User talk:Fritzpoll/Archive 6

WikiProject Intertranswiki
You've been very quiet of late. Everything alright? On holiday? Any if you are still interested in running your bot for any task please join WikiProject Intertranswiki which I've recently started. We need bot coders who can draw up lists of missing articles by raiding categories from other wikipedias and create a missing article directory by language wikipedia. What do you think.? Read the process stages and tell me what you think. Your coding skills would be very much needed to help generate a missing article directory from other wikipedians even if you arne't interested in creating content with it. Dr. Blofeld      White cat 10:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm writing articles to submit to some scientific journals at the moment, which somewhat absorbs my enthusiasm for writing! I like the look of the coding possibility - it would be easier if we exchanged e-mails on it, since I'm avoiding Wikipedia for the moment due to it's time-sink capabilities!  Fritzpoll (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Emailed. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: "African admixture in Europe" article
I think you were wrong in opting not to delete African admixture in Europe. It's nothing but a recreation of a recently deleted article. Administrator RoySmith felt it was a candidate for a G4 speedy deletion, and in fact had carried that out but then had to (reluctantly) relist it due to a procedural error. Also, the user who recreated it has already been blocked once for doing that sort of thing, and his "triumph" this time sends the wrong message. This should have been an open and shut case, but it slipped through the cracks because of stupid mistakes I made (I'd never nominated an article for deletion before). In light of all this, I really hope you'll reconsider your decision. Small Victory (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can only base the close on the present discussion, not the past activities of any other user. I don't feel I can override what I perceive to be the consensus here.  If you are unhappy with this decision, you should proceed to list at WP:DRV.  I only ask that you notify me if and when you do so.  Sorry I can't be more helpful.  Fritzpoll (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But it's a consensus (barely) from a deletion discussion that never should have taken place. I know now that I should have nominated the article for WP:CSD G4 right from the start. It was a dumb oversight, but I don't think a recreated article should remain in existence on a technicality. However, if there's really nothing you can do, I guess I'll have to go ahead with that deletion review. What a pain. Small Victory (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the community would be happy allowing the two-person CSD process to override a community discussion. It'll have to be DRV, I'm afraid Fritzpoll (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Bonnitcha
I beg your pardon, but on the basis of 3 keeps and 3 deletes, and in the middle of an ongoing discussion, what gives you the right to close the discussion and delete the article? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please explain why you should not immediately restore the page. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Independent of what you decide to do, please provide me with a copy of the deleted article. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your irritated demands for an immediate response, including your implied suspicions in recent edit summaries that the reason I am not responding is because my close was dubious are not helpful and not likely to make me as delighted as I normally am to respond to enquiries on my talkpage. As it happened, I stopped editing at 13:42 UTC, and went back to some other work - regrettably, I have a life outside of Wikipedia that requires my periodic attention :)  As to your question, deletion discussions end after 7 days and that time has now elapsed.  The arguments in favour of retention were refuted by more elaborate and detailed comments outlining the lack of notability - AfD is not a vote count, and the discussion clearly indicated that deletion was the consensus position.   Please also note that I have reverted your comments, presumably made in the heat of the moment, at the now-closed AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are quite correct. I was extremely pissed off, and and my agressive tone was never likely to result in a productive outcome.
 * I think you are "stretching it" somewhat when you say "including your implied suspicions in recent edit summaries that the reason I am not responding is because my close was dubious" - I was not even attempting to imply that, and I fail to see how you came to that conclusion, but I think it's a red herring, so I'm not persuing it, and I'm not expecting you to.
 * As it happens, I'm rather glad to hear that you have a life outside of WP. I actually didn't do ANY WP edits over the weekend, and am very proud of the fact. (Probably the first time in 2 years where there's been a 2 day gap.)
 * Hence, I'm rather distressed to learn about this 7 day rule. I wasn't aware that there was ANY time limit on AfD debates - had I been, I would have approached the matter QUITE differently. e.g. I would have presented detailed statements that would have demolished the wishy-washy poorly constructed and poorly argued statements which you summarise as "The arguments in favour of retention were refuted by more elaborate and detailed comments outlining the lack of notability".
 * As to: the discussion clearly indicated that deletion was the consensus position. - No, it didn't. It indicated that 3 people didn't see the point of arguing further something that had already been argued and decided, and 1 person made a reasoned arguement, and two waffled. I fail to see how you can conclude that is "concensus".
 * Please also note that I have reverted your comments, presumably made in the heat of the moment, at the now-closed AfD - Thank you for telling me. I would prefer you restored my comments. They are quite valid. You closed the debate in the middle of a conversation in which NO consensus had been reached, and without warning.
 * Yes, as I have said, I was extremely pissed off. But nevertheless, I believe my comments are still relevant and valid, and you have said nothing to address those comments.
 * So although I am not currently angry, I am neither convinced, not impressed, by the substance of of your response.
 * I will, and do, however, apologise for responding angrily.
 * And now that I and the others can be informed of your "rules", which are presumably "the" rules, I continue to request that you undelete the article and give us the opportunity to present more verbose justifications for our points-of-view in order to counter the two-thirds of the verbosity which was poorly argued.
 * Again, apologies for my irritation, and I'm awaiting your reply, but this time much more patiently and much more politely. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I took the whole thing about the "red herring" from your edit summary. I will not be restoring your oversized comments made after the close - closing the debate means it has been archived, and archives are not meant to be edited. That you have an issue with the close is a matter to take up on this page, not there. It is regrettable that you did not know about the timing of AfD discussions - if it is any consolation, they were only five days long before I made a proposal to extend them to allow people who didn't edit every day of the week to have a fair chance of participation. As you say, these are not my rules - we cannot allow indefinite discussion of everything. Your issue with establishing consensus is obviously going to be a sticking point - I can only base the close on what I can see. All I see are three poorly established reasons for keeping, such as there being no change since the last AfD which is against WP:CCC, which failed to answer the subsequent objections that there were issues with the notability. If it is of any worth, I weighted the comment about the athlete not being an Olympian fairly weakly based on a subsequent rebuttal. That you were apparently in the middle of a conversation is not a convincing reason for restoration, but I'll consider reopening and relisting the debate. I fear, however, that you are judging me harshly for doing what I was supposed to do in terms of the timing, enactment of WP:CONSENSUS, and following the deletion guidelines for administrators. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Look mate. I am not interested in antagonising you, and have apologised for doing so. What more can I do/say, and what more do you want from me?
 * Two things: 1) This is not helpful, and has been reverted.
 * Possibly. But I think it is a fair comment, and would like you to explain to me why you think otherwise.
 * 2) Wikipedia is a volunteer site - I do pop in regularly, but am not sitting in front of a screen 24/7.  You say at the top of this page that you know there is a life outside Wikipedia, yet you give me nine minutes between requesting an explanation at my talkpage and making a negative comment at my admin review.
 * Yes. I have conceded that the impatientience was unreasonable behaviour, and have apologised for it. Again, what more can I do/say, and what more do you want from me? As I said, I think the substance of my comment was valid. However, if you wish, I am happy to make an addition to my admin review comments, and will do so. Once I have done so, if you are still unhappy, please advise as to what you are unhappy about.
 * I will happily engage in discussion, and have yet to find anyone say otherwise - my archives are full of it - but with respect, I cannot spend every waking second waiting for someone to ask me a question. response to your initial inquiry is at my talkpage Fritzpoll (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a reasonable observation with which I agree. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at the timestamp, you'll find I wrote that before you made your reply to me. I have, as yet, asked nothing further from you and happily accept the "heat of the moment" defence. :) Fritzpoll (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see edit conflicts all over the place, and quickly admit that I am quite confused about who said what, when, in response to what! ;-)
 * However, it now being 01:15am 01:25am, and the fact that I have a breakfast meeting, I will apologise for disappearing for the next 18 hours, and will look at it again in the fresh light of a new day. Thank you for your less-aggravated-than-my-response response. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Being a pom, it's nearly clocking off time for me too. Let's grab some figurative tea and come back to this later :)  Fritzpoll (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Fritzpoll, thank you for your objective review of the Bonnitcha page. Please see AdminReview.Taymaishu (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

start again
Do you mind if we start again?

1) It seemed to me that you closed the debate, in the middle of a discussion, without providing any explanation for your decision. You just wrote: The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC).

2) Can you either explain to me, or point me at the revelant section of the policy document that explains, why closing a debate and making a decision, without explaining or justifying the decision, is acceptable behaviour?

In a very acceptable timeframe, you subsequently stated here on your talk page that:
 * The arguments in favour of retention were refuted by more elaborate and detailed comments outlining the lack of notability - AfD is not a vote count, and the discussion clearly indicated that deletion was the consensus position.

3) The arguments in favour of retention were refuted by more elaborate and detailed comments outlining the lack of notability - I don't know about "refuted", but yes, the counter-arguments were indeed "more elaborate and detailed"

4) the discussion clearly indicated that deletion was the consensus position. - I am quite mystified by this statement. It seems to me that not only did it NOT "clearly" indicate anything, but what ever it did say and/or indicate, it most certainly did NOT reflect ANY consensus, much, much less a consensus for deletion. Can you please explain to me your justification for that statement?

I have other questions, but shall we just start with those two? (It's already 12:30am here.) Until the morrow. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Starting again seems a good plan! Let's try to handle these questions:
 * There is nothing in any policy or guideline that requires me to give an explanation, and indeed, many AfD-patrolling admins do not. I am not normally one of them, and in this case I appear to have deviated from my personal rules on this matter.  There is, I fear, nothing actionable here.  I cannot point you to a relevant policy because I am unaware of any relevant document existing.
 * For this, I have an actual manual! You can view it here.  The relevant line is Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. although I'd encourage you to read the whole thing, as it describes the way admins are meant to handle deletion discussions.  So let's look at the keeps in detail
 * Keep - nothing changed since original AfD. - means very little since consensus can change
 * Keep - he is notable as an athlete, and that is documented with references in the article. - subsequently refuted by other editors favouring deletion.
 * Keep - as per WHpq and Rlendog - adds little to the debate, and inherits the flaws of the other points.


 * The delete comments refer to policies on notability and assert an interpretation that is not refuted by subsequent comments. So, from my perspective, there are some weak retention comments that are countered by stronger, policy-based comments that highlight the flaws in the keep commentary.  Having closed many AfDs, it is consequently clear to me that the rough consensus is for deletion.  Look forward to the next set.  Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. It's beginning to look like I've been "shooting at the messenger"! (Would you agree? Or have I missed something?)

(Humph. It's much easier to influence the behaviour of one person, than it is to change a policy.)

"There is nothing in any policy or guideline that requires me to give an explanation" - Well, there bloody well ought to be! (Yes, my statement is completely objective ;-)

"I am not normally one of them" - That's good to read.

"There is, I fear, nothing actionable here" - As an aside, and FYI, I'm not particularly interested in "blame"; my interest is to make WP a reasonable, rational, predictable, consistent, etc. environment. Personally, I don't think the currently defined process for AfD achieves many, if any, of those goals. But let me hasten to emphasise, that is not your fault!

"For this, I have an actual manual!" - Well there you go! ("Murphy's law" doesn't ALWAYS apply!) But what a pain!! It says stuff that I really don't want to hear. (So perhaps Murphy's law IS alive and kicking?)

Well, I don't agree with "your" assumptions and conclusion, or the documented definition, BUT, within that (in-my-opinion-dubious) framework, your logic is impeccable. So, again, if I disagree with YOU, I am again "shooting at the messenger". Your thoughts?

You leave me with nothing but to say, "I think the policy sucks."

(And in case that might be ambiguous: It would seem that you are simply following "the policy"; the fact that I think it's a bad policy is NO reflection on you or your actions, and I jumped to the wrong conclusion in wrongly assuming that the policy and your actions were inconsistent - your actions were consistent with the policy. It's the policy I dislike, not your actions per se.)

So where do we go from here? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The policy does suck. It implicitly makes a number of assumptions about the participants in a debate, and isn't particularly clear because it has been spread out over so many pages - personally, I think we'd do better to centralise deletion policy into a single page and make it clear what is meant to happen to avoid what is understandable confusion on both sides of this weird administrative divide.  That is a challenge for a different day, I suspect, although I'm willing to discuss it with you further in a separate topic if you wish...
 * To the article itself. What I can do is userfy the article - that is, put it somewhere else in your userspace.  Then you can work on it, address the concerns within the debate clearly (I'll help you with that), let me check it, and then we can move it back into the article space.  That does require time to work on it, although you can call on the other "keeps" in the debate to help.  How does that sound? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (Except for the fact that it requires some effort), that sounds like a better suggestion than any of the (plausible) alternatives I can think of. Yes please. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok - here we go: User:Pdfpdf/Jonathan Bonnitcha Fritzpoll (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What's the "NOINEX" thingy about? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Means the page won't show up in Google - because it's a biography in userspace and isn't under the same scutiny from vandal-fighters, etc. then it is preferable that your intermediate corrections, or the vandalism from users while we're both away from the keyboard not end up in Google, potentially damaging the individual concerned. Hope that explains it.  Fritzpoll (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(redent) I'm going to weight in on this discussion, too. Seeing as though I voted and saw this article as a pretty clear delete (notability), then I'll make a few points. That's my input for now. Taymaishu (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a waste of time to Userspace Bonnitcha. Mainly because there has been no progress on this article, no new contributions in over 12 months. It seems he has dropped off the radar both in sailing (the claim he was notable here would be laughable in the sailing community), and hasn't done anything in academia. Mind you, if you really want to work at it (I can't find anything notable on this fella and it seems as though nothing in the near future will make him notable on current form), go ahead - but if it gets moved to articlespace again with no changes then it'll be speedy delete nominated and most probably deleted.
 * Taking the above into consideration, the points made for the delete case was clear and strong. The claim to notability was that he competed in a World Championship, and he was part of an Olympic Squad. Firstly, and Olympic Squad means just that - you were part of the Olympics. Jonathan never came close to being selected, nor getting a spot nominated for Australia in windsurfing. Secondly, the World Championships he has 'attended' (and i use attended purposefully here), were open-entry. This means anyone can go. Basically if the next worlds were held in my home town, i could enter and not even have to race! I could sit all day on the shore and smoke and drink and generally fart-ass around, then have a Wikipedia page for being notable. Even better, I could enter even if they were held in Italy and i have still technically competed as i would be on the results sheet. The fact that Jonathan has been to a World Championship is therefore irrelevant. His notability should be results-based.
 * On the above point, Jonathan's results at the windsurfing World Championships are nowhere near notable.
 * I have already told pdfpdf that it will be G4 deleted if move back to the articlespace without any changes (see his talkpage). That said, with a NOINDEXed userspace draft, work can be performed at a relatively sedentary pace and if notability can be established, great.  I don't need you to drop deletion arguments on my page - I already closed in favour of this position.  I am an admin willing to grant reasonable requests for userfication, and this uses up no additional space on the servers - if pdfpdf wants to try to establish notability, good for him.  Fritzpoll (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen
Hi, thanks for closing this convoluted debate. I believe, though, that it would have been more appropriate to close it as "delete".

I believe that to determine consensus informed by strength of argument, as required by WP:DGFA, we should discount the opinions canvassed by Caponer (see also User talk:Sandstein). We should also discount all the "keep" opinions that advance some variety of the argument "nobility is inherently notable" or who believe that Wikipedia's alleged systemic bias against German nobility warrants keeping it. Those arguments are unfounded in policy and do not address the issue of substantial coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:BLP (it has been pointed out in the discussion that the source reporting the lady's death is not reliable), WP:V and WP:N. If we discount these opinions, we have a consensus to delete.

Would you be amenable to re-close the AfD as "delete" on the basis of these arguments? Thanks for your time,  Sandstein   18:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Re-examining.... Fritzpoll (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I re-evaluated the close, and produced a revised rationale, but the same result. The deletion arguments were generally stronger, but there isn't quite a consensus, even disregarding the canvassed comments.  I suggest a new, clean AfD.  You are very welcome to take this to DRV - I shall not be offended if you do, but would suggest that it wouldn't be intensely productive.  Happy to discuss further, but the chances of me overturning myself have dropped sharply. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your re-evaluation.  Sandstein   08:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for African admixture in Europe
An editor has asked for a deletion review of African admixture in Europe. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Small Victory (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe tomorrow (band)
First off I apologize for my unproffesional actions on your admin review. Secondly in protest to the deletion of the Maybe tomorrow page, the arguments for deletion and its nomination were (as far as I could tell) was before its references were added. I found some myself and put them on there. The band is notable and gained alot of attention from the populace, toured with numerous national acts bands, signed with an indie label was hosted on an hour long show on a national radio station. I think if the people who voted deletion would have went back and read the updates to the article their stance would have possibly changed. If there is anyway that you can go back and review the article, I think you would also agree the band was notable. Ashfromthepast (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you give me until tomorrow to have a look and a think, and I'll overturn my close if that is the case? Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone through the diffs in the article's history, an have looked at all the references added over the course of the debate. Of all of them, they appeared to be blogs, passing mentions in lists or other sources not meeting our reliable sources criteria to satisfy the relevant guidelines.  Different third-party sources are likely to be necessary to confirm notability. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That is because the entire reference guide wasn't estabilished when the article was nominated. No refernces were put by the person who initally created the page, which is when it was nominated for deletion, I would have agreed to in that case. But I don't believe anyone revisited the page after references were established.Ashfromthepast (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the hour long show they did on 99X with the host Kayla Keys counts under the notability tree. Ashfromthepast (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to the appropriate part of the relevant guideline? Fritzpoll (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Criteria for musicians and ensembles: 12:Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BAND#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensemblesAshfromthepast (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: - the AfD participants apparently disagreed that it made them notable. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Without looking, I can tell you that at least one of the delete comments was made after the inclusion of the references, and I have a feeling this is true of other comments. That was what I investigated yesterday using the deleted history (admins only, I'm afraid) Fritzpoll (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I can't really argue you with and though I disagree with the deletion I still respect the way you conduct yourself as admin. I just urge to take one last look at the page actually look at their accomplishments and what they have done and ask yourself is that not above and beyond what must bands accomplish, is their accomplishments truly not notable? I just ask that you do that much, please.Ashfromthepast (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, in order to be a "good" admin, that's not something I can do, otherwise I'd be substituting my judgement for that of the community (in principle). What I can offer is userfication under some conditions, to allow you or others to try to improve the article and really establish notability.  If you would like that, then please let me know. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be better than nothing. I appreicate your help. Thank you. Ashfromthepast (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Kennedy Curse (2nd nomination)
Thought this might interest you. You could expand the article! Himalayan   21:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like it will be kept, but I shall certainly look towards an update once the current fuss has died down a little. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd
So, you are offering to mentor him? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think that Abd's participation to date at Cold fusion has been less than productive, but that he can be willing to learn to conduct himself better.  In a sense, that's why we're here - Jehochman, myself and others encouraged him away from policy-work into content work.  That he found a contentious area interesting is unfortunate, but not a crime.  I have e-mailed Arbcom with a suggestion for an alternative remedy to the current topic ban proposals.  These include mentoring with teeth backed up by an automatic reversion to a topic ban remedy if the mentor or Arbcom believes mentorship has failed - no further cases, nothing but an outright topic ban.  I am not known for excessive sympathy for Abd and have been, and remain, critical of the way he conducts himself.  I have offered myself as a mentor, but I may not be an appropriate choice.  Hope that answers the question succinctly, and you may proceed to chastise me for my apparent insanity :) Fritzpoll (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clear and direct response. (Hmm....) A topic ban would be useless as a remedy as he will simply carry on the same disruptive tactics in a new topic. He already has tipped his hand that global warming related articles are his next target. So, a provision for a topic ban on cold fusion would solve nothing. At bottom the problem is, as you have said, the way he conducts himself. Provisions for mentorship should focus solely on behavior modification without other distractions.
 * BTW, what's wrong with insanity? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there's a need for "consequences" if the mentorship fails, in order to act as the latter element of the carrot and stick approach. I'm sure Arbcom can come up with a suitable one if my suggestion isn't good enough.  But broadly speaking, yes:  mentorship should be applied to all behaviour in all arenas.  Fritzpoll (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify -- while I think mentorship would be inappropriate in this case, I'm not criticizing your offer to serve. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * AAnd to clarify from my point of view, I completely understand your reticence as regards mentorship Fritzpoll (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
For closing the RFC. Chillum 16:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It is amazing how much text this topic produces wherever it happens to be, even on your talk page! Chillum 18:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably needs its own encyclopedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I shall call it the "Fritzpoll effect" Fritzpoll (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Make sure you get a copyright on that name... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:INKBLOT
Over and above the images, another facet of the argument has emerged about including or excluding other information, such as popular responses. Could you revisit your closure and see if you can also speak to this issue? Thanks –xenotalk 16:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes - on my notepad I just wrote "imgs" as a shorthand, and forgot that I meant the common responses as well. I have adjusted the wording accordingly, and apologise for the error Fritzpoll (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. How does BLP even come into this? Have I missed something? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, except in that it was repeatedly mentioned by editors proposing that the images be excluded. It's only in the close as a summation of arguments. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was being used to counter the ideas that NOTCENSORED was an absolute and that WP has no responsibilities to avoid harm. Mirafra (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. –xenotalk 16:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure, but I believe you meant to say "Those supporting inclusion" here:

Could you explain to me the rationale behind deeming that showing all ten images is not covered and/or has not been decided in the RfC? I ask this because I believe that it both was an RfC question ("Should our article display all 10 images and the most common answers?"), and that the most endorsed statements explicitly mentioned displaying all ten, usually giving reasons for that (including the one by me with 59 endorsements, by Roger with 24 endorsements, by Dlabtot with 37 comments, by hmwith with 29 comments). On the other hand, statements asking to avoid showing any or some of the images have, as far as I can see, at most 9 endorsements (by Mirafra. I understand that this wasn't a vote, but to me consensus seems overwhelmingly in favor of displaying all inkblots as opposed to some of them, and the reasons given for that weren't challenged. --LjL (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really think enough consideration within the debate was given to the question. The debate, as I read it, was very much an include entirely/exclude entirely argument and the only real focus given only to examining the suitability of an intermediate determination wasn't well attended.  I don't really see this as a particular issue, since that's more about the presentation of content rather than the binary yes/no of inclusion Fritzpoll (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, ok, though I like to think that those who endorsed my statement actually read all it said in the first place... And I am a bit afraid this will again open the door to people arguing that only the first image should be displayed, which would probably be going back a year in this whole discussion. I suspect this RfC wouldn't even have taken place if it hadn't been for the fact that ten images were added (it's also what a lot of news media have written about), rather than just one. --LjL (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think LjL is quite right, the RfC wouldn't even have taken place if it hadn't been for the fact that ten images were added and yes it opens the door to people arguing that only the first image should be displayed. Also, reading all the statements and signatories again, there is relatively little direct argument in favour of showing the "popular responses" material. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * LJL's statement refers to "relevant...text" and Dlabot's statement refers to "most common answers". The statement by anon 64.xxx also speaks to this. –xenotalk 17:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that Dlabtot refers. And LjL refers indirectly - I was surprised to see no special mention of the popular responses text (I'd guess there might be further discussion asd to what is and what is not "relevant"?) Am struggling to see where 64.xxx refers. But several of the arguments against display do specifically mention the responses. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the argument against common responses as I understand it is it could be considered a "cheat sheet" and 64.xxx's statement seeks to counter that line of argument. –xenotalk 18:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, agreed it does, although it makes 64.xxx's argument specific to deliberate cheaters. Mirafra, Mex-psych and Dangling Diagnosis all specifically address the responses, in argument for not displaying, and Dela Rbadilla also includes that information indirectly. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No longer sure if a/what question needs answering! :) Feel free to clarify! Fritzpoll (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that the RfC shows consensus for display of an image, but not how many. Was there sufficent clear discussion about (and support for) also including text on popular responses? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, you're just seeing the Rorschach effect. –xenotalk 21:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am certainly starting to see patterns - I do something adminny, people are unhappy :) Fritzpoll (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To Martinevans123: There was sufficient discussion within the supporting positions that I believed represented the consensus position. More practically, it is impossible to allow the inclusion of images without simultaneously allowing their meaning to be described - otherwise, what is the point?  Fritzpoll (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would concede that it's likely that the majority view would be that there was sufficient discussion (even though the RfC was about voting in support of alternate views after discussion has been exhausted). But I think you are totally wrong on the second point - especially for images which have been specifically chosen for having "no meaning". I wouldimagine there are many many articles where examples are shown in the form of images and with no "meaning described" at all apart from what's in the image caption. Your question "what is the point?" seems to betray a little bias on your part- the fundamental argument for not including explanatory text is that it may influence the way the reader interprets the inkblot(s) and thus introduces the risk that future test responses will be have been `primed'. Or do you mean something else? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, it isn't about bias (I assume that's the word you meant?) but simply about the use of images in an encyclopedic fashion.  In a publication like this, we use images only to illustrate text, which is why image galleries are not meant to be widely used.  So my point was that, given the nature of using images on Wikipedia, it would be of little encyclopedic value to have the images but prohibit their discussion within the text.  What that means is that, although the conversation on whether to allow common responses was more sparse than that of the inclusion/exclusion debate, it was present and sufficiently grounded in policy and encyclopedic principles that it represented a consensus consistent with community norms.  I am aware that I am not always clear, so please feel free to ask as many follow-ups as needed, since clarity is of the utmost importance. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, yes I meant bias and not basis (now corrected) and I quite agree that clarity is of the utmost importance! It's probably because the "wikipedia norms" tacit in your reply are contrary to the arguments for non-disclosure that I misinterpreted your "what is the point?" question. Your reply is very clear. It seems that consensus will always favour the norm. I still fail ro see the RfC as a conversational process. I might have have argued that even though image galleries are not meant to be widely used, an exception should be made in this specific case, except that, of course, I didn't want the images there to begin with, and certainly not the entire set of test image materials. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I sympathise with the view that RfC is not very conversational, although I suspect it has evolved its structure because RfCs are used when traditional Wikipedian discussions have broken down. Really, RfC is a way of trying to determine a consensual viewpoint of sorts - a typical consensus process may lead to some sort of compromise that satisfies everyone, but in cases such as this where the issues are more black and white (or yes and no) compromise may not be possible.  Don't forget that our policies and guidelines are the result of community consensus and are subject to alteration, addition and repeal with a consensus of agreeing editors.  RfCs are really just to try and see how the community interprets them for a given situation, so in that sense, yes, consensus will tend to the norm! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Rorschach
I have to be sorry for all the admins that get involved in the Rorschach page. I think it tests the limits of the Wikipedia, the abortion page probably has more vandalism. Although the current Rfc is closed and there is consensus, the issue has not been resolved. There is very little communication and a lot of disorganized thought. You will see people trying to use the result of the Rcf to shutdown still relevant discussion. I can guarantee that this will continue to haunt admins until the issue is truly resolved and people give up their entrenched positions for the good of everybody. Unfortunately given the sort of discussion I've seen that is unlikely. Maybe the Wikipedia of the future can deal with rambling much better. I would call on Obi-Wan.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to say this but I believe that if the AfD closing statement had been in line with the first question posed ("Should our article display all 10 images and the most common answers?") and the resounding answer of "Yes!" given by more than 60 people, there would be much less room for misinterpreting the result of the AfD now. --LjL (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The RfC consensus on the topic you described was quite clear really - I'm sorry that you disagree, but Wikipedia works on consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obvious to me that an overwhelming majority of respondents said that all ten images CAN be shown. The argument that their inclusion could do real-world harm was rejected. However, these respondents did not necessarily agree that all ten images MUST be shown. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nor that any particular number should be shown. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty darn sure that my statement, which 59 people endorsed, stated pretty clearly that all ten images should be shown, and so did a few others that were very widely endorsed. --LjL (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Who were the others? Or was your statement "the winner" in some way? Which parts of which statements do we choose? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My statement isn't "the winner", but it certainly is the one with the most endorsements as well as the one I'm most familiar with. Please look just above in this talk page for a list of the statements endorsing publication of all ten images. --LjL (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the RfC must be given more wieght than this talk page.
 * You said this: "A compromise involving removal of some of the 10 images ... is not acceptable, because sizeable parts of the article content specifically discuss the images individually or in groups (for instance by colour components)." Well, it's perhaps unfortunate that the issue of the images had not been brought to the RfC before that text had been added (by yourself?). But if the compromise for removal has now been agreed, where does that leave other possible compromises such as a hidden panel? If the main purpose of the images is to illustrate the text, surely a conscious request by the user to view the images at that place would be far more appropriate? But maybe any discussion should be continued here so to avoid hijacking Fritzpoll's Talk page? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My personal preference would be to to put all ten images in the article, as tiny thumbnails (even smaller than the ordinary "Wikipedia thumbnail"). A single mouseclick then brings them up to "big" size. I just don't think that every one of the images is sufficiently notable to be given much space. And now I'll shut up on Fritzpoll's Talk page, as suggested by Martinevans. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Great summary, well reasoned. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "I think the RfC must be given more wieght than this talk page." <- I was obviously saying that, futher up on this talk page, you will find a list of statements belonging to the RfC. --LjL (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not enough consensus existed over the entire RfC for a specific number - just put in a suitable number. Could be all ten, but doesn't have to be Fritzpoll (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Applying WP:NCMAC
Hi, remember good old WP:NCMAC? For the first time now, a small dispute has arisen over its application to a specific article, at Talk:Agusta A129 Mangusta. If you could spare a moment, could you perhaps give us some reality check over there? Thanks, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A NobodyMy talk 03:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much - although as someone living elsewhere, I actually have to go to work today! Best wishes to you though Fritzpoll (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ping! :)
Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator and So you made a user subpage draft Thanks. Ikip (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator
you or fritz give me the okay, I will start adding articles. Ikip (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "I'm naturally cautious, but you're right that we need to get this started before naysayers try to kill it." -- Fences and windows
 * Can we have a date where we accept our first article? It can be done today.
 * I think adding pages from NPP is a really bad idea. The failed Intensive Care Unit had no real deadline, no real threat of deletion.
 * The CSD idea is a good one, because of the impending risk of deletion.
 * I understand how you want to satisfy all sides in this, and I am amazed at your diplomatic abilities. I think we both know that sooner or later, for this to really work you are going to have to piss off and then marginalize one group or the other that likes the status quo.
 * I will stay away from this project for now because I want it to work, and my name sometimes garners unwanted controversy. Ikip (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We'll get going ASAP, and I'll bear your comments in mind. As Calvin and Hobbes once wrote a good compromise makes everyone mad Fritzpoll (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI
User_talk:Ikip Ikip (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Article Incubator
Article Incubator, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Article Incubator during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. M ask?  20:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Close as move
Why did you not move it? Geschichte (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, because I run a script that doesn't do that - I will see if I can fix it....hang on Fritzpoll (talk) 11:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ - sorry about that Fritzpoll (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for swift reply. Geschichte (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Intertranswiki
Hi. Are you still active on here? I don't see you around much anymore. If so the request to generate lists of missing articles from other wikis still stands. The project can't really get anywhere without a bot!! Himalayan   10:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh bugger - I completely forgot as I began a new project at WP:INCUBATE. I'll get on this over the weekend Fritzpoll (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, basically the concept is to try to stop deletionists confusing lack of content with notability!!! Himalayan  10:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And so that newer, less experience users (who are bound to make mistakes) don't necessarily log in the next day to find that their little creation has been rendered inaccessible, but are still not cluttering up the articlespace Fritzpoll (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well the main topic pages are already set up like WikiProject Intertranswiki/German/Culture. If you were generating missing lists they would just be generated on sub pages like WikiProject Intertranswiki/German/Culture/Museums etc., missing articles on Aircraft would be like  WikiProject Intertranswiki/German/Transportation/Aircraft etc. You follow?  Himalayan   10:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All I'll ultimately need is a mapping from the project categories to the project subpages, and that'll need to be manual - bots are very stupid :) Fritzpoll (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Any luck? Himalayan   19:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Who initiates move to incubator?
I'm interested in your exciting incubation project, but I'm not entirely sure who is responsible for initiating a move to the incubator. The project page says an editor moves the page into the incubator, but can that be the editor working on the page, or is it supposed to be an outside party rescuing it from deletion?

The reason I ask is this question posed on because of User:DanMeister1234 who has an article with a prod - FA Premier League 2004-05 Season Review.

Should the user be encouraged to move the page into the incubator?-- SPhilbrick  T  11:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - that kind of thing is just what the incubator can be used for, provided it is believed that the subject could meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines with a bit of help. If moved in, hopefully a number of editors will be able to edit the page and help the editor along, at least to understand what is wrong with the article in its present form Fritzpoll (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia
Why would you decide to call a country with another's country name of a region? Isn't that idioticalness? Otherwise UN hasnt recognised FYROM as Macedonia and FYROM is not situated on Macedonian land, Greece is! LabradorXMK (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because that's what we as a community decided. Your viewpoint was expressed by some editors but ultimately rejected by the community at large. The actual naming convention is at WP:MOSMAC2, which highlights our common convention of using the most common name for subjects used in English.  FYROM is not the most commonly used Fritzpoll (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually FYROM is used but some countries (like US) have advantages, and by helping it make a big propaganda it could control the Balkans. So FYROM accepted thinking the whole thing positive. That's why ROM is mostly used. This is the same for you, as some of you have a high positions in websites (admins, moderators), you can use and say whatever you want to and no punishment for you, only for the others. Just think ONE time what is the correct and tha fair thing, and not the one that you like to do. Please don't reply, I don't like talking to you anymore. LabradorXMK (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not like I haven't heard that before - but I didn't decide this. The community did - admins have no more weight than anyone else Fritzpoll (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The community doesn't know history. Tell them that! It's sooo unfair what they do for advantages and money. LabradorXMK (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not my job to tell them what to think, I'm afraid. Also, you'll have to explain the financial benefit they might accrue, as that's over my head... Fritzpoll (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey! I never got my cut >:( J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  17:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha! your cheque is in the post Fritzpoll (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't get really what you meant anyway, about that economic thing you are saying, I mean that everyone today is paid to call FYROM as Macedonia. If you don't believe me, google it! That's all. What do you support by the way about the Macedonian Naming Dispute? Greece or FYROM? LabradorXMK (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not paid to call the modern country called Macedonia, the Republic of Macedonia or FYROM (depending on your point of view) anything. I hold no particular opinion, and normally refer to it as Macedonia in everyday conversation - not for conspiratorial reasons, but because it is easier.  The community decided not to call it FYROM or Macedonia, but to refer to it as the Republic of Macedonia.  That was achieved by discussion with editors of a multitude of ethic, cultural and linguistic backgrounds - my job as an admin is to enforce and enact their consensus.  My own views and the views of lone editors who disagree are irrelevant by comparison.  Let me know if that doesn't answer your question comprehensively Fritzpoll (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You delete history because it's easier to say Republic of Macedonia than FYROM? Mercy... And I didn't ask how do you call it, but who do you support, but as far as I can see from your words, you support 'em. Anyways, let's stop this conversation cause it's not gonna end anywhere good, since all of you are brainwashed.
 * Cool Fritzpoll (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving images
Hey Fritzpoll, just letting you know that after an image has been moved, the ifr tag needs to be manually removed. Thanks for the work so far. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotcha - I'll try to retrace my steps once I've burned through the backlog a little more and remove the tags Fritzpoll (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure is fun finding unique ways to describe the same thing. ;) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Rorschach Test
I'd like to get your opinion about an avenue of appeal. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia in which anyone can edit. Administering such a project is easier when editors embrace the core policies of neutrality and verifiability. Publication of original work by our editors would put Wikipedia ahead of other media. This advanced position is, I believe, inappropriate for any encyclopedia, and especially so for one that anyone can edit.

I believe that it is in the best interest of Wikipedia to hold back and refrain from placing itself in an advanced position, and that we have failed in this respect with the Rorschach test. Correcting this mistake means strictly holding to our neutrality policy and consider the effect our articles produce (or reproduce) upon our reader. If an article has an involuntary effect upon the world or the reader, then I believe that we have engaged in non-neutral behavior.

Our actions have given support to one side of this debate and has been described as "the final nail in the coffin for Hermann Rorschach's idea." On the other side, you have the Canadian Psychological Association who condemned the actions of Wikipedia as having "significant [adverse] implications", possible resulting in the

Indeed, the question of whether to publish test data has been debated before, a fact which should have given the contestants pause to consider our position in this debate. It was a mistake for my opponents to take actions to engage directly in this controversy. It was an easy mistake to make and once made, difficult to step back from.

I believe we need to step back from this debate and eliminate the images from our biased article. We should not be at the forefront of this debate. Currently, we are. I could not find the images among the top 10 google items, or any scholarly link. So I think an avenue of appeal I'd like to pursue is a neutrality appeal. Can you help me understand the mechanism by which this can go forward? I don't wish to make a wiki etiquette mistake or unduly surprise anyone.

The other avenue of appeal I'm interested in is the fair-use clause of the WP:notfree policy. If our actions result in the "final nail in the coffin" then I fear that the copyrighted textbooks that we quoted from to show the most common answers will become irrelevant. The test for fair use is the commercial effect, not the volume of material quoted. Thus, when Gerald Ford's book was selectively quoted in the New York Times explaining why he pardoned former President Nixon, the test for fair use was the effect upon the reader and the result upon the sales of the book. We are treading upon similar water. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming to my talkpage with your concerns. I think you may misunderstand our stance on neutrality.  The purpose of our neutrality policy is to maintain a neutral point-of-view, presenting content is a non-bias, non-partisan way.  It doesn't refer to the effects we may have on our readership - as a counterexample, I can walk into a bookshop a mile away and buy a book with all this material in it.  Should psychologists be prevented from all dissemination of this for fear of someone walking into a bookshop, library, online repository...etc. and reading it?  This is a key question you will encounter when it comes to a challenge based on harm.
 * As to our image policy, the images being used are listed as being in the public domain. That means that their use and dissemination is legally unrestricted.  The copyright considerations of reproductions in books are immaterial in this context because the images themselves are free of copyright.  So unless you can show that the images are not PD, this line of appeal will not work.
 * If you can come back to me on the first point, we'll see how we can take this further. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I confused things by suggesting two possible avenues of appeal. Let me try to be clearer.


 * The first avenue, the neutrality violation, refers to the images themselves. If I'm misunderstanding our neutrality policy, then I apologize and beg your help in understanding.  Doesn't being neutral mean that we write articles in a manner that allows the user to make his/her own choice in the matter?  WP:NPOV offers advice about how to present disputed subjects in a balanced manner without "engaging" in the dispute, but I'm unclear about how it helps us with this situation.  I believe we have here a situation in which we should not "engage" in the dispute, lest we become participants in it.  For all we know, some of the anonymous participants in our on-line forum are also participants in the real-world debate.  Perhaps the user, LjL, who is most responsible for the disclosures, is really Scott Lilienfeld, or Howard N. Garb, who've called for a moratorium on the use of the Rorschach test.  I believe we have a policy that, if interpreted correctly, attempts to prevent these people from imposing their will.  With your vast experience, can you tell me any other Wikipedia article that is so at the forefront of a dispute?  Perhaps the intended role of Wikipedia in society is, indeed, more provocative than I was led to believe.  But I'm concerned that if we allow it to be so then what's to prevent people with a bias from starting an anonymous Wikipedia account and having their way.


 * Since you raised the public domain issue, allow me to give you an opposing argument: I agree that public domain items are available to anyone to use, but I don't believe you are correct to say that their use should be unrestricted.  Wikipolicy does not so state.  Instead, it says that "anyone can use them in any way and for any purpose."  This wording suggests that their use can and should be restricted in order to ensure that "anyone [including psychologists] can use them in any way and for any purpose."   To this I would add that I believe that common sense dictates that in the rare event of a conflict of interests, (such as we are seeing here) that we restrict their use to those that can best utilize them for the public benefit.  They belong to the public, not to just anyone.  That's why they're called "public" domain, not "anyone's" domain.  Further, if anyone uses them in a manner which detracts from the public's ability to derive their best value, that person is engaged in vandalizing of public property.  Common courtesy asks that they refrain from such vandalism.  My views on this are not central to my concern about neutrality, but I'm happy to have this opportunity give you my point of view.  Whichever way you believe, public or private use, I think it's clear that Wikipedia has taken a side in this long running (1996) debate.  It would be best if we could find a way to remove Wikipedia from the forefront of this dispute.  I'm open to suggestion about how to do that.


 * The second avenue of inquiry refers not to the images, which are in the public domain, but to our publishing the most common answers, which are copyrighted. I'm sure this is the most damaging aspect of what we, Wikipedians, have done.  It's true that one could walk into any university bookstore and purchase the Weiner and Greene textbook.  My query is this:  by quoting this copyrighted piece of work to the degree that we have, have we not violated the fair use clause of copyright law?  Is it fair to quote a book and thus devalue its worth to the point that no one will again purchase the work?  Isn't that what the fair use clause seeks to prevent?


 * I don't think either of these issues have been discussed before. I'm asking for your advice about the best place to raise them.  Is that here with you, or can others offer some help to me?   Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I should preface my response with a comment that I am not a legal professional. My understanding of the legal term "public domain" is indeed that anyone can use the image for any purpose unless some other legal order is made by a duly constituted authority to prevent said use.  So just from a practical point of view, the use of images appears legally unquestionable.
 * I don't know that the answers are copyrighted in the manner you imply. If the material on that page is directly lifted in words and form from a source without attribution then it is plagiarism and should be removed.  That does not appear to be the case here, and a more liberal interpretation of plagiarism than this would effectively render our sourcing policies useless, and bring an end to Wikipedia!  I would personally abandon these latter lines of enquiry.
 * Now to the neutrality issue. The policy you are searching for is probably Conflict of interest - but to enforce this, you would need to know who these editors are, and I cannot countenance any efforts to publish information such as this for the purposes of winning a debate. In this instance, we are looking at an article discussing a particular psychological test - NPOV requires that both sides of any debate be discussed within the article.  The consensus during the community RfC on the issue of inclusion of the images indicated that by including the pictures, the discussion of the test and its criticisms could be more thorough and complete.  From an encyclopedic point of view, therefore, including the images and associated descriptions was deemed to be essential for completeness.  Really, no policy-based consideration exists in this domain for consideration of opinions on our content external to the content itself.  I'm still pondering how neutrality could apply to this dispute in a meaningful way under our current policies, but regretfully I am finding it very difficult to fuse your interpretation with the policy as it stands.
 * If you remain unconvinced, please seek out an uninvolved administrator (I can make some suggestions) and we'll try to get a third-opinion out of them. I hope that's agreeable.  Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I sympathize with your struggle to apply our neutrality policy to this situation. I, too, find it to be not readily apparent in the WP:NPOV policy, as written, except for the phrase, "Wikipedia does not engage in disputes."  (emphasis mine).  My opponents, Chillum and Melodia, would argue that Wikipedia should ignore the outside dispute and act as if this outside interest didn't exist.  I don't know.  Maybe they're right.  They don't seem to be bothered by the bias we display by our actions:  We tell the reader there's a dispute about whether to publish the test images and data, and then we go ahead and publish the test images and data.  What is the reader to think?  That we don't take sides in disputes, yet we are free to ignore them and do as we wish with nonchalance?


 * There are two factors that, if you accept them, will lead you to think as I do:


 * First, the Rorschach test is much more vulnerable neutrality problem because the effect on the reader is involuntary. See priming (psychology) and
 * second, the definition of the word "neutral," which is that which produces (or reproduces) no effect. (i.e.  as in shifting your car's transmission into neutral, or as Switzerland was during World War II)


 * I'm uncertain as to the qualifications of Wikipedia to accept a role as a "mover and shaker" in society. Better, I think, to eschew the enthusiastic attempts by some users to involve Wikipedia at the forefront of events and instead, withdraw to the comfort of more established and neutral points of view.


 * Concerning the fair use of the common answers to the test, you've mistakenly brought plagiarism into the issue. The source I mentioned is attributed correctly, so there is no problem with plagiarism.  The problem is with the fair use of copyrighted work.  Again, the test for fair use not the volume of material quoted or its correct attribution.  The test is the effect upon the reader. Thus, when Gerald Ford's book was selectively quoted in the New York Times explaining why he pardoned former President Nixon, the test for fair use was the effect upon the reader and the result upon the sales of the book.  We are treading upon similar water.   I can cite two very good sources, that say the risk of losing the Rorschach test is very real.


 * I feel certain that a judgment about the neutrality of the article is beyond the capability of any of the editors with whom I have worked these last 3 months, myself included. I welcome your advice about how to proceed on that front.  The fair use question is probably best left to the fair use project WP:WPFU, since neither of us are qualified to say what's what. I'm uncertain about proceeding on both fronts.  What do you think?  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Incubate?
Would you consider bring this one to your incubator: User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_Reed_Cowan. Work was done on it after the AfD and after the DRV. With some tweaks, it mat be suitable for mainspace. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So moved - you can find it at Article Incubator/Reed Cowan. It should find attention shortly - you are naturally welcome to edit any articles in the incubator.  The list can be found somewhere on WP:INCUBATE.  Fritzpoll (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Help with disruptive editor?
I'm having harassment and wikistalking problems with an editor and if you are able, I would really appreciate any assistance you can offer. I've made a full report on AN/I here. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This situation is quickly escalating. I've posted a followup on AN/I here. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your request
I have re-closed the Gere/Gerbil RfC per your comment on the talkpage, where you requested a neutral administrator. If you have any dispute about my neutrality, please come over to my talkpage, but I think I am probably ok in that area. I think the discussion is lost in BLP swinging - the key point in the consensus is a combination of things, mostly to do with the undue weight of including this information in a biography. Have a look at my close here and come by and chat of you think I've made some egregious error. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to re-assess the RfC.


 * First, let me stress, that nobody is saying that this rumour should be included as fact -- I would probably be the first to shoot down such attempts. In fact most references point out that the rumour is probably false. Instead, we have approximately 93 good references to this rumour. In other words, the fact is that there is a rumour. Many of the recent changes patrollers that quickly stopped by for the RfC seem to completely miss this notion and believe that this is just another instance of idiots trying to put crap on wikipedia - like maybe someone on 4chan or uncyclopedia started some malicious nonsense and a handful of us are trying to get it included. No, instead this is a unique case of a very popular rumour that is notable and worthy of inclussion. A unique case.


 * Before going any further you asked if you made any errors in your RfC, one problem with your summary was your comment "..the general feeling in the discussion is that since Gere has nothing to do with this story ( no reaction to it, no notable incidents in connection with it , etc)" (emphasis mine) -- I don't recall if it was specifically mentioned in the RfC itself (it is certainly mentioned elsewhere on the page) that Richard Gere has in fact ackowledged the rumour in an interview. And as for "notable incidents" I don't know if 83 books, 2 movies, and a television show all referencing this rumour directly in context with Richard Gere count?


 * As for the BLP violations, if for just one minute you remove any personal distaste for this rumour that you may have, and try to look at this objectively, you will see that none of the BLP stuff seem to talk about a scenario such as this one -- and everyone that may be slightly put-off by this rumour -- seems to be twisting everything in BLP that clearly doesn't fit to this case. If you look at my references lower on the same talk page, you'll see a possible 83 books that reference "Richard Gere" and "Gerbil", it was also mentioned in 2 movies (Scream and Urban Legends) as well as the TV show The Vicar of Dibley, and has been mentioned in at least 2 magazines (Cosmopolitan magazine being one of them). None of these sources say that the rumour/legend is true, in fact most of the books references (and Snopes) all insist that the rumour/legend is false. Everything I have read in the BLP citations misses the mark, and I am not the only one saying this.
 * This seems to be one of those cases where WP:IDONTLIKEIT is over-weighing common sense. For example there isWP:Verifiability,_not_truth ("the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth."). We have probably 90 excellent sources talking about this rumour, including an acknowledgement by Richard Gere himself. As others have pointed out, the fact that this rumour isn't included, makes the entire article an absolute farce.
 * Getting back to the RfC, as I'm quite sure you know it's not about votes, it's about consensus, and sure, as you mentioned the consensus in that RfC seemed to be opposed to inclussion, however, most of the arguments did not refer accurately to the number of references (your summary echoes this fact by saying Richard Gere hasn't mentioned the rumour) and BLP citations seem to be off the mark. I am not suggesting that your summary was entirely wrong, but there certainly seems to be room for review, BLP discussions, and if necessary, we can offer the case to Arbcom (I'm sure they'll be in a huge hurry to take this one up ;) )Rfwoolf (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, don't know anything of the rumour but what's on that talkpage. Understood what you were trying to put in, that is the existence of the rumour, not stating it as a fact - after all, you mentioned it in the RfC.  I ignored most comments that seemed to have missed this.  The principal "good" argument, though there were several, was that this material isn't suitable for a biography.  Gere is an actor, and a rumour about his life which has had very little impact on his career or personal life that we can evidence is going to have undue weight if included here.
 * There are some minor BLP issues, in that inclusion anywhere would have to be very careful about how it was phrased, but as a policy argument for total exclusion from Wikipedia, this would be quite poor. However, the policy as well as our general writing principles of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE (mostly these last two) have sufficient force, according to the reasoned consensus (per our usual definition of the same) to prevent its inclusion in this particular article.    A better target for inclusion would be in a general article highlighting modern urban legends, which would kill both sets of concerns:  1) BLP would be absolved, since the article title would reinforce the presentation of a myth and avoid doubt of it being considered a fact 2) WEIGHT/UNDUE could be satisfied by the topic of the article.  This suggestion isn't binding, just a thought - but trying to tie it to an explicit biographical article will inevitably run afoul of our policies/guidelines, which the consensus in this particular discussion indicated.  Hope that helps to clarify, but follow-up as needed Fritzpoll (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Incubator in the Signpost
Hi Fritzpoll, I've drafted a short piece for next week's News and notes regarding the Article Incubator. If you have any feedback or comments on this please leave a note at my talk page! I'd also be very grateful if you could offer a quote to go along with the piece. Thanks, P retzels Talk! 13:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's perfect, thankyou very much and all the best for your project. P retzels Talk! 16:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

re: That's what I thought
Strange, appears to be working now tho, so all good. Nice code by the way, not too long :), I go in for writing massive pieces of code which I come back to a year later, and have spend a few hours figuring out what it does ;). But I do find comments helpful :). - Kingpin13 (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I too write enormous tomes of code for my job - those I add almost as many lines of comment as there are lines of code. I did this over the course of an hour or so yesterday evening - couldn't be bothered to comment it!  Fritzpoll (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Point
One wonders why you couldn't have actually said this over two weeks ago when I kindly asked if you had any luck and have bene awiating your response. I'd be happy to create a list of categories but remain whole-heartedly unconvinced that you are happy running a bot. Himalayan   12:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * When did you ask? Regrettably, I often miss things and I do need reminding from time to time if I appear to have forgotten.  My aim (ridiculous as it sometimes is) is to respond to everything on my talk page, so in future, if you're left hanging - shout louder! For testing purposes, give me a list of 5 categories, and an accompanying page to put them on.  If you have done it before about 1800 BST, I will write the bot this evening.  If I don't finish, for some reason, I will post the code-to-date in a subpage here toallay fears that it is being ignored.  I will always get around to doing what I've said I'll do, but I am always unlikely to chase people for requirements. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

20th September Fritz. I didn't say anything further because I thought you may have bene busy. Then when I saw you on Jenna's talk page saying you'd be glad to help her with her task it kinda left me thinking..... Sorry for being sarcastic but to date I've started two wikiprojects which at present both seem to have been a waste of time. Anyway, the problem here seems to be coding a bot which can copy categories and articles from another wiki without human ordering. There are so many categories and articles needing transferring that to draw up lists of all categories manually will take yonks... Himalayan   12:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

these need transferring. WikiProject Intertranswiki/Spanish/Culture/Museums would be the place and sub pages of that if required.I assumed that your bot would be able to plough through categories like Spanish culture and be able to dump those without en: links in them into sub pages of WikiProject Intertranswiki/Spanish/Culture. Would your bot be able to read generic categories like Spain on Spanish wiki and dump list of articles in all the sub and sub sub categories into our workspace under Spanish under the spanish categories and then they can be manually sorted into different pages later? Himalayan  12:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it wouldn't be able to do anything intelligent like identify the category subpages that it is meant to dump into - would you want the bot to check the subcategories and if so, what to do with the article titles in those cases? Fritzpoll (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy if you could use the bot to raid a given generic category like Spain on Spanish wiki and all the sub categories and articles within them into a work list on here, saying WikiProject Intertranswiki/Spanish/Sorting. That way you have a target to just dump all the sub category names in and those articles which don't have en: links in them and then they have be sorted out manually after you've done the dumping. If you can get the bot to generate lists which red link the missing articles and include a (es) version link then I can sort out the catrgories into the appropriate topics/sub topics later providing you copy the names of the categories/sub categories from Spanish wikipedia and list the missing articles under each category name in spanish. Can you do that? Himalayan   14:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So your bot would list e.g Categoría:Urbanismo de España  and then sub categories within this category group like Categoría:Arquitectura de España and the sub categories of that and just copy all of those article names from within all those categories which don't have en: links yet.  Himalayan   14:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So (just to clarify again), I'm going through the categories, I extract article titles of articles with a transwiki en: link in them - do I just do this for cases where there is no corresponding en-wiki article, or in all cases regardless? And you also want me to separately grab all the articles in those categories that have no en: transwiki link?  Fritzpoll (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Just list the articles which don't have en: links. If the article on Spanish wikipedia does not have one in English then it joins the list... It is the missing articles lists we are after!! Himalayan   18:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I understand - coding... Fritzpoll (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, but it will need to list the sub categories under each higher category and list the missing articles red linked in eahc section. Ideally the categories will be listed with == == === === ==== ==== in hierarchy from parent categories and then list the missing articles with around them in each section. Do you follow? So that list would need to sub feature e.g this and then list all the missing articles under each section.. Himalayan   20:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I won't actually make redlinks to the missing articles on en-wiki, since the anglicised name is presumably different. Just need to get the code to identify the categories, without having to code in the word "Category" for every language Fritzpoll (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

See WikiProject Intertranswiki/Spanish/Culture/Bot Run now what I mean. So it lists a parent category as a header, then sub header and lists the articles red linked like that within them (and if possible a small es relative article link (es) after the red linked article like Asturias museums) and in the case where there are sub sub headers it lists them under the fourth block headers smaller as sub of the sub headers. Like in the example I've given so it list articles in a format which corresponds to the ordering on the other wiki.. I don't mind if you can dump them on sorting pages in that sort of format as they can be sorted into appropriate project pages later. Himalayan   20:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh please do red link them. The spanish will be redirected anyway at a later date when the article gets create and probably into the anglicized names. In a lot of cases thorugh you'll find we retain the spanish naming convention, so red linking them is fine, nobody is going to go reckless with them... If you do browse Spanish wiki or any other though it will astound you what we ar emissing like this. The idea eventually is that we have a record of every missing article which presently has one on another wikipedia and we work towards something, even if it will take years to get them onto here... Himalayan   20:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Like:


 * Alfercam Museum (es)
 * Archaeological Museum of Asturias (es)
 * Art Gallery of Eduardo Úrculo (es)
 * Beekeeping House (es)
 * Black Pottery Museum (es)
 * Bowling Museum of Asturias (es)
 * Cider Museum (es)

Obviously the titles will be in spanish and can then be sorted later if english title is desired manually.. Himalayan   20:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, am having another go - pretty time intensive process to sort through the category tree, so I'll pause for the evening. The formatting will need fixing to match the spec, but hopefully this is the skeleton of what you were after? Fritzpoll (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes that looks good. I'm wondering whether it would be easier for you to run the bot and generate severla pages of missing lists under cateogries names like so and then leave it for the project members to sort afterwards. The biggest thing needed is a power tool initially to generate the lists like you just did. Maybe we will need to adapt the project format to allow the simple generation of these lists, I don't mind but this will be a great help. Himalayan   21:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, no easier than also having a target subpage, really - and that makes it easier for you in the long run Fritzpoll (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Only problem is that it seems to have mixed up the cateogries. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barco_del_arroz for instance in your list is listed under category "Lenguas de espania". However none of them are languages the articles that group seems to be under the category just Categoría:Cultura de España. Oh, you've done this under all the categories. Was that intentional and just a test then??? Because the first section is correct but the other aren't as they are duplicates of the content of the parent category. E.g the second section would list this, its sub cateogries and relative missing articles within them, not those listed in the parent category.... Himalayan   21:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It goes through and grabs a category tree from the parent - that is all the subcategories, and subcategories of subcategories, etc. and then goes through and grabs the articles from those categories. This seems to be causing a problem... Fritzpoll (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * BUG!! Re-running! Fritzpoll (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I re-looked at WikiProject_Intertranswiki/Spanish/Culture/Bot_Run just now and it's excellent. There may be some other tweaks needed after further review/sort --- need to digest it. But well done, Fritz. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. Give me the tools, and I can do the job :) I'll check on applying for this to be added as a task to FritzpollBot Fritzpoll (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks great Fritz. One thing. Can you list them one after another across the page to condense the space used? Maybe add a divider after each like | or a dot or something... Himalayan   07:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

like:

Alfercam Museum (es) | Archaeological Museum of Asturias (es) | Art Gallery of Eduardo Úrculo (es)|Beekeeping House (es) |Black Pottery Museum (es) |Bowling Museum of Asturias (es) |Cider Museum (es) Himalayan  07:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't bypass any category and recognised all sub categories and goes through them... Himalayan   07:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That won't look too condensed? I'd be worried about readability, but it's not a problem - I'll just offload the  tags that the bot includes. But only if you're sure.  The thing goes through the entire subcategory tree from the starting point, and will even include headers for categories that have no articles matching our criteria as a check.  The bot is now listed awaiting approval - you might want to read it to check it over. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a divider like | like I've added above. The more condensed the better really as we aim to draw up a directory of missing articles so fitting as many on each page as possible is better. I've just started Morcón from your list. Overall I am sure we will both find the huge variety of missing content from other wikipedias very interesting and much needed in english to provide a better coverage. Now if Jimbo Wales and co contacted schools and requested people write articles from the directory in the language they are learning, this would come on leaps and bounds.. Himalayan   08:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, in order to test the new formatting, I'll need to rerun - for the moment, I'd like to avoid that until the bot request is approved. Should be able to do a find...replace in the text to update it though. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. Do you see the idea of the project I started for WikiProject Intertranswiki? Eventually the idea is to have an article on par or exceeding the quality of that on the relative wiki so we not only have the articles in english but we can provide an opportunity to improve upon the initial translation.The first step is taggin existin articles which need translation and drawing up a directory of missing articles from each language wiki. Himalayan   08:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - it's a clever idea to identify new topics. I'm hopeful that this bot will prove helpful to your content creation efforts Fritzpoll (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Definately a step in right direction. I'm also hoping that it may stimulate more regular activity in translating articles from other wikis and if people can visualise exactly what is missing try to help work towards it. If it doesn't then we at least know exactly what is missing and have some sort of plan for future development. The interwiki project is intended to also be part of the relative wikiprojects and these missing lists will also be listed on like WP:Spain main project page as a requests so hopefully that will attract more traffic to them and encourage people to do something. Not to mention the work that needs doing translating existing articles too like this!. But we have categories for those also as worklists organised by main topic in the same way. What we need above all is man power! Contacting translation schools and colleges I think could potentially get more people to be involved in it. There must be millions of people learning spanish for instance and needing some way to practise their writing skills... Himalayan   09:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC) There ya go and another Central Library of Cantabria. Several million more like this... Himalayan   09:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't forget on your first edit to show where the text originally came from - just a GFDL quibble. If we can get large lists of categories and associated project pages, I can run the bot to cover large batches.  Then you'll have a large set of resources to approach language schools with.  You might try the foreign language centres of UK/US universities as well.  Fritzpoll (talk) 10:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you know about translatewiki.net? Seems they have the same goals as us. Incidentally a number of them are also involved in the open street map project, two sister projects I demanded on here WikiAtlas and WikiTranslation but for some very peculiar reason wikia do not accept them "officially". Anyway after Angela's direction I've posted on all the main pages there for them to try to organize contacting schools. Which is not really good enough as wikia should be responsible themsevles for developing wikipedia.. Himalayan   13:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No I didn't - looks good though. Just waiting for bot approval and then we can get to work.  What we can probably do is get together a list on a separate page with each line formatted as language{refix,categoryName,targetPage.  Then the bot can slowly go through processing it line-by-line and generating the pages.  I can always re-run later to add the suggested statistical information, since the bot overwrites the page on each run.  What do you think? Fritzpoll (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

re: Thanks...
No problem :). By the way, you may want to add the bot into the "Bots" section of WikiProject Intertranswiki. Keep up the coding :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good plan - thanks! Fritzpoll (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And thanks for fixing my mistake at the approved subpage :). I thought I'd set the template to flagged, but must've been "Approved" instead of "Flagged" - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, I didn't anticipate any problems. When do we start? Do we use the bot to generate a list of categories on another wiki first and then add the missing articles? Or do we do it major topic/sub topic at a time? Himalayan   10:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest finding major categories on individual Wikipedias like the culture one, and basically repeating the work we did for the test. I think we have to find the categories manually, but I'll see if some of them have a common organisational structure.  I suggest we get the lists done  and start recruiting people simultaneously.  Are there Wikiprojects like Wikiproject:Spain, Wikiproject:Germany, etc that we can call on? Fritzpoll (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mmm I have a few people who may be able to help but the manual work is likely to be done by just a few of us as normal.. I am happy to fish around in other wikis. The problem with big wikis like German wiki is that they have a huge number of articles in many categories so finding EVERY missing article/category will not be easy as some subjects will not be obvious especially if they are generalized. I believe that every wiki has a full list of categories in the database, as for how they are related this is the difficult part, the ideal is to sort of map out in a category tree and have some sort of percentage meter which registers how many cateogries we have curently tackled in relation to what exists on the other wiki. That is probably not very easy though. But in terms of organization it is probably easiest to pick solid topics and then list all of the articles and sub categories and articles within these structures.. If you would like to start with the smaller wikis first this would make sense.. Himalayan  10:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the lingo, I can probably fish around the German wiki and choose some more specific categories for us to hunt in. What I'd suggest is building up a list of categories on a subpage so that we can review them and their ultimate target page here before doing a bot run.  I'll happily lend a paw with this. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. To list the categories first. Brrrrrr has it suddenly become very cold where you are? I'm wearing a western shirt today but I think I need to put on a thick wooly jumper... Winter is nigh.. Himalayan   11:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and piddling it down with rain :( Fritzpoll (talk) 12:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Niice. When do you want to start running the bot, in your own time... Shall we start with the small wikis first? Himalayan  17:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not? Which one? Fritzpoll (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's start with Faroese wiki from here...The quality is not the best so when the articles come to be started best to use web sources. The articles thought at least root out missing notable topics... Himalayan   10:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Where do you want the output? Fritzpoll (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You could make a subpage of WikiProject Intertranswiki/Faroese. Himalayan   10:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to call the subpage - I can't understand the language! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Something like WikiProject Intertranswiki/Faroese/Missing articles. Himalayan   11:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Next.  :) Fritzpoll (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you do it so the list is condensed to save space? By island categories next.. Himalayan   11:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Before we continue, it would be much faster if you edit User:FritzpollBot/task3 and create a list of fo-wiki categories with a target page.  Otherwise this back-and-forth is going to take ages. :) Fritzpoll (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Mmm change of idea. Would it be possible to just generate an A-Z missing list by language wikipedia instead using the bot to go through their index? That way we don't have to worry about categories and we then have a simple missing A-Z list from each wiki? What do you think? The ordering by topic was a nice idea but given the multi layer way in which categories are organized this is will be way more time consuming. If lists are generated with a language version then people browsing through the lists can figure out what the article is and start it.  Himalayan   12:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't really understand the above. can you try to rephrase, and I'll return to this in a few hours.  The category thing seems to be working well. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

See this as an example on Spanish wiki. I mean draw up the full list of categories copied from here using the bot and then get the bot to generate lists from within them. That way it should have a ready made target and we can ensure that we have all categories covered. Do you follow? Himalayan   12:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My spanish being quite poor, is this like a top-level for all categories at es-wiki from which I can run the bot - to rephrase, are all categories ultimately children of this category? Fritzpoll (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, look on the left hand side -you have all of the category directories by language listed. All we need to do then is copy the full A-Z categories by wikipedia and place all of the articles in each one without en: links within them. So for Faroese wikipedia draw up an A-Z list of categories from here and generate lists from the categories which don't have en:links in alpha order. Obviously this way we'll have to scrap the topic idea and just draw up a simple directory with categories in alpha order. Obviously you can do as many as you feel like per session... Do you follow? Himalayan  12:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Himalayan  12:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Going to try something rough and ready and put it at WikiProject Intertranswiki/Spanish/Missing articles - will take a few minutes Fritzpoll (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. Can you condense the lists though? One category after another is fine but the lists of articles withint them are best presented across the page to save project space.. The pages you will need can be listed Missing articles 1, Missing articles 2 etc, or by letter if that takes your fancy. Often thought the english equivalent letter may not correspond.. Himalayan   12:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The bot is currently running - probably going to take a long time to do the job I've asked of it. I have tried to get a separation like Missing1 • Missing2] • [[Missing3 etc. on the new run - going to take hours! Fritzpoll (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a much easier way as it will find categories none of otherwise would even think of... Bot is running what right now? Himalayan   13:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. I started running it 20-30 mins ago.  Long, long collation for a single page creation, but it does have to now go through every article on a Wikipedia Fritzpoll (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah exactly, just imagine how long it would have taken me to sort out into topics!! It is more important we have a full directory of missing articles. If the categories are listed in alpha order and list the missing articles within each one this is pretty straightforward to follow. If one editor decides they want to organize a few topics they can do that but as I said manual time is better spent actually starting/expanding the missing content then spending hours trying to organize them.. German, French and Italian wiki too have a huge amount! I'll let the project know about the change of plan... Himalayan  13:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Still running... you'll probably want to review the output once it's finished.  Doing de-wiki is going to take ages!! Fritzpoll (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say German and French will take the longest. You'll also be surprised how much content is missing from wikis like Polish wikipedia too. Did you know that the runner of KotBot actually proposed a plan on meta wiki to actually merge all the language wikipedias onto one site and maintain different language versions of the same article? In terms of utilising contributors this would be excellent but of course there are many flaws and some impossibilities to that idea... For the goal of wikipedia to produce an encyclopedia of the highest quality to anybody in their own language though it would seem to make more sense to put all the work into a single project by everybody and share the information in the given language. Himalayan   13:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC) So rather than say Swahili wikipedia having to write an article about NYC, they could simply view the English language article in Swahili and have all of the combined articles of the wikipedias with an option to read them in Swahili. In an ideal wiki world any editor could contribute to an article and it to be a progressive development for everybody if it was that easy to inter-translate given articles perfectly...Now i've proposed some pretty ambitious things on here, but that idea seemed beyond even me.... Himalayan   13:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fascinating idea, but technically and socially challenging... Still going Fritzpoll (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Layout looks perfect. One thing though, if there are no articles in a given category which can be started can you ignore that category by default, leaving a list of only the categories which have articles to be started? Or do you create the categories first? Himalayan  21:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think I'll add a little something to eliminate those. Back to it in the morning (currently off sick from work) Fritzpoll (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I now have my Tibetan infobox, I've just been sorting it out. Yes, the latest version looks just about perfect to me. Off on holiday for the week? Now don't go doing a Stephen Gately on me!! Himalayan   13:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably work at home tomorrow, then back in the office by Thursday. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Tibetan Buddhism infobox
Off sick eh? Hey I was wondering if you could help me with this. I'm trying to create a decent specalised infobox for Tibetan monasteries. The requirements I need a given as are the colors I just need the paramters fixed. As you are good with coding could you fix me a good template to add to articles like Tashilhunpo. This way we can merge in the transliterations into one infobox. Also for a the pin locator map can you fix it so the pin shows as File:Buddhism Symbol.png. I think it will look really good. Something like on Template:Location map China! Himalayan  22:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Your question on Math reference desk
I think I added a solution (just as it moved into the archives) so I thought I would draw it to your attention. Ctourneur (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.Ctourneur (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Fondul Proprietatea
Hi. In June, you said to refer back to you "if there are still problems in a couple of months". Well, it's been four months, and if anything the article has deteriorated. There's certainly been no effort to remove the attack-page elements, and it reads as though the author is waging a personal crusade against the Fund. - Biruitorul Talk 02:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Unreferenced_BLP_notification
Hi, Bot_requests has been open a week and had plenty of publicity, so I think we can say it has consensus. Could you coordinate with MZMcbride about how/who to implement it? cheers, Rd232 talk 10:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do Fritzpoll (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Jennavecia/AFDBIO
While you're looking at the code, can you switch User:Jennavecia/AFDBIO to use a bulleted list (or maybe even a numbered list if you're feeling wild) instead of two returns for each entry? --MZMcBride (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't be a problem. Reminds me - need to look back and see if you replied to my question on your page... Fritzpoll (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Next list
How about Albanian wiki?] Himalayan   15:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that too big? Himalayan   09:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, though I left it running overnight and my login timed out, so I had to create the page by hand from the generated text - see WikiProject Intertranswiki/Albanian/Missing articles Fritzpoll (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, well done. Why though are some of them not wikified properly and are boxed? I think it would be better to put a category on a different line. I only meant the articles listed within them across the page.. Plus if the page gets too long according to you, you can create them like WikiProject Intertranswiki/Albanian/Missing articles 2 etc.. Himalayan  09:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm...seems to have been my fault when manually shifting the data on-wiki - looks like my quick copy and paste over breakfast failed somewhat. I'll redo it this evening when I get back from work. Page breaks would be pretty arbitrary and add some complexity, but theoretically possible with a bit of a rewrite.  Is it essential? Fritzpoll (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Not essential, although 1300 kilobytes is one hell of a page. I am all for condensing but I would have thought 500 kb per oage would be enough... Anyway I've started one article Bajraku, actually two merged into one.. These missing articles really reveal some gaping holes in the knowledge provided on here, for instance the municipality article which is the modern equivalent in Kosovo mentions nothing about its history before 1998!!! Much appreciate your efforts. It isn't essential to have the categories on seperate lines but that was the idea and then list the articles across the page. Himalayan  10:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Purely a formatting error caused by my clumsy copy and paste to save the bot having to redo the entire run. Will nonetheless redo it tonight - I'll give some thought to the page size limits Fritzpoll (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, as long as it looks like the very top of WikiProject Intertranswiki/Albanian/Missing articles. What I'll do shortly is create a project navigation template linking the main pages of these lists together. Although we don't as yet have pages for some of the smaller projects I'd say it would still be worth creating missing lists as you never know what may be found on many of the other wikis. Obviously the bulk lies in the main European ones but we'll see.. I'll also need your help in deleting some of the topic pages as we go along... Himalayan   11:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I presently plan to check every Wikipedia, and to periodically refresh the pages (that is, rerun the bot for wikis to keep the missing article lists up to date). Still wondering about how to add stats given the need to keep the presentation compact. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There we go, Template:Intertranswiki missing articles. Can you fix the alignment errors and nuke the project topic pages for Albania and Faroes?. I doubt though that many of the smaller wikis have that much to salvage most of them will be able to be listed on one page I'd imagine. Himalayan   11:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I frighten you? Himalayan   16:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, just got bogged down with work - trying albania again Fritzpoll (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it difficult to program it as I requested with categories on seperate lines? Himalayan   09:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the problem is that the Save method on the page is causing a NullReferenceException to be thrown. That suggests either that MediaWiki has updated its code so that the underlying framework can't complete, or that the page size is somehow throwing the entire thing off...  it's a pain because the code reads the other wiki fine and forms the text of the new page (probably) alright, but then won't save it out. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not too bothered provided it links them properly and looks fairly tidy... Himalayan   11:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a technical problem - might be that the page is too large for a single save Fritzpoll (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, I've rewritten the code to split the data over multiple pages in the 60-80kb range (splitting at a new category after 60K) and am trying to run the code on Albania again. The current "Missing articles" page will become an index page with the actual pages as "Missing articles/1", etc.   Seems Albania is missing loads, given that the text was 1.33MB! Fritzpoll (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that sounds more promising. It won't take 3 minutes to save a page then! Himalayan   16:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC) You really are quite a wizard. I have immense respect for your programming capabilities to sort out the most annoying of glitches. That my friend is perfect. If we can now do the same for all of the other wikis this will be a very positive move forward in terms of working towards a fuller coverage. To put articles like this in english will be the next step! Himalayan  21:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Pages
Fritzpoll,

I saw your messages. Yeah, the "Ban Damiensrf" is evidence, which is allowable, but it's also old and pointless now. So I'll request author deletion. The "Wierd Wiki" stuff is just humor, you know, some of the crazy stuff that happens here occasionally. It's entertainment. Thanks for asking! <span style="color:#333;font-face:Trebuchet MS;solid #FAECC8;background-color:#FAF6ED;padding:2px 15px;letter-spacing:2px">Naluboutes, Naluboutes<i>Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 15:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin review
Well, I don't know about you, but not having previously experienced either the AfD process or the Admin review process, I found it all rather interesting - not at all what I was expecting, but never-the-less, interesting. It seemed to achieve a lot of things, but I'm not sure that an admin review was one of them! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC) (P.S. Now that you've closed it, you probably want to remove the banner at the top of this talk page.)
 * It was interesting, certainly - I'll remove the banner on my next edit. Our processes are not transparent to unwary contributors, and I think we need to work on that if we're to keep people here and editing.  Thanks for your input Fritzpoll (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

unreferenced BLP notification bot
Hi, just wondered what's happening re the unreferenced BLP notification bot - did you agree with other possible bot creators who would do it? Rd232 talk 09:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My working laptop is on the fritz, so I'm just offloading my existing tasks to a separate machine - I am now looking at it, as MZMcBride wasn't convinced of its merits. The important thing is trying to work out who to notify - have you got any thoughts on that heuristic?  Fritzpoll (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, off the top of my head, I'd say as a starting point (should probably discuss this at WT:BLP too, where the original discussion was): X might be 500; Y 1000.
 * Creators
 * Editors who made changes > X bytes (excluding any changes consisting of tag or category removals or additions)
 * Activity filter: <Y edits, if active in last 30 days; >Y edits, if active in last year (more likely to return)
 * Wikiproject filter: reduce X by half if the editor is a member of Wikiproject Biography

Got any other ideas? Rd232 talk 14:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To develop criteria, perhaps we should grab a sample of unreferenced articles and examine them manually, deciding who we would and would not contact. From that, a set of criteria should hopefully emerge.  Otherwise the values of X and Y will be arbitrary. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Perhaps try and recruit people from / discuss at WT:BLP? Rd232 talk 15:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A discussion would be a good idea - can you kick it off, as I'm trying to run a different, CPU/bandwidth intensive process at the mo and my net connection is....variable :) Fritzpoll (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Rd232 talk 21:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

record chart bot
I pretty much laid out the required operation. The problem is a little different than you were proposing, because you were planning on a mass article build, if I recall correctly. This problem is more a case of monitoring data provided by others, and, unfortunately, having to stay compatible with manually edited tables. There's just too many error cases where the data has to be sourced to non-standard places to do it 100% automatically (for example, Sweden doesn't regular publish new certification for singles that are no longer on the charts, but they do issue certifications: those wind up sourced to individual news releases; other charts are only published physically). If you look at the source of singlechart and singlecert, you can see the range of sources, as well: it's about 50 sources that need to be searched and collated. Why don't you take a look at those two templates and the websites they access, and let me know what you think.

I appreciate your offer of help.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot
How about Finnish next? Himalayan   22:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See the above - my laptop appears to be dying. It starts fine, then gradually freezes - not sure why, but I am moving the bot to a different platform.  Give me 48 hours to restart Fritzpoll (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Update? Himalayan   18:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Computer still broken - couldn't keep my home desktop running long enough (bloody noisy!) to finish processing. Will move it to work tomorrow, where it can run over the weekend. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Noisy? Sounds like an 80s computer... Himalayan   18:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

New Section
I didn't add anything in the archived area. I created a new section as the archive itself says. Please don't revert my comment, unless you can tell me where else, not just "somewhere else," to make the comment, and please don't revert me when I am following the BAG directions. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories
Great. Actually I have a book about the Kennedy curse I haven't looked at yet which I've been meaning to improve the Kennedy curse article with. I might be able to find something about Robert Kennedy's death in that.. Himalayan   09:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!


As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Might you care to look in?
I've done considerable work on Article Incubator/Reed Cowan and wish it to be evaluated for possible return to mainspace. He has numerous awards and nominations. His awards as a TV journalist push at bringing him in per WP:ANYBIO, as does his continued work as an activist. And even if some feel regional Emmy Awards are not notable, that the "regions" being covered represent such a large portion of the US, is indicative that their notability as awards is reasonable to presume and easier to source. Further, and since the death of his son, Cowan is a newsman who is now making the news. He is now himself the subject of news coverage as an activist and filmmaker, thus allowing him to exceeds the requirements of WP:GNG. Any thoughts or advice would be most welcome.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have some time to look at this later, and will attend to it then. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 09:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Untitled comment
Blad why did you delete the JME page, you just a hater, UK Grime is a big ting, restore the page please, peace blad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumbriandubsteper (talk • contribs) 23:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved this to a new section. Regrettably, I genuinely have no idea what it means. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

OK sorry for using UK street speak, i meant why did you delete the JME page (the UK rapper).
 * I'm even from the UK, and I didn't get it! :)  I can assure you that it's nothing personal, let me just quickly check and I'll get back to you Fritzpoll (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, this was a year ago, which is why it didn't come to mind. A discussion was held here that was closed as delete by an administrator.  It was recreated repeatedly, and we have a rule that means that we keep deleting content that has been deleted following a discussion of this kind.  If you want to know why people decided to delete the article, it is because we have a certain set of guidelines that determine whether or not something or someone gets an article, and it was decided that it didn't meet these guidelines.  If you thik you can meet those guidelines, or you have any other questions about Wikipedia or how to appeal this deletion, let me know Fritzpoll (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks sorry i should of said more details, didn't realize that it was over a year ago. How do you appeal this deletion, as I like to. There's practically unlimited space on the internet so why does something need to be important or well known, not a question to you but ive always wondered why people delete wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumbriandubsteper (talk • contribs) 20:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can answer the second question with a link to What Wikipedia is not - we're an encyclopedia, not a repository of every scrap of information known to man. There are other projects, and other wikis out there that can cater to almost every desire, but this one is an encyclopedia, and so standards have been defined by the community as to what constitutes an acceptable subject.  Broadly speaking, this is defined by Wikipedia's definition of notability. < Read that link and come back to me here and tell me how you think the subject of this article meets the standard - basically, you're going to need reliable, third-party independent sources (for our definition of those see here) that talk about it in some depth.  Thing like forums, fan sites, blogs, etc.  don't count.  If you find something, we can undelete and rewrite the article here and now (I or any admin can do this for you).  Otherwise, I can't, but I will be able to point you to the next step to appeal the deletion Fritzpoll (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Template
Thanks. I'm sure it will get me permanently banned from Wikipedia, but, thanks for fixing the template for me. --69.225.9.98 (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome...at least, the part about fixing the template. I don't think a ban is in order here Fritzpoll (talk) 09:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And thanks for adding the link to the enforcement request to MBisanz's page. I couldn't do it as I'm not logging in again. At least I learned something from this: I was 100% right not to register! As to the ban, don't forget, I was indef blocked for less just today! --69.225.9.98 (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, but you were unblocked just as quickly! :) I'd reconsider logging in - there are advantages. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I get indef blocked because of Betacommand and his mentor and you say I'm being frivolous. Thanks. How many supporters does Betacommand need to get a third arbcom, a couple dozen more AN/Is, how many more chances at skirting the letter of this sanctions?

But, don't worry, I know exactly how bots members feel about input. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not a supporter of Betacommand: If you can find one diff prior to all of this that indicates otherwise, I will truly eat my hat. The fact that you are dividing people into black vs. white categories is quite indicative of my comment that you just won't accept that we're not in some gang - you just aren't right about this one.  I for one welcomed your input on the bot issue, for what it's worth - you just never deigned to answer my questions about how we could change. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I answered it today. I answered it by preparing an example of a good way to gain community consensus about the actions of a bot. I questioned a relevant community, and got their input.
 * I see your coming to the arbcom enforcement request and saying I should just leave it alone after Betacommand came to an AN/I about me, that I was not notified about, suggested something be done about me, then MBisanz suggested an indef block, and an indef block being put against me with no evidence or diffs or investigations, as your siding with Betacommand. I'm the one who was indef blocked upon request by Betacommand and his mentor.
 * If my issues with Betacommand were non-existent, then Betacommand would not have come to AN/I to request something be done about me. Look at his edit history. He's not posting on bot boards, then he comes there to repeatedly attack me. I personally think that you refuse to even look at my side of the issue, and refuse to look for any wrong-doing on the part of Betacommand, and I see this as supporting Betacommand.
 * Is anyone going to ask Betacommand to leave it alone? He didn't have to come and attack me at BRFA, there were enough bot owners already taking care of that. He commented about almost no other issues there than me. He came to AN/I solely to comment about me. He has a reputation for going after users he sees as less experienced (read the arbcoms). And, everyone gets on me about not leaving it alone, but no one asks him to leave me alone. Yes, you are biased and supporting Betacommand. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course - I'll happily ask him to do as much if you'd like. Bit awkward, given that it's at AE at present, but I could do so.  Again, the snide remarks about my supposed "bias" (based on what? disagreeing with you on this matter?) and that you have been "attacked" by me (when?  I've only ever asked you to help enlighten me).  I do, in this case, think the best thing to be done is nothing but a quiet word to you both to get out of each other's hair - for whatever reason (I know, I've heard many) you're both winding each other up.  I haven't seen your comments at the bot pages (not been over there today) but I will go look them over and discuss them with you there, if that is alright?  Which page are they on? (I have a lousy memory!) Fritzpoll (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The current discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval. What's the matter, can't be bothered to check my last dozen or so IPs and find the conversation.... --69.225.3.198 (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And, yes, I'd like your input on this. I would like to have a plan of action for getting community input on community issues concerning bots, and divide this from technical matters with bots. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no way of knowing what your IP addresses are! :)  I have commented with a suggestion - merely an opening gambit, but one which forces a bot operator requesting a flag for article work to apply to us with pre-existing evidence of attempting to find consensus Fritzpoll (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

AE action
I tried to file an AE action and I thought I did it okay but it ended up looking like the guy from that movie "The Fly." Don't know what I did wrong. I do admit that I'm somewhat Wiki challanged. Requesting some assistance if it's not too much of a bother. Thanks.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All done - some errors on the templates. And when linking a diff and you want to put text in its place, write [http:....38383 here] (notice the space, not a "|")  Should be fine now! Fritzpoll (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Jennavecia/AFDBIO
Hey there. I noticed that your bot hadn't updated Jennavecia's list in a couple of days. Do you think you could fix that up? Thanks. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 14:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry - the system it's on seems to have reset - running it manually, should be done by the time this edit saves Fritzpoll (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Rollback for User:TheWeakWilled
Hello Fritzpoll. I see you already commented on the rollback request for this editor. My inclination would be to go ahead and grant the rollback. The R.I.P. looked like plain vandalism to me, though opinions could differ. I checked some of his AfD nominations and votes, and it appears that he has WP:CLUE. I undid one of his PRODs, though that's not a rollback issue. Would you object if I went ahead with the rollback? EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed - appreciate you coming to me first. It was the only strange undo that I noted going through their contribs and, based on everything, it seemed like a simple mistake.  I would not have called it blatant vandalism, and it appears from their answer that an edit summary would be normal for them as well.  Based on that, I granted rollback a few minutes ago.  I really just wanted to see how blatant they thought it was.  Cheers, Fritzpoll (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

ARS Bot
I would oppose a bot which provides a quick-vote list on articles tagged for rescue. Please be sure that such a bot has consensus. What's wrong with the category? Hipocrite (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (shrugs) I'm pretty indifferent either way - I'm not a member of ARS, and as a member of BAG, I am perfectly well aware of the requirements for consensus. :)  Simply suggesting a means to fulfil a request, really - not sure how it is particularly different to similar composition lists for Wikiprojects, WP:AFDT etc. that could equally well be used for default voting positions.  And if the category can be used just as well, it could be argued that your fear about quick-voting is just as applicable to a category as it is to a transcluded list.  Nonetheless, I would still wait to see a reason given for such a transclusion before proceeding, so your hasty intervention here is somewhat premature.  Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. The difference between the proposed list of AFDs and the category is that to vote on AFD's from the category one needs to actually have opened the articles, while to vote on them from a del-sort type of list one does not. Hipocrite (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So you're concerned about vote-stacking based on removing an extra click? If there are concerns about ARS and vote-stacking at AfD, which I appreciate exist, then better they are exposed and the problem nipped in the bud at source.  Attempting to prevent it merely by slight inconvenience does not seem a particularly profitable endeavour.  Plus, in principle, there's nothing to prevent them from creating an ARS delsort line and getting the list of AfDs separately.  My message: if there's an issue on the voting, tackle it at source not on the periphery. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And how do you suggest one deal with a project which has a good number of it's participants sole desire and contribution to be "*Keep' Riles up the other team?" I mean, not to beat a dead horse, but Articles for deletion/Telepathy and war. You suggest how to make it stop, and I'll try that, instead of just trying to make it harder. Hipocrite (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Solving the inclusionism-deletionism debate is a tricky thing - almost impossible because the views are philosophical. The problem with the ARS is that it has a few inclusionists who do seem desperate to keep everything and anything regardless of community norms, but it also has a lot of reasonable people in it who do seem to genuinely want to save articles.  Now, I'm happy with the latter, and often irritated by the former who will not compromise (something I would apply equally to deletionists of similarly extreme persuasion) so do I throw out the whole lot in my analysis?  Is it possible to extract the more disruptive element and leave something more palatable?  No.  So we work with it, and expose the arguments of those who are simply of a mind to keep everything, for any definition of "notable", as being incompatible with our encyclopedic endeavour.  If admins do their jobs, the consensus will be weighed accordingly.  And if vote-stacking does occur, let's expose it expeditiously, not live in the pretence that it can be controlled when the charge can't be made to stick. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Something like the other 100 deletion sorting pages: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron Ikip (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, except that the other deletion sorting pages exist so that editors with knowledge of those subjects can make a reasoned decision on such AfDs. Let's face it, this isn't what would happen if such a bot was to exist for the rescue tag, is it? <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 18:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fritz, I suggest moving this discussion to the ARS talk page. Black Kite, I have already discredited this "expert" argument. I would like to avoid talking with you because of the un-admin like personal attacks in the past you have made towards Dream focus and I.
 * I am unwatching this page, since the main discussion isn't here. Ikip (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see very little chance that this bot would achieve consensus for its activities. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot...
Watchlist the currently redlinked WikiProject Intertranswiki/Danish/Missing articles page - I've moved the program onto an unused server system away from my house and I'm just leaving it to run overnight. If it succeeds, I'll try kicking off one a day (overnight) and then set off one of the huge wikis over a weekend - like de perhaps (gulp!). Sorry about the delay, but the bot processes so much that it makes my fans at home whirr like a jet engine and the missus isn't keen on that going on overnight! Fritzpoll (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

De wiki? Awesome. Now that would be extremely useful... May take a while, your computer may even decide to fly around the world in the meantime!!! Himalayan   16:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put it past the thing - the computer was gathering pace as I left it for the evening! Fritzpoll (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

How'd it go after? Himalayan   12:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This drew my attention to a particular fact: Look at the top of this section - it's not red-linked anymore! It finished Denmark!  It took a fair while (about a day) to do all the da articles, because there seem to be so many that aren't transwiki'd over there.  I'll look at the timings, but I might kick off one of the large wikis to run for the rest of the day, tomorrow and over the weekend. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

OMG... 89 pages!!! That's insane, if Danish wikipedia is on 89 pages, imagine how German wiki will look! Now we need like 1000 Peter Schmeicels and Helena Christensens to transfer them! Wow I'm impressed! Himalayan  12:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look through some of the articles are blue-linked. What that suggests is that da-wiki is not well transwikilinked, so there may be cause to find people who like to do the transwiki-links to have a wander through some of the more obvious cases. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's the only thing is that it may pick up articles which are not interlinked bu may exist. I would say though that the actual missing articles outweigh that a long way though!! Oh can you nuke these Himalayan   12:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Batch deleted. I have kicked off the worst one, by comparison with which all others will be easy.  We shall have to see if my computer, memory and other resources can cope with......de-wiki!  Fritzpoll (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

German wiki? The biggest by far, this will take all weekend until Christmas most likely! I'll also connect these lists at the missing encyclopedia articles project to encourage more coordination but the important thing is that we know exactly what is missing from each language wikipedia and can work towards bridging the gaps. And to think a lot of people think english wikipedia cannot grow much more... Himalayan  13:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course in many cases you'll find that the missing articles overlap and that many of the wikis will alreayd have that article. Hotel Føroyar for instance I found in the Danish list but actually used German wiki as the translating wiki as it was higher quality. So I would say German wiki given that its quality is more consistent than any is undoubtedly the most important wiki needing translating, closely followed by France. It doesn't matter though on what wikipedia where we find the missing articles, it is finding it which your bot does so well. And it is not always obvious. For instance Czech wiki has many missing articles on Central Asian rivers which are either non existent on other wikis including English or are of much higher quality and German wiki has quality info about The Gambia for instance so it there will definately be some suprising ones that hopefully your bot which catch which we otherwise would never have though of looking under.. Himalayan  15:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that (hopefully) this bot is proving more of a success that our earlier endeavours! Fritzpoll (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Howz bot going? Checked up on it yet? Has it taken off yet? Himalayan  19:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was still churning away when I left it last night - I'll remotely check on it later this evening and see how it fares. Won't be quick though!  :) Fritzpoll (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Still going, boss - the program is using 550Mb of memory and rising - I think it's still in the categories... :-S Fritzpoll (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Still going? I hope the computer isn't over-heating! Well, let's remember this is the biggest one.... Hehe there is going to be a fair few red links I think? Himalayan   12:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometime in the past 14 hours, the bot completed parsing all of the categories (~74-75,000) and is now processing the articles themselves. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Howz it doin now? Still processing? Himalayan   12:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Still going - will look in on it tomorrow Fritzpoll (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Still running? Himalayan   13:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL
Exactly 400 words. Weirdo ;p –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 18:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what happens when you run over a wordcount and then desperately try to claw it back to the limit. I used to have the same problem with essays at school :)  Fritzpoll (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Holy cow. You've gone raving mad, Fritzpoll :-)   Keeper  |  76  03:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Yes I have :)  Fritzpoll (talk) 07:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

G'day Fritz
I noticed that you're brave / foolish enough to stick your hand up for the Arbcom this year - I'm planning on doing some short audio interviews with as many candidates as I can manage as part of the WikiVoices project, so am hoping that you might be interested in having a 15 / 20 minute chat at a moment of your convenience? - I'll be using Skype to make and record the conversation, and my ID is 'Privatemusings' - I can happily call you on a landline or cell / mobile, but perhaps you are also on Skype, and don't mind sharing your ID with me? - the slowish start to nominations might give me a bit of a head start this year, so if you're up for it, lets find a suitable time, and give it a go! - maybe the best next step is for you to indicate some times you might be able to be available, or ask any questions you might have? Hope you're good, and good luck! Privatemusings (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My user ID on Skype is Fritzpoll (I'm not big on the username imagination), and on UK time - so if we can work out a UTC to do it, then I'm game. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Great Stuff :-) - I'm on the other side of the world from you (sydney), so will add you on Skype and look for you in the morning and evening (which will be the opposite for you) - if we don't cross paths before mid next week, I'll suggest a specific time to get the ball rolling, if that's ok :-) best, Privatemusings (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fritz, yes, the General Questions are definitely ready to transclude (the template. Thanks for your inquiry. Tony   (talk)  12:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Fritzpoll 2009 birth certificate scandal
Greetings, Frtizpoll. While doing some routine research on candidates for the Arbitration Committee December 2009 elections, I have discovered some disturbing anomalies in your otherwise squeaky clean past.

The database does not hold a record of your registration, claiming that the "data [is] not available". Even more damning, it points the reader to an "estimation" feature to discern the registration date; yours, "Fritzpoll" (is that even your real name?), is whitewashed. Why have you or your operatives whitewashed the record from Wikimedia servers?

Disconcerted, and wary of surveillance by agents in your employ, I withdrew to private channels, and enquired as to the age of your account with the registrar, which declared "The age of Fritzpoll is 39 years, 327 days, 21 hours, 7 minutes, and 18 seconds." This was astounding, even more so because when asked the age of our Glorious Leader and God King, it proclaimed "The age of Jimbo_Wales is 8 years, 234 days, 0 hours, 19 minutes, and 54 seconds." Are you claiming to have been a Wikipedian before the great Wales, Fritzpoll? Is this election campaign the first step in proclaiming yourself the true founder of Wikipedia?

I ask you, why are you the only candidate not to have a registration date in the public record? Did you have your flunky knowingly insert a false date and order its retraction once your scheme had been found out?

The people must know the Truth! Skomorokh, barbarian  21:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone bring in Orly Taitz! @harej 21:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * HAHAHAHAHAHAHA J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  21:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. :D --MZMcBride (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The truth is that Wikipedia was founded by User:127.0.0.1, the rest is propaganda. Keegan (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Shame you can't have this on your userpage. — Jake   Wartenberg  23:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hilarious!<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 03:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a flunky I swear! <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 04:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never laughed so hard at something on my talkpage :) Fritzpoll (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha, LOL now that is hilarious!! Howz the bot doin Fritz. Surely it must have finished by now? Himalayan  15:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * had a look - it got close, and then crashed from a lack of memory (the bot was consuming nearly 2GB at one point), so I need to rewrite slightly to make it more memory-efficient. Believe it or not, that's a relatively simple fix (meaning, I've worked out how to do it!), so I'll do it over lunchtime tomorrow and restart the process - it will mean pages will be added incrementally to the master list, and not all in one go as now.  Fritzpoll (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you rerun it? Himalayan   21:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The computer it was on is no more - a dead PSU. So I am rewriting from the backup version I had and will run it on Monday. Sorry for the delay, but it was a total hardware failure. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah that's a shame. Hopefully your backup version will work. Plenty to transwiki in the meantime... Regards. Himalayan   10:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

GQ2
Thanks for your question, Fritz. This is only a wish-list of possible suggestions: diffs/links to policy-related matters, preferably the discussion or editing of policy or guideline text, or to your intervention to resolve disputes, or examples that show you can write concisely with good control of tone, and/or have the ability to see faults in text (argument, logic, wording). FAs (preferably where your role is clear) would be second best, but usable as examples if there's nothing else. FAs are no mean achievement; it's just that they might have been the subject of a different question. Good luck in your candidacy. Tony  (talk)  14:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the detailed reply - it will allow me to formulate an appropriate response to your question. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
For getting back to me. Did you get the @ I send you in the past several weeks? If you could find some time to address the questions i raised in them, that would be great. And yes, we can do it on wiki. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure - it didn't come up in my inbox or I'd have responded. I'll trawl through the spam folder on my computer - it is possible it has ended up there.  If I find it, I'll respond tomorrow Fritzpoll (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Check 10-13 and 11-10; it is possible there was one or two more msgs I sent via the wikimail system. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At work at present, but will check the old folders when I get home. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Block of Shiggity
I realize that this has taken a while to follow up, but this issue so disenfranchised me and frustrated me that I wanted to wait awhile so as not to inadvertently inject unnecessary bias.

Following up as per the intention here, about  this block.

Summary: I repeatedly added back the content on the TALK PAGE of the listed article after a user repeatedly removed it, and I was warned not to add back content, even though it was relevant to the article. Again, this is content that was being removed from the talk page by a single user with no discussion. I then added to the same talk page a section asking how I can rephrase my content, and for that, you blocked me for 24 hours. Iridescent, who had initially threatened me with a block, supported your block, saying we don't need everyone with a theory editwarring for its inclusion.

I hold that it was completely inappropriate for the original user to repeatedly delete my content from the talk page, and that your block, of my adding back my only vehicle for trying to reach out and ask how to convey what some thought at the time was the potential for a crucial point, was also not only inappropriate, but abusive and dictatorial.

Please, let me know how this block was justifiable.

Shiggity (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Quote from the above: "I repeatedly added back the content..." - this is essentially the definition of edit warring, and it makes no difference where it is in in the article, talk or project spaces. Now, perhaps there was another editor also edit-warring:  that no-one saw them and blocked them does not excuse the disruption that you were causing.  I did not block you for asking how to rephrase, simply because you continued to add the same material.  If you wanted to ask how best to rephrase something, you should not have restored it, but simply pointed to the history if people needed tosee it.
 * In terms of WP:3RR, you were well over the bright line of 3 reverts/restorations in a 24 hour period. In terms of WP:Edit warring, you violated the spirit of these guidelines, despite warnings that you were doing so - when you are being advised to stop doing something, stop doing it.  My block was for violation of 3RR, as I stated in my block summary - it was not for you seeking clarification, and at no point have I said that it was.  Discussion is excellent, but repeated restoration of material is not.  I am happy to discuss this further, but I need a specific response to my contention, supported by others, that you violated 3RR Fritzpoll (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple of things unclear to me: are you saying that ALL instances of "repeated restoration" is edit warring? Because I believe my content was legitimate and I was repeatedly restoring it because someone was repeatedly removing it, which I considered vandalism as it was removing legitimate content.  The instance after I was told that I, rather than the person removing the content, was guilty of 3RR, my next post was NOT the content I had been restoring, which is why you say I violated 3RR "in spirit."  If you read that instance, you can see that my intention was to ask how to rephrase.  In fact, I think my response was to outright state that I wanted to know how to rephrase, since as I said above, I believe my edits were legitimate and those of the user removing my content were not. Shiggity (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed - you thought one thing and someone else thought something else. The answer to such disputes is not to continually undo each other, but discuss.  For some reason, you seem to think that in order to discuss, you had to keep restoring the content.  And for the third and hopefully final time, I did not say that you violated 3RR "in spirit" only.  To quote my block log summary, with the relevant portion highlighted:  (Edit warring:Violation of the three-revert rule: per warnings to talkpage - spirit and letter broken).  It was not "obvious vandalism", certainly not when you have been given a reason for the removal of content - I make no judgement on the appropriateness of the content itself, but the behaviour was disruptive and merited a block because you restored the content more than three times.  It was a relatively short block, as is customary in these cases.  I am disappointed that you can't see how you violated 3RR, and am not sure how else to rephrase it. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I suppose the question is how to discuss? Specifically, here is my controversial edit, for which you blocked me after MickMacNee removed my content without warning for more than the 3rd time, even though it seems he wasn't blocked, or warned.  So this is visible here, my post read:


 * "According to Wikipedia's policy: "Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors."


 * This section is with the intent to work towards adding content that gains a consensus. I think it is important to mention specific aspects of how MJ died. Specifically, whether a precordial thump was used and whether citable information is available about that.


 * As I am using "the talk page" in this section to "work towards...content that gains a consensus," is there any verifiable information on this method or specifics on his attempts at being resuscitated? If not, when this citable information becomes available, this should serve as a placeholder to put it into the article when it becomes relevant."


 * Is it at all unclear that I'm asking for advice about how to rephrase my content? Should I have posted to his talk page instead? Shiggity (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Original:


 * Add:
 * 1RR:
 * 2RR:
 * 3RR: - ignored feedback and restated question
 * 4RR:
 * 5RR:
 * New: - the one you cited to me above.  Essentially the same as the previous 7.

The problem is that you don't appear to have wanted to discuss - you were given feedback by more than just one user that this wasn't going to be appropriate, but you simply reverted back and reinstated your question. You could have posted the last diff to discuss, but your better course might have been simply to ask MickMacNee why he was still removing your posts - you reached at least 5RR (thus breaking the letter of the rules) and then posted something which was exactly the same but reworded, thus violating their spirit. You will have to pardon me for not dishing out a block to MMN, but that does not excuse your behaviour, nor does it make my actions "abusive and dictatorial". In general, my advice to you is to relax: there is no time limit on getting facts into articles, nor of making your point. There will always be disputes between users, and the way to handle them is discussion on their talkpage - you felt that MMN was being unreasonable? Ok, talk to him, don't take it out on an article talkpage Fritzpoll (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that I think about it, I think I did talk to him. I think he told me to go ahead and re-add the post and "see what happens."  He clearly believed he was in the right since, as you say, there was some feedback regarding the post.  But Iridescent told me to "use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors."  Some of my final post was similar, but it was only to gain a consensus.  If I hadn't mentioned anything about the original post, how would people have known what I was trying to get a consensus about?


 * You'll have to forgive me for being upset and using the questionably appropriate terms "abusive" and "dictatorial." Clearly, everyone in this situation was doing what they believed was right.  But the way this went - a user going around axing talk page content without discussion, and then an admin, Iridescent, backing it up by threatening a block, and finally you carrying out a block - has very much disillusioned me about Wikipedia.  I can't even bring myself to donate to a project which although being a good resource, is driven by an oligarchy and a careless degree of censorship, and I imagine plenty of others feel the same way.  Shiggity (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Newbies
If you aren't drowning in questions, could you look at User_talk:Betacommand.  MBisanz  talk 15:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

HarryAlffa
On your candidate statement, I merely wanted to clear up a possible ambiguity. I thought you must mean the committee when you spoke of the group. Cheers. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

German directory
I'm off on a wikibreak for a week or so now.. I strongly hope when I return you'll have found a way to upload those missing German articles. Thanks. Himalayan   21:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep - getting a new computer tomorrow. Will update and run code then.  Fritzpoll (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

2 weeks later.... Any developments? Dr. Blofeld       White cat 22:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!


I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Can't find the e-mail
Certainly. My questions to you were as follow:
 * this single diff was the cause of my adminship being questioned. I've responded to the argument that the protection was improper here. I'd appreciate your analysis of the situation: was my action improper? Did it hurt the article? If I asked the editor to file the request on my talk page, or at RFP and acted on it myself, would it be proper then? And, finally: is this action enough to justify desysoping (no other examples were cited)?

PS. As I see you are running for ArbCom, I would appreciate your thoughts here. This is, after all, a type of decisions you may need to make in the months to come. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, but I have been sporadically online (busy week). I think you answer the question yourself in the response - it would have been better to report it for a definitively neutral administrator to make the protection, for the avoidance of the very accusation of impropriety that you now face.  Your question is (understandably) a little loaded, but in the main I would say your action was slightly improper, given your involvement with the article.  Did it hurt the article?  No - but that's not the issue when holding a position of trust within the community.  It also wouldn't have hurt this type of article to wait the extra 60 seconds whilst another admin reviewed the situation.  In of itself, however, I don't believe this single action justifies desysoping - I think there is, however, legitimate cause to feel that you will have lost the trust of many simply by your participation in the mailing list and in the absence of a community de-adminship process, Arbcom would have to consider a desysop as a plausible sanction.  I'm sorry if that seems harsh, because you do seem, by-and-large, to be contrite on this issue - but this is the harsh truth.  I will warily venture over to the case page to take a look, but I may simply comment again here - I don't want to give the impression of election grandstanding on the day before the first vote is cast. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see you reply on your talk page, I'll keep this in mind. Also, see questions here - no hurry, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Jennavecia/AFDBIO
It has stopped updating again. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 23:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bugger - right, give me an hour or so to get to work and it'll run. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bug you if you are busy, but the bot still is not running. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 12:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

General note to all
I've just come back from my trip, and am currently in the process of moving flat. As such, my computer, housing my bots, is presently wrapped up in bubble wrap. Because Jenna's bot is more important, I shall set that running on a work machine tomorrow and get that going again. Blofeld will have to wait a couple of days whilst I get my act together, but I'll try to kick something off over next weekend. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing evidence
You wrote in your candidate statement "Clerks would be empowered to remove evidence that does not speak directly to the scope of the case, and the scope could be expanded if necessary." If so, clerks must be accountable for evidence removal. If evidence removed were material, then the case should be reconsidered (probably would not be reconsidered given Wikipedia's culture) and the clerk should be accountable.

The bottom line is that Wikipedia culture should change into the direction of cooperation. Many of these fights are because there is a lack of cooperation.

Should there be a bright line, such as saying bitch, then you get banned (not blocked) for a specific period of time. That's like bringing a gun to school. If children bring a gun to school, they are automatically suspended for a certain period and time (and other hearings possible).

Good luck on your ArbCom candidacy. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Assuming the appointments turn out as expected, I look forward to working with you. Steve Smith (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations from me too! I'm sure you'll be a good arbitrator. Best of luck!  J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  01:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on the election results! I look forward to seeing your work with the Committee this upcoming year. Cla68 (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me echo the sentiment here, congratulations on a successful candidacy. My past experiences with you suggest that you will make a fine arbitrator.  Don't let your supporters down!  I know you won't.  --GoRight (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we've crossed paths before, but I look forward to meeting fresh blood on the Committee. Welcome to the Pit.  :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh! I didn't get to vote, but see that the community managed to elect you without me. Goes to show. Congratulations. --Abd (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also congratulations from me. I hope we never encounter each other on the ArbCom path .. I know you'll do fine there, and I'll second GoRight's thoughts!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on the result. Mathsci (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh excellent! Well done Fritz! I hope you keep your word on what you promised.. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 13:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The new computer arrived just as I left the office for Christmas - I will not let you down. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That wasn't fully what I meant... Anyway hope you find time to juggle both and merry Christmas!!  Dr. Blofeld       White cat 13:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I know - I won't let you down on that score either. Best wishes for Christmas - I hope to continue friendly chats with you in the new year :) Fritzpoll (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Response from Fritzpoll
Just logged in to find that the results are in and that people have begun the congratulations. Many thanks to all who supported me, and to those who opposed, I hope I can allay your doubts somewhat over the course of whatever term Jimbo offers up (should he offer one at all!). My talkpage is open to all for the compliments (few) and complaints (doubtless many) that will accrue. I shall be doing a round of messages to the other candidates in due course. Best wishes to you all, and a very happy Christmas. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It will be a two-year term, Fritzpoll, since your vote was the second-strongest. Congratulations. Please see MBisanz's advice here. Tony   (talk)  12:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A bot for WP:Article Rescue Squadron
Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron Ikip 18:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed black listing of fallingrain
Hi. In the circumstances that this site is continued to be used enmasse to reference articles and false population/altitude data in thousands of Pakistan, India and African articles, can you comment here and offer your thoughts on this website. Thanks. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Have a great Christmas anyway Fritz! Dr. Blofeld       White cat 21:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Time for celebrating is over...


Yep, I hope you will have the time to generate those missing lists.... Dr. Blofeld       White cat 16:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

A word of (long belated) apology
My one real regret from my time on this project, is how frustrated and upset I became at you during our disagreements about Alexis Grace. I let my misguided passion outweigh my better judgment. Though it's been almost a year, I just wanted to apologize, completely and without reservation. I was wrong. If you had forgotten, I was Watershipper then. Unit Anode  06:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's ok - I did understand your point of view, and it is often the case that we say things in anger that we later regret. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
I clicked in the wrong place on my watchlist and ending up reverting some edits of yours. I restored them immediately. Apologies. --Slp1 (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done that more times than I can count - no problem at all! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did it enough that I found a way to banish the button from my watchlist.--Tznkai (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not stalking you, I'm a TPW here - I swear. How? Hipocrite (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A well-watched page, this. Your answer awaits you here –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 18:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Fritzpoll's TPWs! Works perfectly. Hipocrite (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for (a) understanding, and (b) having talkpage watchers with exactly the knowledge I wanted. I was about to hunt about for a button banisher, but wasn't too sure where to start! Thanks all. --Slp1 (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Living Downstream (film)

 * Have you read our guidelines on notability? The problem here, if I might interject is that your article doesn't show how the subject meets these guidelines.  Please ping me for help if you need more advice Fritzpoll (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Fritzpoll. I did read this. Does it come down to the sources that were used, or the degree to which you can find subjects listed in outside sources which might prove their notability via an "objective source"? There are countless examples where wiki articles reference sources that could be seen as conflictual, so if this is the problem, I am confused. It is frustrating that I am unable to revisit the text from this entry to review and learn. Any feedback would be great. - AMS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.157.35 (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP arb

 * Please read my argument, just added there. You are moving much too fast.    DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

3rd viscount monckton of brenchley
This subject has suffered from Graves' Disease, which causes ocular proptosis. Various people who may be part of a paid network of wreckers who tamper with the biogs of people who disagree with global warming have repeatedly inserted an obviously offensive photo of the subject that exploits his physical disability by making a feature of the proptosis in a ludicrous way. Please refer these people - one of them is ChrisO, who has been warned before - to the arbitration committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.85.112 (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow
You're a member of ArbCOM now??? Is it too late to change my !vote on your first RfA??? Congrats--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just saw this - thanks! Though how much your congrats stands after the past couple of days remains to be seen :) Fritzpoll (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I change my !vote on the second RfA ;-) No, I still mean it, I think you guys blew it with the BLP memo... it was too advocacy and I think it is going to cause problems down the road.  I predict that in a couple of weeks we are going to have a swarm of prodded articles getting deleted, and people are going to point to the memo saying, "ArbCOM commends this action and won't do butkiss about it." And that a lot of good articles are going to be lost pissing off a lot of good editors who don't realize this bruhaha is happening.  They will find out about it after the fact.  If my fears come to light, I'm laying them (in part) at the footsteps of ArbCOM.  But other than that, no my congrats is still sincere ;-)--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh - we shall agree to disagree. I'm rather hopeful that the community can come up with a response that does away with the need for the motion, and that in my ultimate retirement I can look back on it and say that at the very least it got the stagnant ball rolling.  We won't know for some time, and there's a lot of ground to tread 'twixt here and there - out of my hands for now though Fritzpoll (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If we don't know for a while, then my worst fears will not have come to fruition... my worst fears are that if the wikiprojects are not notified and given a chance to salvage articles, then the *bleep* will hit the fan sooner rather than later... I hope I'm wrong and I hope we don't head down the path of mass deletions without a reasonable chance of salvaging articles first.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All it takes is enough folks like yourselves to guide, via the RfC, the creation of a means of handling articles like this. For my part, I shall be commenting at the RfC later on today (barring significant reasonable objections from my TPSs) but my new job on Wikipedia is restrictive when it comes to making the proposals! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 07:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

To various folks
It's been a rubbish month time-wise. I've had a thousand deadlines in real-life, and been trying to get to grips with the arb workload simultaneously. Various people have content-creation or other requests - I intend to honour all of these. This work will begin on Tuesday this week. I apologise for the severe delays in implementation, and beg your indulgence! Fritzpoll (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you still plan on using the bot do create the rest of those missing lists? Dr. Blofeld       White cat 15:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are one of the "content-creation" requests. Sorry for the delays - conference papers at work have sucked up my time! Fritzpoll (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of the motion
Re:. It is abundantly clear that the motion lends itself to profoundly varying interpretations. Please could you and your colleagues clarify the motion and make it say whatever it was meant to say? The various "clarifications" issued so far by individual Arbs are scattered about, which is unhelpful to say the least. To issue a motion so unclear then castigate anyone who draws their own interpretations from, while steadfastly refusing to issue an official clarification or amendment is becoming disruptive. DuncanHill (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can do little individually beyond telling you what I personally think - the community had a dispute as to whether the deletions were policy-based, and the motion clarified that they were. The community must come to a consensus on an alternative, otherwise the existing policy, which is what the motion has interpreted, will remain in force.  The effect of that is a possible return to the mass deletions the preceded these events.  If you wish a Committee clarification, there is a page to do so Fritzpoll (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As it is clear that the committee is happy with the confusion they have caused by passing a poorly worded and obscure motion, I see little point. When the only people who understand the motion are the arbs who voted for it, surely you can see for yourself that something is wrong? DuncanHill (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: MZM Arbitration
So, I'm largely unaware that ArbCom has even weighed in on the outing, or has posted its findings. If it has been handled elsewhere, could you point that out? I added the evidence which demonstrated an astounding lack of common sense and attention to our policies. If the evidence is removed, it cannot formally be used to assess the issues surrounding the user. Is the suggestion tht one need only out a user widely that they never need answer to that action in a public forum? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Due to the very privacy concerns that you raise, a great deal of this has been handled in private. Arbcom is aware of the allegations and will consider its relevance to the case as appropriate.  Fritzpoll (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering the nature of the privacy concerns and the secretive nature of ArbCom discussions, how would anyone know they are being considered? Sorry, it isn't meant as a slight to you, but instead a reaction to the idea that MzM might slip the responsibility for outing someone because of the privacy issue they themselves breached. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - but I'm giving you the reason now. This kind of discussion is naturally secretive, so you wouldn't necessarily be aware we are holding it.  Suffice it to say, Arbcom are aware of the matter, but I am not keen on further possible infringements of the editor's privacy by getting them dragged into this case unnecessarily. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay then. Understand that I consider outing pretty much a beheading offense; for an admin (metaphorically speaking), whose given a larger level of trust, more stringent punitive action is called for. Carrying the metaphor furtherm I think that then cremating them into ash, burying the remains and salting the earth is my idea of commensurate with the infraction; the promise of anonymity is inherent in Wikipedia - the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not anyone with an account. The right to preserve one's privacy (and to respect that of others') follows. This is an outright attempt to force the wiki to accept his changes to policy, accompanied by a wide array of deflection and whiny justification. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  08:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You haven't responded to my question at workshop, nor have you responded to my concerns outlined here. I'm notifying you in case you weren't told already elsewhere, or didn't notice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Been a while
Haven't bought you a drink in awhile. I was feeling a bit nostalgic, reading through your early archives. Glad to say I "knew you then", with simple problems like fledgling notability guidelines and silly bots. :-) Hope your staying balanced with wiki v. real life - don't let the b***ards drag you down!  Be well, Sir Poll. :-) Keeper  |  76  06:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, many thanks Keep. Yes, life on-wiki was a lot simpler back then - but the real-world has sufficient joys for me to keep the balance up. I wish you had an e-mail address to keep up with, but I shall simply say that, whilst it's lonely as an arb, it is strangely liberating as well. Hope to see you again soon Fritzpoll (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Viable solution to the biography of living person debate?
As one of the co-founders of WP:Incubator I was thinking you maybe interested in the proposal inspired by several editors, my question isn't whether you like it, (although that opinion is important) my question is:

In your opinion, will the community as a whole support it?

The name Projectification is someone else's idea.

As an alternative there is this proposal, which does not involve "projectification" at all: Notifying wikiprojects

Again, do you think that this is viable, will the community as a whole support either proposal, if not why, and what would you change? Your welcome to bodly change any of the proposal as it stands.

I am messaging co-founder User:ThaddeusB. And also the two other editors who are the most involved in creating WP:Incubator: Fences and windows and GTBacchus for their opinion on whether these two options are viable.

Please note at a time that you and co-founder ThaddeusB were editing less, I proposed then created a subpage of the incubator project to incubate the articles in wikiproject Australia. There was disagreement about this, so this ceased, 70 articles remain on this sub-page. I would be happy to explain this to you, at your leisure....

Thanks in advance for your opinion! you are welcome to email me too.

Please comment on that user page if possible... Ikip 03:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to acknowledge that I have seen this, but need to digest the contents more thoroughly before commenting or deciding if it is appropriate to comment! Fritzpoll (talk) 07:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)