→A differing viewpoint further: :::I know what you mean... Thanks again for your insight. ~~~~ |
→Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review: new section |
||
Line 152: | Line 152: | ||
::For fighting vandalism do I just delete the vandalism then report it (as well as warn the vandal) or can I actually delete page and ban/harsh slap ona-da wrist said vandal; I am guessing I have to be a admin to do this sort of thing. [[User:Ninjalemming|'''<font color="#black">'</font><font color="#gold">The Ninja]]</font>'''''<font color="#gold">[[User talk:Ninjalemming|lemming]]</font>'''<font color="#black">'</font>''' 14:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC) |
::For fighting vandalism do I just delete the vandalism then report it (as well as warn the vandal) or can I actually delete page and ban/harsh slap ona-da wrist said vandal; I am guessing I have to be a admin to do this sort of thing. [[User:Ninjalemming|'''<font color="#black">'</font><font color="#gold">The Ninja]]</font>'''''<font color="#gold">[[User talk:Ninjalemming|lemming]]</font>'''<font color="#black">'</font>''' 14:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::You should do what you did; blank, tag with {{tl|db-attack}}, warn them, and if the attack page was blatant or over-the-top, or they continue, report to [[WP:AIV]]. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 15:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC) |
:::You should do what you did; blank, tag with {{tl|db-attack}}, warn them, and if the attack page was blatant or over-the-top, or they continue, report to [[WP:AIV]]. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 15:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
== [[Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review]] == |
|||
I am impressed by the work you have done, reading all the archives and summarising the different points of view. You summarised my position correctly and put me in the right group. Thanks, [[User:Schutz|Schutz]] ([[User talk:Schutz|talk]]) 18:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:11, 1 June 2009
userpage | talk | dashboard | misc |
userpage | talk | dashboard | misc |
|
|
|
A beautiful job, for which you are to be commended. I remain unable to be sufficiently pithy to craft an acceptable barnstar note, but I offer that I wowed by your compilation. I do not imagine that one could conclude other than as you do about where lies the consensus, but neither can I imagine that anyone could appraise and distill the matter more comprehensively, clearly, persuasively, or fairly. Well done. Cheers, Joe 04:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. I do apologize in advance for any brains I may have melted, tl;dr is obviously a concern here. =) But, there's something to be said about being exhaustive... –xenotalk 04:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Smartly done. I have been trying to right this ship for a long time but lacked your data gathering and compilation abilities. I sincerely hope this puts the matter to rest, Thank you. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Barnstar of Peace | ||
For your incredibly thorough job at researching the Rorschach test image controversy, I hereby award you this barnstar. Hopefully your efforts will lead to lasting peace at that article's talk page. ThaddeusB (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC) |
- And I would give you one too for the Resi stuff, but I can't give you one right after some one else has given you one. 'The Ninjalemming'' 16:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Clarification requests
Since I have signed the report, I would appreciate it if no one edits it directly; however, I welcome suggestions for amendments brought up either on the article talk page, but preferably at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum#Clarification requests. If you have left a new clarification request, please feel free to sign below to queue the orange bar and let me know to take a look. –xenotalk 19:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Please make further clarification requests at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum#Clarification requests |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Thanks!
For all your hard work. I left a replyu on my talk page. Just to let you know - I'll not be on the computer all day tomorrow but will return on Sunday.Faustian (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review
Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xenotalk
A differing viewpoint further
This debate reminds me of my previous attempts to edit articles about Jehovah's Witnesses, a religious group of which I am a member. After consulting with our world headquarters via snail mail, I accepted their view that "fighting" for a particular presentation of information and suppressing information which we believe strongly to be blatantly false or deliberately misleading would be a fruitless endeavor; we (JWs) have specific venues through which we disseminate information about ourselves, and while lies and misinformation exists, both online and elsewhere, our duty is to "defend and legally establish the good news" through the very basic venues recommended by 1st century Bible writers and our own publications. It is up to others to decide from what sources they will acquire information, whether or not such would prove detrimental; it is simply not our call.
The reason that I bring this up is that I feel that these professionals with an interest in suppression that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards need to take stock of the effectiveness of this fight. Such uses of these now-public domain images permeates our culture (see Crazy (Gnarls Barkley song)#Music videos), inasmuch as misinformation and disinformation thrive in legitimate venues despite the real and potential damage such can bring. These professionals may likewise encounter published bad advice, but attempts to suppress it would likely be ineffective. As Jehovah's Witnesses may attempt to reinforce "true" statements about themselves to individuals may come to them already having taken in misinformation, so too psychologists should promulgate their expertise in settings and using means that are in their legitimate control, advising the public to be wary of potentially harmful information, but accepting the reality that no one can effectively "win" in arenas so vast and prodigious. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your insight. I've copied the above to Talk:Rorschach test#The arbitrary break. –xenotalk 16:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I forgot to add that my decision for my own editing practices was to avoid editing articles about which I hold such a strong personal view, as such could compromise Wikipedia's highest principles, not simply because such an effort would be ongoing, fruitless, and unbelievably frustrating. (I already added this to Talk:Rorschach test#The arbitrary break). - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: DougsTech
Please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#DougsTech. As you overturned my indefinite block of this user, you should consider whether or not community consensus now supports re-instating it. Best regards, –xenotalk 07:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update. At this point I really don't care, the only reason I unblocked the first time was that no consensus had been reached on WT:RFA to ban and you hadn't read through the whole discussion. Too many things to do than worry about one user... whom everyone else is already giving all the attention he desires. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but my block wasn't to topic ban him from RFA, it was to indefinitely block him from Wikipedia. While the latter may have had the effect of doing the former - since he had been doing little else - there is a distinction to be made. I staunchly disagree with topic banning anyone from RFA, no matter their !vote templates or slant. The fact that I blocked him near-immediately after the topic ban was closed conflated the issue: that was my fault and I admit that. However, my position remains the same: disruption-only accounts should be indefinitely blocked. Thanks for looking at this, I understand if you decline to take action, but wanted to give you the opportunity to de-enable his disruption. –xenotalk 13:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "deny" has got to do with it, people sure like to toss that abbreviation around... I do hope that we act here in the knowledge that we're in a very public forum. Their criticism of us on this topic is absolutely on point, correct, and we would do well to heed it. They suggest we not feed trolls, but we seem to LOVE doing it.
Of course they're laughing at the humongous troll banquet we've just served. I'd be laughing too, except that I care too much about this project to enjoy our community dysfunctions. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I note that LHvU has given DT some excellent advice [15]. Hopefully he takes it on board. –xenotalk 01:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Time to unprotect Worm?
Worm was apparently protected by you on March 4, 2009 - just under three months now. Page needs to be edited. Time to unprotect for a while? -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Another new section
Scrolling through articles I came upon this, which most of it is written like an advertisment for it; is there a special bannery type thing to put on it too say that it needs rewritingbecase of this? 'The Ninjalemming'' 15:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. Put the {{advert}} tag. It actually looks like someone might have cut and paste the verbiage from somwhere. Try a google search and see if it's copyvio. –xenotalk 16:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes it has been copied and pasted from a website; does this mean that it is in a copyright violation? I am guessing it does. 'The Ninjalemming'' 16:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. Please try to re-write entirely yourself or use {{subst:copyvio|url=paste_the_link_to_website_here}} –xenotalk 17:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Done the copyrightvio thing and all the other ?necersery? things that I was meant to do with it. I had to as I do not have enough time to edit it myself, but it will be done by other users right? 'The Ninjalemming'' 18:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. Please try to re-write entirely yourself or use {{subst:copyvio|url=paste_the_link_to_website_here}} –xenotalk 17:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes it has been copied and pasted from a website; does this mean that it is in a copyright violation? I am guessing it does. 'The Ninjalemming'' 16:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Applying for rollback
Hello,
I though of asking for Rollback function in quite some time, so I decided to request it here :). I want to revert vandalism, especially at Montenegrin related articles as some Admins don't react very quick and let articles vandalized. So please, judge if I can get the function. Thanks for your time. Best regards! Rave92(talk) 15:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I would say yes, as you seem reliable enough to be able to judge, a low number of edits doesn't mean lack of qualty or judgement; but I would say yo'd have to promise no to get in any more edit was as some people ould consider this to not be proper judgement and take the rollback away from you. You also seem enthusiastic enough about reverted vandalism surronding a group of articles that you know alot about so you could easily judge correctly. Alas tough the desicion is up to xeno, but I wanted to voice my opinion as this is all I can do; even thogh xeno wants other people to do his job as he is lazy I cannot do it so ha, xeno has to do his own job for once. hehe, bye 'The Ninjalemming'' 16:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hrm...Most of the undo's I see that you've done involve some sort of apparent disagreement over whether Montenegrin's are Serbian, or something of the sort [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] (sorry if this description is overly simple). This strikes me as a content dispute and rollback wouldn't be appropriate to use in these cases - you should continue using undo with a descriptive edit summary. You may consider installing Twinkle which allows you to rollback an edit, but provide an edit summary. At this time I am going to decline to grant native rollback because I don't see any significant history of actual vandalism reversion. Feel free to re-apply once you've demonstrated you recognize the difference between content you dispute and content that is blatant vandalism (For examples of blatant vandalism, see User:Xeno/misc#Some funny stuff).
- On a side note, you can modify your sig to remove the image? See WP:SIG#Images. –xenotalk 16:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Um
If you want to know who I am, just email. I don't keep it secret. And I don't have any account on WR besides Ottava, which is blocked to the point that I can't read IMs even though I get emails saying I have new ones every once in a while. I find it amusing. However, to be honest I find that the person closest to me there is "A Horse With No Name". He did disagree with me two times I think and bashed me once (that I saw), but most of it was "wow, I would probably have said this". I am sure that the mods have the IPs of everyone and know my standard IPs (I only have two standard connections) so they can verify. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- P.S., I don't hate you. I just think that you are a horrid admin. I'm sure you would be perfectly fine if you were a normal user. :) And Apathetic? You never really said anything spectacular under that name so why even bother revealing? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) If s/he's the person you agree with most you can tell why I might have thought you two were the same =) Thanks for confirming you're not. cheers, –xenotalk 23:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough ;>. Re: revealing - too lazy to make a new name just to post there. –xenotalk 23:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Not really, I would post there only as Ottava. Regardless, the accounts are mod approved, so they would look at IP and email identification. All of my personal information is on the table for them, even the stuff that was private (as Moulton made sure that all of the mods had every last detail). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, you would seriously believe a denial from me? lol. I don't know how to take that. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough ;>. Re: revealing - too lazy to make a new name just to post there. –xenotalk 23:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Possible vandalism page
A page entitled Richard yopp was created with a possible racist comment (I say possible because the person who put it on my not have been intending it to be racist, but I doubt it), and I have blaned the page but can you delete it. 'The Ninjalemming'' 14:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Cheers matey. Thank you' 'The Ninjalemming' 14:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- For fighting vandalism do I just delete the vandalism then report it (as well as warn the vandal) or can I actually delete page and ban/harsh slap ona-da wrist said vandal; I am guessing I have to be a admin to do this sort of thing. 'The Ninjalemming'' 14:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I am impressed by the work you have done, reading all the archives and summarising the different points of view. You summarised my position correctly and put me in the right group. Thanks, Schutz (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)