User talk:Stemonitis/Archive19

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between August 16 2007 and August 22 2007.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarising the section you are replying to if necessary.

theraphosids

hi,

i stumbled over a completely wrong article that Polbot did, Red-knee tarantula. you changed the name, but i checked platnick's world spider catalog, seems like the IUCN got almost everything wrong on this species. just so you know, when you check another spider page by polbot, be aware of this.

another thing: you merged List of Theraphosidae species with List of Theraphosidae genera. Actually, the species list is more or less auto-generated, whenever a new WSC is available. i'm not sure what's the best way to proceed here, just wanted to tell you that before you change other spider species lists (there are about 110 of them), let's discuss things first, so we can work out a path that's best for all contributors.

btw, i like the layout you did, authority is small script, distribution separated by a long dash (or what it's called); i'll think about using this in the future.

cheers :) --Sarefo 22:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really a spider expert, so I just fix formatting and obvious mistakes when I come across them. I've seen a couple of other (admittedly smaller) errors in the IUCN data before (Chortipphus for Chorthippus and similar); it just demonstrates the need for someone with a certain degree of expertise to check things out. Any project of that size (including Wikipedia) is going to contain mistakes, unfortunately.

Don't worry — I wasn't going to start changing all the species lists. Again, I just found a situation where two articles seemed to repeat each other considerably, and thought it would be best to merge them. I reckon that if all species can be fitted into a single article, then a separate list of genera probably isn't called for. In fact, I think this can be generalised to other ranks: separate lists of the same animals at different ranks should not be created if a single list can comfortably accommodate them all.

I'm glad you like the formatting — it's a style I have used elsewhere. I think putting the authority in small type is good for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it matches the typesetting in the taxobox; secondly, it makes clear that it's neither a part of the text, nor a reference (both of which are easy mistakes to the uninitiated, particularly where there are authorities with names that mean something in English, like, say, Say). --Stemonitis 07:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

about the formatting: thinking about it a little bit more, i'm not completely sure how to extend them. for example, a line could be

• Hasarius adansoni (describer, year) (worldwide) - Greenhouse jumping spider

how would you add the vernacular name when you already used the - for the distribution?

cheers --Sarefo 15:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Tricky. There's only so much information that can comfortably be accommodated in a single line. That gives us four easy options, leaving out each of the four pieces of information (scientific name, common name, authority and distribution), and I can see arguments in favour of several of those. If the species has a single, stable, common name, then it makes sense to use that as the title; if it hasn't, then reporting it doesn't help much, and is likely to get too complicated to fit in the limited space. The authority is technically part of the name, but is not likely to mean much to the average reader and could possibly be included in the more detailed article instead. Distribution is just one aspect of a species that can be reported, and is not necessarily more important than any other (size, ecological role, etc.). My solution would almost always be to remove the common names, because for crustaceans at least there are almost never good common names; this may well be different for spiders, of course. --Stemonitis 15:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete move request

Could you please inform me what my request lacked, making it incomplete? Str1977 ^(talk) 09:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Until you corrected the link, there was no apparent space for discussion (which ought, incidentally, be marked with the template {{move}} — that would have helped to clarify the situation). Now that it's clear where the discussion is to take place, the request can be considered fully-formed. --Stemonitis 13:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the missing link was a typo. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Diaptomidae

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Diaptomidae, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.crustacea.net/crustace/calanoida/www/diaptomi.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 13:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Palestinians

It is upsetting that you chose to archive your talk page (archive18) without explaining your actions. I understand you don't like controversy as reflected in your discussions with Tiamut; and neither do I; but the only reason you gave was a general (copy/paste) response that "consensus wasn't found" which isn't satisfactory in this case, as it doesn't tell us what that means.

I think in all fairness that the concerned Wikipedians (I included) who in good faith suggested that move; deserve an answer.

The question is: Can you please be specific and explain what kind of consensus you were looking for? Also have you taken into consideration that this article had for years the proposed name, which is in itself a compromise; and was moved without consensus to a new, much more controversial name?

The question was placed on its talk page, but to make sure that you'll see it; I also posted it on your talk page. Please respond on its appropriate talk page; Thank you. Itzse 19:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I placed a follow up question for you on its talk page. Please understand I have nothing against you; you may have wanted to get rid of a contentious debate. But even with the best of intentions, I think you have given Tiamut, a one issue Wikipedian and a widely known Palestinian POV pusher, the better of Wikipedia. Itzse 19:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sentō discussion closure

Hey, thanks for tidying up behind me on the Sentō move discussion. I have been busy handling a disruptive editor who seems to find new things to cock up every day, including moving this page without the required consensus. Anyway, thanks again. The Rambling Man 11:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you located our little tinker. I've blocked him briefly as he was causing damage at a rate at which I couldn't undo it... The Rambling Man 12:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, most advisable. I've tried to explain the error of his ways to him. We'll see what happens. In the meanwhile, I've got some cleaning up to do… --Stemonitis 12:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim

This editor only had 3 reverts. Were you aware of this when you blocked him for the 3RR offence? He has requested unblock and it would be appreciated if you could confirm your intentions. Regards Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It did dawn on me afterwards that he'd only made three reverts, and that the letter of the law requires four. However, I think that deliberately editing at the limit of tolerable behaviour is a poor practice, and I would hope that all concerned would agree to work together in future on building a consensus. I generally unblock anyone that I have blocked who appears to sincerely regret their actions and vows to work more constructively in future. If the users in question are prepared to collaborate, then I see no reason why they shouldn't be unblocked. I assume that any unblocking would include both parties involved in the dispute. --Stemonitis 14:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see: User_talk:Yamla#Huh.3F. Ta. --Mais oui! 15:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the one-sided nature of the unblock is unfortunate. The two protagonists really ought to be treated the same. --Stemonitis 15:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked the Deacon on the basis that 3 edits is hardly edit warring. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a philosophical point that we could argue about (I would argue that edit warring is the attitude behind the edits and is not determined by a raw count), but I understand and accept your reasoning. --Stemonitis 15:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You left a false explanation for a mistaken block on my page, and even when you realised your mistake and changed your reasoning afterwards, you didn't have the respect to leave me an updated message. And then when you do leave a message of justification on someone else's talk page, it is entirely bad faith and makes no attempt to give any context (I needn't mention the fact that no discussion ever came to me and no opportunity was ever given to me to say anything, just a nasty block message with a false justification). Presumably you aren't going to apologise, because you I'm guessing being entirely bereft of respect for fellow long-standing editors and being so pumped up with self-righteousness (rather like what I'm posting here ;) ) means you probably regard yourself as above such demeaning tasks. Anyways, I hope your exercise of admin duties is generally better than this and this was just a bad day ... I truly hope so, for the sake of all the wikipedians who remain. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, your attitude towards editing the article Scotland was combative and unco-operative. I may have been mistaken in initially believing that you had violated the three-revert rule, but you knew before you started that the edits would be controversial, and you did not attempt to discuss them at any point. You are unrepentant now, and seem not to accept that repeated reversions of another editors changes are never acceptable (except when dealing with obvious vandalism, which this was not). You have not shown the restraint needed for successful co-operative editing, and you have failed to understand the basic tenets by which Wikipedia functions (consensus being high among them). There is no qualitative difference between three reverts and four reverts, and to deny any wrongdoing on that basis is no argument at all. I hope that once some time has passed and everyone has calmed down, you will return to Wikipedia and help us improve this encyclopaedia; I'm sure you have a lot to offer. Voluntarily subscribing to a one-revert rule can be a very instructive experience, and is highly recommended. Things would run a lot more smoothly if more people were to do so. --Stemonitis 16:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, this is a load of patronising drivel. Things would run a lot more smoothly if certain people who've managed to get themselves through RfAdmin votes would be less heavy and club-handed, and generally exercise their powers more professionally. You've left a permanent blot on my record without even discussing anything, a blot I cannot ever remove. All because of a mistake you made for which you predictably won't apologize. I understood 3RR - both law and spirit - fine well, and also unlike you understood the one man POV-pushing campaign going on on the Scotland page. I was mistaken to revert him three times, not because removing fiction is bad, but because others would and did revert him. Wikipedia is failing I'm afraid because of people like you who, beefed up with self-righteousness, give not a second thought to bullying and tyrannizing respected users and driving a wedge of distrust through the wiki community. You may not realize that's what's happening or that you are part of it, but that is the unfortunate growing reality. I'm leaving not just because of you, but generally because of admins like you, because I don't feel safe any more, because of POV pushers like the guy actually causing the trouble on the Scotland page, and because of the hordes and hordes and endless unstopping relentless hordes of vandals and bad content providers who swamp and overwhelm the time of good contributors, and who are not only tolerated but encouraged in order to put "consensus" over quality. Now as I am leaving, and you are not going to apologise or reset the block log which you have dirtied, please do me at least one favour and spare me any more tedious misguided self-righteous lecturing. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want me to comment, then perhaps leaving long comments on my talk page is not the most appropriate action. Being right is not an excuse for bad editing practice, so whether or not your edits were for the best, the manner in which they were made was unacceptable, and that is why you were blocked. It is unfortunate indeed that you do not understand this. You shouldn't worry too much about blots on your record; all experienced editors understand that people learn about Wikipedia through experience and will gladly overlook mistakes made early on, provided the person's more recent conduct is good. --Stemonitis 17:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad editing practice? since when was reverting drivel bad practice? So please explain how you can revert nonsense in an acceptable manner, especially to someone who has now been blocked by another admin and who you let off scot free? And as for that so patronising last sentence above; the point is NO blot should have been on his record; he made NO mistakes. I find your reply pretty lame.--Bill Reid | Talk 19:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the edits being made to Scotland were "drivel" or "nonsense" remains a matter of contention. The point is that repeatedly reverting good-faith edits is bad. Once it becomes clear that there is a genuine difference of opinion regarding an article, all parties should immediately recourse to dialogue. The mistake that both parties made was in not turning to discussion straight away. I am not sure who you refer to that I have let off scot free. The other editor involved in the edit war was blocked by me and has since been blocked again. --Stemonitis 20:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you acted in good faith when you intervened at Scotland, but in light that blocking a user for breaking a rule (s)he didn't break is normally considered a mistake I wonder just where your apologice for this. All experienced editors understand that even experienced editors and sys-ops make mistakes, and will gladly overlook mistakes made provided one recognises own mistakes and gives apologies (and provided the person's more recent conduct is good.) A very valuable contribution to this project right now from your side would be contributing to getting the good deacon (no, I wont try spelling the rest of this user name ;) back in business. P.S. As for attempts for dialogue, see User_talk:Biofoundationsoflanguage#Political_campaigning_on_Scotland Regards, Finnrind 21:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(resp. to Stemonitis) I asked you not to give me a tedious lecture, but you just couldn't stop yourself. If you thought I was edit warring, you should have warned me. Maybe you would have, but you blocked me because you mistakenly believed I had violated 3RR. You are presenting your new concocted reasons to me as facts, but you already conceeded to Angus the rather obvious point that they are just your own interpretations. Now you talk self-righteously about consensus building, but how can you do that with a strait face after you've imposed an mistakenly justified block on a more experienced editor without a word of note or warning? You tell me

the manner in which they were made was unacceptable, and that is why you were blocked

But that is quite frankly a lie, and you know it! Do you think people are idiots or something? You blocked me mistakenly, then tried to come up with another reason which you didn't even tell me about. In summary, you blundered your way into a farcically executed hash of a block, changed your blocking reason once you realized your mistake without telling the person blocked, and to cap it all off you tried to make yourself appear righteous in the process ... and now you're lying about what happened! You've made a joke of yourself today as an admin, and are only making yourself look worse. I think for the moment you should keep your misguided pontifications to yourself, apologize, let me worry about my own editing practices (hardly an issue now), and worry more about your own problems. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I might have apologised if there was any sign that Deacon o. P. regretted his actions. So far I have seen none. I have acknowledged that my count was out by one, but I do not accept that that necessarily makes my actions entirely wrong. The spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law at Wikipedia (this is stated in policy somewhere, but I forget where). Finally, I don't think anything I could do will appease Deacon, judging by his comments here and elsewhere. I have already stated that I think he has valuable contributions to make, and that I do not wish him to leave. --Stemonitis 06:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, what has Deacon to regret? He was reverting stuff by a disruptive (IMO) editor. The law is the law, if you break it you get punished, if you do not then you don't - no law was broken. You should have weighed up the quality of the two editors involved before blocking, mistakenly, the wrong user. A swift apology , I believe, may have made a difference but now we have lost an invaluable contributor to a project that needs authoritative input. I don't envy you your job, but you put yourself up there and you should be big enough to admit that your action was wrong. From your remarks it is you who needs to learn from this situation, not anyone else. --Bill Reid | Talk 07:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Both editors were being disruptive. --Stemonitis 07:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, bio was being disruptive, Deacon was reinstating the concensus arrived at material. -Bill Reid | Talk 07:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not someone is being disruptive is not related to the truth or otherwise of their changes; it's all to do with how those edits were made. Repeated reversion without recourse to discussion is disruptive, and both participants did exactly that. --Stemonitis 07:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the discussion had already been carried out on this issue, so when someone with an agenda comes along and disrupts the article we are supposed to engage with this individual and try and make him see the error of his ways. No, we do exactly as Deacon did and reinstate the correct data taking care, as he did, to not to cross over the 3RR rule. Anyway you have no misgivings over this. Goodbye, --Bill Reid | Talk 07:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Engagement is always preferable. I see no reason not to assume good faith on the part of User:Biofoundationsoflanguage, much as I may decry his tactics. Belittling him as someone "with an agenda" is not constructive; no doubt he sees his opponents as people with "an agenda". Even with outright vandals, discussion can be a better tool than reversion. --Stemonitis 08:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Scotland

And now that you accept your mistake, please unblock the article. Bill Reid | Talk 15:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is an entirely separate matter. I have yet to see any evidence that editors are engaging in constructive discussion which would defuse the recent ill will. If the bickering is to cease, the participants will have to sit down and work out their differences. There has been alarmingly little discussion recently on the topics that are causing the current contention, and no attempts at all to find a mutually acceptable solution. For as long as the article is protected, editors will be forced to discuss changes they want to make. In the long term, it's a terrible solution, and I'd like to unprotect it as soon as possible, but for the moment, it still seems warranted. --Stemonitis 15:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments from third parties

I noticed with some irritation/amusement your intitial, invalid, block on Deacon of Pndapetzim but assumed that common sense would see the problem soon resolved without any long term harm done - how wrong i was. Even by the frequently piss poor standards of the many busy-body admins who infect wikipedia with seemingly no purpose but to obstruct users who contribute far more than they do this episode is a joke and absolute condemnation of your character and qualifications as an admin. I could go into some detail on why your actions,and laughably desperate attempts to justify them as well as your refusal to apologise for an apalling mistake which is so basic as to defy belief, have been totally ridiculous but why bother when so many respected users have beaten me to the punch. You have forced a far more valuable editor than yourself to leave wikipedia - congratulations. siarach 07:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As you say, why bother? What was the point of that message at all? Also, you should not compare the quantity of editors' edits to assess their worth; Wikipedia welcomes edits from all comers, even an anonymous user correcting a single typo. The quantity simply does not matter (as long as the quality is right). --Stemonitis 07:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You really are a bit of a cheeky sod arent you? you should not compare the quantity of editors' edits to assess their worth - The user who was the victim of your unrepentant incompetence has produced four Featured Articles, a considerable number of Wikipedia:DYK as well as creating countless other articles of excellent quality across a range of subjects. What few parts of Wikipedia are worthwhile are created by the likes of him. Quality over quantity indeed. As for "What was the point of that message at all?" simply to put my displeasure at your behaviour on record along with that already expressed by other users. As an admin i would have thought you in possession of an understanding of the importance of feedback - but then as an admin we'd have expected a lot of qualities from you which you have shown lacking. siarach 08:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't feedback any more. The message that there was displeasure about my actions was already abundantly clear. All you are adding is needless vitriol. --Stemonitis

I disagree. Anyway let that be the end of it. Hopefully its an experience to be learnt from. siarach —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:14, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

After reviewing the incident, I came to the conclusion that Stemonitis should have his sysop privileges revoked. I feel that a serious enough lapse of judgment has occurred to make him unfit to use the tools. Jimbo said that a revert is the slap in the face of a contributor; the unjust block is so much worse that I would not dare to put the appropriate metaphor into words here. Unless Stemonitis is blocked unjustly for doing the right thing, he will not understand how harmful his hasty actions have been. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I acted while a revert war was ongoing, when there wasn't much time available for fine analysis of the situation. I have admitted that I misjudged the situation, but I insist that at all times I was acting in the best interests of the project as they appeared to me (i.e. in good faith). Yes, I misapplied the rules in a moment of haste, and admitted as much as soon as I became aware of it. I do not, however, believe that the situation is best remedied by instigating a witch hunt. Naturally, I will be much more careful in future; I would be a fool if I were not. Indeed, as a result, I will probably not intervene to stop an edit war again for some considerable time to come. --Stemonitis 13:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Collateral damage

Hello Stemonitis,

In your effort to keep wikipedia an orderly place in issuing an IP block, you actually have blocked the web cache of the Edinburgh University computers. -- Klaus with K 20:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. That's not good news, but I'm at a loss what to do about it. None of my recent blocks is still in force, although User:Biofoundationsoflanguage has since been re-blocked — could that be the cause of the problems? I'll be away from the computer for the next several hours, in which time my blocks would have expired anyway, but if you can find out the IP address or range in question, you should be able to find another administrator to unblock it. --Stemonitis 21:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Mountains of Ireland

I translated/expanded the article Geography of Ireland to norwegian recently, and noticed that different sources gave different heights for various mountains and hills. For Carrantoohill I stuck with 1,038 meters in no:Irlands geografi based on this link [1] ( instead of others like this one [2] saying 1 041). I see this falls into your area of interest (and from your recent edit on Geography of Ireland that you agree that 1,038 is the right figure), and would like to ask if you know of better links than OSIs short list for official heights of mountains and hills in the British Isles (and Ireland)? Finnrind 13:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Different sources always give different numbers, and especially so for Carrauntoohil, for some reason. I think that in general, where there is doubt, the OS number is the one to go for. Of course, if there's a good reason why another figure should be much more accurate, then we should probably use that, but I'm not aware of any hyper-accurate survey of Carrauntoohil having been carried out. Foinaven was recently re-surveyed with increased precision, and Beinn Dearg (Torridon) may follow within the week, but it hasn't happened yet for Carrauntoohil, and I see no reason not to use the OSi number of 1,038 m. --Stemonitis 13:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you know...

On 22 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pestarella tyrrhena, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 13:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hall of the Mountain King

Hi --

I just wanted to register my disappointment that the discussion for the requested move of Hall of the Mountain King was closed so abruptly. I realize that five days is the usual amount of time for a requested move discussion, and I agree that no consensus to move was reached, but in a case where opinion remains split and the parties have not reached a stalemate, it seems to me that it would be more appropriate to give the discussion a little more time to develop.

I understand there's not much you can do about it now and I'm not asking you to -- just wanted to respectfully say I think that this was not a good call. Thanks. Tim Pierce 15:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As you say, there's not a lot that can be done about it. You say that it hadn't reached a stalemate, but that's not my reading of the situation. The arguments hadn't moved forward since the last debate a few months earlier, and I don't think much would have been achieved had it been left to run longer this time round. I think having five days as the standard duration of a move request is a pretty good compromise between getting moves done quickly when there is a real desire to do so, and allowing enough time for the less clear-cut cases. A different duration could be introduced (we're always open to suggestions of ways to improve the whole system), but I think the current setup usually allows about the right length of time. --Stemonitis 15:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Move of Stefan Batory

I don't see how one support and one oppose constitute a consensus for the move? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Move requests are not votes, and I was taking into account the comments that had been left earlier, outside the poll framework. Also, as I tried to make clear in my comments there, the one oppose vote was based on a misunderstanding or misapplication of our naming conventions. --Stemonitis 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)