as many articles as possible this week. I do think you are taking an over aggressive position in many places, where you have deleted large amounts of information. Pmunited (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To warrant a wikipedia article, a subject must be notable. Much material has been added that appears to be non-notable. Notability is not measured as you suggest by whether a fan of the sport would find the under age 18, for example county-level competition to be notable. If it were, we would reflect all manner of age-18 local-level amateur competitions as stand-alone wp articles. We don't, because even though a fan of such competitions may like to have a wp article, they generally do not meet our standards of notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I would add my support to the two other contributors, we are only doing our best to help build a record of such competitions for people to be able to access, admittedly in certain cases references are difficult to find, if they exist in published form at all, but in spite of this are quite accurate records of the competitions in question. And yet that work is been disregarded by someone who doesn't understand where we come from on this subject, hiding behind this 'notability' nonsense. Not the first time this has happened on wikipedia, makes you wonder why bother with it at all. BlackWhite77 (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand. Unfortunately (or not, depending on one's view), wikipedia is not a repository for all information that everyone would like record. See, for example, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. This is no doubt a disappointment to some, as many people would like to record information with regard to their favorite person, company, school, sports team, mall, book, etc. -- our "notability" and deletion discussions always involve articles that reflect some record some person or persons wanted to record. People are, of course, able to create their own websites and host there information that they would like the world to see. But wp is not, as I said, for hosting all information. For that reason, wp developed a sifting process -- standards that articles must meet in order to be hosted on the Project. Even if something "exists" and there is "accurate" information about it, that is not in itself generally sufficient. It must be what wp deems notable, which is a higher bar. Our general notability guidelines, and some of the rationale behind them, can be found at Wikipedia:Notability. More specific guidelines as to sports can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). WP may view an article as non-notable, and delete it, if it fails to meet these guidelines. This is the case even if a matter is "true" and accurate". For some reason, we do see from time to time articles that lack substantial, independent coverage on a county-wide, amateur, 18-years-olds competition in some sport. That is the sort of thing that is of great interest to those connected with the competition, but may well not meet our standards for notability. Most sports don't have a great deal of this type of article on wp -- this goes as well for sports that are Olympic sports, as it does for those that are non-Olympic sports. The people who created articles that don't meet our standards may well not have been aware of them in the first place, which is unfortunate. But the reasons for what you call this "notability nonsense" are as described in the links that I gave you, and the articles that can be linked to through those. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Folks, Further to what Epeefleche says if you believe these articles are notable in the sense that the subjects are well known within the GAA world; but that they are not notable in the Wikipedia sense of being noted in Neutral, Independent, Reliable sources with enough detail that we can write an article - Then why not consider moving them to writing them on our sister site Wikia? Wikia doesn't have any notability requirements and will happily take your articles within a specific sub wiki all about GAA. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

thanks for the message, let me know if there is a 2nd AFD nomination, also it happend during the Afd disscution of Arsames (band), where the writter of article is the promotor of the band! and I think the article is not proper for wikipedia. plz take a look. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Userspace

Sorry, but your nomination of User:PJKs shirt/Southmoor Primary School is a disgrace. Please respect someone userspace and the drafts in it. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As I indicated at the AfD, the deletion request was lodged initially in the wrong place. Somehow, it came up in my general search. I asked (as I expect you know) at the AfD that it be moved, as it did not belong at AfD. I see that (after the mis-placed AfD was properly closed) another editor has now nominated the text at issue for deletion at MfD (where I had requested the discussion be moved), with a third editor supporting its deletion. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PJKs shirt/Southmoor Primary School. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That draft article in userspace has now been deleted. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PJKs shirt/Southmoor Primary School.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Serial nominating

I hereby complain about your serial nominating. I have only picked out a few to check, and in all cases I could easily find reliable sources. Could you please lower your nomination pace and do a genuine effort to find sources for articles you nominate? I would hate to bring this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, but you are seriously disrupting Wikipedia with your actions. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Nominating things for deletion is not disrupting the project--Guerillero | My Talk 14:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The sheer volume of his nominations combined with the dodgy quality makes it disrupting. With a nomination as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:PJKs shirt/Southmoor Primary School, an article in the userspace, I start doubting about AGF. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I came to this talk page after seeing the userspace page at AfD. I'm not going to address the "serial nominating" complaint, but I just wanted to chime in that userspace drafts can be deleted per WP:STALEDRAFT, and they often are at MfD. The way I see it, Epeefleche's main violation with this specific AfD is that he opened the discussion at AfD instead of MfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That draft article has now been deleted. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PJKs shirt/Southmoor Primary School.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like good work to me. Pointing out an obvious mistake as the tipping point to stop assuming good faith shows poor judgement on the part of the complainant. The sheer volume of dodgy quality articles that exist warrants bringing many to the appropriate forums to see if they belong. I often see passing complaints in the AFD discussions that focus on why the nominator is wrong to nominate articles rather than just sticking to making a black and white point as to why they should be kept. We've got janitors and we've got researchers. Janitors are very important to help sweep up the crap and push researchers to improve. I've seen many articles, stagnant for years, that get pushed into good quality articles because someone nominated them for deletion. Unless you have specific evidence that indicates bad faith, don't pull that card out. You've got a lot of volunteers here. Some see a problem and want to make sure it's noticed and taken care of by a more knowledgeable editor or one that has more free time. We don't all have the luxury of time to dig out and insert sources but we may have time to point out that something needs a broader look. Both types of contributors are needed, welcomed, and valued. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 16:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A janitor normally uses a mop, Epeefleche uses a Bulldozer. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This business of dividing Wikipedia into lazy finger pointers and article-clean-up crew has no basis in reason.  AfD is not clean-up.  If we wanted to use AfD for clean-up, we could set a robot to work nominating articles for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• The vast majority of those articles on which I !vote delete or nom for deletion are closed as deletions or redirects, rather than maintaining the stand-alone article. The vast majority of those articles on which I !vote keep are closed as keeps or merges. The AfD that Night refers to was initially misplaced, as discussed above and at the AfD itself. The discussion has been, as I requested, moved to MfD, where so far all editors who have !voted believe it should be deleted. As to looking for sources, it is my practice to look for them in gnews and gbooks, at minimum, and not !vote for deletion or nom an article unless I see an absence of substantial, multiple, RS coverage. That is borne out in the percentage of my noms that result in deletions or redirects.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Because nobody is prepared to spend all day to counter your flood of PRODs and AfD's... Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The only reason that so many of these articles have been deleted is because there has been a concerted campaign in the absence of the usual active school editors. The sheer scale of the nominations has also meant that people haven't had the time to investigate them all properly. A number of legitimate articles have been deleted or redirected as a result of this campaign. I'm already in the process of trying to restore a couple of affected articles. Another side-effect of this deletionist campaign is that new editors who have just started to contribute to Wikipedia get frightened away if their first attempt to create or edit an article results in that article being deleted. I've already seen this happen in one case where a well sourced article for a notable primary school got caught up in this frenzy of activity. It is very disruptive to the project. Dahliarose (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yet more bad faith accusations that only the 'inclusionists' investigate AfD candidates properly. Total and utter nonsense. 'Deletionists' also investigate properly. They just come to different conclusions. Doh!. Fmph (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment  The half a dozen articles that I have seen nominated were either redirected without deletion or kept.  These nominations were a diversion of editorial resources.  The point is that if there are reliable primary sources for a primary school, and limited secondary sources, that a concerned editor should move the reliable material to the parent article and do the redirect him/herself.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• As I said -- the vast majority of those articles on which I !vote delete or nom for deletion are closed as deletions or redirects, rather than maintaining the stand-alone article. The vast majority of those articles on which I !vote keep are closed as keeps or merges. Some editors I understand would simply redirect such articles without discussion, as Un might (they think that takes care of getting rid of the stand-alone (the main issue), that there is little harm in a redirect, and that that avoids discussion). I don't choose to, because that deprives any editor with a different view--who looks at AfDs but does not have the individual article on his watchlist--of a voice. As to school articles, those AfDs that are currently open at which I've !voted or nominated the article are listed here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools; it seems that they are likely, for the most part, to close in accordance with my nominations or !votes.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that your 150 nominations have a poor record for needing admin tools, that was true for my sample of six, and you don't deny it when you group delete, delete-and-redirect, and redirect-without-delete all together.  Since my last discussion here I started down the list of school AfDs that you provided and was able to look at only two before I got to Auburn Village School, not one of your noms, not even technically a bad nom, because the article failed WP:V, but IMO a poorly-prepared nom that didn't assert that the topic failed WP:V, and given that the nom was claiming that a primary school failed notability, the nom IMO should not have been allowed to proceed at AfD.  I spent a couple of man days and have found that the topic is not only WP:V verifiable, it is notable enough for a stand-alone article.  It is easy to understand that you are frustrated about some recent events, so I hope you aren't taking it out on the work of editors that created primary-school articles.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I follow much of that. I'm not sure I do those things. But as to the AfD you refer to, which is one I've !voted on but which as you say was nominated by another editor, I'll follow its course with interest. Other than that, I stand by what I said above. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I am frankly ashamed of the bad faith assumed by Danjel, Dahlia and Big Wind. They seem to have parleyed not liking the results of discussions into Epeefleche and I being menacing, incompetent editors who are always acting in bad faith. This is just deplorable Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

in re: MFD

		Civility Award
		For not losing your cool in a situation where others might and calmly pointing to policy, it's my very good honor to award you The Civility Barnstar. Achowat (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Achowat's talk page.

Suggestion

Hi E. I saw your post on the TV project notice board about KBCH-TV. I thought that I would let you know that the number of editors that respond there has dwindled over the years. In case you don't get a quick response you may want to also post your question at the Wikipedia talk:Notability or even Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). I can't guarantee that they will be any better but I jsut wanted to give you some options. For what its worth I don't think it meets wikiP's requirements. Cheers and enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 23:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

AFDs and article tagging

I am somewhat concerned about your recent edits. You seem to be very actively tagging articles for lack of references and nominating articles for deletion. I have not investigated all the articles that you've tagged and nominated but I have been involved in some of the school article that you've nominated for deletion or tagged. I've noticed that you often seem to inappropriately add ref improve tags to articles that already have references. Many of your school AfDs have been flawed. You seem to be under the misconception that all primary schools are non-notable which is not the case. School articles have to comply with WP:N. While perhaps the majority of primary schools will not merit an article in their own right, many do. Some notable historic schools have been caught up in this AfD campaign of yours while regular editors have been busy and not able to help improve and source the articles. Work now has to be done to get these articles restored. Your edit history suggests that you only spend a few minutes looking at each article before tagging it or nominating it. Could I suggest that you devote less time to tagging and deleting and more time to constructive editing by adding useful content and sources. If you are going to tag articles or nominate them for deletion you should spend more time reading the article, checking that references exist and checking to see what sources are available. Dahliarose (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide some specific examples? Does this fall under the discussion above? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This does fall under the discussion above on serial nominating though attention now seems to be diverted to serial tagging instead. Lyneham Primary School is an example of an article that got tagged despite already having 11 references. This article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Peter's Middle School, Old Windsor got deleted and then I had to spend some time working out procedures to get the article restored under the redirect. When the article was first nominated there were no sources so the initial votes were based on that, but it was the same few people who have recently been popping up at school AfDs and routinely voting delete on the basis that primary schools are inherently non-notable. Even so, the infobox showed that the school was founded in 1799. I would have thought that any editor would realise that there was no such thing as a primary school in 1799. This knowledge would then alert them to different strategies to search for sources. Sources were subsequently added to the article, but too late to save it from its fate. I'm now working to get the article restored when I have more time. Also take a look at [this edit history prior to nominating Knoxfield Primary School for deletion. It is quite clear Epeefleche has made no attempt to look for sources prior to the AfD nomination. It may turn out that the article doesn't justify an article but each article needs to be considered on its own merits. There probably is a need to clear out a lot of rubbish on Wikipedia but careless drive-by editing without following proper procedures such as WP:BEFORE is not the way to do it. Dahliarose (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

As to school articles, those AfDs that are currently open at which I've !voted or nominated the article are listed here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools. It seems that they are likely, for the most part, to close in accordance with my nominations or !votes. That has been the case generally - the overwhelming majority of articles on which I have voted delete at or nominated have closed with the stand-alone article/text being erased. Similiarly, the overwhelming majority of articles on which I have !voted keep have closed with their text being kept as a stand-alone or as a merge. Furthermore -- I've stated in the past that I routinely do a wp:before search, which includes gnews and gbooks at a minimum, before nominating an article. No doubt, that has much to do with why the closes tend so often to be in line with my !votes.

I took a glance at the most recent AfDs at which Dahliarose and I !voted and had different views. It does happen. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Bede's Prep School, she !voted keep, I !voted delete or redirect, and the close 3 days ago was redirect. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Li Sing Primary School, she !voted keep, I nom'd the article and indicated I was open to a delete or redirect, and the close 26 days ago was redirect. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Peter's Middle School, Old Windsor, she !voted keep, I nom'd the article and indicated I was open to a delete or redirect, and the close 26 days ago was redirect. So it is clear that Dahlia and I have had substantive differences. (We were, at the same time, in accord that the text should not be deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Army Public School and College (Pakistan), and the close agreed with us). There are, of course, times where I may !vote or nom delete, and the result will be keep, but they are the distinct minority. The last 3 AfDs where we have differed, as I've indicated, the consensus been as indicated above, and all open school AfDs seem likely to close in similar manner.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Editors will necessarily have disagreements on the outcomes of articles but you still haven't answered the salient points raised above with regards to serial deleting and serial tagging both of which are disruptive. Serial deletions do not allow editors to assess the situation properly, leading to flawed AfD decisions. Your editing history suggests that you are not making the necessary checks for sources before nominating articles for deletion. It is impossible to do proper checks in two or three minutes. What's the point of providing links to searches if you don't spend any time reading through them before nominating? Your school searches are also flawed as schools often undergo name changes so a school with "primary" or "middle" in its name would have been called something else in the past. It takes time to make these sorts of checks and establish the history. Searches also need to be done on the local version of Google for the appropriate country not on Google USA. Dahliarose (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, editors will always have substantive disagreements. My point as to our difference in view was that in the last 3 differences that we have had, the consensus has supported my view. And that the vast majority of the time, my !vote at AfD has been in accord with consensus. That is a salient point -- it strikes me that you came to my page to complain, directly after 3 disagreements where the consensus was that your view was not the correct one. Also, as to the school articles currently at AfD -- another salient point -- the "problem" that you identify does not appear to exist. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools. Furthermore -- I've said repeatedly that I routinely conduct a wp:before search that includes gbooks and gnews. I never said -- and am curious that you would assert that that is the case -- that I do it directly before a nomination. To the contrary, I routinely do my searches first on a number of articles, check other non-online sources if available, and only then nominate articles. Your above assertion that "It is quite clear Epeefleche has made no attempt to look for sources" is flatly untrue -- please stop making such untrue assertions. As to refimprove tags -- they are not for articles wholly bereft of refs; there is a separate tag for that -- and they help encourage compliance with our core policy of wp:v.

I do hope that you are not casting false aspersions simply because of substantive disputes. I welcome you giving voice to your views on substantive issues where we differ. It is to afford editors like you that opportunity that I do not boldly -- as some have suggested -- redirect such articles, as that would hide such action from editors who only follow the deletions boards and do not follow the articles. But I think that baseless aspersions and failures to AGF do not advance our discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Your editing history shows that you are drifting very rapidly from one article to another adding tags, prodding and nominating articles for deletion. Thankfully you've stopped mass nominating schools for deletion but in about six weeks from the middle of December onwards over 150 of the 200 or so schools that were nominated for deletion were nominated by you. I'm not too fussed about the outcome of individual school AfDs. I can easily reinstate the ones I'm interested in that merit standalone articles. It's just more hassle and more work. I'm more concerned about the bigger picture and ensuring that proper procedures are followed. Dahliarose (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You appear not to have read my prior post. Your assertion is false. Untrue. I'm uncertain as to why you would make a false assertion, have it pointed out to you that it is false, and then repeat it. I described for you above how I review articles before AfD. I also referenced the last 3 articles where we differed. In each case consensus supported my !vote and rejected yours. I supplied the link to all ongoing school AfDs at which I have !voted or nominated articles. That also reflects the same pattern of in-consensus !voting on my part. I recognize that we may differ at times substantively, which is fine. But if you would please stop making baseless assertions, that would be most appreciated.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Your 150+ school AfD nominations are in your editing history so it's not a false accusation. The outcome of individual school AfDs is immaterial. The problem was the sheer scale of the nominations which did not allow editors the chance to review the articles, let alone add sources. I see no point in discussing this issue further, but I'm pleased to note that your editing has now moved to more constructive areas and that you are now welcoming new editors. I hope the problem will not recur again. Dahliarose (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually -- the problem today is your repeated false assertion as to my wp:before search. It is false. It is inconsistent with the degree to which the AfDs close in accord with my !votes. It is inconsistent with the fact that where we have disagreed these past three weeks at AfD, it is your view that has been rejected. I've told you that more than once that your assertion is incorrect, and explained how I do my wp:before search. Please stop making false assertions. You and I disagreed at the last three school AfDs that we both !voted on over the past month. In each instance, the community rejected your view. You followed those three disagreements, these last three weeks, closing with the consensus being against you by littering my page the above repeated false accusation. Your maligning of an editor whose substantive view is other than yours -- to the extent that you repeat mis-truths as to their wp:before search -- is perhaps not helpful. And, when it comes in the wake of the community deciding that your view was not the consensus view at the three most recent AfDs at which the two of you !voted, it raises questions why you are making these untrue assertions. Please -- feel free to disagree with me and with other editors on substance. But please don't make untrue assertions as to their wp:before behavior, just because over the last three weeks the community has viewed your substantive position as wrong. Please don't do it here -- if you otherwise feel impelled to, you can stay off this page -- and please don't do it elsewhere. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Egypt parliamentary elections 2011-2012

Hello, I noticed you were interested in that article, so I invite you to please let me know what you think about the following discussion: [108]. Thanks! --B for Bandetta (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of the results of your last 25 Primary-school AfD nominations

Of your last 25 Primary-school AfD nominations, two of the 25 resulted in the use of admin deletion tools.  These 25 ran from Knoxfield Primary School through Finchale Primary School.  The two exceptions are:

• Engadine_Public_School deleted by Guerillero on 17 January
• Mater_Dolorosa_Catholic_School_%28South_San_Francisco%29 deleted by Guerillero on 17 January
  

FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• In how many of them did the result match my request -- which I imagine, in if not all, was to ax the standalone article, and either delete or redirect it? And in how many was the article, in contrast, closed a keep?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"ax the standalone article" is not a defined term, so I'd be arguing if I tried to answer.  "AfD" stands for "articles for deletion", not "articles for axing".  To answer your other question, there were two cases of keep in the 25.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the kind words, and help, at the Sleepy Hollow AFD. I appreciate it. Sergecross73 msg me 03:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Advice

Epeefleche you need to take the advice of others and back of. You are both as bad as each other and no good will come to either of you by continuing it you both have history. Im saying the same to night. This has dragged on and its clear now neither you are totally in the right.

Also I'm going to point out to you that me and night very rarely get along but in this case he had a point which I'm not saying you didn't but this only came to something when several people had the same issue as night did as i said at before if i had come across this i would of checked your recent prods as I'm sure you would mine to make sure they aren't all the same. Thats where this should of ended before you both felt you were hounding each other. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've never hounded Night. Please see wp:HOUNDING. I've not followed Night around the Project (as he has admitted following me), turning up at pages he edited. And I've not at those pages confronted his edits with de-PRODs, and contrary !votes, and edit warring, and removal of appropriate tags, and violations of wp:CHALLENGED, and Twinkle abuse, and violations of wp:OR. And I've not written to him: "you can stick that hurling article straight up in your <censored>.". As Night has done. This has been pointed out to your repeatedly. I would appreciate it if you would not make accusations that are at odds with the facts.

As to my running a tool to see what percentage of my !votes are in-consensus, and then comparing them to the 2 editors who suggested that my !votes were flawed, it is a reasonable way in which to explore whether there was any basis in the assertion. Clearly, there isn't. When Night !votes in a non-consensus fashion 6x more than I am, it is certainly curious that he should say he is following me and confronting my !votes because of my poor !voting record. There is simply nothing in my running the tool to respond to that accusation that falls within wp:hounding — I've not at all followed Night to any article or AfD to confront his edits.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ive said the same to the both of you its up to you and night whether you leave each other alone or not is up to you.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said -- I've not engaged in wp:HOUNDING. There is no hounding behavior that I've engaged in, which I should "stop".

You're coming across like someone who, seeing one person hitting another, says "Both of you stop hitting each other". But I've never hounded Night, following him to articles to confront his edits. The record is replete, however, with him doing the opposite, with de-PRODs, and contrary !votes, and edit warring, and removal of appropriate tags, and violations of wp:CHALLENGED, and Twinkle abuse, and violations of wp:OR.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Im leaving this alone to be honest I'm sick of this Drama and would rather concentrate on content rather than waste time on a dispute. But ill tell you what i mean by back off as I've said at my last comment at ANI. Night started it no doubt. I don't think it extends as far as hounding however the deprods are fine anyone can do it possibly after that he took it to far and extended to personal attack albeit minor. Then why i say you needed to back off and bare in mind as i don't think nights was 100% hounding neither do i think yours are but by running reports going through archives to check for his warnings and block log that was looking at him just like he did to you it provoked him. Nights logs are not pretty but neither is yours. If he stays away from you and stops his attacks and what you perceive as hounding which he will because if he dosent it will be dealt with hay ill report him myself. Then its only correct that you agree to stop running reports on him and checking his talk page for stuff. Since you are a good editor and as you say the stats are ok my last point to you would be to say that is you appear to have upset a few people with your AFDS even although most are correct so all you have to do is slow down a bit. As far as i can see its the rate not the nomination thats annoying people have you considered helping at Wikipedia:New pages patrol they badly need the help of people reviewing and nominating new articles for deletion where appropriate. Im no longer watching ANI and will shortly unlatch your talk page.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you are full of good faith, but I don't think that you are reading carefully. Night's edits speak for themselves, and are well-documented. The string is poster-child to support the claims in that regard, including those of incivility, edit warring, etc.

As to hounding -- since I assume good faith, I assume that you are not reading the policy. It is very clear. Your assertions in my regard -- repeated an astonishing number of times, given their deficit -- are simple not true. This has been pointed out to you many times, and the policy has been provided to you in both inline fashion and in quoted extracts. The elements of what hounding is (which does not match my behavior in the least) and what hounding is not (which -- oddly enough, is what you keep on insisting is in fact hounding), are all there in the policy. And yet you keep repeating yourself, even with it being clear that your assertions are at direct odds with both the facts and the policy. It's all very curious.

If as you say Night desists in the complained about activity, that should address the concerns that started the string.

But you really owe it to yourself to read what the elements of hounding are. Wikihounding requires, which I've not done, following another editor to join discussions of the editor on multiple pages they edit, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. And then read the policy further, to see what is not wikihounding -- using contribution logs in a dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented. This is all spelled out quite starkly at wp:HOUNDING.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all it is you that calls it hounding not me when brought up at first forum it was very much not hounding at that time as was told to you by a couple of admins. It then escalated because night reacted badly to to what you call dispute res. Its not dispute res when you through it back in his face which you did even when you compared yourself to me that wasn't dispute res. Now you say night has a long history but so do you going back to your non productive days which are there to see as his are so you raking through his went you have history is provoking. Now night wasn't the only editor to disagree with you, As i see another editor is de prodding your articles so if they start de prodding your articles frequently will that be hounding and the next is that hounding. You need to stop taking things so seriously because this will keep happening. Edinburgh Wanderer 19:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it was hounding then (DGG only distinguished his edits -- but they were apples and oranges compared to Night's edits), and that of course is academic as the nature of the activity was made even more clear over the ensuing days. And yes -- I used contribution logs in a dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented. That's precisely what I did.

And it in no way involved following another editor to join discussions of the editor on multiple pages they edit, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. That is what hounding is. Read the policy. I didn't do that. Even you don't assert that I joined discussions Night was first engaged in or articles he edited to inhibit his work. Yet -- astoundingly -- while the elements of hounding aren't met in the least, you kept on repeating an untrue statement to the effect that there was hounding.

What i fail to understand is that why night leaving you alone isn't enough for you. It means you don't have to deal with him. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh -- I thought I said at AN/I that that would suffice, for me. I've sought to take a very civil approach with Night. I first engaged him in conversation, in both edit summaries and then moreso in talk page discussion across many posts. Only when that failed, did I bring the matter to a board. And though I could have brought it to AN/I, where sanctions are sought, I brought it to the far more mild wikiquette board. Of course, with the edit warring, incivility, and other violations, all of which fall into the nature of matters that can result in blocks, it perhaps would have been appropriate at AN/I. But my focus has been on exactly what you refer to, and I've not pushed as I might for sanctions beyond that, though I can understand why others have and would not think anyone wrong for applying them given the long string of behavior that has been detailed, and the prior warnings for the same ilk of behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The interaction ban is all thats needed but for that to work you need to agree to it too which is what I've been trying to get you to do. Now me an night have had arguments many times but he means well and actually i do wonder how you don't get along as you have very similar views. All I'm going to say is that you don't need to keep bringing up his past its evident as is yours. Now just because your past on wiki wasn't good does not mean you aren't productive now (which you are) and the same goes for night in the future so by constantly bringing up the past it encourages past behaviour to continue. The only positive for wiki is you both agree not to interact with each other and get on with your own lives. But please don't use reports in that way it makes night angry and in fact me as well there was no need to compare me as i don't doubt the validity in the end but i do some of the reasons as Gnews isn't conclusive for some of the more abscure ones and the speed. If this had been at a form of dispute res then maybe and in fact if you continue to disagree with other editors on this topic then i would do that as constant disagreement isn't going to go well in the long run.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That makes no sense. That is like it would have been had you suggested that Deborah Gibson not hound Robert Bardo. The record is replete with evidence of him hounding me, and I'm happy to accept his offer to not do so. The record has zero -- how much clearer can I be with your -- evidence of me hounding him, and I have not done so. If Night lives up to his word, which I assume he will, that will address for the future the problem that led to the noticeboard strings.

Furthermore, if you dislike the stark fact that hounding requires following an editor to articles that they have edited to confront their work -- then seek a change to the policy. Don't mis-state it. And if you don't like the fact that hounding does not include using contribution logs in a dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented -- then seek a change to the policy. Don't mis-state it.

Ed -- why don't you demonstrate your good faith here, indicate that you now understand that your accusations of hounding were misplaced as you had not carefully read wp:hounding, and stop trying to attack the victim? I can't imagine why you mis-stated wp:hounding and its application to the instant facts--again, and again, and again. And why you are now following up by again, and again, and again asking that the victim agree not to engage in activity that the victim has not engaged in. But which only the hounder engaged in. It is all highly peculiar to me.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Im sorry but given you ignore everything i say to you and accuse me of accusing you of hounding which i never have just that you started to exhibit some of the same things night did which you openly agree you did you see it as dispute res night dosent and i don't think the way you presented it was either. An interaction ban works both ways I've proposed a motion for it to be informed as was the aim of the any raised. I have now taken your page of my watchlist as you have no intention of discussing civily and being the bigger person and I'm not going to discuss with you any more.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have not ignored you. I've read, considered, and responded to your every comment. Pointing out where you mis-state policy, or mis-state facts, is not ignoring you. I'm sorry if you feel it is.

As to your assertion that you never accused me of hounding -- I'm flabbergasted.

Do you recall that after I said that Night was hounding me, you asserted (baselessly) that "Epeefleche began doing what he accused night of"?

And that you subsequently wrote: "Epeefleche started hounding him back".

And that you then wrote: "the result of this should be ... both warned about hounding".

How can you make such a blatant, bald-faced mis-statements -- saying now that I "accuse me [Ed] of accusing you of hounding which i never have"? It is astonishing to me. Of course I wasn't hounding -- yet you baselessly accused me of it. And you now make yet another mis-statement of fact, when you flatly deny doing what you so clearly did.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have to agree with Epeefleche here, Ed. You explicitly said on ANI that Epeefleche engaged in the same behavior as NotBW. Never once did you actually present any evidence that Epeefleche followed Night around, specifically chose to comment in discussions Night was involved in, or in any way engaged in Wikihounding. Such criticisms are unwarranted. If you want to criticize Epeefleche for his prodding or other "deletionist" behavior, then fine (even though I would disagree with such a criticism, it is at least one based in facts), to accuse Epeefleche of hounding, or to accuse him of making up that accusation are simply improper. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your training exercises and kind words at my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

DRV notice

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 24#Template:New York cities and mayors of 100.2C000 population. Be advised that I have opened Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 27#User:TonyTheTiger/New York cities and mayors of 100,000 population.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

List of female architects

Hi Epeefleche. Despite your hyperactivity, I think this is the first time I've had the pleasure to get in touch with you. I was just a little surprised at your rapid edit of the few red linked additions I made to the France section of the List of female architects yesterday on the basis of coverage on the French Wikipedia. I had taken the same approach with Germany a couple of weeks ago and found it very useful, not just for helping to get the job done (with the assistance of other editors too) but for allowing users in general to look at the articles in other languages. As you will see, all the German red links have now been covered by articles. I hope the same will also be true of the French within a couple of days. In any case, I'm really surprised that a bot added citation tags here rather than to dozens of other red links in similar lists such as List of Swiss architects where there are none at all! In any case, I was not too clear about what you wanted to suggest in your editing comment: was it no red links without non Wikipedia references or was it that you wanted the links to be directed at the corresponding French articles, e.g. fr:Manuelle Gautrand or Manuelle Gautrand (see French Wikipedia article)? Personally, it seemed to me more honest to be specific about the fact that all the red links were related to articles in the FR WP. Anyway, the important thing is to continue proper article coverage and that's what I've been trying to do for the past two or three weeks, already adding over 30 new articles so as to eliminate red links from the list. But thanks once again for your interest and encouragement. - Ipigott (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. A few thoughts. First, please read wp:LISTPEOPLE. You should not add red-linked names to lists of people, without appropriate refs. Second, please read wp:V generally, as to the importance of verifiability, and especially wp:CHALLENGED. Our policies of sensitivity to living people also comes into play here. Fourth, as I mentioned in my edit summary, your bare statement that the redlinks have articles on the French wikipedia may be true at the time that you write it -- but you have zero control over another editor, any time subsequent, adding a new red-link that lacks an article on French wikipedia ... which would render your statement false and misleading. Finally, please note that while I generally take a liberal view vis-a-vis names added to notability lists if they have a blue-link to a foreign language wikipedia, a number of editors have a sharply different view, asserting (correctly, I have to say) that different wikipedia standards have different notability standards, and thus the existence of an article on the wp of another language does not by itself confer notability on any individual. In short, if you wish to continue to do the good work of filling out the list, I would suggest that the way to do it is not -- as you have done -- to add redlinks (including redlinks re BLPs) to lists of people, without any refs whatsoever, and without any links whatsoever ... that is at odds with wp:LISTPEOPLE (feel free to peruse the talkpage there to see how seriously that is taken ... some editors even take the position that one ref is not sufficient, and require multiple refs) and the other indicated guidelines and policies. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the links as too busy at the moment to find refs and the servers are down every second minute. The three remainng articles will be completed tomorrow anyway. You are absolutely right about the other language Wikipedias: often no refs at all but the articles are nonetheless often indicative of fame. Quid the other lists without citations? - Ipigott (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Thanks

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your contributions to Robert Dover (equestrian), which has fairly recently achieved WP:GA status.

This user helped promote Robert Dover (equestrian) to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your contributions to Curtis Granderson, which has fairly recently achieved WP:GA status.

This user helped promote Curtis Granderson to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Roshonara Choudhry for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

note that PBS came back to the Entebbe article in March 2012

Failing to achieve consensus, he 'sneaked back' and removed terrorist term.

Lincecum GAR

Tim Lincecum, an article that you may be interested in, has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. —Bagumba (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of MMM-2011 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MMM-2011 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MMM-2011 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. Monty₈₄₅ 02:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Gymnasts

Looking at the edit history of List of gymnasts and the talk you appear to be interested in the topic. I hope you see the small changes I have made as positive. To me the FIG record link feels important on the simple basis that it is the official record of the gymnast's competitions (unless, of course, you know different). After head scratching and a failed experiment with footnoting, the table layout, painful as it is to create, looks to me as if it will provide the best result.

I've also removed the exclusion of non listed disciplines, something that struck me as odd.

I'm by no means a follower of gymnastics. I arrived in this area by happenstance, like so much of WIkipedia. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back!

I just noticed you started editing again! It's good to see you back.  :) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

List of swimmers

Greetings, Epeefleche. For the last couple of months, I've been working on standardizing and expanding the biography articles for U.S. Olympic swimmers. As part of my efforts, I've been cleaning up the redirects from past article renamings, and replacing redirect links with direct links to current article names. During this process, I stumbled across List of swimmers, and to be blunt, the reason for the article's existence as a stand-alone list in its present format escapes me. We already have lists of Olympic medalists, FINA world championship medalists, Pan Am Games medalists, Pan Pacific Games medalists, Commonwealth Games medalists, plus navbox footers for the champions each event of those games, plus categories for medalists and participants in the Olympics and other major regional games. There are also category break-outs by nationality, and by stroke and gender.

This list seems to have no particular purpose, no criteria for inclusion beyond being a notable swimmer, and is certainly no even close to being comprehensive in coverage. In short, this list seems to be completely redundant to better other better developed swimmer lists with better, more specifically defined criteria for inclusion. I have read your talk page comments to User:Lexein, and would ask you to share your thoughts as to what should be done with this unwieldy beast. IMHO, the present list has multiple notability and basic WP list criteria problems. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

German aces

I think you are commenting outside your domain of expertise. You had struck recipients of the Knight's Cross, who as holders aof the highest military award, are noteable. That is why I rewoked your change. If you had removed lesser "aces" I would not have opposed your change. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, all of these people are notable. A simple Google Books search would have confirmed that, had you bothered to check. And by the way, it's generally considered rude to use templated warnings for someone who has been on the project for several years. Parsecboy (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Just on the topic of WP:DTTR, it's an essay, so it's the opinion of one or some editors; not a general consensus on what one should or should not do. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Agree w/Demi. I would point out, as well, that prior to the use of the template, I had sought to communicate with the reverter by edit summary, pointing to wp:LISTPEOPLE. The reverter reverted, however, without any edit summary whatsoever. I then reverted, again providing an edit summary, and in addition to using the template embedded in it the communication that the editor might: "Please note that in the article listing German aces you reverted material that had been deleted with the comment "del NN -- no wp article or appropriate independent RS refs -- per WP:LISTPEOPLE". Material in lists of people should be sourced to a bluelinked wp article, or to appropriate independent RS refs. Many thanks.". There was, of course, every effort made on my part to communicate with the reader in non-template personalized pleasant language, as well as using the template -- this was only met with the bare no-edit-summary revert, without any discussion as to the issue.

Parsecboy has now reverted with the somewhat non-illuminating edit summary: "Please don't do that," which also fails to shed any light as to why we should consider ignoring wp:LISTPEOPLE (as well as wp:v).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• The rule is that entries should be verified per wp:listpeople (as well, of course, as wp:v). The argument that "experts know it to be true" is not sufficient. The same with teh argument that "if someone other than the person who input the entry were to do the work, they would find references ..." WP:LISTPEOPLE requires quite clearly that we have a wp article on the person, or appropriate RS refs. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If you bothered to check any of these entries before you remove them, you would have quickly discovered they are notable individuals, many of whom should have their own articles. That no one has taken the time to create them yet does not mean you should be deleting them from the list. Perhaps you should spend more than a minute or two per list you go through and actually see if the entries you're deleting actually should be deleted. Parsecboy (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

What I dislike here is this destructive attitude you are showing. Your behavior reminds me a bit of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. You demolish the article and later claim that I could have known better if I only I would have read "the rules". "Legally" you may be right but morally you are wrong! By your token of argumentation you could castrate half the articles on Wikipedia. Keep it up and you will make many friends here, you already made one. You don't have to bother and respond. Enjoy MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Is not a compendium of all the world's knowledge even more valuable than a new hyperspace bypass?

I think the circumstances under which castration is morally justified, are a completely different discussion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Again, Parsecboy -- you seem not to agree with the settled approach of wp:listpeople. But it is clear. For your benefit and that of Mister, I've linked to it a number of times already — on your talk page, in my edit summaries, and in this discussion. It states:

"A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met:

• ... If a person in a list does not have an article in Wikipedia about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to establish their membership in the list's group and to establish their notability...
• The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources."

The deleted entries were added -- in the most recent instances, by both of you -- in contravention of wp:listpeople. Despite the fact that wp:listpeople had been highlighted to you. You added the entries without there being a wikipedia article on the individual (reflecting ipso facto the individual's notability), and without there being RS refs establishing their notability in a verifiable manner.

The onus is on the person who adds the information to satisfy wp:listpeople. It is not -- as you would prefer it be, on the person who points out that the editor adding the information failed to follow wp:listpeople. This has been discussed for years at the talkpage on wp:listpeople. If you like, feel free to raise it there yet again, if want to change the rule.

But the rule as it stands is as indicated above. For you to simply revert, in contravention of the rule -- without any edit summary, or with an edit summary that states "Please don't do that" -- may fall somewhat short of addressing the clear mandate of wp:listpeople that you should not add names to the list in the first place without there at minimum being a wp article on the person and/or RS refs supporting their notability and the appropriateness of their inclusion in the list.

The argument that "I am expert and know it to be true," and the argument that "I would prefer that you do the work I was obligated to do under wp:listpeople," are both unavailing. As is "I don't like it".

The emphasis on having refs and/or articles for entries on wp:listpeople is even stronger than the emphasis in general (as can be seen by comparing wp:v with wp:listpeople, though they work together), and we could no doubt discuss whether the rationales are ones that you would agree with after consideration -- no doubt they include the fact that lists of people are special magnets for those who find it fun to add inaccurate information. But this isn't a rule of my making, or my imagination, or a matter of editor preference ... the rule and all manner of discussion have supported the fact that entries such as the ones I deleted, bereft of both wp article and appropriate supporting RS refs (some editors insist that there be more than one ref, though I am not that conservative myself), is a clearly stated rule. I understand that you would like to make other editors do the work. But in fact the onus is on the person adding a name to such a list of people to supply that support. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't want to make others do the work. I want those who are flying through articles, deleting things willy nilly, to take the time and actually look a what they are deleting before they axe something. Jimbo's line about uncited material is not a license to delete anything without an inline citation. If a citation is missing, add a citation-needed tag, don't delete it immediately. Or better yet, fix it yourself. And best of all, when someone reverts you, you take it to the talk page, not revert them again. This is a collaborative project - try acting like it. Parsecboy (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The impact of your suggestion is to ignore completely wp:listpeople, as well as Wikipedia's content policies such as verifiability and no original research, and our notability guidelines.

The impact in turn of ignoring those policies is that you do in fact make others do the work that under wp:listpeople the person who adds the information is required to have done first -- to make sure that the entry complies with wp:listpeople.

The rule is crystal clear. Adding a name to such articles, where the name is a redlink, there is no related wikipedia article, and you fail to supply any RS refs whatsoever is not within what the community has decided is an appropriate course of editing. The rule is quite clear that the onus is on the editor who adds the material.

I understand that there are many articles -- including often lists of people -- where someone rightfully feels he/she is an "expert," the entry clearly belongs, and appropriate RS refs can in fact be added to the entry. That's fine. But the onus is on the person adding the material to do so.

If you would like to change the rule to "Hey, I Parsecboy want to add names to lists, and require Epee and other wp editors to look for appropriate RS refs before they delete the bare refs that I input in direct contravention of wp:listpeople", you would be well served to raise the issue on the wp:listpeople talkpage.

It is an issue, as you can see, that has been discussed for a long time, and the requirement has if anything been strengthened over the years (as I said, there are those who will require multiple independent RS refs for each name, let alone a link to a wp article). My approach of looking for at least either one independent RS ref or a wp article is a more relaxed approach than many of our colleagues have.

As far as the softer issues of collaboration goes -- I, as you know, left a clear edit summary, pointing to wp:listpeople. I was reverted, without any edit summary whatsoever. Zero discussion. I note with curiosity that despite your even-handed concern about communication, you have ignored this. I then communicated again. Again, with a clear edit summary. And in addition, a talk page message, which was even more fulsome and which also pointed to the very clear language in wp:listpeople. I was reverted once more -- with the edit summary that some might think slightly short on the "communication" and "discussion" front, of: "Please don't do that." I agree that discussion and communication is helpful in circumstances such as this. And that is why I sought to discuss the matter many times, even in the face of an approach that was somewhat different.

One last thought -- while you "know" that what you add to lists has supporting RS refs even if you've failed to supply them and thereby share them with the rest of us, other editors do not know that. You might consider taking the approach of understanding that much -- perhaps most -- of what is added in contravention of wp:listpeople is cruft and/or non-notable and/or self-promotion and/or a joke. Please do not feel insulted that your word, or that of an expert, was not taken (and, of course, the "I'm an expert" approach doesn't work on wp). Please view this through the prism of the multitude of list-people additions that are inappropriate. The existence of this problem may explain in part why the rule was forged to exist as it stands. The person adding the name, who has the greater interest, is in the best position to add the RS refs (or create the article), and the community has decided that it is not going to foist on the rest of the editors in the wp community the obligation of doing the research to see if the adder's entry is valid -- and then, of course, to take on the responsibility of adding the RS refs, to release other future readers of the need to research the subject to see if the red-link zero-ref entry is the truth or a farce.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

For as long as you've been on Wikipedia, you have a shockingly bad understanding of how this place works. First of all, quite a bit (probably a substantial majority) of Wikipedia does not have a source. That does not mean you go around deleting anything not directly sourced with an inline citation. Cutting away good material simply because no one has gotten around to providing a source yet is only adding to the work of people who are actually building the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a finished project. Deleting things that are halfway done simply because they're halfway done is fundamentally damaging to the project.

You also seem to fundamentally misunderstand WP:OR, if you're including it in this discussion. OR does not apply to all uncited material. It applies only to those things that are advancing an original line of thought that (and this is an important distinction) cannot be verified, not that it is not immediately verified.

WP:V only requires that material be verifiable, not that it necessarily be verified. There is a subtle yet important difference. Of course, we expect a higher standard at GA and above, but that's not the situation here. As I have said twice now (and you have continued to ignore), if you had simply taken the time to copy one of the names into Google Books, you would have found numerous reliable sources for each of those names. Re: your third paragraph: yes, the burden of evidence is on the person who wants to add the material. That still does not mean you have a license to slash and burn your way through lists because you're too lazy to actually see if the material is correct or not. If this was an AfD, you'd be laughed out for a complete failure to do so. Perhaps you should be spending more than a minute or two per list you go through.

Re: this: "much -- perhaps most -- of what is added in contravention of wp:listpeople is cruft and/or non-notable and/or self-promotion and/or a joke." - that's all well and good, but what I'm trying to tell you is you need to do a better job of sifting the wheat from the chaff. If you can't tell in a case like this, perhaps you're editing out of your depth.

As for discussing the issue, this talk we're having here only started after you were reverted twice by two different editors. Discussion via edit summary is not a good way to handle disputes. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

wp:listpeople is quite clear. You should not, under it, be adding names to lists of people, where as here you do not link to any wp article, and do not supply appropriate RS refs. This has been discussed by the community at great length. You dislike it. You would prefer to add names to the list that are redlinks, and not add any refs, as you have done here. I understand that. If you wish to change it, you may wish to bring your thoughts to the wp:listpeople talkpage.

As to the discussion, as you know I pointed to the rule three times, and was reverted twice (once by you), without any substantive discussion in edit summary or otherwise. Edit summary is a great way to begin to convey rationale for a change. When I was reverted the first time by your fellow editor, it was without any discussion whatsoever -- despite my pointing to the rationale for the deletion. And your edit summary of "Please don't do that" did not even begin to address the substantive issue that was raised. Finally, the fact that you failed to take to task your fellow editor reverted without any discussion whatsoever is curious.

But, we're repeating ourselves. You dislike wp:listpeople, but wp:listpeople is clear. If you open a discussion at the talkpage of wp:listpeople, feel free to let me know and I will follow it (and perhaps join it) with interest. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

LISTPEOPLE is meant to prevent every Tom, Dick, and Harry from adding their names to a List of people from the back side of nowhere, not to punch holes in lists with clearly defined scopes (and notable subjects, I might add, which you would have found out if you had bothered to check, but you're too busy ignoring me on that point).

"without any substantive discussion in edit summary or otherwise" - please explain to me how my comment to your talk page four minutes after reverting your edit constitutes a lack of substantive discussion.

I don't dislike LISTPEOPLE, I dislike your misuse of it based on a faulty understanding of the purpose of the guideline. Slavishly obeying the letter of the law but failing to grasp its spirit is not helpful to anyone.

In any case, since you're too busy playing games and refuse to listen to reason, I'm done here. Parsecboy (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

wp:listpeople is clear. As are the years of discussion of the reason for it, by the community, on its talk page. You dislike it. That's fine -- go to the talkpage, and start a discussion to change it to "when editors add redlinks, bereft of any RS ref support whatsoever, to lists of people, the onus is on not the editor adding the name but on the editor removing the name to research and assess the level of RS support if any for the entry ... and, if no reviewing editor ever adds the refs, of course this work should be done by all future editors who wish to assess the appropriateness of the entry." I'll be happy to follow the discussion. But, having read through and taken part in such talkpage discussions, I am of the opinion that I have a sense for what the community has in mind here. And, as sometime happens, the requirement of the rule is set forth quite plainly in the language of the rule. The community does not think it helpful for editors to add red-linked, zero-ref entries to lists of people, but requires that the editor adding such a name address the notability (let alone verifiability) issue in the manner stated in the rule.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

List of gymnasts

I was wondering if you might, since you are interested in this article, help me with some legwork? The table format seems to be much better than a pure list, and it gives us FIG references, so I was wondering if you would consider having a go occasionally at a few tables there. I have a strong suspicion that those with no FIG references are unlikely to be notable at all, though the FIG listing is no guarantee of notability ether. It is, however a reference that a person of this name is a gymnast, so is an indicator of at least potential notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fiddle/Timtrent. Kudos -- you are doing nice work on the list. I agree that the table format is superior. I don't think I've ever created a table myself, but obviously it allows for more information to be supplied, in a visually appealing manner. I also like the addition of some images to the right of the table -- and even where we have a table, we have room for more of those. I'll give adding a couple more a go. I also think it's ok that the article is in transition now, and not fully a table. Once it is fully a table, it is easier to sway those who add names to add them in table format. The FIG references are of course great, as they reflect a degree of verifiability even if they fall a bit short of guaranteeing notability. BTW, references to the Olympic performance website always guarantee notability, for wp purposes. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The easiest way to do this is to work in a sandbox with the FiG search page open in another tab. I've done all I can cope with today! it sends me cross eyed. if you're unfamiliar with tables, grab one form the article and paste it into your sandbox, then edit it. Where there are variances with the FIG and other records I'm using <ref group="note"></ref> pairs to differentiate between notes and real references. Ref groups are fun! Start with a tiny one, and see how you go. But your sandbox is your friend here.

What are your thoughts about the redlinked names, though? I put a comment on the article talk page about them. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I've left a comment there, responding to your query. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

That was quite an extraordinary amount of work. The thing that strikes me is how woefully incomplete the list is. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Nicely done. And yes -- a common malady of such lists, I'm afraid.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Bashar Al Shatty

Have I satisfied your reference and notability concerns? ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. I've removed the tags on the article as out-dated; I assume nobody will disagree. Question -- do you think we should change the date format to dmy? I'm leaning yes. Also, two formats are used for his last name (one ending in y, the other in i), and we should I think decide on one. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Dmy is fine...I guess I should reread MOS or some other reference to know the difference in preference. It seems nearly all the English refs were using "Bashar al-Shatti" as the correct spelling, but I will recheck and recommend a move based on sourcing over at the talk page. Thank you very much for your quick response :) ClaudeReigns (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Formatting in basketball infoboxes

Ep - Welcome back, long time no see. I've tweaked a couple of your edits today and wanted to make you aware of a couple of formatting decisions made at WP:NBA that you may not have been aware of. First, the format for the college years shown in parentheses after a player's school is (XXXX-XXXX) (but with an endash), as opposed to (XXXX-XX). This is to mirror the format used in the club history section. The other relatively recent consensus was not to Wikilink countries in the "nationality" field. It's considered over linking now. Keep up the good work and good to see you again. Rikster2 (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Rikster. The second one I think makes good sense -- I think my overlink tool de-links most countries as well. The first, if memory serves, is not necessarily consistent with our approach to dates generally, or in other sports -- is that decision specific to basketball, and specific to college? I'll of course abide by whatever the consensus is, though frankly I think it unhelpful to include two digits each time that add zero to knowledge and detract from readability. If it's easiest to point me to where the consensus is reflected, I'll be happy to take a look. Nice to chat with you again. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the consolidation of basketball infoboxes was a very long, wide-ranging discussion that occurred over months on both the NBA and Basketball projects (not really a College Basketball issue as active NCAA players use the NCAA athlete infobox). Here is one of the bigger discussions, though I can't promise this specific issue is covered here. However, back in August I specifically asked about the college year date format here and got a response on the 6/8 digit issue. Ep, I have added this information to literally hundreds of articles over hours of time so I wanted to be sure I got the consensus right before doing so. I believe the basketball projects are the first to display years of play at the college level in the professional infobox (information I think is very useful), so there isn't much precedence there, but as I said the format mirrors how club tenures display in the club history part of the navbox, and the basketball decision is very consistent with baseball, American football and Association football in that regard. Hockey is the other major sport project, but you are probably aware that they like to set their own standards as opposed to creating consistency across projects. I wouldn't agree there is a readability issue with either the 6 or 8 digit approach - I think it's a personal taste issue. Hope this helps. Rikster2 (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Rikster. I'll wade through this -- thanks for taking the time to set it out for me. There certainly is a personal taste element to the extra two digits, but as well as a consistency with other formats issue, as well as a consistency with style guidelines elsewhere issue ... and IMHO there is also (but I'm not meaning to re-start a conversation already had) readability issue whenever we throw in extra data .. however small ... that adds nothing to our information. I believe that is the reason that many resume guides dictate the deletion of the needless digits -- and, of course, there is great sensitivity to readability when it comes to resumes, because readers tend to allot a fixed time to scanning the document. But I'm of course happy to follow the consensus, so will be interested to read what you were kind enough to gather for me. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Schools in pakistan and India

I see you started the long-needed cleanup of these pages; almost all of them are to some extent copyvio. I've been deleting the ones that are entirely copyvio in an obvious way, but in most cases it's a complicated mix of copyvio & paraphrase from various sources. In such cases, the simplest think to do is to look for a noncopyvio version earlier in the history to revert to--usually there's a clear point at which large amounts of content start being added. Normally I just revert, but if it's particularly bad I delete the later versions--If you want to do it, the simplest way might be to just ask me, since I am unfortunately familiar with this sort of article Otherwise, the officially recommended way to delete copyvio versions or to handle more complicated situations is to list them at copyright problems, but that process is so backlogged that if I can deal with a quick rewrite, sometimes I try to do that immediately--but nobody has to, and if you are feeling too frustrated by this awful mess that has accumulated, just list them. Either I or someone else will get there. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. That's helpful. When the copyvios are looked at, do reviewers tend to look at the other articles started by the same editor? (If you happen to know the answer). I noticed that in many instances the copyvios are actually in the original creation. In some, though certainly not all, of those cases the article-creating editor has created a number of copyvio articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Corruption perceptions index chart

Here is the last revision of the Corruption Perceptions Index chart before it was blanked. This chart was started in 2006.

I noticed your informed opinions at the talk page for Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. This essay should not be used to delete charts from Wikipedia. It is an essay, and not a guideline.

For more info see: Template talk:Corruption Perceptions/Corruption perceptions index#Data and copyright and the following talk sections. Your opinion there and/or at Wikipedia talk:Copyright in lists#This is an essay, not a guideline would be appreciated. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Done.Epeefleche (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Murdoch University

Hi, I've put the text back , with a few sources that I've found after a quick search. (I have to get to bed early tonight). The rules, including WP:V, are not a suicide pact, and there is no deadline. Graham87 14:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. A couple of points. What you point to is an essay, which contains the opinions of one or more editors, and may be a minority viewpoint; Essays are not wp policies or guidelines. Second, I would think it less than appropriate to even conflate that opinion to suggest that one should restore material that has been tagged as a violation the wp policy of wp:v for five years. But all is good that ends well. Have a great new year.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Reflecting criticism in lede

I saw where you posted, like you wanted. I went with my gut. It's difficult when there are a limited number of criticisms from a wide array of sources, so I went with something general and darn the weasel. It may not be to your liking; that's just how I read the article. Drop by and comment if you have the time. Wikilove, ClaudeReigns (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your thoughts.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Epeefleche! Thanks for the reminder. I will try to give editors more time. Way2veers (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Great. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

RfA: thank you for your support

Epeefleche, thank you for your support during my recent RfA. If I can be of assistance to you in the future, as an editor with a legal background or otherwise, please let me know. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Pleasure. We could in my view often use the input of attorneys. If we were to perform brain surgery by consensus, or build buildings that way, without proper input from experts, we would be similarly challenged to achieve the best results. Sometimes some training and some ability to know where to look for the answers is a boon. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to ping me any time you require some "legal thinking" in your Wikipedia work. I'm happy to help any way I can. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Schools

Hi there. Please consider not PRODing or not AfDing non notable primary (elementary) and middle schools. Instead, in order to save time and user resources, please consider redirecting them yourself according to the long standing precedent documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. To do this, please ensure that the school is at least listed on the target page which should generally be the article about the school district (in the USA) or the article about the school's location. Please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page as it automatically populates an important category, and if you need any help, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I've considered that approach, as you may be aware. I've also not seen fit to be so bold as to do so, for reasons expressed. I recognize that what you point to is an essay, and is not a policy or guideline itself. Were it to be reflected in a policy, I of course would have a different view. I'm happy to work on some form of that with anyone who has desire to do so. In the meantime, given the fact that it is just an essay, and that I've failed to see the level of consensus at such AfDs that would make me comfortable taking such step, I prefer to seek community consensus, rather than take the unilateral action that you suggest. If you feel it is so clear, I imagine you will take speedy action at such AfDs. But I don't see it as sufficiently clear or sufficiently clearly directed by our notability policy, so while I've carefully considered the suggestion I'm not myself inclined to take such unilateral action. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:OUTCOMES may be an essay but it is not one that expresses opinion. As far as school notability is concerned it merely documents a very clearly accepted practice - one that is confirmed by literally 100s of redirected non notable primary and middle schools, and also demonstrated by the results of your previous school AfD campaign. None of the very many discussions to get his practice changed have gained consensus. Knowing the likely outcome therefore, to continue to make such multiple school AfDs is disruptive. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I has understood that an essay is the opinion of one or more editors. Which may or may not reflect a consensus opinion. I'm understand that many essay assert that they reflect practice. I also understand that AfDs in this area attract different opinions. Some people believe such articles should be deleted, and not redirected. And in truth -- I've not heard why that is not the better course. For reasons discussed above, and for a year. They may be right. And some school AfDs do in fact end in delete, after community discussion. Others editors prefer redirects. Others prefer merge. Even (surprisingly) at times of text that fails wp:v. Sometimes, some such articles are kept. I would be happy to join a collaborative effort to generate a policy in this regard. I raised this above, and you haven't responded. I also asked why -- if it is so clear -- you do not speedily close such and AfD. You may be comfortable bypassing community consensus given these facts, and urging me to act without a clear policy on schools on which to base my action. I'm not. I prefer to seek community consensus, rather than take the unilateral action that you suggest. But if it would help streamline the effort, I'm happy to work on a policy with you. Does that sound good?--Epeefleche (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It sounds WP:POINT to me. The essay is a page that clearly documents a practice without expressing an opinion, and has been contributed to by a handful of 218 ediors since 2005. You have already sought your community consensus through your 100s of school AfDs and seen how they have closed. You are welcome to start yet another RfC on the practice documented at Outcomes. FWIW, there are 553 in the category 'R from school' which does not include possibly as many again where the closer has failed to add the template. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it sounds that way to you. If you AGF, it is difficult to understand how you could reach that bad faith conclusion. It is not pointy. I've offered to work with you on a policy. For over a year. You've not seemed so inclined. Our essays are full of non-policy statements that purport to reflect practices. Sometimes, they say "this is not an opinion that x happens, it is a fact that x happens." In any event, as I said, I've seen vocal editors with different views. You haven't responded to that, but you must have seen the same. That is also a fact. I've also seen some keeps, merges, and deletes. That is a fact. I'm disinclined to, knowing that, take unilateral action and redirect articles. So are you -- or you would speedy delete them at AfD. Or before. When they are are not put into policy, it is generally because there are editors who disagree with it -- certainly when it comes to notability. That's my experience at the Project. But let's work through that, and make it a policy. I'm happy to work collaboratively on it. And I'm happy to be persuaded as to the advantage of redirect to deletion -- especially in the case of redirects to pages that are just lists of schools, without any information about them. I'm open, and I'm happy to work with you to make this happen, and happy to abide by any policy at the notability page in this regard. We have policies on things as unusual as certain sports such as Gaelic ones -- certainly, this subject deserves a policy. It would be more efficient for all concerned. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Before accusing people of bad faith I suggest you do some research. Nobody is probably more aware than I am of the dozens of discussions to get this practice either changed or established as a formal guideline, and I have contributed in depth to all of them. The end result is always the same: No consensus. What you would would become aware of if you check ot out, is that I have no personal opinion on the matter of school notability and FWIW, I don't care what the consensus would be if one were reached, and as always, if it were, I would be happy to apply any new policy and use my tools appropriately. What you also do not seem to have understand is that disrupting the work of Wikipedia to make backdoor attempts to get policy changed is, well, disruption. I suggest you actually take time to read WP:POINT and take note of the possible sanctions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I said that if you AGF on my part, rather than bad faith on my part, you would not view my effort to collaborate with you and others as pointy. As we do, at times, we mis-communicate. I also don't understand how, if it is an inelecutable conclusion that it is appropriate for me to boldly redirect such articles, as you urge me to do -- you can suggest it is consensus that I should do so but at the same time say we would be unable to reach consensus on a policy discussion. How can that be? Wouldn't I suffer the argument by all those who will not agree with such a policy that there is no consensus? I'm confused. Either there is consensus support for redirecting such articles, or there is not. You suggest I act as though there is, based on the common but non-uniform result, and yet indicate there is so much disagreement with that approach that we can't get a policy in place to that effect.

In any event, I've offered to collaborate with you, based on your statement that the essay in question reflects consensus (if that is what you are saying), to have the policy reflect it. Perhaps this time we can get a policy passed. That would make sense. I've also said, as you know, that I would be happy to apply that consensus, whatever it might be. I've also asked you more than once about redirects, and would be interested in your thoughts. And I'm not disrupting anything. And I'm not making a backdoor effort to get policy changed. I'm happy for policy to remain the same, or be changed, but I'm happy to work on creating a policy reflecting consensus. There is zero pointy at all. I don't even know what point you think one could be making. I'm simply cleaning up. Would you prefer that I list somewhere those articles that I think might be non-notable, so someone bolder than I could consider deleting them? If that would make you happier, fine. Also, you haven't explained why if it is so clear that these should be redirected, that you don't just redirect them speedily. I have no point to make; I'm just trying to clean things up, at the same time as I create wp-compliant articles and text. If you were assuming good faith, I expect you would listen to what I have said to you now more than once on this point, and not assume that I have bad faith.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't appear to have properly read a word of what I have said in my posts above. If you want the practice changed, you are welcome to start yet another perennial RfC - in case you didn't know, that's the way we do things here. It's your prerogative, but you will almost certainly be wasting your time just as you are with your persistent nominations for AfD. As I said, you would be well advised to read all the previous discussions before you embark on your campaign; there were several more last year. I'm not interested in leading yet another attempt to obtain an impossible consensus and it is not bad faith on my part that I am not prepared to waste the community's time by starting or helping to start another one. That said, I don't think there is much to be gained by pursuing this discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I read every word. And just re-read them. I've posed some questions above (and before) that you haven't responded to. Your answers, if you wish to give them, might help me understand some of these issues better. I'm certainly not as familiar with what your refer to as attempts at impossible consensus. But, as I indicate above is one of my series of questions, I don't understand why that lack of consensus you point to is not an indication that I would be foolhardy and acting in a non-consensus matter if I were to do exactly what you urge me to do -- impose redirects for these articles, when as you say it has been impossible to gain consensus for that as policy. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Creating AfDs when you are fully aware of the most likely outcome is disruptive. Start an RfC if you are so concerned. I don't care one way or the other what the outcome is is, but if there is a consensus I will abide by it just as I practice the existing precedent which as I stated above, has been solidly established by literally hundreds of AfD closures whether you are able to accept or believe it or not. That is the last I have to say on this here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the most likely outcome of any AfD that I start is that the stand-alone article will be deleted. I probably have a similar result with all types of AfD subjects. I don't -- given what you indicated is the impossibility of gaining consensus on this issue for a policy -- feel it appropriate to take a non-consensus bold action such as you suggest. It does not feel collegial, or appropriate, given that I know there is difficulty gaining consensus for a policy to do precisely that. Perhaps that is why you do not speedily redirect such articles when they are at AfD? Please tell me if there is another reason.

I'm happy to work with you or anyone else on seeking to establish such a policy in a collaborative fashion. But I gather from what you say that you do not have such an inclination, because you believe it will be impossible to gain consensus to redirect such articles if I seek to have such a policy established.

I, like you, am happy applying in practice any policy that is established on the issue.

I am also happy to post those articles that I think should be either deleted on a page, so bolder editors can redirect them on their own if they see fit. I offered that before; you did not respond.

I still have the other questions that I posed to you, such as what the benefit might be of a redirect to a zero-information-about-the-school page, over a deletion of the page.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Although I have the tools, it is extremely rare that I close AfDs except perhaps to undo and re-close wrongly concluded NACs. Having !voted on over 1,000 with an accuracy of 87.5%, I feel my comments instead are more valuable in ensuring that the right closure is reached. Before you get the wrong impression again, I will however hasten to add that I have physically deleted well over 3,000 pages without a single issue other than about 20 userfications. For the questions you asked that you feel have remained unanswered, do your research and seek those answers in the dozens of debates over the notability of schools and what to do with the non notable ones. I won't be continuing this discussion here. Perhaps you might instead try to engage in discussion with some other extremely experienced admins who apparently share my stance on the matter. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, if you are convinced that such an action would be appropriate even though it would be impossible in your view to attain consensus support for such a position, it would streamline things for you to exercise that tool. You can do that at some AfDs, and still !vote at others that are of a different ilk.

I've done research on the redirect issue and posed the question to a number of those who support it, and have not received any response that clarifies to me why it is in fact superior to a delete. But I've remained, to date, open to either approach. Even while not understanding why some editors see great value in redirecting to a page which in turn ... simply lists the name of the school that was input as the search term ... as well as some other schools.

BTW, that's a laudable AfD accuracy percentage. I actually think we should make some use of such percentages; perhaps considering whether the bottom 5% in accuracy are non-consensus editors whose !voting should be curtailed. Would be interested in your thoughts on that.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Your recent editing history at New York Hippodrome shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. I hate to use templates in this situation, but the two of you need to cut it out ASAP. I suggest you both walk away from the article for a couple of days (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by. As you can see, BMK deleted RS-supported material (5 refs, directly following the deleted material). Without an edit summary that explained why. I restored it (revert 1). With an edit summary ("Please do not delete sourced information"). I followed that by opening talkpage discussion ("I would ask BMK to not delete sourced information, as he just did here.").

BMK responded by a second time deleting the same RS-supported material. With the following edit summary: "rem unsou4rced information from an editor who appears to be unaware that "thehate". He then (and only then) responded on the talkpage "What is your sourced information?". I responded to him on the talkpage: "The footnotes that directly follow, and support, what you just deleted.". He has not self-reverted.

In short, I made one revert (I'm not sure why you call that an edit war on my part). Left a clear edit summary. Left two clear talkpage messages. The material BMK has repeatedly deleted is RS-sourced. Five refs. Immediately following the material he continues to delete.

I certainly don't want to edit war. And don't want to needlessly escalate this to a noticeboard. But the facts are pretty stark here, the RS-supported material has been removed, and I think it would nice if it were restored and were not again deleted without legitimate reason.

For background of similar issues today, look at the thread immediately preceding this one. And at the mention here of similar problems, across more than one article.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikify has been deprecated

Hi Epeefleche! Just dropping you a note to let you know that {{wikify}} has been deprecated in favor of more specific templates, such as {{underlinked}}. Since the release version of AWB is still automatically adding {{wikify}}, I suggest you install the latest SVN snapshot instead, which has a lot of fixes in it. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Klugey, I see. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Request

I'm not sure how to use wiki and hopefully i'm not causing any problems by sending you a message. I saw you added a lot of information to the Assyrian people page and was wondering if you could add my father to the list. His name is Edison David http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edison_David and he already has a Wiki page I asked someone else to build. If you can do this and need any info or pics from me let me know, I am willing to help how ever possible.

Thomas

Done (at relevant list).--Epeefleche (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive5

I responded to your comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive5.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Ido Pariente

I redirected his article to the TV show article because it's clear he's not notable as an MMA fighter. He has none of the 3 top tier fights required to meet WP:NMMA. I thought redirecting the article was better than having it deleted, but I can put it up for AfD, if you prefer. I would prefer that you remove your reversion, but that is your decision. Papaursa (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• I would suggest that if you believe it is merge-worthy, you propose a merge. AfD is not for merges, but for deletions.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I was originally going to delete the article, but I found a place to redirect it. I think it's a redirect, as opposed to a merge. Do you object to the redirection and, if so, why? Papaursa (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so you did. I'm not sure why. At minimum, it is a merge IMHO. I'll take a closer look, but it appears to meet GNG. It does not have to meet NMMA.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say he doesn't meet GNG because his coverage is routine sports reporting, as described in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. You may well be aware of the contentious nature of the MMA discussions, however certain things seem to have been agreed on by consensus. One of them is that fight results and pre and post fight interviews are routine sports reporting and do not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I started to look, and will look more over the next couple of days. A simple fight result (x beat y) is not sufficient, but as in all sports competitions more in depth coverage does suffice, and at first glance this seems to be promising in terms of satisfying GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the sources you added and they seem like routine sports coverage to me. However, I'm going to leave the article alone for a while so you can try to improve it. I appreciate your efforts, if if I disagree with you about his notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Really? I've added more and will look further at this, but I'm a bit surprised. Though I do recall us being on opposite sides of interpreting GNG at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eskrimadors, which closed as a keep. I'll ask the sysop who was the other active editor in that discussion to look at this talkpage string--perhaps he will disagree with me.

Certainly, some of the coverage is passing. But other coverage is more in depth -- sometimes focusing only on his fight with one other fighter. Or on him. Routine coverage is material such as sports scores. The coverage here goes way beyond that.

Furthermore, what we have here is poster child for diverse sources -- as the sources' languages run from English to Spanish to Polish to Hebrew, from sources based in various continents around the world.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I was invited to stop by, take a look, and comment. A redirect to a tangent-ally related topic does not serve the project, no more than would redirecting Lawrence Olivier to Stage actor. While such a redirect has some arguable minor merit, it detracts from a reader's understanding of the redirected topic. WP:BEFORE might have shown the world-wide, somewhat-more-than routine, coverage of this individual, as shown by Epeefleche's work expanding the article since reversing the redirect.[109] Another consideration is that the various SNGs do not "trump" the GNG. Various notability guidelines are intended to supplement, not supplant, each other. As we have sources speaking directly and in some detail about the individual, the shown world-wide-interest in an Israeli MMA fighter is more than the "routine" or local coverage. The primary notability guideline is the GNG. Only if a topic fails the GNG, are we encouraged to consider various SNGs. Only if a topic fails both the GNG and an applicable SNG, do we find a failure of WP:N. Important note here is that an SNG does not mean we declare the GNG as irrelevant and ignorable. Ad while the original article was quite stubby, diligent effort by Epeefleche has resulted in a nicely encyclopedic B-class article that serves Wikipedia and its readers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Digits

My recommendation would be to take the discussion to either the basketball/NBA talk page or an MOS talk page (if one exists) with a note inviting basketball editors to join. As I pointed out, the format isn't just basketball, it's used in association football as well (another sport whose seasons span 2 calendar years). I honestly don't care about format, I care about consistency. The proposal would be received best if you volunteered to be part of the solution should the format be changed - in other words be willing to go through and change some of the literally thousands of articles this would impact. Rikster2 (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep. I think it is a MOS issue, that transcends the remit of any one subject-specific wikiproject (and, as you point out, impact more than one wikiproject; they also have results with regard to consistency that go beyond the wikiprojects' areas of focus). The MOS that already covers it the issue is WP:Date. It is now as you suggest raised on that talkpage, and editors of some relevant wikiprojects have I understand been posted as to the discussion.

And we typically in MOS look for consistency -- such as consistency between different sports (at minimum) and between infoboxes and tables and texts. Furthermore -- the 2010-11 format, if you look (for basketball) at NBA.com, as well as at Euroleague, is pretty clearly the preferred approach to a 2010-2011 format. Which makes any decision to go with the non-standard format puzzling. It is also the preferred format and more common format in other sports, and across all subjects generally, as reflected in gsearches. Plus -- there is no sense in adding extraneous digits that add zero info ... we may as well just type in "la la la la" in the middle of articles.

I'm a bit baffled at the logic of anyone advocating the longer approach -- it seems not to be the preferred format of any relevant sport that I've looked at, or of MOS, so I don't know why they would change articles to a less-accepted approach in the first place. Did they not look at the MOS, as a starting point? Did they not do a google search to see what the most common approach was? But sure, I'll be happy to be part of the clean-up when the issue is solidified, as already reflected in MOS. It will be easiest if it can be done in automated fashion, rather than digit-by-digit changes. And, as always, a bot solution would be even better.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Guys, the issue is not whether we use the "2010−11" convention for a single sports season in text and article titles. As far as I know, the sports projects already do that uniformly. No one is arguing otherwise. The issue under discussion, and the sole issue in contention, is how to handle linked seasons in the player infobox. I might also add a second subsidiary issue: whether league season articles should be linked in the player infoboxes at all -- but I will leave that for others. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

MOS is consistency-driven, among other things. What possible reason can there be to create inconsistencies between infoboxes, on one hand, and text and tables, on the other? And between them and what the sports official highest-level league websites do? And between them and what is done generally? And while I can see the common sense detriment of adding needless digits that impart zero information -- what is the possible benefit from a common sense perspective? This strikes me as an easy one. Finally, its not an issue for what individual sports wikiprojects do -- we don't have different MOSs for different wikiprojects. That also would cut against consistency; that why we have MOS, which covers issues that are broader than any one or two wikiprojects.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Epee, unlike many sports editors, I am intimately familiar with MOS and its purposes. On that score, you're preaching to the choir. I suggest you consider the "politics" of the situation carefully, however. If you want to change the current approach to sports infoboxes, I would urge you to do more explaining . . . the top-down approach so often exhibited by MOS regulars only leads to resistance. This may be a "resolved" issue at MOS, but you have hundreds of regular sports editors who do not understand the issue from your perspective. You need to explain it to them, gently and diplomatically. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Rikster (I believe) and I both spend more time on sports articles than on MOS. I hope he does not think anything I said was un-gentle or undiplomatic. What more explaining do you believe necessary?--Epeefleche (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Epee, Rikster is one of the more sophisticated and most experienced sports-centric editors. He's a big boy, and given time, will accept a new approach if it is an improvement over the old approach. Many sports editors take their cues from a handful of de facto project leaders like Rikster. There are dozens of others who regularly work on basketball articles; hundreds when you include American football, baseball, hockey, and college sports. They are the ones who need to be convinced. Peter Coxhead, who is one of the most collegial of regular participants at MOS, referred to the current NBA player infobox formatting as "idiotic." That comment and related attitudes represent a serious faux pas in coming to a lasting resolution. These sorts of changes need to be marketed, not dictated. The soul of any style guide is voluntary compliance, not roughshod enforcement. When MOS mandates something that is different from the current majority practice, then there is a burden on the proponents of the change to sell it. Otherwise, we get another ongoing feud and a lot of disaffected/alienated editors who were previously doing good work. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I see; you are concerned about Peter's tone. No doubt he meant that to him it made zero sense. You could tell him that you think that tone is too harsh and preachy; of course, he may find your comment preachy as well. But while I don't know in particular what irked him, if it was this issue then I get why he would be frustrated. There are principles on the side of 6 digits: a) MOS, b) avoid needless words (digits)/brevity is the soul of wit; c) common usage (across not only ghits in general, but the specific sports league websites you mentioned); d) common sense. There seems to be little rationale if any offered in the other direction. And what you refer to as the "current majority practice" -- honestly, I first heard of it recently, alluded to by Rikster above, and I've edited thousands of sports articles for many years now. If editors have never heard of MOS, and have never considered common usage, and have never looked at the NBA and Euroleague websites but mistakenly believe they reflect dates in a different format -- someone should politely inform them of these facts. You seem like a good person to do that.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, Epee. My point was not to single Peter out; as I said, Peter is usually one of the more diplomatic, less confrontational MOS participants in my personal experience. My larger point was to suggest that people need to understand the MOS rule on point, and they need to see how its application would work in context. Proponents on the other side need to understand that present practice is the majority practice, the MOS rule notwithstanding. In large part that's an educational process, followed by a conscious decision to adopt or reject the application of the rule in the particular context. That process has begun to take place right now, as members of the various sports projects begin to engage on the issue on the MOS talk page, and as regular MOS participants engage and participate. The trick, as I see it, is to lower the level of rhetoric while that dialog takes place.

This issue may or may not get resolved this week; so be it. I've been a part of some big formatting changes for the various sports projects over the last three years, and when you're dealing with a dozen or more sports projects, hundreds of editors, and tens of thousands of articles that requires a certain amount of, well, "diplomacy" -- for lack of a better word. And remember, this doesn't affect just NBA articles, but also those for the NFL, MLB, NFL, association football, college football, college basketball, and numerous others that utilize four-digit years in their infobox year spans. Ultimately, it may be that a uniform change gets made, or a non-uniform exception gets recognized. Personally, I can see both sides of the issue.

One thing you may want to consider: what are the benefits of linking the season articles in the infobox anyway? Are those "high-value" links? As far as I can tell, what's driving the present support for the use of four-digit years in the infoboxes is the perceived need that all linked seasons appear uniformly formatted . . . . Think about it. By and large, you've done your part by starting the conversation. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• As you've suggested, I've at the talkpage laid out some of the issues as I see them, and points made on both sides.

One failing I see in the conversation is the unusual degree of subjective "ILIKEIT" reasoning. Sometimes it is admitted to. Sometimes it appears to be just below the surface. Sometimes it is masked by assertions (voiced as FACTS) that lack diffs to reflect whether the assertions are valid. Many times those are accompanied by some claim of expertise (e.g., "I edit many articles", "I edit many basketball articles", "I know what readers find normal-looking"). While at times it is difficult to find support for statements, those such as "adding extra digits that impart zero information makes it more readable" is both counter-intuitive and at odds with style books such as that of Strunk and White, which say precisely the opposite. Similarly, its quite evident if one checks actual usage that the MOS-compliant format is the leading one as reflected: a) in ghits generally, b) in basketball (on both sides of the pond) and hockey and American football official league websites, c) in wikipedia generally, and d) in wikipedia basketball articles generally. This has been overwhelmingly reflected with diffs. Bald, un-supported, and possibly baseless assertions as to "present majority practice" are rather unconvincing, and appear to be "reaching" when there is such diff evidence to the contrary. And are of lesser moment in any event -- as I said, if all tiddlywinks articles were ALL CAPS .... that would not be a deciding factor (I would hope), when weighed against everything else.

And yes -- this issue goes beyond sports articles. Think, for example, companies that have fiscal years that do not start on January 1. It is a project-wide issue.

Perhaps most dumbfounding to me is that editors are suggesting: a) that infoboxes should have 8 digits, but that b) text should have 6 digits. Not only is that remarkably at odds with a core aspect of MOS -- consistency within articles. I can't imagine the rationale that would drive one to say in this case that what is preferable in the text, is not preferable in the infobox. Especially when it is shorter, and the infobox emphasizes brevity.

As to linking the years ... I don't care overly at this point. But I see little value. For the same reason I see little value to link to "New York City." I'm guessing that those links don't get clicked that much. And if we have a sea of blue with overlinking in conflict with wp:overlink, we detract from the effectiveness of linking in the first place.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Your MOS summary of the issues is a fair starting point. But remember, we're not really talking about single sports seasons, or single fiscal years, which span two calender years. We're talking about multi-year, multi-season coach and player tenures. Those are two closely related, but different propositions. As I see it, what is driving this is the need to uniformly format the individual season links in the infobox. If you can resolve that, you've unwound the core knot of contention. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you say "We're not really talking about ..." Who is the we? We -- in the sense of the person who started the discussion, and the person who created the revert in question -- was clearly talking about both. Check the very first entry in the string that started the discussion, and raised the issue. Check the very first diff.

I don't think I've even seen any editors assert "let's in the infobox say he played for team x in 2000-01, and team y in 2001-2003." And if they did ... first of all there is the obvious point that they would be now advocating inconsistencies within the infobox itself (which would be astounding). Apart from that, its a distinction without a difference. The points made, on both sides, are precisely the same. Adding extraneous digits that impart zero information add nothing to 2000-20002, just as they add nothing to 2000-01.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

User:OGBranniff

Thanks for letting me know about User:OGBranniff. Quale (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

analog pussy dispute

Epeefleche

analog pussy was always under the ownership and management of jiga & myself, - jinno.

a few months ago, after major personal & professional disputes, - jiga has "kidnapped" all the main websites of analog pussy, - which we were both managing & operating together, - including analog-pussy.com / analog pussy on youtube, facebook, myspace, etc. - and even analog pussy on cdbaby, where we were selling analog pussy music together. - she simply changed the pass words of all those pages, - which we were sharing in the past.

since then - we are both running two separate entities - which are both called - "analog pussy".

jiga has added her girlfriend eva - to her version of "analog pussy", - and is releasing past recordings which were produced mainly by me & which i claim to be my property. - jiga has also produced a new video clip to an old analog pussy track, - which is extremely provocative & against the original spirit of analog pussy.

i am taking legal steps against jiga's use of the name "analog pussy" & against selling the recording which are my property.

at present i am using www.analog-pussy.org - as my platform for analog pussy.

amongst others jiga is publishing in different places - that she is the "official" analog pussy, as well as that her releases are the "official" ones, - implying as if i am the "fakes" analog pussy or something like that. - (including on the wikipedia page, - she is the one who is responsible of updating the addition of eva, which is far from being entirely clear or true, - as well as specifying - that analog pussy.com - is the "official " analog pussy site).

the whole resent actions of jiga, - claiming ownership of analog pussy, - the addition of eva to analog pussy, - the misuse & abuse of the name - etc. etc.- are all without my consent - and the whole thing is currently under a legal dispute.

my question to you is -how to reflect the whole development & issue on the wikipedia page?

jinno

You may wish to contact wikipedia. See here.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Pit bull

The rollback happened because most of your edits were unnecessary. Replacing the picture of the dog with an infobox was unhelpful. For some odd reason you prefer the number "1" over the word "one", and likewise "6" over "six", where that is generally frowned upon for writing small numbers. Some of your edits were good (uncapitalizing the word "Owner", changing "enacting" to "enactment", etc.), but I thought it easier to blanket undo them and then fix them individually, which I hadn't finished. -Kai445 (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

An infobox was added, which is perfectly appropriate. It was not used to replace any photo of a dog. Lower numbers such as 1 and 6 should be used if there are other numbers in the sentence that are double digit, etc. and expressed in numerals. Please do not blank/revert the edits again, with zero reason or mistaken assertions.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Besides the fact that writing the numbers one through nine as words is taught in elementary school, it's also in the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style, maybe you would care to read it. As for the infobox, it adds literally no value whatsoever to the article. You have filled out virtually none of the fields the infobox provides, it is basically a Disinfobox. -Kai445 (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You've given no reasonable explanation for your mass reverts. As to numbers, as I said, comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write 5 cats and 32 dogs -- we do not write five cats and 32 dogs. Also, as to the infobox, your assertion that it replaced an image was incorrect. Finally, infoboxes are standard across the project. Here, we have the begininings of it being filled in, and others can add to it over time. There is zero wp-sanctioned reason to delete it.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You had a vast majority of the edits, so I incorrectly assumed you were the one who changed the picture when adding the infobox. My apologies. Your additions to the infobox have improved it, and I find it less objectionable. In some time I will review the other edits individually since my last edit and revert them piecemeal if I find them objectionable instead of a blanket revert (your and other editors edits). My original rationale for the blanket revert is that the Pit bull article has become somewhat contentious for many users, and someone who just makes a hundred edits to it is usually an editor who isn't being productive. I had done a before/after (which, granted, encompassed some other user edits), and decided that it may not have been a net positive, and rolled back to the earlier revision. After that I started reviewing them to see which edits were positive and began to add them, but then went and did non-wiki things and left it for more cleanup later. Then you reverted me, and here we are. -Kai445 (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Apology accepted on that misunderstanding. Also, before reverting -- feel free to communicate via talkpage. As with some of the points discussed above, I may have some feedback for you. As to your suggestions that number of contributions is a sign of whether one makes constructive edits -- I've made over 100,000, so I think I'm starting to get the hang of it.

As a general matter, though, I would suggest not reverting an editor based on an assumption that just because they have made few edits their edits will be poor, on a contentious article. One has to focus on the edits themselves, and read them, before reverting.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

"Notable Chechens"

Here they are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chechen_people

Also note how you won't find Khattab there (he was an Arab of part Ciracassian descent). But that's eve besides the point. --94.246.154.130 (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

That is a cat. What you deleted without reason was a list. I restored it, as you have no reason to delete the list, but took out Khattab.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Standard? Really? OK, I randomly checked Americans. No listing of "notable Americans". How about Russians, then? NO. But maybe at least Poles (I'm one)? NO, SO STOP LYING. --94.246.154.130 (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Those are broken into subsets. See, for example, here. And List of Russian people. And List of Polish people. And, as you see, the lists exist despite the existence of cats.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

And yet this is not List of Chechen people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Chechen_people --Niemti (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think both of you need to be more civil to each other: WP:AGF. However, in this case 94 is correct.nYou, Epeefleche, need to click on the red link and start a new article List of Chechen people. Let me know if you need help in doing this. However, it is clear that you guys are edit warring. If you add in the material again to the main article I shall impose a 12 hour block.--File Éireann 11:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Éireann, I think you are incorrect. Do you have any basis for saying that? Anything that you can point to? I've edited thousands of lists of people, both embedded within articles and as stand-alones. A list of people within an article, such as the one here, is perfectly appropriate and we have many, many of them. If it grows, it is appropriate for it to be stand-alone. Or, an editor could exercise editorial judgment and make it a stand-alone ab initio.

Of course, however -- that isn't the real issue. If you read the above, and what is linked to at the AN/I.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You are right to be suspicious about the sockpuppetering. I have just imposed a block on 94's IP for 24 hours due to gross incivility. However, I feel I am now too involved to take any further blocking action and am considering what to do next. In regards to the other question, I shall look at this and get back to you shortly. Please call me Brendan.--File Éireann 12:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Brendan -- thanks. As you look at the second issue, see this, and especially in the MOS section on embedded lists, under "Size": "Some information, such as "Notable people" ... may be formatted with a section lead and a descriptive, bulleted list". I would appreciate it if you would, under the circumstances, make the list viewable, as the blocked IP and his alter ego have hidden it from view.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry no, I have raised the sock concern, I shall leave it to others to do the rest. In any case I think the article is better without the list--File Éireann 14:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Although Niemti's behaviour was wrong, I still think he was right on the insertion of the list. I have looked at about 20 articles on people such as Equadorian, Sudanese, Afghan, Russians, none of them have a list of famous people in the main article. IMHO, 3RR applies here and I would ask you not to reverse this yourself today, but seek help elsewhere as I am not going to get sucked into this issue. Or even better, leave the article without the list as it is good to have consistency between articles.--File Éireann 12:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I pointed you to the MOS for embedded lists of people. That shows the appropriateness of the embedded list of people within the article. Do you have anything other than your sampling of articles? Any guideline, MOS, or rule? Because I have seen many embedded lists of notable people. If they are this size, they are typically within the article. If they are longer, they are stand-alone. I've pointed you to MOS which make it clear ... beyond a doubt ... that it is perfectly appropriate to have an embedded list of people within an article. How do you square your comment with that? As I said, stand-alone lists are fine as well, and appropriate for longer lists, but you've pointed to nothing that indicates that somehow the MOS is incorrect.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment at::Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Niemti.--File Éireann 13:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)14:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Making payment source

You deleted the Making payment section from Etiquette in Japan as being tagged. The section is not tagged. I believe a cite can be found in Asian Business Customs & Manners. I will add a cite tomorrow, as my local library is closed and I am not about to break into a library just for a content dispute.--Auric talk 01:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The article was tagged in August 2010 as follows: "This article needs additional citations for verification." I'm happy for any formerly uncited material to be restored with an inline citation, per wp:v. Much of that article still suffers from a failure to meet wp:v, and in in its present form appears as OR ... and if only some of the material is OR, readers do not have refs to RSs to indicate which material is verifiable and which is not. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I interpreted your edit summary as saying that the section was tagged. I can add more cites for those sections not cited. I didn't do it earlier because I didn't want to cite the whole article to one or two sources only.--Auric talk 01:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Great -- I'll hold off editing the article as you do that. I think it is generally better to cite the article to one or two sources only, than to not cite parts of it at all. For some reason, our etiquette articles in general seem to especially attract OR, some of which seems quite dubious. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Location of disappearances

I noticed you made this edit [110] citing the info was not in the references. If you look at the map at National Post [111] (the first ref) the three locations are clearly marked as is the shopping center. I don't think we are restricted to info in sources contained in paragraphs. BTW,I appreciate your level headed comments in the face of some really strange stuff on the talk page. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the note. Reading the language below the map, even that one media report shows them having last been seen as far as five blocks away from each other, not one block. Take a look, and let me know your thoughts. And yes -- strange edits and comments have been known to appear on wp pages from time to time. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I figured out why the sources are saying both 1 block and 5 blocks based on the exact same data. Look closely at the linked map. It all depends on what that "fuzzy" distance of a block means. All 3 disappeared along Lorain from 105th Street to 110th Street. That looks like "5 blocks" on paper BUT in this area there is just 106th street going north between 105th and 110th on the North side (due to mall being there) and only Joan Ave which is an east-west (not north-south like the numbered streets) and meets very close to 110 & Lorain, on the south side. So if we are standing on Lorain at the mall we could logically conclude that from 105 to 110 is just one block, or maybe a touch more. Everyone would agree that generally one block is the distance between intersections. What do you think? Legacypac (talk) 06:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Cleveland kidnapping discussion

Regarding the thread you started at Conti's talk page, he has started a discussion on the article's talk page and graciously agreed to the content being restored pending a final outcome. I did the revert. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

William B Callaway (landscape architect) vs Bill Callaway (voice actor)

Hi Epeefleche, noticed you deleted the long-standing Bill Callaway entry on the 'List of Landscape Architects', North America, 20th Cent. Just yesterday we cleaned up a page designed to be the landing-page for that link since it's been pointing for months or years to a different Callaway, a voice actor. Here's the updated entry for Callaway architect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/William_B._Callaway,_FASLA ....are you an editor who can review it for approval? 1rheckmann (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)1rheckmann

Hi. I performed minor cleanup on it for you, but will let another editor do the honors. Once created, feel free to add it to the list. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Wagram Music

It seems completely inappropriate to take an article that asserts its own significance or importance (albeit unsourced), remove all the material that does so, and then nominate the article for speedy A7 on grounds of not having any assertion of significance or importance. Especially when it was trivial to find a source for the information. Please look for sources instead of blanking content, especially when the content isn't at all controversial. Dricherby (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

If an article fails wp:v, the material can be challenged immediately. And removed immediately. Here, it was challenged 5 years ago. Ultimately removed; years after no action was taken to remediate the problem. That is completely appropriate. The wholly unsourced and challenged material could properly have been removed in 2008. Removing it at any time is appropriate. Its inclusion in the first place, and for over 5 years thereafter, is what is perhaps less than in the spirit of wp:v. Deleting an article thereafter is completely appropriate as well -- we don't retain articles on the basis of "at one time it had wholly unsourced information, which was challenged for five years, with nobody remedying the problem and providing sources of any sort, which has now been removed in accordance with wp:v". As to finding sources for such information, the burden is on the editor who wishes to restore it -- after it has been challenged for five years and removed -- rather than on the challenger or the remover (two separate editors, in this case. Per wp:burden.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

And WP:PRESERVE says you should attempt to fix problems, rather than removing material that would be appropriate for inclusion in a "finished" article. A description of the genres of music covered by and artists signed by a record label certainly fits in that category. WP:BURDEN also says that you should try to provide a citation yourself if you think the material is verifiable: a statement of the form "Artist X is signed to record company Y" is almost certain to be verifiable unless it is untrue. Dricherby (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It goes on to indicate in the next section when it might be appropriate to delete such material. We aren't a blog -- we don't, or should not, enter unsourced material violative of wp:v, let it sit for five years without providing any source whatsoever -- RS or otherwise -- during which a tag is on the article giving notice as to the problem, and then complain that some other editor -- other than the one who entered the unsourced information, and let it reside as such with the tag for five years -- should have the burden of sourcing the unsourced text. That would be fine for a blog. But is not in accord with wp:burden.

You should attribute any material challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation clearly supporting the material as presented in the article. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article--here, the state of the article was poor, and it only happened after being tagged for five years. Editors were given ample time to provide references; after (as not required, but as a courtesy) a citation needed tag was added an interim step. If I think the material is verifiable, I try to provide an inline citation myself, but that is not a requirement to if I do not think so do the research incumbent on the person adding the information per wp:burden -- precisely the opposite. And, of course, on top of that our BLP policy applies to groups. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and that burden is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material.

Bottom line: It's not good practice to add uncited text. Especially where blp is an issue. And it is not good practice to -- once the text has been challenged, and tagged, for five years ... just let it languish as such. If you know the text to be true, it is good for you to find RS support for it. And if you wish the text to remain there for more than the five years that it resided there, completely uncited ... though challenged ... then it is good for you to provide inline RS support. But don't think that you can add uncited text, have it stay as such for five years with a tag pointing to the malady, and then foist the burden on another editor to do your work to look for and provide an RS inline source. That burden is on the shoulders of the editor who wishes to restore the text that violates wp:v and has been tagged as such for five years. Not the other way around.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Pacific Mall

Please stop your disruptive editing. It took me less than half a minute in each case to find multiple reliable sources for the material you removed as unsourced. If you can't be bothered to search for citations, mark the text as unreferenced, and let others do the productive work. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 02:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Owen -- you are complaining that information suggesting that a named person was the primary suspect in a crime, that lacked any refs whatsoever, in an article tagged since 2009 for lacking RS refs is not appropriate? Well, you are simply wrong. Productive work consists of both creating RS-supported text, and cleaning out non-supported text -- especially blatant BLP violations like that one, tagged for four years. Your comment is completely wrong-headed -- you know the article containing the text has been tagged for that deficiency since 2009, I presume (since the tag was already referred to twice ... not that that is a prerequisite-- and not in line with your obligations.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Reichmuth & Co

The article Reichmuth & Co has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

None of the references have in depth coverage. There are many references on the web to this, but most are related to a single event. Maybe redirect to List of investors in Bernard L. Madoff Securities ?

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Reichmuth & Co for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Robbins v. Lower Merion School District

Say, take a look at Case law. Two factors apply in Robbins. 1. The cases settled so no precedent decisions were issued by the court. 2. While the judges made certain decisions while the cases were active, they were not published as Case_citation#United_States. See also Non-publication of legal opinions in the United States and Law reports. No lawyer can stand up in court and say "in the case of Robbins v. Lower Merion School District....." The judge would not be happy. Thus these categorizations as "case law" are not appropriate. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi -- I was reacting to your edit summary, which suggested that unpublished opinions are not caselaw. They are -- unpublished opinions, especially in this day and age, are certainly subject to being read by counsel. And they can -- unless a court indicates that they should not be -- cited as precedent. But that would be a matter of a specific court rule, not the fact that a decision is unpublished. See, for example, this rule 32.1 for the federal rules of appellate procedure "A court may not prohibit or restrict the citation of federal judicial opinions, orders, judgments, or other written dispositions that have been: (i) designated as “unpublished,” “not for publication,” “non-precedential,” “not precedent,” or the like; and (ii) issued on or after January 1, 2007." As sometimes happens, the wikipedia articles you point to are somewhat less than accurate. If I have time and/or inclination, I'll fix those articles, but on this point the non-wikipedia ref that I point to suggests that whether or not the judge "would be happy", a federal court cannot prohibit or restrict the citation of its opinion, order, judgment, and other written dispositions -- and I might note that while there are clearly a number of such writings in this case, even a settlement is the subject of a judge's order accepting it (and not all settlements are accepted). Plus, we have judicial missives such as this 14-page one in this case. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Not quite correct. The rule you quote says counsel can "cite" non-precedential material in briefs, but such citations have no binding effect on the court. They can be "cited" in briefs simply on a FYI or suggestive basis. In our Robbins article, if there are published (or non-published) "opinions, orders, judgments, or other written dispositions", then such stuff should be referenced in the article. (But a settlement by the parties is not a disposition by the court, so I doubt there will be such dispositions.) At that point we might be able to categorize the article with case law designations. We are not at that point. (The missive you supply is regarding a request for attorney fees. It is not a disposition of the case. And it does not transform Robbins into case law. ) – S. Rich (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Caselaw is "law established by judicial decision in cases." See Merriam-Webster.[112] Here, we have written judicial decisions in this case. That meets the definition. You argued that because they were not published, they were not caselaw. I see nothing to support that view. And have shown you how to clarify matters, with the advent of electronic research capability, a rule was passed that stated -- at the level above the federal court in question -- that a court may not prohibit or restrict the citation of federal judicial written dispositions that have not been published (or, as was not the case here, designated as “unpublished,” “not for publication,” “non-precedential,” “not precedent,” or the like). That solidifies the conclusion that it is law established by a judicial decision in a case. There is no requirement, as you suggest, that this case's judicial written dispositions, one of which I pointed you to, be in this article. Though you are free to add it/them. A court certainly approves every settlement in federal district court, by written judicial disposition ... the parties don't, and in fact are not free to, "settle" between themselves and then slink away, without court disposition. That's what leads to courts at times rejecting settlements. The Robbins caselaw consists of all the dispositions by the judge in the case -- if you obtain the court docket, no doubt you will find many. And, among other things, it serves as res judicata, collateral estoppel, and law of the case. And, of course, there is not even any indication (not that it would matter here) that the trial court sought to have the instant writings designated "not for publication", etc. And even in New York State courts, for example, such writings would be deemed entitled to

respectful consideration. Yellow Book of NY L.P. v. Dimilia, 188 Misc.2d 489, 729 N.Y.S.2d 286 (2001), and in Tennessee State courts such writing would be deemed persuasive authority unless designated “Not for Citation”.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. Thank you for engaging with me. Back to the topic, the footnotes in Yellow Book illustrate my point. There is a difference between a judge resolving a case or parts of a case with a decision and those resolutions/decisions becoming "case law". Footnote 1 recognizes that unpublished decisions are not given stare decisis effect, and distinguishes this fact from rules which say/said "do not cite such cases in briefs". Footnote 2 refers to "controlling legal authority". Statutes and published decisions from appellate courts are controlling legal authority. Non-dispositive, non-published decisions, etc. are not controlling outside the particular case. Approving settlements does not establish any law because settlements simply resolve disputes between the parties. Settlements are often done for reasons extraneous to the legal issues involved. Case law is law which attorneys can cite in their arguments to the court. No attorney would say "The case of XYZ, which was resolved by a settlement and not by a judicial decision, supports my argument that ...." If they did, the judge would frown and ask "Is this case you cite "on all fours?" – S. Rich (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

For your thoughtful comments. Edison (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Reflist

I agree edit warring over the column setting of {{reflist}} would be incredibly stupid. But I do feel its better to set the width of the column rather than force columns, because people use different sized monitors. It looked bad in two columns on the monitor I was viewing it on. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice to chat with you, as always. Good that we are in agreement that edit warring over formats -- where 2 are acceptable -- makes no sense. This is well developed in certain format areas, such as dates, as a general principle. As in dates, where there are two acceptable formats, the initially used one by the initial major contributor is deferred to as a general matter. As to ref columns, there is much written on this as well across the project. In short, on different screens with different settings, the approach you used may or may not look better. On my screen, it looks far worse (as one column), whereas the originally chosen format looks much better (as two columns). And as to why two columns are generally seen as superior for longer lists of refs (10 or more refs), it is the same as why the NYT uses columns -- it aids readability. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Guess I'll defer. I didn't remember that we had gone into this a little bit back in March. I still think the screen resolution of the user's computer should determine how many columns there are, since sometimes two is best, but sometimes three, or even four, are more readible, but it's not a big issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't recall if we discussed it, but in the past I've seen it discussed. The problem is that on some screens it may look better, but on others worse. At the project, had there been consensus that it was better, it would be a mandated format (and perhaps automated), but given that there is not a consensus it falls into the treatment that we have for MDY/DMY dates vs. numerical dates. Thanks for chatting, and for all your good work. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Belmoktar

Wives Belmoktar should not have names for easier verifiability? (and a reference was dead.) João bonomo (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

We have multiple RSs indicating that he had four wives. Which is all that is reflected in the text. And is appropriate to reflect. There is no requirement that their names be reflected. And all the refs were active at one point -- the dead ref included.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank You. João bonomo (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Laois Junior Hurling Championship

@ Epeefleche Why did you revert my post on Laois Junior Hurling Championship ? ShamDela (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Because you did not supply any references -- if you wish to restore it, please provide inline Reliable Source references, per wp:v. I'll leave a note on your talk page which may also help you.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Kulna sawa page

Dear Sir Im the writer of kulna sawa biography and member of this band. Every information I write in this page I discover the next day that you are erasing it, would you please clarify, any positive contribution would be appreciated. Best regards Briantucker71 (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I believe you are referring to uncited information, that is not cited to a "reliable source" (see wp:rs), but instead falls within wp:or. I will also leave word on your talk page. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Epeefleche Im not familiar with wikipedia, the content of the page Kulna sawa is not complete I need your help to add the below data and revise it and cited, When talking about the history of this band Im one of the most reliable reference. Because Im writing the biography of this band and I can provide proofs for all listed information by photos and videos and sometimes by articles if available, I have all movies and documentaries ever produced about this band, and Im also member of this band, this page is talking about me, and Wikipedia is refusing my statement and the information Im telling about my self which are 100% true. And published before. I will list below the full text about Kulna sawa , please help me to cite and to submit this data so any one interested about our history can find in wikipedia what he is searching about. And also I have some materials, audio videos and picture to incorporate.

Here below the full text feel free to revise it because english is my third language. Best regards. Briantucker71 (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Several issues. Firstly, there's no need whatsoever to paste the article onto this talk page, much less twice. Secondly, the article cites no reliable sources - in fact, it cites no third-party sources whatsoever. What we're looking for are not photos or videos (unless they were published by, say, the BBC), but reliable third-party sources such as newspapers or music magazines. You certainly are not a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards; rather, you have a conflict of interest. Thirdly, what you added was unduly promotional. Huon (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding on my behalf, Huon.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Geoff Abrams

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

No Notable. Did not win any Jr Slam, never on the main tour (only tiny future tournaments), no davis cup, etc... Does not meet the extremely generous Tennis project guidelines for notability.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I see you removed the prod, which is fine. In doing so you said Geoff Abrams held some sort of record. Some serving record? Some win streak record? I couldn't find it, nor is it in the article. Could you please source this "record", else I would have to put it up for deletion the standard way. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I wrote: "Notable per WP:NTENNIS number 6." WP:NTENNIS number 6 states: "Tennis figures are presumed to be notable if they ... Hold a tennis record recognized by the International Tennis Federation, ATP or WTA". I took that to mean won-loss record, but given your query recognize that it is ambigous. If that is not what is meant, I think he meets GNG in any event. See not only the refs in the wp article -- some of which are devoted to him -- but those found here and here. If he meets GNG, as I believe he does easily with multiple RS articles about him, then it doesn't matter if he meets the wp:tennisnotability standards. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

We'll see what others think. The costa mesa pilot does not meet meet GNG nor do LA Times articles talking about everyone at a futures tournament. Others may agree with you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to have read what I linked to carefully. There are multiple RS articles devoted to him -- not that that's needed, but it clearly satisfies wp:GNG. You may want to look at the RS coverage, GNG, and reconsider. This isn't even close.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Which is why when you nominated, the article for deletion, it was kept.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Geoff Abrams for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, question and help

Epeefleche, thanks for the copyedits on the prep sets for DYK that I put together; I'm still fairly new to building those, so if I screwed up anything else, just let me know. One question is the degree to which we promoters are allowed to make minor copyedits to the hooks, as you did; I don't want to exceed the scope of the reviewer, though I did sneak in a comma to one... any guidelines on that? And my "help" question is if you could kindly promote an article I nominated that has been passed, (I think nominated on Nov2 or 3) at T:TDYK, Beholder (horse). Been trying to get someone over there to give it the final nod and get it in the queue. Thanks Montanabw^(talk) 03:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe that while in prep edits are fine, by all. Don't worry about that article -- someone will get to it. It just takes time. Feel free to ask someone else your original question as well. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I was asking on Beholder because I ran out of approved hooks that didn't have photo attached; wound up using one with a kind of poor photo to round out prep 2 set; I guess it's OK if not everyone gets their photo included...? Anyway, I know they should get to Beholder eventually, but she's been languishing for a bit because the reviewer wanted a second opinion because they were new to DYK reviews, which was legit, but slowed things down. LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 04:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Omer Eshel

Thank you for the update; can you help me in editing my article? I thought it was par to the style needed...

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colombus1492 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Sure. See MOS:YEAR (emphasis added) -- "A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given (1881–1986)."--Epeefleche (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

thank you :)

Nomination of Caravaggio (restaurant) for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Nathan Cohen

I'm really pissed off at you for moving the article about Canadian journalist and broadcaster Nathan Cohen. It was the first article about any Nathan Cohen, and now you moved it, retitled and caused redirects. I expect you will fix this. Also, you did not discuss this renaming with the main editors of the article before you moved it, as I certainly wasn't informed of it. For someone who is supposed to be a good Wikipedian, you violated several conventions with this move.--Abebenjoe (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do you believe, under WP rules, that an article that attracts 1/10th of the view traffic (the critic/journalist/broadcaster received 326 views the past 90 days, while the rower received 2,972 views in the same span) should have all viewers seeking "Nathan Cohen" directed to the critic's page?

Rather than to a dab page -- as, given the non-controversial nature of the change -- it was changed to.

Actually, given that the rower attracts 90% of the views, it appears that the rower is the "primary topic" for the name. So it even seems reasonable to consider going further, and changing the "primary topic" from the dab page to the rower page.

Although a name may refer to more than one person, it is sometimes the case -- as here -- that one of these topics is the primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article.

What in wp policy supports your view? It doesn't matter that his article was created first -- it attracts a smidgen of all readers seeking his name. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I legitimately reverted!

DavidLeib's edits are not legitimate. Please see Talk:Indiggo#Problems_with_sources. 63.247.160.139 (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

(To clarify: I was trying to revert DavidLeib's edits, not yours.)63.247.160.139 (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not taking a position either way on DavidLeib's edits. Your revert was primarily a revert of completely appropriate copyediting edits. If you wish to revert an edit that you believe was not appropriate, that is the only edit you should revert -- not the multiple additional subsequent edits, by other editors. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Michael Cammalleri additions

Hi, Epeefleche. Please note that the link you added as a ref leads to a 404 notification. Secondly, the issue of Cammalleri's self-identification has already been discussed in depth on the corresponding talk page and assuming Jewish self-identification is inappropriate for a BLP. Naturally, I shouldn't need to point this out to you as it was your interpretation and addition to the content at the epicentre of the discussion in the first instance. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

PS If the fact of his being a Jewish hockey star is that important, surely there must be more sources available than a pay-for online like Haaretz? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It's clearly an RS (a major newspaper since 1918; the countries oldest), devotes an entire article to the subject, and the article can be found here if the other url didn't work for you now. And -- though you don't know it, it is wholly irrelevant is a source is behind a pay-for-online format, as is the case for the New York Times and others. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

What is relevant is whether he self-identifies. Does the article contain a statement from him that he identifies as being Jewish? Perhaps you could provide me with a cut-and-paste of that particular section of the article for verification. We are discussing a BLP.

If you wish to discuss it further, please resume the discussion on the relevant talk page. I have no interest in going head-to-head with you on the matter as if it were a personal issue for me. I simply thought I'd be courteous and elaborate on my rationale for the revert rather than leave a brief edit summary. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Multiple issues here. First, the RS reports -- in an entire article devoted to the topic -- that he is now the all-time Jewish scorer. Second, it's clearly an RS -- despite you thinking it and The New York Times need to not have pay walls to be relied on. Third, you can see the article in the url I gave you. Your rationale simply does not hold water. Your additional rationale, that it is trivia, does not comport with the fact that a century-old RS devoted an entire article to it. We rely on the RS, not on any one editor. Third, he does of course self-identify, as the RS that only reflects those who self-identify (JSR) in fact lists him as such. Finally, Judaism is an ethnicity (and considered a nationality), as well as a religion, and we don't require self-identification (though we have it here) for ethnicities -- because he is Jewish by virtue of having been born Jewish and we are not ascribing religious beliefs (not that we require self-identification statements for the Pope and all sorts of other public figures anyway).--Epeefleche (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

May I move this section to the talk page? Your previous insertion of content of a similar nature was rejected as inappropriate for a BLP on the talk page. I also find myself wondering where I alluded to 'trivia'? My concerns surround being cautious about BLPs. Perhaps you are referring to the reversion prior my own? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: - a dead link is not reason to remove it, try the Wayback Machine for an archived link. Haaretz is, of course, a WP:RS as a major newspaper; if you disagree I suggest you use WP:RSN. GiantSnowman 12:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: the link is not the actual issue here (that was merely an aside). The crux of the matter was expressed, "... the issue of Cammalleri's self-identification has already been discussed in depth on the corresponding talk page and assuming Jewish self-identification is inappropriate for a BLP." Have you actually looked at the relevant talk page in order to familiarise yourself with the issue in context? This is why I have asked Epeefleche for permission to move this discussion to the talk page where it belongs. As a second attempt WP:BRD (discussion having already taken place last year, and other editors deemed it as being unsuitable), an own page is an inappropriate venue as it is not a one-on-one consensus issue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, we know that he self-identifies, because he is listed as such by the Jewish Sports Review. Not that we need it for ethnicity (and Judaism is also an ethnicity) -- any more than you need it to reflect someone "self-identifies" as Native American or African American.

Plus -- I agree with Giant that the actual issue here is the issue you yourself raised above. Which Giant addressed, and which I addressed. You questioned the use of Haaretz as a source (here, a source that devoted an entire article to the one sentence the article is used to support). You also questioned the use of a source that is behind a paywall. We've both addressed the point you raised - Haaretz is clearly an RS. And it is perfectly fine that it was in the first instance behind a paywall. Do you now agree on both points? And do you agree (recognizing that it was another editor editing with you in succession) that a statement that a century-old RS devotes an entire article to is not "trivia"?

Also, you started this discussion here. On my talk page. Yet, you are now objecting to the discussion being here. On my talk page. Saying it is "an inappropriate venue." Given that you yourself are the one that started the conversation here, I'm confused. I'm happy for it to run it's course here, the place you chose to start it.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that you're confused. Somehow you've managed to scramble all of the issues together in order to postulate that I am involved in perceiving the Haaretz reportage as trivia. Nor would I construe a courtesy note to be some form of 'throwing down the gauntlet' on your talk page. It is you who have persisted in locking it in here so as other editors working on the article at issue don't have the opportunity to engage with your arguments.

Considering that you've been actively editing for days without responding to my query about moving the discussion after involving another editor for an opinion out of context, and without engaging yourself after the opinion was given, I'd say that the statute of logical limitations has been exceeded in this venue.

As already proposed to you, you are welcome to begin the WP:BRD process on the article from scratch. I have no personal stake in the matter and was simply following the consensus reached last year (being that interviews with him demonstrated a self-identification which did not tally with Haaretz third party reportage). This time, however, I won't be duped into taking the civility bait and engage with you in any shape or form on your OWN talk. I'll see you on the Michael Cammalleri talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

2.124.41.167

Unfortunately there is nothing more we can do than revert, warn, and report to AIV. I'll monitor and block if appropriate. Regards, GiantSnowman 15:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. As your on this page, might I trouble you to take a look at the discussion immediately preceding this one, and share your thoughts? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you might care to answer my query before you start canvassing, Epeefleche. Thank you, in advance, for your courtesy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: - this is not WP:CANVASSing in the slightest. Neutrally asking for another's input is encouraged, if anything. GiantSnowman 12:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: no, someone who obviously has a good, ongoing working relationship with the party asking for comment out of context does not fit the profile of a neutral party. Had you gone to the relevant article and talk page in order to check on the context and added your voice to the discussion, it would most certainly have been canvassing. I could call in on any number of my choice of neutral third parties to 'share their thoughts' and lobby on my behalf. Per canvassing guidelines, you would qualify as being neutral under these circumstances:

"On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:

• Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
• Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
• Editors known for expertise in the field
• Editors who have asked to be kept informed"

Naturally, I am aware of the fact that you are aware of this. I'm sure you must be aware of the fact that this is uncomfortably close to overstepping the line between neutrality and canvassing. Thank you for your patience in hearing me out. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

No offence to Epeefleche but we don't have a "good, ongoing working relationship" - we get on, yes, as I do with most editors, but our interactions are minimal. GiantSnowman 12:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Cheers. Understood. In which case, of course you should not be precluded as a neutral party in situ. I would still ask that Epeefleche permit me to move the section on his talk page to the Michael Cammalleri talk page should he wish to continue in reopening the discussion using WP:BRD. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ashkan Dejagah

As per WP:FOOTY we tend not use nationality in the lead if it is dual, or if he plays for a country outside his birth, it stops edit wars, as sometimes happens. You are correct that German-Iranian is well and accurately sourced, but it is not the norm. Thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's the norm per WP:OPENPARA, which is what always governs (not sport-specific views which don't comply with the general consensus. It's also highly relevant -- the foundation for the next statements, of him playing for different national teams. It's also consistent with other sports. It is also backed by a very high level RS. And nationality is very important in sports, more than in many other bios, as it drives which national teams one can play for.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

And 5 edits to add it have all failed. WP:3RR? You are well past that.

"nationality is very important in sports, more than in many other bios, as it drives which national teams one can play for"

And in a footballing sense, it can lead to what you have just done. Thats why it is guided the way it is. Dont re-insert you have well breached the edit warring limit, and only now after the breach do you discuss. I will raise it at footy to gain clarity, probably tomorrow evening. Murry1975 (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A few points. First, project guidelines trump individual wikiproject editors' views where the two conflict. And our guideline on ledes in bios, WP:OPENPARA, states: "The opening paragraph should have: ... In most modern-day cases ... the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident..." (emphasis added). Second, reversion of vandalism don't count towards 3RR, and the deletions here of RS text and the RS, in contravention of the guideline, fail to follow Project guidelines (and, of course, there were different iterations in a number of those I was part of). Third, another editor inserted the text as well.

Fourth, your cohort deleted first without any reason. And then claiming that the fact that he was an Iranian citizen should remain, but deleting the fact that he was also a German citizen. Because, as he put it, to reflect that he is a German dual-citizen is "anti-Iranian." Whaaat? Fifth, it is not only called for by the guideline that it be included, it is especially relevant to athletes -- as you appear to agree. We don't delete especially important material, because your co-editor feels he wants to only reflect that the person is an Iranian citizen, while the RS says he is a dual citizen. If that's what you think is the goal of the Project, you're wrong. Finally -- footy obviously is the wrong place to gain clarity if anyone there thinks, as you and your co-hort seem to, that a sport-specific wikiproject can come up with a "don't reflect citizenship in the lede" rule that overrides a Project guideline -- as well as standard Project treatment of athletes in other sports. You need to go to the guideline and related Project pages to understand that guidelines control, if that is where your disconnect is.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I've opened what I hope can be a centralized discussion at the guideline page, which I invite you to join. It is at Talk:Ashkan Dejagah#Deletions of citizenship from lede, contra our guideline.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have an agenda with the Dejagah issue that you keep bringing up. His intro shouldn't have the negative aspects of his career, only the positives. Please refrain from enforcing your ideologies onto his encyclopedia page. Yes, the Iranian regime is corrupt and oppressive, we get it; it's been noted in the 'International career - Germany' section. Also, your writing seems off, with choppy sentences and some grammatical errors here & there. On another note, thanks for clarifying his international section, as well as adding other sections.--RidiQLus (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see the centralized discussion at Talk:Ashkan Dejagah#Deletions of citizenship from lede, contra our guideline. The issue is adherence to wp:lede.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion has also been continued here.--Bowser2500 (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Indiggo

Btw, good job on finding the chart source on that. I've made it a point to comment on the new AfD to reflect it, too. By the way, for what it's worth, I didn't supervote; it truly was simply a close close (ermm... close that was close :P), hinging on literally what you just added (due to GNG-only arguments basically cancelling each other out). Obviously you're free to think that I'm just some jerk that's hell-bent on destroying your article (again, to be honest, I couldn't care less), but please bear this in mind next time you run across someone else making a decision you don't agree with: maybe—just maybe—they're not actually expressing bias. :P Whatever; dunno why... just thought you should know. --slakr^\ talk / 07:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I left a note at the AfD that -- though I didn't stress this aspect of it -- goes against your express assumption, that "Leaving it open longer would appear to only result in more delete votes."

I had pointed out at delrev that: "As he knows from the edit history of the article, many of the RS refs and more fulsome treatments of the subject came mid-AfD, after most of the delete !votes, which would lead one to suspect (if crystal balling were to be acceptable) that an extension would lead to more keep !votes."

I think the many refs added since the article has been re-opened following delrev -- not limited to the charting ref -- support a GNG conclusion (and of course the charting one does as well). Had the AfD simply been extended -- which is low-hanging fruit -- we could have gotten there without the delrev process. Especially where it is a close call, as you indicate this was, I would urge you to consider in similar circumstances letting more time pass so more refs can be found and more editors can opine and a clearer consensus can be gauged.

Another point -- you, both above and at the AfD, refer in effect to the GNG discussions being equal, or "cancelling each other out" -- in that case, it is a "no consensus" close that is called for. If you still think otherwise, I would suggest we discuss this with a long-time AfD sysop such as user:DGG (I have never discussed it with him to my knowledge, but know he has been around long enough to have the view I have based on my years of observation). You seem to think that if it is a "no consensus" on GNG, rather than close it as "no consensus" you should delete it because it doesn't pass wp:BAND -- that's just wrong, and I would be disturbed if you continue to close AfDs under that misapprehension.

I still feel that if you don't simply weigh (not just number, of course) the proper !votes at an AfD and close accordingly, but instead close in accord with your personal feeling as you did, that's a supervote. If, as I agree, the !vote was a stand-off draw on GNG, then it should be a "no consensus" close.

Also, it's not "my article". I barely ever touched it, until the AfD.

Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

articles on popular music performers are not within my area of competence, but there are some general issue involved. ( I am not sure I will comment at the AfD, but if it goest to DelRev again I certainly will).

(1) Speaking generally,when there are several possibly conflicting guidelines, as is clearly the state here, it is a matter of judgment which one to use, and the people at the AfD must choose what they wish to emphasize. When they are divided, it's up to the judgment of the closing admin, but the closer must still base it on the arguments presented, not their own personal view. To a considerable extent, in practice both those commenting at the AfD and certainly the closing admin decide on the basis of a holistic evaluation of whether the article should be in WP. (At the very least, they certain judge in this manner when deciding what AfDs to participate in, which is often the deciding factor) That's the basic idea of IAR: we follow the rules when we think they will help, and only then

(2) In most cases there is no general rule about the relation of special and general notability factors. There are a few well-understood exceptions: WP:PROF is explicitly an alternative to the GNG, not a supplement. Some aspects of notability for athletes are also an alternative, such as being in the Olympics. (My own personal view is that the special notability factors when they exist should be the only rules use, and the GNG is only for exceptional cases either where no rule applies, or when the argument is despite not being notable by the qualities of the subject it is notable because of publicity. This is definitely not the consensus position, but I will continue to argue it ought to be, both so we can spend less time quibbling over the details of sourcing, and also so we can avoid systematic bias.

(2a) I am not willing to say whether there is consensus that if a recording charts, it is notable enough for an article on the performer or the recording regardless of all other factors. That's a decision for those more knowledgable and more interested. Personally, I regard such a view as a great anomaly, leading to extravagant overcoverage of popular music, but my personal view has no bearing here, and I do not try to intrude it into specific decisions. My approach to WP is to let people interested in a subject decide what they want to do unless there is some reason otherwise.

(3)Lack of notability is not the only reason to delete the articles. For example, consensus that there is no way an article can meet BLP is a thoroughly accepted reason. It is also true that we can decide that there is consensus not to have separate articles at the present state of some topic, even if they would meet notability,

(4) The consistent practice here is that no consensus means the prior decision stands. At AfD we are dealing with whether we should delete an existing article. If there is no consensus to delete, we do not delete. This does not apply to individual arguments, If there is no consensus that something is passes a guideline, then there is simply no agreement to that, and it does not affect directly the ultimate decision on whether to keep or delete. What it generally does do is lower the value of that particular factor in deciding whether or not there is consensus to delete the article. We speak of an article "passing" AfD, , but what that means is that it passes if there is no consensus to remove it. Nobody needs permission on consensus to make an article on anything--where consensus is needed, is to remove it. Some other WP processes work otherwise--for example, as I understand it, unless there is consensus an image meets the NFCC, it is not usable.

(5) A closer may not close on the basis of his own feelings unless they are in consensus with the informed position of the interested community. (But a failure to do so does not constitute bias, just a incorrect understand of their role. It is of course permissible & in my open admirable to close against one's own feeling if it's clear the consensus is to that effect--this is often the best approach to a really divisive question. The only proper course a prospective closer can take if they think the consensus is wrong is to argue against it, either in the AfD or in deletion review. When two principles conflict, the community decides which one to use, not the closer. Admins have no power to decide anything at all except with the explicit or implied consensus of the community. All we have power to do is to decide what the community wants. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

DJ Jurgen

DJ Jurgen was credited as an artist in the Alice DeeJay song Better Off Alone, on which he was credited as "DJ Jurgen Presents Alice Deejay". When I have time, I will expand the article myself.--Launchballer 08:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I don't understand that explanation as being sufficient to confer notability (in wp terms) on the subject.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

He meets WP:MUSICBIO#C2.--Launchballer 08:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The song and the band are both certainly notable (and if he is not notable, a redirect to the band would be in order). But up above you indicated that the song is the band's song. If so, it is the band that would meet the criteria under wp:BAND, not the artist. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Not according to how it was credited. If you remain dissatisfied, send it to AfD.--Launchballer 08:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused, as much as anything. The official chart you pointed me to credits the charting to the band -- see here. It's a bit murky to me.Epeefleche (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't the chart I pointed you to. The chart I pointed you to, i.e. the one on the article, specifically attributes DJ Jurgen to that one song, while the others are just Alice DeeJay.--Launchballer 10:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry -- I meant chart url. And you wrote above, that he "was credited as an artist in the Alice DeeJay song." So, if its the band song, and the chart url credits the charting (at least in one of its charts), to the band, that's what leaves me confused.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, both the artist and the band are credited.--Launchballer 16:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan Spector

Hello. I don't know if you've seen Nate Bloom's syndicated column from June 2010, in which he says the Jewish Journal piece was mistaken in identifying Spector as Jewish, which apparently they did "based simply on the fact that Jonathan's paternal grandfather, Art Spector, an original member of the Boston Celtics basketball team, was identified as Jewish in some sources". The column claims that Spector's other grandparents were not Jewish, even if Art Spector might have been, and Spector himself certainly attended a Catholic high school. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No -- had not seen that. Many thanks. I will check the JSR when it next comes out, as they speak to the players themselves or their representatives. But in the meantime, feel free to revise accordingly. (By the way -- Jews not infrequently attend Christian schools; that in itself would not be dispositive; also, to complicated matters, for purposes of the World Baseball Classic and of Israeli citizenship, one grandparent is sufficient). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Indiggo‎

hiya, is imbd http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3337437/ a verified location for a birthday? If new people are going to return to the in out content fights as previous, would it be possible to ask if the article can be kept with locking or editor restrictions? Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I would have to check. But we certainly do have RSs that indicate, for example, how old they were during the first Eurovision contest. Yes, if the article attracts IP and new editor disruption, that can be addressed with protection. And/or the banning of the editor -- this brand new editor certainly looks like a sock of an editor already involved in the general AfD discussions.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice, that would be a good idea if a repeat happens. I see CW has taken down the birthday as "unreliable" so if you could find a permitted verification at minimum for their age it would be an improvement, thanks to you Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

== Question ==</nowiki>

Hi -- I saw that you were one of the delete !voters on a soccer player, for failing among other things to have played in an appropriate professional league. I was looking at an article on him here, and it appears that he now at least has done so (e.g., the Israeli Premier League, which is on this list). But before I start the article, I thought I would check with you to see if you agree. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Epeefleche (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, playing a match in the Israeli Premier League would be enough to satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL and meet minimum notability requirements. GiantSnowman 12:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Chessie (band)

Hi Epeefleche. Regarding this: If you see a comment of mine such as the one at Talk:Chessie (band), even if it's very old, I'd be happier if you came by my talk page to ask me about it rather than putting a deletion tag on such an article. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Congrats on your five-year anniversary of working on it!--Epeefleche (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Excellent work by you on the article. Typical of you. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Fawad Khan (actor)

Hello Epeefleche, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Fawad Khan (actor), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: My feeling is that the article and reference constitute a claim of significance enough to escape A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting -- even though the claim is not that he has done anything of importance? But that he is expected to? In a film that hasn't come out? Note, though a different test, how this one looks only at what has in fact been done -- WP:NACTOR (and even that requires multiple films).--Epeefleche (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Zachary Wohlman

Hi there. I see you've added Zachary Wohlman back to the Northridge, Reseda and Woodland Hills articles. I also went looking for a source, and found the same one you listed. For obvious reasons, WP:USCITIES suggests adding notable individuals "that were born, or lived for a significant amount of time, in the city". The source you cited doesn't state that though. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

First -- for obvious reasons, as you put it, we can assume that a ref reports a person lived in a locale if they lived there a significant enough time for it to be significant to report. Such is the case here.

Second -- living in the location a few years suffices for notable persons lists. The criteria are: a) they are notable; b) RSs report that they lived there. We don't create further criteria (and what would they be anyway? One year? Three years? Five years? As many years as editor X thinks is a good number? We have no such criteria at wp, because there are none). For that matter, even just being born in a location suffices -- even if the person moves away the next day.

Third --WP:USCITIES is not a guideline. And it is not even part of WP:MOS.

Fourth -- WP:LISTPEOPLE is the closest guideline. It states: "A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met: ... The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. ... The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources." Such is the case here. There's no reason that a person would be notable enough to be included in a stand-alone list, but not notable enough for an embedded list of precisely the same people. Especially given that when embedded lists get long enough, they become stand-alone lists. The guideline for embedded lists is logically the same as the guideline WP:LISTPEOPLE, on content selection matters. There is no difference in the criteria between the embedded list for Woodland Hills and the article list for Los Angeles -- it is just that when a list becomes long enough, it is spun out.

Fifth -- I see no guideline indicating that an entry in an article list, which is appropriate for an article list, must be deleted from an embedded list.

Sixth -- even the non-guideline, non-MOS, style advice that you refer to only points to what one should make sure one takes care to include (it is not by its terms exhaustive), not to what one must delete. Thanks.Epeefleche (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:LISTPEOPLE is a section in the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. The three articles you added this person to are not stand-alone lists; the "notable people" sections of city articles are not stand-alone lists. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ranting

Dear Epeefleche, please take your content disputes concerning the BLP of Cammalleri to Talk:Michael Cammalleri and not cluttering my talk page, as we have no extra-content issues to discuss. I'm done with your rants and conspiracy theories.--Львівське (говорити) 06:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I've discussed in that talk page discussion why it is appropriate for your talk page, as it relates to your pattern of editing, and follows a similar complaint made with regard to your editing; both, of course, follow your being sanctioned for similar reasons, all on related articles, as is being discussed at your ongoing AE. I've no idea what your reference to a conspiracy theory is meant to refer to.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The imaginary 'pattern' you've concocted. That's the reference. --Львівське (говорити) 06:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The pattern is demonstrated in your ongoing AE here with regard to your sanction. The sanction language itself referred to your pattern in regard to editing these articles, as part of the explanation for the sanction on you was that:

"The fact that you are now edit-warring over your apparent belief that being Jewish & Ukrainian is not possible is pointy, incorrect, and contrary to the core policies of this site (source based, neutral point of view edits). You should be in no doubt User:Lvivske that further behaviour like this will be prevented by block if necessary."

But I don't see any reference by me to a conspiracy.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not language from a sanction, that's pulled from elsewhere. The statement itself was completely fabricated by the user you quoted, so using random false statements as 'evidence' of a 'pattern' seems to be connecting dots that don't exist. As I've suggested, it's quite the story you've cooked up. --Львівське (говорити) 06:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That is the precise language from the note "Block and Final Warning" left for you by sysop Cailil, in the block that precede the sanction you are appealing at AE by 28 days. Why are you charging sysop Cailil with "fabricating" what he writes in that statement. Why are you charging him with making "false statements?". And read the entire note -- it further details your pattern I'm pointing to. And the discussion at imposition of your sanction points as well to you tag-teaming on Ukrainian related articles. I'm not making up anything -- I'm pointing to what is detailed in that note and in your current AE.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

SSWSC Fixed?

Thank you Epeefleche, I am new to editing Wikipedia; is my cite fixed on SSWSC? I didn't see that info was removed as per your message, so I just added a cite. Thank you for your help. Sswsc (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC) SSWSC

Welcome. I would suggest a reference for each sentence you add. Also, I would suggest you change your name, as it is close to the name of an article you edit, and that you become familiar with wp:COI. Best of luck, and welcome again.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Arielle Gold

Thanks for this Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Gilles Vigneault

Please put the discography back on the Gilles Vigneault page. You should be aware that when someone is notable, they are often notable for a body of work. This body of work should be included on their page, in the correct section. For musicians, Discography. For actors and directors, Filmography, and for authors, Bibliography. These sections should not be optional, and cites are not required, as the works themselves are by the artist. I'm sure you'll agree that showing a musicians body of work is necessary for an article on a musician. I will leave the format of the Discography up to you, since you seem to have some sort of problem with it.  The Steve  04:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy for you to restore it -- with appropriate refs. The issue is that the material failed to comply with wp:v, was flagged for lacking appropriate RS refs (for over five years, at this point), and was deleted for such. Simply provide inline RS refs in accord with wp:v. Thanks. Best.Epeefleche (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup

You were right, thanks for making me a better editor. I was going to correct the criticism section but it had some issues and it was easier to delete it. I rewrote what was there and have added a new part to address the updated method.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. As an aside -- though it's not the goal, an impact of retaining RS-supported material such as that is that it goes towards a demonstration of notability of the subject. As many of the subsidiary articles have this week been deleted as non-notable, that's not simply a hypothetical issue. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

SPI open?

I was going to start one, but then I vaguely thought there was one already, so I thought I'd just wait.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any are open, as best I can recall. You might wait for one more disruptive edit, on the unlikely chance it will go away ... Or not. Your call. Pls alert me to it. Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Will do, although I'm done for today. Keep up the good work!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

In any event, I've encouraged and we've received one month protection of the page. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Your recent speedy deletion requests

I declined the speedy deletion of Liam Kelly (musician) as the subject made a claim of significance backed by a reliable source. I also removed the maintenance tags as I felt they no longer applied.

Please note that pages are only eligible for speedy deletion if all of its revisions are also eligible. I see you are tagging lots of articles, many of which have been around for years. If you feel they meet deletion criteria, consider sending them to AfD rather than nominating for speedy deletion. I also might have to agree with other users that you may be a little hasty with deleting content. I'm a stickler for verifiability myself, but unless it's likely to be challenged I generally tag it for needing a source. This allows other editors time to address the concern, which is partially why the templates are dated.

Example... an article I've recently been working on had serious verifiability issues. However, the prose was superb, and when I went to do research, all the claims checked out. I added sources where needed and hopefully the article will soon be heading to WP:GAN. My point is if content is removed altogether it might be forgotten, and it may take longer to be rewritten than it would to have been kept, tagged, and later sourced. All of this is of course my opinion. I just thought I'd share it with you. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. A couple of questions. First -- if a person is a member of a band, they are not by that in itself (without more) considered sufficiently notable for a wp article. Is the rule looser on this point at speedy?

Second -- the article had a tag that you deleted, which said "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. ". But the existing ref, as far as I can see, failed to support more than one of the assertions in the two sentences that preceded them. You left in the assertions. But also deleted the call for refs to support the assertions, saying you felt the tag "no longer applied". Am I perhaps missing something?

BTW it is interesting, though it bears not at all on the validity of the article, that the article was created by a now indef blocked user. One would have thought -- with all of its many socks -- that it knew how to add an RS ref.

Also, you suggest tagging. But in this article there were two tags. Going back as far as May 2010 -- four years ago. And the problems cited by the tags still remained. This is an example of tagging failing to solve the problem.

Also, I always consider tagging, and sometimes do so, in lieu of deletion. Other times, at the other extreme, I undo an add immediately, that is not supported. I always follow wp scrupulously in this regard. As you know, while there is support for tagging first, both approaches are perfectly fine. Editor judgment is called for, and that's what I apply. I'm personally appalled at the amount of incited inappropriate material we have, especially in articles that relate to living people, and our music area lags behind some others in this regard.

The speedy process is meant -- where a speedy is appropriate -- to be used in lieu of AfD, so as to not unnecessarily tax the Project's resources. That's why and how I use it. Where I consider it appropriate, I use AfD.

Content that is removed can always be seen in the edit history. For years I've almost never added even a sentence without an appropriate ref, so little that I've added has been reverted, but I know that whenever that happens it can be discovered in that manner.

Your point about tags being dated raises an interesting point. We now have an increasing number of instances where text that has been tagged is still unaddressed and over five years old. Perhaps we are getting closer to a point where all material tagged but not address that is over x years old should be deleted. It's at least a thought.

I appreciate your thought. Your example is a good one. The question is -- which is a greater loss, having in incorrect material, or deleting accurate but unsourced material? I believe that wp:v is the best we have in terms of community thought on it at the moment. The onus and burden is on the person adding the material, not on the reviewing editor, though it is of course commendable if the reviewing editor does the work for the initial editor. I'm aware that some editors would like to simply dump in material and have you and me provide the footnotes, but the Project has not seen fit to foist that burden on us.

Here is my example, of a few hours ago. See Talk:Daniel Lavoie. I took the time there to tag the article, leave a long explanation on the article talk page, and leave word on the pages of the two editors involved. Editor judgment is called for, and I could have deleted the offensive material myself, but I've given them a chance to correct it first. If they do so, even if they continue to largely only edit that article, they will be better editors, and the project will benefit.

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

new articles - Israel project

Hi Epeefleche - since you've recently added a whole bunch of new articles, I've listed them here. It would be really great if you could list them yourself, though, since it takes a while for them to show up on the radar. --Sreifa (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Athlon Sports Communications

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Athlon Sports Communications requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Uncletomwood (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

A7s

Do not remove unsourced material from an article and then tag it as an A7. Speedy deletions do not depend on sourcing, and the method you occasionally use is manipulative of the process.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced material that is challenged is subject to deletion per wp:v, and unsourced and unsourcable material is not the basis for demonstrating notability of an article (whether or not it is in the text of an article -- that confuses two separate issues). We are not a repository of unsourced/unsourcable claims. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You can delete the unsourced material, but then nominate it for deletion, don't tag it. It's an end-run around the deletion processes and is unacceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I fail to follow you. Unsourced material may be tagged. Unsourced material may be challenged. Unsourced material may be deleted. You can't be militating against any of that. This is clearly part of wp:v, and wp:v is at the core of the integrity of the project. If we are agreed on this, we move on to the second issue. Once an article is cleaned, by material violative of wp:v being deleted, which is totally appropriate (there is not "end run" in removing material that should not have been added in the first place), the article is subject to the full panoply of the deletion process -- as appropriate, either speedy or prod or AfD. The two -- application of wp:v and consideration of the article for deletion =-- are unrelated, though the cleaning of the article allows people to be aware that perhaps they wish to look for other support for verifiability of notable facts, so there is a benefit to that taking place first. You can't however take a non-notable article and militate against deletion of unsourced and unsourcable claims in the article. There's no defense for material violative of wp:v, and especially when it violates blp it is simply inappropriate. Epeefleche (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get another administrator to chime in and perhaps communicate the problem more clearly. I'm reluctant to take you to ANI over this, but, in my view, your actions are disruptive, and you appear not to understand that.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah -- I see from what you wrote here, that your concern is if an editor takes the step of "immediately tag[ing] the article as an A7" after unsourced material that might otherwise be significant enough to withstand an A7 is deleted. I don't think I do that typically, and I don't have an issue with that. Though you didn't clarify it above -- only in your indicated note. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Here are three articles: Avni Anıl, Athina Malagardi, and Angela Oberer. Now you may quibble with "immediately" because date-wise there was space in between your deletion and your tag, but your tag was the "immediate" edit after the deletion. Regardless, you're missing the point, which is addressed better below by Drmies and Yngvadottir. The issue is whether the material you removed would have triggered a decline of the A7, and by your edits, you compel an admin to look at the history and examine all that. This is a speedy delete, and I don't always look at the history unless something catches my eye. Nor should I have to in cases like yours. If you want to do it properly, restore the unsourced material and tag it for speedy, or leave it out and nominate it or prod it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

By immediate, I thought you meant (and I mean) temporally proximate. I agree with the general concept -- see here -- and see that the three examples there have under a month apart. I think longer would be better, and agree that immediate is not as good -- the reason being that a main purpose of the deletion is to allow editors to focus on the possibility of adding relevant rs supported info. And I don't have any issue with that at all. I generally don't tag an article I've touched within the month (whether or not there are intervening edits by others), though in those cases you are correct that that was the case (three weeks or so). In general, articles always have additions and deletions (and those are part of speedy review), but I think it is generally a good practice to give the article some time for improvement. I wouldn't suggest to any editor that they restore deleted non-RS-supported information, as you suggest one could do, because that violates wp:burden if it fails to have an RS inline cite, though if one does have it then by all means such addition if helpful. PROD is a good approach -- I'll give that some thought. Epeefleche (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

DGG can say this much better than me, no doubt. But the standard for declining a speedy deletion is much lower than for "ordinary" deletion. It is necessary only to see a believable claim to some importance, whether that claim is verified or not. So any admin is free to, for instance, browse through the history to see what was removed before and take that into account. But that is bothersome, of course, and if not disruptive, it's at least irritating. Removing ridiculous stuff, sure; removing unsourced stuff, not so helpful. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's the flip side of what Drmies just wrote: speedy deletion is for clear-cut cases, because it puts the entire onus on one admin to decide whether the article is worth saving. There are too few admins, and in any case we're all volunteers with other demands on our time - chances are high that the history will not be checked over looking for deleted material that might cast the topic in a different light. (Plus by making such a check necessary you're increasing the workload of the admins ... ) If it's truly a speedy deletion candidate, tag it and let the admin make the quick decision and delete it. Don't fiddle with it first and complicate things. Otherwise, we have other processes for a reason - and then it's more urgent to excise unreferenced defamatory material while the longer processes run. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Epeefleche, anytime we delete something we run the risk of getting yelled at. Defamatory material, that's another matter of course, especially in the case of a BLP (but then A7 probably isn't appropriate). Just let us make the call: admins get in hot water easily enough already. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Drmies. What you say is of course true. There's probably a divide, with some people being more partial to the inclusion of unreferenced material, and others more against it, and wp:v stating the general consensus view. Because of what you point to, I'm often slower than I might be to delete unreferenced material -- even slower than what wp:v describes as appropriate. And no doubt, as you say, admins have the heavy lifting to do -- that's why they close deletion discussions. I also think it's a good thing -- which is why I don't boldly redirect articles that others would redirect, leaving the process to an admin or the community to act on. On the subject of speedy deletions, before nominating a page for speedy deletion we of course are supposed to consider whether it could be handled in some other way -- and among the other ways that we are supposed to consider is whether it should be reduced to a stub (that, in addition to improved, etc.). It's only after such consideration (which may take the place of deletions of non-wp:v material) that we should move on to speedy it. But a page is only eligible for speedy deletion if all of its revisions are also eligible - admins who follow the speedy rules always have to look at the revisions in this regard. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Alas, since my name was mentioned, I'm forced to admit that I do not always check the history if the article seems radically unsuitable. I should; I should do many things here more carefully, but the pressure of incoming articles and other work has always been too great for fully adequate checking, in comparison to the number of reasonably competent people doing it. I'm sure I've made errors because of this. I think the highest acceptable incorrect deletion error rate for an admin at CSD is 5% (depending on the utter obviousness of the articles dealt with). I think mine is about 1%--but even so over my 10,000 speedy deletions that comes to 100 wrongly deleted articles, of which perhaps 1/4 were noticed by others and rescued. I may not be happy about my failure to achieve perfection, but I've had many decades of life to get used to it. DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your usual humility and humor. Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Magic Circle Festival.

I am curious why Magic Circle Festival wasn't important enough to keep while https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wacken_Open_Air, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellfest_(American_music_festival), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellfest_(French_music_festival) To name a few metal festivals all have their own pages. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Decay (talk • contribs) 14:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hi -- If another festival article exists, it may just be a case of wp:otherstuffexists. The key is A7 criteria. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Epeefleche, I've restored this article and declined A7 on it... Manowar, WASP, Ted Nugent... 25,000 attendance... certainly credible assertions that it is a large festival (and therefore potentially notable). Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Catfish -- I don't believe there is consensus support for your view that the fact that there is 25,000 attendance at a festival and it has certain bands is an indication that a festival is important or significant. Epeefleche (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless it's a credible assertion of importance (not a demonstration of notability as agreed by consensus) so ought to be taken to AFD if you feel it doesn't merit inclusion on WP. It really doesn't take much to pass CSD-A7. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed at length on the speedy page. Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have since contributed. The standards required for CSD-A7 are explained here: Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Essays (such as what you point to) are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints; they may not in fact "explain" anything. I think the discussion at the policy here is key. Epeefleche (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

(stalking) I don't wish to wade in to an argument, particularly as I've just given my 2c at WT:CSD, but rather than arguing the case over what's "significant" or "notable", a far better thing to do is to dig out sources that cover the festival, and cite them, so the notability becomes unquestionable. The Daily Telegraph is particularly good at doing coverage. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the Daily Telegraph is unlikely to report on music festivals outside of Britain. A case in point is the Magic Circle Festival above... has notable, international bands playing at it, but it has been held in Germany, Slovenia and Finland. After trawling through online rock music magazines and german language editions of Metal Hammer, I'm inclined to suggest it's actually merged to Manowar as it's really them plus support, playing outdoors... the one year they tried to expand it, it was an unmitigated disaster. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Catfish -- your merge inclination sounds reasonable. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Shopping centre AfD spree

Are you really that determined to get every single shopping centre article in Wikipedia deleted from the site (even the ones with reference sources, which you claim to be "unreliable" but are, in fact, not)? This is looking very reminiscent of your previous AfD deletion nomination sprees which ended up drawing heavy criticism against you from other posters and admins here. Creativity-II (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• What did I call a non-RS that you think is an RS? Are you referring to our discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bay Centre? I don't understand your claim, there, that primary sources and one-sentence mentions and non-RS blogs support a claim of notability, and think you are mistaken. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• That's where I have to beg to differ. From Wikipedia:PRIMARYNOTBAD:

"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control and published by a reputable publisher. Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.

And under You are allowed to use primary sources... carefully in the same article:

Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles.

And in that subsection, from one of the examples:

An article about a business: The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities.

About your claims of "non-reliable" sources, how does information (including photographs) that verifies the article (even if it comes from a forum or blog) not count as reliable as seen by you? Also, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost:

Reliable sources must be able to be verified. This does not mean that any particular person at any given moment must be capable of verifying them.

• Verifiable sources may have time restrictions (only accessible between 10am and 4pm in a particular time zone).
• Verifiable sources may have location restrictions (only available at one archive, museum, repository, or only available within a certain country or geographical area).
• Verifiable sources may have cost restrictions (the purchase of a book, journal article, magazine, newspaper, or the Interlibrary Loans or Document Delivery costs associated with them, access to a museum costs, costs of entry to paid archival services).
• Verifiable sources may have technical or personal restrictions (written in languages other than English, on websites that require a certain software, available on a type of media that requires the reader to have a certain type of technological appliance to access it)

The costs or difficulties of verifying a source do not impact its reliability, as long as it can be verified by someone in a reasonable time frame.

Where a source is difficult to verify, or in a language other than English, many editors appreciate the courtesy of supplying the relevant paragraph and ensuring it can be read by English language readers. When sources of equal quality are available, the ease of access may be preferred. But if sources of higher quality are difficult to verify, that difficulty alone is not a reason to disregard such sources or replace them with lower-quality ones.

And getting back to your latest deletion nomination spree, this essay relates to the matter at hand: Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup Creativity-II (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources do not support notability. That is well-settled. That issue is distinct from whether the source can be used in an article. Epeefleche (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

And you say this, even after all that I quoted above? It sounds like you're adhering too closely to the rules of Wikipedia while not following its spirit. Creativity-II (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You quoted material relating to whether primary sources can be used in an article. Not whether primary sources support notability. They don't. The general notability guideline speaks directly to this. It says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article.... "Sources" ... should be secondary sources." Epeefleche (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

That's your claim, but you're still ignoring the fact that primary sources can be used for articles when used carefully, and that includes notability. Your attitude toward the use of primary sources makes it sound like they are unreliable or unusable as sources when that's not always the case (the reason I included the quotes above). Creativity-II (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You continue to confuse the two issues. You again refer to whether primary sources can be used in an article. That's not the relevant issue in notability discussions.

The relevant issue is whether primary sources support notability. They don't. The general notability guideline speaks directly to this. It says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article.... "Sources" ... should be secondary sources."

I'm not sure how to make this clearer to you. Epeefleche (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Pix; Google Books; German; Arabic; Coordinates; Ref tools

• Pix: WhisperToMe (talk)
• Google Books: The Tetrast (talk)
• German. Hekerui (talk)
• Arabic: Supertouch (talk)
• Coordinates: Coordinates add context to an article and icons appear on google earth (eventually). I use google images, Bing birdseye view and google streetview to cross reference locations. Then I centre google maps on the location and copy this code into the address bar and press enter

  javascript:void(prompt('',"{{coord|" + gApplication.getMap().getCenter().lat() + "|" + gApplication.getMap().getCenter().lng() + "}}"));

  Then I copy the text out of dialogue box, paste it into the article and trim the coordinates to appropriate accuracy (usually 4 decimal places for a building). Grim²³★
• Ref Tools: here
• Columns. {{Div col}} {{Div col end}}
• Current dollars: $100,000 in 1900 (${{formatnum:{{Inflation|US|100000|1900|r=0}}}} in current dollar terms)
• {{quote box |width=20em | bgcolor= |align=right | quote= "...."<ref>{{cite web|url= |title= |date= |accessdate= }}</ref>|source= — ...}}

</nowiki>