User talk:SmokeyJoe/Archive 5

Surprised

I was surprised to see you oppose the RfC for the Draft: namespace. Not that you haven't surprised me many times before. You said you see it as "incubator 2.0", but I see it as exactly the opposite, a way to finally get rid of the incubator by superceding it, solve the lingering issue of Google indexed user drafts (since draft: could be NOINDEX), and provide a centralized manageable place for drafts as well as a cleaner namespace for AfC to use.

It does solve several very real problems. If I wanted to see if anyone has a draft on a topic I want to write about, I'd have to search the incubator, AfC, and all of user space right now. We could even tie this into the software technically, on redlink nav, think of something like "We have no article on 'foo', but there is a working draft at draft:foo, or you may create a new one here".

It takes what amounts to several hacky mechanisms and merges them into something that makes sense. I agree with some of the opposition's claim that this may very well touch several areas of policy, but that's not a good reason to avoid it. One of the reasons it may affect many areas of policy is because it solves a lot of problems. And that's a good thing. Gigs (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Manual of Style

I don't think knowledge of words is helpful on the question. On the "our goal is to write an encyclopaedia" front, obviously, your position makes sense and the "blindly follow the MOS" does not. (I say this assuming you're right about how the work was published, but I have to conclude that true based on the "blindly follow the MOS" position express no interest in what the thing is actually called.) From a "Wikipedia politics" perspective ... I try to avoid the MOS. As I read the discussion there, the claim that you should think of [[MOS:CAPS] is hookum, it's explicitly a guideline, which you shouldn't follow when you have a compelling reason not to. WilyD 15:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Toontown Online

I invite you to discuss the deletion of dead links. Please join in discussion to section regarding this matter at the bottom of the page. --George Ho (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Rough consensus

I nominated the Wikipedia:Rough consensus page for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rough consensus . -- Jreferee (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

your commentary is requested

Hello SmokeyJoe, there is a noticeboard discussion -- don't panic, you have done absolutely nothing wrong -- over here at 23:16 where your username was mentioned, as a relatively-uninvolved person who interacted with User:Ahnoneemoos back in August 2013. See here, policy-page,[1] and talkpage.[2] Can you comment on their character, and on whether their editing is a net positive versus a net negative, if you have time? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Administrators by AccountCreationDate.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 17

I reverted this back to the closed state, undoing MathLine's edit to it which meant also undoing your comment. I've posted a note at User talk:MathLine#Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of quadratic irrational numbers set in a systematic order to give the reasoning to that editor in more detail (though I don't expect them to take much notice).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry. I didn't notice that the review had already closed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Article renaming

Wish I had seen your suggestion to rename article to "Historical study of the Bible" earlier. Superior to what I had voted for. You are right "historicity" is somewhat of a (not quite your words) pretentious mouthful! Too soon to change now, I guess. Maybe we can wait six months and try again? Student7 (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Relisting

Would you mind addressing the points I made about why relisting is harmless, and therefore should not be limited to uninvolved editors? If you disagree, I'd like to understand why. --B2C 04:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think I've neither agreed nor disagreed on that question. I do like the idea that a relister should comment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:NO CONSENSUS and Wikipedia:NOCONSENSUS

Because you have edited Wikipedia:No consensus, your input is requested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:NO CONSENSUS and Wikipedia:NOCONSENSUS. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Australia and the comma convention

Hi SmokeyJoe. Quite by accident while looking for something else, I found this discussion you expressed an interest in earlier.

• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/August#Australian place name convention, and
• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/August#Australian place move discussions. Mattinbgn (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, Mattinbgn. I don't remember any awareness of these discussions, although I see I made a driveby !vote at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 36. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2013_December#Haile_Selassie

Just to be clear I found your comments largely unhelpful in the context of a move review. Your comments on the brevity of the close and documented use counts were both valid, good, comments, they just belonged elsewhere. I do think your amount of text on these and authorism was a bit much but then there was a lot of not strictly relevant discussion in the MRV. I think the edit counts were particularly unhelpful as number of edits is known to be a bad measure of quality - some editors like to make one big edit with lots of changes while other's do lots of small edits. In general I think authorism does occur to some extent although not deliberately but rather as a side affect of those editors often being the most knowledgeable and so making the best arguments.

I do think the close was within admin discretion, however I also suspect the close may (not would) have been different had some of the comments made at MRV been made in the original RM. It also seems to me that many people, both at RM and MRV, may have been inexperienced and so did not make the best arguments. I almost specifically suggested a new RM in the close, for these two reasons, but in the end decided that a new RM straight away was likely to be too coloured by the last RM and the MRV to result in a meaningful discussion. That said I would not be opposed to a reasonably speedy new RM - I'd suggest at least two weeks or a month to let the dust settle on my MRV close. Dpmuk (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think, given the MR finding of a consensus to endorse, that a new RM (to reverse the last) should not be initiated within six months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

CSD RFC

You added your "reboot" proposal in the middle of the existing RfC on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, cutting the "scope" sub-section off from the rest of the existing RfC. I feel this made an already complex RfC more confusing. I urge you to move your "Reboot" to a new section or sub-section after the whole of the previously existing RfC. DES ^(talk) 16:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That was a mistake. I think I fixed it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SmokeyJoe. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves.
Message added 10:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Precious

help and trust
Thank you, harmonious editor, for helping help and dealing with articles for deletion, leaving meaningful edit summaries, for trust, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (15 July 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That's sweet of you. Thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

What you said (about Wikipedia not inventing a title) - the same is true for A Boy was Born, published like that since 1934 and mentioned in all references used for the article, but changed by the power of Wikipedia's holy "longstanding" MoS, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Move Like This
by 28bytes

I translated, duck attack on the German Main page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Xenia Tchoumitcheva

Hi SmokeyJoe, yes, I'm manager of Xenia. This old image on wiki damaging her image, our enemies chose it on purpose. Here are official resources of Xenia: chicoverdose.com, https://www.facebook.com/xeniatchoumitcheva, http://vk.com/xeniaonline If you need, I can ask her to write your from one of them. Please approve new image, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhenke.by (talk • contribs) 13:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Joe, we are happy to provide an unedited natural iphone picture in order to give this page an ok picture. Please tell us a) what rules to follow (shall Xenia write something on a piece of paper - such as "my official wikipedia picture"?), we just want to substitute this awful one that doesn't match her natural looks not attitude. b) thank you very much for adding the professional pic.

• Please continue at Talk:Xenia_Tchoumitcheva#Images_of_Xenia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Basis?

• "This user frequently blurs distinction between his opinion and community consensus and written policy, he actively seeks to modify policy per his opinions, and to assert policy as written to trump ordinary editors opinions."[3]

SmokeyJoe, I'm outraged by this statement. I consider a violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA.

• frequently blurs distinction between his opinion and community consensus and written policy?
• actively seeks to modify policy per his opinions?
• and assert policy as written to trump ordinary editors opinions?

Please cite basis for each of these claims, or retract them. Thank you. --B2C 16:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. You mean well, and do everything in good faith, but that only makes this sadder. You are a bit if a kook. You are deluded by your own flakey theories. You have no shame in verbosity that exhausts others. When I comes to policy wonkery, your inability to understand the meaning of consensus means that you are a menace to the community. There is a long history of people explaining these things to you, but you can be slow to learn. It is complicated, because it is not that you are entirely wrong. I have read your userpages and I'm afraid that I am not interested in engaging on your terms. I suggest, if you are open to inviting outsiders opinions, usually put in kind terms, that you start a Wikipedia:Editor_review on yourself. Link to it from your signature. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

B2C, I hope that SmokeyJoe will forgive me for intruding here, to say that I have to agree with all that Joe has written in this section.

I hope that you take his advice, and start an editor review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

My behavior was the subject of an AN a year ago[4]. One of the findings:

Born2Cycle is one of Wikipedia's experts on article titles and is incredibly precise and well verse in Wikipedia policy on the matter. I found very little discussion about him being wrong and even those supportive of the topic ban have mentioned how well he knows his stuff. Several have said that he is usually right.

That is in stark contrast to the claims you made (bullets above). I don't think my expertise or knowledge has decreased in the last year, so if you disagree, take it up with the closing admin. Regardless, I did open an Editor review. Wikipedia:Editor_review/Born2cycle --B2C 21:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, actually, I do have criticism of User:TParis's close there. He is out on a limb with respect to how the project works in asserting that Wikipedia respects backroom "experts". Further, I think he mistook a wiki-lawyer with a barrow for an expert, where in fact you make frequent clever, less-than-honest links to policy that you personally influenced. He, like many, overlooked that most of the community stay clear of the the trouble attracting areas of page titling and MOS (WP:AT and the MOS's have a tenuous claim to "community consensus", relative to most policy). He also overlooked the likelihood that you would take an isolated piece of his close as encouragement embolden your mission, while ignoring the full picture.

Your "expertise" at Wikipedia titling policy is not something I acknowledge. In fact, I consider it the worst written policy that I am familiar with. It's style is awkward, disjointed and repetitive, and its substance contentious, only stable due to tired truce and the arbcom ruling.

Yes, you did open an Editor Review. Your opening the review is a very positive sign. As before, I recommend linking from your signature. Append it with a ^{review me}. Otherwise, only editors already watching you find the review, and many of them may already have formed opinions on you. Better to seek new correspondent's opinions. An editor review is about moving forward, not reviewing the past. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I summarized the comments in the thread. You got a problem with the comment, take it up with the many people, even those critical of B2C, that said he is undoubtedly an expert on article titles. You're confusing how we treat experts on our articles subjects with how we treat experts on our policies.--v/r - TP 06:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Your "summary", in particular the first sentence as quoted above, is not a summary of the discussion, but your original commentary. Only one person other than you and B2C used the word "expert", and it was not well featured in the discussion. I think you should review the topic expert before continuing to use the word in an authoritative way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I agree. Omnedon (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the discussion in question was about B2C's attitude. It was not about his ability. People were, by and large, not talking about the latter. It was about the oft-disruptive nature of his activity on Wikipedia. Expertise, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with it. Omnedon (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Confusion

So here's what I've been thinking about since your message. You know that I agreed to a part-time, temporary contract last summer (originally three months, since extended; the future is undecided). One of my personal reasons for agreeing to it was to see more about how the WMF works "from the inside"—to get the perspective that comes from "overhearing" them instead of just from the external communications.

It's an extraordinarily diverse group of people. I don't mean simply that the staff comes from all over the world, although that is a factor. There is a lot of personality diversity. Some of them are very enthusiastic, and I think that those people tend to be more engaged in talking to us editors than the others. But there are also people who are a bit shy or reserved. Very passionate people are overrepresented, which is probably not convenient for management, but is probably good for the movement. Most of them are passionate about free software, free content, education, fairness, and transparency, and some of them are passionate and enthusiastic about everything. They tend to be very idealistic. Many of them also seem to be pretty independent-minded, which is good for the organization (less groupthink, less passive "I don't know, what do you think?") but, again, probably not convenient for management. As a minor example of this passion and independence, a manager recently floated a proposal for an extra paid holiday, and this was promptly opposed because of fairness to others (individual contractors like me get no paid holidays) and because people would rather work. I've never seen that at another organization.

As you wondered, some of them really are on their "first real job". I haven't seen too many signs of "second job disease" ("Well, at my old job, we always..."). On the whole, I think that the staffers are a bit younger than average for the software industry—my hair is grayer than most—and perhaps average for non-profits of a similar style, but there are people (especially senior people) who are older than I am.

A fair number come straight out of the community. Others start the job and join the community. Still others start the job and are never really part of "us". The fragmented nature of the community makes it hard to know who's who. Some staffers look like "outsiders", but then you discover that they're the driving force behind a project that you aren't part of. Or you think it's an outsider, and then you discover that the staffer is the same guy you've been chatting with on IRC for several years, and you just never had any idea that it was the same person.

There are also quite a lot of non-Americans, so there are people who are behaving "normally" or "politely" for their home culture, which in some cases looks very aggressive (e.g., if "politeness" or "respect" means plainly telling you the Truth™ as I see it, without any patronizing sugar-coating) and in other cases looks a bit absent-minded (e.g., if it's not polite to say that I disagree with you).

At the organizational level, the managers tend to be good at managing staff, and the organization is going through the awkward "adolescent" stage in which it is neither really a large or settled organization nor a young startup. So far, I think they'll make it, but it will depend a lot on the next Executive Director. Overall, I think it's better than I expected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Favorite betrayal criterion

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_March_19#Favorite_betrayal_criterion, as you have commented in prior deletion discussions related to this article. Homunq (࿓) 02:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton move request

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8 to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided to you per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification, because you have previously participated in a discussion on this subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 10:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Ethnic_pornography#Requested_move

I've addressed your concern. Please see again --173.76.108.247 (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI solves ANI - sure

I already did. [5]. Of course, going to ANI after the admins there gave me the ANI-treatment is idle. -DePiep (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ummm....

Breaking WP:BRD while editing WP:BRD is just a bit beyond ironic, don't you think? Please get a consensus from the talk page for your edits before making them. The page stays in the status quo ante while discussion is ongoing. To follow BRD is especially important in regard to an essay which is widely accepted and about as close to policy as its possible to be without actually being policy. Continuing to edit in this manner will be brought to the attention of admins. Thanks. BMK (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand BRD. In any case, did you not receive the notification to you, on the talk page you should have posted your revert explanation, and certainly responded to before a second revert, at Wikipedia_talk:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Try_a_compromise_edit.? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is you who misunderstands BRD. A Bold edit was Reverted, so discussion takes place. You do not re-revert while that is happening, no matter how many "notices" you post. You must have a consensus. You dont' got it. Get it. Got it? BMK (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I submit that the edit has consensus, and that there is no evidence to the contrary. Your reverting solely due to "no consensus" is contrary to the spirit of BRD. Please compare the two versions and give one reason why your preferred version is better. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

To answer your question, Another question, and apologies if it is inflammatory, is: Have all you guys appeared here after having a dispute elsewhere? And did it involve the concept of "status quo ante"? - I had already had WP:BRD watchlisted, but started paying more attention to it after Petr Matas posted to WP:VP/P. I do not think I personally am extending a dispute elsewhere onto the BRD talk page, but can't speak for anyone else. And I do not think an apology from you is necessary. Happy editing! VQuakr (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I already was watching too. In fact, the poll was a direct response to the mishmash of thoughts that appeared on the talk page. It is not possible to really work thru mishmash based analysis. Further complicating matters is the failure to adhere to the talk page guidelines, which refer to discussing content and not editors, e.g. "Exasperating, and contrary to the spirit of BRD, is when people like you (blah blah blah)". If you are exasperated, the best approach is to turn off your computer overnight instead of editing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

CONLEVEL

What you were saying at that discussion with Blueboar resonated with what I was thinking. I wrote up some of that at WP:Consensus venue. Not sure if it would just make a good post, or an essay, or material for WP:CONSENSUS, or what. I didn't lift any wording directly from you, but some of your was better than mine. Thoughts?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Favorite betrayal criterion

I started an RfC about the favorite betrayal criterion on Talk:Voting system. Since I noticed, from your comments on Markus Schulze's user talk page, that you've looked into the matter, I'd welcome your participation. Homunq (࿓) 14:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Responded on my page. Homunq (࿓) 17:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Brown

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Sarah Brown and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, 131.111.185.66 (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Case request declined

The arbitration request involving you (SarahBrown) has been declined by the Arbitration Committee The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Born2cycle's Request per WP:NPA

For future reference, and without any implying anything about the past, I hereby request that, per WP:NPA, you not comment about contributors (including me) in a manner that may be construed as an attack (not complementary), on article and policy talk pages. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 20:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Born2cycle (talk · contribs). But the problem is that it is you. If you prefer, it is your contributions, but what are you, if not to be judged by your contributions?

You are a tendentious arguer. You commit to addball positions or theories, commit with a capital C. This happens at at titling policy, in RM discussions. See also your recent contributions at WT:AGF, WT:COI and User talk:Jimbo Wales‎. You continue to argue unperturbed even when everyone else participating is not agreeing with you. And when they stop engaging with your repetition, you resort to “I don’t understand, please explain”. No, you are a timesink.

I started paying attention to your edits late 2011, when your turned your focus to modifying WP:Consensus. I have long been a student and admirer of Wikipedia’s concensus decision making style, and immediately recognised your intents as contrary to it. You appear unable to understand the fuzzy concept of consensus decision making, whereby every opinion is of value, and contributes to a refinement of the discussion, including refinement of the question, such that agreed minority positions are accommodated, and that every attempt at a solution is just the latest iteration. You prefer deterministic wikilawyering, a model akin to oligarchy, where rules-lawyers are in charge. Your perseverance in advocating oligarchy over community consensus decision making, is, often, disruptive.

My advice: Say it once, concisely, and leave it to others to agree or disagree. Your persistence in repeating things that don’t gain traction is disruptive, it annoys others, it wastes time, it distracts others from their productivity.

I think you should desist from editing or modifying policy or guidelines, due to your incomplete understanding of how things work, and difficulty in appreciating others’ views. Post on the project space talk pages, yes, concisely, and once, but leave it to others to continue the conversation and make changes. Do not make repeated similar posts in any conversation where you are the most frequent poster.

Work out what it is that you do that gains others’ respect. Do more of that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No, my behavior, or me, is not the problem. No problem is the problem. There are many problems, among them is my behavior.

However, an accurate criticism of any behavior, including mine, is a personal attack if made in an inappropriate forum, like on a policy or article talk page. That creates a new and separate problem, which has nothing to do with me or my behavior, except indirectly when the target of the criticism in an inappropriate context happens to be me or my behavior. I would like to point out this clarification at WP:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack?:

• Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page. Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor.

Please note that there is no distinction made for criticisms which are accurate. That is, a criticism about personal behavior made on a policy or article talk page is a personal attack, even if it's totally accurate. There are good reasons for discouraging even accurate criticisms of personal behavior on policy and article talk pages, as violations of WP:NPA, and I hope you understand and appreciate them. In any case, thank you for taking this into account in your own behavior in the future.

Just because I have a history of behavior problems does not mean it's open season on me, or that rules governing how we should treat other like WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL do not apply to me. Please remember that. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 00:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You have a problem with respecting other's opinions. You have a problem with personal theories biasing policy and guideline editing. You have a problem with persisting in pushing rejected views, and repetition, to the point of obnoxiousness. When these problems manifest on a particular page, it is appropriate to call out the problem on that page. If the most recognizable name of the problem is "User:Born2cycle", then that name will be used, and you have to wear it. If your behaviour, on page X, is a problem, then it is appropriate to name you, on page X. If your posts are the problem content, then you and yoru posts will be named.

These cries to NPA, pleading "don't use my name" are futile. There are so many project space section titles containing your username that you don't have the credibility. It just makes you look silly. Instead, take meta:DefendEachOther to heart.

Stop talking about yourself. Follow some advice offered. Don't dispute advice unpalatable. It's too late to say "it's not about me". If you don't change your style, I'm afraid we'll have to take the RFC/U path. Did you enjoy Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Born2cycle? I assure you that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Born2cycle 2 will mention you by name, and you'll be subjected to direct criticism, accurate or not. I'm sorry that Wikipedia:Editor review/Born2cycle did not produce more constructive comment from more editors with more cordial views toward you.

You are not hopeless. You have some worthy qualities. Work out what it is that you do that gains others’ respect. Do more of that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• pinged you here Not sure this mechanism of pinging always works. Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Because I have strong and strongly-stated views, some who disagree with me develop an animosity towards me. Their views of my behavior are not objective. That, coupled with my tenacity, verbosity, and other, uh, personal attributes, leads to a lot of head butting, much of which is unnecessary because it often stems from misunderstanding. Much of what you in particular say about me is obviously based on misunderstanding, including much of what you said above, but I really don't want to get into that right now. If you really want to talk about that, then please bring it my editor review.

That said, there is definitely room for improvement in my behavior, but it's not nearly as bad as many make it out to be. And it does not justify the WP:UNCIVIL behavior in which others engage towards me, including criticism on article and talk pages, which should not be tolerated about anyone.

In the real world we don't resolve disagreements about behavior in the bar by duking it out right there, we at least step outside (out of respect for the bar), but ultimately we take it to court if it can't be resolved without outside help. On WP the equivalent of taking it outside is going to a user talk page (out of respect for the article/policy talk page), and other WP:DR avenues are the analogy of resolving the dispute in court. --В²C ☎ 01:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• SmokeyJoe, Hi. Perhaps coincidental, but since it appears to involve yourself a heads up: the cited section of WP:NPA above "inappropriate forum, like on a policy or article talk page" has turned out to be an addition to WP:NPA made by B2C himself, and here's where the perhaps coincidental comes in, 8 minutes after this message from B2C to yourself on your Talk page. Since that may mean that the addition that day to WP:NPA now proposed for removal there, is perhaps connected with notification of removal of the Yoghurt Rule redirect you may unwittingly be "involved" if you comment on B2Cs addition to WP:NPA. I make this note with absolutely no implication of anything inappropriate from yourself, quite the opposite. Just a heads up, all the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think this supports my considered opinion, stated above to User:Born2cycle. "I think you should desist from editing or modifying policy or guidelines", and my earlier statement "When I comes to policy wonkery, your inability to understand the meaning of consensus means that you are a menace to the community". I do believe that User:Born2cycle means well, but he has kookish tendency, meaning that he fixates internally on his theories and is blinkered to the opinions of others. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Indexing and user space

Poking around in various archives I see you've been involved in numerous discussions about stale drafts; the shortcut has been in place since sometime in 2010. Whether there was enough discussion back then or not - I don't know either way - it's been established for four years apparently without effort to make it go away. So I think you need to make your case for deletion due to its four year stability and wide use.

HOWEVER, that might not be necessary if we can identify the real issue and find an alternative?

For me the real issue with stale drafts is search engine indexing stuff that hasn't been vetted by the editorial process with all our core principles. STALEDRAFT serves as an important antidote. But if the community adopted a standing policy of not indexing user space, that issue would go away without anyone spending any braincells after the techies program the servers.

What's the real issue for you?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• The main issue is that "WP:STALEDRAFT" is not a sufficient explanation or reason for deletion. The addition of the shortcut (by User:Gigs), alongside WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:UP#COPIES led to people citing "WP:STALEDRAFT" as their entire reason for nominating a page for deletion at MfD. The problem is that many things that could be called a STALEDRAFT are not best deleted (as per the text at WP:UP), but for some reason, the appearance of that shortcut I the guideline seemed to make some people think all StaleDrafts should be deleted without need for further explanation. Note that I don't want to delete the shortcut, or to remove the actual text at the section linked. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

So for you the problem is that editors seek to delete based on WP:STALEDRAFT without any further explanation, only that points to a vaccuum, since the concept of a "stale draft" has never been articulated.... and this results in deletion requests for "many things [being] called a STALEDRAFT [that] are not best deleted (as per the text at WP:UP)"? Is that an accurate summary, and can you please provide examples of the text at WP:UP you had in mind? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:UP#COPIES used to be our only shortcut. I created WP:FAKEARTICLE because "COPIES" refers only to stale copies of mainspace articles, and that section talks about more cases than just that. FAKEARTICLE was only meant to be used for userspace pages that looked like articles, but were never intended to make it to mainspace, or were very obviously unqualified to ever hit mainspace. Think of your personal resume with an infobox and a TOC, bold title in lead, etc (I am assuming you are not notable), and maybe some links from your personal website pretending that your resume is a real Wikipedia article. That sort of thing.

FAKEARTICLE became somewhat abused to refer to more innocuous things, which people felt was bitey since it implies a certain level of bad faith. It was nominated at RfD and kept, but as a result of the abuse, I created WP:STALEDRAFT, a shortcut to refer to the common case of an article draft that was years-old, unlikely to ever make mainspace, and unedited, but probably created in good faith. STALEDRAFT implies less ill-intent than FAKEARTICLE.

I agree with you that indexing userspace in search engines is a large part of the problem, but it's not the only factor. People could still use links to present their userspace draft as if it were a mainspace article, and the unsavvy might not notice or understand that it's not a real article.

I think SmokeyJoe's main objection is that it has become almost a speedy criterion, regardless of the type of content on the page. The spirit of the UP guideline is to prevent abuse, not merely to delete old drafts, so we really should be looking at how promotional the draft is, how misleading it might be, and things of that sort, and with a plain link to the shortcuts as a sole justification being acceptable, it becomes a de-facto speedy deletion rather than an actual look at the potential for abuse or confusion. Gigs (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like we agree that we should (A) elaborate on staledraft concept/process and (B) that search engine indexing is a "large part of the problem". Seems like the indexing issue ought to be lowhanging easily picked fruit, at least to me (a newcomer to this issue). Ignoring variants of "I like it this way", in the past what substantive reasons have eds given for opposing a blanket no-index policy for user space? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

We've had failed RfCs that propose to globally no-index userspace. The latest compromise was that the draft banner templates do add the NOINDEX magic word, including AfC (but that doesn't matter as much going forward since Draft: is all noindex). IIRC originally the NOINDEX keyword didn't even work in userspace, so we had to make a request to enable that first. Two issues really facing a proposal to globally no-index, one is that there are some Wikipedians who want their legitimate user page to be in Google because it's a large part of their online identity, it provides motivation and recognition for editing efforts, etc. The other is that the search engine on Wikipedia used to suck really badly and people would just use Google to search userspace instead. The search engine is a little better now, so that last one isn't as important as it used to be. Gigs (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The first one is a non-issue also, unless there's some super weird obstacle facing the programmers. How hard is it to allow opt-out (or opt-in) indexing of each ed's main user page, while blanketing all other user space with "no index"? Just a matter of coding, if you ask me, and that would eliminate reason #1 also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Free! (anime)#Comments after the move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Free! (anime)#Comments after the move. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks

I've been meaning to do this for a week... I just wanted to drop by and say thanks for your comments at ANI on the whole relisting debacle. It's comments like that make the sometimes thankless task of closing RMs worthwhile and I appreciate your confidence in me. And regarding your comment on my talk page, while I will probably try and be less lax in my relisting comments, I assure you that the trip to ANI has not deterred me from closing or relisting tricky RMs, even the ones where you just know you'll get an orange bar shortly afterwards with someone complaining. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Whoops

In case you missed it, I’ve sorta started a fight over what you meant by your comment over at User talk:Born2cycle. Sorry! Would you mind clearing that up? And thanks again for your advice on my Talk page about the other thing. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

My main intent was to clearly inform you that some of what Born2cycle asserts as fact, or logical, is highly disputed.

Born2cycle is committed to some peculiar base ideas, basically a fanatical adherence to an extreme reading of the titling principle of "concise", and a blindness to recognizability, precision, and consistency. He then builds convoluted arguments on top of that, mistakes his own conclusions for facts, mistakes his own judgement of good argument for consensus, and is prepared to discuss endlessly. As the logic is sometimes reasonable, and involved, you can sometimes forget that it is built upon poor assumptions, and it is therefore often difficult to pinpoint exactly where he is wrong in his conclusion. If you want to discuss with him where he is wrong, go back to the underlying assumptions.

If you feel, anywhere, that discussion has become non-productive, disengage at least a little. State your own view and leave it. If you feel the need to persuade another that they are mistaken, it is recommended that you try to explain to them, in your words, their view, to clarify what is agreed and what is disagreed. However, this can take a lot of time and effort. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Not to speak for him uninvited, but… well, I guess that’s what I ended up doing in this reply. But I think I get his viewpoint, though I don’t agree with it. The way he sees it, “precision” is only necessary when a title may be ambiguous with other article titles. Consistency follows from that, by consistently avoiding disambiguation when it isn’t to disambiguate from other article titles. And if a title is a proper name, that alone is eminently recognizable by anyone tangentially familiar with the particular subject. I bet we could both go off on the flaws in this reasoning, but I think I can at least understand it.

The discussion about it is admittedly nonproductive, since neither he nor I are convincing the other, but it’s good fun and nice mental exercise if nothing else. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"The way he sees it, “precision” is only necessary when a title may be ambiguous with other article titles. ... And if a title is a proper name, that alone is eminently recognizable by anyone tangentially familiar with the particular subject.'

Heck, I could go on the flaws in this reasoning too (it's not my reasoning).

My position is this: The only time to use something more precise than the WP:CONCISE name most commonly used to refer to a particular subject in reliable sources for the title of our article on that subject is when extra precision is necessary because other uses with articles on Wikipedia are also commonly referred to by that name. That's a clear bright and reasonable line. The main reason to adhere to it is because nobody else has been able to define an alternative clear, bright and reasonable line, which means practically leaves every title on Wikipedia is subject to endless debate. --В²C ☎ 17:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• It's a bright line yes, but not a reasonable one. Being an old idea doesn't make it a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Asserting it's unreasonable does not make it so. Recognizing it's not new doesn't make it bad.

    It's reasonable because the marginal improvement that can be made with additional precision to a COMMONNAME title is negligible at best. --В²C ☎ 23:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Is this one more reasonable?: The only time to use something more precise than the WP:CONCISE name most commonly used to refer to a particular subject in reliable sources for the title of our article on that subject is when it is not indisputably the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (But isn’t this kind of what PRIMARYTOPIC already says?) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • No, because that doesn't cover the case when the topic in question is the only use of the name in question (so it's not even a PRIMARYTOPIC/WP:D issue). --В²C ☎ 19:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, it does. It’s an if-and-only-if thing. Some automated filter isn’t allowing me to explain further. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep...nutty as a fruitcake.

Just say'en. I can say that about me...or more accurately...what I was arguing. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I was so happy to see. We all get loose wires on occasion. I've been carefully reading everything you've written on these policy talk pages. Often I want to critique, but overall sensible and important. No, we can't just add a 1RR to BRD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Madonna

Where the hell do you see me refactoring another's comment? Use your eyes next time you add something stupid in the edit summary. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Your blanking of a section at AN

Don't know what you meant by this deletion, but it definitely violates Wikipedia's rules regarding talk/discussion pages. Please don't do it again. Favonian (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if you read the section blanked. Making a notice board discussion about someone sensitive about their privacy is bad. Your insistence against courtesy blanking is worse. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Biomimetics

I have to say, I'm quite taken aback by your comment on the move request. Biomimetics has absolutely nothing to do with our article on mimicry and is in fact the correct, descriptive title for the topic. I'm going to guess that you were somehow distracted when you made that comment since it doesn't make any sense. That's OK, we all make mistakes. Viriditas (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

ANB discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#Move War at History of the Jews in Nepal, and RFC review that concerns you because you were recently involved with one or more of the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30 (History of the Jews in Nepal), Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'?. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Language question

Hi, we spoke before about Insurrection of 31 May – 2 June 1793 article. My question is that under section "End of Gironde" I presented reply of commander of National Guard as — "Hérault, the people have not risen to hear phrases; they require twenty-four traitors to be given up to them." What he actually said: “Tell your fucking president that he and his Assembly are fucked, and that if within one hour he doesn’t deliver to me the Twenty-two I’m going to blast it”. It is funny, but this reply makes sense of his next order: "Cannoneers, to your guns!". What should it be? (smiling) Respectfully, --Nivose (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry

I can't believe there is an edit war on a policy page about which redirects to display. Whilst WP:BRD isn't a policy surely the principle still applies when experienced editors disagree. Please just leave it as it is and discuss on the talk page, whether you're right or not it doesn't matter what's there in the interim. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

While close to looking like at EW, I think it is clearly not. Stepping through each of the edits of the last week, each was justified. As for BRD, this may be a very interesting case study illustrating discussions I've been involved in at WT:BRD over previous months. In BRD, how much D is required before a return to editing. We have clearly agreed that an explicit talk page declaration of concensus is not required, and the "improved understanding" is required. I think the discussion at WT:SOCK was clear evidence of improved understanding. My last edit was consistent with every comment on the talk page, comments by senior wikipedians. Ideally, an uninvolved editor would have made my last edit, but what if the matter is so small that no uninvolved editor could be expected to make the effort. Did I not wait long enough or for enough new comments? After a couple of days, with support and no objections, WP:BRD advises to edit again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VideoPad

Hi SmokeyJoe. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VideoPad. Cunard (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Request

It is my impression that you and I have less than pleasant interactions quite often stemming from misunderstandings. I therefore request that in the future when you find yourself posting something on a policy or article talk page that is critical of something I said or did, please first address the issue with me directly on my talk page, ideally in the spirit of seeking clarification and understanding. Even when the problem is not misunderstanding, I suspect we can often work things out without sullying the public talk page with our banter. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 00:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. In this last episode, I was in so little doubt that "Drafting an RM message" meant that it was a draft for the notification for all the past participants, that it demanded editing and response in that place. True, there were clues that could have dissuaded my misreading if I'd read more carefully. I accept the mistake here, but you should take more care with headings like that. My past edits to that proposal nomination need to be reviewed as they were made in a wrong perspective.

Posting on your talk page became less attractive when you recently reverted a mid-conversation post of mine. Next time I make what appears to be an error in quotation, consider highlighting it as disputed. That case was an unintentional mistake in an unimportant (to me) paragraph.

As for bludgeoning. I think you frustrate many others than I with repetition of hyperbole. You claim to like concise? In concise writing, you should say something clearly and once. If you think "Sarah Jane Brown" is offensive, say it once, clearly explained, clearly your opinion that it is a fact, but do not keep repeating it as an accepted fact. You tend to repeating a clumsy statement in response to nuanced criticism of your statement. In this case, I will agree that there are problems with the current title, but I do not fully agree with your version. If the nomination rationale can avoid hyperbole, respondents can more easily agree. If the nomination is complete in facts but understated in emotion and tone, then respondents will be less off-put.

My money is on Sarah Brown (née Macaulay) succeeding.

Re: "Thanks for not posting a straw man argument. It's refreshing! --В²C ☎ 01:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)". It has taken me a day to suspect that this is not sarcasm. I have been struggling with what, exactly, you think a strawman is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

A Straw man is an argument "based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument". For example, my argument is that "Sarah Jane Brown" is not used in reliable sources, and therefore contradicts WP:NATURAL. To "counter" that argument by arguing that there is no evidence that she formally dropped her middle name, as others did, is a straw man because it is "based on the misrepresentation of [my] argument"; as if my argument depends on her formal dropping of her middle name. She just doesn't use it. More importantly, no reliable sources uses it, so it's not a candidate for WP:NATURAL disambiguation. --В²C ☎ 16:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

proposal at consensus

I got the idea that you support my proposal but perhaps you are unaware that you haven't said so in the discussion itself. It might be helpful if you still find merit in it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

RM notice

You might be interested in the 12-article move discussion at Talk:Aspromonte (goat)#Requested move 07 November 2014, since it raises the same question on which you had previously given a fact- and policy-based rationale in very similar requested moves discussions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Date_ranges_as_titles

I have closed this discussion per the request at ANRFC. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Your dangling question re Riedel Communications

Just before the drv was closed, you asked:

Is it a straight copy of a marketing brochure?
— User:SmokeyJoe 20:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The majority of the article was an abbreviated version of the brochure at the first link I posted. It consisted of:

• An infobox
• Paragraphs two and one of the right-hand side of page two of the brochure (in that order)
• A non-copyvio but misleading claim that they won three Emmy Awards (in actuality, they won three minor categories of the much less prestigious Sports Emmy Award)
• The sidebar of page two of the brochure
• An updated version of the milestones list on page four of the brochure (there were additional entries added to the end for 2011, 2012, and 2014)
• A list of products about a dozen entries long; "Radio rental" and "Wireless video" are two typical entries. No additional text.
• And five external links to social media.

The only non-infringing text was the misleading Emmy claim, which would have had to be rewritten not just for accuracy but to fix the broken English; and the 2011/2012/2014 entries in the milestones list, which wouldn't survive in an NPOV article about the company (even if they weren't lifted from a different version of the brochure, which they very much look like).

There'd be an argument to list on WP:CP instead of speedying due to the dubious claim of permission if this weren't very much in G11 territory as well; the latter was the primary problem in my view.

If you really want to take a crack at it, the sources given in the article were:

• Florian Langenscheidt, Bernd Venohr (Hrsg.): Lexikon der deutschen Weltmarktführer. Die Königsklasse deutscher Unternehmen in Wort und Bild. Deutsche Standards Editionen, Köln 2010, ISBN 978-3-86936-221-2.
• Bergische Marktführer (1) – Riedel: Der Funk für Olympia, Fußball, Formel 1 und U-Boote Westdeutsche Zeitung (online) vom 23. Februar 2012
• Zweiter Emmy für Übertragung des »Red Bull Air Race« Film-TV-Video (online) vom 7. Mai 2010
• And the Emmy Goes to … Red Bull Stratos Riedel Webseite vom 10. März 2013

—Cryptic 21:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

help and trust
Thank you, harmonious editor, for helping help and dealing with articles for deletion, leaving meaningful edit summaries, for trust, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (15 July 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 713th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Stylization of the "common name"

In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name" -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

AN

Hey there SmokeyJoe, I should have introduced myself at one of the many places I've seen where I've completely agreed with some of your very astute observations, but... Anyway, I just noticed your reply, but I'm headed offline for the night. I'll think on this and get back to you sometime later tomorrow. Cheers, — Ched :  ?  02:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It's always nice to receive friendly nIt's always nice to receive friendly notes like this, thank you. otes like this, thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, but ran into a few real-life things that were more time consuming than I had planned on. OK, here's my thinking right now. First the article: - I just reviewed what was there, and it really did need to be deleted. It failed in soooo many ways. As for the draft, to be honest, I'd feel more comfortable if it were in user space with the "noinclude" tags, but since I'm not really sure of the differences in that aspect - meh, I'll settle for it as is for a bit. Cunard is a very good writer, and I think well respected editor here, so I'm content to give him the leeway to work on it. He's actually done a very good job on the draft in removing a lot of the "undue" stuff, adding content and context, and expanding the article. Although I am still hesitant to claim it would pass WP:N or specifically the WP:NPOL issues, the article is headed in the right direction. I'm not really a deletionist, and perhaps Kirby has other points to his BLP which merit mention. I still feel that the subject matter is nothing but trouble waiting to happen, but since these "Internet" stories often fade quickly, maybe I'm concerned over nothing major. If Kirby does move up the political food-chain, I'd hate to loose Cunard's early work in the history of the article too.

(more babble from Ched to follow:) I generally avoid political things on wiki, but I do try catch things regarding BLP stuff. It's often a tough call here. Many things are kept that shouldn't be, and many things are lost that shouldn't be. Personally I feel things often lean a certain (political) way on wiki - but I'm only one voice of many.

Regarding the "pre-emptive" admin. stuff, I'm pretty set in my thoughts on that, as I suspect you are on yours. I've been an admin. for a while now, and I always prefer to see fires put out early. It's not a matter of trying to silence anyone from voicing their views, but rather the effort to prevent further discord here. In the end, I will fully support the actions that have already been taken, and will watchlist both the (now deleted) article and the draft as well. Anyway SmokeyJoe - nice to meet you, keep up the good work. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  02:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ched (talk · contribs).

Cunard is a very good writer, and I think well respected editor here, so I'm content to give him the leeway to work on it. – thank you for the kind words. I don't plan to make significant additions or changes to the draft at this time. I think it is policy compliant and ready for mainspace.

I still feel that the subject matter is nothing but trouble waiting to happen – there should be no trouble. As I wrote here, "If, as 28bytes notes, people want to 'make an example of him for his ill-considered remarks' in the article itself, the editors can be blocked and the article can be semi-protected or full-protected as necessary." This would be supported by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Page protection, blocks and the Arbitration Committee remedy WP:NEWBLPBAN.

Although I am still hesitant to claim it would pass WP:N or specifically the WP:NPOL issues, the article is headed in the right direction. – whether the subject passes WP:N or WP:NPOL should be discussed at AfD. I would argue that the subject passes both WP:N and WP:NPOL. As I wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter:

The subject has received coverage in three aspects of his life: (1) as president of the construction company W.F. Delauter & Son, (2) as a member of Frederick Board of County Commissioners, and (3) as a member of the Frederick County Council.

WP:BLP1E's first point says the policy applies "[i]f reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Delauter has received significant coverage prior to this event; here is a small sample:

1. "Setting boundaries in Frederick". The Baltimore Sun. 2012-05-14. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
2. Greenfield, Sherry (2010-10-21). "Delauter says he will bid on county contracts if elected commissioner". The Gazette. Retrieved 2015-01-11. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)
3. Marshall, Ryan (2012-05-23). "Delauter defends comment on moving business". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
4. Greenfield, Sherry (2010-07-29). "Delauter wants to bring changes to county board". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
5. Rodgers, Bethany (2014-12-26). "Political Notes: Delauter says he reimbursed county for inauguration". Frederick News-Post. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
6. Gill, Thomas (2014-10-28). "It pays to be a county commissioner". Frederick News-Post. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians, says:

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

The Baltimore Sun is a major newspaper, the largest circulation newspaper in the state of Maryland. It cannot be dismissed as being a "small, local newspaper". Prior to this incident, Delauter arguably passed Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians. After this incident, he clearly does.

There is no harm in holding an AfD to determine whether the community agrees or disagrees with my position.

Cunard (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Noting that two people responded to you at the AfD for Delauter. Hobit (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Hobit (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Jr. comma RfC

You're invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Guidance_on_commas_before_Jr._and_Sr. Dohn joe (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Closing panel

The request for editors to close the Clinton move request was made here and was noted on the discussion page. Calidum T|C 02:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.

Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr. and feel free to comment there. Thanks! —sroc 💬 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

DRV

Well, at least we have not lost our sense of humor. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Despite studying the subject of humour, I am not very good at it, and I don't know how to read your comment. In all seriousness I tried to find our disagreement and failed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• There was no point of disagreement; no need to look for it. I was merely using your comment to riff about the closing administrator's misleading mention of my re-listing as a factor in the AfD -- which was more than a little ironic, given the closer's heavy reliance on IAR on his closing rationale. What prompted my comment about your sense of humour was your very dry remark regarding my choice of words. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• DRV is now closed "overturn to no consensus," as it should have. Even the closing administrator was having second thoughts after a week's worth of the DRV discussion. Appreciated your comments and logical approach. Here's the advice I left for the original AfD nominator: [6]. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia

You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Blame

I just saw your comment at that RfC for draft prod. Yes, I did create STALEDRAFT and FAKEARTICLE, but I often lament their misuse. Originally the only shortcut we had to that section was WP:UP#COPIES which was cumbersome. FAKEARTICLE was first, which was intended to only apply to articles that were pretending to be mainspace articles and had things like high Google rank and a near-zero possibility of ever being put into mainspace. That shortcut was badly misused at first, as it does imply some level of bad faith, an intention to mislead the reader. That's why I created STALEDRAFT, as a more neutral link than FAKEARTICLE that did not imply an intention to mislead. Now that's getting somewhat overused on harmless old drafts.

I don't think you should blame me. Blame the people with the OCD compulsion to "clean up" everyone else's userspace. Gigs (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• There is no animosity, I meant to rib you. OCD can be a good thing, but here, when they feel the need to play out their cleanup through a community forum... UP#COPIES and FAKEARTICLE have worked out fine, but STALEDRAFT has triggered the notion that stale things need to feed into MfD. I'd like to separate it from the other two. I also lament the proliferation of not short shortcuts, having observed that their use correlates with diminished thought. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • We could rework the guideline to have separate sections. Though I doubt people that use the shortcuts actually click them very often. Gigs (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• • • I think that "stale" has had nothing but a negative impact, with it inducing multiple random editors, including beginners and admins, to shovel loads of busywork onto MfD. I have tried at least twice to remove the big bright WP:STALEDRAFT from the page, but am reverted by people who think it might be useful. Separating it into a different section, where it is not immediately alongside good deletion reasons (FAKEARTICLE and UP#COPIES), might be useful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Moved on...

I have moved on, where I just introduced, The Gray Havens, to the encyclopedia.The Cross Bearer (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

A husband and wife duo? That is testing the limits between a single person BLP and an ensemble! Generally, your articles are pretty good. I hope you are not too down that one of them didn't want the coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not, however, I wish, I could be up-to-date on the OTRS, so I am not wasting my precious time, how do they give log-in's?The Cross Bearer (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Anything specific?

Hi SmokeyJoe,

At WT:Disambiguation you made comment that I thought was quite personal within the context of a debate on policy matters. You said, with content which was also repeated in edit summary "I agree with you, and am not sure whether to agree or disagree with GK. With effort, I sometimes see that he is trying to make sensible changes. He doesn't have your clarity or English, and I appreciate you attempts to interpret."

When you say that with effort you sometimes see that I am trying to make sensible changes, with no effort, the clear interpretation of this remark is that you more regularly see that I am not trying to make sensible changes. Two things:

1. What? What are the issues that you have indicated that I am not trying to make sensible changes? I am not saying that you are necessarily wrong and would be interested in specifics. I know that I have had discussion with some disagreement with an editor at #Naturalness criterion and natural disambiguation on my talk page but have also received a barnstar regarding my suggested changes from which it was commented "It's for everything!! I see you often suggesting new approaches, and they are always to my eye well reasoned, even if responses to them are not so." One editor gives a publicly damning comment insinuating without effort most of the time it doesn't seem that I am trying to make sensible changes while another editor privately comments on my suggestions on new approaches always seeming to be well reasoned. I appreciated others comments as they were conveyed in a personal and private manner. All the same I would appreciate your further comment if on the view of the chance it will help me become a better editor.
2. Please, in discussions on a topic can we please argue and debate the issues involved without opting of criticism of editors involved. I am open to anything you want to say to me but please do not edit in a way that may skew a debate on potential issues have no relevance to the topic at hand. Please.

The changes, whether sensible or not, that I try to make are based on very regular involvement at WP:RM. A number of editors that criticise suggestions made I rarely see within RM discussion. GregKaye 20:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

"with no effort, the clear interpretation of this remark is that you more regularly see that I am not trying to make sensible changes"

No. Without effort, your posts are easily misunderstood. To paraphrase others, much that you write is difficult to parse. This is a long term issue you have. I'm sorry to not have helpful advice, the root of the problem is not obvious. Maybe: Slow down a bit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, Please also take the same advice yourself. In a thread in which I was practically begging other editors to argue the points and not argue the editor you then waded with clear insinuation that, even after your efforts, I had not been "trying to make sensible changes" on the majority of occasions. Then when I ask for examples of situations, when after your efforts it still had been suggestive that I have not been trying to make sensible changes, you draw a blank. Can I please ask you to consider directing your potentially helpful criticisms to editors directly. You presented a damning judgement on an editor as predominantly not trying to make sensible changes and, even when this editor was "in the room", you delivered your criticism via content delivered to a different editor. Please even AGF in regard to your judgements on whether or not an editor is "trying". Directions can be helpful and advice given is appreciated but barbed and damning comments broadcast in Wikipedia have a soul destroying. We are meant to have a community here. Again I think I fairly ask "in discussions on a topic can we please argue and debate the issues involved without opting of criticism of editors involved." Failing that can the criticisms please be moderated to an extent by which their contents can be substantiated

GregKaye 05:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Not only don't you write clearly, you don't read clearly. I never said nor meant that you were not trying to make sensible changes. I was saying it took effort (sometimes too much effort) to read your posts to understand your attempts to promote sensible changes. Just to be clear in case you misunderstand, you are frequently trying to make sensible changes, but I usually am not prepared to agree with them as written.

If you don't improve your written communication, you'll find more and more of us giving up one attempting to understand what you are trying to say. Composing and reviewing your posts offline may be a good idea. It may seem like extra work, but given that you are seeking to alter old and important policy, I think you should. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate your advice regarding clarity of posts.

Your statement was "With effort, I sometimes see that he is trying to make sensible changes." Following this you continued comment to BD2412 to say, "He doesn't have your clarity or English, and I appreciate you attempts to interpret."

Following my comment above I reviewed the thread Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 43#Disambiguation pages are navigation pages and, (contrary, I think, to the input you gave there) I made this comparatively respectful addition to the current discussion). In this the earlier discussion and following your comment to BD2412 in which you said "Disagree with "as concisely written as possible". Sounds like fanaticism" you then made this edit in which you then, to my perception, flipped, joining BD2412 in resorting to the use of Argumentum ad absurdum to join in pushing a presentation, with redlinked text, that when way beyond anything that I had said. At this point you also said to BD2412, "You are a prolificly-editing disambiguation expert who always says sensible things" (sensible things which I guess to you includes the misuse of the argumentative methodology mentioned). With me you say, "With effort, I sometimes see that he is trying to make sensible changes." I appreciate that, for whatever reason/s, you see us differently but I am, none the less concerned about the polarity of views here and really counsel you to consider why this might be. You praise one to the heights and, even when another editor pleads for editors to make discussion related and non personal points, you make the damning he predominantly does not give indication of trying to make sensible changes. Please be neutral. Please do good in your sensitive interactions. Please be a benefactor here. Please. Our encyclopedia needs editors with all forms of wisdom to give helpful and positive direction without the smack down. GregKaye 16:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It is true that "our disambiguation pages be as concisely written as possible" does not meet my definition of "sensible", as it is so extreme as to mean that all other concerns are to be neglected in favour of the poorly defined "concise". I exaggerated with the "always". Of course you are trying to make sensible changes. I was frustrated by a lack of clarity as to what change you are asking for, or what opinion you are asking for. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe Can you also please imagine the frustration when clearly policy based arguments are presented related to commonname are presented with statistics that demonstrate a 1000+:1 ratio of use and other editors respond by resorting to Argumentum ad absurdum. Please can you understand the frustration when I may say, "Please consider presenting your arguments and leaving things at that. Please" and you respond, without talking directly to me, with, "With effort, I sometimes see that he is trying to make sensible changes" which was either, as far as I can see, written while ignoring the request placed or in failure with regard to the statement "you don't read clearly".

In the recent thread no reasoned policy based objections have been presented against the arguments that I have falteringly presented and yet they have been met by great and, I think (in the context of this particular thread), irrelevant derision. My worry is that you may have, consciously or not, jumped on bandwagons on two occasions with regard to ridicule.

I honestly do not feel safe in this environment where other editors seem resolute in defending, in my view, the Wikipedia "sacred cow" of "disambiguation" with deadhorse claims. These claims again should, I think, be viewed in the context of the 1000:1 statistics mentioned and in the context that the horse may mainly have been killed by the ridiculing comments of editors such as you.

In the context of a discussion related to removing ambiguity that also adopted a large component on other aspects of clear communication, how - why did you write the implication loaded statement, "With effort, I sometimes see that he is trying to make sensible changes"?

I do not know in situations such as this whether editors would be more motivated to slow down or leave. There is a fall in numbers in editor numbers in en Wikipedia which I think is partly due to the nature of a Wikipedia culture for which we are all responsible. GregKaye 05:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Greg, I am very familiar with how limited communication abilities cause great frustration. You are not terribly limited, but do suffer from a tendency to write lengthily without clarity.

On this occasion, I think you are overly emotionally involved, and should take a break. Or do something in a different part of Wikipedia for a little while.

"With effort, I sometimes see that he is trying to make sensible changes". Without effort, I see walls of text. With effort, I sometimes see an obsession with something specific that I do not think is important.

What is the last thing you did on Wikipedia that you enjoyed? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Smokey please, You can ask what you like but please deal with one issue at a time. It has no relevance here but sure I get considerable satisfaction and enjoyment from involvements here. In this your interventions with argumentum ad absurdum and and (as I view it) equally disparaging "trying to make sensible changes" do not help.

If I had given an indication that an editor had predominantly not even given a type of indication of trying to make sensible changes that had been discerned with effort and if the editor concerned had protested against this obviously preposterous, offensive and unjustifiable remark then I would immediately redact.

What do you enjoy? Do you enjoy making sport of other editors or ideas? Your comment in the earlier thread did nothing but misrepresent and disparage a proposal. Your recent comment served more directly to disparage an editor. GregKaye 06:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Simon Bass

I decided to chat here. I think the MfD on the Belo Belo thing is in danger of being sidetracked if we continue to converse there. Mr Bass does not seem to me to be notable. I have thus sent the article on the gentleman to AFD. Something will happen because of that.

I disagree with blocking the editor at this stage, but accept your difference of opinion over it. Fiddle Faddle 19:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

You're not the one being threatened with legal action. WCM_email 01:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Lindsay Lou & the Flatbellys

There wasn't a consensus that it's ready for mainspace now (I don't know where two albums on Earthwork Music count per WP:BAND but it could pass GNG anyways) so I moved it to draftspace. If you want to work on it or think it's ready, go ahead and move it again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Community desysoping RfC

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Note

I saw your recent replies on Talk:Persian people. That user is an old troll with nationalistic propaganda. Did you review article/discussion revisions? He spams on talk pages since 2013–2014. Anti-Afghan and anti-Tajik comments, sometimes very racist comments, nonsense nationalistic POV and etc. He just focused to remove non-Iranian Persians and other Persian-speaking groups (Afghans and Tajiks) from that article. Some of his accounts are indef-blocked, others are open/active. He's not here to contribute. Please don't feed the trolls and see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iranmehr27. Regards. --Zyma (talk) 08:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Like a Virgin (song)

I recently started a move request. --George Ho (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Required notice; I quoted one or more of your diffs

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding incivility and related user behaviors. The thread is Threats, aspersion-casting, etc. by Doc9871.The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:DIVA. Thank you.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

That side issue at the DIVA RM

Re: If split, should the two essays be merged? No, because they are different messages for different audiences. Also, I think your position would be that the old essay should be archived and its old shortcuts discouraged from being further used. This is fully consistent with the apparent consensus against "DIVA" oversimplistically interpreted as a consensus to rename. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Why are you prognosticating, Nostradamus? :-) You're just making stuff up now and trying to put it in my mouth. I would in fact argue for a merge (or at least !vote for one), since the rewrite you mischaracterize as just "Advice for DIVAs" also includes an entire section of advice to ignore (or otherwise to not enable) such antics, while all of the major points of the original essay are retained (minus some minor and counterproductive "divas actually win" messaging that was added, mostly by Doc, and objected to on the talk page by others). This makes the older version redundant to the newer one (or some refinement of it), both as to purpose and scope.

I'm not sure what you mean by "archived"; moribund Wikipedia-namespace pages are deleted or more often marked them with {{Historical}}. If the essays were both kept indefnitely, there's already a twice-found consensus to not continue using the "divas"/"DIVA" wording, regardless. No one has to be manually "discouraged" from using them if they don't appear in the page the "advertised" shortcut. Most editors now refer to WP:DENY not to WP:FEED or WP:TROLL since that page underwent a similar shift; it's a natural adjustment over time (likewise, we refer to WP:AT or WP:TITLE mostly, not WP:NC these days).

Finally, I explicitly stated at what's presently WT:DIVA that I'd endeavored to rewrite the essay as an advice piece on behaviors to avoid while retaining the don't-enable points, as there was much discussion throughout the RM about a need to shift in this direction. Since there was no hidden mystery to unveil, I'm not sure what your point was in restating that's what the redraft accomplished (it's even already been said several times in that MR discussion, too.) There is no "gotcha!" to be had there.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Procrastinating? I don't think anything should be done before the Move Review gets closed (in 1 to 4 weeks).

I continue to lean to thinking the page should be split. Largely to preserve the meaning of historic allegedly offensive shortcuts.

Gotcha? I had no gotcha thoughts. I may have overstated something relating to edit warring, maybe better put as provoking someone else into edit warring, but apart from maybe that I never thought you did anything "wrong". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

George III's Golden Jubilee

Thank you for providing the interesting link. Most thoughtful. Valetude (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editor Utcursch

It is to mention here that Move review Rasgulla and the following edit attempts are different issues.

As per suggestions of JamesBWatson 12:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC) and Human3015 04:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC) on my Talk page talk I have made following revision attempts with the 1st edit summary "Redefined - Rasgulla, Rosogolla, Indian diaspora Bangladesh" follows:

→ "Rasgulla" & "Mauritius" → Snthakur 1st revision → "Rasgulla(hi)[7] or, Rosogolla(bn)[8][9]" & "Bangladesh"

→ utcursch undid above, and edits Rasagola → "Rasgulla, also known as Rosogolla (in Bengali) or Rasagola (in Odiya)" & "Bangladesh" (it was acceptable to me)

→ utcursch again undid above, and removes Bangladesh → "Rasgulla in Hindi, known as Rosogolla in Bengali or Rasagola in Odiya" & "South Asian"

→ utcursch again removes Rosogolla, Rasagola including Bangladesh, creates a section "Name'→ The dessert is known as Rosogolla or Roshogolla in Bengali and Rasagola in Odiya .....

However, (utcursch's act of removing Rosogolla (in Bengali) or Rasagola (in Odiya)" & "Bangladesh" is an arbitrary act and not with consensus either with Snthakur and Human3015 and JamesBWatson

Therefore there was an obvious concern with disruptive editor utcursch for the above content issue.

Please suggest so as to what shall I do now?

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• This editor has posted several copies of this message to several talk pages. I have replied on his/her own talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)