PrivateWiddle

Merge discussion for Crichie

An article that you have been involved in editing, Crichie , 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. Baldy Bill (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC) The article appears to refer to an old name for the same settlement, so it would seem to make sense to keep the title as a redirect and put the note about the bishop into the Stuartfield article. Baldy Bill (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

BeerXML

Hi. You're clearly an experienced contributor who should know the guidelines on Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. I'm afraid I don't buy your argument that this is not a promotional article. It very obviously focuses on the positive features of the product and therefore I've deleted it. Deb (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

After a tortuous and pointless merry-go-round this non-issue was resolved and the article was kept. As another user commented on the talk page for this article:

"The result was keep. A good example of why nominating articles for deletion when they are less than an hour old is poor form."

Quite.

Proposed deletion of BeerXML

The article BeerXML has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced, unref'd, fails to meet any known notability criteria.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of BeerXML for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BeerXML is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeerXML until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thankfully this article was kept and is being actively contributed to by several users. The BeerXML standard is now widely adopted throughout the brewing world by both professionals and amateurs and is now the standard format for information interchange between software products and automated brewing system. Thanks to everyone who opposed the campaign by two users who are not involved in the brewing industry and were not qualified in this regard to remove this page.

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeerXML. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Some people do not like being disagreed with, particuarly if they know they are wrong, that does not constitute an attack. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Very very true, It is a wonder why people go around enforcing their rule, throwing random acronyms (per WP:XXX) instead of improving the encyclopedia. Incidentally the two templated warnings constitute a personal attack. Don't be bothered. Solomon7968 07:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk: BeerXML. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I can see from your user talk page that you get several of these yourself. You are deliberately provoking other users and then templating them if they respond to you. You pretend to misunderstand reasonable points that are made to explain to you why you are wrong and do so in a way that is deliberately designed to infuriate the person whose page you are trying to delete. You refuse to justify your actions or to respond to reasonable requests to clarify the vague aassertions that you make.

I have asked you multiple times to back up the vague and contradictary assertions you make, but you then change the subject. There are no grounds for deletion of this page apart from notability, which is up for debate. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you persist in using that signature, I'm going to be submitting an Rfc about it. Deb (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You could have backed up your claims about the article to justify its deletion as I have asked you to several times. Instead you issue a threat to report my sig (but fail to say why).That's pretty desparate stuff. Please go ahead and do that. Its been my sig for years and there's nothing wrong with it.

Threats aside: I've been looking at the other XML Schemas that have Wikipedia pages; lists of which are at:

List_of_XML_markup_languages and List_of_XML_schemas (candidates for merger).

What is immediately apparent is the multiplicity of them and the wide variety of different uses such schemas are put to. Many (if not most) of the entities listed there have far fewer users than BeerXML and are even more narrow in their scope. It is notable that few, is any, of them have had to go through this unpleasant birthing procedure. Needless to say, few of them are commercial products (although some have proprietary licences) and many of the articles have fewer citations and are less detailed.

Perhaps a good use of an eager user's time would be to be to contribute to such articles and see if the overall state of Wikipedia could be improved that way, rather than liberal use of delete markers or conversations about signatures. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You do realise though that in the thousand{s} of words you have expended on the subject, you have at no point yet demonstrated its notability? re. signatures, I might know what you mean, but if others find it offensive, or it is likely to be misunderstood, then you should change it. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Signatures again. 'Others' have not found it offensive so far. Unless there are some fictional British soldiers from a made-up Scottish regiment from the Victorian past who come on here saying that the epithet hurts their feelings, I'll leave it where it is.

The point about notability was addressed by me by pointing you to the many other directly comparable schemas that have articles on Wikipedia. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

No, that would be self-referencing. The notability (or otherwise) of one thing does not affect the notability of another, however similar they may be. Ergo, you still have not demonstrated notability of the item, merely of the type. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be self referencing if it were cited in the article. I am pointing it out as part of the debate of whether or not the topic is notable. The guidelines are clear that common sense should be used and that deletion is a last resort. Common sense dictates that where dozens of articles exist across several categories it would be irrational to single a new one out for deletion on the basis of alleged lack of notability when dozens of others exist that have a far narrower scope, less real world users and whose articles are far less developed.

Broadcast_Markup_Language is used by far fewer people than BeerXML, the article is a couple of paragraphs long. If has far fewer citations and the standard is not explicitly defined in the article. There are dozens of others. No one has stuck a delete marker on it or even a stub marker. BeerXML does not exist in a vacuum it is one of a slew of similar and directly compararble XML derived standards and there is no reason to delete the page and leave all the others up. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing that to my attention, appreciated. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Notability of BeerXML is directly compararble to Green_Building_XML as it has a very specific application of interest to a well defined group of users and that article has been around for some time. Its existance directly supports the continued existance of BeerXML. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

RFC/U discussion concerning you (PrivateWiddle)

Hello, PrivateWiddle. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/PrivateWiddle, where you may want to participate. Deb (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC) .

The result of this RFC was that it was unwarranted and that it had been raised in revenge for standing up to these two users in their campaign to have an article deleted.

Personal attacks

This edit really goes to far. WP is not that much different from Real Life: it is absolutely possible that based on the same data (at WP, that means sources), different people arrive at different conclusions. As far as I can see BeerXML is not notable, but the community has decided differently and that is it. If the decision had gone the other way (as I personally think it should), do you think Deb or I would have come here to do some taunting like you just did? I for one think you deserve a block for this attack. Please, be adult. You "won" (apparently you see this as a battle), take it as an adult and with some grace, not this kind of gloating. --Randykitty (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) PrivateWiddle was indeed provoked by Deb. She assumed bad faith regarding signature from the very first and the allegation of calculated method of insulting female wikipedians is block worthy. Solomon7968 16:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Randykitty, I don't know if you've been following this story from the beginning, but it's not actually reasonable to threaten PrivateWiddle with blocks at this point if you're not going to go threaten Deb and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi as well. I know that other editors' bad behaviour is not an excuse, but really, those two put this editor through about 10 days of torment for absolutely no supportable reason over BeerXML. No one has threatened them with blocks. No one's even asked them to stop. They've escalated it at every turn. Threaten all of them or threaten none of them, but please don't pick out the, in my opinion, least culpable of the parties and drop threatening notices on the talk page. There's been more than enough of that here. If you want details you might look at the RfC/U started by Deb and linked to in the section directly above this one.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I did follow things, Alf. I have been accused of having an inappropriate username myself ("I don't care if you're randy, but why tell us about it"), but didn't see that as a personal attack. The world is large and usage of words is different all over. I once had a friend (not from an English-speaking country, obviously) whose last name was "Fu..ing". Didn't mean anything in his own language. So the whole brouhaha over Widdle's username could have been solved by patiently explaining what was meant. That Deb misunderstood his username/signature is really no proof of not assuming good faith. Then the whole yelling about BeerXML being PRODded and then AfDed is also unwarranted. Articles get AfDed all the time, often shortly after being created, and a large proportion of AfDs end in "keep". Is that proof that they were all bad faith nominations? Of course not. So again, yes, I have looked at all the things that happened and don't see that Deb did anything blockable but that instead their intentions were consistently interpreted as being bad faith. The gloating and insulting message of Widdle was uncalled for. Other editors (like myself) also thought that BeerXML is not notable. We disagreed, that's all, why make more out of it? And I didn't threat Widdle with a block, I'm not an admin and don't intend to take this to any dramaboard (otherwise I'd have said so). I just told Widdle what I thought of that edit and that's the end of the story. More AGF and less drama in the future please. --Randykitty (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Randy, It is puzzling that you don't see anything offensive in an unfounded allegation of "calculated method of insulting female wikipedians". I never interacted with Deb before this RFC and certainly didn't recognised her as female. I also was not aware of the meaning of Widdle's signature and it is not surprising if any editor perceives that as offensive. But Deb's assertion that the signature was a "calculated method" for insulting her is assuming bad faith. Solomon7968 18:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Randykitty It can't be right that the history of this is rewritten. A speedy delete was put on the page less than 15 mins after it went up. There was no WP:BEFORE or WP:PERFECT. The reason given was promotion of a commercial product. This is simply nonsense. Having been forced to back down, an AFD was put on it immediately - no discussion and a campaign of templating and bullying ensued the likes of which I have never seen on Wikipedia. Other pages were attacked (if I mentioned them as comparisons) in an effort to suppress debate (eg Broadcast Markup Language) This culminated in an tactical RFC for mysoginy being launched against me personally. This action is an abuse of procedure and the allegation is an utter disgrace. One of them actually admitted that they knew the allegation was false while gloating over the inevitable deletion of the page. One day this may happen to you, I hope someone backs you up when it does Devils In Skirts! (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Widdle, we don't even have a CSD criterion for "promotion of a commercial product", only a criterion for "promotional", regardless of any pecuniary aspects. As long as you don't see the difference between things like this, you'll experience problems on WP. Meanwhile, I'm quite confident that your prediction that "One day this may happen to you" will never come true, because unlike you, I actually try to understand what's going on and don't overreact when people disagree with me. --Randykitty (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well Randy, I believe then we can at least agree that the templating of good faith editors by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and the ill-considered allegation of sexism by Deb were overreactions? Solomon7968 18:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The article (as flawed as it may be) is about a free and published data standard. What is promotional about it? Even Deb had to back down on that one. On that basis the articles on HTML and TCP/IP would have to be deleted.

So you believe its OK to publicly and falsely accuse someone of mysoginy if you are losing a delete debate, thats just fine and I can't even mention it. Surreal. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Randykitty, perhaps the BeerXML AfD nom was not in bad faith, but the Broadcast Markup Language AfD nomination was obviously in bad faith, explicitly made in violation of WP:POINT, and was disgraceful, as was the gloating and templating over BeerXML. My point is only that no one looks good here, so it's not reasonable to continue to make portentious remarks about blocks to just one of the parties.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, PrivateWiddle. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, PrivateWiddle. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paulina Neuding

Hello, PrivateWiddle. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Paulina Neuding, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Paulina Neuding to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks,

>SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Paulina Neuding moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Paulina Neuding, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. Sam Sailor 15:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

That is an obvious Google Translation of sv:Paulina Neuding. Unsourced. Why? Sam Sailor 15:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, PrivateWiddle. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)