User talk:Father Goose/Archive 5

Richard Versalle

Thanks for the nudge.;-) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice.--Father Goose (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for my shiny thing! If you see a need for any other opera singer articles, just give me a shout and I'll try to oblige. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Vital Articles

I responded to your response to my comment about the Vital Article merge pretty quick, but I don't think you got it. Go to the level 3 Vital Articles talk, and go to our discussion about the merge. Us441 (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Responded now.--Father Goose (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to see what I have done with the merge proposal and my proposal at Wikipedia Talk:Vital Articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Us441 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case

Can you tell me what the consequences are of my being attached to that ArbCom case? Do I need to go and ring my wikilawyer? (weak attempt at smile)

Are there any guides as to what I need to try to present, if I'm to try to get through the ordeal unscathed? Jheald (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Enh, there will probably be no consequences to you, especially if you avoid any further edit-warring over it for the duration of the case. You might consider asking the Committee to issue a preliminary injunction against yourself and JBsupreme regarding removal or replacement of (uncontentious) unsourced BLP info. Now that the case is opened due to be opened, the arms should be laid down, and if JBsupreme (or you) persist, I'll seek admin action: admins are generally willing to inhibit fighting relating to a case actively before the ArbCom. But I doubt you will persist; I hope JBsupreme will "cool it" too.--Father Goose (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Or, the Arbcom could always simultaneously accept the case and punt it, with that time bomb of a summary motion. There's no chance this fight could get much, much worse in the near future. No, no chance of that at all. Pointed sarcasm much?--Father Goose (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Started arbcom enforcement

User:Ikip/arb per clerks request here: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Requesting_a_temporary_injunction_.28arbitrators_please_read.29 Ikip ^{Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):}_{an olympic medallist for f**k's sake} 20:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP unverified

Fantastic idea. This new template is one that I definitely will use. One of my goals is to put together a BLP volunteer toolkit to assist editors that want to write BLP and assist in maintaining them. Tools like this one will make it easier for editors to do their work. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 10:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

For your blp-unverified template

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For {{BLP unverified}}, a great fix to a bedevilling problem. RayTalk 05:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the kind message. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Seat configurations of the Airbus A380

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Seat configurations of the Airbus A380. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seat configurations of the Airbus A380. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

ping

email on the way. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting crab analogy

Hi F. Goose, I read your analogy on the incivility block proposal about crabs dying because of toxins released by other crabs. Kind of like the rotten apple spoiling the rest of the apples in the barrel, only with crustaceans, huh? :-) Anyway, I know you had some opinions on how to enforce and determine if incivility has occured, so I thought I'd let you know that there is finally some proposed text being put forward for the policy. The discussion is happening at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incivility blocks#Actual text. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD

I have nominated Ronnie Nelson, an article that you tagged for multiple issues, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronnie Nelson. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wikid^as© 18:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

ping

wording DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

RfA nomination

DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Essay Categorization

Hello,

Thanks for helping with and/or commenting at Wikipedia:WikiProject Essay Categorization and/or Classification. One major task we are trying to accomplish is getting every essay in Wikipedia namespace into at least one category. If you could hdelp with that, even by categorizing just a couple essays every time you log into Wikipedia, over time it would help tremendously. WP:HOTCAT can help categorize essays quickly if you know/learn how to use it. A list of essays can be found at Category:Wikipedia_essays. If you choose to help with categorization, pick a letter of the alphabet and notify everyone which one you're taking at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Essay_Categorization_and/or_Classification so that everyone starts on "untamed land" so to speak. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know on my talk page or the project talk page. Thanks again! ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate pattern

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

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

I just discovered this new article and on balance I think it comes under the probation so I've added the template to the talk page. As this is very new I'm alerting everybody who has contributed to the article. -- TS 16:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, seems sensible.--Father Goose (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject BLP sourcing: Count watch?

If you have a script or bot or something that records these counts daily, perhaps you could take on the task of keeping the record on Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons? I have been adding a few numbers by hand, but that's really not a good way to go about it. (We can discuss on the talk page whether we should record daily or weekly numbers - daily may be good while we're in startup phase, but the list grows long fast). --Alvestrand (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just been doing it by hand so far. You should file a bot request -- it should be be an easy bot/script to write.--Father Goose (talk) 07:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Glen "Frosty" Little

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Glen "Frosty" Little, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Glen "Frosty" Little. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot 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 (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've just proven that 1 = 1.--Father Goose (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh, heh. When bots make mistakes, they can be silly ones. Too bad a bot can't feel embarrassed, like a human editor. David Spector 21:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Who says adminship's not a trophy?

Your RfA has demonstrated that the community trusts you to extend to you the sysop maintenance toolbox; welcome aboard, now we have some speedy files thataway… -- Avi (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks to all who participated.--Father Goose (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done, and welcome to the tools. - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations... being the newest admin for 9-1/2 hours was pure torture, I can tell you! Seriously, well done. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, great, now I have to hold down the newbie fort for at least five days. After which I get to hold down the newbies, mwahahaha!--Father Goose (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:BLP unverified and the recent RfC

Template:BLP unverified seems to have an unclear purpose in light of the early results at the recent RfC regarding removal of uncontentious unsourced content at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Content. What do you think? Gigs (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not share your confidence that that RfC is going to put the issue of deletion of BLP content to rest. I think the template has a purpose regardless of which side "wins out" -- for instance, if one makes a good-faith effort to source a BLP, but cannot find sources for certain bits of information that are likely to be true but hard to verify, that's probably a good time to use it -- check out the diff in the template used on Talk:Lisa_Hordijk, for instance.

I'd also like to invite you to read the rationale I posted at Template talk:BLP unverified about "personal information".--Father Goose (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The template presumes that it's acceptable behavior to remove non-contentious information that is simply unsourced. I don't see any consensus for that, and quite a bit of consensus specifically against that sort of behavior on a wide scale. Gigs (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You should note that so far its uses have been selective and appropriate, not on a wide scale -- I'd be open to tweaking the documentation to spell out what are considered appropriate and inappropriate uses of the template.--Father Goose (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

wp:WTUT

Please comment on what you don't like.174.3.98.236 (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please Yes:-)

Please, yes, please help me.

Compared to Collectorian, I'm a pussycat. I've only just said "most of you aren't assuming good faith, just saying", which seemed really harmless, not inflammatory when I wrote it. And this was the only instance of calling someone out AFAIK (which is borderline (in my opinion)).174.3.98.236 (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea how so many unrelated editors could be colluding against me.

I have been taught (if you will), that reverting without discussing WHAT YOU DON'T LIKE ABOUT SOMETHING is editwarring. In anycase, that editwar notification file failed, and I think I have tenuous ability to file an editwar notice against all of them. I can't believe how much patience I have.174.3.98.236 (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

They're not colluding against you, but there are certain aspects of your case that raise red flags, and they're looking only at the flags and not at the merits of your edits. This is wrong of them to do, but as you're probably learning now, the dispute resolution process on Wikipedia is very unevenly enforced, to the point of being almost useless.

30 is nonbinding. You just have to procede in the process after every disagreement.

WP:3O is generally positive, though you shouldn't start with the assumption that those who disagree with you cannot be convinced by petitioning them without outside help. If they're already on the defensive, bringing in someone else to agree with you, as Mildly Mad did at Wikipedia_talk:Embedded_list#Guideline_Conflation, is just going to make them more defensive. And that third opinion, being nonbinding, means that they won't help you revert your opposers, so now you've just got an even more defensive Collectonian on your hands, who will stonewall you more than ever.--Father Goose (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is bad on her part.174.3.98.236 (talk) 07:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What you really want is dispute avoidance. This includes avoiding escalating the dispute by being confrontational. For the time being, don't do do any more reverts, don't file edit-war complaints, don't go seeking help on lots of pages (the latter is thought of as "forum shopping"). Just explain your thinking, and your actions, and give people lots of time to evaluate them.

I don't think I requested help at a lot of help pages. Like I said, I followed dispute resolution. Editor requests is not part of dispute resolution, I posted it, although on afterthought it might not have been a good idea. Actually, by her provocative edit summaries, I posted there. So it was probably not a bad idea.

Unfortunately, dispute resolution, in the form of WP:DR, is mostly a crock. WP:ANI is part of dispute resolution, and Collectonian used it against you, since she understands the system better, and there's a defensive mentality at ANI in general, so people there tend to look at your behavior in a superficial way (an IP making provocative statements about "getting rid of all lists", then making extensive changes to the list guidelines, edit-warring with Collectonian over it, posting to lots of different places (which tends to be seen as canvassing)). It's wrong of them to do that, but when the cops swing by, all they see is a fist fight, and they're there to arrest someone, not to carry out justice.

It's wrong, yes, it's wrong. But the answer is, don't ever get into a fist fight (or the Wikipedia equivalent, an edit war). Win your battles by being a completely calm, reasonable person -- and if that doesn't work, then call in outside opinions. But continue to be completely calm and reasonable, and as the conversation continues, Collectonian's stonewalling and defensiveness will make her stand out as the "wrong party". Or maybe you can even win her over by treating her with the utmost respect, despite the fact that you know she's wrong. Your best chance of getting others to side with you -- sometimes even your opponents -- is by being more peaceful and level-headed than your opponents.--Father Goose (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that I can't see how I got blocked for violating nothing. I filed an editwar, didn't get passed; I can't see how she succeeded. She was on an editing rampage with no discussion ON her part, and yet she was STILL reverting. And then I had started discussions. These were the important points I learned in my last experience. Oh and I don't even have a history of blocking, yet she does.174.3.98.236 (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That was a wrong block, based on prejudicial reasons only. But it demonstrates why reverting someone who reverts you is something you should do as a last resort only, since by definition it's an edit war. I'm not prepared to revert her on your behalf, because then I'll just be joining the edit war.

To actually get your changes reinstated, here's what I'd do if I were you: start with the most innocuous change -- say, the table-padding adjustment. Propose to implement the fix on the talk page in a new thread. Explain why you think it needs to be done, even if it's obvious. Wait a day or two to see if anyone opposes. If not, make the change, using the words "as proposed on talk" in your edit summary -- better still, "making table borders even, as proposed on talk". (How can anyone possibly oppose that?) Then propose other changes that you would like to reinstate, a couple at a time. Give your reasoning each time, even if it's obvious. That will give others the best possible chance to understand why you are making the changes, and more than likely to agree with them, or at least not oppose them. It will also give Collectonian little chance to oppose you with blanket statements like "you completely changed the meaning! I object!"

It's laborious, but it'll take less effort than your other options and more importantly, it'll get you there in the end. Changing policy/guideline pages is just painstaking, more often than not.--Father Goose (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What you've got to do is make Collectonian's behavior speak for itself (an unjustified revert) while you come across as the calm and rational one. That patience you speak of will come in very handy.

You also have to assume good faith toward her. Start with the assumption that her reverts were justified, but ask her to explain to you what her reason for it was. This is a subtlety, but it's an important one: it's the difference between asking someone the same question an an angry tone, versus a merely inquisitive tone. Avoid using language that is even remotely confrontational; things like "I suggest that you self revert" is fairly confrontational, as is "discuss before reverting".

I really don't think it would have mattered. They just use the argument that I didn't get consensus.

People say all the time "discuss before reverting". This phrase actually is the most neutral variation.

So get consensus. Collectonian opposes it, and others have reverted you as well. They may be doing so simply because they haven't taken time to look at your edits, but still, they oppose it. So you have to make the case for your edits, point by point if necessary. "Would it be okay if I removed this paragraph? It's no longer true because xyz." "Is it okay if I add this advice to this paragraph?" Then give everyone the chance to discuss their views of the changes you're proposing.

It took me a long time before I really understood how to get the most out of bold, revert, discuss. First, try to avoid getting reverted by making your edits seem as sensible as possible right off the bat. Use edit summaries. Tell people why you decided the edit was necessary, even if it should be obvious from looking at the edit itself. Communication builds trust. If someone does revert you, ask them why. They, too, need to explain themselves. But avoid being confrontational about it. Post on the talk page where the revert was made, "I made this edit (xyz), and it was reverted. May I ask why?" Reiterate your thinking as to why you made the edit. Put your rationale on a platter, so that people can digest it right away and say "Yeah, that makes sense, I agree with you".

Do not revert again until you have given everyone a chance to explain why their thinking is right and yours is wrong. If they just stonewall you, as Collectonian has done, you have to go through it point by point and ask for a response to each point as to why they think it's wrong. You have to get the conversation to the point where their stance is not just oppositional, but indefensible. And even then, you shouldn't revert again until others have chimed in in support of your views.--Father Goose (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Register an account. It ain't right, but people are prejudicial towards IPs. They just are. That won't change. Put on a suit before you go into the office and you won't draw attention to yourself. It will just save you a lot of trouble.

No, this I won't do. And you just make me more not want to register. If this is a prejudice, and you know this is a systemic bias, and you know it's bad, then why do we (still) have it? Shouldn't there be a policy on this?

Pick your battles. First be aware that getting people to treat IPs the same as other users is not going to be possible. I've seen prejudice against them increase with every passing year since I've been editing. It's an ugly side of human nature -- plain old distrust. Distrust of IPs is too widespread on Wikipedia for us to have any means of enforcing a policy against it.

The whole thing's incredibly stupid anyway, considering that IPs are referred to as "anons". Those hiding behind a pseudonym (like myself) are far more anonymous than you, since we can see where you're making your edits from (Edmonton) and trace related IPs, such as User_talk:174.3.103.39 (which may or may not be you, but I'm inclined to say that that is you). What it comes down to is that most Wikipedians trust people with fake faces more than they trust people with a partly-covered face. It makes no sense whatsoever, but it's a flaw in human nature that you should just learn how to sidestep.--Father Goose (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Always use edit summaries. For every single edit. Assume that people will not understand what you are doing, or why, so take the opportunity to say "this is why I'm doing this", so that people can look at your edits and immediately understand your intentions.

You actually have to go into the edit to see what ACTUALLY was done.

Yes, but it makes it much easier for us to understand the purpose of the edit when you include it in your edit summary. "Grammar fix", "Adding xyz", "this works better in the other section" -- think of it as a way to prejudice us in favor of your edit by spoon-feeding your reasoning to us.--Father Goose (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at how FT2 is using edit summaries across these three edits to WP:Notability: [1] (hit "next edit" to see each next example). He's spending more time explaining his edits than actually making them. He's handing his reasoning to us on a silver platter, and it's pretty convincing. This is the kind of behavior you want to emulate, especially when editing policy or guidelines.

If someone disagrees with him and reverts, he'll probably make his case again the talk page, where other people will chime in on the changes. If people are reverting him for nothing more than reflexive reasons, that'll come to light as the conversation continues. If on the other hand, they offer a reasoned disagreement, hopefully some give and take will ensue, and a mutually agreeable position may be struck upon.--Father Goose (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Be aware that large changes to guideline and policy pages, especially by an IP, are viewed with suspicion. Your changes weren't large in substance, but they were many in number. Give people every opportunity to understand why you did them so as to overcome their reflexive objection. If they don't fully understand the nature of the change, and immediately agree with it, they'll oppose it. Few people will take the time as I did to actually review all the changes you did and come to the conclusion that there was nothing wrong with them.

All changes should be viewed with suspicion. Thank you for reviewing them:)

That posting on the village pump about "we really need to get rid of lists for all and for once" got you off on the wrong foot. "Getting rid of all lists" is an extreme view, at least taken at face value, and given that you posted it at the same time that you made all those changes to the list guidelines, people assume you're out to have the guidelines reflect that view. So you'll need to dig yourself out of that hole first.

Another prejudice:/174.3.98.236 (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Judging you on the basis of your behavior is not something you should be surprised by. If you storm in and say, "We should get rid of all lists", everyone's going to say, "What the fuck is this guy talking about?" Then if you follow it up with a bunch of edits to list guidelines, we're going to be that much more wary. You prejudice us against yourself when you do that, and few people are good at looking past their prejudices.

All of these things are a question of understanding human nature, and using that understanding to your advantage. What are you here for -- to win battles, or to improve the encyclopedia? To accomplish the latter, do everything you can to avoid battles in the first place, and to quell them, not wage them, when they do arise.

Wikipedia, for all its flaws, is miraculous in that it does value reasoning above all things. It's not good at perceiving reasoning -- you have to expend all the effort to get people to see things your way. But if you do make that effort, in the calmest possible way, you have the greatest chance of prevailing.--Father Goose (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That's my initial advice. Take a deep breath, don't let your frustration show, and be prepared to approach this as a friendly negotiation, not as a fight. Win the opposition over, one by one. I'll chime in with support when I agree with you, though maybe you'll have to win me over as well on a few points.--Father Goose (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and spell Collectonian's name right. That's the kind of error that people tend to take the wrong way.--Father Goose (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:BLP unverified

Template:BLP unverified has been nominated for merging with Template:BLP sources. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The Good Friend Award
		Better give you this or else you'll forget all about it.174.3.98.236 (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the discussion pages (I put in a section on wikiproject MOS talk) aren't going to have any feedback. You're going to have to advise me weather it will be possible to revert back to my version.174.3.98.236 (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Another Award

		The Mensch's Barnstar
		I know this doesn't mean much, from anon (inside joke), but it means much to me.174.3.98.236 (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Thought this one suited you as well.174.3.98.236 (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It means plenty to me as well. A dank.--Father Goose (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Another Route

Just a thought, would it be better to escalate wp:dr? We both know it doesn't work, but it might shed light into all this mess..

Another reason is that IT IS very laborious. Something I really don't want to do.

If I had to to wait 2 days for every single edit I made, I'd just give up.174.3.98.236 (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to crawl forward with every single edit. But I'm advising you to reapproach it in a way that is minimally threatening -- start by proposing a single, minor change on the talk page. Build trust that what you are trying to do is both innocuous and sensible. Then pitch your other ideas in digestible chunks, again in a nonconfrontational manner. If people have specific objections, respect their ideas, discuss your differences with them, and respect that they may simply disagree with you. If they don't have objections, go ahead and make the edits.

"Dispute resolution" should be just that, seeking to resolve a dispute. WP:DR might make it seem that there is a "path of escalation", but it's usually just a question of generating more and more heat, and no light. I'm giving you the inside line here on how to really resolve disputes: be calm, unthreatening, and sensible while you advocate for your ideas, and opposition will tend to fade, and support will tend to materialize. Especially when the initial opposition was unreasoned, as it was in your case with the changes to the list guidelines.--Father Goose (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You? Editwarring? No

I doubt if you made one revert, and theThen backed off, anyone would consider you editwaring. It would just establish that she was doing something wrong. You could have put more weight into my argument.

It just seems to me you want to do something. But, (maybe something is holding you back?) then, you don't.174.3.98.236 (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It'll take us longer to get your changes made if either or both of us edit war over this than if we take the calm, communicative approach first. If Collectonian or anyone else fails to offer any kind of reasoned opposition to a series of simple and sensible proposals, then the wrongness of their actions will become more and more clear to outside eyes.

If on the other hand, you and I edit war over this thing, outside eyes will only see the edit-warring, and we'll never get the changes made.--Father Goose (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you do want your old account unblocked, log into it and make an {{unblock}} request at User talk:100110100, and I'll grant it.--Father Goose (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The talk page is blocked.

My plan is to wait for 10 days and escalate. The problem with making more communication is that I think I couldn't make my changes any more clear. There have been editors that have made subsequent changes. So, really, I couldn't vouch for their changes.

Embedded lists is at a version where I never made changes. Tables is a version that Collectorian picked some edits of mine, and then reverted.174.3.98.236 (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That's strange, the software says the talk page is not protected, and that you should be able to post on it (just not on any other page). But I'll just go ahead and assume that you are 100110100, and unblock that account. Please make one edit logged in as 100110100 at User talk:100110100 after I unblock you, just to confirm that it is you.

You can get your changes made in far fewer than 10 days if you follow exactly the advice I've been giving you. Trust me that you could make your changes more clear. Some editors have the attention spans and disposition of five-year-olds, and you have to show a great deal of patience with them in order to stop them tantrumming. If you just tantrum back at them, the adults will come by and give you (and not Collectonian) a time out for being the "new child". To get what you want on Wikipedia, you have to be the adult. Edit warring and escalation is not the adult thing to do. Being communicative and mannered is. It gets you what you want. Patience, even-handedness, and clarity is the key to all power on Wikipedia.--Father Goose (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've started another discussion on talk:embedded lists. Gave a 2 day time limit. And then I said I would implement the removal of the padding.174.3.98.236 (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably best if I stay IP. I'm sure if I mess up the finger will point to you.174.3.98.236 (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you can always be blocked again if you go off the wall, by me or anyone else. But it's clear to me that you've mellowed out greatly since that account was blocked, so I'm allowed to assume good faith and unblock you.--Father Goose (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Man, it's too much work.174.3.98.236 (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, resolving disagreements on Wikipedia does take way too much work. But if you master the art of dispute avoidance, things become a lot easier.--Father Goose (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Undeletion Usertalk Page

Emmm, I think it would be unnecessary. I don't plan to edit from that user. BTW, thanks for the proposal and unblocking the user.:)174.3.98.236 (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but using it (or any account) would enable you to use that "six tabs" script to save you mouse clicks. You might consider registering an account such as "User:174.3.98.xxx" if you want to not "hide" behind a pseudonym but still gain the technical benefits of a registered account.--Father Goose (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hhmm, I guess I could try it with that script. TBH, if I start editing any guideline pages I think editors, if not Collectorian, will cockblock me: they will just look at my blocks and accuse me of bad faith and have this whole media circus propped up again.174.3.98.236 (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some people will use that against you. However, if you figure out how to avoid fistfights, it'll never come up again. You could also try a new username, but you expressed a preference for using that old account. You could also consider registering a new username for a "clean slate" but also mention your former account there so as to not hide from your past.

As for the "media circus" regarding guidelines, people just need to see that you're acting calmly and openly about it and they'll be much more willing to extend good faith toward you. Adopt a non-defensive posture and others will do the same .--Father Goose (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Congrats

Welcome to the mop. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--Father Goose (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrangel Island

Just to let you know I have reverted your changes regarding the BCE era setting on the aforementioned and St Paul Island as these articles were previously changed from BC in the first place. When I can be bothered I usually find that about half of all articles using BCE were originally BC. People from the USA are usually most responsible for promoting this system. Most of us in the rest of the world don't like it and don't use it but we do not want to be dragged into this (and most) aspects of US culture wars.--Sinazita (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I was just observing WP:ERA. I don't care about culture wars, but I do like to avoid edit wars over insignificant things, like date formats. Since there was a previous BC->BCE change I was unaware of, I condone the return to the earlier format.--Father Goose (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments on user essay

Father Goose - I’ve just completed drafting my first WP essay in my user space: Creating A Better List. As of yet it is not linked anywhere except through the {{Essay}} template. My ultimate objective is to move this essay to the project space, but at this point, that is premature without some feedback from fellow editors. As such I would appreciate your opinion on the essay, especially on two points. 1) Have I made any statements contradictory to WP policy or guidelines? 2) Are there additional examples that could be included to demonstrate my points more effectively?

Thanks in advance for your review and feel free to make any editorial changes you think would enhance the essay. Please provide comments here, as I am asking several editors to comment and would like to keep them all in the same place.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Glen "Frosty" Little

Hello! Your submission of Glen "Frosty" Little at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Notice

Yes, I know:) I'm lazy, and I have a lot of work to do!:-)174.3.98.236 (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

But then you lose time in having to overcome the opposition that arises from misunderstandings. You see how much time you've lost over failing to communicate your reasoning behind the changes to the list guidelines.

Even more important is that you compel other people to "waste time" trying to figure out what you were doing when you don't provide at least a minimal summary. Those who don't want to waste that time may reflexively revert you. Edit summaries are the social lubricant that makes this collaborative project work much smoother.--Father Goose (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

ARgh!174.3.98.236 (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Glen "Frosty" Little

On February 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Glen "Frosty" Little, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 18:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

user100110100

Hey:)

I logged in but it says i'm not autoconfirmed. Do you know why? I was going to make an edit to the falloutboy article.174.3.98.236 (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The details are at WP:AUTOCONFIRM. However, given that that account is years old and you made lots of edits with it, maybe it has something to do with the block. I've manually "confirmed" you, it should work now.--Father Goose (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Talking To People Directly

I just checked the when-to-use-tables talk, and, ok, I'll listen to your advice. We (collectonian and i) got off the wrong foot.174.3.99.176 (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/Contest/March 2010 Signups

Will you be joining the contest? Also, I like {{BLP unverified}} a lot. Do you think you could incorporate its use into the rules? J04n(talk page) 02:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I'll join the contest -- my output is sporadic. I'll just keep doing BLP work when the mood strikes.

I'm not sure stubbing should be an encouraged behavior for BLPs in general. There's definitely a time and place for it, such as OTRS complaints and if sources can't be found. But "can't be found" is not the same as "don't exist", and if people get points for removing info, they might stub a lot of articles without bothering to look for sources at all. So I wouldn't incorporate stubbing into the contest, with or without the template.--Father Goose (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Poll page

I feel bad about fast-reverting you the way I did, and I feel that I owe you an explanation. First, I want to say that I really appreciate the very good comments you have been making. I also realize that you were moving it in the spirit of calming down the drama, and, most of the time, I would have agreed with you about that. But prior to opening the RfC, there was a lengthy discussion between TenOfAllTrades and me, about how discussion would be held. Ten felt very strongly that he wanted his critique to be in a discussion section on the poll page, above the poll, so that editors would see it before getting to where they would !vote, and not be put on the talk page. He and I agreed to that, with the understanding that both sides would be able to put their views there. He was particularly concerned that supporters not move comments by opposers to talk, and I promised to support him on that. Here, I feel that I want this discussion to be there too. I've tried very hard to be fair to the "oppose" side and I want the "support" side to get a hearing too. I can appreciate that you felt that the discussion was veering away from the merits of the RfC as it is today, but I also know that some editors were confused by the "ombox" when it appeared. And I fully understand that one administrator should not be used to label all administrators. But that's why I did it. I wanted to explain to you why, and I hope you are not offended by my doing what I did. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, no offense, that's why I said "revert me" in my action. I do feel that the whole ombox and faq-editing thing is a distraction from the RfC, since neither issue is current and at this point it's just bickering between users having nothing to do with the issues of the RfC itself. I'd be surprised of TenOfAll wanted them there and I'm not sure why you do either, but.--Father Goose (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad we understand one another. I'm dismayed by the bickering myself, as I have been from the beginning of the project last fall. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Monday, March 1

Re: Redshirt (character)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Redshirt (character). When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a mistake on my part.--Father Goose (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Reversion on old RfC

Hi Father Goose. I wanted to let you know I reverted your comment to the archived proposal linked above. It's my impression that old archived proposals are generally not edited after they've been closed -- especially when the change is to essentially try and rebut the closer's findings. (Even more so when the old RfC hasn't been touched for two years -- RfC's are archived so they can represent what the community thought at a given time, we don't update old RfC's every time we have a new opinion). If you think that Coffee's close doesn't take tiered deletion into account, that's fine, but you shouldn't be altering old RfC's to make that point.

Also, as a total aside: how would tiered deletion deal with the current deleted history? (My impression was that some sort of Grand-sorting would be needed to make sure stuff that shouldn't be viewable stays that way, but I wasn't sure if that was actually true). Best, -- Bfigura ^(talk) 18:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's Happy-Melon, not Coffee that closed the RfC. I think in this case it's appropriate to ignore the convention that RfCs are not edited after closure for the specific reason that every time view-deleted comes up for discussion, it's shot down by people parroting the closure that it's unimplementable for legal reasons, which is not true. I'm amending it not because "I didn't like the closure", but because without that note, it's inhibiting the possibility that consensus may change. Furthermore, the fact that it's 2 years old means that my post-close note is unlikely to prompt a fight (which I believe is the usual reason post-close comments are discouraged), except on the procedural basis by which you reverted me.

I'm going to reinstate the note, and if you continue to be troubled about it, I think you should raise the matter on VP or AN to see if the community frowns upon my action. I'd also like to state that I added the note as an editor, and do not intend to back it up with any supposed authority I have as an admin.--Father Goose (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the current deleted history, I assume that all old deletions would be marked as "restricted" by default, and the grand-sorting you speak of would be needed to unrestrict any old deleted pages.--Father Goose (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

SeaWorld

First, thanks for your input on the Incidents pages. I appreciate that someone who has BLP knowledge has joined the conversation. Question - have you read the previous discussions from the Six Flags and Disney incidents, including the previous talk on the BLP pages themselves? Yes, BLP doesn't apply to dead people, and the Disney incident was a catalyst to getting a section of BLP rewritten to be more clear in that regard. Obviously it's a topic a few editors are passionate about in both directions - but we've received wildy differing input from many different WP administrators over the years, so you can see how it can be confusing to maintain high-quality articles (of which we like to think the Incidents articles have been - sourced, NPOV, etc) when we're stuck with a black-and-white situation as we are trying to proclaim there. SpikeJones (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not so black-and-white. For one thing, I'd be more inclined to omit the names of minor victims (living or otherwise) than adults, even if the minors were named in most of the coverage about the incident. For another, rather than try to argue it according to policy (since no policy we have governs the current situation), I'd just go with "Is she mentioned by name in just about all the coverage of the incident? Then we should mention her as well." I'm just going by a gut feeling here: if I had to write a condensed version of the coverage of the incident, would I include her name? Yes. It's really basic information about the incident -- part of the who-what-where-why-and-when -- and I wouldn't omit it unless there were a really compelling reason to do so. As yet, I haven't seen that reason put forward.--Father Goose (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello - in case you hadn't noticed (yet), I replied to your compromise item in both places you referenced it in the long page. And if it matters, I was amused with BLC3D - but I also knew the motivation/humor behind it. SpikeJones (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

So... what would be the proper way to handle removing it at a later date, considering there may be editors who will insist that it must belong forever and ever? Case in point is an investigative article I read recently that was recounting a series of animal attacks from a few years ago. The victim names, I recall, were all over the news at the time of the events, but the current article merely refers to the victims anonymously (similar to what you proposed and have commented on).SpikeJones (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think as the event recedes into memory, there will be fewer and fewer editors who insist that she be mentioned by name in the article -- permanently or otherwise. At the same time, it's clear that while "Dawn Brancheau" is plastered all over the news, it smacks of censorship to insist that we cannot have her name in our article/entry about her. Those who care about "she's in the news" will move on after she is no longer in the news, and the "her name doesn't need to be mentioned" rationale can take over.

The overall problem is that there's going to be two types of editors working on/looking at these pages: people adding/reading up on current events, and people (like yourself) maintaining them over the long term. The different groups want different information on the page -- each for entirely sensible reasons. I think both groups can be accommodated by paying attention to the duration of their interest: the "current eventers" for the short term and the "maintainers" for the long term. More often than not in a stalemate, if offered a reasonable compromise, most people on both sides will take it. How long will Dawn Brancheau be a current event? One or two months, maybe. Those who are looking for info on her by name will have moved on by then, and only a few holdouts will insist that it stay in forever. That's my guess. Give it a shot.--Father Goose (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What about.... as long as a {{current}} tag remains? (yes, that probably would be way too short a timeframe per that template's guidelines for some.) As I pointed out per your request, none of the "current eventers" seemed to pick up on my agreement with your reasonable suggestion. What's the best way to stop the spiralling madness - just post a new item at the bottom of the RFC with a statement of that's the direction we're going in? SpikeJones (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

{{Current}} is best used very sparingly. There's acceptance for its use when something really is changing from hour to hour or day to day. The SeaWorld death is recent, but not current.

I am pleased, and frankly surprised, that my edit to the article hasn't been reverted yet. The fact that it hasn't been suggests that this approach might work. Separately, the fact that nobody other than us has discussed the compromise probably just means nobody has noticed it. So, yeah, a new subheading at the bottom of the RfC saying "let's try this approach" is a good idea. I'll chime in there and try to stir up support for it from both sides of the issue.--Father Goose (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ditto on the surprise non-revert. Again, thx for your guidance (if you don't hear it enough) SpikeJones (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it appears that compromise options are being rejected soundly, no matter what varieties of compromise are offered. SpikeJones (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's completely balkanized at this point. Several of the participants are unwilling to listen or think. When it gets to that point, you have to let it drop and hope that people forget what it was they were so fired up about a month ago.--Father Goose (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you remove that last link you made on that talk page? I've a fairly high tolerance for for such things, but I'd really hate to see a family member walk past that. Seems too flippant to me. Just my 2 cents. Hobit (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What, the "BLC3D"? It's barely understandable to a Wikipedian, let alone a non-Wikipedian. I think Maurreen's suggestion that "after three deaths, the whale should get its own page" itself sounds callous -- though she does have a point.--Father Goose (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured her's was probably over the line, but could be taken seriously. Yours not so much and seems to be making fun of the situation. Not something I normally pay too much attention to, but this bothered me a bit. Hobit (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

very nice

I like the changes you made to {{down arrow}}. When it's more discreet, it is more likely to catch on.

I made the mistake of creating too many threads about this, so now I'm going into all of them and asking people to focus their comments at village pump (misc)

Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 08:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

RE , "recommend you undo its use in the articles you put it in": okay, it saddens me but you make a good point. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 08:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Just for now. Like I said, we need the freedom to play with the template's code without having mistakes show up in such high-profile articles.--Father Goose (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed it from Sun and Morse v. Frederick. You took care of Callisto and someone else reverted at Roe v. Wade so that covers all four. No articles use the template now.

I'm going to sleep now. Feel free to experiment with the template as much as you'd like. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 08:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My, that's a tiny fig leaf (was my first thought when I saw what it looks like when the wikilinks are removed from the entire word). Maybe consider a more visible arrow⬇. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 08:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the goal is to make it easy for people to ignore it if they want to but still have it be big enough to be noticeable/usable by those who do want it.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it gets rejected by the community for being noticeable, period, even in a subtle way. Cleanliness of text flow is a rather important quality that is going to set most editors against this thing, even though its potential merit has intrigued me, personally.--Father Goose (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, that makes sense. By the way, there must be a little bug in the template code as it currently stands. I posted a query at the help desk, and when it gets a response, I suppose that should be the model for how to code this thing.
• Thanks for taking interest in this. And now ... goodnight, seriously :) Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 08:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to fix that bug. If the arrow is to be linked, the template should be changed altogether to not take anything but the anchor as a parameter. Maybe I'll just make that change, but I'm trying to see how it would look on the present test articles without making more edits to them.--Father Goose (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the near term, I'd like the code to support the option (per my helpdesk query) of either linking only the arrow, or of also linking the word. That way, when it gets discussed at the village pump, people can test it out with both options. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 08:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking about having it underline and maybe bluelink the term when you roll the mouse over it but otherwise have it appear like normal text.

Good night. ;-) --Father Goose (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Extended Table Syntax

Do you feel that way? Doing a ctrl+f finds that they are still using tables for page positioning.174.3.110.108 (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I've ever seen that on an actual article page. File: and <gallery> are used in the overwhelming majority of cases. That said, there might be some cases where using a table to arrange a whole bunch of small images would be good. I wouldn't want to prohibit specific uses of code that might come in handy.--Father Goose (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should include something saying to use [[file:]] instead? We should say that images should be uploaded?174.3.110.108 (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The link to WP:EIS should be fine. "Image:" and "File:" are interchangeable. The Tables guideline is not the place to be telling people how to use images in general.--Father Goose (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Howdy

Are you around? Maurreen (talk) 08:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep.--Father Goose (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Could I talk you into helping me refactor the BLP RFC? Maurreen (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Dentistry without anesthetics? Sure, I'd love to.

But seriously, my expectation is that people will continue trying to source old BLPs, and as long as that continues, people will leave the deletion issue alone. If the number of unsourced BLPs starts rising again, BLP-prod will probably go forward. I'm not convinced there's anything more to achieve through discussion. At this time, anyway.--Father Goose (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I let you talk me out of it. Maurreen (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

BLPs deletions

FYI, it looks like you were mistaken. Maurreen (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

We'll see, we'll see. To be a bit blunt about it, there will always be a monkey that insists on throwing his shit.--Father Goose (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Condesendence

No, you weren't condesendending:-)

I just woke up anyhow:-) So I just got the message:-) Thanks for your cortesy:-)

Thanks for looking at the Tables guideline; like I said, since I just woke up, I haven't checked it:-)174.3.110.108 (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and what's a +10 magical user name?174.3.110.108 (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A pseudonym (instead of an IP) is a magical user name, since just by virtue of having one (especially a bluelinked one), people are less inclined to revert you. Mine is a +10 user name because I've been constructively editing guidance/policy for a while, so I've probably built up a bit of a reputation that earns me some trust when making changes to such pages. I'm also fortunate to be very articulate: I'm good at getting people to understand and agree with me.--Father Goose (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviation

What does your edit summary mean ("lc")?174.3.110.108 (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Lower case.--Father Goose (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

CSS

Do all browsers support cascading style sheets?174.3.110.108 (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

To varying degrees. Most browsers from 2000 or later support what one could call the "core features", but then there are the CSS features that some browsers support and some don't, or that render differently on different browsers. See CSS#Browser_support for a not-very-good explanation.--Father Goose (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Captions

I love the table guideline. It hurts to know I spend +2 months to get this guideline fixed; but you did all the work:-)

I'm unsure about the caption philosophy: Wikipedia:Captions states applications which are very different from the table labelling. Do you think we should use the bluelinks to point the caption section on wp:mos?

My section on table labelling generally just the section in Wikipedia:Mos#Article_titles.5BR.5D customized for tables. The reason that I took this section was because table naming, column naming, and row naming was mostly what applied to section and article naming. What are you thoughts and comments?174.3.110.108 (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You did plenty of the work, I just took it the rest of the way once I finally clued into everything you were getting at. That's Wikipedia at its best -- collaboration.

On further consideration, I think you're right about captions. But merely copying the rules for article titles isn't right either. We need some of the advice from there ("no determiners", "sentence fragments don't take punctuation") and some from WP:CAP ("be clear and concise"). If you have an idea of how it should be phrased, go ahead and do it, although I'm good at expressing generalizations, so if you want to wait for me to do it and comment then, that's fine.--Father Goose (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we change the warning to say that it is a style guideline instead of making it a MOS page? That way, we could move this labelling section into wp:mos.174.3.110.108 (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. I'm not sure what you mean by the labeling section, though.--Father Goose (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

::[2]:o)174.3.110.108 (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops scratch that: [3]174.3.110.108 (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No, advice on how to write table captions/labels is far too specific to belong in the main MoS. If there's any place it should be covered, it should be WP:TABLES, and it doesn't need the specificity that the article naming rules do.--Father Goose (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

When I was editing wp:lists, I inserted a section.

Retrospectively, I agree that this section does not belong on the guideline. Cf. our agreement that wp:table is not a MOS page.

Do you feel that section is too prescriptive? If so, what are your rationales that tables should not have a MoS section? Also, note section headings are bound by the same rules as article names, so there is strong rule binding for sections as well.

I totally understand that prescribing these rules will not stop EVERYONE from disobeying them, but I think this is important guidance to the use of table labelling. Most importantly, this is actually better because this actually does not prescribe, but describe the conventions used in most tables, and the conventions used in ALL featured lists, which are tables.174.3.110.108 (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, in some cases, an appropriate column heading would be "From" or "To" -- something you'd never see in an article title or section heading. Some of the principles for section headings and table headings will be the same, some won't.

I don't believe WP:FL has specified any rules for captions/labels yet (they don't appear in WP:FLC, anyway), so if you want to be the first to write down existing conventions, you also want to be able to offer a rationale for them, instead of just penning a list of "do"s and "don't"s that are hard to internalize.

Most of what's in MOS:#Bulleted_and_numbered_lists seems sound enough, but it's also one of those lists of dos and don'ts that is hard to internalize. I think it would work better in WP:Lists, only cut up and reinserted at whichever points actually talk about bullets or numbers or spacing or whatever. To be honest, I don't know what the difference between a "style guideline" and an "MoS page" is. Instinctively, I'd say MoS pages deal with language use, and general style pages with everything else (organization, presentation, etc.). But a certain amount of interbreeding is probably appropriate: WP:TABLES should contain just about all the advice that pertains to tables -- captions, structure, etc. (Though not technical help -- that's Help:Tables.)--Father Goose (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with the how-to vs. to-do paradigm. I proposed a move from wp:wtut to wp:mos (tables) (but retracted) because I too was confused with the difference. I flipped thru the mos pages and I came to conclusion you did: the mos pages tell you what to use (where to walk between), where as the style guides tell show you where to walk on.

I am intrigued by your examples of "from" and "to". Could you give me examples?100110100 (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oldest_people#Oldest_living_people_since_1955, for one. You'd never see a section heading like that, but it's an entirely fitting column label for this table.--Father Goose (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. I'll look at this section again. Thank you!100110100 (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

new revised section How do you like it?100110100 (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

With this new version, do you think it belongs on MOS or wp:table?100110100 (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've checked every single word in the thesaurus. This is the best word. I feel we should include it. I just don't know if in the guideline or stylepage.100110100 (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've chopped up major parts of the section that I wanted to put in:

I took out unambiguous because that was contradictory to incisive. I took out specific because come column headings are "definition", so that's definitely not specific.

I took out the punctuation bullet because if we have a table on the variant shapes of punctuation, I could see having just a colon punctuation mark as a heading.100110100 (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me know what you think.100110100 (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers!

We did it! A toast to you!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.110.108 (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

L'chaim.--Father Goose (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

wp:quote

In wp:quote, it says when using quote templates, that punctuation does not need to be required inside the quote.

Do you feel we should keep the punctuation here?174.3.110.108 (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I prefer it.--Father Goose (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

{{quote}}

Maybe you could help me fix it? I filed an rfc. I think it might not be a good idea to file {{editprotected}}.100110100 (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't use RfCs as help requests. (They're rarely of any use for their intended purpose as it is.) I'd recommend instead of an RfC, a post at Template talk:Quote (which you did), and a post at WP:VPT to try to draw some extra attention.--Father Goose (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

For an editprotected, you want to be able to specify exactly what change should be made -- i.e., already have the fix in hand and just ask an admin to copy it onto the page.--Father Goose (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

My Name

Err, I'm a little confused.100110100 (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol, that makes sense. But to answer you question, it is just straight binary, with only 2 numerals: 1 + 0.100110100 (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Your table is too much for me. But I need a break, so can you explain what it means?100110100 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Father Goose. You have new messages at 100110100's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Father Goose. You have new messages at 100110100's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Father Goose. You have new messages at 100110100's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oh

Oh, by the way, thanks for standing up for me at that block:P Although I guess it would have been unblocked regardless if you said anything:-) (psst, he didn't do anything).100110100 (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The block was just totally unnecessary. Being your mentor/collaborator, however, I felt it was best to not be the unblocking party, to avoid appearances of a conflict of interest.

For future reference, doing the same changes across lots of articles, if there's dispute over the changes, can definitely get one into trouble. But what you were doing in this case was innocuous.--Father Goose (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you do irc?174.3.110.108 (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I do have my email enabled. But the easiest place to reach me is right here.--Father Goose (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP sticky PROD

Hi Father Goose/Archive 5!. Every attempt to rescue a Wikipedia article is a noble gesture. However, there may be occasions when, with the best will in the world, it is just not possible to accord even a minimum of notability to an article or stub, or find a proper source for it. Most regrettably, even the most dedicated inclusionists will have to concede that the article may have to go if the creator or major contributors cannot justify their work.
For new and recent unsourced BLPs, some users are now working at WT:BLP PROD TPL on the development of templates that are designed to encourage contributors to source new BLPs, without scaring away the newbies who might not be aware of the rules. This template is certainly not another a licence to kill for the deletionists, in fact the very idea of it is to ensure that you are not fighting a losing battle. It would be great if you could look in at the prgogress and maybe leave a word of encouragement. The workshop page is essentially a template development taskforce, and is not a place to engage in a hefty debate on incusion/deletion policy. See you at WT:BLP PROD TPL?--Kudpung (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Captions2

I don't think this section in the table guideline really is doable. It links to the mos section, and that has a main link to the guideline, which the guideline is distinctively different from table labels.

It seems very convoluted to include that section, and the headline.

Shall we push the current (my most revised version, which is what is seen on my talk page) in to wp:mos?174.3.110.108 (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I gather that your thinking here is that "use of words"-type guidance is MoS material, not style guideline. As I said before, the differences between the two are hazy, and I doubt anyone has ever really tried to nail down what the difference is.

Because the section is all about table captions and labels, the best place for it is in WP:TABLES. The fact that "Bulleted and numbered lists", for instance, is in the main WP:MOS page doesn't mean that's the right place for it. It really should be moved into WP:LISTS. WP:MOS is frankly a very disorganized page. Everybody dumps ideas into it that really belong on more specific pages. So I really don't think the "Content" section you wrote should go into the main MoS page -- especially not if it's just about "how table captions/labels should be written". To me, that's very clearly Wikipedia:Tables material.--Father Goose (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems your idea is that captions are not distinct from table labels? To me, they are very distinct, as a lot of captions explain a picture, where as table lables categorize data in a 2 dimension grid. Specifically, sentence fragements are rarely used. Can you explain when a (picture) caption would be used in a table?100110100 (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The section is no longer pointing to or referring to Wikipedia:Captions, which is about picture captions. To counteract the confusion, I have now added a link to Help:Table_Caption.--Father Goose (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, that's much better! I was taught via my education system that what these were "table titles".174.3.110.108 (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Moving the more relevant sections to the more specific guidelines is not likely going to happen, unless you campaign for it. Mos is like a page where things must be done, where as the guideline pages are like what should be done. Your prose version (of course) fits best on the guideline; my black white version fits better on mos, imo.100110100 (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The MoS tends to be treated more like bullshit than other guidelines. Take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Manual_of_Style, for instance; "editors may deviate from it with good reason". I really wouldn't worry about whether any style advice is on the main WP:MOS page; it's usually more useful to have it on a more specific style page.

Incidentally, look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Fait_accompli on the date-delinking arbitration page; this is what you should keep in mind when making changes that people dispute to a whole lot of pages, such as {{for2}} -> {{for}}.--Father Goose (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I also want to point out that "incisive" is a very different word from "succinct". "Succinct" would be an adjective that means "using few word, in a summary style" whereas "incisive" means "direct, decisive, quick (to read, in our case), informative, accurate, thought out, decided, analytical".174.3.110.108 (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, incisive has as its linguistic root "cutting", and it still has that meaning on a metaphorical level: [4]. "Remarkably clear and direct" is an ideal, but overall, "incisive" is too strident for what we're going for here. What I'm aiming for is "use as few words as possible to convey the idea well". Thus "succinct" works well, I think, though "informative" isn't perfect. I think I'll change that to "clear".--Father Goose (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hhmm, I used wiktionary, which I feel is the best reference for wikipedia. Sisters are sisters. Also, only sense 2 (in your dictionary.com link) applies for literature.100110100 (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary is a good resource, but it's not as complete or reliable as traditional dictionaries except for some newer terms that haven't made their way into traditional dictionaries yet. I stick by my original claim -- that "incisive" is too strident in tone for this purpose.--Father Goose (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hhmm, do people on other sisters make claims from wikipedia?174.3.110.108 (talk) 07:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

To be sure, people make claims from one article and argue on whatever topic, be it on reference desk or elsewhere, to another article.174.3.110.108 (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have anything against Wiktionary -- I link to it from within Wikipedia articles sometimes, when I need a definition it contains, and I even sometimes create an article or entry there when it's missing the definition I need. But it's still not the best dictionary to use as a source, or in the course of an argument; most professional dictionaries are the product of decades of work done by dozens of professional lexicographers. Take a look at how several professional dictionaries define "incisive": [5][6][7][8]. It's just too strong a word for this context. Really, what's wrong with "concise and self-explanatory"?--Father Goose (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The wiktionary entry says "intelligently analytical and concise":

• I like how it's intelligently analytical so we can interpret labels to be unintuitive (like those bullets in if you remember.
• Consise is already included in incisive, so it's great.100110100 (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just that the Wiktionary entry doesn't correctly convey the meaning, or more to the point, the weight of the word. I know the meaning of the word from experience and it's toooooooo stronnnnnnnnng for our purposes. The dictionary entries I linked to above underscore that.--Father Goose (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For the re-close on the BLP RfC. Hopefully people will take the Wordsmith's words to heart about not loosing constructive momentum on the topic. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I also wanted to thank you for your ringing endorsement of my RFC closure. Just having made a single comment on phase I of the RFC (that I had actually forgotten about) doesn't mean that my interpretation of consensus was any less valid, and I applaud you for recognizing that. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that my note on AN wasn't meant as a dismissal of your closure, I was just hoping to avoid someone holding up things purely on procedural grounds. (I think you and Father Goose did a good job summing up the issues). -- Bfigura ^(talk) 18:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you did very wisely, as would be hoped & expected. That of course does not necessarily mean I agree that the statement of consensus is in all respects what I think the consensus to have been, butt he way you did it is the best way that could possibly have done at this juncture. Sometimes it is better to close in a way that is tactful and finally finishes a difficult discussion in a way nobody reasonable could possibly quarrel with, even though the actual result may not be exact or optimal. This is a very difficult matter of judgment, and you perhaps more than anyone here seem to have the right sort of judgment to do it. I had not completely supported the previous closure, but I certainly will now that you have endorsed it. (I say this without any reflection on wordsmith nut just that your statement gives it the necessary weight and moral authority. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

We're never going to have true consensus on an issue like this, but everyone is in a position of needing to find a compromise that improves our handling of BLPs while minimizing the damage to the encyclopedia. Several avenues of compromise were roughly agreed upon during the two phases of the RfC, and now we've got to hash out the details and follow through on them. Both The Wordsmith's and Risker's closures reflected this in a way that was consistent with what the community had discussed during the RfCs, so I found myself able to embrace both closures. All due credit to them.--Father Goose (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Section Naming On wp:table

I'm fine with the heading. I usually let you win the battles:-)

It probably sounds better anyways. Its similar to your proposal of rewriting ==Format== to ==Sortable and unsortable tables==[9] I wasn't prepared to fight over that; let you win that battle:-)

I had thought about saying "Labelling".174.3.110.108 (talk) 08:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I ditched "labels" for the row/column stuff when I discovered that "headings" was the technically correct term.--Father Goose (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Father Goose, since you are dealing with this editor, please inform him that his disgusting and pathetic display of stalking and harassment he displayed this morning by randomly making inappropriate changes to four of my FA and GA articles this morning is against Wikipedia policy. It was very obviously done deliberately and pointedly as they were hit back to back, the changes were all incorrect and pretty much right down the line of my user page highlights. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt his intention was to harass. I've seen similar behavior from him on pages I've linked to; if he sees something on a page he's reading that he'd like to change, he changes it. And he has this thing about consistency of formatting, which is probably why he changed the quote boxes on White Dog (he did a similar thing at WP:UIAR after I linked him to that page).

The change of "The meerkats" to "Meerkats" appears to be him trying to implement the advice at Wikipedia:Mos#Article_titles (which ostensibly applies to section headings too). I agree with you that none of his changes were improvements, but I also think all of his edits were made in good faith. Bad sense, possibly, but good faith. Revert him as you need to, but don't assume he's out to get you.--Father Goose (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing good faith about it. It was straight down the page, looking for some reason to edit each page. Considering our previous disagreements, he had no business going to see what I was linking to, nor deliberately editing those articles purely to be annoying. It is clearly a violation of WP:CIVIL, and I came to you, as an admin, to remind of this (whether it was his intention or not, it is certainly what it looks like...and we have had absolutely no interaction since all the crap over the table editing where he tried to single handledly rewrite guidelines). Whether you and I agree on matters of deletion, I expect you as an admin to neutrally deal with this IP. He may like "consistency" but he needs to get over himself and stop presuming he can dictate that consistency to articles over Wikipedia's standing guidelines and policies. The use of quote2 is perfectly valid (and is consistent with other articles). Those articles did not reach their current levels by not following the manual of style. Suffice to say, if he performs such actions again, they will be immediately reverted without explanation. If he continues such behavior, it will be reported. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that he's done more or less the same thing to me -- he's changed my articles for reasons I don't agree with -- despite my having a positive relationship with him. It wasn't his intention to harass me in those cases and I doubt it was his intention to harass you in this case -- he just doesn't think about articles in terms of who is possessive of them.

I'd like to point out that his earlier attempts to change the table guidelines were completely justified -- they were badly out of date and unfocused. In the past month, I've come to learn that he's a constructive editor, and able to listen to reason, but he does tend to step on a lot of toes. Understand that his clomping across your toes in this case was more likely to be a faux pas than an attempt to provoke you.--Father Goose (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That's your view, and you obviously have an excessive amount of good faith towards, him. So kindly just tell him to leave me the hell alone, which includes not harrassing articles off my user page just because "he likes consistency" or whatever other excuse he's allowed. And that you do not put headered subsections in the EL section. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian, are you aware of wp:own? I believe I have a right to audit articles, do I not? Also, those articles may have achieved whatever status they achieved, but they are not perfect. I noticed you reverted those edits, and I will discuss those edits with you.174.3.110.108 (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You do not have the right to "audit" shit if its being done purely to be stalk and harass another editor for no other reason than you being petty over my reverting your inappropriate wholescale edits to a huge number of guidelines and policies because you like things your way. And WP:OWN doesn't apply here so go peddle that elsewhere. You will not be discussing a damn thing with me. I will not respond to any other crap from you other than to revert any edit you deliberately make to articles you know damn while I'm an active editor on, per WP:STALK and WP:POINT as you are NOW aware of it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you FG. Yes, I had no intention of stalking you, nor was I aware of this policy.174.3.110.108 (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You're aware so leave me alone and get a life or get some mental help if you seriously feel the need to run around and do that kinda stuff just because. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you can stop fighting on my page and fight on each others' now.--Father Goose (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am now aware. In order to diffuse bad behaviour, I like to discuss reverts with the editor who reverted me. Since you vehemently (is that the right word?) no longer want me to post on your talk page, I will post my proposals on the article talk pages.174.3.110.108 (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

FG, you are an admin. He's been warned repeatedly to leave me alone, yet he continues posting to my talk page and he clearly intends to continue this unwanted behavior through the use of articles I'm associated with. You want us to "stop fighting" then, as I asked before, tell him to leave me alone and to leave those articles alone and quit making (frankly) dumb ass "suggestions" when he clearly still has absolutely no clue about the basics of Wikipedia's style guidelines (like claiming the quote on White Dog should be removed because Wikipedia isn't a magazine? Its a legitimate and COMMUNITY accepted way of doing a quote.) There are millions of articles on Wikipedia. He can go find some others to mess around on. Randomly editing shit just because its on my userpage is immature and disturbing behavior. If you feel you can't deal with this neutrally, then by all means just say so and we can go to ANI and let others weigh in. I'm tired of this kind of petty behavior being allowed just because he's "new" and "meant no harm" when he obviously does by his continued actions.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not telling the two of you to stop fighting. You have a disagreement that you need to work out or drop -- either way is fine with me. But I would like that you not hash it out on my page, pretty please.

If you really feel he's acting inappropriately, by all means, post to ANI or some other noticeboard. But I'm pretty strongly under the impression that 174 made the original four edits with clumsiness, not with malice, and you've been boiling at him ever since. Thus I don't think any admin action needs to be taken yet, and therefore I'm not the admin to petition for help. 174 is entitled to make the case for why he thinks the edits he made were an improvement, because, as he points out, you don't own those articles. He would have been wiser to not make edits to several pages that are important to you, but I don't think he did it to piss you off -- I think he just failed to realize that it would piss you off. You are all the same free to disagree with his ideas and revert his edits.

Meanwhile, 174.3.110.108, I'd like to point out that Collectonian is not in a good mood and that pursuing these matters are probably going to be more trouble than benefit -- to you, to Collectonian, and to the encyclopedia. I personally am not convinced any of your changes were an improvement. Perhaps you could give the matter a day or two of cooling off or more before returning to it, if you choose to pursue it at all.--Father Goose (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Sad to see he obviously isn't going to listen to you either, as he is continuing his behaviors, but again what I expected. He also has now pretty much admitted that he did it out of malice and not out of any "clumsiness" or other good faith reason.[10][11] He specifically sought out those articles to see if he could implement his non-consensus based preferences in them just because he was still annoyed at the whole table thing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

All right, let me talk to him, see what's going on. I'm not religious, but I'd like to put "a soft answer turneth away wrath" to the test.--Father Goose (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. As a note, I have prepared an ANI filing in case he continues to ignore your earlier advice and this next effort. It will apparently be his third time there, at the min. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I think you thought I was baiting because my edits were not good. Well, no, all I can say is that I thought they were good:-)174.3.110.108 (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Version Finalized

Well I totally and wholeheartedly endorse the (current) wp:tables version. I'm here if someone attempts to change the guideline. If you need someone, don't hesitate to knock.174.3.110.108 (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Man, You Are Too Cool

For I was going to give you a drink, because an editor was doing something you mentored me to do not, and you kept your cool, but you got the change implemented! You are just too cool!, I hereby award Father Goose with the “Cool Award.” 174.3.110.108 (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Good Faith

Thanks for having good faith in me. Sometimes, I have a lot to do, so I make quick edits, and it is impossible to read everything:-)174.3.110.108 (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

How Do I Contact You Email

Hey, could I contact you via email?

I don't know how to do it. It doesn't seem like you have a userbox for the email function. We can do irc if you want, it will be faster.100110100 (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Left side of this page, "Toolbox", "E-mail this user".--Father Goose (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No toolbox:( Is that for beta?100110100 (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That's weird, the toolbox should be on every page -- for user pages, it should contain "what links here", "related changes", "user contributions", etc.

Anyhow, Special:EmailUser/Father_Goose is the link. I believe you need to have an email address set up on your account for it to work. (Special:Preferences to set that up.)--Father Goose (talk) 05:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The IP

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. As you never did "have a talk with him" and he is continuing to say he will continue harassing me through articles, I have filed the ANI. You, of course, are mentioned there. At the time I was writing it, he filed a Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts‎ against me. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I sent an email last night in reply to his, but he has not yet responded. It might seem he was not happy with the advice I offered him.

It's my belief that this dispute could be ended in a way satisfactory to both of you with very little trouble, but it'd take a turn-the-other-cheek level of good faith first. A parry, not a thrust, is what's called for here.--Father Goose (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You sent me an email? I've been checking it. Never got it.....174.3.110.108 (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Try registering a free Yahoo account or something and change your email to that, then email me again so I can reply. Maybe your server blocks mail from Yahoo or something, which is what I'm using.--Father Goose (talk) 07:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol, I just got it. Maybe it got lost cause you were using yahoo. The subject was probably hard to read thru all my spam. You (actually) know what, that thing about not being autoconfirmed, that last time, I think it was the big red warning. I didn't get used to it, cause the last time I used an account that didn't show up on semis. I guess I was to afraid to edit:-).174.3.110.108 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well his response was to go and hit a bunch more articles straight from my user page, both under his IP, then logging in and hitting more as his user account.[12][13][14][15][16][17] Please tell me how this is NOT Wikihounding and why you are continuing to condone this? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Father Goose, since you are the admin who unblocked User:100110100 your participation at ANI would be very helpful. In your absence, other admins may wind up taking random actions, which would be better informed if you would participate. Based on what seems to be WP:HOUNDING of Collectonian, it looks like we are getting close to a block of one or both accounts. Both the IP and the registered account have edited Wikipedia:Tables, which seems to be a violation of WP:SOCK. (I don't understand what is going on there, I just observe that there seems to be a dispute). This revert by Collectonian suggests a dispute, though I admit her case would benefit from a more clear presentation. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What dispute there may have been over WP:TABLES is resolved by now, I believe. From what I understand, the user prefers to edit as an IP in general, and switches to the 100110100 account to edit semiprotected pages and to do bulk edits (non-disruptive, hopefully). I don't believe he's been violating WP:SOCK. It would be more convenient to the community if he just stuck to editing via the 100110100 account, but he likes to stand up for the rights of IPs by editing as an IP, and I can't blame him for that.

I guess what we could do is counsel him to mention his 100110100 account on his IP page (whenever it switches, which is often) and to mention the IP range he edits from on his 100110100 page -- just to keep everything above board.--Father Goose (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

wp:quote

Although those quotes are like pictures, the reason they are fundamentally different is because quotes should be introduced by the prose. If we let quotes like that slide, then it would be wikiquote. We have a sister for that.174.3.110.108 (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Start an RfC, see if the community agrees with you that quoteboxes should not be used on the encyclopedia.--Father Goose (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur that I see no immediate problem with quote boxes, but I also feel you shouldn't have such contributions labeled vandalism. If you are interested in changing things Wikipedia-wide, I concur that an RFC is likely the best avenue. Otherwise, I'd recommend using specific article talk pages. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Input request

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikihounding_by_User:174.3.110.108_And_Questionable_unblock_of_same_.28AKA_user:100110100.29 (namely the last input by me). — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Quotations

I moved Collectonian's opinion to where she had wrote it.

Its first movement was this. She is apparently attempting to edit war on the talk page. I thought you should be aware of this.174.3.107.176 (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not. I can move my comment if I want to, and I am the one who moved it,[18] not Father Goose as you claimed on my talk page. It was inappropriate of you to turn around and move it back. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

She indeed can move her comment if she wants to. I did initially move it myself into the poll, since she had phrased it in the form of a poll response and I anticipated that she would want it in the poll section.

I reverted your (174's) refactoring of the other comments because they were not as clearly intended to be poll responses, whether or not they were in support or opposition to the idea. Refrain from doing any more refactoring of others' comments for the time being -- there are subtle social rules regarding refactoring that you don't yet have a good sense for.--Father Goose (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

FG, I sincerely apologize for moving this comment. I had thought that you had moved Collectonian's comment, not herherself. I would never had done this if I had realized who moved it:-).174.3.98.20 (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Water under the bridge at this point. But thanks for the clarification.--Father Goose (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Hatnote

With reference to this incident Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive603#Wikihounding by User:174.3.110.108 And Questionable unblock of same (AKA user:100110100) I have just by mistake come across Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#User: 174.3.98.236 via WP:HAT (I was navigating to Template:hat where I am involved in a discussion (see Template talk:Hidden archive top).

I think you should look into Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#User: 174.3.98.236 (and User talk:174.3.99.176#user:100110100) as the IP address has been asked if they are user:100110100 and there are accusations of disruption. "FYI, 174.3.98.236 (talk · contribs) has been going around replacing one hatnote template with another, and nominating hatnote templates for deletion at WP:TFD for the last few weeks." -- PBS (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Those threads seem kind of old. Offhand, I know that one of the TFDs (of an already-deprecated template) closed as "redirect": Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_6#Template:Otheruses3. I'm not aware of any problems at this time, but I'll keep my eyes open.--Father Goose (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought you might find this somewhat interesting. It appears to be a partial "log" of User:100110100's previous IPs, seeming to go back to at least January 2008, when his IP was static at 68.148.164.166[19]. From the notes and Steewi's lack of response for over two years, it appears he is engaging in some long term pestering, though as Steewi is ignoring him completely, he may not care either. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are times when he appears to behave immaturely.--Father Goose (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Improv Everywhere

I've done some looking into the matter. I've left my observations at Talk:Flash mob. I would appreciate your help in discussing and hashing out the boundaries of where flashmobbing and street theatre are separated. Thanks, Mkdw^talk 20:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Happywelcome

Hi. I just saw the spam by Happywelcome. Do you know what his or her motives/intentions/affiliations were? Thanks--达伟 (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No, but most linkspam as I understand it is meant to drive traffic to to the linked-to site. It's conceivable by the message left that the user wanted to drive not just traffic, but editors to the site to contribute content, but the account's contributions were purely self-promotional either way.--Father Goose (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I edit a lot of pages dealing w/ China and Asia, and that was clearly a website about China.--达伟 (talk) 08:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Genarel John Pershing

I noticed that you were kind enough to provide numerous sources to support the inclusion of General Pershing's nickname of "Nigger Jack". Perhaps you would like to consider adding some form of this as a citation next to the nickname itself. I have attempted to explain to OberRanks that he is the one violating WP:CON, (as well as WP:IDONTLIKEIT), but perhaps an inline citation would help to put an end to this nonsense once and for all. Incidentally, I would be fine with your proposal of compromise by using: Black Jack (originally known as Nigger Jack). I think that any reasonable person would agree that the nickname was a detestable epithet. However, as we all know, Wikipedia is not censored, and accuracy is our primary goal. Thank you.Mk5384 (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well done! Thanks!Mk5384 (talk) 06:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That won't necessarily resolve the disagreement. But it at least bolsters the case for including it in the infobox.--Father Goose (talk) 06:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Father Goose. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Duplicate_BLP_motion.
Message added 06:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I found your move unethical. This is considering the fact that I think you're a balanced editor/administrator who is given to using civil and pertinent processes. Thanks ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 06:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Father Goose. You have new messages at Wifione's talk page.
Message added 07:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your reply was thoughtful. Thanks :) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 07:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Rowbottom

Very nice work on the article. I have withdrawn my nomination accordingly. Mkdw^talk 22:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The whole thing reminds me a bit of Hey, Rube!.--Father Goose (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

		The Liberty Star
		Thank you for your work on Rowbottoms, which diffused a conflict and advanced an article.

--evrik ^(talk) 05:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh, interesting barnstar design. Thanks!--Father Goose (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Messages on DGG's page

Thanks for that. I feel like an idiot! That's what I get for clicking through to DGG's page from my watch list and then following the poster above me. Not a strong argument for giving me rollback.  :-( - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah, that just means you need it even more urgently, to revert yourself when you realize you've been a bonehead. Pbtthttt.--Father Goose (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. And I have no doubt you'll pull me up if you see me using it in any but the most appropriate way. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		for smart diplomacy in BLP-related matters Maurreen (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I must be doing something right lately. I've gotten about as many barnstars in the last three months as I got in my first three years. :-) --Father Goose (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure we're on the same page

To see if we can get on the same page, check out this article:

bleeding edge

I noticed that you've edited it in the past. I've just tagged it with dicdef because it talks about the term.

What do you think should happen to it?- Wolfkeeper 21:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That particular page, I'd call a dicdef, and otherwise OR. It could potentially be expanded beyond a dicdef, but in its current state, I wouldn't try to defend it.

My single edit to it was to remove {{neologism}} -- it's not a "new term" in the WP:MADEUP sense, which is what the neo tag is for.

Just to let you know, my rule of thumb for whether an article about a word should be kept is whether there's any worthwhile content that wouldn't be kept during a transwiki. If some of the material (and I'm not talking about OR or other crap here) would be discarded as a result of transferring it to Wiktionary, I'd rather hold onto the article here, even if that somewhat blurs the line between the two projects. The need to keep "this stuff here" and "that stuff there" is not more important than the need to keep "stuff worth keeping" somewhere. IMO. Wikipedia is flexible than Wiktionary in what kind of content it can accommodate, so in general, I'm content to keep the borderline dicdefs here.--Father Goose (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

But that's not the policy. And the policy is there to help guide articles, not delete content. In some cases it guides it towards the Wiktionary though. But in this particular case, you should notice that it's an adjective, but the underlying thing is bleeding edge technology which is a noun. So the article is at the wrong name. Once you've sorted that out, it becomes immediately a lot better, and it's possible to make it a proper article.- Wolfkeeper 13:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Right??- Wolfkeeper 13:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

In this case, I do agree -- we could write a reasonable article about bleeding edge technology, but there isn't much to say about bleeding edge (term) that wouldn't fit 100% on Wiktionary. (That said, I believe we're also in agreement that we can include some information about the term in bleeding edge technology -- such as the fact that it is an allusion to leading edge technology, and possibly some info on when it was coined.)

But to address your point that "that's not the policy": that doesn't matter. The policy is whatever we, collectively, decide it is, and if we feel that the encyclopedia is benefited by ignoring what we previously decided, we are expected to ignore the policy. That itself is policy: WP:IAR.

What's important is to always think in terms of the principles that underlie our rules -- not in terms of what's written on the policy page itself. I'd say the principle underlying WINAD is that Wiktionary is better able to host "dictionary information" than Wikipedia, due to its greater tolerance of original research (lexicographic research, specifically), and that the dictionary format is better suited to explaining word usage.

Now and again, when we get an "article about a word" on Wikipedia that includes stuff that Wiktionary's format can't, most of the Wikipedia community accepts keeping that article on Wikipedia. The community writes all its own rules though a collaborative process. A practical result of this is that rules must be descriptive ("here's what we do") not prescriptive ("here's what I am commanding everyone to do"). In the particular case of "articles about words", "what we do" is more pure dicdefs to Wiktionary, but keep those that go beyond Wiktionary's scope. If that isn't "what the policy says", it's in part because you've edit-warred over the policy to make sure that it doesn't reflect the community's actual behavior. As a result of this, people commonly ignore WINAD, since it fails to embody the community's stance on these issues.

You've made it abundantly clear that this situation frustrates you. Others have made it abundantly clear that your continuing refusal to accept that the community disagrees with you is frustrating to them. You can remain frustrated, isolated, and ignored, or maybe -- I don't know if you're capable of this, but it'd be nice to see you consider it -- you could engage in actual collaboration with others regarding policy matters, and accept that if most people disagree with you on one point or another, that means those points are not policy, and should not be on the policy page, since they do not represent the community's stance on that issue.

I'm hoping that you and everybody with whom you disagree could move forward in that spirit, when discussing policy matters in the future. But it'll have to be up to you. You'll have to come to terms with how Wikipedia, its community, and its policies, actually operate. Otherwise -- well, frankly, you're a bit of a Don Quixote regarding WINAD.--Father Goose (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There's probably lots of bleeding edge tech that could go in this article.- Wolfkeeper 19:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And you're still not quite getting it. The point is that this improvement in articles wjen you apply the polcies isn't in any way atypical. Encyclopedic style doesn't preclude covering the terminology, but dictionaric term-based articles do preclude encyclopedic treatment.- Wolfkeeper 19:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And there's actually lots of other editors who do the same things, including administrators, they just make less of a fuss about it.- Wolfkeeper 19:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Without any exaggeration historically, in AFDs, dicdef articles seem to get deleted about 60% of the time, and lots get quietly fixed up after the fact or are re-AFDd later. The community standards (and I don't just mean the policies) are actually more on my side; just because these guys are vocal, doesn't make them representative, (and frankly some of the kept AFDs have reasonable evidence of canvas and other 'interesting' behaviours.) Nevertheless over time the number of term-based articles seems to be decreasing, not increasing.- Wolfkeeper 19:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to start over again. There is broad acceptance that dictionary definition-type articles belong on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. You however tend to extend this to mean "no articles about words, period". This much is not true. This is the particular point on which you and the rest of the community repeatedly have disagreed.--Father Goose (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately you cannot speak for the 'rest of the community'. And this is not what I have found; there is actually no such consensus.- Wolfkeeper 16:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

At most I will agree that there's lack of consensus as to details of how much these policies are to be stuck to, and that there are a very small number of articles that are articles about terms that have been (more or less) proven to meet community consensus (literally a handful) that they be kept. But I also see that the vast majority of articles do follow the policies, and that far more of the remaining articles that are about a term can easily can follow, in a non controversial way, the policies, and should.- Wolfkeeper 16:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Full disclosure to the community

I have committed a minor act of vandalism: [20]. It was just too good to pass up.--Father Goose (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sticky Prod for BLPs

Hi Father Goose, I'm trying to figure out the status of the sticky prod thing and when there will be a full-fledged proposal for discussion. I can't tell if things have stalled out or if the discussion is going on elsewhere or what is happening. I've looked in all the obvious places but not seen anything. It seems you've been heavily involved, any pointers? Hobit (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it's ready for use right now: Template:Prod blp; Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Dated_prod_blp. They're still working out a few details and trying to get it included in Twinkle, but it's live.

I'm not aware that it's going to be "proposed"; on some level the BLP RfC counted as its proposal and approval, at least in outline form, and over the last few weeks the specifics have been hammered out. I expect there will be an announcement once the thing is fully rolled out (i.e., added to policy, turned on in Twinkle, etc.).--Father Goose (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hummm, I'd object to that certainly. I think we should have a dicussion about whatever the specific proposal is. I've never seen policy developed by having some broad discussion and then not actually discussing the final proposal. Certainly that's not how we handled the de-admining thing or anything else policy based. In that case people also broadly agreed with the idea but later rejected the specifics. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to tell you. I'm not overseeing the process anyway -- I've been watching it but mostly staying on the sidelines. But I believe just about everybody believes the thing's been discussed to death, and that the current specifics are workable, and can always be adjusted post-launch. If you want to discuss it, by all means, discuss it. If you're hoping for yet another round of polling -- well, believe it or not, that isn't how policy is formed at all.--Father Goose (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

A mediation request has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John J. Pershing. It will be necessary for you to visit the page and sign your agreement to accept mediation in this section. Thanks! -OberRanks (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Saw your post. Do you wish to be removed as an interested party? -OberRanks (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, having been through mediation a few times, I can tell you that it's no magic bullet. In some cases, it just slows progress down even more.

I'm not convinced we've exhausted our options in terms of just talking to each other. Things'll need to calm down a bit, and hopefully those who were attracted to the controversy (all those ANI threads) will move on. At some point, those of us who give a crap about the article as a whole can go back to discussing what our options are.

So I remain an interested party, but decline mediation, as I believe it is the wrong outlet at this time.--Father Goose (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI I quoted you here, where you may wish to comment. –xeno^talk 13:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not wish to comment, but thank you.--Father Goose (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP PROD

Crum375 and Slimvirgin are trying to frustrate the implementation of BLP PROD by representing that there is no consensus for it. Your input as the eventual closer of the RfC which established consensus for it would be appreciated. Gigs (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be great. Maurreen (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll weigh in. Giving it some thought first.--Father Goose (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

When you're ready, if you could weigh in at the "Proposed truce" section, that could help also. Thank you. Maurreen (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that I could add much of use to that particular thread.

What I will say is that while SV has been displaying far more attitude than is constructive, many of her concerns are legitimate. The BLP prod process (and associated policy) has only now come out of committee, which doesn't mean it's ready. The underlying issues have been discussed reasonably well but the policy itself is still in a "first draft" state. People are picking at the draft and it's being improved in response. Things are progressing. I'll jump in when there's something useful I can do.--Father Goose (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Maurreen (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me buttiing in - ironically, before I saw this discussion on FG's page, I had already put a prompt this morning in the form of a bulleted list on the workshop page. As you will see, I agree entirely with Gig's, Fg's, and Maurreen's comments here, especially those concerning SV's attitude (my own talk page will also confirm), and other latecomers. My main concern is that no further delaying tactics are inrtoduced. --Kudpung (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

See: User talk:Kudpung#Your note today.--Kudpung (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John J. Pershing. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Null edit

How do you even do a null edit these days? All the ways that used to work seem to be ignored by the software now, and WP:NULL seems to be out of date. Gigs (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I guess that was a "dummy edit" I did, I'm just used to the other name -- sounds more wonky. I added a space to the end of a paragraph.--Father Goose (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh OK. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• I am always hesitant to use the term "dummy edit" because I'm afraid someone will think I'm calling them a dummy. So I use (WP:SMS) –xeno^talk 17:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

I came across the page User:Father Goose/Unreferenced BLPs. To add my 2cents, I'm happy someone is keeping track although I hope yourself and others realize that Category:All unreferenced BLPs does not contain 'all' BLPs but just the ones that have a suitable tag to indicate it. I would guess - and it's a pure guess, that you could add an extra 50K to the category amount. I'm looking forward to a bot that can be a bit more clever about locating those unreferenced BLPs. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Its purpose is mostly to keep track of how well we're dealing with the backlog. It documents what's in the category and how it's been changing -- not how many actual unsourced bios we have, since that number is unknown.--Father Goose (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's nice to know the trend. In ten days time I think it will fall faster because the new WP:STICKY policy allows prods to be done on new unsourced BLP's. Been prod some myself today and in theory they will be get sourced or removed. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Having looked for many hours now, I can say it's unlikely there are another 50K around, so I striked my above figure. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Confusion

Thanks to an editor giving up his account to become an IP, it is becoming difficult to keep track of all the places they are posting discussions relating to one single issue.

• 100110100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 174.3.113.245 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 174.3.123.220 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 96.52.92.106 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 174.3.110.108 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Since you were involved with this, could I check with you that this is all above board? This editor is raising the same issue on different forums with different IPs without notifying other editors and it is tricky to see how follow the whole discussion. eg:

• Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#POVed quotes On Philip Larkin
• Wikipedia talk:No original research#Original Research On Philip Larkin
• Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notablity of qutoes not established on Philip Larkin
• Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#Philip Larkin
• Wikipedia_talk:Quotations#Unable_To_Post
• Talk:Philip Larkin#quotes
• Talk:Philip Larkin#rfc

There may be other IPs being used which I haven't yet noticed

Yours, almost-instinct 10:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You can urge him to edit via a registered account. As far as I'm aware, however, we cannot compel him to use an account, and I know that in the past he has expressed a preference for editing as an IP.--Father Goose (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

So he is allowed to go to different talk pages with a different IP addresses, quoting selectively from what I've written, in an attempt to find support for his arguments, and I have to use detective work to find which IP he's using at the time to follow these attempts? I don't know any rules on sockpuppetry or whatever this is, but I think it very much definitely outside the spirit of WP. If he had just one IP address (ie sincerely wanted to be "an IP" in the singular) then it would be okay but the way he uses different IPs strikes me as unfair almost-instinct 19:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Btw, I have just now asked User:Philip Baird Shearer for his opinion, too almost-instinct 19:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've raised the issue before the general community at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Use of multiple IPs not permitted?.--Father Goose (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Since archived? -- EdJogg (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Archived here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive212#Use of multiple IPs not permitted? almost-instinct 13:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just looked at the talk page for 174.3.123.220 (talk · contribs). I know you have been heavily involved with this editor. He causes immense unrest and discomfort by his method of editing, however much it may comply with the word of the WP:MOS. I find it hard to believe that the community continues to allow him to behave in this way. If everyone did it like this, the community would fall apart in a matter of days. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not available to discuss or get involved with these matters at this time.--Father Goose (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Dorble.com

Can I get you to put on your admin hat and look at the article on Dorble.com? It's been speedily deleted several times in the past few days and it keeps getting recreated; it might be suitable for a WP:SALT... except that it's only been to AFD once (here) where the discussion had an early closure (within 2 minutes of the discussion being opened) on the grounds of being "previously speedied vandalism", which as far as I know isn't grounds to close an AfD. So I guess two things, one being that there's some procedural irregularities around the AfD, and two, that if it's genuinely non-notable (which no one's really had a chance to discuss) it probably needs a salt. But maybe not until the AfD has run its proper course. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it could possibly pass WP:N if someone wrote the article right: [21] [22]. So I wouldn't salt it and I'm not convinced the previous deletions were correct, although the article User:Cpl Boyardee keeps posting is pretty spammy.--Father Goose (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible Arbitration

Are you sure that arbitration is strictly for user conduct? I don't think that that is correct, but I'm not going to pretend to know for sure.Mk5384 (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Please disregard that. I misunderstood. You are exactly right. I was thinking of MedCom, which is still a possibility.Mk5384 (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I realise that you are busy, and do not wish to disturb you. If, however, you could find the time to leave a quick note, I would greatly appreciate it. You have said that you do not have the time to devote to the Pershing article at the moment, which is perfectly acceptable and understandable. Could you possibly give an estimate of when you will have some time to devote to it? Then we can try discussion; perhaps another vote, and, if ultimately necessary, mediation. I would so like for all of us to be able to finally put this behind us, and focus on the article itself. All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't see much that I could add to the conversation at this instant. And I can't predict when my circumstances will change.--Father Goose (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary/RfC_on_Wolfkeeper_and_words at risk

Something is going to have to give over there. If it doesn't turn into a policy RfC (or a proper RFC/U) real soon, It's pretty likely to end up deleted at MFD. I've left more direct comments to that effect on the talk page, since my earlier socratic question didn't seem to cause much movement. Gigs (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Just rewrite NOTDIC right now. ("Just", hah.) Create a policy RfC at WT:NOTDIC right now, advertise the rewrite-in-progress on VPP, WT:NOT, and perhaps CENT, and let's all stop being paralyzed by an unwillingness to push Wolfkeeper aside on the points where he is wrong. You've got so many people ready to do just that -- do it already.

I would lead the charge but I am not available for any kind of sustained effort right now.--Father Goose (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this message because an RFC has been initiated at Talk:John J. Pershing#RFC about a matter on which you may have commented in the past. Thank you, –xeno^talk 15:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Blowout (well drilling)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Blowout (well drilling) , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 00:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please Investigate Problems on BP (British Petroleum) Wikipedia Page: Intentionally Burying Section on Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster, Changing Name of Oil Disaster to Hide it

Any attempts to correct this (following reasonable Wikipedia guidelines) are met with aggressive reverts and edits. Intentional spinning and manipulation of article in favor of BP? Can this task force investigate this?

Currently there is no easily recognizable section on the current Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster, surprisingly since the US Government has held BP responsible.

Instead the "Oil Disaster" Section in the article keeps being given obscure (hard to recognize) names (as if someone is trying to hide the section from the public).

That section also keeps getting pushed to the bottom of the article-- (Attempts to Bury and Hide it by BP)?

It's as if the BP Public Relations department has staff people who are aggressively spinning the article.

Could you investigate? Thanks!

75.166.179.110 (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The head of the BP public relations department has instructed me to deny your request.

That was a joke. But seriously, the current article is as it should be. The current oil spill is reproachable, but it is just one of many things BP has done over the years, good and bad, so it needs to be put in context. Compare ExxonMobil and the placement and amount of coverage regarding the Exxon Valdez.--Father Goose (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:BLP unverified

Template:BLP unverified has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Robofish (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)