User:Σ/Testing facility/TP/TpProt/783

thanks
Hi Liz - thanks for the cat cleanup on a lot of the philosopher articles I've put up recently. I'll make a greater effort to get them in the right set of cats from the get-go in the future. Also... your Jimbo.. your Jimbo... it's staring at me.... :p Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL! Well, Kevin I do a lot of work with categorization. I find it satisfies my need for putting things in order, I learn a lot and there are some big projects that need to be done regarding gender categorization. For a while, I was picking a nationality and changing all of the "actors" to "male actors" since the powers that be decided to use "actresses" so we need to place men in a similar gendered category.
 * I'm not sure what led me to look at philosophers but I noted there were only about 225 women philosophers currently in that category, so that is a manageable problem that I could work on. For example, there is another category change I need to get to eventually that has over 1200 articles to change and that just seems like such a large number to take on. Maybe one day!
 * Regarding Jimbo, I know people hate animated gifs but I thought that one was so funny and, since you have to linger on the page a few moments before he pops in, not everyone would see it. Liz  Read! Talk! 23:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. I think it is great you are working on articles on women philosophers. Some of the ones that Wikipedia does have are no more than stubs. I'd love to know more about Collegium of Black Women Philosophers, that sounds like an interesting group. I'll see if they have an online presence. L.
 * Only 225, and I've written probably 30 of them in the recent past... kind of depressing ;) The Collegium does have some online presence, and there's been enough coverage of them in various places that they'd pass the GNG fairly easily. I'll hopefully get around to writing an article about them eventually, but decided to go ahead and start with people.  Further depressing fact pulled from an article by Kathryn Gines: there are less than thirty Black women with phds in philosophy working in academia in the US today.  You could, quite literally, fit all of them in a classroom together. Black capitalized per Kathryn's logic in her essay about the founding of the collegium. Let me know if you feel like writing about the Collegium (or anything else) and need me to pull articles for you if you don't have access to an academic library :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I spent half of my life in academia but right now, I'm not affiliated with a university and my own library is boxed up so references are inaccessible (and I don't have much faith in online sources unless it's news). Maybe when I get more confidence, I'll work on article creation. Even though I see hundreds of badly written, insubstantial, unreferenced articles as I traverse through Wikipedia, I've seen newly-created, starter articles get deleted every day. So, I want to make sure I have the necessary resources to write a decent article.
 * But thanks for the offer! Liz  Read! Talk! 23:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake/Tumbleman
It would be very helpful, IMHO, if you could post some sort of opinion HERE. The Sheldrake talk page is short of people who know how to express opinions politely and helpfully. Anything at all from such a person could serve as an example to others. Lou Sander (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, Lou, I've already alienated so many fellow Editors when I defended Tumbleman after he was blocked, I don't think I'd be seen as neutral (despite truly, honestly, not caring about Sheldrake). My actual interest in reading through through alllllll the Talk Page comments was to see how consensus could be arrived at when there are Editors with such different points of view. I no longer think that's possible but I haven't seen what's been going on there for the past week, maybe conditions have improved...well, it's a possibility, even a slim one, right? Liz  Read! Talk! 01:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, you know how to reason, and you appear to be a Decent Human Being. Who cares whether they think you are neutral? Voice an opinion, ANY opinion, and show those who lack those attributes how it's done. Lou Sander (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the nicest thing I've heard lately. Thanks, Lou! Liz  <b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 02:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Lou Sander&. Thank you.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  09:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

the section is Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  09:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's hard to know these folks' motivation. My working hypothesis is that they are very young, and this is a place where grownups have to listen to them. Their incessant scolding and sarcasm are probably a passing along of what they get themselves at home and school. A child learns what he lives. Lou Sander (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * They have this lame, childish "let's call everyone who disagrees with us a 'troll' and get them banned" attitude. You would think that if they were so sure of their position, they wouldn't rely on tactics to remove opponents from the discussion, that they would let their superior argument help form consensus. Instead they annoy everyone at AN/I. They seem to prefer drama over compromise.
 * By the way, I've noticed at least one account seems to be a SPA who just seems to be here to edit the Sheldrake article. And several accounts have less than 1,000 edits, for what it's worth.
 * And, since I don't know where you stand, I assume that given the people trying to get you blocked, Lou, that you are either sympathetic or neutral about Sheldrake? When I read over the Talk Page comments a week or two ago, I didn't notice your remarks (sorry).  Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think they ARE very insecure in their arguments, and thus the childish behavior. I'm basically neutral on Sheldrake. I've read some of his books and find them interesting. I'm open to all kinds of alternative ideas, but they don't loom very large in my life. On Wikipedia, I just want to get Sheldrake a fair BLP article, written neutrally. It's not appropriate, IMHO, when the section on his books starts off with "He has been criticized for writing books for the general public, rather than going through the peer review process," based on some critical quote from The Guardian. I REALLY dislike it when that stuff creeps into the lead. They can't just say "he challenges some basic tenets of modern science" without following it up with "he thinks perpetual motion machines are possible, and everybody knows that perpetual motion machines are impossible, the idiot" (or words to that effect). The editors think that every time something from him is said, it has to be balanced by something from the mainstream. That may be their legitimate understanding, or maybe it's just part of their crusade. My comments on the talk page are usually brief, so they tend to get drowned out by the endless blather. Lou Sander (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, Lou, you sound radically, radically neutral. Wanting to give Sheldrake a fair BLP article, now that's totally fringe and outrageous! No wonder they want you topic banned, it actually sounds like you might do something constructive like creating a better article instead of joining in with the incessant squabbling.
 * Maybe we do share the same point of view. Damn, now I'm on their hit list, too. I know my dull, routine work categorizing actors and philosophers is skirting sanctions of some kind. Well, I know I'll make a mistake sooner or later that can be dressed up in bows, ribbons and diffs and taken to AN/I. And just when I was getting into an editing rhythm. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Rada Iveković
Biggest problem here is the lack of independent third-party in-depth reliable sources to show notability. Plus it's a BLP, everything needs to be sourced to such sources. If the article doesn't get properly sourced, I'll be nominating it for deletion. Academics aren't automatically notable. Yworo (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I realize that, Yworo. In fact, it is harder for an academic to have a Wikipedia article than it is for a 19 year old back-up dancer for Justin Bieber. What I was thinking is that for two days now, I've been going through dozens of BLP articles on philosophers and, I gotta say, some of them have less information on them than Iveković had on hers.
 * Now, it's not in my nature or Wiki habits to tag a dozen articles on philosophers and take them to AfD, especially when every single episode of Seinfeld has its own page. I think having mediocre listings on some Continental philosophers is infinitely more valuable to the world than having a complete listing of every Pokemon character.
 * So, while I'll admit that you likely have WP guidelines on your side in deleting this article, there is a whole lot of content on Wikipedia that is completely insignificant and insubstantial and I don't believe that having a profile of a Croatian Buddhist philosopher is even on that list. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Problem is, we have a very strict biography of living persons policy. And we should. If she were deceased, it'd be different. Yworo (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a shame she isn't dead. J/K. I explained my position, Yworo, you do what you have to do and I'll keep categorizing philosophers. I have a work to do.
 * Thanks for taking the time to come to my Talk Page and explain your side of the situation. Lots of Editors are not that thoughtful and I do appreciate it. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Carry on... Editors who know how to do categories properly rock! Yworo (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Categories are quick, they are usually straight-forward and uncontroversial and there aren't people watchlisting categories, leaping to revert edits. They are not very social but sometimes, that's a blessing. Also, they can bring visibility to little known phenomena...who knew there were several noteworthy Lithuanian women philosophers? I didn't until today. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 23:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the mention
Hi Liz, thanks for citing me in your discussion on the Teahouse. I won't contribute to your discussion there, for fear of making it too long :p but I totally agree with the issue you raised. <font color="#000" face="Times">Augur <font color="#33f" family="Arial">NZ <font color="#000" size="4">&#x2710; <font size="4" color="#000">&#x2315; 05:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, <font color="#000" face="Times">Augur <font color="#33f" family="Arial">NZ, I think your discussion about deletionism was very important. If you look through Teahouse questions, you'll see the same question--new editors frustrated with speedy deletions of new articles--over and over again. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 13:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet another example of this deletionist regime in action, along with the obligatory knee-jerk reaction to the provided examples. Also, I've mentioned you in my farewell speech. Thanks for your support previously. <font color="#000" face="Times">Augur <font color="#33f" family="Arial">NZ <font color="#000" size="4">&#x2710;  <font size="4" color="#000">&#x2315;  20:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to read about your frustration, <font color="#000" face="Times">Augur <font color="#33f" family="Arial">NZ <font color="#000" size="4">&#x2710;  . I find the image copyright legalese confusing so I have done absolutely nothing with photos or images on Wikipedia. I'm sorry that this has led to you deciding to quit but, remember, accounts aren't deleted, they just go inactive. You can always return at another time. Policies do change over time as do attitudes. And, in WP, there are no deadlines and it'll still be here tomorrow and next year. All the best, Augur!  Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

RolandR
Hello Liz, Can you help me with RolandR? He is wrong about all my contribs (Heidegger, Hölderlin, Benjamin and so on). Thank you! I´m Ketxus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketxus (talk • contribs) 01:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ketxus, I'm not sure what you are asking me to help you with or who RolandR is. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 02:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry Liz, it is not easy to explain. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketxus (talk • contribs) 02:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Philosophers
I've met a real one. A pretty important one, as I understand it: Nicholas Rescher. Lou Sander (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with Rescher. In my 20s, I studied with Jacob Needleman but his Wikipedia article is pitiful. I'm surprised his students haven't made it more substantial. I guess I'll get around to doing that one day. He's had a long career.

Neutral notice
This is a neutral notice that an RfC has been opened at an article which you have edited within the past year. It is at Talk:Clint Eastwood. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

, thanks for letting me know. I don't recall editing that article but I'll check it out. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 15:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

N94228
I think that N94228 misunderstands one of the criteria for speedy deletion. (It isn't clear whether he or she understands anything about Wikipedia.) Articles written by banned or blocked users can be deleted. N94228 apparently is concerned that he or she is about to be blocked, which may happen if he or she continues making idle accusations. However, the deletion rule does not apply to users who are blocked or banned after writing the articles. It only applies to users who are already blocked or banned, and so never should have written the articles, but were evading the block, typically by sock-puppetry. You are an experienced editor and knew that. The original question did not have to do with the article containing racism, which it does not, but with whether the author is blocked for racism. The author is likely to be blocked for disruptive editing, a different matter. Now that another editor has properly sourced the article, the article is unlikely to be deleted for any of racism (which it does not contain), lack of notability (established by another editor), or blockage of the author (which may happen but the article was validly composed.) Maybe N94228 is a racist, or is accused of racism. That doesn't matter unless he or she points racist drivel. N94228 almost certainly is a teenager. That doesn't matter; some young teenagers, let alone adult teenagers, can edit responsibly. N94228 is a disruptive editor; that does matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC) What is this about? Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 17:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * At WP:ANI, N94228 asked: "If I will be blocked for racism\vandalism\reason will my article be killed or they will stay in Wiki?"  You answered that if the article contained racism or vandalism, it would probably be deleted.  The article is not racist.  However, the author is engaged in disruptive editing, is exhibiting ownership behavior, and is being a diva without an entourage.  The author is likely to get blocked, not for racism, but for disruptive editing.  Is that an answer?  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * , thanks for the reference, it didn't ring a bell. Now I remember. I didn't look into the user or her/his contributions, I was just answering the question of if an Editor is blocked, are the articles they worked on deleted. It sounds like she/he might be heading for a block if they are being disruptive. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 19:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, so that the question about whether the article will be deleted is the wrong question, and the right question is whether the editor will be blocked unless there is a change in behavior. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's usually a bad sign when an Editor calls it "my article". Staying off the noticeboards today and getting so much work done! Have a good weekend. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 00:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Kate Winslet
Hi. I noticed you undid my removal of tabloid sources for contentious information on this article. On consideration, I have restored this edit. I made it in an admin capacity while enforcing WP:BLPSOURCES, so I'd be grateful if you could refrain from restoring it a second time. Could you instead take it ti article talk or (preferably) find better sources for this info? --John (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, John. But I don't know how an Editor (me) is supposed to know when an edit is made "in an admin capacity" and when it is a normal edit. How are these special edits distinguished from others?
 * Plus, I thought that according to WP:BRD, that the sequence goes, 1) Editor A makes an edit, 2) Editor B chooses to revert, then 3) Editor A goes to Talk Page to discuss the edit...not that Editor A re-reverts the edit. At least, I thought that was how Wikipedia was supposed to work based on what I've been told to do when someone reverted my edit. It's up to the original Editor A to go to the Talk Page and get consensus for their addition or deletion. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 10:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * talkpage stalker swoops in to suggest... that if an admin (or indeed any editor) wants to communicate some desire to future editors, of a page that they are about to edit, then the best way is to use a short HTML comment, placed 'in the editing path' so that the future editor cannot miss it.   There is in fact just such a secret future-editors-only comment in *this* paragraph.
 * Usually, if you are editing a mainspace article, and plan to put a hidden HTML comment in there, you should first create a talkpage section, and explain why future editors should be cautious, and then manually archive that talkpage section you just created (to prevent linkrot). Then, in the appropriate place on the mainspace article, put something like this:   &lt;!-- hello, please read http29823982932982322989823 on the article talkpage before you make edits here, thanks --&gt;     .... the only gotcha is that you should not utilize double-dash characters in you brief comment -- do not do that or this -- because they can confuse browsers into mis-displaying your stuff.  I realize you and John have been at this longer than me, but sometimes remembering wikipedia's five bazillion helpdocs is not so easy.  :-)
 * p.s. I prefer that editor A makes an edit, editor B collaboratively modifies that edit, goto step one.  But that's a rare mode of interacting nowadays.  Failing that, I prefer editor A makes an edit, editor B starts the talkpage discussion *before* just flat reverting (except for BLP or COPYVIO or NPA or blatant destructive vandalism or somesuch), then after some discussion editor B collaboratively modifies that edit, goto step one.  p.p.s.  Actually, I have a scheme slash proposal for colorizing edits, so that it was possible to see how long ago they were made... adding an admin-action-taken tint would be cool.  Anyhoo, time to swoop out again.  Thanks for improving wikipedia.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)