User talk:Avanu/Archive 2

What's next?
Even if you succeed at rewording the template, what will happen then? Do you think that changing a few words on the rescue template will cause editors like Dream Focus to completely change their behavior? The editors who abuse the system will continue abusing the system, despite the semantic variations of their template. If you really want to make a change, then nominate the template for deletion. The template is unnecessary to begin with, "rescuing" an article is not a group activity. And, the template is a clear violation of WP:CANVAS policy. Chances are, the template won't get deleted just because of the political clout the ARS has here, but it could increase scrutiny on certain members of the group and force modest improvements that way. &mdash;SW&mdash; confess 18:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Even modest improvements are still improvements. And although it might not cause editors like DreamFocus to behave differently, it certainly doesn't hurt to get more people on board with the idea that Wikipedia is a community effort. Actually what surprises me most is how little the rescue tag is actually used. I notice that a few editors seem to use it all the time, but it is only those few.  Occasionally just a random person might, but I think most of the community is simply content to wrangle it out within the AfD process, without pulling out a special tag. -- Avanu (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My first experience with the template was when it was recommended to me by an admin after I'd spent some hours researching and citing an AfD candidate and the page was deleted before I could save my work. Template:Rescue works much like the usage of in the speedy deletion process. A potential closing admin might see the recent template application and hold off on closure while pagespace work continues. This seems the purpose for which the tag is designed. I'm not sure I've ever applied the tag myself, but notifying those involved with the process seems an appropriate meta-purpose. BusterD (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be surprised if closing admins did that. If the article has been improved in a way that addresses issues raised, that would of course be taken into account, but I don't think anyone has a problem with that.  But the mere presence of a tag would not impact the result.  And if it did it should be easy to overturn at DRV. Rlendog (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be disappointed if a potential closing admin just ignored measurable ongoing improvement in progress at the moment of intended closure, especially if the improving editor (in good standing) had signaled intention to improve by recently so stating in process, on the talk page, or in pagespace by template application. If I were the improving editor in such a case, I'd ask the closing admin to reopen for a brief period so I could demonstrate my intention to make the pagespace meet standards for inclusion and notability. BusterD (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's when you ask the admin to WP:USERFY it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Totally agree if the process was going to take more than a few hours. BusterD (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would support taking this discussion to a forum not dominated by ARS members to get a clearer picture of consensus. I expect some of these editors opposed to a change would call this forum shopping, but considering the perhaps unfair advantage the squad has to muster consensus, some balancing step might be taken. Let's see if we can develop some language or procedure which can move our mutual concerns forward before we proceed. BusterD public (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll begin with an observation. The Rescue template has a couple of things in common with the Prod template. They both serve roles in deletion process. Any editor can apply the templates. The templates may have effects which are dramatic and complex to undo. Why not instead of "tagged for rescue", the template language reads "proposed for rescue"? Otherwise template language stays the same. The instructions could be modified to include something like: "Any editor can remove this template if the template user has failed to complete the application within 24 hours (that is, take part in pagespace improvement)." BusterD (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ARS response to that suggestion would be that the user who applies the template isn't responsible for improving the article. They are simply notifying other users that they believe this article to be improvable beyond the threshold for deletion. When in reality, the unspoken truth is that many users (not all) who apply the template are just looking for keep votes. &mdash;SW&mdash; confabulate 20:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that's the response I've read when ARS is so challenged, but that contradicts the instructions for their own project's template. So if that's the consensus response, a change is absolutely necessary, either in the template wording, the (bold faced) instructional wording, or in a range of acceptable actions if the template is so misused. BusterD (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if I were able to improve the article, I'd probably just do it myself instead of tagging. I rarely (if ever) put the template on myself, but can easily see cases (a female scriptwriter in the 20s-50s, can't remember her name offhand (found her)) where I might tag it because I didn't have access to offline references that I was convinced must exist because of the way she was referred to in the few online references I found.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for joining this conversation in such a civil way, SarekOfVulcan. We're just talking here, not making any recommendations, but your input is vital and most welcome. BusterD (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The real problem here is that the notion of ARS's idealized goal is not compatible with human nature. The ideal goal of ARS is to identify articles which have been nominated for deletion, and come together as a team to improve the articles, such that they don't get deleted.  If this is all the ARS did, they would have no detractors.  But when a group of like-minded people get together with a common goal, human nature causes them to stray from the ideal and attain their goal by any means necessary.  The ARS's true goal has become to prevent all articles from being deleted, except those which are utterly ridiculous or clearly vandalism.  One way to prevent articles from being deleted is to source them or otherwise improve them.  But there are many other ways, including manipulating the deletion discussions.  And any method which prevents the article from being deleted accomplishes the goal.  So, now that they have a "legal" means for attracting inclusionists to AfD's (despite however noble the genesis of the ARS and its template was), it will be abused and there will be canvassing.  It happens every day.  Trust me, I know.  For a period of at least 6 months, I visited every rescue-tagged AfD, and voted in probably 75% of them.  And if you do that, you eventually realize that the same cast of characters from the ARS are doing the same thing.  Just voting at AfD's, and rarely if ever improving the article.  Then that gets you thinking about how improving articles is not a group activity, and having this generalized beacon template is actually useless (if your goal is to improve articles).  I personally believe that the ARS can be fixed by either: (1) getting rid of the rescue template altogether, or (2) mandating that ARS members decline to vote at any rescue-tagged AfD's.  &mdash;SW&mdash; confess 20:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to distance myself from some of what User:Snottywong has said, although I value that editor's viewpoint. SW has encapsulated something this lengthy discussion has had me considering all week, before I decided to contribute: organizations sometimes evolve in a way which isn't in the general interest, and often not even in the interest of those who originally envisioned the organization. I'll give a brief example. I'm getting old enough that I'm occasionally getting solicitations for me to join AARP. I've done some reading and while AARP has an admirable purpose, some of the ideas for which they've lobbied seem wrongheaded to me. I think of the organization as an insurance lobby. That's not what they were founded to do, but pretty much, their entire schtick is reassure you that if you have insurance (and especially buy it through AARP) your retirement years will be peachy. This POV may or may not be correct, but I hold that's the appearance my reading has described. BusterD (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do like the suggestion that it has a time limit if improperly applied. ARS would be correct that tagger does not need to actually improve the article, but "please comment at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen. Your input should constructively lead the way for other editors to understand how this item can be improved to meet Wikipedia's policies and benefit our readers." In other words, create a 'rescue plan', but yes, technically no improvements to the article are needed. In my research, I am finding in nearly 50% (so far) of cases, people don't even create the rescue plan, they just tag the article and walk off. -- Avanu (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would estimate it at closer to 75-85%. My primary purpose in visiting every rescue-tagged AfD was to actually notify the AfD discussion that the article had been tagged for rescue, using the ARSnote template.  The times when I didn't have to notify the discussion (because the rescue-tagger had already done so in some form or another) were very few and far between, despite my frequent reminders on WT:ARS that their founding guidelines were being largely ignored.  It's just another chunk of evidence that rescue tagging is primarily about votestacking.  &mdash;SW&mdash; yak 04:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Section Move

 * I disagree with this move, both premature and discourteous. I'm not certain our discussion is yet ripe for nits to pick, and I believe this move short circuits the small amount of energy generated here. Further, it was just impolite to move discussion from user talk to project talk without notification, IMHO BusterD (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Having been told I was Edit Warring, and calling my efforts to include others in the discussion Canvassing, I moved it here in order to avoid a problem down the road. It wasn't my intent to cause a problem.  I've been reading the rules very closely after these issues were raised, and I am trying very hard to prevent anything from causing problems that distract from the actual issue here. -- Avanu (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Users are allowed to maintain their own talk space as they wish; it's not for me to tell you what to do. However, I participated in the discussion because it was NOT in project talk, subject to nitpicky distractions from already-decided editors. I'll deign not to further participate in the thread in the new location. I stand behind everything I wrote, but I'd rather have an intelligent conversation in a small room than a brawling conversation in a large one, especially in the concept phase. In your rush to do a good thing, you negatively affected my interest in continuing. BusterD (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you moved it back, I inserted a section to explain what transpired. BusterD (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

That Superb Energiser sock
Look at this edit and then look at the block that came 30 minutes later. Amazing how persistant he is. Right? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Err... wrong Petrie, lol
I'm afraid you left that tb notice on Talk:Flinders Petrie, the actual archaeologist's article talk (don't expect a reply from him, he doesn't have a head for computers (read the article, it's pretty funny and you'll get that joke)), not mine, lol. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, haha, my mistake... I'm a bit distracted and tired too. -- Avanu (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you click on my sig name by chance? It links to his article (whereas Say Shalom links to my talk ofc). I only found out about it when I clicked it two weeks ago, but haven't seen a need to change it yet. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 'ere we go, now it has a fancy new pipe. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 08:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Do we agree on this?
1. Some editors repeatedly choose to apply the Template:Rescue to pages currently facing deletion process, but fail to follow the primary template usage instructions, specifically either pagespace improvement or significant AfD discussion leadership involvement. BusterD (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, completely agree. My first attempt was to diffuse the rescue tag wording because it is being misused as such.  The alternative would be to modify the usage instructions to fall in line with its actual use, but that seems to make it even more canvas-y. -- Avanu (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

2. When other editors discover this practice, several assess this as a contradiction, and while a subset of these editors address the editor directly, another subset raise the issue on ARS talk or on template talk. BusterD (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the question is on #2, but it seems accurate. -- Avanu (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

3. If editors in this subset begin their discussion of template usage in the obvious place, template talk, they invariably find a discouraging range of replies, some arcane, like moving the talk to project space (to get more friendly eyes on the discussion), and/or boxing the discussion (as completed, sometimes prematurely) BusterD (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ? -- Avanu (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this not exactly what happened to you? I joined this discussion mostly because User:Snottywong felt compelled to unbox the discussion as closed (an action I heartily endorse). I hate it when folks try to close active discussions, though I understand that's not abnormal in certain admin forums. When one user asked "is there anybody besides you...?" I felt compelled to join the discussion. BusterD (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

4. During template talk or project talk the quality of engagement is poor, with many ARS contributors "rolling their eyes" about dealing with this sort of discussion again (canvassing/votefarming) BusterD (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but I am a pretty optimistic person. -- Avanu (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

5. At least one ARS member has said today this subject comes up again and again BusterD (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and seems a pretty strong indication that there is some problem that should be addressed, if unrelated editors independently come to the same conclusion (while the same cache of editors prevent change over the years). -- Avanu (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a few lines up from my first ARS talk discussion, Template:Rescue tagged is discussed (as garish and obtrusive). Clearly User:Benjiboi, a well-known and once well-liked editor inside ARS, shared some agreement with the principles we're outlining here (before he was banned for sockpuppetry last December--I didn't know that until just now). BusterD (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Going to sleep
Been working a lot lately, if you need me for something, I'll be back in a few hours, but hopefully its not too pressing. -- Avanu (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for Constructive Criticism about Zero Energy Design PLEASE
May I please ask you guys for some constructive assistance?

If you really want to make Wikipedia better, then I explicitly ask for your assistance. Is that too much to ask from self-appointed "editors"? Editors should be helpers - Not just deleters. A real editor makes suggestions for improvement.

How about if I enter the following?

Zero Energy Design is a Holistic System Integration Engineering Process developed in 1979. The work has been supported by the Oak Ridge National Laboratories, and the U.S. Department of Energy for over thirty years.

It only references an authoritative source (other than my own websites).

How can editors complain about a reference to work funded by U.S. government agencies?

How is that an advert ? ? ?

PLEASE BE SPECIFIC - How can I make it better ? Is there a conflict of interest in the recent deletions?

I AM trying hard to learn how to to accomodate the Wikipedia rules. Is there room in your exclusive CCA club? Zero Energy Design is a historical reference. The DOE and ORNL believe that there are lessons from the past that ARE valuable today.

The 2011 DOE Strategic Plan says that we should Deply the technology that we have. What motivation do you have for blocking the deployment of government-funded R&D information? Escientist (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (Talk page stalker). That reference seems to be just listing a presentation/workshop given by you personally, and does not appear to constitute any in-depth third-party coverage - the coverage itself is by you. What you need to establish notability for your own company/organization/project (or however you describe it) is multiple reliable sources that cover it in some depth (as described at WP:RS). And I really don't think this is it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You owe it to yourself and others to mention
this edit here. Making a temporary change is acceptable; disclose your action where you raised it before. Don't put yourself in the position of being seen to game archive parameters to keep a stale conversation active. Friendly advice, which you're welcome to disregard. IMHO, consensus has shifted some distance. Maybe not as far as you wished... BusterD (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I didn't set the archiving back to the 45 days and so many threads like it was before. Per "The automatic archiving of this discussion page was set for archiving minimum 1 thread, leaving minimum 1 thread, after 15 days. I have changed this to 10/5/45. __meco (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)"
 * I set it shorter to clear some of the threads, and set to 20 now because some people don't edit as often so I didn't want to prematurely remove a thread, but 45 days seems like a lot. Honestly the reason I didn't comment was twofold.  I really don't understand what I am changing completely.  The settings are weird and arcane I think.  So if I messed something up, I didn't want to immediately get blamed :)  Second, I got busy shortly after that and didn't have time to explain.
 * By the way, I agree with you that consensus seems to have shifted, mostly because we have gotten more voices of people who seem willing to acknowledge the issues that others have said rather than being so immediately dismissive. That alone is a very positive step.  I don't have a particular wish for where consensus should go.  If editors are willing to remove badly placed tags, I am less concerned with poor wording in the tag.  On the other hand, if abuse is rampant or just winked at, or just ignored, then the wording should change.  I am entirely fine with any outcome that sees people using this tool responsibly. -- Avanu (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well said. BusterD (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Specific_article_template_removal
I apologize, I missed your prompt response at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Criminal black man stereotype
Why should I seek additional sources? One source is enough. --85.160.232.181 (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * BLP and verifiability concerns. One source is *not* enough in this case. -- Avanu (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you saying? That article is not a biography of living person. --85.160.232.181 (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, 'BLP-type' concerns. You're dealing with the characterization of millions of people, both those who are negatively affected by this stereotype, as well as those who might be perceived as holding such a perspective. Verifiability and Reliable Sources are important to any article, but in an article like this one, it is especially important to get it right. -- Avanu (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Responded
I've responded to your inquiry at R.A.N.'s talk page; sorry for the delay. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum (neologism)
Please do not move this page pending the conclusion of the RfC at Talk:Santorum (neologism). 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, sorry, I just read your page-move comment. Are you seriously suggesting that the page needs an image of small-s santorum in order to satisfy your concerns? I could provide, but I'm suspicious that that was a pointy suggestion. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

While I completely disagree about whether there is any BLP issue with the article, you are the only person taking the other view that I have any respect for. If the BLP violations with the article were as egregious as the people supporting the move say they are (many of them admins) then they are all under the obligation to take action like you did without waiting for discussion. Active Banana    (bananaphone  00:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly BLP is the *only* reasonable consideration here as far as I can tell (except WP:Avoid_neologisms). I believe it meets all the qualifications to be considered as being under BLP policy since it is biographical, living person, and negative in nature.  The question is how much protection do we afford to a public figure, since this is clearly a word used as a political tool.  For that I can't specifically say.  I believe it needs to be presented differently rather than having Wikipedia essentially take sides by giving credence to it.  I would have the same attitude about things relating to either party, my edits should bear this out, as in my concerns at the Obama Birth Certificate article.  However, given the number of partisans on both sides, unfortunately things play out how they will. -- Avanu (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion convolutions
Hi, Avanu. I'm wondering whether your reply to my comments in this section (and Macwhiz's reply to your reply) shouldn't go below Sadads' and ActiveBanana's replies, since they also were directly addressing what I said and they replied first. It's not a big deal, but I think it might make the chronology of comments clearer in what is becoming yet another enormous page. Rivertorch (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not always big on chronology, and I think Wikipedia's formatting for forum-type discussion sucks a LOT. But if you feel the need to reorder certain things, I won't object.  I was replying to your comment and not to the one following. -- Avanu (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Other editors also were replying to my comment, and they got there first. As I said, however, I don't consider it a big deal—and I'm definitely not going to refactor. I agree with you about WP formatting, but until something better gets adopted, careful indentation usually does the trick. Rivertorch (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you realize, but just in case: you're currently at 3RR on that page. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And how are you calculating that? -- Avanu (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I gather you'd take the view that some of the edits in those three groups aren't reverts. That might work, or it might not (given the ongoing disagreements about whether it is a neologism or a campaign).  It's up to you (of course) as to whether it would make sense to make more edits there today.  cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose you can try and define it however you like, but simply coming up with a punative idea when we are simply batting ideas back and forth (see WP:BRD), seems a little short sighted. Part of the problem in Wikipedia is people who can't simply work together and compromise and work out better solutions. As it was written, it is a strong personal attack on a living person.  Honestly, it isn't encyclopedic, but at least it can be made better. -- Avanu (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove the rescue tag?
The lengthy discussion on the ARS talk page should've convinced you not to do that. You removed the Rescue tag from an AFD without any valid reason. There is no guideline saying you can remove the tag. And one editor has already gone in there and done a fairly good job of rescuing that article, by adding in more information to it. You don't need to enter in a lengthy discussion as to why you want help with an article, its just common sense, as the previous discussions should've made clear to you. Please stop your vandalism.  D r e a m Focus  11:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Dream, have you looked at the Yuman music history ? RJHall made one contribution to that article, and that was solely the addition of the rescue tag. Until Sarek removed it, we had a different paragraph in place that allowed for non-contribution removal of the rescue tag for almost 3 weeks now.
 * If the applying editor fails to follow the usage instructions above within 24 hours, any editor may remove this tag, however, in line with the spirit of improvement, the tag may be left in place if another editor provides the usage commentary instead.
 * The funny thing about this is that I tried to change it May 24, and Sarek reverted it back to the above language, so I thought this was a settled issue. RJHall also made no efforts to contribute to the AfD discussion.  So in line with the language above, I took out the tag.  This scenario is *exactly* the abuse people have been going on about for years.  Allowing the above language essentially takes away people's objections and solves the problems. -- Avanu (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't have to contribute to an article to tag it for Rescue. That has never been nor ever will be a requirement.  The only abuse I see is removing a request for help made by someone else.  And I don't recall ever seeing anything about removing something within 24 hours.  Where was that at?   D r e a m Focus  11:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been a requirement for years that you provide a rescue plan, but you guys keep insisting on ignoring that wording. -- Avanu (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Its a suggestion not a requirement, nor ever has been a requirement, nor ever will be one either.   D r e a m Focus  12:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Usage
If an article has been tagged for deletion (the Afd tag) and you feel it meets the guidelines for rescue then add below the AFD tag as shown in the example below

As part of this tag's use please comment at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen. Your input should constructively lead the way for other editors to understand how this item can be improved to meet Wikipedia's policies and benefit our readers.

Santorum talk page commentary
Hi, Avanu. I noticed you left this comment on the talk page at the santorum (neologism) article. You may wish to consult Wikipedia policies and guidelines on behavior and conduct and reconsider your statements. Specifically your choice of statements appear to run afoul of Wikipedia conduct policies No personal attacks and Civility and behavior guidelines Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and Etiquette. Gacurr (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That comment is uncalled for, retract it post haste or be taken to the appropriate admin board.  He  iro 05:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Gacurr (also Heiro now), there is a legitimate point to be made there, and I hope you're not simply being obtuse to make a point yourself. We have a page that many editors believe violates the BLP guidelines, yet we also have many editors who refuse to allow these concerns to be addressed.  My fellow editor, Macwhiz, believes that the page is not an attack article.  I believe it is, and since he is fine with calling people such names, according to WP:CIVIL and WP:Etiquette, there should be no problem.  Please indicate that you have read this reply, thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The page is a sourced article, and very different from you personally calling another editor fecal material and violating the WP:NPA rule. Last chance to retract or strike through.  He  iro 05:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * So if I am to understand you correctly, it is ok to call someone a grossly insulting term if I provide reliable sources who name-call, including a worldwide distribution of this ad hominem, but to do it on a minor scale, where one person who claims to not find it offensive, please see Macwhiz' comment:
 * One editor made the assertion that it was "an offensive slang term"; the assertion was challenged in the next reply, and that's the only mention of "slang term" in the discussion. Nothing in that discussion appears to set any precedent for santorum being "an offensive slang term" by administrator mandate, or even consensus; you can't have a consensus from a minority of one. For that matter, is it even kosher to assert that administrators have the authority to declare a word "an offensive slang term" and therefore forbidden in any context? Even if it were "an offensive slang term" in some official capacity, that's no bar to it being an article title: see WP:CENSOR. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So, please show me where I've offended Macwhiz, by his own statement in the comment immediately before mine in that Talk page discussion, he seems to argue that it is perfectly acceptable and even questions whether it could even be considered an "offensive slang term". -- Avanu (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted on the talk page and at ANI, your premise is faulty: it takes my statement out of context, and twists it to say something it does not. You then chose to use it as a platform for an ad hominem attack on the basis of "see how you like it."  It wasn't even phrased in those terms, e.g., "How would you like it if someone called you..."; it was presented as a straight-out statement of fact.  In doing this, you wound up damaging your own argument: you can't argue that it's inappropriate to call people such names, and then turn around and do so, claiming that it's just illustrating a point.  If it's inappropriate, it's inappropriate. I appreciate your note on my talk page saying that it wasn't personal, but I'm disturbed that you don't seem to realize that you phrased your comment in a way that could not help but be personal, as many other editors have pointed out. I feel certain from your comments that you don't actually understand my stance on the issue, and I feel like your personal feelings are clouding your judgement and preventing you from truly considering my point of view. While I'm always open to new ideas, it's hard to be persuaded by someone who doesn't seem to care to understand your own points to begin with. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  He  iro 05:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop attacking Hiero on ANI
Your comments are completely off base and constitute a personal attack.

Further along those lines and you'll be blocked to prevent it. You have been warned.

You can discuss the matter in a civil manner, including what flaws you find in his comments or logic, without insulting him. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How in the world am I insulting Heiro? Explain? -- Avanu (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * GWH, if you're going to threaten and editor with a block, at least provide some diffs and explain why you feel they are violations of policy. Cla68 (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Avanu knows precisely what the attack is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I have absolutely no idea what he is alluding to. If you know, please stop playing coy and just come out and say it, because this isn't clear at all. -- Avanu (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This commment here:
 *  I would ask you to focus on the encyclopedic/content concerns, rather than simply making this into a personal attack on me, Heiro. 
 * Hiero had made no such personal attack. His immediately previous comment was:
 * What I see so far is you at 3RR against 3 other editors, while a discussion has not been started yet at the talk page. 
 * There was no personal attack. There was nothing any reasonable person could accidentally or mistakenly construe as a personal attack.  Unjustifyably claiming that people are making personal attacks against you, i.e. are in broach of Wikipedia policy and potentially subject to warnings, sanctions, or blocks, is in itself an attack and a broach of policy.
 * You could have claimed "That was unfair" or "That was inaccurate". Saying that it was a personal attack was improper.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, that is really a huge stretch to call "making this into a personal attack on me" a personal attack on someone else. Since I didn't say it was yet a personal attack, I don't see how the logic holds that you are describing.  Also, rather than addressing the concerns I brought, Heiro immediately focused on my faults and problems. I would think any reasonable editor would recognize the difference between focusing on the request and focusing on the editor making the request. -- Avanu (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * By itself, standing alone, no reasonable administrator would take action other than warning you. Even in context of what you've done over the last day or so, it only warranted a warning.
 * With that said - you've pushed many, many buttons on many people over the last 24 hrs, some of them on policy issues related to the dispute, and some of them in the way you personally handled it, including hostile or attacking comments. The prior ANI thread for example, and the comment you retracted there.
 * Whether you want it or not, you have managed to have focused the attention of most of the 741-ish active administrators, and a few hundred non-administrators who are active at ANI, upon yourself.  The Arbitration committee finds it necessary to remind people that when they're in an arbitration case, they need to act upon their best behavior and no stir further controversy up or make further attacks.  The same is often said about ANI - we even have WP:BOOMERANG, an essay about people who unintentionally end up getting the short end of the attention garnered by ANI participation.
 * No, this particular thing wasn't blockable by itself. But nothing you're doing right now is "by itself".  The total picture is not good.
 * I have been patient enough for explaining things several times and in more depth with you. If you push more buttons tonight or tomorrow the admin who responds to those buttons may be less patient upon reviewing the total picture.
 * I heartily recommend non-controversial ways of expressing yourself for a few days to let things simmer down. This is ultimately for your own good.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * None of what I'm doing should be blocked. I'm working *WITH* others.  The problem begins when people who apparently love revenge or retribution get into the picture and sidetrack us.  Macwhiz and I had a great conversation, and I came to understand better where he was coming from, sadly, many of the people in the AN/I thread didn't even know how to deal with it.  When you have people who can't see beyond the end of their nose and their attitudes about justice, and when we can't simply look at the real points being made, we aren't getting anything but a lame bureaucracy.  Intelligent and mature adults should be able to have discussions like these without others having to feel like they need to police every sentence.  I am honestly glad that 741 admins are looking in on the discussion, if this is supposed to be some kind of scare tactic, I don't see why.  If you're a good admin, you'll see your job as shepherding, not just whacking people with a bunch of tools and scaring people into compliance, but teaching people how to be more productive.  If you see it some other way, I'm sorry.  But I'm here to get things done. -- Avanu (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment at ANI
Hi Avanu. I left a comment for you at the ANI discussion you initiated. Gacurr (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not a social network
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Santorum (neologism), you may be blocked from editing. Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social network. Wikipedia is not a place to socialize or do things that are not directly related to improving the encyclopedia. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. This message is not meant to discourage you from editing Wikipedia but rather to remind you that the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  02:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering that the image link posted was entirely on topic with the subject material, and was clearly marked for levity, I hardly see how a laugh is in opposition to friendly and AGF editing. The sad thing is that 1 silly link carries such ire among the crowd here.  I've been contributing in many other ways, and its beyond belief that seriousness is *always* called for; I would even venture to say that such an attitude is what leads to these heated discussions we see so many times.  So template me if you like, but if 1 link of humor is so threatening, I feel sorry for those of you who can't take a joke. -- Avanu (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, this is the link I posted, clearly with the word 'levity' indicated. http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/tron_costume_4.jpg -- Avanu (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You know I got an email from Encyclopedia Britannica just the other day asking to renew my membership. "Dear [My name], You’re already familiar with a Britannica Online Premium Membership - You remember how easy it is to get high-quality information from a single source, the confidence of using expert written content, and the efficiency of a secure, advertising-free environment." Now I'm of course not going to pay 47 USD to these guys for short useless articles, but look at the arrogance and snobbery in this message which is clearly meant to contrast with Wikipedia, and their focus on having things written by a hand-full of experts.
 * The nice thing about Wikipedia is regardless of how super serious some people get, we are still, for the most part, just amateur volunteers, not a small body of experts in their own fields. Now we should of course take this privilege seriously, but it does not mean we should not have fun doing so and take ourselves so seriously that we alienate other people.
 * Orange, if you chastise Avanu, who as he said, has contributed a good deal in many other areas, for posting a related picture for the sake of a little humour, you should also go to the ANI threads like the one on the Jacksonstackhouse or w/e his name is and give the same template to those (including admins) who linked to various things like hotel suites for the sake of humour. You should then make sure that in the future, any time something like this similar happens, you post the same template on the pages of the offenders.
 * You will see that such actions generate badwill and make the project less attractive. If someone posts a little image for the sake of humour that is related, don't go and warn them. Actions like this should be saved for purely disruptive behaviour. Then no one can argue that such a template was deserved. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 04:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Flinders. I was afraid no one in Wikipedia had a funny bone.  Maybe the picture and my quote were lame (personally when a friend who knew I was editing the Santorum article sent it, I thought his comment was hilarious and it led me to post it on the page), but lame or not, its sad that we're more than willing to snipe other editors and make snarky comments, so much that even a silly caption for an absurd photo can't even get a 'lol'. -- Avanu (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Re-adding content that is inappropriate to an article talk page is disruptive. From a content point of view the specific content was also problematic, though it is entirely inappropriate for another editor to have to point out content-based objections to posts that are a priori inappropriate, in order for them to stay removed. Avanu's contention at Chaser's talk page is false. Multiple editors informed her that Wikipedia is not a forum. Gacurr (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Lighten up. -- Avanu (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Gacurr, the fact is that the subject matter (from what I could gather this was related to the Santorum neologism thing), some foul anal discharge named after Rick Santorum, was where this incident took place. You expect people to be serious on that topic, when in much more serious and important topics, they are more merry and jolly and no real disruption is caused an the article gets improved. Things got heated (to an embarrassing point that rivals the fact that we have about 25 38 archive pages on Talk:Hot dog) in that page and someone was trying to lighten things up. There are certain rules you must always obey, like WP:NPA, and there others that you have to be careful with so you don't interpret them too broadly (like people did with WP:DUCK at one point in the Libyan Civil war article). WP:FORUM is one of those rules, especially given the silly times I have seen people invoke it. Also I'm getting confused, and this is not meant to insult Avanu, but given the gender neutrality in our language and the fact that I have never seen any definite identification, this makes it necessary to ask the question, which sex are you, Avanu? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 05:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mind being referred to with any gender pronoun honestly. I think it helps people to communicate to stick a 'he' or 'she' into sentences, but I'm not offended either way. -- Avanu (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. It is correct though that this whole thing started at the Santorum (neologism) page? My head is a bit loopy after an opthamologist's appointment (bloody eyedrops he gave me made everything look fuzzy). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 06:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Talking about edit warring...
If I didn't miscount you're past wp:3RR at Public image of Sarah Palin. Please keep this in mind if you don't want to get blocked.TMCk (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm about to file a report. You guys collectively have been reverting, and asked for "needs an attribution per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV", which I quickly found and provided, then was reverted with "That opinion should be attributed in text", which it already was (the editor didn't read), then I went and found 3 more sources for the editor since this apparently would not do, waited for a response.  A different editor simply said "it was quite clear what she was trying to say", but provided no sourcing. Then without addressing the Talk page as requested, an IP user comes along and reverts, to which I provided 6 *more* sources, and finally you, The Magnificent Clean-keeper.  The problem here is that you guys are all saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and that's about it.  Meanwhile, I've been out gathering sources and providing the material on the Talk page for discussion, which seems to be a one-sided effort. -- Avanu (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all I didn't just say "I don't like it". I gave quite a long rationale for my reverse in my editsummary so please re-read it. Secondly, you also should read wp:3RR to understand that if you file a report you will be the one ending up blocked for sure. You reverted 5 times in less than 24 h. That's editwarring and a breach of 3RR. So now you can take my advise or leave it but what I wrote is a fact that won't change in your favor.TMCk (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I took great pains to meet each request in turn. Others, including yourself, reverted again despite requests to discuss.  I was asked to provide sourcing, which I did.  More sourcing, which I did.  Finally, on my own initiative, I found even more sourcing.  A simple "This remark was seen as a gaffe" does nothing to explain WHY.  Our sources cover it, and therefore it ought to be included as a matter of providing a rationale to the reader other than the narrative that supposedly the media just doesn't like Palin.  Sources both conservative, liberal, and neutral say she was inarticulate, that's not mean or hateful or non-neutral, its simply a fact, and its why the media went on about this. It provides necessary context. -- Avanu (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Avanu, no matter how right or wrong you are, you were editwarring and unless there is a BLP vio involved you can't make more than 3 reverts within 24 hours (and even this is no entitlement). You really should keep this in mind for the future or you'll find yourself in trouble.TMCk (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And technically, a person can edit-war with just 1 edit also. That's why we are asked to use Talk pages.  You're right in saying I messed up, and I did.  So, yes, I'm not asking for an entitlement, that's why I reported myself, because its better to admit one is wrong right up front.  Personally, I hope others will go ahead and provide a little more substantive reason why we shouldn't have that specific bit.  In my mind, it is a critical part of understanding the entire episode. -- Avanu (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The important thing (for you) is that you understand how 3RR (and editwarring in general) works and I think you do. So there is nothing more to say but for you (and others) to reach a consensus for or against inclusion before just adding and/or removing it again after the protection expires. Best, TMCk (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Also thanks for being fairly considerate in the way you notified me.  Its appreciated. -- Avanu (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I'm in a bad mood today and that makes me be nice to people not involved in my personal "misery". It's a paradox :) TMCk (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. It makes quite a difference :) TMCk (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting how Self-Interest Affects Wikipedia Contributions
I'm currently working on two articles that seem to attract somewhat divergent crowds. In one about Santorum, I see that we have a lot of people arguing for keeping a relatively gross and unflattering term in place regarding a Republican ex-senator. In the other, which is about Sarah Palin, it seems the course is generally to keep mostly positive statements. Funny thing is, I'm seeing the same arguments in reverse from both groups of editors. Its just interesting to me how people's own interests influence their perspectives and contributions in Wikipedia and if you try to head toward the middle, you get often percieved by either as working for the 'enemy'. Well, just figured I'd mention it... off to edit some more. -- Avanu (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * When you say "groups of editors", I'm wondering in what "group" you've put me. If I would be free to write an article about Palin it certainly would end up as (mostly) a hitpiece and that aproach wouldn't fit with my recent edit to the named article, right? :)) TMCk (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * lol... well like I said, people also get perceived in certain ways, unfair or not. -- Avanu (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Very true and you shall never forget that ;) TMCk (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Public image of Sarah Palin
Hi Avanu, thanks for offering to stay away from the above for 72 hours (from the timestamp of this post just to be clear) so protection can be lifted. For future reference, you might want to take a look at Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation. Cheers, SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, did you mean the Talk page or the article page? -- Avanu (talk)
 * Looks like you changed it... sorry. -- Avanu (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration request - your comment
Hi, I hope you don't mind but I moved your comment in reply to Casliber into your own section. The section you posted in is only for arbiters to comment. As I understand, users reply to different people in their own section and there is no threaded discussion. please see. moved here - thanks Off2riorob (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed topic ban on article rescue. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs)
 * What happened here? Nil Einne (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weird. I was on my iPhone trying to edit that, seems like it decided to make everything messed up.  Its really hard to navigate around textarea boxes using the iPhone Safari interface.  I was about to fix that, but thank you for fixing that. -- Avanu (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Equine mortality
By the way, in case you didn't recognize the source of my "poem" from the other night... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN2U5wkhRWc :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I had no idea, I have had several friends tell me I must watch Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog, but I've never done that yet. This makes me see you in a whole new light. :)  Thanks for the link. -- Avanu (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you, Avanu, for this comment &mdash; especially with regard to all the disruption that has gone on at the page, weeks after I stopped editing it. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think they're being silly blaming you. From what I can tell, you worked hard on the article and its a bit unfair to put you in a position to take all the blame when there is a whole community here looking at it and editing it. -- Avanu (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm really appreciative of your kind words about my recent contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you so much! Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that there is still a war going on over that is just plain sad. No offence intended to Cirt as he did work hard on it, but really. This is a ridiculous thing to be fighting over. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 11:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Palin fallout
Hi,

A Wikimedia user named CutOffTies got irked with my Revere-cartoon, and now is systematically going about questioning and deleting many of my past photo contributions, like a policeman pulling me over for license plate not quite in the right position. About 20+ pictures are on the chopping block. So for this editing for donations project I'm doing (getting $$$ to Wikimedia if I write about indie artists -- WMF got a sizeable check which I personally mailed to them), it's all going backwards -- pictures of indie artists are about to be deleted unless I get an OTRS permission email for each one (I'm working on this). Such is life. Any ideas about how to cope with an irked Wikimedia Commons type?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum wording
is your fourth change to "sex-related" today. You might want to sit out for a while. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping you see that this is a great example of WP:BRD and not edit warring. We're all editing this and trying to get the wording perfect because it matters.  Accuracy and clarity are important, and lots of edits are going back and forth just fine.  No one is 'edit warring', and meanwhile we're discussing on the Talk page. You're an involved editor, so let others be involved and work this out and try not to hamper this progress. -- Avanu (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Avanu here, his contributions are constructive and fair on a tough subject which, unfortunately, is getting lots of attention.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 4 reverts in 24 hours so far. SarekOfVulcan (talk)  17:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Sarek, you've involved yourself by making an edit as well. I've reported all 4 of us at the AD/EW board for this. Also just noticed you used admin power to change your edit summary on that last edit. -- Avanu (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * BZZZZT! But thank you for playing.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol, ok... no idea what you meant. -- Avanu (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)