Shadowbot3 (talk | contribs) m Automated archival of 3 sections to User talk:GRBerry/Archive 5 |
TeckWiz's RFA |
||
Line 165: | Line 165: | ||
==My RfA== |
==My RfA== |
||
GRBerry, thanks for participating in my successful RfA. You expressed concern about me not answer the questions; I've written some brief reflections, including an answer to Question 3, in case you're still worried: [[User:Ragesoss/RfA]]. --[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] 07:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
GRBerry, thanks for participating in my successful RfA. You expressed concern about me not answer the questions; I've written some brief reflections, including an answer to Question 3, in case you're still worried: [[User:Ragesoss/RfA]]. --[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] 07:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
== TeckWiz's RFA == |
|||
Hey GRBerry. Thanks for commenting on my unsuccessful RFA last month under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I've been very busy lately which is why you're getting now. I don't know why you said I have no other need for the tools, as I'm a vandal fighter, and report to AIV and RFCN (now [[WP:UAA|UAA]]) frequently). That would be a need for the block button. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --<small>TeckWiz is now</small> [[User:R|'''R''']] <sup>[[User_talk:R|Parlate]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/R|Contribs]]<sub>[[Special:Emailuser/R|@]]</sub>(Let's go Yankees!)</small> 16:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:29, 5 May 2007
Email advice: When able to be active on Wikipedia, I am more likely to read this talk page than I am to read email, as the email goes to my work email. So please reserve email for items requiring 1) confidentiality, 2) the format (forwarding other emails), or 3) some other really good reason for using email. Also, to help it get through my spam filters and to my attention, have the email subject line begin with "Wikipedia". GRBerry
- Archive 1: April 20 to June 26, 2006
- Archive 2: June 27 to September 10, 2006
- Archive 3: September 11 to December 30, 2006
At this point I became an admin, and began letting Werdnabot archive the page. Subsequent archives are in the order they became stale, not the order conversations started.
Thanks for the heads-up
Thanks for all the heads-ups you gave me when Guantanamo articles were nominated for deletion.
You may remember that User:Crzrussian admonished me for honoring the requests of people who had asked for a heads-up when a Guantanamo article was nominated for deletion. "Vote-soliciting" he called it. But I don't think giving you a heads-up would offend him, as I feel confident you always give all the arguments fair consideration, and I don't think I could ever count on predicting the conclusion you would reach.
Anyhow, there has been another nomination, and, if you have time, I would like your opinion. It is a category this time: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 20#Category: Guantanamo witnesses.
I have had two wikipedians make sarcastic comments about some other categories I created. Part of my replies to them was an open acknowledgement that I was new to starting categories, and that I would appreciate any civil advice they could offer me. However, so far, no meaningful civil advice has been forthcoming. I am not looking forward to another barrage of nomination for deletions — the second guy to say he had concerns called for wiki administrators to step in and clean up what he called a "WTF crazy mess".
I wish those who had criticisms of my efforts tried harder to be civil.
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 21:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Questions about the care and feeding of new categories
- Every time I come to you, it is because I have a problem. One of those wikipedian, who had expressed concerns about my use of categories, on March 20th, nominated a bunch of categories I had created for deletion on March 27th. They nominated all the categories I started which were subcategories of Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees.
- I keep being shocked at the lack of consideration shown by some of the regular patrollers of the deletion fora.
- I've told everyone with whom I have discussed the categories I have started that I am new to starting categories, and I welcome helpful, civil input. HanzoHattori wasn't willing, or able, to offer helpful, civil advice. But you offered some helpful comments, Thanks. They say no good deed goes unpunished. Now I'd like to ask you some questions arising from that advice. :-)
The place of categories in the category tree?
If I understand your advice properly, every category should have a place in the category tree. Have I got that right? And the way you place a category in the tree is the way I made categories like Category:Guantanamo detainees alleged to have been abused in custody a subcategory of Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees?
Category:Guantanamo witnesses, if it is determined to be a validly useful category, shouldn't be a subcategory of Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees because only some of the articles are about individuals who were Guantanamo captives.
Some categories, started by others, seem to have multiple places in the category tree, which, I guess makes it not a tree, but multi-dimensional jumble of spaghetti. Are multiple places in the category tree in compliance with policy?
HanzoHattori's nominations for {{cfd}}
I would like to think it is the controversial nature of the topics I am working on that triggers the emotion laden critiques I get. I drafted a summary of my interaction with HanzoHattori. I don't know if you were aware of my efforts in the fall of 2005, when I was being stalked by a very persistent, dedicated, and malevolent wikistalker. I made a terrible mistake with him, in extending far too much benefit of the doubt, and assuming good faith. By the time I wised up to how intellectually dishonest he was I found the history of our interaction dauntingly long to summarize. But I decided I would take the formal steps to call on the wikipedia community for help a lot earlier if I felt it was time to consider my well of good faith exhausted.. I prepared user:geo swan/guantanamo/abusive correspondents/hanzo hattori today. I won't call on you to take more than the briefest glance at it. Is preparing this kind of summary comply with the wiki's rules? If so, would an {{rfc}} the proper step?
I have already advised the administrator who blocked HH a month ago for violating wp:npa.
The "verifiability" concern...
Several of the correspondents participating in the deletion discussion expressed the concern that those categories were "unverifiable". I frankly don't understand this. Most of the categories I created were paraphrases of the official allegations prepared by the Guantanamo intelligence analysts. The articles quote these allegations, verbatim. And the articles provide links right to the location of the transcripts.
It seems to me that making the inclusion of articles in categories in a verifiable way isn't impossible, it merely requires making the effort to undertake hard, methodicial work. And I think you know I undertook that effort, and I was very scrupulous to cite my sources.
I think, in some of the earlier attempts to suppress coverage of the Guantanamo issues, my defense of the value of my work has come across as strident, and turned casual readers off. But, goldarnit, the structure of he deletion fora, can, in my experience, represent one of the weakest aspects of the wikipedia.
The weakness of {{afd}} and {{cfd}} to systemic bias
It strikes me that a minor fraction of those who volunteer to patrol the {{afd}} fora show a surprising lack of curiousity, tolerance, and imagination. If they aren't interested in the topic of an article they can't imagine that anyone else could find it interesting, or useful. One memorable struggle, that occurred when the articles I was starting on the GWOT were first under attack, focussed around a guy who was interested in stars, He created a bunch of stubs about stars he thought were notable. And many of them were being nominated for deletion by rude and narrow-minded bullies. Several critics seriously suggested that if they had never heard of a star then it wasn't notable enough to merit an article on the wikipedia. That is so limiting. By that criteria the wikipedia would only have articles about a couple of dozen stars at most. It is possible the astronomy fan may have gone too far, but I thought every star that had been visible to the naked eye, every star that was the lead star, or a notable example of a class of stars, merits coverage. I'd add every notable supernova, nova, and every star that had a notable mention in a science fiction movie or novel. That would be as many as several thousand stars.
Crzrussian is not a dope. But his nomination for deletion of the Guantanamo articles was chockful of misconceptions, and he was stubborn as a mule, and, perhaps even a little intellectually, um, dishonest is too strong a term, perhaps I should say "blind", to honestly recognize those misconceptions.
The systemic bias, which I see as a really terrible problem, is that so many of these regular patrollers put a misplaced faith in their personal fund of general knowledge. I can't remember whether it was Crzrussian, or one of the other nominators, who suggested that there should be no articles about Guantanamo captives because they were merely POWs. Of course, as I know you know, one of the things that makes them notable is that there is a great controversy over the Bush administrations attempts to strip them of their Geneva Conventions rights without fulfilling the USA's obligations to allow them a competent tribunal where they have a fair chance to hear and challenge the evidence against them.
So many wikipedians seem not only willing to accept the statements from the DoD and Bush administration spokesmen, at face value, but to find it inconceivable, literally inconceivable, that the captives could contain a very sizable fraction for whom the assertions that they are all terrorists, the worst of the worst, captured on the battlefield just are not at all supported by the documents which have been released
I am always shocked, all over again, at how close-minded some of the regular patrollers can be. It seems they been prepared to judge these categories with only the most cursory examination. Something like half those categories meet the criteria you gave above, that they articles, that can stand on their own, built around them. And I believe the rest can support an article that can stand on their own.
Of course, if I have made a mistake, and the 40 or so hours of work I put into populating those categories was in breach of a wikipedia policy or procedure that I am unaware of I wouldn't dream of asking for them to be preserved. I wouldn't think of asking for them to be preserved even if I had put in 400 hours, if they were in breach of policy.
But, I have zero confidence these regular patrollers could judge whether the categories were in compliance with the very limited effort they seem prepared to put into their evaluation.
Update on my progress on preparing a single file that has the links to all the captive's transcripts
You and I discussed creating a single file that lists all the Guantanamo captives, and provides links to all their transcripts.
- I don't think I told you, and I should have told you, that I have finished expanding all the articles of all Guantanamo captives, so there are no longer any that User:Cszrussian classified as identical.
- When I showed you the candidate for replacing Lists of Guantanamo Bay detainees I had had linkified about 150 captives. I stopped when I had linkified about 600 or 650 of the 773 acknowledged captives. The file had grown to 399 kilobytes — saving became too cumbersome.
- I guess we could cut it into pieces, and transclude it into one file.
Sorry to be so long-winded. These struggles really take it out of me. Every one ruins my entire week.
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 01:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you closed the above deletion review, for reasons that didn't seem to match with what was going on, so I've reopened it. Perhaps you got this one confused with another? --Xyzzyplugh 07:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I should have said "redirect" instead of "merge". But either way, no deletion happened, and no deletion is requested, so this is not a case for deletion review. So I've closed it again. GRBerry 12:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Barbara Bauer I noticed your saving this contested page and replacing it with the warning label only. Others have changed back and threatened me for reverting to your change. The article is the subject of a defamation lawsuit with Wikipedia as a defendant. I should think this would be enough to lock the page away from view? Don't you GR? Give it a revisit. Marky48 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Originally acting admin and DRV
Hi GRBerry. I posted my thoughts here to your initial post. Mu post is long so I thought I would ping you instead of reposting the conversation on your talk page. -- Jreferee 16:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Lol! I located and read through all but the one that is the most clearest. I just went through all the relevant deletion pages and added the Deletion review guide to the "see also" sections. Hopefully, now anyone can find your deletion review guide. -- Jreferee 18:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Further comment. Much of the information for Wikipedia:Did_you_know and Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page were largely in the heads of a few experienced admins. I recently compiled their significant experience into Wikipedia:Did_you_know and Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page to give people a source to answer their own questions. I'm 100% behind turning the 15+ months of DRV precedents located in the heads of Trialsanderrors, Xoloz, and yourself into written process. If this is something that you are working on, I would like to help. If we do not compile these experiences for use by everyone, people will continue to ask questions that have already been answered and/or resolved and someone else will end up having to reinvent the wheel perhaps one, three, or five years from now. -- Jreferee 16:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- I know that T&E has seen my DRVGuide page. I don't know if Xoloz has. Feel free to invite others to correct it. GRBerry 18:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
THE CARETAKER GAZETTE Dear GRBerry, is there another admin who can help with this? Garycdunn 17:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Not Forgotten
You haven't been forgotten. --> Dear GRBerry, it seems that I've been forgotten since I put my very slight revision on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Garycdunn a week ago. What do you recommend that I do next? Garycdunn 00:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
(moved from my userpage) I had to undo your edit to deletion review. You forgot to say which page you wanted undeleted, and the error was malforming the entire page. I find too many deleted pages related to "Caretaker Gazette" to know which you want undeleted. (Hint, the one with the best article in accordance with the core content policies for a neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability is the one most likely to be restored.) Please try relisting, or drop me a note on my talk page with a link in that format and I'll recreate your nomination. GRBerry 15:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear GRBerry, I am soooooooo frustrated with this whole Wikipedia thing. I don't even know if this is the right place to contact you. I don't understand most of the Wiki terminology or why some of the Wikipedia people want to delete my definition. None of this makes any sense - and I had given up on Wikipedia until I just went in to Wikipedia - for what I thought would be my last visit to Wikipedia - and your posting was like a ray of light to me. I hope you can help.
{{cfd}} on Category:Guantanamo witnesses
Sorry I was so long-winded with my earlier note. I just thought I would let you know that:
- I thought I had addressed your concern about the accompanying list article...
- And I thought I came to understand your point about the need for the category to fit in a place within the superset of categories. I thought that Category:Guantanamo witnesses could be a member of Category:Guantanamo Bay captives legal and administrative procedures, which could be a member of Category:Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.
- The closing admin closed it as delete, anyhow. But he gave me a civil reply when I asked him about it.
Just thought I would give you a heads-up.
Thanks for all your help. — Geo Swan 19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Deletion review
Mock Tyne and Wear Metro nameboards – keep closure endorsed – GRBerry 00:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what "keep closure endorsed" means. Does that mean my original decision not to delete the images stands? Just want to make sure. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 20:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. GRBerry 01:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Restoring of Internet Troll Squads after AfD was endorsed
Hi GRBerry! It seems that user Biophys has restored recently his Internet Troll Squads article containing his original research again, this time under Internet brigades title.Vlad fedorov 04:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Copy past moves
Thank you for taking the time to explain to me the proper procedure for moving articles! —BMRR 17:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for the heads up and help fixing the nomination on deletion review - I had not nominated one before, and had some distractions right after nominating. A Musing 15:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Reordering DRV
Just a note that we don't usually reorder DRV pages, as you recently did my moving a closed discussion to the bottom. I'm not convinced it matters either way, but it is unusual. GRBerry 16:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Previously I've seen other editors move speedily closed XfD discussions to the bottom of a page for readability reasons. That's all this was. It doesn't affect the ability to link to it, so it shouldn't be an issue, however, if you feel it is, feel free to revert. - jc37 16:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
hi, question on rollback
Hello .... I'm a complete beginner at this and not sure if starting a discussion here is even correct - sorry :) ... I thought long about the "Restoration Committee" addition to "New Life Church" before I added it. Is this committee "restoring" Ted or restoring the harm they feel he did to their church? I read it as the committee is fixing the mess he created for the church, hence I put it in the section "Departure of Haggard". "Restoring" him involved ex-gay camp and other counseling, right? Second, the names of the people involved in the committee aren't what I'd have expected either (like, a few local church members) - these are big honchos. Third, the whole process they are going through is really interesting ... I grew up Catholic where there wasn't a "Board of Overseers" - problem priests would have been quietly transferred. Here, Ted wasn't doing anything that he would be arrested for, but yet he is in huge trouble with his church. This helps answer 'How is the church handling it?'. I think the process they are using is very relevant to this wikipedia article. [off topic: this is where I'd love to understand your insight -- is this common, to have bylaws that specify rules for "disciplining the Senior Pastor"? Or is merely that there a boilerplate set of bylaws that many churches happen to use?] I am just trying to dispassionately record the facts as they come up in the news. What do you think? Thanks. Wild Pansy 02:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I gotta ask
From RFA: "Oppose Not answering template questions is one thing, not answering questions specifically posed to him is another. Editor is displaying an attitude that makes me think they are likely to abuse the tools in the future."
Please, how do you get from "won't answer the questions" to "likely to abuse the tools in future"? Likely? Please set out all steps, considering the editor's contribution and behaviour history. Your objection really honestly truly seems to make no sense - David Gerard 11:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
GRBerry, thanks for participating in my successful RfA. You expressed concern about me not answer the questions; I've written some brief reflections, including an answer to Question 3, in case you're still worried: User:Ragesoss/RfA. --ragesoss 07:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
TeckWiz's RFA
Hey GRBerry. Thanks for commenting on my unsuccessful RFA last month under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I've been very busy lately which is why you're getting now. I don't know why you said I have no other need for the tools, as I'm a vandal fighter, and report to AIV and RFCN (now UAA) frequently). That would be a need for the block button. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 16:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)