MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 5 thread(s) (older than 8d) to User talk:Barek/archives/2010 archive 2. |
Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) →Barnstar: new section |
||
Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
:I have removed the block, as I believe you were contributing in good faith - although making a few errors under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. |
:I have removed the block, as I believe you were contributing in good faith - although making a few errors under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. |
||
:Also, I will leave a warning on your IP page re: bypassing blocks - which is itself a blockable offense. As you were unaware, I'll simply apply the warning to the IP talk page as a formality. Blocked users are still able to edit their own talk page to communicate with the community, sorry I didn't notice the block myself earlier. --- [[User:Barek|Barek]] <small>([[User talk:Barek|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Barek|contribs]])</small> - 18:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
:Also, I will leave a warning on your IP page re: bypassing blocks - which is itself a blockable offense. As you were unaware, I'll simply apply the warning to the IP talk page as a formality. Blocked users are still able to edit their own talk page to communicate with the community, sorry I didn't notice the block myself earlier. --- [[User:Barek|Barek]] <small>([[User talk:Barek|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Barek|contribs]])</small> - 18:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Barnstar == |
|||
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|[[File:Kindness Barnstar Hires.png|100px]]|[[Image:Random_Acts_of_Kindness_Barnstar.png|100px]]}} |
|||
|rowspan="2" | |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For making the effort to interact with a difficult editor with patience and assumptions of good faith. They may not have appreciated your efforts, but they were exemplary nonetheless. -- '''''[[User:Lear's Fool|Lear's]] [[User Talk:Lear's Fool|Fool]]''''' 14:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
Revision as of 14:03, 30 November 2010
Barek is tired of wikidrama, and has chosen to spend more time in the real world; but may still wander back online occasionally. During this time, replies to queries may be greatly delayed. |
My talk page archives | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Howdy, could you help clear his name. He's had a 'suspected of being a sock' Template on his talkpage, since November 10th. Yet, his suspector hasn't 'yet' filed a SPI. GoodDay (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- To the best of my knowledge, they can remove the notice from their own talk page. WP:BLANKING mentions that users cannot remove "confirmed sockpuppetry related notices", but makes no mention of needing to retain "suspected" notices. Still, to be safe, might be best to ask for confirmation from someone more familiar with those tags at either Wikipedia talk:User pages or Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
quick question, no blocking needed
Just wondering if the one month block was really necessary on my IP account? Sandstein didn't even give me a chance to reply, which makes me think that he was trying to get me out of the way from this thing and how I said that I had a vested interest in getting my account unblocked. Is that really how blockings are supposed to work? Spartan123455 (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Normally, if an account is blocked, any questions with the block should be resolved via that account. Going around the block to debate the block is viewed as abusing multiple accounts, and results in automatic blocks of the IP. But, in this case, I think a month was likely overkill. I hadn't paid attention to the duration that was set - I'll go ahead and reduce that now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Just wondering. Spartan123455 (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
How does one get Eastside Sun newspaper deletion undone?
Hi. A bunch of self-appointed censors winnowed, then deleted, the article on a newspaper in Washington State called The Eastside Sun. How do we determine the identities of the people behind the screen names? This was a clearly orchestrated effort and it needs to be exposed in print. We've spoken with Rolling Stone and they want us to get the lowdown.
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.26.80 (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- What you are describing can be viewed as stalking and harrassment, which is simply not tollerated. It appears that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastside Sun has clear community consensus; attempting to use Wikipedia to soapbox against a result with which you disagree is likewise not tollerated. My suggestion is that you simply walk away from the issue and find more productive activities to work on in your available time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Revdel
Anything I should know about in that edit to my talk page you revdel'd? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing of value; but I'll email the text to you since you asked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Notability
Hi -- I'm new to Wikipedia. Having said that, I'm puzzled by the inconsistency in interpretation and enforcement of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. For example, I've posted an entry about an individual who's having a substantial impact on literary criticism/education at the middle and secondary school level, with major national press citations of a decidedly non-trivial nature, yet you've flagged it for failing to meet Wikipedia's notability standard. In the meantime, I've come across a substantial number of Wikipedia entries for individuals whose impact is not nearly so significant, with supporting source material not nearly so substantial ... yet unburdened by citations suggesting the failure of said notability standard. Writing as one who comes from a fairly deep, albeit "traditional," editorial background, I must say that Wikipedia's "notability" standard, while sound in formulation, appears to be quite capricious in application.
Please -- if you think something falls short of "notability," feel free to say how it falls short, feel free to offer suggested corrections/additions/modifications. That's the spirit of Wiki! But don't fall for the short cut. When you attack an article -- and, as did one "editor" this evening, its subject -- with a generic stamp of illegitimacy, you stifle speech, impede ideation, promote mediocrity. The internet's anonymity makes it easier than ever to raise unsubstantiated doubts about others -- and their work. I'm hoping your apparent devotion to Wikipedia means you hold yourself to a much higher standard. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toomanywordstoolittletime (talk • contribs) 04:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so please don't lecture about the "spirit of Wiki" when you admit to being new and not familiar with the site policies and guidelines.
- That said, a {{notability}} tag is not a call for deletion, it's a cleanup flag for article improvement. Had I thought it warranted deletion, I would have tagged it differently. The main issue with the article is that the subject does not appear to have any notability outside of 60second Recap, which already has its own article (which you yourself created). I have also added a {{merge to}} tag, because if the issues cannot be resolved, it should simply merge into the primary article leaving a redirect to that content.
- As to other articles, remember that Wikipedia is a large project - the fact that other articles also need cleanup does not excuse this article from the need to meet content policies and guidelines.
- I applaud your efforts; but rather than edit fighting over legitimate cleanup tags - you would be better served in discussing issues on the article talk page and addressing those issues. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi -- I may be new to Wikipedia, but I am not new to Wiki. Nor am I new to the English language, nor to the culture in which Wikipedia exists. Neither, I suspect, are you.
That's why I'm sorry you've chosen to respond to my comment with an attempt to delegitimize, first, via the "soapbox" characterization, then with sarcasm (echoing my use of the word "please"). This underscores my aside from said "soapbox" -- about the insidiousness of the internet's anonymity, which allows otherwise-thoughtful people to employ rhetorical feints they'd otherwise avoid. Putting that aside, however, here's my point:
The game show "Let's Make a Deal" may be the biggest thing Bob Barker has ever done, but the two are not synonymous, and an article about one is not a substitute for an article about the other. Moreover, my attempt to fill a gap in Wikipedia's content base was intended to be initiative, rather than comprehensive. So there is no prima facie reason not to permit the article(s) in question to take shape over time. Based on what I've seen thus far, however, I conclude that further discussion about the "notability" of the subject will devolve into an unresolvable tug-of-war, one likely to become personal in nature and, frankly, unfair to the subject herself -- who, to the best of my knowledge, is entirely unaware of all of this.
So I ask that you either permit the article to stand, untagged, or simply delete it altogether. At this point, I really don't care what you decide to do: All I ask is that you make a choice. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toomanywordstoolittletime (talk • contribs) 10:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- No sarcasm was intended, I am sorry you choose to interpret it as such. As to any claimed attempt to "delegitimize" your comments - you chose to soapbox based on your preconceived notions - if you don't want to be called out for it, don't do it. If someone chose to lecture me on something based upon their preconceived notions in real-life, I would give them a comparable response. While you may not be new to wiki software in general, you should be aware that each wiki has its own sets of policies and guidelines covering everything from content, cleanup, author interaction, dispute resolutions, etc. I too had considerable experience with other wikis prior to arriving at Wikipedia - and I too had to learn the differences and quirks of this wiki compared to the prior ones to which I contributed.
- The legitimate cleanup tag was not some "stamp of illegitimacy" against the article, as you claimed. Cleanup tags are notes to the community that additional cleanup is needed to meet Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, as well as pointing to talk page discussions on the topic tags. Again, had I thought the issue called for deletion outright, I would have tagged it with a different tag, such as {{Db-person}} - I did NOT do that because I freely admit the subject did not meet that threshold for deletion.
- As to the Bob Barker article; while "Let's Make a Deal" may be the biggest thing for which he's notable - he is in fact notable for several other things. There are multiple reliable sources covering him outside of the game show. As to an article still needing to take shape, cleanup tags help draw attention for others to contribute to improve it.
- I see you chose to blank the article rather than permit the community to discuss it. The community discussion may have been to either merge or to retain independent articles - but rather than permit that discussion to take place, you chose to blank out the article entirely. I see you also chose to blank out the 60second Recap article which had no questions on the independent notability of that article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
As Reagan once said to Carter, “There you go again.” Really, I don't care whether you choose to accuse me of “soapboxing” … or of crimes against humanity. What is lost on me is the relevancy of such characterizations with the subject at hand. (But, whatever … ) More arresting is your take of the Wikipedia editorial “process,” which ignores the circumstances, as I experienced them, in my first (and last) attempt at authoring a Wikipedia article.
Specifically, you write, “The community discussion may have been to either merge or to retain independent articles - but rather than permit that discussion to take place, you chose to blank out the article entirely.”
In fact, here's what happened: An “editor” or “moderator” simply deleted the article I submitted about the individual in question, and redirected the link to the 60second Recap article. No notice, no deliberation. How on earth does such an act encourage a “community discussion”?
You go on to say, “I see you also chose to blank out the 60second Recap article which had no questions on the independent notability of that article.” Technically this is true, but it ignores the fact that the 60second Recap article had been emblazoned with a notability tag about the individual who was the subject of the related article.
Bottom line: I deleted both articles because I take this kind of work seriously, but don't have time for this kind of silliness. And insofar as your take on the subject itself is concerned … well, I just don't have a dog in this fight. So why fight?
Wikipedia's a treasure, and I'll be happy to tweak grammatical/logic/factual errors on the site as I find them; that kind of messing-about amounts to a mental vacation, at least for me. Like playing Sudoku. But when it comes to taking the time to contribute actual content, I'll leave all that to your team of precocious middle schoolers. Thanks. Toomanywordstoolittletime (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- My comments on your soapboxing were a direct reply to your comments on the subject. If you don't want a person to reply on a subject, don't bring up the subject yourself.
- You conveniently only pointed out part of the string of events when you state "in fact". An editor converted the article to a redirect, and you restored the article. Fair enough, both are permitted to do this; see WP:BOLD. The editor did not edit war with your reversion. The article was then labelled by a third editor (myself) with a clean-up tag, pointing out the article needed improvements on its notability - this too you reverted. When it was restored along with a {{merge to}} tag along and a discussion started on the article talk page - rather than allowing a discussion to take place, you blanked out the article, ultimately resulting in it being deleted under {{Db-blanked}}.
- As to the 60second Recap article, the only cleanup tag on it was {{merge from}} which simply stated "It has been suggested that Jenny Sawyer be merged into this page or section." - and that was the full string of text - along with a discussion started on that article's talk page which never progressed as your blanking also resulted in that article being deleted under {{Db-blanked}}. These were not "fights" as you characterize them, but starts of discussions within the Wikipedia community of contributors - a discussion which you chose to prematurely bring to an end.
- Lastly, you may also want to read WP:OWN, which is summarized at the top of that page with the text: "If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so." as well as taking a glance at WP:NPA, as your comment regarding some imagined "precocious middle schoolers" could be viewed as veiled insults directed at those with whom you do not agree. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
quick question about WP:NPA
Thanks for the WP:NPA citation, as I think civility is important in all walks of life.
I have a question I hope you, as a moderator, can answer. It will help me understand the application of WP:NPA in the Wikipedia community.
In your last post, you write: "My comments on your soapboxing were a direct reply to your comments on the subject." As you were the one who accused me of being on a soapbox in the first place (cf., your very initial response to my first query), I take it you mean that your accusation was an appropriate response to my query.
Fair enough. I found your characterization offensive and felt it injected an ad hominem element to the discussion. But you're the moderator.
Anyway, my question ...
Your "soapbox" accusation was aimed at an individual -- me. My comment about "precocious middle schoolers" was aimed at no one individual, but at an entire class of individuals. My reading of WP:NPA is that it prohibits personal attacks, although it remains silent on the issue of pissy asides that are not aimed at any specific individual. One could certainly, and reasonably, contend that such characterizations nevertheless violate the the spirit of WP:NFA. But this still begs the question:
How is it that your "soapbox" accusation aimed at a specific individual does not violate WP:NPA, while my "precocious middle schoolers" comment aimed at no one individual does violate WP:NPA?
I look forward to your response.
P.S. By the way, I think you're right: I did act precipitously when I removed my 60second Recap article. So, point taken. I've reposted the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toomanywordstoolittletime (talk • contribs) 11:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- To start, I stated that your post "could be viewed as veiled insults directed at those with whom you do not agree" - I did not state your post was a violation of WP:NPA, although I should have worded it more clearly that it was intended as a warning to be careful, as you were treading dangerously close. It's easy in one's mind to discount the comments of others on a site when you characterize the user community of that site as immature and childish individuals - which is the how I had interpreted your comment. I apologize if that is incorrect and not your intended meaning.
- On the "Soapboxing" comment - it was clearly not an attack on you as a person, I commented on your initial post on my talk page (specifically, the second paragraph) which I identified as soapboxing; although, perhaps simply calling it preaching or lecturing may have been more accurate? Regardless, it was not an attack on you as a person, but a comment on the content of your post to my talk page. I believe it would be extremely difficult to demonstrate how it could be seen otherwise given the initial post to which it was a direct reply. If you disagree, feel free to bring it up for discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts or WP:ANI.
- Thank you for restoring the 60second Recap article. I had planned to use the sources you had previously provided in order to re-write the content myself, as I believe that the site appears to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. As the content has now been restored, I also restored the original edit history of the page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note, another editor has since tagged the 60second Recap article with a speedy deletion tag using {{db-a7}}. I removed the tag as I disagree; however, they are still free to bring the article to WP:AFD which would result in a week-long discussion where the full community is able to discuss the merits of the article as encyclopedic content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- sigh ... and again with the {{Db-blanked}} tag ... although I suppose I can understand your frustration at this point on it. I will look through the sources later, and if/when time permits, work on creating a new article myself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note, another editor has since tagged the 60second Recap article with a speedy deletion tag using {{db-a7}}. I removed the tag as I disagree; however, they are still free to bring the article to WP:AFD which would result in a week-long discussion where the full community is able to discuss the merits of the article as encyclopedic content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: I saw the edit summary in this edit; please be aware that while you may be the original contributor, it's no longer your work once added here. Note the text directly below the "save" button on the edit screens that states "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." See WP:OWN for more details. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you're 100% right, of course. I just wanted to shut it down in the most unambiguous manner, asserting a kind of moral, rather than legal, right (if, indeed, such a right exists). In any event, it is challenging to be caught in a situation where an anonymous individual, one who appears to have credentials as some senior Wikipedia moderator, starts calling you, in essence, a liar ... and in the most aggressive and obnoxious manner. It's even more challenging when you ask this person just what it is you're doing wrong, and he merely responds with series of Wikipedia policy citations that, insofar as you can tell, have no bearing on anything you've done. Anyway, thanks for all you're doing (seriously). Alas, I've found my brief Wikipedia experience to be so extraordinarily unpleasant that I don't think I can ever look at this website again, much less contribute to it in any way. Once again, that cloak of anonymity seems to empower to people to act so unfortunately. Oh, well. Over and out. Toomanywordstoolittletime (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Barek -- The response I posted on my page to your comment:
Yes, you are 100% correct, and as I commented on your talk page, I was seeking to assert moral, rather than legal, authority (if such a thing even exists.) It is unpleasant to be accused, repeatedly, by a senior Wikipedia moderator, of being a spammer -- and then, in essence, of being a liar -- without any apparent cause or explanation. Under such circumstances, there is nothing to do but to leave. And take my words with me. After all, if these are, indeed, the words of a "spammer," why should Wikipedia want them? Toomanywordstoolittletime (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Toomanywordstoolittletime (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am sorry to see you leave; but I can understand where you are coming from on it at this point.
- I also understand the point of view of the other editor, given the recent addition of external links. But, I do wish they would have been a bit clearer on the specific reasons and pointers in how to fix the issues. I frequently use the same generic warning message templates; but if the user asks, I generally respond with additional clarifications. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Addendum
Just a few moments ago, I logged on to find that I'd been banned permanently as a slammer. (I stepped outside the hotel where I'm staying to punch this out on my iPhone). Ironic, under the circumstances, don't you think? In any event, I've never encountered anything like this, anywhere on the internet. This is, hands down, the most vituperative online community I've ever seen (although, again, you seem quite reasonable). If my experience is anything close to the norm, well ... it can't possibly be -- can it? (toomanywordstoolittletime) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.136.217 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have removed the block, as I believe you were contributing in good faith - although making a few errors under Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
- Also, I will leave a warning on your IP page re: bypassing blocks - which is itself a blockable offense. As you were unaware, I'll simply apply the warning to the IP talk page as a formality. Blocked users are still able to edit their own talk page to communicate with the community, sorry I didn't notice the block myself earlier. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
For making the effort to interact with a difficult editor with patience and assumptions of good faith. They may not have appreciated your efforts, but they were exemplary nonetheless. -- Lear's Fool 14:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC) |