User:Σ/Testing facility/TP/TpProt/961

Mountains Appalachian Trail CfD
Thanks for informing me about this. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, ColonelHenry. I can't believe it's already being revived and discussed after it was closed last week. Liz  Read! Talk! 22:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Header gaps
Hiyo. This is barely worth mentioning, but (afaik) there is no consensus on whether talkpage headers or article headers should have a gap underneath them. It's good to be consistent within each page, but otherwise it's best not to add or remove the gaps (as you did [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Content_forking&curid=3052635&diff=573924281&oldid=566416248 here]). Some people prefer them for visual clarity when scanning the wikitext. Also, if we click the "New section" button, (as I've done for this message) then the software will automatically produce a header with a blankline underneath it. That's all, and again, no big deal. :) –Quiddity (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know about your preference, Quiddity. But if there is no consensus then I guess either way is correct, no? Liz  Read! Talk! 22:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not "my preference" at all. It's a lack of consensus in either direction. But the more important point is that the software adds these gaps in automatically, so they're endorsed at a certain software level. I would recommend that you not remove existing gaps, especially when an entire page uses them. HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, Quiddity, thanks for letting me know. Liz  Read! Talk! 10:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thanks, Keithbob</b>, I don't get many of these rewards. Maybe because I am often contrary! So, thank you very much. ;-) Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your work is good, and appreciated, keep going! --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 21:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Newjerseyliz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

<div style="border-style: solid; border-color: blue; background-color: Red; border-width: 1px; text-align: left; padding: 8px 8px 0;" class="plainlinks"> <p style="font-size: 200%; color: #fff; margin: 0.2em 0 0;">Don't call names, ! <p style="font-size: 120%; color: Gold; margin: 0;">You have been noticed using opprobrious epithets. It's payback time from the User:RexxS/Shakespearean insults! To activate the Insultspout and receive fresh insults, click [ ]. Note that all insults generated by the Spout are guaranteed literary and cultured, unlike the nasty things you said,.

Hmm never seen this template before, but in my opinion its abusive and a personal attack and its should be discontinued.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought it was funny, <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b>, and placed it on my Talk Page myself. The "epiphets" are so ludicrous and silly, I can't believe anyone would take them personally. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 17:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I thought it was placed here by someone else. Glad you find it fun. Peace! --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Wow, Charmlet, two "rewards" back-to-back! Thank you for noticing. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 01:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Creating categories
Hi Liz

When you create categories, please can you check that they have a proper set of parent categories?

I just reviewed some recent categories which you created, and found that they all lacked at least one parent:


 * lgbt scientists from india was parented only under Category:LGBT scientists by nationality. However, this category is an intersection of three attributes: Nationality (Indian), Occupation (scientists), and LGBT. There parent categories should locate it within the relevant category trees, so I added Category:Indian scientists and Category:LGBT people from India.
 * lgbt scientists from hungary had the same problems as India
 * 17th-century japanese actors is an intersection of 3 attributes: era (17th c), nationality (Japanaese), and occupation (actors). It needs to be parented under categories which cover all those attributes, either individually or in pairs. You had categorised it under Category:17th-century actors and, both which were valid and correct; but that left it isolated from . So I added.
 * 17th-century spanish actors had the same prob as the Japanese ones
 * bangladeshi producers is an intersection of 2 attributes: nationality (Bangladeshi), and occupation (producers). It needs to be parented under both those attributes, but you placed it only under, leaving it isolated from other producers. So I added.
 * bangladeshi male voice actors is an intersection of 3 attributes: gender (male), nationality (Bangladeshi), and occupation (voice actors). You has categorised it under and, leaving it isolated from other male voice actors. So I added.

WP:CAT explains some of this.

Hope this helps. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, Brown HairedGirl. I recognize your substantial experience and while at times we might disagree on CfD decisions, I hope to always work within the guidelines of what is appropriate with categorization at Wikipedia.
 * I appreciate the corrections...it will help me learn to do a better job in the future! Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 13:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Explaining
I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Commons
I am requesting a rename on Commons. My current Commons name is Newjerseyliz. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 16:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

about blocks and trolls and such
Hi Liz. I notice you seem to have an interest in the fate of blocked or banned users. I watch a lot of pages relating to these processes as I am a fairly active admin, and I'm sure you have noticed that I participate in many discussions of these areas myself.

I have been active on WP for about six years now, have been an administrator for just over four years and an oversighter for about three years. I'm telling you this not to brag or pull rank, but to indicate that I have seen a lot of what Wikipedia has to offer. People who work on developing content in areas not rife with controversy get the best of it, and (contrary to what many believe) us janitors and behind-the-scenes folks get the worst. I've dealt with many trolls and vandals in my time, from school kids who insert obscenities into articles all the way up to folks with their own entry at WP:LTA, and I,can tell you this with a high degree of confidence: LODM is not a new user at all. This is someone who has edited here before, probably under multiple past identities and who created this account knowing all along it would end up like this. They claim they are fighting censorship but they are really just trying to upset people. In other words, trolling.

Why, you may ask, would someone do that? I can't say I really know. Most people have a hard time understating such behavior, and as we are directed to assume good faith they assume such a person is just misunderstood or bad at communicating, or something like that. In many cases they are right, but not in this case. This is a user who, from practically their first edit and with virtually every edit they have made since, is deliberately trying to cause problems, not solve them. I imagine a research psychiatrist could write several books on these people if they cared to. What is it that makes them want to come to a website that exists to share free knowledge with the world and try to turn it into a circus? If we understood that we might have more effective ways of dealing with it than blocking, but we don't and blocking is pretty much all we have.

If I had to guess I would say the reason this block has not been appealed yet is that LODM is already operating another account. Either that or they had their fun here and moved on to some other website. I think if you thoroughly examine their contributions, as I did when evaluating this situation yesterday, a picture will emerge of a user who is more concerned with posting pictures of genitalia in as many places as possible and discussing the various ways a person might stick their tongue up another persons posterior than in building an encyclopedia. I am strongly opposed to censorship myself, but what LODM was doing was not fighting censorship, it was premeditated disruption for purposes only they understand. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * First, Beeblebrox, I appreciate you coming to my Talk Page and offering a thoughtful, considered reply. The response to comments like this that I make is typically dismissive, especially because I've only recently become an active Editor. So, thanks for that.


 * Second, LODM never hid the fact that she/he used to edit under IPs. So did I, up until when I created this new account in July. So, I had no illusions that she/he was a brand new user.


 * Third, I don't know if you saw my comments on AN/I but I was no fan of LODM. She/He could be downright stubborn, bull-headed and irritating. I don't think we ever had an exchange where we agreed on anything. We were not friends.


 * What I objected to was the way these "community blocks" occur on AN and AN/I, these pile-ons that turn what was a simple request for an uninvolved Editor to have a word with LODM into a full-fledged, indefinite block. It is maddening to see some users with what seems like true harassment be ignored while a simple post asking for help turns into indefinite blocks for either the person accused or the accuser (or both). Charmlet didn't come to AN/I in order to drive L'Origine off of Wikipedia, she/he came with a simple request and then page stalkers saw L'Origine as an odd-ball and, boom!, an indefinite block.


 * Not a one week block, not a one month block, not a 3 month block. An indefinite block. And a block made by your judgment of what "the community" wanted (when we are really talking about a dozen opinionated Editors, right?), a block made by community consensus which doesn't seem to have an obvious way to appeal (how do you address a community to be unblocked?). You get a handful of Editors to show up at AN/I and yell, "Off with her/his head!" and you can get just about anyone off Wikipedia.


 * I have no doubt that you are an experienced Admin and I hope that you do act with good intentions (AGF and all). But, I just want to let you know that, sometimes, the politely named "community consensus" looks, to a newcomer, to be capricious and random, with a lot of people who visit the noticeboard just to vote people off the island, so to speak.


 * It makes me understand why people have sock accounts after a block rather than grovel to be let back into the editing circle. After one has been banished, who is in a mood to say "I'm sorry, please forgive me?" So, what started out as a simple request to help with a confused Editor turns into an indefinite block and, probably, future accusations of socking. Wouldn't it have been less painful to simply address the problem that Charmlet had come to AN/I about?


 * Now, you might be right, LODM could be a troll. Maybe you have keen and sophisticated "troll-dar" that comes from years of being an Admin. But suppose she/he wasn't...well, that's another Editor who might have improved with help who got bounced off the website. I guess we differ on whether there was a justified consensus to take this action. And, in these cases, your opinion is more important than an ordinary Editor. That's just the way it is. But that doesn't mean I can't raise an objection when I think the process is unfair.


 * Again, thanks for coming here and explaining your action as an Admin. I do appreciate it, despite my disagreement with the action you took. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 00:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW, an indefinite block is not necessarily a permanent block, although, admittedly, in many or most cases it winds up being such. User:Bus stop was blocked indefinitely here (I hope you can see it) in 2007, but is active again today. And, in one recent case regarding Messianic Judaism, regarding a minor edit in violation to a topic ban to, I think, a chart on the page, someone was blocked "indefinitely" until such time as he indicated he had been wrong to violate a topic ban he had been placed under, and then when he apologized the block was lifted. Indefinite blocks are, from what I've gathered, rather regularly appealed to ArbCom and others, and in at least quite a few cases, get lifted. Particularly if the editor involved is free to edit his user talk page, I don't know if that is the case here. Just FYI. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * John, I saw this discussion continuing on Beeblebrox' Talk Page where I was informed that there actually isn't something called a "community block" that is different from a regular Admin block. For example, Bonkers the Clown was indefinitely blocked, via AN/I, through the same process and on the same day as L'Origine and, boom!, today, he is unblocked. So, it's a) not necessarily forever and b) not impossible to overturn if the individual demonstrates that they won't continue their disruptive behavior. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Pardon my intrusion into this dialogue. If you guys really care about the fate of blocked/banned users, could you two take an independent look into the case? From my perspective as a completely uninvolved editor, I still have a bad taste in my mouth about this sordid affair a year and a half later. Imho, this was a classic case of WP:POV railroad. Ignocrates (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ignocrates. Considering my lack of success persuading Admins not to block Editors, I think any action I would take would backfire. Regards, Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 02:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand. I just wish someone would lance this boil. Compared to my little problems, the controversy surrounding the Christ Myth Theory is ugly beyond belief. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 03:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me guess, Ignocrates...it pits those who believe Jesus Christ is a myth against those who believe he is a real, historical figure? I would not like to mediate that dispute. It's remarkable how unChristian some people become when their religious or atheist views are challenged. Lots and lots of heat generated and blood drawn, but nothing resolved. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)