User talk:75.108.94.227/Archive 4

NTA
My personal opinion:

When there are so many articles on really important subjects that are inadequate or unwritten, I do not want to spend my efforts helping such marginally notable material. Nor do I want to spend it assisting undeclared paid editors; I think it much more beneficial to the encycopedia to remove them. And even many years ago when I would do so, I would not offer successive rounds of help to an ed where it involves saying the same thing over and over, but help those who are more ready to understand. I would like to persuade you to understand these points also, because we need your talents where it matters.  DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and our argument is basically about whether the correct reading of the ToU is "discourage people who are employees from editing any articles ever by deleting all their stuff" ... which I see as (effectively) your own position. And in particular, you most definitely hold the pretty-recently-formed position that if the newspapers picked up a story, but it was about a business or a product, it is not Truly NotableTM.   Something akin to deleting movies that were "inspired by" the book, or counting loose paraphrasing as copyvio, metaphorically.
 * My position is simple: the article has been there for five years, and now has a person being paid to maintain it.  They were here before the 2014 WP:TOS revisions, and nobody has yet taught them how to behave. I'm teaching them.  It is hard work, but not that hard.  They follow instructions, albeit with goofs and mistakes.  They are honest about their efforts.  There is even a non-negligible chance that they will help improve the movie-articles, and a better-than-even chance that they will help improve the industry-related articles.  You complained that NTA is not the biggest firm in the country.  We don't have an article on the biggest firm in the country, ICC, of which NTA is a sometimes-partner with one of the subsidiaries thereof, because we keep driving away the people who might write the ICC article.  I do not believe I am overstating the case: User:DGG, you are attempting to redefine WP:GNG, to exclude material that was reworked from a press-release, something which is very much distinct from being a regurgitated press release.
 * I want WP:GNG enforced as written. You were doing some IAR-based experiments, attempting to delete companies like Circle_(company) which literally have 42 mainstream general-readership 'reworked' press-release cites (plus many re-reports of those .  So since you believe in your heart of hearts, that Circle is not ***truly*** wiki-notable, of course you think that NTA is deletion-fodder.  Of course you think that not merely trade-rag refs, but now *also* newspaper refs, are not truly wiki-reliable.  Now, I've not interacted with you directly before 2015, but I've seen you at AfC and AfD often.  You have a level head.  You know what I'm talking about, when I say you used to be more like Cunard, interested in keeping stuff from deletion.  If you have forgotten that AfD is a slap in the face, it is not because AfD is not still a slap in the face.  "Your company is not (wiki-)notable.  Your newspaper refs are not truly (wiki-)reliable.  You are a (wiki-)linkspammer.  Your dog is ugly."  The plausible-better process is exactly (ahem ;-)   the WP:NORUSH process I was attempting to follow:  if I see something which fails to be wiki-notable at the moment, but has *unclear* wiki-notability because offline refs may exist, see if there is an editor interested in doing the work to improve the material, and digging up them thar offline refs.  By teaching them to fish, I don't have to personally drive to Indiana and dig in the microfiche of the Greater Chicago newspapers.  Now what happens, if at the end of our search, the hypothetical microfiche doesn't exist?  What if the firm is FAILN due to only having local coverage, never regional?  Well, then, up-merge the material into the appropriate leaf-article, and make a Draft:NTA_(company) that the COI-encumbered person -- whether the owner, or an employee thereof, or a fan, or a customer, or just somebody like Blurasberry who works in a quasi-related field, can make some improvements.
 * By forcing the issue now, per WP:TIAD, you are causing the mom in the marketing department and small business owner to freak out. They are getting a very bad taste in their mouths about wikipedia.  They already have fears and worries a-plenty; what if the competition is gaming the wiki-rules against them?  Don't cites from the federal government of the good old U.S. of A. count for anything?  And so on.  All such beginner-questions are much better answered in a calm slow fashion.  By turning wikipedia into a wiki-jungle, there is no calm slow improvement.  There are only two types of articles:  ones like NTA_(company) from 2010 through 2014, which are mildly promotional and mildly copyvio and ne'er improved by nobody who posseses a clear sense of the wiki-policies.  Or, type two, articles like NTA_(company) in 2015, which are starting to be improved, which are acting as a training-ground for teaching beginner-editors the ropes, but BECAUSE somebody is now improving them, and BECAUSE they are no longer quietly moldering away, become subject to constant "attacks" using automated tools and bureaucratic template-messages wielded by vested contribs, usually ending in deletion plus bad feelings all around.  The folks getting deleted have bad feelings about wikipedia herself.  The folks pushing for deletion have bad feelings about beginners for being beginners.  I don't have any illusions about this process, that I can detect.
 * On the other hand, I don't think the deletionist-and-precisionistToday folks are acting in anything but good faith. I don't think you, DGG, nor the other drive-by taggers are bad wikipedians (no offense to User:John_from_Ibegon and WP:TWINKLE o'course for the AfD-tag... which is 100% policy-compliant and 80% likely to succeed -- and no offense to the earlier tagging by yourself DGG for PROD using Twinkle as once again 100% policy-compliant and 90% likely to succeed -- plus finally the manual tagging by Amatulic back on September 1st in the midst of the orangemoody witch-hunt was *incredibly* level-headed I must say).  I think you all are trying to improve mainspace as best you can, but are so busy with Truly Notable stuff, you may just have forgotten what it was like, to be a beginner once.
 * Running *rare* stress-tests, to find out what the vested-community thinks about Circle_(company), is fine per IAR. The end-result was correct, as far as mainspace was concerned, albeit generating plenty of talkspace-verbiage with precious little actual improvements to mainspace.  The end-result with NTA_(company) will also end up correct, as far as mainspace is concerned.  But do not forget that this project is primarily about attracting editors who will defend WP:GNG as written, and defend WP:NICE as written, and do the content-expansion and article-creation and reference-digging and bangkeep-defense that will improve-qua-improve the encyclopedia-qua-encyclopedia.  You know and I know that WP:ADDICTED is a real thing.  I too am not above running rare experiments, per IAR, to see how things work out:  NTA is exactly that, an experiment in WP:NORUSH.  We shall see whether switching gears to WP:TIAD, seven days until deletion, actually improves things.  Having seen the latter experiment hundreds of times, if not thousands, I can say already that there is about a one in ten chance that it will.


 * Shorter reply: I would love to spend my talents on topics that Really Matter, sure.  I have a backlog of articles about politics that need improving, and in particular, have promised Saturn and Melanie that I will work on *solving* the difficulty with potus-candidate-noteworthy-ness in non-arbitrary way.  I'd like to see the digital forensics articles improved.  Yet all around me, I see massive concern for Vested Contributors like myself (either convincing them or banning them depending on the source ;-)   and precious little concern for the mom from Indiana, and the IPv6 from Santiago.  I submit to you that most of our problems will be SOLVED permanently, by which I mean, not just the minor disagreement betwixt yourself and myself on whether South Bend Tribune is a wiki-reliable publisher in some specific piece, but nearly ALL the pressing problems wikipedia faces, only when we vested-contrib wikipedians get a system figured out where the mom from Indiana is welcomed, trained, and appreciated.  p.s.  That doesn't mean bangkeep of spam, it just means, being nice about it if and when deletion/upmerge is the eventual answer, and trying hard to help them avoid bangdelete.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I need to emphasise that I am not primarily concerned about notability: Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encyclopedia--I could construct a reasonable argument for a wide range of levels. But accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia. We therefore, as an empirical measure, need to have stricter standards for those areas that attract such editors. For the encouragement of beginners, there is potential for millions of articles where the problem does not arise: the one I like best to suggest is every member of a state or provincial parliament back into history, there is always sufficient material to be found, and any local library can assist for its own area.
 * It is very important, especially with beginners, that their efforts be successful. Ensuring they do not spend the efforts on articles that are likely to be rejected is important. I find that in NYC editathons, this is the most difficult part of the assistance experienced editors can give. By encouraging them to presevere on marginal topics, you are not really being fair to them, especially if you use their articles to test the current limits. You should use your knowledge to guide them to topics that will clearly be accepted. Then, once they have some experience and confidence, if they want to take their chances, that's their judgement.  You need to use your judgement to keep them away from the hazards at the beginning. It's judgement they cannot be expected to have at first.  DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Small variations in the applied definition of GNG do absolutely hurt the encyclopedia: unfair application of the standards, gives wikipedia a reputation for being full of mean nasty people!  We need to have firm standards, and we need to apply them fairly.  What was the first worry that popped into the beginner's heads?  That their real-life competition was trolling them.  Why?  Because wikipedia has a well-deserved reputation for unfairness, for capriciousness, for deletion without cause.  Now obviously, your point that I should not use NTA to test the GNG-standards is a correct one; and quite frankly, at present NTA does not pass GNG, no question about it (Genesis Mining is another question -- it would survive AfD quite easily if the folks at AfD applied GNG as written).  As is your point about raising hopes, also an excellent insight that cuts to the core of our disagreement.  I am not intending to use NTA to test the definition of GNG; if it passes, then fine, it gets a dedicated article, if it doesn't pass GNG as written -- and right now with the known-RS-refs we have in hand it does not -- then once again fine, it gets a redirect and a WP:NOTEWORTHY mention as a sentence in some other article.  Currently we have several leaf-articles in the certification business, so whichever one it is, that is okay.
 * I'm not completely nuts; you can see for yourself that this approach works. Look at the professor with the new theory of neuroscience.  They are not exactly HAPPY that their new 2014 theory will only get a sentence-or-so (plus footnotes) in some leaf-article.  But they are not quitting wikipedia either.  And chances are good we'll write the BLP-article about the neuroscience prof, someday, since they have triple-digit cite counts.  Same basic story with the NTA folks.  They like me and they trust me to help them, because I've earned their trust by helping them.  If I tell them, that because of the wiki-rules, only companies with such-and-such press coverage get dedicated articles, and that is how wikipedia treats all companies, then they will accept it, not exactly happily, but as their WP:DUE.  And that is how it ought to be.  But in fact, they know already that wikipedia does NOT work thataway.  Life is not fair, wikipedia ought to be fair, but wikipedia isn't fair either.  For years now, since 2010, the article about NTA has been moldering in mainspace, with a grand total of zero in-depth fully-independent refs.  That is why they know that wikipedia is not fair:  for the first time in five years, somebody shows up to help... and at almost exactly the same time, several somebodies show up to delete everything.


 * I think that what is important with beginners, is that they be treated with kindness, and that their efforts be treated on the basis of objective merit, fairly judged. If they do good work, and are acting in good faith and honesty, whether it takes a few times to be told the wiki-laws or not, should be no problem:  we should welcome them with open arms.  If the topic they are working on passes GNG, it should not be deleted.  If they add neutral-tone wiki-reliably-sourced sentences, they should not be reverted.  Anyways, I realize that this discussion is probably bigger than NTA.  But ask yourself:  who is writing the BLP-articles about the statehouse reps of Indiana?  The answer is, nobody.  I don't have time for it, nor interest.  You have some interest, but no time.  Just the other month I wrote a stub-BLP for the majority-leader of the statehouse in New Hampshire, because I was ashamed to find wikipedia had a redlink for that person... since January 2014.  The solution is not to go out seeking some chimera, the vast body of hypothetical people who will happily learn all our crazy WP:PAG as a hobby.  You and I are proof that such folk do exist, but how many people like me have your run across?  How many people like you have I run across?  We are a vanishingly-small percentage of the potential editorship.  My plan is very simple:  find people like Wscribner, and convert them into workaday wikipedians-in-good-standing.  Same for Danko Nikolic.  Same for Harry Braun.  Same for all the other folks I come in contact with, who already have motive to edit.  I do not succeed every time, but I do about half the time.
 * You are saying something that is very true: that I could have used my wiki-judgement, back in early September, to tell Wscribner, hey it looks like you are a beginner, and your company is business-to-business which rarely gets covered by the glamour-journalism-industry, so you might as well save us both some time and give up and leave wikipedia forever.  And indeed, that was my wiki-judgement, when I first met her.  But instead of telling her to go jump in the Great Lakes, what I told her was this:  you have a lot to learn, but I can teach you.  Along the way, we have become wiki-friends.  Now most likely, all the time she's spent learning the ropes of wikipedia, imperfectly and as an on-again-off-again process, WILL be wasted.  Sure, mainspace will not have changed much:  an article that was moldering away for several years in mainspace, with nobody improving it, will now molder away for several months in draftspace, with the folks that were planning on improving it no longer around to do so.  But the *people* are the key here, not the articles.  The articles will not write themselves.  If we want people to write them, we have to make wikipedia have a friendly, welcoming, collaborative aspect once again.  DGG, you have been around wikipedia long enough to know why it beat Citizendium:  because it was friendly here, and because mistakes were acceptable here, and because Anyone Can Edit.  I disagree that they cannot have judgement at first; they *have* judged what the want to write about first, and it is their company.  You cannot pull motive out of thin air; people are not going to volunteer to spend a hundred hours learning the WP:MOS and WP:PAG, just so they can write articles about the Indiana statehouse elections of 1948 (all we have is a couple sentences on 2012 at the moment, completely uncited).  Psychologically, almost all beginning-wikipedians want to do something *they* believe is worth doing.  They want to write on something which is important to them, and something which they know about.  Wikipedia is a way to share their knowledge with the world, for them to feel a part of something vast and timeless.  They don't want to feel like a third-class wiki-citizen, a minor cog in a giant wiki-machine.
 * Sure, we could eliminate self-interest, theoretically: just nuke all the BLPs (keep only BDPs which have been dead more than 50 years), nuke all the band-and-musician articles, nuke all the product-articles, nuke all the corp-articles, and nuke all the political-articles (including controversial topics).  While we were at it, we go ahead and delete the anime-articles, book-articles, film-articles, and other not-serious-enough editors from the mix.  That would leave Seriuz-Wikipedia containing only Truly Notable topics... edited by nobody.  Obviously, the NTA folks are mostly here to write about their corporation.  If you delete their corporation, and salt the title, you will succeed in driving them away.  If you want citizendium, that is the correct strategy to achieve your goal.  But remember citizendium was a failure, and remember why it failed. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 07:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * All we actually need to do for notability is use documentable criteria that relate to the actual RW importance, not to the degree of press coverage. Press coverage on many topics an expression of PR more than public interest--it's intent is to build public interest, not reflect it. To take just one example, for non-academic books published in the US, NYT best-seller will do nicely. To take another, I'd accept a company cutoff at $1 Billion revenue (or, for financial companies, $20 billion in assets--these would obviously need adjustment for different areas. I;d supplement it with a market share criterion for niche companies.    We have some: for painters, the work in major museums criterion works very cleanly.  With criteria such as these, there would be no loss of good will--they'd either meet the criterion, or not.


 * I've talked about Cz at length elsewhere. (btw, were you involved)? In addition to the factors you mentioned, was a complex set of rules way beyond the requirements of such a small group of people, the idiosyncrasies of the founder (he insisted on being family-friend (vs our NOT CENSORED), and on considering pseudo-science as science. He also did a quite poor job in selecting some of the initial editors--the intrinsic problem with top-down organizations is who selects the person at the top. Additionally, the complex system of article approval led to OwNERSHIP and the inability to make changes.   I still support the concept of an expertly revised  encycopedia as a supplement to WP, not a replacement,  and I will consider joining  anything that looks viable


 * Your example of the Indiana legislature actually shows the opposite:  these are ideal projects for school classes and beginners,because of the ease of finding material in local libraries. We need to pay more attention to working with high schools. (we've tried a little in NYC). As for things like anime,  the principle is that I will let other people have their hobby-horses if they let me have mine--all I ask is that they write about it intelligently and with some selectivity.


 * NTA, btw, will eventually make a satisfactory article They've succeeding in showing market share. I intend to revise their draft a little further, and accept it. It is possible with enough effort to develop articles on these subjects if non-coi editors like yourself do enough work on them. I think there are much more important things here, but of course  everyone has their own ideas on that and we need to tolerate each other. I can't stop you, nor would I if I could. But neither to I intend to lower my standards for what it takes to get them accepted.  DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Linux?
Hello 75.108, I saw this post and am wondering what the worst of times with Linux may mean? This sounds ominous and I may have missed something. Cheers, — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am planning on crushing Linux beneath my evil boot! Like a ... wait, did I say that out loud?  Crap.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Dennis in his RfA noted that he was in the Linux biz, and on his usertalk that he is having real-life difficulties with his business ventures. Ping User:Dennis_Brown so he knows we are wiki-gossiping about him.  Or at least, about Linux.  Ping User:Linus_Torvalds, in case he cares.  :-)      My own WP:OR tells me this is a dark time for Linux.  Secure boot coupled with the pay-as-you-go bizmodel of Windows 10 (with 'free' upgrades for all), plus the walled-garden of iOS-nee-FreeBSD, and perhaps even more dangerous, the firmware blobs of Android-nee-Linux, have me extremely worried.  The EOL of WinXP was a golden opportunity for Linux on the desktop, and it went past with no attempt to take advantage of the millions of boxen that suddenly became "obsolete" but which had 256mb of RAM or so... mostly because there *is* no full-fledged Linux distro which will run a modern browser in that "tiny" amount of RAM.  And what of the distros?  There is another golden opportunity for Linux, the hypervisor, which is also quickly passing:  Ubuntu is too busy with Mir, Redhat is too busy engulfing Centos, and never shalt the dotDeb and the dotRpm be rejoined, ever shalt they split in twain.  Echoes of proprietary UNIX wars from the 1990s, and we all know how well *those* ended up.  So yeah, it is the worst of times for Linux, I think, or soon will be.  There is a non-negligible possibility that Linux will be firmly in the decline-category by 2017, just like FreeBSD went firmly into the decline-category by 2010 or so; OSX came out in 2001, and Android came out in 2007.  I'm not saying that will happen mind you, just that times are dire, in my view.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You forgot BeOS. :) I just managed to work around some things that have been frustrating me for a while on Ubuntu. Fortunately, I now have success for what I was trying to do. Broken applications as old versions in repositories have been a problem. Not good when you are trying to introduce people to the platform and they can't get things to work. I went Windows-free several years ago...I only miss just a few things but MS would do their best to wreck it if I gave in and tried to go back. 256 Meg of RAM is too small to get much done these days but you can get much done with 512 M and I converted old XP machines to working Ubuntu machines (desktop clients and servers). Our demands drive Moore's law. Things don't work well mounting WinXP as a virtual machine on top of GNU Linux without having substantial RAM...That is Windows' fault as they are a serious resource hog when compared to Linux OS requirements. As a 15+ years regular Linux user, I can't imagine it going away...it is the secret driver to successful systems.Face-smile.svg
 * Yeah, for folks like ourselves that are used to "workarounds" (note the key term 'work'-required therein), it is quite possible to be a Linux user, for desktop as well as for server, nowadays. But as you say, it is not possible to introduce anybody to the platform, without shamefacedly mentioning that "oh by the way if something JUST FLAT DOES NOT WORK then feel free to call me".  Which of course, is not needed for iOS.  Similarly, if you have a LAN with a hundred machines on it, each with 4 gigs of RAM, then you *can* convert that into a supercomputer slash grid-computer using hypervisors and migration and such... but once again, only if you have specialized expertise.  So in some ways, the Linux world is on the threshold of greatness:  we have the capability to make a desktop, and we have the capability to make a business-class supercomputer.  But it is hard to do it, you need a six-figure sysadmin/programmer/equivalent on call.  Theoretically anyone can download Linux, and run their entire business with it, and root their smartphones/tablets, plus use it for their systems at home, too.  In practice, almost nobody does any of those things, except enthusiasts... which is to say, not much progress since the late 1990s.  Along the same lines, anyone can edit wikipedia... in theory... but in practice, it is a harsh and unforgiving wikiverse.
 * Now, since you followed here from the thread on Dennis's usertalk, please forgive me for a further ham-handed segue. :-)      I note that you are a wiki-criminal, blocked for two minutes seven years ago, when rules were rules, and the Great Jimbo still rode around the 'pedia on his pet dinosaur.  You also are an admin, albeit with only 45k edits, thus per the law of round numbers you did not quite have enough wiki-juice to make the list of "top 244 active admins by editicountitis" that I worked on.  Moreover, you have 44 hits in the arbcase pages, which means you know your way around arb-land quite well enough to have a shot at implementing some meta-improvements, but thankfully aren't one of them thar drahamah-kahings like User:Drmies, who has 94 search-hits.  16 unblocks out of 1600 blocks means you lean more towards the banhammer than dispute-rez, perhaps, but only 100 page-deletions means you are probably an inclusionist which I think arbcom could definitely use more of.  Feel like getting two years of your life sucked dry?  :-)      There is at least one computer-programmer-type already running, User:Rich_Farmbrough, but there are nine slots open and at present only 8 min-threshold candidates announced (and of those only two-and-a-contingency-candidacy are currently admins which is an unwritten 'requirement' for arbship).  Not very WP:NICE of me to spring this on you, eh?  ;-)      But as you may have gathered, I'm a bit of a pessimist when it comes to large libre projects like Linux and wikipedia.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe in the future...wouldn't rule it out entirely but not this go around. :) Thank you for your consideration. I believe that Arb is the end of the line and where possible, we editors should be solving more without having to go to them. If we could make improvements elsewhere, we wouldn't need them as much. I see that you popped over to meta in October, you may want to peruse this wishlist where your technical knowledge would make you a valuable commenter.

So I finally got around to configuring two Linux boxes for my home/home-office/home-server-farm. One is Hardened Linux and will probably need something else instead. The other is Kali, and might well be in the same boat. I still have a rescue machine (i.e. skip rescue) that used to run SmackBot to play with, and a nice pile of antiquated computer bits.

The breakthrough for Linux would be if it was offered as standard in new boxen, with a £40 discount compared to Windows. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC).

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Raspberry Pi is one break-through but still for us DIY types. In the US, we have preloaded Linux systems that come on new computers and priced well below Windows machines. A quick search.

Potential Arbs
Off the top of my head, I can come up with a quick list of good potential candidates. Whether they would choose to run or not I don't know but for various reasons I think they would all do well and better candidates than myself. I have trust in these folks and think they would do a good job:



I could probably come up with more and I'm sure that I'm omitting many other well-qualified candidates. Maybe the editors listed above will chime in and boldly consider this. In fact, I would feel good if all of them were on the committee. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * At present it is barely an election. There are, as I write, 10 candidates for 9 vacancies. I would like to see further folk, ordinary folk, stand. I was persuaded to throw my own hat into the ring. As it stands I might get elected almost by default, which would be a sorry state of affairs indeed, for me, for the others elected and for ArbCom itself. I would argue that it had very small mandate indeed if elections were not contested hotly. Fiddle   Faddle  18:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If one's supports don't outnumber one's opposes it's nothing doing.
 * It's normal for the majority to declare their candidacy on the last day. This could be seen as gaming the system, uncertainty whether to stand, fear of questions, modesty, waiting to see if there are enough "good" candidates or many other reasons.  But it seems to happen fairly reliably. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC).


 * Yep - with the exception of gaming the system (which one former arb plumply accused me of not so long ago), I'll admit squarely to all the other reasons. I suppose mainly because of getting an idea who I would have to share the bench with if I were to be elected.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

in re this edit
Pardon me, but HUH?  Schmidt,  Michael Q.
 * Well, humour is not my strong point. ;-)      So here is the serious answer.  Drmies is running for arbcom.  Kelapstick is running for arbcom.  They want you to run for arbcom too.  The Three Musketeers.  The Three Amigos.  That kind of thing.  So go over to WP:ACE2015 and follow the instructions to self-nominate yourself for an epic journey.  Or run away as fast as your legs will carry you.  :-)      75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

And...
They're off!

I refer, presumably, to the runners and riders in this year's ArbCom election, not to anything much else. You can do no more to encourage folk. What we do need, now, though, is a good turnout at the polls. Those elected need to have a mandate, and that happens best with numbers, high numbers, making their vote count. Fiddle  Faddle  00:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeup, correct. But since turnout was low in 2014, User:Kevin_Gorman and also I think User:Mdann52 have worked up a mass-message scheme, to alert all eligible arb-voters (who have not turned of mass-msg-spams), a week from now presumably?  Actual arb-voting is delayed until the 23rd, so that the late-entry candidates can get some questions answered before bang-voting begins, and so that interesting folks can write up their voter-guides.  As a candidate, your main job is to answer the questions well, and you seem to be doing fine, that I can tell.  As an interloper specializing in nudgenik, my focus now shifts from convincing good people to run, to convincing good people who are not running to write voter-guides.  I will do some analysis of the extant voter-guides tonight, and then post here on my usertalk, or a subpage or something.  That said, I'm still trying to finish my candidate-spreadsheet....  :-)    Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Though it was my proposal, I went ahead and asked Mdann52 to run with it which he kindly agreed to. The idea is more or less to send out a massmessage to recently active eligible voters with a pointer towards some relevant pages and a brief explanation of what arbcom is/does/etc. The idea first came up after a separate discussion about arbcom turnout turned up someone with more than 50k content edits who wasn't aware she could vote in arbcom elections herself.   Since I got finagled in to running myself, I didn't want to be the person also sending out the message. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you are not the only one who surprised themselves by running this year. :-)      So with any luck, thanks to some initiative (good work!), the voter-turnout will be improved this year.  But I do owrry about apathy, and I do worry about low-information-voter-syndrome.  I'm gonna try to get more folks than usual to write voter-guides this year, so that the first-time arb-election-voters will have some "media coverage" to help explain the various candidates to them.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * HA; MANDY!! Hafspajen (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What matters, chaps and chapesses, is that we get a strong turnout and that whoever is elected has a mandate to do the work. What matters far, far less is who gets elected. I suspect I may shed more tears if elected than if not, but who can say. We will always get the committee we deserve. Will we get the one we need? Fiddle   Faddle  15:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Brianhe talkback
Hafspajen (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

A message
Hafspajen (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Creative Mobile Games (Estonia)
Thanks for your advice, I've added in a Distinguish and afc comment to Draft:Creative_Mobile as you recommended and i've included more english and foreign language reference citations.

I think it's ready for resubmission, can you have a quick look before I resubmit?

Thanks! RadRacer20xx(talk) Hafspajen (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ping 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
test Hafspajen (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ping 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
test2 Hafspajen (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ping from Wscribner (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


Hafspajen (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ping from Ron Schnell 05:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Seems that I need to put something in here. Hafspajen (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ping from Ron Schnell 19:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
pingorama Hafspajen (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ping from Wscribner (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Replied to your comment. Hafspajen (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
For this. --regentspark (comment) 22:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Reply on Arb Report
Thank you for copyediting the report. Looks to be much improved from your CE. But I must say, for an IP editor chugging along for nearly five months, I can't help but wonder why you don't just have an actual account here. You seem to be well versed in Arbcom. GamerPro64 23:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Gamer, well, surprisingly enough it only takes a couple months of 80-hour weeks to memorize the WP:PAG, and after that, it was all downhill, piece of cake! :-)      Naah... truthfully, I'm one of those rare stubborn people who only edits anon; this is not my first IP address, nor will it be my last.  The short answer is, I'm trying to encourage people to remember WP:HUMAN still applies, even though anons are -- statistically speaking -- more often clueless and/or vandals and/or socking and/or just forgot to login.  So I'm widening the bell curve, by editing anon all the time, on purpose; never had a non-IP username here on the 'pedia (not counting that many-previews-but-no-edits account I made briefly before I figured out AfC existed to take new articles), and probably never will.  I have some serious worries besides WP:CIVIL, and in particular, arbcom is #3 on my bullet-list for the things that are wrong with wikipedia nowadays.  If you want the longer answer, as you probably guessed, your question (or close paraphrasing thereof :-)   has been asked about a dozen times in the past six months, please scroll up or check the deletion-history.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wanna be part of the Signpost? We're always looking for new people there. GamerPro64  22:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am thinking about it, Gamer, and will at least try to pitch in on the arb-election issues. I am doing some revisions to the arb-report in another browser tab, actually.  I finished working on BASC, and am toiling on the final section.  Am I correct that final publication is usually Sunday afternoon, but sometimes Saturday afternoon?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's one or the other. The scheduling is inconsistent. Which is why I attempt to write up an article early in the week to get the ball rolling. GamerPro64  00:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Q-page profundity from User:75.108.94.227 ( draft)


Draft deux. Feel free to address your specific thoughts (and proposals if any) with regard to each of these topics. My questions are meant to stimulate your thinking, about a specific sub-area, and not meant to constrain the scope of your answer (if any). Please say what you wish, briefly or at length, on point or tangentially. Don't feel constrained by my specific question-formulations. Please, elucidate your issues-platform, directly to the listening arb-electorate, and not to the questioner's exact questions, in other words. My thanks for your time, good luck with your candidacy, your commitment to wikipedia is greatly appreciated. This section contains ~500 words and ~50 wikilinks, which is the 'normal' size of every arbcom statement. Sorry. :-)     Please, your views...  125 words


 * 1) ...on recusal. When will you recuse, generally?  Will you recuse, on a case about an article you have edited? ...if you have interacted with parties to the case? ...in an admin role?  If you are a named party, will you permit fellow arbs to remove your name?  If you *are* recused on a specific case, will you discuss the proceedings via on-wiki comments? Via off-wiki comments?  Should there be a mechanism outside arbcom, to determine consensus that individual arb(s) must recuse? ...using bangvotes by the parties? ...by non-parties?  Will you file any arbcom cases, during the two years you are an arb? 106 words
 * 2) ...on arb-recall. Will you be open to recall from arb-ship, during your term? By other arbs? By broad consensus? By the Great Jimbo? 25 words
 * 3) ...on admin-desysop.  Although bureaucrats pull the trigger, arbs speak the order to fire, just before a desysop occurs. Should there be a community-based desysop mechanism? If yes, should there also (still) be an arb-based desysop mechanism? If no, what specifically should the arb-based desysop mechanism look like? Plurality? Supermajority? How long should deliberations last? Due process? Poison-pen off-wiki and/or anonymous-accuser evidence? Right to respond? Staleness concerns? Speedy trial? 76 words
 * 4) ...on whether punitive sanctions are sometimes justified.  When is a sanction (topic ban / site ban / block / desysop / special restriction) punitive, in your view, rather than preventative?  Is a small amount of punitive collateral damage, acceptable in order to deter hypothetical future bad behavior by parties other than those being sanctioned?  Does your answer change in some circumstances, such as a quasi-punitive sanction to deter hypothetical future other editors from POV-driven mis-use of sources?  ...from baiting? ...personal attacks?  ...copyvio and NLT?  ...harassment?  ...doxxing?  ...credible threats?  In short, under what circumstances, if any, does WP:IAR trump WP:BLOCKDETERRENT, justifying quasi-punitive sanctions against a wikipedian, despite their being no imminent threat of continued improper behavior by that wikipedian, in order to deter others in the future? 128 words
 * 5) ...on IAR versus process. Arbcom wears the bathrobes here on the 'pedia. Arbs interpret the wiki-laws, when intractible disputes finally become arbcom cases. There is a partly-unwritten pecking-order in the wiki-laws: office actions, pillars, policies, guidelines, wikiprojects, essays, local consensus, and individual editors being WP:BOLD. There is also an escape clause to that pecking order: if any rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it.  Where do the precedents set by arbcom cases, fall within that pecking-order? Can arbs *write* wiki-laws? Can AE-sanctions-related-bureaucracy, trump IAR, broadly construed? As an arb, will you ignore all rules, including the usual arbcom procedures and the extant arbcom precedents, if they prevent you from improving the encyclopedia? How often do you expect to do that? 132 words
 * 6) ...on commitment. Running for arb is tough, being an arb is tougher.  Would you take a bullet to save Wikipedia? Would you accept pecuniary enlargement in relation to an arbcom ruling? If, in some specific hypothetical future scenario during your arb term, you knew that an office action was morally bad, and pragmatically wrong for the 'pedia, would you vote to overrule it? These are somewhat absurd questions, but the serious question is, how much commitment, in terms of moral fortitude and outright courage, should be required of arbs? Do you have any thoughts on making arbcom candidacies and terms less painful ("less tough than raising a teenager" / "less painful that a real train wreck" / "more pleasant than deployment to an actual war zone"), or is it a necessary gumption-test, to find the few wikipedians who will be able to successfully weather the slings and arrows, during their tenure as arbs?  152 words
 * 7) ...on statements and arbcase-talkpages.  It is no cakewalk being a party ... or in some cases a non-party ... to any arbcom case, let alone a seemingly-endless series.  Can cases be made less painful, for instance, what are your thoughts about the amount of WP:ROPE for WP:NPA that ought to be granted on arbcase-subpages, to parties, non-parties, and to the arbs themselves?  Should arbcom discussion and draft-proposals be transparently done on-wiki, or for the sake of drama reduction (and to keep arbs from being blocked for NPA violations) must they be kept off-wiki?  101 words

Talkback
 samtar { t } 12:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Those questions
Them up there ^^^^^ I do hope you are asking them in either draft. They ought to make us all think. I wonder if they will. By "All" I do not just mean the candidates. Fiddle  Faddle  22:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am trying to keep it under 500 words, which is the usual arb-limit. Also, at least one of my questions is probably going to be asked by Tryptofish, so I'm trying not to repeat what has already been covered.  Right now I'm messing with voter-guide stuff.  But yeah, I'll try to get my act together soon.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not understand what, if anything, you are asking me. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi again Tryptofish, I was at your usertalk asking about Professor Danko and his neuroscience theory -- he is busy trying to compress it down to a sentence still -- when I happened to witness your 31-hour-after-the-fact block. It did not sit well we me, so I was planning to ask the arbcom candidates (of which FiddleFaddle aka TimTrent is one this year... whom it seems you also know), some kind of question about that sort of thing.  But I'm wondering whether you are planning to ask such a question, in which case I don't want to step on your toes by asking first, nor repeat your query in a slight variation by asking second.  I have the following rough draft:
 * Do you want to ask a question like that? ( *Have* you asked a question like that, and I didn't catch it? )  Are you against me asking my question, and if not, do you see any way to slim it and trim it?  Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh! Now I see what you meant, thanks. (It was actually 38 hours, not 31, but who's counting!) I had actually been discussing with some questions roughly along that same line. No, I am not going to ask any questions like that myself, because coming from me, it would seem WP:POINTy. But you should feel free to ask anything you like, with or without my input, just so long as you keep it general and not make any reference to me or my block, personally. I think that it gets more ambiguous if you ask about sanctions in general, because they can be considered to be deterrents, and thus might be partly punitive. The WP:NOTPUNITIVE policy is specifically in respect to blocks (not bans, not editing restrictions, not anything else). So I would recommend framing it narrowly, in terms of "ArbCom blocks". Beyond that, you could consider shortening it simply by asking whether there are any circumstances under which ArbCom blocks should be punitive, without having a preventative aspect. You could leave it to the respondent whether they want to name specific examples, such as outing, personal attacks, or whatever, without you listing them yourself. If you do ask such questions, I'll be interested to look and see what the replies are. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have actually been mentally debating whether to specify which questions are "inspired by the book" aka stem from an actual arbcom action (or inaction), recent or distant, versus questions which are actually 100% generalized. (The question about whether arbs ought to be open to recall in some fashion, for instance, does not stem from any arb-related-incident but is rather inspired by the perennial question at RfA about admin-recall provisions.)  There are several questions posted by other people already, which are "obviously" related to re-litigating specific arb-cases, but which hide that relationship with a fig leaf of abstraction... I see Gerda asking questions about The Dreaded Infobox case (closed but with ongoing sanctions still causing dramahz), as well as the VestedContributor case (open), to name one of the questioners whom I personally know and like.  But at least four people are asking questions to re-litigate the gamergate/ggtf/lightbreather series of cases.  There is some merit to asking a question that is more general in nature, since it can give the arb-candidate the ability to speak more broadly about the fundamental core issues, but there is also the fact that most people who follow the arbcom drama pages fairly closely, are going to see the concrete case, and take the answer the arb-candidates give AS a statement about that concrete case.  For that matter, most of the candidates will see through the fig-leaf.  So I'm kinda torn... I would like to get the generalized what-would-you-do-in-various-situations answer, but I also don't like using a fig-leaf to cover that some of my questions stem directly from actual arb-incidents.  Ideally, I would ask a general question, and then ask about thoughts on a concrete case, both optional as all questions ought to be, but then I would have twice or thrice as many questions, and length is way too long as-is.  Long reply continued below.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ... if I may interrupt here: my first question is about evaluating a consensus, reflecting arb ruling. That it is about infoboxes is just an example I happen to know, - and the second question is about ideas for something to replace AE, because "enforcing" is no way I think users should treat other users. The candidates often fell into the trap of answering what was not asked. But so far none of them questioned the first line which I question the most ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Gerda, sure you can join the party. Your question was too about infoboxes.  :-)      It was *also* about consensus, sure... abstracted away from the specifics... therein lies the problem I am wrestling with.  But I do understand that you were trying to ask a more general question, testing whether the candidates would read the diffs, or just flippantly say whatever first came into their heads.  The problem is, because "everybody" knows you are all about the infoboxes, it is hard to tell if the candidates are answering the question you ASKED, or instead, the question they THOUGHT you asked, or maybe even, the question they think the arbcom electorate WANTS to hear them answer.  Ambiguious to the max!  So I'm not sure how to ask my question, but I'd like to ask it so that the candidates can give me a straight answer, without me worrying, without them worrying, and without the folks reading my question and the candidate's answers worrying, about hidden connotations.  Not an easy thing to do!  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My first line is "Arbitration findings and the wishes of principal editors govern the use of infoboxes in articles." - That is not a question, but I would like a candidate to ask "really?" because I believe its true but wrong. I didn't ask any diff this year because the last two years I already covered the two which look like "added an infobox" (a reason to be "deeply concerned" and vote for a ban in 2013, a reason to say "crystal-clear violation of his topic-ban" in 2014), both obviously not really looked at by the sitting arbs and others, but - each time - the candidates. Hope! I ask instead to evaluate consensus or lack of it in a short discussion, well known to everybody who followed my friend's RfA which failed because of it. - To be observant is a quality I would like to see in an arb, so if I ask for suggestions to improve AE in general, and they tell me they can't speak in an open case, I got my answer. (You probably know the story about the test which says in the beginning "read to the end", then has several tasks, the last being "if you read to here return the paper, you are done".) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Continuing... As for the specifics of this question, I think the core of it is here: "When is a sanction (topic ban / site ban / block / desysop / special restriction) punitive, in your view, rather than preventative?"  As you say, it does get more ambiguous, because there ARE some wikipedians who believe that *some* kinds of sanctions can be punitive.  I'm not really one of those wikipedians, philosophically speaking.  :-)      But pragmatically speaking, sure, it is hard to argue that there is no punitive nature to the block-button, or for that matter, to things like AN/I's calm and reasoned discussion on the merits of all sides in a content-dispute.  But it really widg worries me, when I see people rationalizing blocks that are punitive towards actual person X, under the theory they are thereby 'preventing' some hypothetical future persons Y and Z from hypothetically doing something similar, sometime in the future.  That is deterrence-logic.  It is extremely common in the legal world.  In the "olden days" aka 99 years ago, in frontier situations being a horse thief was a hanging crime.  The point was not to prevent THAT particular horse-thief person X from stealing more horses in the future (though of course being hung did tend to ensure such an outcome), the MAIN point was to scare persons Y and Z from doing so.  That is what a deterrence block is about.  "Oh, I see you once vandalized wikipedia.  Yes, but that was three years ago, I apologized, and have never vandalized since.  That is true, but I'm still indeffing you, and nuking all your contribs from orbit, because we need to deter other people from thinking about vandalizing wikipedia in the future."   So yeah, the question about when a sanction is punitive, and what "preventative" actually means, is definitely ambiguous.. because wikipedia's practices are ambiguous!  We say we have a philosophy that sanctions ought to be purely preventative, but you can stretch that word a loooonnnng ways, if you are willing to consider preventing hypothetical future damage, and doubly-especially if you are willing to consider hypothetical future damage by other people.  Anyways, sorry about the reply here, but as you may have guessed, I think this is a crucial point, which needs to be raised.  Trouble is, I'm not able to phrase it properly, in order to raise it.  :-)      I'll keep trying though.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Continuing... As for the specifics of this question, I think the core of it is here: "When is a sanction (topic ban / site ban / block / desysop / special restriction) punitive, in your view, rather than preventative?"  As you say, it does get more ambiguous, because there ARE some wikipedians who believe that *some* kinds of sanctions can be punitive.  I'm not really one of those wikipedians, philosophically speaking.  :-)      But pragmatically speaking, sure, it is hard to argue that there is no punitive nature to the block-button, or for that matter, to things like AN/I's calm and reasoned discussion on the merits of all sides in a content-dispute.  But it really widg worries me, when I see people rationalizing blocks that are punitive towards actual person X, under the theory they are thereby 'preventing' some hypothetical future persons Y and Z from hypothetically doing something similar, sometime in the future.  That is deterrence-logic.  It is extremely common in the legal world.  In the "olden days" aka 99 years ago, in frontier situations being a horse thief was a hanging crime.  The point was not to prevent THAT particular horse-thief person X from stealing more horses in the future (though of course being hung did tend to ensure such an outcome), the MAIN point was to scare persons Y and Z from doing so.  That is what a deterrence block is about.  "Oh, I see you once vandalized wikipedia.  Yes, but that was three years ago, I apologized, and have never vandalized since.  That is true, but I'm still indeffing you, and nuking all your contribs from orbit, because we need to deter other people from thinking about vandalizing wikipedia in the future."   So yeah, the question about when a sanction is punitive, and what "preventative" actually means, is definitely ambiguous.. because wikipedia's practices are ambiguous!  We say we have a philosophy that sanctions ought to be purely preventative, but you can stretch that word a loooonnnng ways, if you are willing to consider preventing hypothetical future damage, and doubly-especially if you are willing to consider hypothetical future damage by other people.  Anyways, sorry about the reply here, but as you may have guessed, I think this is a crucial point, which needs to be raised.  Trouble is, I'm not able to phrase it properly, in order to raise it.  :-)      I'll keep trying though.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Santiago and/or England
Hi 75, as the protecting admin isn't very active these days I have unprotected Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP, so go and have your say and I'll read it with interest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Ritchie333, appreciated. I've said the necesssary, you can re-protect if you see fit.  Since I'm seeking a calm (ideally) logical two-way conversation, for the first phase of moving gradually toward eventual consensus, might be better if said conversation-thread wasn't held on that particular page.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would love to have a calm conversation with this chap, but he just keeps going off the rails about "a policy violating attack page" which nobody has ever sent to MfD. I don't think currently there's any reason to re-protect the page; talk pages should normally be as open as possible. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it is basically true that calling somebody a long-term-abuser is an attack, in the plain-english-sense as opposed to the NPA sense. Whether the plain-english-attack is justified, depends on how strictly one interprets WP:NICE.  Personally, I interpret it in the strictest possible fashion, because I think it is essential for the long-term health of "an encyclopedia and the community of people who build it".  More important than good content, is the capability to deal with each other in kindness.  And so, although I can see the point, that it is hardly a kindness for wikipedians to make a page calling other wikipedians abusers, I can also see the counterpoint, which is that there are plenty of diffs showing the person in question, calling other people morons (and worse).  So that has to stop.  Personally, my system is to simply remember that I'm always right, and everybody else is always wrong -- unless they agree with me in which case they are true wiki-patriots.  ;-)    But I keep such thoughts strictly to myself.  Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia, using amateur contributors.  The person from England/Santiago is a talented contributor, but tend to lord it over people they feel are less talented, including both beginners and other long-haul contributors, which is Doing It Wrong.  WP:NICE does not say anything about "if you are logically correct then go ahead and edit-war whilst calling everybody else names".  In any case, although I don't have much hope I'll be able to succeed here, since positions of many of the participants seem to be rigidifying, it is worth trying.  There is one person who can reverse the tide of short-term-consensus, and help me get them unblocked, which is the person from England-slash-Santiago themselves.  In the long run, my ulterior motive is that I would very much like to see the common practice of instantly reverting, disappear.  WP:BRD is flawed, and should be WP:BDDDDR.  Of course, the edit-war behavior of WP:BRRRRD is also known to be very wrong, and accepted by consensus as being very wrong.  Getting long-term-consensus that WP:BRD is sub-optimal compared to WP:BDDDDR will take years, so I need all the allies I can get.  :-)      75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I generally never revert more than once (I have done two reverts on a handful of occasions when annoyed, but they are rare), and I think we could all aspire to revert less, but I still think sometimes an edit is vandalism, misguided, gossipy and there is no way of saving it. For example, this edit describing who a celebrity had sex with and citing a tabloid newspaper to do it is pretty much a straight WP:BLP revert, and has to be encouraged. Incidentally, that was on a named account and I reckon of the edits I do revert, there's a 50:50 split between IPs and registered editors. Having said that, if you have to revert, it can be worth dropping a note on the talk page anyway. A more cynical editor than myself once said "we'll need to put something on the talk because when the heavy-handed admins come along with their banhammers, they'll be looking for that there consensus." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do it as ; I have almost never reverted twice, and before I do it even once, I think whether it's worth arguing about, and usually decide it isn't. I don't like the automatic enforcement of anything, not even 3RR, but I would support moving the line one step, and changing it to 2RR across the board. If anyone wants to propose it...  DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems sensible, though I strongly doubt it will ever pass. :-)      I might just decide to WP:BEBOLD.  But what I'd really like to see is that, instead of deleting all the time, articles which are not blatant copyvio, not attack-pages, and not otherwise subject to revdel, should *always* be pagemoved to draftspace, and left there for the six-months-with-no-improvements duration.  This would include COI-enbcumbered advertorials, but also articles without enough known sources to satisfy WP:42 in their present state (including one-sentence-stubs and such).  WP:REFUND is a pain, in other words, and now that draftspace is functional, it seems we could make better use of it.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The towel has been thrown
Hi - I threw the towel in, a tiny bit disheartening but in the whole people's opinions have been good, and there's been lots of "would make a good admin next year" comments, so I've not taken their opposes to heart :-) again, seriously thank you for providing a much needed venting point and coaching! I honestly feel a pang of gratitude and I'm indebted  samtar  { t } 16:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * NB. Sorry for not having the clout at the moment for seeing it through. I honestly considered it Face-smile.svg samtar { t } 16:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said when this all started, I applaud you for having the courage to stand, at all. That is a good sign, that you care about the project, and want to improve it.  Anyways, no apologies, no regrets, no debts.  Wait a minute, strike that last bit, you owe me big -time.  ;-)       Now that you are a former participant, you can do some more work related to the arb-election -- might be fun to ask the questions rather than being asked the questions -- or you can get back to the real work and dig into mainspace somewhere.  I actually pinged Gerda about one of the redlinks in the article, search her usertalk for Miss K8 if you are interested in doing some easy-peasy pop-culture article stuff.  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really have any questions for the other candidates, it's enough of an inquisition as it is! I'll have a deeper look into some of the other candidates I don't already know as I'd like to be able to at least help ensure ArbCom improves :-) <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">Face-smile.svg samtar { t } 17:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear about inquisition where I am in my never-ending battle for kindness ;) - I came to clarify a few points higher up, have time only for pointing out one: "The Dreaded Infobox case (closed but with ongoing sanctions still causing dramahz)". No, the sanctions don't cause dramahz. We live by them. However, they also did nothing to prevent dramahz. Look at any ongoing infobox discussion and see if it's Andy and I who cause problems. I was taken to AE for a third comment on Laurence Olivier, for example, a comment that was not even about the infobox. Compare. There's nojustice, I made a DYK about that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

PING



 * PLINHG PLIMNG Hafspajen (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * is that even english? :-)      Looks like optical character manglization to me, Mandy.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * SHRink, shrink, shtrinkedin. Hafspajen (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Your MOst delighted Lunatic. Hafspajen (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do I feel like a smörgås? Hafspajen (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Either you are hungry, or you are trying to get Drmies elected to arbcom. :-)      Maybe you should work on the article about royal feasts?  That is a good way to combine your two urges.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am trying him to get himself a head. May I borrow yours? Hang on after me. It is going to be edit war. may join in reverting him too. Hafspajen (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

On the Arbcom Report
So it occurred to me that I might be swamped during the holidays this week, along with school work. If you can would you be able to assist in writing up the report for this week? GamerPro64 04:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC) I am not overly familiar with PIA3, having only paid attention to it due to one particular remedy, which I believe could be improved technically. But I am happy to have a look and see if I can put something together. I will use the previous Signpost ArbCom reports as a guide to content, format & style. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, I have a bit of time, appreciate you asking. I am working on some candidate-questions, and doing some voter-guide analysis, which might be re-purposed as article-fodder?  There also may be progress on some of the open cases, I've been following the GMO and the AE2 stuff.  Can you give me some story-ideas for what you had in mind?  Or even better if you have the time, just wham out a rough draft (outline form or initial prose or whatever you wish) of the article in the newsroom, and then I'll make a followup-sweep to add a few things.  Let me know what you want to try, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh, ping Gamer, you are way ahead of me. :-)    WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-11-25/Arbitration_report, already exists.  Main things on the list are the ending of PIA3, WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3, and the beginning of ACE2015 voting.  I will try and add some stuff there, but I'll have to read up on the PIA3 thing.  (I greatly appreciate the wikipedians who work on those articles, since they are crucial to wikipedia and our reputation for neutrality, but I avoid the topic-area myself, as too low on ROI for the vast amounts of time required.)  Are there any arb-related-topics besides PIA3 and ACE2015 which definitely ought to be covered, time permitting?  Motions or clarifications or somesuch?  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Made a bit of a start; not much in the way of substance, but maybe some placeholders for expansion. Hope this helps. Please feel free to delete any or all. I'm not precious. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks :-)     Much appreciated.  I've edit-conflicted with you, but then merged my changes in with your stuff.  I am also working on a voter-guide-comparison chart, which might be worth using, though I'll have to strip out the WP:OR portions and just stick to the ACE2015-advertised voterguides.  You don't happen to know anything about PIA3, do you?  Or maybe we should leave *some* meat for Samtar to play with, if they wish.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, "75.108". Your work is both more complete & more elegant; I am pleased. I pulled the voter counts (not sure how to best reflect that it's the set of votes by a single voter, not the individual votes for each candidate) from the List votes here. There is no explicit count, but each vote is timestamped, so it is easy to see how many were made on Nov 23rd. Greyed out votes have been recast by that editor, so should not be counted; even factoring this, it is easily more than 500 in those first 24 hours. I will see if I cvan find the equivalent lists for 2014 & 2013.
 * For 2014, from here, I have 158 voters in the first 24 hours; not factoring recasts. 2013 is not listed at vote.wikimedia.org. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, nice. Here is the 2013 stuff, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/360, which was SecurePoll on enWiki rather than a dedicated wiki, and covers back through the December 2009 elections, which was the first one where securePoll was used.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll has the rest, see also WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Statistics_2011 and Arbitration_Committee/History.  Prior to 2009/2010, either arbs were appointed by Jimbo, or the bangvoting was RfA style, with opposes and supports being public knowledge (rumour has it that early in the history of the colonies that was also common -- people would walk to the courthouse on voting day, and verbally give their votes to the country clerk with onlookers and gossips hanging about to see whom voted for whom in the mayoral election -- don't know if the rumours hold any water since I read them on enWiki somewheres :-)  Part of the reason for lowering the arb-threshold to 50% is that people are more willing to bangvote oppose, if they are reasonably certain their bangvote will remain secret.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah

 * Bless you! ;^)      What is a "Pragtstilleben med Holbeinskål, nautilus- og glaspokal og frugtskål" may one inquire? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wonderfully "prakt" -full, elaborate, stilleben, Pragtstilleben with the type of bowl Holbein painted? Hafspajen (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yup, see File:Willem Kalf - Pronk Still Life with Holbein Bowl, Nautilus Cup, Glass Goblet and Fruit Dish - Google Art Project.jpg and Pronkstilleven. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But what is the Pronk / Prakt / Pragt? :-)      Holbein bowl, Nautilus cup, glass goblet, bowl of fruit, even Willem Kalf ... those seem reasonable terminology.  And I even guessed that frugt-something was the fruit-bowl, and glas-pokal was some kind of glassware.  I should have figured that skål was bowl.  Foo-still-quux, as in still-life, also seemed plausible coming in.
 * Wikipedia tells me that the p-word means 'ostentatious' / 'ornate' / 'sumptuous' / 'flamboyant' / 'showy' ... but what is the connection or derivation? Surely it is not related to English 'pretty' / 'prank'?.  I expect that the good doktor will strive to achieve pronkstill-arbykom, an ornate yet strangely motionless objet-de-art, that is reasonably pleasing to behold?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No doubt he will :-) As indicated in the caption to the springbok picture, pronk is used in English for critters jumping about showing off - that's from a related word in Afrikaans. The closest English cognate that the internet showed me in a cursory search is prance, which someone cites in relation to that verb. Otherwise, it seems to be yet another word found in some Germanic languages that either has no English relatives or had some, but they've gotten lost. I don't find Prachtstillleben on de.wikipedia, rather to my surprise, but I once intended to translate de:Prachtmantel. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=prance ... "of unknown origin" ... Middle English pranken "to show off," ...  Middle Dutch pronken "to strut, parade" (see prank) ... Danish dialectal prandse "to go in a stately manner." ...
 * http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=prank ... "of uncertain origin"  ... obsolete verb prank "decorate, dress up" (mid-15c.) ... Middle Low German prank "display" (compare also Dutch pronken, German prunken "to make a show, to strut" ...
 * http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pretty ... "of unknown origin" ... Old English prættig (West Saxon)... "cunning, skillful, artful, wily, astute," ... Proto-Germanic *pratt- (cognates: Old Norse prettr "a trick," ... Dutch pret "trick, joke," ...),
 * Although I find wiktionary to be ludicrously hostile, one thing about wikipedia, is that if we do finally get it done properly, a few centuries from now there will be no questions about the etymology of words like Modern English 'smartphone' (cognate SingularityHivemindSpeak "0x374C66"), because it will all be in the edit-history of the 'pedia. Always drives me nuts when I see things like uncertain-origin-blah-blah-blah.
 * WP:OR suggests that prank was a verb meaning 'to make showy/ornate/decorated' (cf Just Married) ... which by the 1500s had become a 'trick' ... whereas Old Norse prettr was 'a trick' but then eventually became an adjective pretty meaning 'to be decorative/ornate/showy'. Similarly, prancing is to behave in a showy manner, and them thar gazells pronking seems to be a nice combination of 'trick' as well as 'good looking' as well as 'showy'.  :-)
 * p.s. I have a dream, that one day the WMF will stop wasting donation bucks on piddly PR crap, and hire some top-notch corporate shark lawyers who will perform a hostile takeover of Oxford University Press so we can CC-BY-SA the whole OED. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Pssst
You have pinged out again. Oh well, I can go wrestle with the English Heritage database. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

... and again :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

... ? Yngvadottir (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

... DDOS attacks on the Freenode servers seem to have ended. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

A cigar for you
And to answer your question, yes the signpost does do interviews. I was planning on making one for the newly elected committee members once the election ends. GamerPro64 03:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Entry on my talk page
Hi: I just noticed your entry, asking about help reviewing an article on ICC. I'm not sure if that is still an issue for you. They're not expensive to join either. Frankly, I also prefer to deal with folks who identify themselves, rather than an IP address. Cool pic of Asterix and Obelix! --Achim (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Achim, thanks for responding. There is no article on the ICC just yet, although we have some articles on the predecessor-organizations, and on the main "product" of the group the International Building Code.  As far as identification, I will remain an IP for reasons unrelated to the construction industry.  However, in my travels across the 'pedia, I serendipitously ran into some folks who are identifiable by name/etc, specifically User:Wscribner and her boss User:Dtompos, who will be delighted to make your acquaintance.  I'm trying to help them source Draft:NTA_(company), which is their mid-sized firm which provides flammability testing, and is also involved in specifying Structural Insulated Panel infrastructure, and a few other things.  Their firm NTA is quasi-financially related to ICC, via some of the subsidiaries thereof.  If you have time to help them learn how to navigate wikipedia's rocky shoals, I would appreciate a hand.  They are relative beginners to wikipedia, and what I know about the construction-testing-industry... well, writing this paragraph plumbed the depth of my expertise.  :-)      Since you know about wikipedia *and* about the industry, we would appreciate your guidance.  Let me know if any of this sounds appealing, or if not, please suggest something that would satisfy.  p.s.  The pictures are not mine, but your compliments are appreciated -- in fact I have "hired" a usertalk interior-decorator person, who is busy revamping my wiki-aesthetics. ( If you'd like your usertalk to undergo a similar treatment, I can ping User:Hafspajen, but I warn you, they are a bit of a strong-headed artistic type ;-)       Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oy! Just had a quick look at these two cats and the proposed for deletion article on their company. I have done a lot of products and tests since the eighties but I have never heard of their company. Had a quick peek at their website but it rang no bells. So I can see where the criticism would come from, when the people who run the company want to put an article on their company that is not exactly a household name, on Wikipedia. They can mail me, if they're looking for input I suppose. But first, I suggest to start with this: Offhand, I'd start with a Commons category on their lab with sub-categories on their equipment. Also, if anybody has ever heard of them before, and has written an article, then that is the type of thing that helps in terms of third-party verification. Start on Commons, I'd say. Then, look for articles on products and product testing and you can see about maybe placing pictures of the test set-ups into those articles. As far as an article on ICC, well, I suggest joining it and attending meetings, including chapter meetings, so you know what it is you're talking about. It's not expensive. They're good people. Also, join ASTM and show up for their meetings and see about joining the special interest groups that bring products to bear. that's how you get your feet wet and begin to know what you're talking about, especially if you have no clue of contracting and how these items are tendered and installed in the field, which unions do the toil, and how that all fits together. I would abandon a propaganda article on the company unless and until I had a story to tell with a series of third-party verification. Even then, it's still better if a third party writes about it, rather than the head-honchos. That just rings all the wrong alarm bells and goes nowhere, even if it's interesting and useful. But the deletionists on here love to pounce on stuff like that.--Achim (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Achim, the NTA corp-article was originally created in 2010, and since it was not egregiously in violation, and unsuitable for speedy, yet basically an orphan-article, basically nobody worked on it for several years. This summer, an employee of NTA began improving the text, with help from WP:OTRS to get some tags removed, but of course, as more people worked on it, soon it was deleted.  Very hard on the gumption of the COI-encumbered folks, of course!  Deletion is the new punishment, for revealing your close connection; see the late-2014 WP:TOS change, and the various WP:AN/I and WP:COIN and User_talk:Jimbo_Wales threads on the general question of editing by employees, which has gotten more heated than ever post-orangemoody.
 * The company is of questionable wiki-notability, in terms of passing GNG as written; not everybody applies GNG-as-written, to corporation-articles, of course. In terms of sources, NTA has what you saw listed at the AfD, which is not quite enough, but they also *may* have more press-coverage, from the earlier decades of operation (hence "questionable wiki-notability" in my mind).  They are in a special niche of the construction industry, but one which touches a sizeable percentage of the market in North America it seems; effectively they help write the municipal building codes.  The C-level people in the company include an E.Tompos who is in charge of some sub-sub-committee of the ASTM (joint standards work with ANSI in some fashion), plus another D.Tompos the younger who is in charge of some sub-sub-committee of HUD (and kinda NFPA) at the federal level.  They also have a quasi-partnership-relationship with ICC, which is why I expect the three of you (or four if you count me the amateur) together could probably write International Code Council without much effort.
 * So. In order to get the article back into mainspace, finding additional in-depth coverage is obviously key, either old offline sources stuff, or just waiting around in Draft:NTA_(company) for new press-coverage to appear.  I am quite sure that they haven't yet convincingly demonstrated WP:42, though they *have* certainly demonstrated WP:NOTEWORTHY-ness, and there ought to be a paragraph about the company in some article on wikipedia, but there is a dispute as to whether having a redirect would "reward" the company more than they "deserve" for their COI-encumbrance.
 * My personal stake in this stuff is vanishingly small; I've investigated local building codes on my own a few years ago, but as a resident slash citizen, not as a person in the industry. I'm just interested in solving the deletionism problem, and unfortunately, unless people are getting paid to be here, wikipedia is often not a very fun place in 2015 anymore!  Too bad really.  So I won't be joining ASTM or ICC, but as I understand it, the COI-encumbered people from Indiana are already members-in-good standing of both orgs.  But at present, they both are feeling poorly treated by the unfairness of wikipedia's enforcement roller-coaster, where different standards apply to each article, and to each wikipedian, seemingly.  See user_talk:wscribner, which is the lady who I've been teaching to become a wikipedian, right up until the AfD proceedings.  In any case, I'll pass along your kind offer to let them email you, and perhaps you will find out they are more famous than you realized in the manufactured and federally-certified housing niche, or perhaps your hunch is correct and it really is WP:NotJustYet for the NTA corporation-article.  p.s.. If I do end up attempting Draft:International Code Council on my lonesome, I will also let you know *that* so you can take a chainsaw to my errors.  ;-)       75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The deletionists, yes, my favourite people. I enjoy them as much as our fellow-homo sapiens who tag stuff, like "more references needed", but who cannot trouble themselves to look it up for themselves and then put it in where it belongs. So much easier to just attack other people's work, isn't it? Or how about the wonderful folks who disregard when a reference IS provided, pretend it does not exist, and then get buddies to kill good work on here, agreeing with them, so then multiple wonderful people can all pretend that references provided don't exist. And all of that is made possible by the lovely policy of anonymity. I suspect in your case, you probably run on your IP address because you tangled with some of these wonderful and similarly anonymous folks on here and would otherwise not be able to contribute anything at all?--Achim (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In this specific case, the NTA article, the problem is not deletionism per se. In particular, DGG and John from Idegon and Amatulic don't qualify as deletionists, in my book at least.  The actions they took on NTA_(company) were all not merely within the letter of the wiki-rules, but fully proper and wiki-honourable and all that.  NTA does not pass GNG, with the refs presently known, so having a dedicated article is certainly questionable (depending on whether one believes more sources are likely to exist).  It is WP:NOTEWORTHY, probably, although where to make note of NTA, is difficult since we have so few articles about their industry.
 * But yes, generally speaking it is much easier to knock down a stack of blocks, than to build it up, and indeed that is what Wscribner complains about in her comment about being disappointed, that the end-game seems to be that inclusionists (in the vague broadly construed sense of 'people who want more material to be included on-wiki') have to do all the work, whilst deletionists (in the vague broadly construed 'people who delete stuff' sense rather than the more accusatory sense) merely have to switch fingers from time to time, when they get tired of hammering that delete-button. :-)      But this tension is how wikipedia works, it seems, in a psychological good-cop-bad-cop series of iterations:  we should include the wiki-reliable sources, but we also should delete the sources which are not.  We should include wiki-neutral prose backed by said wiki-reliable sources, but we also should delete adverts/falsehoods/puffery/etc.
 * So at the end of the day, although I agree with the general gist of your comment, that it would be WP:NICE if wikipedians were more intent on promoting kindness, which is to say, actually *helping* an inclusionist like Wscribner, who although COI-encumbered isn't a spammer but merely a beginner, which is to say not just 'helping' her by deleting non-policy-compliant stuff and 'helping' her by tagging violations and 'helping' her leave wikipedia forever because it is too adversarial and harsh of a wiki-culture to stand it... but, you know, actually so to speak *helping* her, to determine which of her goals are compatible with wikipedia policy, and to achieve them thar goals. Back in the day, this kindness-orientation was pretty common; a new beginning editor would appear, and start making beginner-type mistakes, and some wikipedian with more experience would teach them the ropes, help them fix what they goofed up, and create another wikipedian in the process, who in turn, might go on to do the same thing, creating other wikipedians themselves, in the future.  Nowadays, it is vanishingly uncommon:  beginner-type mistakes result in reverts, templates, warnings, and sanctions.  Everybody is "too busy" for helpful kindness, because there are not enough wikipedians... hmmmm... maybe there is some connection, between the dearth of helpful kindness, and the dearth of available wikipedians, which leads to even less time available for helpful kindness?  Sigh.  Probably we cannot solve this larger problem, by working on NTA and with Wscribner, of course!  :-)
 * But no, on the other matter, your worries about my own editing proclivities are misplaced, I'm neither a banned nor blocked user, and not particularly scarred by wiki-battles long in the past. I've always been an anon editor, mostly of the mainspace-and-edit-summaries-only type, for many years.  Nowadays I'm more of a wikiPrincess than a wikiDragon, doing a bunch of stuff in talkspace, trying to fix up the harsh wiki-culture, so myself and the rest of us can go back to the good old days when the 'pedia was filled with nice kind folks, and the Great Jimbo road around on his pet dinosaur.  ;-)      The reason I stubbornly remain an anon, is to widen the bell curve... as you know, the vast majority of anons have very few edits, the strict majority of anons are vandals, and a non-negligible percentage of anons are socks (intentional or unintentional), but I've never done any of that stuff and am here for the duration.  Which often confuses people, leading to carefully-phrased questions about my reasons for being an anon.  :-)      Anyways, in a nutshell I'm serious about anyone-can-edit, and want to see it continue to be the case, not just in theory but in practice (at AfD as well as AfC as well as mainspace proper).  If you follow any WP:ARBCOM related stuff, you probably know that there is a growing trend of applying "no anons allowed" signs on all the 'controversial' articles ... not just as a temporary preventative page-protection that any admin can apply and any admin can remove, but as a final and permanent draconian way to "fix" disruption.  Not good!
 * I have left a long note of cautious encouragement for Wscribner, on her User_talk:Wscribner. We shall see if she is interested in continuing onwards, and becoming a wikipedian despite the hurdles and challenges that entails.  I asked if she would drop you an email, so you and her can converse about the trials and tribulations of modern wikipedia, plus give some consideration to whether NTA is 'significant' enough that the spirit of WP:42 might be satisfied.  Appreciate your assistance, however this particular question turns out.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the question of whether I am a deletionist, it's there on my user page. We precisionists are often mistaken for deletionists. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Amatulić, I could tell right away you were not a deletionist, though we have not interacted before today, because you only tagged the article as being of *questionable*-notability-per-GNG. Which is it was at the time, and still is now (if one is like myself and thinks that offline sources may exist), although slightly improved thanks to your tag, which motivated the COI-encumbered folks.  But what kind of precisionist are you?  Do you think that WP:42, which by wiki-tradition is "three" in-depth 100% independent sources as the proof of wiki-notability, is broadly correct?  I.e. that some ambiguity in the written rules, leading to a reasoned discussion at AfD-or-articleTalkpage-or-similar, is the correct precisionist-policy.  Or do you wish that WP:GNG was unambiguously written, so that it would be crystal clear that e.g. only companies with at least N employees, or only companies with at least X annual revenues, were wiki-notable?
 * p.s. DGG and User:John_from_Idegon I've seen around before, and already knew that they are not deletionists either, although during the past year or two DGG has begun trending thataway with respect to COI-encumbered topics... unless it is HeinOnline or some other library-science-related corporation!  ;-)      75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, what kind? It depends... I'm not aware of a tradition that WP:42 requires three in-depth reliable sources, and I don't hold fast to such a rule myself. If a subject had in-depth coverage in the New York Times and the Washington Post, that isn't three sources, but it would be enough considering the sources. For a company that has been profiled only in narrow-interest trade publications, well, four would be preferable to three, but I'd say only narrow-interest trade publication coverage would be insufficient to establish notability. So yes, ambiguity in the written rules must by necessity lead to reasoned discussion. However, this just goes to show that WP:GNG could use a lot of tuning up to remove ambiguity. I don't believe it can ever be unambiguous but it could be brought closer to crystal-clarity than it is now. Employee count or revenue isn't a good measure of notability for companies. Independent reliable coverage is, but so might be influence or penetration even if it doesn't have coverage, but our guidelines don't cover that sort of thing. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Input cells in the Signpost table
Dear 75.108.94.227. Thank you for your answer. I think that the Hawkeye7 and the Hullabaloo Wolfowitz entries of my guide have been swapped in the Signpost table, or that the Hullabaloo Wolfowitz correction I made to my voters guide has been reported into the Hawkeye7 entry of the Signpost table. All the best. Pldx1 (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I also missed adding the "strong" modifier on your recommendation for Lfaraone.  I believe the Signpost article is more accurate now.  Thanks for your help improving it, much appreciated.  Let me know if you catch any other problems, with your eagle eye.  :-)       75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Busy page
You'd think for the actual sockmaster of OM  such a  pesky  nice IP, you wouldn't have time for allowing such  clutter  lovely photos  in your evil lair  on your talk page! <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;"> samtar { t } 08:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you are totally right! ;-)      You should see what I did to my 'decorator' Hafspajen, I left an unclosed   tag on *his* usertalk, so that all comments after mine were teensy and insignificant by comparison, muaahahahaaa!  That'll learn him for adding canine pictures here... mumble grumble....   And hey, on a more serious note, you wanna become a Signpost person too, Samtar?  Might be a nice switcheroo to be on the other side of the arb-candidacy-table, for a change.  Plus you just recently got a huge influx of knowledge about arb-stuff.  See section immediately above this one, on my busybuzzy usertalk.  The draft-article will 'officially' cover events through Wednesday the 25th, hence the name, but in practice actual writing usually *begins* circa the Wednesday (or Thursday) of the week in question, and actual publication happens on the weekend, so sometime late on Saturday (or sometime Sunday).  If you will have a couple hours to spare between now and early morning Saturday-the-28th, and want to help out, that would be WP:NICE as well as just plain ol' nice.  Now, in terms of your salary and perks and such, plus pension and dividends, as a former arb candidate, you are somewhat of a celebrity, so the Signpost is willing to pay you triple what we pay Gamer for their hard work on the editorial board, and quadruple what I get as a lowly copy-editor.  That could, theoretically, be the Big Bucks!  :-)     ( You still won't be getting as much as Hafspajen... artists charge an arm and a leg nowadays for usertalk interior decorating services... Hafs gets ten times as much as I pull in.  Artists always get paid the most, on wikipedia if not in real life. )  Lemme know if you want to give it a whirl, or just play it by ear, and if you have some spare cycles, feel free to WP:BEBOLD over at the draft-article, expanding and/or cleaning as necessary.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ooooh, that'd be interesting! I'll have a little look at the draft now - anything in particular I should do/edit/read? <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">Face-smile.svg samtar { t } 12:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So the obvious place to start, Samtar, is to read WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3 / WP:ARBPIA3 case-pages, and write up a circa-150-word summary of the outcome for WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-11-25/Arbitration_report section about that case. See the 142-word writeup of the E-cig case in the WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-11-18/Arbitration_report for the tone and style.  Because this is a touchy real-world topic, aim for maximum NPOV in reporting the arb-actions, is probably the best advice.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm a beginner at this too, but since this is my second Signpost article, that makes me twice as experienced as you. :-)      We are working on the ArbRpt, which is a regular column about arb-decisions and AE stuff, so you can skim backwards to the previous Signpost columns to see what the style is like, and what is covered.


 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-11-25/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-11-18/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-11-11/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-11-04/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-28/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-21/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-14/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-07/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-30/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-23/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-16/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-09/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-02/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-08-26/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-08-19/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-08-12/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-08-05/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-07-29/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-07-22/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-07-15/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-07-08/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-07-01/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-06-24/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-06-17/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-06-10/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-06-03/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-05-27/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-05-20/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-05-13/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-05-06/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-29/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-22/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-15/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-08/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-01/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-25/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-18/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-11/Arbitration_report
 * WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-04/Arbitration_report


 * My understanding is that right now the ArbReport focus is on writing a fairly brief, fun-to-read piece that hits the major highlights in 500 words or less. Difficult, since arb-cases are not that fun, and are often seriously complex.  Mainly the ArbReport talks about the case-acceptances and the final-decisions, as opposed to giving blow-by-blow coverage of the evidence-phases and the filing-statements and such.  Mid-level overview, we assume the readership knows what arbcom *does* and what an arb-case *is* but we don't assume they are following the arb-case-pages, but try to summarize the stuff with long-term-impact.  Trailing indicator, kinda like mainspace, in other words.  The election-coverage is more as-it-happens, of course, since it only happens once a year.  Ping Gamer, in case they want to give specific instructions.  Signpost has some guideline-pages as well, click on WP:SIGNPOST and then look for the newsroom pages which cover which editorial people are in charge of what columns/topics, they have some style-guide pages and soem collaboration-pages and the details of how the editorial board publishes stuff using their toolserver script, most of which we don't need to worry about, so long as we get our fairly-polished-and-complete draft finished by friday evening or first thing saturday morning.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think the most important thing to do when writing these reports is to make it understandable to people who aren't normal readers or knowledgeable of Arbitration. In terms of this recently closed case, one of its remedies includes implementing the 500/30 rule, a rule that was first created for the GamerGate articles. That's something important to let readers know. GamerPro64  18:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've pasted in the raw remedy, maybe Samtar or Ryk72 or myself will get around to messing with turning that into something more readable. And giving the backstory about the previous arb-cases, would be nice.  This case is especially complex, because it involves a bunch of different fundamental issues:
 * WP:NPA generally, and whether NPA in response to WP:BAIT is equally-actionable to unprovoked NPA (cf the "Super Mario problem" ... is NPA by an admin treated differently from NPA by an anon)
 * whether WP:ACTIVIST who are WP:CPUSH are either 1) helpful to achieving WP:NPOV balance or 2) WP:NOTHERE, and if the latter, whether it is actionable or not (e.g. as WP:BATTLE)
 * whether anyone-can-edit is purely equivalent to anyone-can-sock, and indeed, whether in controversial topic-areas (esp. w/ real-world proxy-wiki-factions engaged in wiki-battle like PIA and GamerGate), whether anyone-can-edit is even plausible (arbcom remedy specifically cites IvanVector that, because anyone-can-edit permits socking and SPAs, therefore more experienced wikipedians are driven away, and thus controversial articles aren't anyone-can-edit because the socks && SPAs drive off the experienced editors... cf WP:RANDY... though of course this leads to the cognitive dissonance of the remedy, which specifically prevents almost everyone from editing... in order to make it easier for anyone to edit :-)
 * the long-standing problem that NPOV is basically implemented in practice by editors finding WP:SOURCES about the topic, and then summarizing the bulk of those sources via nose-counting, after eliminating all the fbook/forum/utoob/etc material that is not nominally wiki-reliable, but that in controversial topic-areas (and *especially* in controversial topic-areas where there are oodles and oodles of nominally wiki-reliable sources saying all KINDS of wild stuff), instead of a collaborative effort to find all the WP:SOURCES and then collaboratively write wiki-neutral prose that reflects what said sources actually say, giving due weight to the arguments based on prevalence and status and such via hard analysis of the available body of literature, instead what ends up happening is two equally problematic variants of attrition warfare: first, and most obviously, wiki-factional editors try to drive away their content-opponents (see NPA above... as well as the blocks/t-bans/site-bans/etc via drama-boards broadly construed and arbcom doubly-especially), but second and at least as bad, beyond attrition warfare over who is permitted to edit the article(s) which are controversial, there is also attrition warfare over which nominally-RS material is considered "truly" reliable, leading to edit-warring and 'revert ninjas' to quote one evidence-contrib, that get rid of entire publishers en masse
 * the generic problem of people with axes to grind, who are also long-haul wikipedians with strong knowledge of the WP:PAG, using/mis-using/abusing the rules of 'pedia as a way to grind them thar axes. Blatant disruption from brand new accounts is easily dealt with:  revert for unsourced controversial change, warn then block for NPA, revert-block-ignore for repetitive evasion, noticeboard for 3RR or similar behavioral violation (or 1RR and DS for the de-militarized zone of the PIA articles), and don't worry much about NPOV and RANDY and such... those are longer-term troubles.  Can the same procedures work, for subtle persistent long-term efforts, when experienced editors are involved, and when the sourcing is questionable rather than absent, the change is slightly disputed rather than outright not-an-improvement, the personal attacks are either couched in civility or only consist of snark which carefully stays below the unwritten blatancy-threshold, no illegitimate socking is involved but instead a persistency borne of strongly caring, and the noticeboard dramahz are ongoing and seemingly interminable?


 * Samtar, for the signpost, please write up the answer to all these questions above, 75 words or less, plus summarize which side is correct in the real-world Israeli-Palestinian dispute and present your ijitproof practical peace-plan, also 75 words or less. ;-)      Probably the Signpost article will have to defer actual *solutions* to these types of issues (on-wiki and off-wiki) into the future, realistically speaking.  But I think we should at least mention some of the long-standing problems, which happened to manifest themselves in this particular arb-case, even if only in the form of a sentence or so, "During the evidence-phase several broad issues were mentioned including... [list of CSV major bones of contention with links to relevant PAG and relevant evidence-diff]"  75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comeback to say hello. Hafspajen (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice pic. I'm tripling your salary again!  :-)      Very truly yours, with a smidge of delight served on the side, shaken not stirred, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OH, thank you thank you.Hafspajen (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)



Dat drama - a rant
Though seriously, what is it with WP:ANI? I get that sometimes it's the only way to sort things, but some editors (not naming names) seem to live there - I've been having a discussion with an rather prickly editor who I've now found throws their 2c into every thread... sheesh -- samtar whisper 18:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
For your research, time, and response to the ACE template discussion. I will follow through on the links, and continue to value the input. — Ched : ?  08:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

What does the term "bangvote" mean? — Ched : ?  15:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:BANGVOTE aka WP:!VOTE. I'm actually surprised the former is  was a redlink!  :-)      In the case of arbcom elections, it is somewhat untrue to call it a WP:NOTVOTE, since the results *are* calculated by counting noses in supports-divided-by-sum-of-supports-and-opposes fashion with no leeway for the scrutineers to elide non-policy-backed bangvotes.  But I still like to call arbcom-election-proceedings bangvoting, since it is "not voting" when compared to e.g. real world political elections.  p.s. If your question was about the "bang" portion, that is programmer-speak for the exclamation-mark, see Jargon File for the putative origin of such cutesy terminology (e.g. the asterisk is 'splat' in certain circles).  Specifically see sense one at http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/B/bang.html  75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Mwuahahah I created WP:BANGVOTE, now you look crazy for suggesting it was a red link! Для Родины! -- samtar whisper 16:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In Soviet Russia, arbcom bangvotes you! :-)      Thanks, my friend.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * :-D Thanks folks — Ched : ?  16:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Endorsements for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 with bullet points grouped by state of origin
Draft:Endorsements for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 with bullet points grouped by state of origin, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Endorsements for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 with bullet points grouped by state of origin and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Endorsements for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 with bullet points grouped by state of origin during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

ACE2015 exit poll answers from <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 14:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Filled out my survey. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 14:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, appreciated. You can see the rolling-results in WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-09/Arbitration_report (draft *begins* on the 9th, publication happens this weekend ... despite the name will be out the 12th or 13th), if you like. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

ACE2015 exit poll answers from jps (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Done. jps (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, also appreciated. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

ACE2015 exit poll answers from LaMona (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Done. Didn't answer all. LaMona (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

ACE2015 exit poll answers from JoJan (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I answered the quick and easy exit poll. JoJan (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

ACE2015 exit poll answers from Csisc (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I have submitted my answers to your Signpost questions in my talk page.

Yours Sincerely, --Csisc (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

ACE2015 exit poll answers from Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
All set. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Mandy, it's blowing!!!

 * HI!! Hihi! Good bye! (A classic), see North's page. Hafspajen (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * MEEE?? Brutal? I am crying. We now can be proud, and chill out now, it's not blowing any more. Just be happy with the hard work. And hope and glory. Hafspajen (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You are a delightful person, except when you are sending me and agent nejapsfaH out on some kind of a Mission!  Then  you turn from happy-nice-polite scandinavian artist-type, into Vicious Viking Va... Vu... oh crap, don't know any more good words that start with V.  ...Nevermind that!  Brutal indeed, vicious even!!11!! Think of all the dangerous wiki-tasks you have handed out!  "Agent nejapsfaH -- take out that copyvio!"  (pow zap)  "Agent nejapsfaH -- somebody has sent in the WP:PEACOCK, time to cold cock it!!"  (boom zing)  "Agent nejapsfaH -- put some nice pictures on that page, stat!"  (err...)  Actually that last task is not so brutal and vicious.  But the exception proves the rule, don't distract me, there is a WP:POINT to all this silly stuff, I'm sure.  ;-)      75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WHAT Viking Expansion? Mandy, You are awfull, but never mind, I like you anyway. Yes, agent nejapsfaH  is flying all over the continent on different assessments right now. Do you think Donald Truph will be the next president? He might be... Hafspajen (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What 's happening here |Mandy? This page is so short that it is scary. Hafspajen (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Something to watch while relaxing: The drama fever. Hafspajen (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

== ACE2015 exit poll answers from <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  16:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC) ==

Exit poll completed. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  16:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

ACE2015 exit poll answers from Corinne (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Replied to poll questions. Corinne (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

ACE2015 exit poll answers from Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Exit poll questionnaire has been answered. Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

== ACE2015 exit poll answers from 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 19:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC) ==

Filled mine. I decided not to participate in the exit poll. Thanks! - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 19:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem whatsoever. Thank you anyways.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

ACE2015 exit poll answers from Deor (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I've declined to answer the questions (save for Q#0). Deor (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Polls so far
Well I'm starting to notice this exit poll was a terrible idea. GamerPro64 15:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh? Are you getting emails that say as much?  Or are you having technical difficulties of some type?  I'm slowly plowing through the on-wiki results, on this end.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Check my talk page. GamerPro64  15:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi 75.108.94.227, since I'm told pinging is impossible for IP addresses, yes please see GP's talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am there. Have been since they asked me to peek, just kept edit-conflicting, actually.  :-)      And yeah, impossible to ping anons.  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

We're in deep now. The Arbitrators have been announced. Now we really have something to write about. GamerPro64 19:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Scrutineers on the ball this year! :-)     Doing rolling results must have helped speed things up, I was expecting the finalization to take at least another week.  Are you wanting to do quick interviews with the new arbs, for this weekend's piece being published Dec ~12th?  Or ping them about some interview-questions now, but then publish in the "2015-12-16" signpost ArbReport to be published Dec ~19th?  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We should probably let our EiC know first. is it okay if we do interviews on the newly elected Arbitrators.  GamerPro64  20:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea. And since results are posted, I assume it is truly finalized... but I see only two of the three scrutineers is listed in the certifying-area ... are all three required, for the results to be considered bulletproof?  Or is it two-out-of-three?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

ACE2015 exit poll answers from P.T. Aufrette (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Answered, mostly just to say I don't believe in numeric metrics and thresholds. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

ACE2015 exit poll answers from Mirokado (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
what the heading says! Mirokado (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

ACE2015 exit poll answers from starship.paint ~ KO   01:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Did it on user talk. starship.paint ~  KO   01:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

ACE2015 exit poll answers from The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I also let GamerPro64 know, although I didn't do it by email. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

ACE2015 exit poll answers from maclean (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Responded, as requested. maclean (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

ACE2015 exit poll answers from Elias  Z   07:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Elias   Z   07:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

ACE2015 exit poll answers from -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Short answers on my talk page. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

ACE2015 exit poll answers from Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
All done and ready, on my talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

ACE2015 exit poll answers from prat (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
All done at my talk page. prat (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

ACE2015 exit poll answers from Jd2718 (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I answered. Jd2718 (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Pinggggg
Alive? Yngvadottir (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

and more pinging Yngvadottir (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

75108, I hardly knew ye
Such a sad day. We've lost a great Wiki-editor. May the force be with you. :-( I hope to get to know your new incarnation, whatever its digits may be. Ron Schnell 22:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not lost, I'm just busy. See previous talkpage message.  :-)      Though I believe Samtar is in the wrong country, and their "greeting" is prolly just a KGB trick to reinstate the USSR as a superpower!  Even when the IP rotates, I still won't be lost, I'll just be temporarily hidden, as you well know, until discovered (or not discovered... in my experience usually the latter).  Think of my existence as a scavenger hunt, or if you are into that sort of thing, a hidden easter egg.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comrade! Let us be joining of the hands to celebrate great day where dear leader Putin did slay the capitalist leader "Santa Claws" Merry Christmas all :) -- samtar whisper 12:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, happy day! Come on IRC at some point. Ron Schnell 01:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently missed you on IRC, curses. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ... and you got a reply but there's now been an AN/I report and another block. Oh, BTW, the Arbcom case was closed. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Wherever you are. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

ping
While we wait for the ping functionality to work with unregistered editors, I'll just let you know I have mentioned you in this discussion. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

A very merry Yuletide
<div style="; float: left; margin-top: 3px; background-color: #DC143C; border: 1px solid #8888aa; padding: 10px; width: 600px; clear: both;"> <div style="; border-style:solid; border-color:#D2B48C; background-color:#006400; border-width:5px; text-align:left; vertical-align;top; padding:18px;" class="plainlinks"> Wishing you twelve nights and days of warmth, happiness and conviviality this Midwinter. Yngvadottir (talk)

hi,

i have no idea why you sent the note about my being fan/critic. i quit editing the Flitfire article in sept 2015 due to constant harassment by other wiki members/editors.

i used to support wiki, now i'm just a user and no longer contribute money or contribute to articles.

and stefan2 was/is stalking my articles. most editors seem to be men who appear threatened by a woman contributor.

i just don't need it.

best to you rosa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubgirl4444 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)