User talk:Timtrent/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Larry Geller

Hi Tim - I completed shortened my article on Larry Geller and resubmitted today (11/10/15). I was trying to find help and think I came across a way to request help from you or anyone from Wiki to help edit my article to get it through. I'm so frustrated as I submitted in May and here it is November and I'm still messing with this. I shorted it and put in so many references to books, TV, etc who talked about Larry. When I sent it today, I got reply from Primefac who rejected saying he already responded in June. I feel I'm going in circles. Can you pull up what I submitted today and see if it meets the guidelines? Is there a way to submit to someone there who can edit to get it posted? Please let me know. Please HELP! THANKS!

Chris Coffey

Chris Coffey 18:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshakoko1 (talk • contribs)

Chris, I will not phone nor email you, and i have deleted that information from public view. I am not exactly certain if I reviewed that which you submitted today. Please link to it for me. I want to be sure I give you absolutely relevant help. Fiddle Faddle 18:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Keshakoko1: Starting to see what happened. This version] of your talk page contains what you believe you submitted today. You ought to have edited Draft:Larry Geller with that information. May I suggest that you do that, after which I will have a look at it. But please take note of the comment I put there, too.

Don;t use your talk page to create drafts, it is guaranteed to fail. I'll be happy to guide you through our processes. You need a calm and quiet attitude and we will follow this thread to wherever it leads. Fiddle Faddle 18:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Tim - I just sent you article I posted today and clicked SAVE PAGE and it goes to "Page Cannot be Displayed"??? It flipped me out and has several times. Is there a way I can send you the article so you can see it and let me know WHY it's not getting through. I shorted it a lot from back in May but not sure what is going on. I need your help desperately - PLEASE. Thanks!

Chris Coffey 18:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Chris Coffey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshakoko1 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Keshakoko1: I have no idea of the process you went through now that failed. So, why don't we just start quietly and gently to move this draft forwards. Let me give you some steps:

1. Go to Draft:Larry Geller
2. Edit it to enable your new material to be presented
3. Save it, and inspect it for layout
4. Go through the layout and correct any layout errors
5. Let me know when you are ready for me to look at it
6. Bear in mind I am human and eat, sleep, and do other things. My replies may not be immediate.

If it is in my power to assist then I will assist. My opinions are just that, opinions. I may not be correct. Always remember that. Fiddle Faddle 18:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Keshakoko1: Was I unclear in some manner? Those steps, above this line, ^^^^^^^^^^, those are the ones we will follow. Please never paste draft articles into my talk page, I will always delete them unread. If you want my help we do it the correct way. Or we don't do it at all. Fiddle Faddle 19:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Keshakoko1: Ok, this is slightly better, but it is not going to fly. User:Keshakoko1/sandbox/Larry Geller is not Draft:Larry Geller. It also has not been submitted, which is just as well. It will not pass in this state. The format is not right, and we do not even bother to review unreadable drafts. Who would?

Is there a reason why you seem unwilling to follow the steps I have laid down for you? I have told you I will help you, but only when you follow those steps. Otherwise you are on your own. Abandon User:Keshakoko1/sandbox/Larry Geller, blank it, and edit Draft:Larry Geller, but do it well. Fiddle Faddle 20:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed a copyvio paragraph, but I think enough sources exist for this to be mainspaced, either as a standalone-article or as a new subsection of the extant Memphis_Mafia article. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The sources are probably fine, but the citations, which are important, do not exist. And the gentleman who wishes it to go live seems to have gone away for now Fiddle Faddle 09:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

In the colonies, sometimes Chris is short for Christine/similar, so might well be a genteel woman. I assume you are talking about inline citations? Agreed, but the alternative is just to create a short stup, and then build it up from there -- and indeed, such a suggestion was made by User:Keshakoko1 below. But instead of {{tl|db-author]} which will junk my source-lists and your afc-comments, better to just blank the body-prose, in the existing draft-article, right? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

One issue seems to be getting Chris to pause long enough to listen and understand the process. There is more haste here than productive work. The draft went ages ago. Fiddle Faddle 23:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that is an issue, but what do you mean by "went"?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Chris seems to be back. Please see User talk:Keshakoko1#Help_me.21 and User talk:Jeff G.#Question_to_Jeff_G. for details.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"Back" is a relative terem, Jeff G.. He came, asked how to delete, flagged for deletion, and went. I view the deletion of Draft:Larry Geller as a mis-deletion and have mentioned this, without strong feelings either way, on Nawlinwiki's talk page. I'm not sure Chris is yet ready to work with folk. Fiddle Faddle 13:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure of that either, now that you bring it up. Chris mentioned being "confused" in a section below.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I think Chris runs too fast to watch where his feet are heading, Jeff G.. Or, perhaps my instructions higher up in this thread were hard to understand? Please give me a verdict on those, telling me clearly if I am in error. I shall learn from that if I am wrong. In any case, if you ask NW to undelete I am sure they will. I see the draft as potential passing WP:BIO with just the referencing to bolt into place. Fiddle Faddle 14:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Your instructions are not wrong, and indeed, are more clear than I usually manage.  :-)     Short and to the point. But as you can see from the original posting, wherein she-or-he asks specifically for: "help edit my article to get it through" / "I'm so frustrated... I'm still messing with this" / "someone there who can edit to get it posted" ... this is a case of somebody who is interested purely in getting the article mainspaced, and nothing more. They don't plan to become a wikipedian. They don't really want to do more work. And most especially, they don't want to learn the wiki-jargon, they don't want to read our volumnious yet still strangely ambiguous wiki-laws, and they don't want to get practice navigating our byzantine wiki-bureaucracy.

  They just want somebody to do the *rest* of the work for them. In such cases, sometimes it helps to try and teach them to fish, but in other cases you can direct them to WP:REQUEST#Music, where they can try their luck, in finding somebody willing to do the work for them. (Might actually work in this specific case, since sources do seem to exist. Also, is there a WP:ELVIS? Seems there is. That would be another place to offer Chris, as a venue where they might seek an interested sure-I-will-do-the-rest-of-the-work-for-you type of person.) But at the end of the day, the steps you put down are the steps that *will* invariably result in success, and generally speaking there is no short-cut which will lead to such success. Attention to detail, learning what one is taught, and working with folks rather than seeking them to work for you, is good advice on wikipedia, and I dare say in life. Chris is in a hurry to get through the wiki-bureaucracy, and fortunately or unfortunately, in 2015 the wiki-bureaucracy simply cannot be hurried. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

had to outdent because I lost count of the : things. Undeletion has been requested. I think the deletion was invalid because of the criteria chosen. Pedantic? Me? Fiddle Faddle 21:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Poor pedantic fiddle faddle, extra elvis passive paddle, talkpage trouble sources slashed, refund requested sunshine a'last!  :-)     Promise I won't do that often. Well, too often. I have requested that NawlinWiki also restore the draft_talk, which is whereupon I placed my own refs that I scrounged up. If Chris doth return, prolly we can just give her some leeway to be confused, since now her article has been deleted and undeleted in five places, by my count.  :-)     p.s. In other news, I am growing more hopeful that you and the other arb-candidates will yet make a splash, of a least a tiny sort. There will likely be some final self-noms in the remaining 24 hour window, after which we can more realistically assess the betting odds. If you wish, I'm happy to try and organize some kind of arb-klatch of candidates and former/sitting folks, to get some pre-emptive knowledge transfer channels up and running. Are you enjoying the proceedings, as best as you may, so far? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I am hopeful that Larry will hit main namespace before Chris returns from wherever it is they have gone. It needs some ex-cite-ability and then I would view it as probably ready

The AC proceedings are very strange. Enjoyable? somewhat. Amusing? As a pleasant diversion. Are the questions good? Some. Others, thankfully not yet addressed to me, are tub thumping, and at least one questioner should stand for election!

I think we will not make a splash. The RfC on admin tools et al seems certain to scupper the non admins because of general prejudice other for or against a demographic, and it ain't the ladies it's agin. I may have to oppose myself on that basis. I anticipate a further 5 or so nominations before the deadline. It's a pity we had one vaporise an hour or three ago.

The voter guides are interesting. I do wonder if there is any point, but I suppose folk do read them before making up their minds. All we have is a beauty pageant, really.

What never ceases to amaze me is the self imposed and invented ludicrous bureaucracy. We started with a blank canvass and we (not me, honest, guv) created a behemoth to hamstring ourselves. All we need is WP:N and WP:V and WP:RS and we are there. So let us create administrators, bureaucrats (why does no-one ever moan about them?), functionaries, Stewards, clerks, monks, priests, bishops, queens (some of whom stamp their feet), check user's, check socks, checked shirts, arbitrators (who do very little arbitration, if any)?? The list is ever growing and endless.

Oh yes, please do that very infrequently. Fiddle Faddle 23:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll do my best to restrain myself. Sometimes it just comes a-bursting out. You have stiff competition in the non-admin category; besides my wiki-friend User:Samtar, you must now face the musical Usr:NE_Ent. (Betcha wish now that you had promised to sing the NDA in your statement, hmm? Sorry fiddleFaddle, but you've been scooped!  :-)    

rfc about giving non-admin-arbs the admin-bit for 'free' ... plus voter-guides and approval voting and arb-election mechanics

I bangvoted in that RfC, against giving non-admin-arbs the bit, since I think it would actually hurt your chances, and the chances of all other non-admins. Rther than granting the admin-bit, I would rather non-admin arbs be granted the oversighter and the checkuser bits -- this would permit seeing all that was needed, and also NOT give non-admin-arbs the unilateral-block-button (though of course as members of the wider committee non-admin-arbs can bangvote to block and even site-ban parties to the arbcases).   My reasoning is mostly wiki-political. I wanns see non-admins on arbcom. Unfortunately, there is already a fairly large voting-bloc who will oppose all non-admins merely because they are non-admins. Giving you the admin-bit "for free" because you won an arb-election, aka came better-than-tenth-place in a low-turnout wikipoll, would definitely hurt the chances of success. Unintended consequnces and blowback: additional new people would oppose, not because you were not yet an admin per se, but simply because they didn't want you to become an admin, via the arb-election route! Sigh. In any case, it has always been contentious that non-admins are not found on arbcom... the true reason for the RfC, I believe, is for the first time in a long time, there is a non-negligible chance one or two non-admins could win arb-seats this year.   So no, this is not really about angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin, because it could screw up arb-elections to make the block-button a "reward" for winning an arb-election... and there are at least two candidates currently standing who formerly had said button, plus half a dozen who have never had it. Arbship is about trusting a person to stay level-headed, and to keep secrets info secret: that is quite in line with checkuser and oversighter perms, whereas adminship comes bundled with several additional powers, and vast additional psychological baggage (in teh minds of the arb-electorate at least). Which is enough to make it a problem!   For the voter-guide question, they are a proxy for polling firms with a sample size of one. Frankly, I wish it was required that the arb-candidates write up voter-guides; nothing would give me a better insight into their positions, than in watching how the summarized their competitors, in three sentences and a noWay/no/neutral/maybe/yes/strongYes type of spectrum! But I doubt it is wiki-kosher per the wiki-traditions, of staying aloof. Having watched them in the past, though, I can say unreservedly that voter-guides are extremely good indicators of who will win and who will not win, if one parses the voter-guide tea-leaves properly (you have to map from the self-selected voter-guide-authors to the broader demographics of the arbcom-electorate... but this is not very difficult). Once the nom-period is over, and the voter-guides have begun to crystallize into final form, it is easy to predict who will win the nine seats, with 80% accuracy or better. However, it also helps to watch the guides as they evolve: that gives you a trendline to see how well candidates do, as the guide-authors investigate them more deeply.

  In any case, the arbcom elections are definitely not a beauty pageant, although they are inevitably somewhat of a clique-popularity-contest... people are more likely to bangSupport folks they agree with, than not. But the quasi-approval_voting system of arb-elections is very sound, it permits as many candidates to run as WP:NOTPAPER permits, and simultaneously, the voter-guides in aggregate provide a way to influence the bangvotes of other arb-voters. The outcome is reasonably strong. The problem is not the election-system, but the broader difficulty: wikipedia has these intractable disputes.

tale of one wiki-city: arbcases related to neutrality-battles, and arbcases which are not

More than half of the said disputes, nigh-intractable plus seemingly-never-ending, I firmly believe are caused because of the various conflicting interpretations of NPOV. See for instance the currently open GMO case: it is a wiki-battle between editors who want WP:MEDRS to apply not just to medicine-topics but also to agricultura-topics-broadly-construed, so that they can delete nominally-reliably-sourced material which is not in systematic-literature-reviews-of-peer-reviewed-academic-studies, versus editors who want WP:MEDRS to apply narrowly to medical claims, and are interested in seeing coverage of the political/sociological/anthropological/business aspects of the GMO debate, which of course are NOT found in systematic-literature-reviews-of-peer-reviewed-academic-studies, but are very much found in wiki-reliable WP:SOURCES like newspapers/magazines/television/govtAgencies/etc. The friction betwixt the two battle-factions has led to an almost complete breakdown of civility in the twenty-or-so pages of mainspace that are involved. Plus of course, driven away any editors who are not nigh-obsessively-committed faction-members, broadly speaking.   Thus, by the time the ever-more-bitter groups finally make their way to arbcom, things are almost completely out of control. You've seen similar things when you were working on 9/11, but the difference here is that neither side has clean hands, and almost certainly behavioral remedies will simply tamp the dramahz down to a low rumble, but *not* end them. I'm not advocating that arbcom begin to work on solving content-disputes (aka "arbitrating" slash mediating), since by now it has been many years that arbcom is purely and solely in the business of tamping down behavioral-problems only (almost invariably by setting up discretionary sanctions plus banhammering a few of the worst offenders as a deterrent to the remainder). So now we have a 'pedia where every political page is under AE sanctions, every vaguely-health-related page is soon to be under AE, every BLP-article (including Larry Geller theoretically) is under AE, and so on and so forth. Talk about bureaucracy! Theoretically impacting (literally) millions of articles, though in practice enforcement is so uneven most people are completely unaware the AE banhamer is hanging over them.   But yes, fundamentally, it is self-imposed WP:BURO. There is no requirement that we have it, although for some specific purposes it is helpful: keeping the WMF from getting sued for promulgating medical advice (plus keeping people from dying) is necessary, at a bare minimum. Still, at the end of the day this is an encyclopedia, aimed at the general readership, with the intended scope of covering All Human Knowledge... and it is simply impossible for us to achieve that, if we drive away good-faith editors with our crazy bureaucracy, and our entrenched wiki-cliques. So I disagree that N+V+RS is all we need, because per the trifecta, I also need to not be a widg. There are almost always "civility" problems in the content-battles slash policy-battles (and you can see there is currently a battle about wither to change from "biomedical" to the broader "biomedical and health" phrasing over at the MEDRS guideline).   But there are also arbcom cases which are pretty much purely civility-related, where people are simply not being WP:NICE enough to each other, and cliques and friction and tool-use are the outcome, noticeboard dramahz galore; again, there is a currently-open arbcase, originally titled Vested Contributors but since renamed AE#2. Several of the voter-guides explicitly mention it -- by contrast, none of them mention GMO stuff, that I have seen, though I expect Tryptofish's voter-guide might. There is no content dispute in AE#2 whatsoever; the edits in question are purely related to a wikiproject which concentrates on editor-count, and a talkpage which concentrates on project-wide problems, and have so little to do with mainspace you can barely even see it from the locus.   Yet, the decisions that arbcom makes -- whether slowly or in haste -- all have impact on mainspace, in the sense of hurting morale, killing gumption, upholding justice, settling for WP:NOJUSTICE, and generally speaking either damping drama fairly permanently yet surgically, or at worst, exacerbating drama into a worse state than it was before. This is true whether the arbcase is about WP:NICE, or about WP:NPOV, or some combination; it is true especially for full cases, but it at least as bad for declined cases where much time is wasted yet nothing is solved (and pretty bad for arb-motions ... especially when they are Too Hasty for the taste of some subset of wikipedians). It is almost a tautology that arbcom actions (and inactions) never are popular... in a way, that is arbcom's role, to bite the bullet and make the hard decisions that nobody else has thus far been willing to make.

  Meanwhile, back at the ranch, there are people stuck in the AfC queue for months and months, who just wanna learn how to get around our crazy 2001-era website technology, learn how to get past our ever-growing WP:PAG and the associated wiki-jargon, and geneally contribute to the encyclopedia as amateurs rather than ten-year-volunteers. Back in 2005, this was permitted. By 2010 it was very much frowned upon. In 2015 it is basically impossible. Nobody said life was easy, I suppose! Let alone wiki-life, such as it is.

  But yes, with any luck, Jeff and myself will have whipped Larry-the-BLP-article into some kind of presentable form, and mainspaced it, so that we can avoid the perils of userspace/draftspace/drafttalk/afcTemplates/etc which are so befuddling to the uninitiated. Or well, even to the initiated, often enough... you were able to get your arb-candidacy-statement properly done, whereas the good User:Drmies was flubbersplagasted to the max, and had to call for help from the competition.  ;-)     I wish you all luck at "winning" an arb-seat, but implore you to remember the trifecta if at all possible. As User:DGG once implied, it is on arbcom that IAR is needed most, because it is arbcom that gets the most intractable dramafests, handed to them on an often-dirty platter. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break (heh)

p.s. Who is the question-asker , that you though ought to run for arb-ness? The self-nom period is open another 18 2 hours or so, mayhap they could be nudged into running. Looking back over the past week, I see that I have marked down User:Casliber as a question-mark... they said something like, if enough other folks they liked were running, mayhap they would run for a third time? Will probably go leave them a note about the current crop, in which case. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

My own view is that people with a substantial clean record who work on trying to improve other people's articles have an obligation to become arbs,admins because having the admin bit lets you do things yourself that you otherwise need to ask other people, and thus makes more work for arbsadmin people like me. And I say just the same about people who insist on remaining as IPs, for the sake of some imagined principle. The work involved in distinguishing them from the mass of IPs without clear records is a nuisance, and the work they must do in explaining themselves is not constructive.

I can't fairly comment on the election unless I do it in a more visible place, but, Timtrent, let me remind you of my own experience, that the intention to reform arbcom from the inside will be greatly diminished by the hostility it will encounter there. Some people could of course ignore the hostility but they would in turn be ignored. I'd have been entirely marginalized. One might think one could just do things by voting the right way without comment, but one can't. It takes not voting but persuasion, and you can't persuade if you're too stark in opposition. Thus such committees always co-opt the reformists into just ordinary bureaucratic people. To accomplish major change, it can be more effective to fight from outside. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Understood, DGG. My intent is desiderata more than anything else. It is arbitration that I intend, and that between committee colleagues, too, if elected. Getting cross with folk seldom works. I do appreciate the complexities we have created for ourselves, not least the deity we have created in ArbCom. This ship can be turned slowly and steadily, not with a great lurch of the wheel. People who arrive at AC with a problem to be solved deserve quiet contemplation, and fairness. Ignoring the past completely, the good and the less good past together, they deserve the future, where less good improves and good strives for excellence.

Thank you, both of you, for your thoughts. I am looking forward with some interest to the outcome. I will neither be pleased nor displeased, elected or not. Fiddle Faddle 08:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this is shaping up to be a good arb-election. Not everybody who I wanted to see run could be armtwisted (Bishzilla tried to get Newyorkbrad to run again), but several surprised me... including that Tim Trent person, about whom I was shocked, when they agreed to my Modest Proposal to run for arb.  :-)     Sometimes pleasing results do occur, here on the 'pedia. But yeah, no telling how well the election-outcome will be, at this point. Also, DGG has good advice; the major reforms I'm suggesting in my greenboxen, should not be your goals, because doing it from inside is likely too hard; from your answer, though, about intended to *arbitrate* as an arb, I think you will do fine. You are also persuasive, given time, and arbcom's offwiki efforts seem to be the primary timesink, so that too is in your favor. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

User:DGG, did you mean to say admins, or arbs, in your first sentence? "...have an obligation to become arbs..." Since you are talking about having-the-bit, I'm guessing admin, but it was not clear enough for me to WP:SOFIXIT without asking first. p.s. On the societal obligation of anons to register, and then become admins-and-or-arbs, I accept no such imaginary obligation, just as you do not accept the imaginary principle of egalitarian omnidirectional kindness that I'm attempting to foment. Gravity is invisible, yet not imaginary; kindness is invisible, yet also not imaginary. If my fight was to alter gravity, you would have a point, but since kindness is a human-controlled phenomenon, I think we must differ, as I am philosophically committed to widening the bell curve, in the expected behavior of anons, as a means of reminding folks that WP:NICE applies to all, not just apparent regulars. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

yes, my typo, I did mean admins, and I have corrected the text above. What I said only makes sense that way. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

My original interpretation was that you were talking about a hypothetical duty to run for arb-ship, among long-haul wikipedians. Which in some ways, there is a wiki-tradition of that sort, especially with arb-burnout as high as it is: sooner or later, either every long-haul wikipedian runs for arb, or we will run out of arbs! :-)     Until we can improve the vicious toll of the arb-election and especially the sitting-arb position, at least. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Gravity is highly visible. Ever watched snow?

Now watch an avalanche.

I am not there to change it. If I am elected, I am there to do a better job than those who went before, if I can. That is all. Change happens by the community forcing change. The committee's job is to work for the community. If I serve or not, when I am not serving, then I can consider change. I believe, however, that the committee itself as an entity is fine. It is the post holders who must work ever better to serve the community. Part of that is refusing to take on non intractable cases. Fiddle Faddle 22:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Snow falling, even avalanches, are only the (visible) effects of gravity. Gravity itself, the primordial force, is neither visible nor (arguably) tangible. Similarly, you can see the effect of kindness, but the platonic concept of kindness, is in some sense an "intangible force". See R. Buckminster Fuller :-)   75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I rather think he was responsible for a load of balls

Forty minutes to run before we line up in breathless silence to await the starting gun. OT will be interesting to see what happens, the more so since I seem to have a horse in this race. I may have to declare total hatred for you, you know.

Have you considered the fact that the earth also rises a smidgen to meet the snowflake, under the force of gravity. On that basis, did the blue whale fall to earth or did the earth fall onto the blue whale? Fiddle Faddle 23:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

fwiw, I think the committee has sometimes been most effective when it leads the community. Interpretation by the committee has the same role as interpretation at Del Rev--it essentially makes the difference between merely written policy and actually enforced policy. There are many areas at WP where there's quite a difference, partially because our RfC system is susceptible to stonewalling by determined people--and to slow sneaky changes . This is why I rarely argue much in a policy discussion. It makes so little difference what we say, compared with what we do. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

What I can say for certain is that there is much to learn, and more than one person can know. The best one can hope to do is to absorb, digest and reflect learnings in one's own words to test understanding. There is every reason to answer a question with a question until one understands. Then one can interpret with a certain degree of clarity. Even if one interprets correctly one may not carry the day. Interpreting internally is very different from a committee interpreting on the community's behalf. That requires a different set of skills.

In the UK the senior courts set legal precedent by their interpretation of the law. That precedent, until upset or altered, again in ocurt, becomes binding upon future decisions in that area of law. Legal specialists will tell me that is simplistic, but it is sufficiently correct to serve here. Thus yesterday's judgement almost dictates how today's case will be judged. Is that what you mean, DGG, by leading the community? Fiddle Faddle 00:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Not really. The WP procedure has some analogues with a legal system, but it is very rough and the terms have very different practical meanings. The key difference is that any formal legal systems have a relatively stable way of making& enforcing legislation, and we do not. We make legislation-- and for every procedure except arb com--we make decisions, on the basis of whoever shows up to argue it. I know of no real analogies to this in any formal system. It's an extension of the informal pattern of a club of people, operating by whoever care enough to should longest and loudest.

I think of our goal as stability and some degree of consistency. For article content , where arb com will not rule directly, we have no way of making a final decision or a binding decision about anything at all. People can basically do as they please unless someone objects, and if they do the matter is determined ad hoc. If the people at the discussion want to follow precedent they can, and if they do not, then they need not. The procedure I know best is deletion discussions. What I normally argue for there is to have a certain degree of consistency, but within that, I use whatever argument I think will give the result I want for Wikipedia . If we always or almost do things in a certain way, then we should follow it, but it can always be argued at the individual discussion that the case is different, and alternatively that the precedent is wrong, or that a different rule applies, or that this should be an exception. Whatever people accept, is what happens. In a sense, precedents there have variable strength depending on the degree of acceptance. We always keep high schools, we usually keep large shopping malls, what we do about books and authors varies widely. How we should handle companies is much disputed, and it can depend on a combination of subjective judgements, the strength of supporters, and the chance attendance.Del Rev in practice only corrects obvious errors, --or those where a large group of supporters mobilize. I also know well discussions on reliable sources. I always argue that there is a continuum of reliability, and it depends on how they are used, with extreme cases having consistent precedent. For discussions on NPOV, anything goes.

For behavior, which is in the end the province of arb com, arb com again tries for consistency, but knows very well that most of its decisions are not all that soundly based. A good depends on the personal view of the individual arbs, and the sympathy they have with the individuals and with the issue. Most evidence of disruption an be equally argued as serious or not serious. Arb com is in any event dependent on the individual actions of individuals arbs for most enforcement, and there is an enormous first mover advantage for whoever cares most. Because of this, arb com in practice will often not make a decision because they know it will not be enforced, and if it gets too far ahead of the community here, it will be effectively ignored. It is no secret that I consider the whole situation totally unsatisfactory, but I do not object often, because I have nothing better to propose.

For procedure, it's another matter entirely. We cannot operate without consistent procedure, and this applies to all aspects. Here too custom has a part, but there has to be some definable and teachable way that people can go about doing things. I rarely support change here unless what we have is wholly dysfunctional, like AfC or NPP. I do not support changing rFa, because it works, more or less. I do not support changing the basic rules of arb com, for the same reason. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That requires digestion. It gives a great deal of insight. Fiddle Faddle 09:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

And it begins..

Well Tim, voting has begun and I've rushed to the booth and done my civic duty - good luck! samtar ^{t} 08:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Samtar: I'm not sure which way the luck needs to run, my friend. Thank you for the wishes. There are now two whole weeks of folk, presumably, asking more and more questions. Fiddle Faddle 08:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The worst bit is the two weeks after voting closes before the results are announced. It's painful. Worm^TT(talk) 09:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: To be fair, it is the entire process that is painful. We have taken glorious anarchy and created more regulations than the former USSR to codify freedom, and all because we have chosen to do so. We have imposed all sorts of levels and grades of folk where none are really required. These are the outcome of the glorious social experiment that is Wikipedia. We are in the ant hill. Somewhere outside it is a boy with a magnifying glass, and the sun is rising. Fiddle Faddle 09:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia, Wikipedia edits you!      :-)       It is funny, because it is true, as the other saying goes.... 75.108.94.227 (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Timtrent I am somewhat conflicted, for I think you would make a great arbitrator but I would also hate to see you less active at AfC! Your kind welcome in April was one of the things that really encouraged me to dive in there. We will all have big shoes to fill. I wish you the best wherever this election takes you. /wia /tlk 14:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You are very kind, Wikiisawesome, but you are filling big shoes there yourself. I think it is less likely that I am elected than you appear to fear. To make AfC ever better our newer reviewers need gentle encouragement to use more and more useful comments. Many so, some do not. Enjoy helping them move to become better, too.

Being elected is far less important to me than you might imagine. I am taking the election seriously and will take the duties seriously. But I have a healthy ambivalence to succeeding in the election or being pipped at the post. What interests me is that people think there is a potential for my being elected and are considering the paradox that an arb must be able to see everything but is not required to be an admin. My desire not to be an admin seems to be confusing some folk. They must vote as their heart tells them. Fiddle Faddle 16:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Precious

"a good article"

Thank you for quality articles such as Gender roles in non-heterosexual communities, beginning with Tide Mills, East Sussex, for teaching others what makes a basically good article, and for John Victim, for reviewing articles for creation and your pledge to old values, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

My friend, I am honoured. However, with the gender roles article I simply guided the contributing editor and squeezed a DYK out of it. They may still be aiming at GA for it and I think it is worthy of massaging into it. For my sins I have not looked. I'm happy to take the credit for the others, though Fiddle Faddle

I may look closer then, but believe that guiding others is possibly of even higher merit than writing in a quiet lonely corner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I did a small search. this gives an indication of the way I worked with the contributing editor. There is some other material about it on that page as well. It looks very much as though they have gone on to contribute more and more, something I find very pleasing. I like to shine soft light into the lonely corners, and pour a cup of tea there occasionally. Fiddle Faddle 18:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The more hear you the more I will miss you on arbcom. I do both, I write some articles in my corner and others with others, especially Kafka. DYK that Wikipedia has an article, The Company of Heaven (of all titles) which was written by two editors who dislike infoboxes and me (thinking they are as useful as images, maps and graphs - which nobody seems to fight over) and therefore has a compromise of an infobox? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I happen to think that infoboxen are useful (which is why I would not have closed the discussion in your question). I have never understood the determination not to include them and the parts of the project that are against them, because I believe in a uniform look and feel across the entire edifice. But I also believe in only including things that are notable rather than giving a free ride to team sportsmen who have been on the pitch for a couple of seconds in a qualifying game, and not including some junior academics. Then there are folk who live to old age and are judged to be notable because they have dodged the coffin for long enough, but for no other reason.

What I've learned here is that one needs, sometimes, to walk quietly away from such things, trying hard not to disturb the creatures that inhabit those areas. At other times one tries to influence change. Often one fails. Sometimes one succeeds. I decided long ago not to care either way, to make my attempt, see what happened, and move on if I did not prevail. That is a recommendation I would love you to embrace with infoboxen. Fiddle Faddle 20:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, you are right, and I think more often than not I do that. I do my own and don't care about others - up to a certain point. You may know (or not) that the infoboxes case was requested because too many were reverted. It was at the time when infobox opera was new, I embraced it, others hated it. I made a list of infoboxes reverted (which possibly made me one of the suspects), counting 59, 17 of them operas. 16 of these operas have an infobox now ;) - They are all concise because the template is designed that way. I love the last example ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanksgiving. I added an infobox to Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen, BWV 51, on 4 September 2013. It was discussed (initiated by the author of Joseph), I was told because of that edit that AE is "not a fun place" (remember my question?), the box was reverted. I walked away then, but look forward to seeing it on the Main page on Thanksgiving Day, pictured ;) - If I've learned one thing it's patience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanksgiving

Shout for joy

I shall think of them henceforth as Turkeyboxen Fiddle Faddle 00:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually laughed, as the kids say, out loud at this one. But what to call the userboxen, then?  :-)       75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

From LW1588

Appreciate your advise on the citation. Will revise my article. Thank you. Happy Thanksgiving!LW1588 (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Larry Geller, verse seven , refrain

So at present Jeff_G. is pulling the weight in terms of the rewrite effort, and Chris the original draft-writer has appeared briefly to ask more questions (which I'm attempting to centralize on User_talk:Jeff_G. for the moment), then again gone quiet. I pinged a couple of WP:ELVIS folks, but don't think the ones I selected have yet responded. Jeff, are you feeling over-burdened with your efforts on Draft:Larry_Geller, and wish the rest of us wikipedians -- Chris very much included should they wish to become one -- would pitch in and help you raise the BLP-barn, as the old sayig does not go? WP:NORUSH applies, of course, but pinging in case you are wondering where everybody went. I have been too slothful and otherwise occupied to work on Elvis-expansion this past week, and FiddleFaddle is doing some strange thing elsewhere on the 'pedia. Is everybody happy at the speed of motion, is my question here? Should we mainspace the thing, and move the in-progress bits to article-talkpage, if others agree it passes WP:42 and is WP:NOTPROMOTIONal enough now to survive such a shift? Also ping Chris aka User:Keshakoko1, so they can know we too still care.  :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I learned a long time ago that, when something goes well, it should not be interfered with. :). Jeff_G.'s heavy lifting is excellent. Apart from pruning the work space elements surely this is ready to roll?

The strange thing I am doing doesn't interfere much at present, though that process is mind numbing in the extreme. And they wonder why I will not submit to an RfA! Who needs the grief? Fiddle Faddle 21:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I never got a pingback from the two WP:ELVIS folks I tugged-at-the-elbow, partly to see if they wanted to work on the article, and partly to see if they thought this was a borderline case that ought to be up-merged into Memphis Mafia where it would get more eyeballs. From what I can tell, though, Geller was not actually part of the Memphis Mafia per se, but was an independent influence, so I say we are probably go for mainspace, unless Jeff_G. strenuously objects. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest tidying and acceptance. A little like a wedding vow. You may now kiss the hairdresser. Fiddle Faddle 00:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been busy with work (new job, want to make a good impression, etc.). I wanted to finish building the fully-referenced (upper) version before moving to mainspace, but what I have is probably good enough to stave off AfD. I should be able to work on it more on Sunday.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It's now in mainspace at Larry Geller, but there is more work to be done.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: What an awesome piece of work. There is always more to be done, but I think you can look at this with pride. Have you ever submitted a "Did You Know"? Go to WP:TDYK and have a look. It's another arcane process. A hook like (off the top of my head) "...That Elvis's spiritual advisor was his hairdresser?" sounds anarchic enough to make the cut, pun intended. You should be the one to submit this, and you will get all the "glory". Do not delay submission, there is a time deadline for submission after the article hots main namespace. There is then a ludicrous delay before someone reviews and accepts it. Fiddle Faddle 08:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawal from ArbCom Elections 2015

You must cut down the largest tree in the forest... with... a... herring! Your poise in unforeseen withdrawal, is as strong as your honour would have been in the seat. Even should we ne'er meet again, I would still have been proud to say, that once I knew Mister Faddle o' the Pedia.  :-)     None may say what they future will hold, with any certainty, but here's to hoping that we have many happy encounters in this strange place, in times yet to come, Best wishes in your off-wiki stuff. Anyways, enough with eulogy. You will be sorely missed as an arb, and in your lessened time for on-wiki work, even more sorely missed with the ever-challenging AfC queue. But do as you must: be what you are, and be it in style! Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

From where will I get a herring? Fiddle Faddle 00:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know thaaaaaAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaa.... (distant thud echos upwards) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I have withdrawn, and left a succinct statement on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Timtrent/Statement. I am leaving this message here for those of you who watch my talk page and are interested in the progress of the election. If you have opposed me, that vote is not wasted. If you have supported me please consider revoting, offering your vote to a current candidate. Fiddle Faddle 07:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that Tim, I can only hope your real-world circumstances have changed for the better instead of anything worse.. You were a good runner, and you had my vote. samtar ^whisper 07:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Samtar: The change is neither better nor worse, I am pleased to say. It has simply removed the extra time I believed I had at the start of the elections. Thank you indeed for your support. I hope I would have been able to do it justice. I think I would, but the changes in my life mean that withdrawing is the only valid decision. Fiddle Faddle 07:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it :) maybe next year? samtar ^whisper 08:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Samtar: It depends upon my circumstances. I will still not be an admin, and we may have changed the rules by then, who can say? Fiddle Faddle 08:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Who knows.. All I do know is ArbCom could benefit from some editors who, yes, are bound by process but can think in a new and out-of-the-box manner samtar ^whisper 08:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Samtar: The sad thing is that I believe some folk see serving on ArbCom as a matter of status, whereas the reverse is true. It is a labour, perhaps a duty, but the status is negligible. Others see the act of serving as a means of making a reform. Instead they will create a log jam. Dissenting opinions are fine, but need to be voiced well, and once. ArbCom is not a place to fillibuster.

The role is a tough one, not one to be taken on lightly. Looking at the candidate list, I think some have an incorrect view of the job. You did not. Fiddle Faddle 08:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Sad, you were one of my (rather few) hopes. All the best for you personally! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I think sometimes things are not meant to be. Always remember that I was not in any way a reforming candidate. If elected I would have been as much bound by process as any other. My decisions would have been based on what the situation required, no more and no less. I thank you for your support. I would have done my best had I been able to continue. Fiddle Faddle 07:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Accepted. I don't need a reforming candidate, someone fair and looking at evidence is just fine. I will not vote again, because I supported all those I could support, not enough to fill 9 seats anyway, but more than the 2 that Iridescent and Newyorkbrad feel you have to support ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oh dear.I had already voted for you. Now I have to go and do my vote all over again ;) Never mind, the way some users (not candidates) appear to be possibly abusing the process you are probably better off out of it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: You are very kind. Thank you. I suspect folk will always abuse processes, perhaps because it is 'fun' to do so. At least by withdrawing at this stage I have inconvenienced fewer folk than I would have done had I delayed still further. Fiddle Faddle 08:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear this Tim, as I don't mind saying I supported you. :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I am sorry to be withdrawing. But I felt it was important to do so as soon as I determined things had altered to interfere sufficiently with the time required for the role to make my appointment valueless. If I had known this before voting started I would have withdrawn earlier. Thank you very much for your support. Fiddle Faddle 11:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Add me to the disappointed set. Arbcom needs people like you. But, real life is the real thing so I totally understand. All the best! --regentspark (comment) 15:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Thank you. I am also disappointed. I think there was a very real possibility that I would have polled over 50% net of opposes. I would have preferred to stay in the race, and I hope I would have done a good job. The support has been truly heartening, and I think it comes from folk who know I was not in any way a protest nor reform candidate, just an editor with a reasonable depth and breadth of experience. It would have been wrong of me to stay in the race when things mean I cannot, now, devote the time required "just to see the result." I am vain, but not that vain! Fiddle Faddle 15:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• I can't think of anything to add to what others have already said above, but I also was sorry to see you withdraw. Whatever else, I look forward to seeing you around as an editor. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Thank you. It was tempting not to withdraw, but it became important to do so. Having a potentially vacant place after the election would have been a bad decision on my part. It might also have suggested that non admins were unsuitable as candidates, something I think we agree to be incorrect. On that basis my staying in the poll would have been a negative benefit for the community. We need editors of the widest possible experience to serve on ArbCom. By no means all of those are admins as well, though many are. Fiddle Faddle 17:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• A pity. I also voted for you. Anyhow, all the best both on wiki and off. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jbmurray: Thank you. I was overtaken by events, I am afraid. When that happens it is important to react at once. Delay leads to stress and stress is not what one requires of an absorbing hobby. Fiddle Faddle 19:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• I just found out from Wikipediocracy. I'm sorry about it because I think you would have been great on the Committee - your answers were really impressive - but kudos for withdrawing at once, and I hope you will be able to run again in future. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I confess I have never been to ocracy. I would not even now where to start looking. Were they nice about me? Do I really want to know? Thank you for your comments about my answers. I was by no means electioneering. I speak my mind. Whether I stand again or not depends only on time commitments. I imagine some folk might hold my withdrawal against me should I do so, but the loss will be theirs. I hope we get a great committee who will cut through to the real issues in each submission and do so speedily. Fiddle Faddle 19:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a strange site - some awful things get said, but there are present and past arbs among the active members. I refuse to join - I don't trust them with my personal details - so I don't know what is said in the non-public forums. In the public ones they were mainly puzzled about who you might be, since you aren't known from the drama boards '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I think I shall leave it out of my browsing. I am here because it is a pleasant pastime and because I think I can make it better while enjoying it. That sounds like a place that is a mixture of mud wrestling and a duck shoot. Fiddle Faddle 20:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• I am a little worried about time commitments too. Take care Tim. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: I only became concerned when I realised things had changed to prevent my being able to do the role justice. I think the time one spends will always grow to fill the time one has available. I had always expected a sharp rise in work, but my life could not accommodate even a quarter of my estimate of the extra time suddenly. Should you be elected my only suggestion is to use a very sharp scalpel to cut away the surrounding clutter and only work with the core issues. Even if your colleagues do not do the same it does no good to get drawn into irrelevance and the strange verbosity that tends to surround the world of the 'official'. Say it once, say it well, and move ahead to the next issue. And do not forget to enjoy your regular editing here. Fiddle Faddle 19:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Well, this is disappointing, you were on my Support list. But it is wise to take seriously how much time the committee involves and you have to choose your priorities in life. I do hope you consider running again when real life settles down. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Liz: I shall consider running again, Liz, yes. I am truly humbled by the support you and others have given me, and I thank you for it. I wish I'd known before voting opened that my time availability was changing or I would have withdrawn earlier. I was not going to relinquish the fun parts of the hobby that is Wikipedia. ArbCom was to be a difficult duty I was adding in order to try to give something extra back. Fiddle Faddle 21:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have done a little studying of ArbCom and I don't believe there has been one year where at least one arbitrator didn't retire early. There is clearly more of a workload and friction in being an arbitrator that some candidates anticipate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I looked at what I predicted the time commitment to be when I thew my hat into the ring, then doubled it. I had that available then. Now I do not even have a fifth of it left. I expected potential vitriol. However well one thinks one has worded something there is always someone to misinterpret it, and no-one arrives at ArbCom as a "problem" without having an opinion, and a concern that all is resolved in their favour. Fiddle Faddle 22:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Vitriol eh? How's this: aarrgggghghh aaAAAArrrggghh rraaarrrgh... no wait. Give me a second. WWWwoooorrreaaarrrrrrGGGGGggghhhhhh! Take *that* for your vitriol, I say. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, 75.108, would you like an antacid? Fiddle Faddle 00:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Re Larry Geller

Tim - Awhile ago, you told me how to delete my article (which I did ONCE) just so I could submit a SHORT draft so I could get this through. I did say it was confusing (which it is) and I've been told by two other sources who worked with Wikipedia for years and they told me I'm not wrong. It is very difficult. This is WHY I opted to submit a short version.....which I have been messing with this since May. THEN, Jeff G. jumps in and reverses my delete and seemed nice enough to try and help get it through (along with others). I appreciated this and thought finally maybe this will be approved. But I get an email from you (the last one I've seen from anyone on 11/23/15.

I looked through the string and see a lot of "not so nice comments" being very judgmental saying I don't know the jargon and don't want to learn. Where is she or he? Etc etc etc. Comments saying probably we just give her some leeway to be confused???? Is this how the people at Wikipedia work? I wanted to submit something short and sweet and because they reversed it and now complaining about me, more and more time has passed. I still don't know whether it is in any condition to be submitted for approval? Some comments seem to mention me and then they seem to talk about something else (maybe this is his or her attempt to "confuse" me even more? Maybe it is enjoyable to them to try and mess with people - so sad. In the comments below, it seems it may be close but nothing is straight forward on this site. Could you speak in laymen's terms. I guess people get a kick out of speaking their own language and confusing people? I don't know. I'll copy and paste this to a few I know who have dealt with this in a professional manner. Here is some of the comments I saw:

"Poor pedantic fiddle faddle, extra elvis passive paddle, talkpage trouble sources slashed, refund requested sunshine a'last!  :-) Promise I won't do that often. Well, too often. I have requested that NawlinWiki also restore the draft_talk, which is whereupon I placed my own refs that I scrounged up. If Chris doth return, prolly we can just give her some leeway to be confused, since now her article has been deleted and undeleted in five places, by my count.  :-) p.s. In other news, I am growing more hopeful that you and the other arb-candidates will yet make a splash, of a least a tiny sort. There will likely be some final self-noms in the remaining 24 hour window, after which we can more realistically assess the betting odds. If you wish, I'm happy to try and organize some kind of arb-klatch of candidates and former/sitting folks, to get some pre-emptive knowledge transfer channels up and running. Are you enjoying the proceedings, as best as you may, so far? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I am hopeful that Larry will hit main namespace before Chris returns from wherever it is they have gone. It needs some ex-cite-ability and then I would view it as probably readyThe AC proceedings are very strange. Enjoyable? somewhat. Amusing? As a pleasant diversion. Are the questions good? Some. Others, thankfully not yet addressed to me, are tub thumping, and at least one questioner should stand for election!I think we will not make a splash. The RfC on admin tools et al seems certain to scupper the non admins because of general prejudice other for or against a demographic, and it ain't the ladies it's agin. I may have to oppose myself on that basis. I anticipate a further 5 or so nominations before the deadline. It's a pity we had one vaporise an hour or three ago."

THANKS!

Chris Chris Coffey 20:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshakoko1 (talk • contribs)

BTW - I am a female since people keep saying he or she. Not sure who referred to me as genteel woman?

Chris Chris Coffey 20:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshakoko1 (talk • contribs)

@Keshakoko1: Hi Chris. I will try to remember that you are a lady. My apologies for my mistaken assumption. It is because the majority of folk here are male, which is regrettable. We need more ladies here. You make up 50% of the world, some say more, but far less of the pool of Wikipedia editors.

Ignore the babble. The thread became hijacked. I should have separated it, but did not do so. My talk page, so my apologies. Set it aside, disregard it and put it down the the banality of folk.

Let's look at Larry Geller. The article is in pretty good condition and exists. It is a real article, not requiring approval. You achieved it, albeit with Jeff G.'s help. There is no need for to to be reviewed, it has been Accepted

This is my basic message to you. I am going to post this and then add to it below. You do not need to read what is below, but I will still draw your attention to it. Fiddle Faddle 21:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Keshakoko1: Now the part you do not need to read. I will get a bit Wikipedia-technical. Do read the final para, though!

The deletion was not a correct action since more people than just you has edited the draft. Therefore we asked for it to be restored, and then we, or rather Jeff G. worked on it with the help of the anonymous editor 75.108. They got it onto such a good shape that to was accepted as an article. IN jargon this means "Moved to Main Namespace" or "Moved to Article space." These are jargon terms of which there are more than you can shake a stick at. see WP:Glossary and run!

We hoped you would enjoy joining in with the rescue of the draft, and take an active part in it. It was, after all, an article started by your inspiration. It looks as if you had no time to devote to it, or, perhaps, we had put you off. Let me apologise for that, too. I seem to be doing a lot of apologising.

I would have joined in to hep the other two, but I was occupied with standing in an election for our Arbitration Committee, an election I had to withdraw from for domestic reasons. I don't think I had much value to add, frankly, and I think the article is the better without my help. The babble in the thread was a set of blandishments about my candidacy. Again, please set those aside.

Is there anything left that I need to explain to you about this? Please ask. I will answer. Despite the confusion I try very hard to give good guidance, and try to make it easy to read. Fiddle Faddle 21:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi - THANKS SO MUCH and I'll try and send a THANKS to Jeff G. as well. I really appreciate all your help. According to your message, you said it's approved? I just did search for Larry Geller and I saw just a reference for Larry Geller under sandbox in Wikipedia - it took me to my sandbox about deletion? I'm not sure why this shows up when doing a search in Yahoo. I would think I could type his name and see the Wikipedia page? I think you said there wasn't anything left for me to do - is this right? Please let me know how anyone can search and pull up page.....or do I need to submit it? Please let me know. Thanks so much!

Take Care ~ Chris Chris Coffey 22:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshakoko1 (talk • contribs)

@Keshakoko1:It is at Larry Geller. For external search engines we depend on them to index Wikipedia's pages, so those are unpredictable. Google does not yet pick him up at Wikipedia. That is life, I'm afraid. We can't influence Google.

You genuinely have nothing further to do to it. That doesn't mean you should not improve it if you wish, but the necessity is gone.

Would you like to learn more about editing Wikipedia, this time free from stress? Fiddle Faddle 22:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

THANKS SO MUCH!

Hi Tim!

I really appreciate your quick response! Thanks for explaining to me your expertise of what you've learned from past experience about search engines. I know it's obvious from the start I've never created a page on Wikipedia and struggled with learning how to even submit a question let alone try and proceed. Thanks for your patience and understanding of someone who has no clue on this and I think I've learned quite a bit from you and others. I will keep checking and keeping my fingers crossed to see if the article shows up.

I am very happy it was approved!

Thanks for your help!

Take Care ~ Chris Chris Coffey 14:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Retzol (Retzawl), Assam listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Retzol (Retzawl), Assam. Since you had some involvement with the Retzol (Retzawl), Assam redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000: before nominating redirects for discussion it is best always to examine the reason for their creation. The MediaWiki software attributes the creation of the redirect to the person who moved a page away from that name. When we get an editor who moves articles around for whatever reason, those who try to tidy up behind them end up "credited' with the redirect.

This one needs deletion, but it is a CSD candidate, not an RfD candidate. Fiddle Faddle 19:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

From Melbushr

Hi Tim,

Thank you very much for taking the time to give me some very clear feedback regarding my article. Now that the exact issue is more clear, I can take steps to remedy it and resubmit. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melbushr (talk • contribs) 12:51, 30 November 2015‎

@Melbushr: I think your course leader may need some support form our education specialists. Fiddle Faddle 16:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You just did this

"I have little medical expertise. I am the owner of a penis, to which I am attached, but that is as close as I come to knowledge, here." *Slow clap* Dat GuyWiki (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dat GuyWiki: I did, yes. Thank you for the applause. Fiddle Faddle 20:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Reporting COI editor

You might get more traction at WP:COIN versus this talkpage. There's not much activity at that project. My 2¢. – Brianhe (talk) 09:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Brianhe. I shall if he fails to heed his second level warning. Good paid editing I accept, even welcome. Piss poor self promotion is a fish of a very different colour. Fiddle Faddle 09:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Original Barnstar
		For being so kind and patient with problematic editors. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Anna Frodesiak. I do feel, sometimes, that I fail, even when trying very hard. Fiddle Faddle 18:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You are very welcome. :) Oh, and you and me both. But we can't stop trying. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Sometimes, though, they manage to tweak our exasperation muscle Fiddle Faddle 14:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

From Melbushr again

Hello again @Timtrent,

I would appreciate it if you could review my article a final time; I have implemented the changes you proposed. I have added references following every statement that draws some conclusion, ascertaining the fact that these are not my own conclusions, but rather the objective insights of experts in the field of human factors and aviation. I also agree that the image was rather intrusive, and have taken corrective action. Thank you for your assistance.

@Melbushr: I have replied at your talk page, knowing that you will get that answer quickest Fiddle Faddle 18:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

No idea what this is?

actually she did not tell us how to do it we just did it by ourself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.241.222 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 1 December 2015‎

Help me, please? I have no idea what this is about. Fiddle Faddle 18:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Desulfurobacterium atlanticum

Thanks for the ref changes. I was just about to get to them. There is only one published article for this organism. The url can be added. Thanks again. gdawgme — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdawgme (talk • contribs) 05:33, 2 December 2015‎

@Gdawgme: With only one paper published it is unlikely to be approved as an article. Fiddle Faddle 08:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For patience above and beyond the call of duty in dealing with an exasperating new editor. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: You are very kind. My public face and what I was thinking did diverge there. Fiddle Faddle

User talk:Lallienzuol hmar

Do you think the editor was really totally unable to understand what he or she was told, or have we all been taken in by a troll? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: It's hard to be sure. If you look at the article, it's a decent article. The behaviour is unfortunately familiar in the India area. Ask Sitush about that. It seems a paradox that he may well have been a respected headmaster, but that his actions here have been to alienate himself form a pleasant and productive hobby.

I wonder about a possible language difficulty, or, perhaps, a health impairment that prevents interaction. I think not a troll, I think an inability to cope when pushed back on. Fiddle Faddle 19:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Language difficulty is a possibility, but he seemed to be able to write coherent English, so that doesn't seem all that likely. Much of the behaviour, as you say, is typical of what we often get from Indian editors, but the one thing which to me really didn't make sense was continuing to make the page moves, without any attempt to explain why, even after it must have been clear that doing so was only going to lead to being blocked. However, even that, I suppose, could be just a rather extreme example of a stubborn "I am not going to back down and lose face, no matter what the consequences" attitude. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: There are aspects of his editing, if you look back into the article before all the fuss started, probably just after acceptance at AFC, that show something odd. This is the insistence of naming himself in capital letters, or, indeed, in naming himself at all. I wondered, from that time onwards, whether someone crafted the main work for him and he then took it over. Not that this surmise matters at all, of course. I think all one can conclude is that, whatever the issues he faces, he has behaved as a very silly gentleman. If he undertakes to behave like a sensible gentleman, assuming him to be male, then he is welcome back. But we have been clear to him that he was making a choice and that his choice was to be enforced. Fiddle Faddle 10:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The thing that I found hard to fit in was the contrast between some aspects of the account's editing which seemed to suggest a reasonable, intelligent person literate in English, and some other aspects which suggested someone who seemed incapable of any understanding. Your suggestion of someone taking over from someone else might explain that. However, when all is said and done, as you say, it doesn't matter at all. Oh well... The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

On the issue of poor quality posts-- Promote Wikiversity as an alternative site

I noticed your concerns about poor quality contributions on Wiki Ed at

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard&oldid=693567635#Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed.2FUniversity_of_Western_Ontario.2FHuman_Factors_in_Aviation_.28Fall_2015.29

I am also involved with questions of article quality on Wikipedia, but from the opposite end at Wikiversity. I am a tenured college professor, and with no need to further publish, am now free to focus on being useful. I will be spending the next few weeks attempting to configure a WikiEd extension page for a group of inexperienced college students at:

Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Wright State University/Introduction to Astronomy (Spring 2016)

A draft on how Wikiversity might best contribute to established Wikipedia articles is at:

User:Guy vandegrift/WikiEd/Wikipedia and quizzes for introductory college courses.

On a somewhat unrelated vein, see my comment about intersister links at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikimedia_sister_projects&oldid=693198567#Location_for_links_to_sister_projects

@Helaine (Wiki Ed): You also raised legitimate concerns about this. I want reassure both of you that I am dedicated to making Wiki Ed work, and not at all interested in forcing Wikiversity into this program. The best way I can contribute to the quality of Wikipedia is to make Wikiversity a more welcome as an alternative place for students to post.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Guy vandegrift: What I think we need, Guy, is a central and well discussed proposal, where (eg) WP:AFC reviewers are asked to contribute, and all editors are welcome. The Education Noticeboard seems the correct venue, as does the AFC area.

What I hope to see is encapsulated as:

1. Some form of licence for the course leader. Use of Wikipedia should be a hard won privilege, not a right
2. Excellence of support for the course leader
3. Excellence of tuition by the course leader
4. Increasing competence of the student leading to finished main space articles
5. A formal process (cf WP:AFC) for acceptance of student articles into main namespace
6. Obvious identification of student coursework. Some students/instructors fail on this
7. Cleaning up at the end of the course, by the course leader. Courses often leave less then acceptable material in all sorts of places, including the article space
8. Happy students, some of whom become editors here after the course is over
9. Happy course leaders

How does that sit with your thinking? Fiddle Faddle 15:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I presume you mean a re-thinking of the entire WikiEd project on Wikipedia. That is outside of my scope on Wikiversity. But here are my "instant reactions" to what you wrote:

1. Some form of licence for the course leader. Use of Wikipedia should be a hard won privilege, not a right. what would be an acceptable license? Do you mean, for example, full status at an accredited institution?
2. Excellence of support for the course leader: Are you saying that the WikiEd staff is unable to serve all the courses that it hosts?
3. Excellence of tuition by the course leader:don't know what you mean
4. Increasing competence of the student leading to finished main space articles I think measuring that metric would be more trouble than its worth
5. A formal process (cf WP:AFC) for acceptance of student articles into main namespace. No comment - I don't know anyting about submitting articles to Wikipeda
6. Obvious identification of student coursework. Some students/instructors fail on this. Confused - do you mean identification in user space? There should be no reason for stuff to get into mainspace without due process. Forgive my ignorance about Wikipedia, but does material in userspace do any harm?
7. Cleaning up at the end of the course, by the course leader. Courses often leave less then acceptable material in all sorts of places, including the article space. ditto the comment above
8. Happy students, some of whom become editors here after the course is over No need to measure this
9. Happy course leaders No need to measure this

--Guy vandegrift (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Guy vandegrift: Let me try:

1. Some form of licence for the course leader. Use of Wikipedia should be a hard won privilege, not a right. what would be an acceptable license? Do you mean, for example, full status at an accredited institution? No. A wikipedia driving licence, if you like. We ned a leader who is not one page ahead of the students, but two pages at least
2. Excellence of support for the course leader: Are you saying that the WikiEd staff is unable to serve all the courses that it hosts? I have no idea. I am basing this on the things I can see. I think they may offer support when it is requested rather than being pro-active
3. Excellence of tuition by the course leader:don't know what you mean I need to see evidence that the course leader, during the course, provides real leadership. I'm aware that university is different from school, but I expect to see real tutoring here
4. Increasing competence of the student leading to finished main space articles I think measuring that metric would be more trouble than its worth This is not a measurement. It is a fond hope. If the student is not making progress there are several things that need to change.
5. A formal process (cf WP:AFC) for acceptance of student articles into main namespace. No comment - I don't know anyting about submitting articles to Wikipedia Broadly, we review and approve drafts that stand a better than 60% chance of surviving a deletion discussion
6. Obvious identification of student coursework. Some students/instructors fail on this. Confused - do you mean identification in user space? There should be no reason for stuff to get into mainspace without due process. Forgive my ignorance about Wikivesity, but does material in userspace do any harm? I have no idea about Wikiversity. I know that an article in Wikipedia is subject to the scrutiny of all who care to scrutinise it, including draconian edits, strong criticism, merging with other articles or deletion, sometimes summary deletion. I mean a mandatory banner which signifies coursework, and/or a new namespace "Coursework:" in which these items are developed and from which they can be moved to main namespace
   Material left in main space harms Wikipedia if it is poor, and causes effort by people to tidy up. Bad for creates hostility towards the creators, and, if a course produces a massive pile of trash, resentment against the course leader
7. Cleaning up at the end of the course, by the course leader. Courses often leave less then acceptable material in all sorts of places, including the article space. ditto the comment above This is a duty of the course leader. Leaving the trash for others to find is poor hygiene.
8. Happy students, some of whom become editors here after the course is over No need to measure this One cannot, but one can aim for it
9. Happy course leaders No need to measure this One cannot, but one can aim for it

These are procedural things. I doubt it rewrites the way to was done previously. Fiddle Faddle 17:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Irony

"Ironic in an article about communication." Isn't it? Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ian (Wiki Ed): Irony was ever thus, my friend. I think you are doing things to these articles beyond the call of duty. You might like to have a look at the RFC I've put on the Edu Noticeboard. I intend it to be of help to you and the gang as well as to the rest of us.

What we do about the fractured English of this course I have no idea. I am not sure their course leader was as well ahead of them in the manual as she hoped. Fiddle Faddle 16:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Keith White (disabled yachtsman)

Are you good with ALT7. Please express your opinion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done. As for the article name, I am 51:49 in favour of the status quo. Fiddle Faddle 17:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you crop the picture a bit? Too wide angle for the main page in the space provided. It is clear, but I think would be better. Just a mild suggestion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see File:Marathon Feeling 1350 yacht World Challenge 2015 -2 cropped.png, there as an alternative, 7&6=thirteen> hope it helps. By the way, I framed the original version to indicate a certain loneliness. Fiddle Faddle 13:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

To be sure, I wasn't criticizing your artistic sense in the photograph, or in the article. However, I am aware of the limitations on size on the main page, which has its own consequences. Nice job. I hope they use it. 16:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

THANKS!

I appreciate all you've done and the others as well. I could have NEVER gotten it posted if you haven't edited it to the point, someone does approve it. Thank you all so much!

With this time of year, I've got so much to do, I'll wait until next month to "fiddle faddle" with it - LOL! Maybe I'll eventually get the hang of it.

I wish you all a very Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah and a very Happy New Year! If I've left anyone else out - blessings to you as well!

Best Blessings,

Chris 71.79.14.134 (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to guide you, Chris. Just let me know when you are back in circulation. Working together is a disciplined process, so you will need some time. Fiddle Faddle 20:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for sharing your insights Coy Tinker (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

06:58:21, 7 December 2015 review of submission by Coy Tinker

• Coy Tinker (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:GoWarrior computing platform (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Dear Fiddle Faddle, Thanks for sharing your insight. I have read the articles on Independent Reliable Sources and Primary Sources; it helps to get the better knowledge on sufficient references. Please note that the contents for this article are supported by a third-party source. All the information in this article is published in following websites: 1) The product’s review done by the www.eeboard.com professional. http://www.eeboard.com is China media website that publishes reviews, articles and news on open-source computing platforms. 2) The detailed interview of the developer team, taken by CSDN official reporter. http://news.csdn.net/ provides web forums and technology news. CSDN is a largest Software Developer community in China and it has cooperation with Microsoft. I have modified and drafted all the details from neutral point of view. I assure you that the provided sources are reliable and have reputation for fact-checking and accuracy of the content. I would like to request you to kindly review the both provided sources so that I can retrieve the draft as an article. Thanks Coy Tinker (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Coy Tinker: It was a pleasure to do as you asked. I have placed a detailed analysis of the references on the draft. When you have considered and changed the draft to reflect these please submit it and a different reviewer will make a review. I don;t think I deserve the barnstar, but I thank you for it. Fiddle Faddle 09:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)