User talk:Dank/Archive 10

FYI
— Jake   Wartenberg  04:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, the project banner is causing the page to be categorised as an unassessed biography article. I tagged it for deletion as the corresponding user page was already deleted, apparently at your request. Regards. PC78 (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Deleted it, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

People-Centered Economic Development
This is a clear and blatant case of self promotion. Jeff Mowatt and his associate Terry Hall;man are using Wikipedia to self promote their "company" which goes by the same name. All references on the page created by Jeff Mowatt link back to self initiated and published articles. People Centered Economic Development (Ukraine) has no assets, not offices and no investments in Ukraine. It has no proved successes or direct involvement in any Economic development project in Ukraine. It exist in a virtual word of the internet. No independent verification or referees could be provided. Independent reviews have all come to the same conclusion. Terry Hallman the "director" of the company claims that he has c`lose associations with US president Bill Clinton and US Aid. US Aid deny any association with Mr Hallman Jeff Mowatt or their company. Mr Hallman was expelled from the UK as being an Economic migrant and has been living in Ukraine pretending he is a successful director of an international economic development company, using Wikipedia and other publications as a defacto authoristaion/verification of what is otherwise unverifable. I suggest you think again before you bring Wikiedia into disrepute.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.40.8 (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That talk page had been inserted into our category called Category:Wikipedia content policies. All I did was remove the template to take it out of that category; that talk page is not one of our content policies. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Citing sources
Re your note on the talk page, I think we do in fact now have agreement on citing newspapers for the current text, to include:


 * city of publication, if not included in name of newspaper
 * date you retrieved it if you read it on the Web (optional; if included, it can be commented out with )

so I wish you would select that version for your update.

Alarics (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Was there a version in August had that text, and also had other changes that stuck, but didn't have Ref.Prof's changes to the introduction that got reverted in September? - Dank (push to talk) 12:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Indentation fix
Dank you for fixing the numbering error I introduced in Requests_for_adminship/A_new_name_2008. I tried to fix it in previews but I didn't know the blank line was the culprit, so I left it to someone more knowledgeable (which turned out to be you). Also, sorry for the bad pun. -kotra (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. - Dank (push to talk) 19:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedily deleted article
I am working with another person in the Alamogordo, New Mexico article. We are working together, not fighting. I removed all of the red links. The other person put them back saying that they should be there. He said that all these red links could be articles. I was going to make some of them articles so that the red would disappear. I got them to turn to blue for a few minutes but that article about the resort is so commercial that it got turned to red again. Unfortunately, there's not a lot to write about it. I can see why it was deleted. I think it's reasonable now to remove the red link and make it unlinked. There is nothing for you to do. I hope Uncia won't get mad if I change the red link to unlinked black. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me know if I can help. - Dank (push to talk) 21:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Re. Enfermero
An administrator socalled Enfermero has invaded all the beginning articles I have authored on China and Japan and filled them with mostly unneeded tags. Please take an objective look.You can find her at my Ling Mengchu article and elsewhere. --Iwanafish (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please post your request at the Content noticeboard. Give links to Ling Mengchu and other articles where you can't figure out why the tags were placed.  (I can't figure out why those tags were placed on that article, either, it seems to have 5 references.) - Dank (push to talk) 01:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Slimpocket
Hi Dank, This new user page seems to be spam. Should it be tagged for speedy delete? Shine runner  (talk)   01:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, also used uw-softerblock on the username. - Dank (push to talk) 01:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help! Shine runner   (talk)   01:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Coach/apprentice
On second thought, it's not such a bad idea. If an RfA is within say the 65-80% range (or whatever) and a crat determines that the main objection was, say, CSD tagging, then the crat proposes a CSD mentor with a mandatory x-month review. Or some such thing. A bit more limited than the generalized mentor thing but I'm beginning to like your idea. Unbundling is probably the best proposal of all but it'll take a while and you'll get tons of grief, I think. The downside to a 2-RfA model is that the number of people willing to run may drop because who knows what real life commitments will show up.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Most of the supporters are expecting that we'll have more candidates out of a perception that it will be easier to pass, but as you point out, it's possible the numbers would actually go down. - Dank (push to talk) 22:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrapping up, moving on
[copied from WT:RFA ] "The discussion on pros and cons of "admin-lite" was considerably better than previous discussions, on all sides; we're confused on a much higher plane now :) I think it's safe to say that there's no consensus on a single proposal to proceed with at this time, but there hasn't been significant objection to the idea of unbundling [i.e. handing out separately] one or more admin tools (yet).  OTOH, I've got an objection: if you unbundle some buttons, many editors will see those buttons as desirable and divert time into getting them, leaving less time for critical tasks like deletion tagging.  If any other buttons get unbundled, my guess is it will be a net negative if we don't unbundle the delete button, too.  Two immediate problems there: User:MGodwin and others don't want non-admins to see deleted pages, and that's one of the most dangerous tools to unbundle. I initially thought those were stoppers, but I've asked some CSD people for advice and I'm getting good feedback. I don't want to divert attention from the recruitment drive [at WT:RFA], so I'll start writing up what I'm finding out on my talk page if anyone (including Hammer, and anyone in opposition) wants to put their two cents in. There are some technical problems that might turn out to be stoppers, and I don't want to waste people's time if that's the case. - Dank (push to talk) 10:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)"

Okay, is there any serious disagreement on any of those points? The problem is that User:MGodwin has said, and many agree, that letting non-admins see deleted pages would be a disaster. So if you buy my point that it will be a problem if we make any other admin userright available and don't make "delete" available, and you buy the idea that the delete button is a big deal and we have to be very careful with it, then we're talking about some kind of careful vetting discussion at WP:PERM, closed by a crat, involving a coach who's committed to review the deletion work. Of course it would be desirable (though not necessary for the trial run, and not absolutely necessary) for the guy/gal who just deleted a page to be able to check the deletion history and any previous deleted versions of the page they just deleted, and it's hard to see how MGodwin could object to that. A couple of people have told me that creating a userright to allow that would be possible, but not easy.

Comments welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 10:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Striking. SoWhy is very negative on this, and he has some points, but I still want to find something to unbundle that would actually help admins out and give people some kind of first step that seems attainable.  Another potentially dumb idea I just thought of is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Wrapping_up.2C_moving_on. - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Objections from SoWhy are not to be taken lightly, but I still see the unbundling idea as a positive as long as its understood it will be used strictly as part of coaching. Any way I agree its probably time to put our reform ideas on the back burner for a while and see how the recruitment campaign pans out. In the meantime I might work on the refining the case and maybe gather some basic stats about work queues.  I also think next time  we use the phrase  updating RFA as reform is less neutral and will have negative connotations for some folk.  FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Great ideas. Looking at where we can safely free up admin time, by encouraging non-admins, granting userrights or simplifying the work, seems like the next step to me too. - Dank (push to talk) 12:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I said I would try a summary of the conclusions at WT:RFA, but re-reading the discussions, I don't think we came to any conclusions ... but I don't think it's a simple matter of stopping because we were tired, either, I think there was consensus that there wasn't likely to be significant support for any one version of "admin-lite" ... perhaps because a variety of reasonable alternatives haven't been tried yet. - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

RfX questions are answered
I've responded to your questions you addressed at my RfX. Thanks for your support! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 20:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's helpful, and I'll stay tuned. - Dank (push to talk) 21:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Dank, thanks for showing your support! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 05:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

UAA
With User:Rspeer recent statements about UAA and checking out UAA, I feel that he has a problematic understanding of our policies. He has made it clear on his talk page that his objective is to "promote minorities" who are "abused" on Wikipedia. He has also made statements that an admin is not required to look at contribs of users reported at UAA as if contribs had nothing to do with UAA. I have collected a lot of evidence of problematic statements and behavior, and I have prepare an RfC/U. However, I would like your response before pursuing such as you have interacted with him often. I have talked to others offline who have unanimously been against him. However, your interactions have appeared as neutral, so I would appreciate your insight. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * His views are similar to the views of some of the folks who have been around for years at WT:U and UAA. He felt that one of IMatthew's answers assumed bad faith, and I didn't see that, I thought he was assuming good faith on the part of the person that made the report that it wasn't a spurious report, but on the other points, if you change the question in IMatthew's RFA to "Should this have been reported to UAA in the first place?", I think RSpeer is following policy, which makes sense, since he largely re-wrote the current version of WP:U. - Dank (push to talk) 00:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I hear, many of the changes to that are heavily disfavored. As you can see from his talk page, he has made it clear that he believes his duty is to protect minorities from the racism that is present in most users, and that racism is the reason why they nominate names. I find that very troubling, especially when such a user is altering our policies and the such. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The direction you're headed is to make a case at ANI, and I can't help you there, I'm weak in that area. I think it's a good idea, when possible, to shift the discussion away from whether one person acted badly to a general discussion about policy or guidelines.  I have disagreed with RSpeer a couple of times at WT:U, but he didn't come across as intransigent to me.  He and others will sometimes give less weight to quality control than I would like, but I think the burden is on me and others to do a better job making the case. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My views re participation at RfA
The juxtaposition of my oppose (Shark96z) and my comment "I notice you have never participated in an RfA, which I think is an excellent way to find out what is expected" may have implied I view RfA participation as required. That isn't my intention—indeed, just today I supported Mjroots despite no participation. However, I disagree with the sentiment expressed by some others that adminship is no big deal. I understand (I think) the origin of the sentiment, but passing requires a fairly solid knowledge of policy, and some familiarity with interpretations of particular interest to many admins. The responses re ban versus block and fair use were mine fields the candidate could have avoided with some experience at RfA. As someone who is credentialed based upon passing tests, I'm aware of the importance of teaching to the material not to the tests, so I'm aware that too much attention to RfA can be detrimental (I assume some of the opposition to coaching stems from this.) Anyway, I don't want you to think I'm making a big deal of this, but I knew only one other person named "Dank" in my life, and he was quite a character, so I jumped on this chance to say hello.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Was it online? I've used "Dank" online a long time.  I agree with you on all points, I only disagreed with the idea that RFA was itself part of the test, which is what I got from the other guy's "due diligence" comment. - Dank (push to talk) 17:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Dank Hallbauer was a guy I knew in RL, an electrical engineer who build his own furniture without any metal fasteners. Knew the outdoors, used to go on hikes with him a long time ago.-- SPhilbrick  T  19:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Me and adminship
Hi Dank. As you've seen/will see, I'm back but only sporadically, so not thinking of reviving the adminship at the moment. All good wishes. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good to have you back! - Dank (push to talk) 12:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User:FloridaWaterfront2
If you examine the user's sole article, it was advocating a particular type of Property brokerage in Florida, and linked to a website in Florida which sells... guess what? -- Orange Mike  |   Talk  23:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If the username had been User:Baseballs, and they linked to a business that sold baseballs, should we uw-softerblock the name, or delete any promotional edits and spam-block them if they keep it up? - Dank (push to talk) 23:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Review
I've noticed that you're quite involved in the RfA vetting process. Before I even think of becoming involved in that process I was wondering if you would be willing to review my user and provide constructive feedback. I've been away for a bit, however now I'm back and want to get involved more than ever. You can reply here if you'd like, or by e-mail. Thanks in advance for your advice and assistance. -- mwilso24  (Talk/Contrib) 15:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We've been talking at WT:Requests for adminship/Vetting how the process should best work; one conclusion I've come to is that we don't want to have just a few people doing it, because that creates an appearance of "gatekeepers". I've done most of the reviews so far, so I'd rather not do any more at that page until/unless more reviewers participate.  You can get pretty good advice at WP:ER, although it may take a few weeks.  Most RFA voters are looking for someone who's dedicated, trustworthy, and civil, who has demonstrated competence in any area that it appears they want to work in, and who is particularly competent in at least one thing that admins do.  It's not a bad idea to read a random selection of RFAs, but it's not necessary to gain familiarity with RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to statement on my user page.
Hi Dank, I have posted a reply to your statement on my user page via here. Regards, Pr3st0n (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Preston, I replied there. - Dank (push to talk) 20:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

MOSNUM
Dank, I just copied the whole thing to that sandbox minus the obvious bits that are in MoS main page. Thanks for your change. It's really very raw at the moment. Tony  (talk)  01:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You bet, I clean up the cats twice a month. I bet more people would read MOSNUM if it were shorter, it's a little intimidating, best of luck. - Dank (push to talk)

Cookie


The Second Coming of The Cookie Monster has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Nope! you don't know me, well, actually now you do, but I'm not from WP India. I'm just a user spreadin' the wikilove and re-moralizing the faithful!--The Second Coming of The Cookie Monster (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nom nom nom. - Dank (push to talk) 02:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Cite
Was that in response to my question of citing YouTube? If so, no. 192.156.234.170 (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I know how to make a reflist....192.156.234.170 (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC) I format that stuff corrcectly I was just wondering if it's okay to cite videos sometimes. For more than just number of views, as with Evolution of Dance or some article on a video. 192.156.234.170 (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The current exceptions listed at WP:Layout are Wiktionary and Wikisource. - Dank (push to talk) 17:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Bit9, Inc.
I saw the response that you left at WP:UAA regarding User:Bit9, Inc. and wanted to talk to you before applying a block. Per WP:ORGNAME, explicit use of a name of a company as a username is not permitted. Hence, I want to apply a softblock with uw-softerblock as the block message. Any objections? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My position is that they haven't "used" the name yet, that is, they haven't made any edits, all they've done is register it, so they're not in violation of WP:U yet. Some companies have registered names with no intention to edit precisely because they don't want anyone editing using their company's name.  The last discussion, which didn't reach solid consensus one way or the other, was WP:U.  As long as you consider the discussion, I don't have any objection to any action you want to take. - Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

WT:Update
I added WT:Update to the list for VeblenBot to report policy, guideline, and MOS changes. This should be active starting tomorrow. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Carl, that's great. Is it possible for it to report only on changes to policy, the 4 policy subcats, and Category:General style guidelines?  Those are the only cats I track at WP:Update. - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * At the moment you get everything, but I will do something this weekend to give you just the pages you asked for. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 10:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Vetting update
Can you give me any information about my vetting process? I see your name as a reviewer. Sephiroth storm (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to discuss on-wiki the email I sent you? - Dank (push to talk) 16:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't receive it, that email address gets a whole lot of spam, I can provide you with an email address or we can talk on wiki. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, what I said was that I see a problem: in your first RfA, you say "My primary area will be Articles for Deletion and Vandalism blocks." When I did your review a few weeks ago, your edits to WP:AIV and your deleted contribs didn't show enough experience in those areas for the voters to know how you'll handle them.  You could run again and say that you're interested in something else now, but I think many of the voters are still going to expect you to have experience with the work that you talked about in your last RfA.  I could be wrong, of course. - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Images: changes at MoS and WP:Image use policy
Dank, did you pick these up, or were they not in September? I think the main change is that people were under the impression, from the previous wording, that thumbnail default size is the norm. That sense has been removed, so that resizing is also the norm. Tony  (talk)  03:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:IUP is one of two handfuls of policy pages that aren't in any of the 4 main policy subcats covered at Update ... conduct, content, deletion and enforcement. Also, I've always been uncomfortable with image issues; do you know anyone who might want to tackle a monthly update of WP:IUP? - Dank (push to talk) 03:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, it's in the MoS too, so should be covered in your scope (but which month was the change made? Possibly August). I would help directly, except I've got so many things on the boil at the moment that I'm chary about taking on more. The biggest one right now is about to blow in the next few hours . Tony   (talk)  09:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS hasn't been in Category:General style guidelines since March, but I would have no objection to adding it if there's consensus for that. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

deletion of Yodle page
Hi -- I wanted to find out some specifics beyond the posted reason that the Yodle page has been deleted and would like some suggestions on how we can post the factual information about our company in a way that doesn't come across as blatant advertising or promotion. Thanks! :) Karasilv (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Kara
 * WP:WHYNOT and the section after that are the best explanation you'll find of what our policy is and how to work to get a page about your company on Wikipedia. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your proposed discussion on G10
Please do not hold off on my account. I would welcome such a discussion, as I think you've put your finger on a fairly important decision on the nature of Wikipedia which has thus far received sporadic attention, and usually in the context of inflammatory cases rather than as a matter of carefully considered principle. Plus, the way the RFA is going, I don't think it matters that much anyhow. I hope you don't mind my replying here - I've consciously refrained from replying on my RfA (except in the question section) wherever I think such a reply would generate more clutter than useful value. Ray Talk 01:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, but I'll reply in your RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, unless you think it goes to my capacity for work as an admin, I'd rather you didn't. I want the discussion about G10s and the like, when we have it, to be about Wikipedia, not about me. Ray  Talk 03:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've mentioned at the RFA that we're having a conversation. I would like to see you become an admin, btw, but the current issue is a problem for me at this time.  Starting a thread related to the RFA on a policy page would usually not be a good idea, but since that's 90% of the discussion in your RFA and we don't seem to have clarity on the policy issue, I don't have any objection.  It would probably be a good idea to ask in the Discussion section first. - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. If you don't mind, why don't you explain, in terms as broad or as specific as you wish, what harms to Wikipedia's mission (defined as you like) you think would arise from having redirects that are, I freely admit, inflammatory and not in good taste. I'll reply with my broad thoughts on the matter, and from there we can query each other as to specifics, generalize if we think we're not getting through, or take apart arguments point by point, whichever seems more fitting. Don't worry about the admin thing -- I got along perfectly fine without the trouble and drama (and believe me, this is the first time I've found myself at Ground Zero for Wikidrama), and whatever happens, I'll be fine when this passes over. The ability to block vandals and delete articles of low value on Wikipedia counts very low on my list of important responsibilities I've been given, or aspired to take on. Ray  Talk 03:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

←Let's not give up on your RFA, it's very close. I won't mention the two specific examples mentioned in your RFA because I don't want to have to noindex my talk page. There are six main problems with allowing the two unsourced or poorly sourced inflammatory redirects we've been discussing (one in reference to MLK):
 * We've already discussed the problem of pushing what would otherwise be a quickly forgotten racist or repugnant term for a person to the top of the Google rankings by making it the title of a Wikipedia page.
 * Clear violation of the WP:G10 policy. If the term is unsourced, then not enough people are using the term to make it a useful redirect; and anyway, anyone who knew either of the repugnant terms being discussed was very likely to be able to find the article without the "help" of those redirects, so in the language of G10, the redirect "serves no other purpose", or not any useful purpose.  G10 requires that we immediately delete pages (including redirects) which have no "good" versions and are intended to disparage, meaning lower your opinion of the subject.  It's safe to say that that was the intent of describing the dead body in a mocking way.
 * Repeating repugnant, racist statements with no rebuttal or context is a clear violation of NPOV, including in the title of a redirect page.
 * The terms could in many cases be considered defamatory by the courts (so violate another policy, WP:Libel), and inflammatory in the public eye. If we redirect a racist term to MLK, then we shouldn't be surprised if we read in the New York Times that Wikipedia uses the term to refer to MLK, even if that's not the way we want to characterize a redirect.  The public backlash against even unknowing use of racist terms has in the past put companies out of business and sunk otherwise spotless careers; it's a huge and pointless risk to take.
 * Evil exists. If racists can't get their POV represented the way they like in articles, but they can use redirects to create the epithets that get their POV across, then redirects are what they'll use.  That's why G10 applies to all pages, and it's the reason for the third point at WP:REDIR.
 * The terms we're discussing offend human decency. - Dank (push to talk) 04:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. User talk pages are noindexed by default these days, but the debate to index them springs up every few months. - Dank (push to talk) 04:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll go point by point, and then make some general remarks.
 * Yes, and I think that any additional prominence is easily outweighed by the benefit of making Wikipedia more accessible. After all, people seeing that prominence are already googling on that term. Further, what's wrong with making a good Wikipedia article the most prominent search result for an offensive term? It seems quite preferable to the likely alternatives.
 * We are discussing G10. I agree that, as currently written, Wikipedia policies and guidelines are contradictory. CSD:G10 would seem to allow for deletion of redirects with offensive titles, whereas the redirect guideline explicitly claims otherwise. This is where I'm going to point out that, Google having been addressed earlier, I still don't see any way coming to an article via a redirect is going to lower a person's opinion of the subject. After all, a person has to use the redirect to see it. The article itself does not mention the redirect.
 * As an aside: there does seem to be a distinction to be drawn here - between offensive titles which have prominent sourcing, and those which do not. I favor redirects as being helpful to the public discourse in bringing neutral, well-written information to the fore in both cases - is your position different for the two?

This whole discussion is taking on tones that remind me about arguments over the merits of free speech and a marketplace of ideas. I take rather firmly the view that those who speak reasonably and carefully have nothing to fear from greater propagation of their words, and that when a fair presentation of the facts is made, the people who read and consider will not disappoint. Conversely, I think that denying information makes people easier prey for wrong ideas and attitudes, and allows error to flourish. Well, that was rather long - I need to get to sleep. Shall we continue tomorrow or whenever you're free? Ray Talk 05:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, there I cannot agree with you. Redirects are not sufficiently long to contain factual information, and NPOV is clearly a content policy (there is nothing, for instance, that requires us to be neutral in other namespaces). Redirects are essentially devoid of content, serving only to point readers at an article. Indeed, it can be said that the article supplies the content, context, and rebuttal should one be necessary, and the existence of the redirect serves to bring that information to the fore.
 * As I understand it (not a lawyer or law student), defamation requires the making of a claim expressly or implicitly stated to be factual. The only claim made by a redirect is "a Wikipedia editor believed that the text string you entered is unambiguously referring to the subject of the article to which you've been redirected," with no facts being implied or communicated about the subject of the article, other than what actually appears in the text of the article itself. I fail to understand how such a redirect could possibly be conceived of as defamatory. As for the public image issue, I believe that Wikipedia can handle its public image just fine. If we can defend "anyone can edit," surely we can defend "we allow all unambiguous redirects, not because we believe the redirect titles are a fair description of their target, but purely to make good, neutrally written information accessible." The message is less "yes, this is the person who answers your description," and more "this is the relevant information that we think you should read, given what you entered."
 * Really, if somebody else's positions are so shallow that they can get their point across with simply a redirect, we have nothing to worry about, and should welcome the possibility of educating their adherents by actually giving them, you know, real articles to read. Alternatively, if you think their positions are so dangerous that the impression of a mere redirect on a credulous mind would be much greater than the carefully written article the redirect takes them to, then I'd advise you to have more confidence in rational thought, and less fear of evil opinions.
 * There are lots of terms that offend human decency - we have articles on them here, far more than redirects.


 * Feel free to add more if you like; I'll come back to this as soon as your RFA is over. - Dank (push to talk) 13:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Til then. Ray  Talk 15:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Another piece of the puzzle when we come back to it is WT:RFA. I don't do nationalist conflicts myself, but this is a potential problem. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. I'm going to try to brainstorm some over at User:RayAYang/On Moreschi and the nationalism problem. I'm not putting them forward for general discussion just yet b/c my thoughts on the matter are mostly unformed, but I'd welcome your input in the brainstorming. I might jump into the broader discussion afterwords - or I might not. It depends in no small part on whether I think anybody will listen to what I say - or whether I'll just get accused of being an idiot or malicious and wholesale bad faith again (interestingly, of all the opposes, it's not the ones that are more heated or reflexive that offend me, but ones like this - which assume that, as I disagree with the editor's closely held thoughts, I must be either stupid or malicious). Ray  Talk 18:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with either the "simple-minded" or the "duplicitous" charges there, because I've worked with the ACLU for over 20 years now, and I know that free-speech issues aren't easy. Hopefully we'll get everyone on the same page if we put some effort into it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 18:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Signpost
I've been meaning to find a way to cover your updates for a while now, but I think it would probably be better if you did, they come across to me as somewhat personal. I've been using this and as ways of catching stuff. I've set up Wikipedia Signpost/2009-10-26/Discussion report so you can add stuff there, and I think then we could take it from there? Would that format work best? Hiding T 20:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll work on in the morning. I'll try to write two "columns" a month; one maybe 3-10 days before the end of the month on active discussions and which way the consensus seems to be leaning, and one shortly after the first of the month (sometimes it takes a few days to see whether a page is stable or not) on how it all turned out. - Dank (push to talk) 05:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had a stomach bug for several days, I'll have to put off my first column til next week. - Dank (push to talk) 23:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:FPPR
Hi Dank,

Did we ever move forward in any way, shape or form on this since the chat about reviewers you brought on WT:RFA a couple of weeks back? MLauba (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just looked, I don't see any activity on any of en.wp's FPPR-associated pages. I'm surprised the trial hasn't started yet; I don't see any new comments here since September. - Dank (push to talk) 13:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Signpost invitation
Dank, thanks for the invitation; I'm not sure I've kept up sufficiently with the evolution of the debate to be interviewed. I guess what you're after is a few quotes to wind into what is essentially your own account. Tony  (talk)  16:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Any failure of choice balance or scope will be mine, but the narrative will mostly consist of short quotes from anyone who wants to the participants. - Dank (push to talk) 16:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dan, I see you're online at the moment. Could you advise me whether the Signpost comes out on the date of its edition (i.e., Mondays), or is it a day or two late? Tony   (talk)  13:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Very late on Mondays (UTC). - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for deleting my old suppages.--Dcheagle (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 20:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for peer review of SENSOR-Pesticides article
Howdy, Dank! I've been working on the SENSOR-Pesticides article for some time now, and I've finally submitted it for peer review. I saw you listed on the peer review volunteers page, so I thought I'd ask you to take a look and the page and offer your edits, comments, and suggestions. Thank you! Mmagdalene722 (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, doing it now. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was fast! Thank you very much!! Mmagdalene722 (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)