User talk:Lexein/Archive 13

Deepwater Horizon oil spill
Hi, Lexein. You have been an active editor on Deepwater Horizon oil spill and/or its related articles. During some last months there has been an active development of cleaning up that article by splitting off large sections into separate articles. A Deepwater Horizon series were created (all the articles accessible by Template:Deepwater Horizon oil spill series. You are invited to assist by cleaning-up and copy-editing these articles. There are also ongoing discussion concerning additional split-offs. You could see split-off templates at the article's page and find discussions at the talk page. Your input would be useful for building consensus on these issues. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification of discussion
A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If you don't believe Gibraltar-related articles should exist in article space, then put up an AfD request. Put up or shut up, otherwise you're just engaging in noisy public wankery. Prioryman (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh. Thanks for showing your true colors, and your true failure to comprehend context. I was, of course, referring to post-commencement-of-GibraltarpediA Gibraltar articles. Obviously. --Lexein (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So was I. If you genuinely believe those articles shouldn't be in article space, AfD them. It's just bluster otherwise. Prioryman (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, hardly "bluster" (or you prefer "wankery"): because I don't think the articles should exist, DYKs definitely shouldn't exist about Gibraltar, for another five years. Notice how long I waited before commenting? Sorry so many editors called you out on your dishonest 2nd paragraph. Sorry to see that your pet project has engendered so much profound, well-informed disgust over its merits, origin, and future. Sorry an independent ethics investigation has found that I was right, and you are so very, very wrong.  But you should still be happy: you're getting lots and lots of attention. Again. Isn't that right? Isn't that the real "wankery" going on here? Don't say it isn't; it is. --Lexein (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As I thought, you're not prepared to act on your own words, which just shows how hollow they are; you're just posturing. Prioryman (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh. As adults know, we can have strong opinions, and choose not to act on those opinions alone, because we live in a society in which a variety of opinions exist. At Wikipedia, we can have strong opinions, and choose not to act against community consensus; this is simply being a citizen in good standing. It's hardly "wankery" or "posturing" of any sort. I certainly wish the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree articles could be deleted, but you see, there are no grounds under current deletion criteria for such deletions. I can, however, express my opinion, and in doing so gauge community response to that expression. Eventually, perhaps, there can be such a deletion criteria; on that happy day, all the shitty promo crap you want retained at Wikipedia will be deleted. In the meantime, you are a sore loser and now, officially, a pathetic WP:Troll. As I've always thought. Why don't you AfD some Gibraltar-related articles? Then people might believe you're genuinely sorry for supporting corruption of Wikipedia ideals. --Lexein (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The "Idiocracy" argument
Thank you for keeping a clear head through this. I wish I had done the same. I'm sorry I have gotten this angry over a Wikipedia article; also, your application of the discussion rules is spot-on. However, I do maintain that if every single editor who wanted a passage excised could do so by simply adding a section to the Talk page, regardless of merit, then the articles themselves would eventually be blank.

Now, Niteshift36 MAY have a point. But he hasn't revealed it so far; instead, he has been content to buffet me with the blunt end of his views, and I don't react to that very well at all, as has become clear. So I'm standing where I am for now. I'm not posting anymore on the Talk page until I can come back with some support for the questions you have about the concept, which are completely valid.

Please understand I am not trying to sway you into siding with me or with him or with anyone. So far, you've been a lot truer to the ideals of Wikipedia than I have, and a whole lot more (again, admittedly, in my view) than he has. I also understand that in your clearer-minded state, you have justifiably suggested that more than just the one piece be brought up before the section is reintroduced. I think that's pretty wise, even if Niteshift36 does agree with the idea in any part. From what I've seen, though, he seems to want to gut this site, barnstars or not. I guess it's much easier for him to keep his watchlists accurate to his tastes if there's nothing in the articles. ;) Boomshadow talk contribs 02:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm a jerk often enough that I consider both you and Niteshift36 lucky that I was not in jerk mode at that discussion. For some reason it's easier for me to be calm when a) I'm not the target and b) others are riled already. As far as Niteshift36 goes, he's a stickler for quality, relevant sources, and can be, let's just say, ungentle, in his views. Wikipedia is a damned harsh mistress, and I suspect Niteshift36 has had difficulties with other editors before you which may have led to you getting the blunt end of the stick. He and I have disagreed in the past, but we seem to be somewhat past it. As plenty of people have said to me, "try to let it go." --Lexein (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, you were definitely not in jerk mode as far as I'm concerned. Now I just have to dig myself out of it and produce some quality work to demonstrate the relevance. There are a HUGE number of uses of the film as a cautionary metaphor, but I'll be reading up on notability standards as well. I did read WP:TIGERS, and you're right that it was particularly (painfully) relevant. In any event, many thanks. Boomshadow talk contribs 18:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Re:Vironus
I've semiprotected the Stile Project article (that's probably a better solution in case the person starts trying to create new accounts or using another IP) and if you think there is sufficient evidence linking the IP to the account, the best place to go is WP:SPI (basically copy what you posted on my talk over there). If there are indeed violations, it is very likely that they will be blocked.  Spencer T♦ C 16:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Recstacy Logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Recstacy Logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Charles E. Keisler (talk), MCTS 07:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Charles E. Keisler (talk), MCTS 02:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Justice Party Logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Justice Party Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested
In a dispute regarding an alleged case of closed paraphrasing here. Please not the most recent version of the article, which is in the table at the very bottom of that discussion. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've made my suggestion there as ALT4. --Lexein (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

please check the article history for my dyk nom
Hello, Lexein. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Le Pont de l'Europe. You can [ remove this notice] at any time. (second reply, thanks!) Cmprince (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Crush 40 Live!.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Crush 40 Live!.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Jenna Rose for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jenna Rose is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rogerthat94 (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Could please you inform me of the proper way to use this template  in the future? Thanks Rogerthat94 (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure: . See Template:Afd-notice. I had assumed you knew about the syntax after so many multiply-nominated AFDs. --Lexein (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this. However, up until today, I had only re-nominated an article for AfD once. That was this article, because it had been recreated by somebody associated with the subject (after the first AfD had succeeded), and I was unaware of its recreation or the second AfD. Rogerthat94 (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Lulua Mosque
Thanks for the review. I normally use this format for for Google books. If more than one or two pages are referred in the text, I use the format with the main reference and other details including PA under Bibliography. As regards Dawoodi Bohras I did not use their background of Fatimid Dynasty link and their moving to Gujarat in India from Yemen where they were called by the local language, Vohra which was changed to Bohra. Including this small deatil will make the hook longer. Pl let km know if you want me change the hook format for books and also add text to the hook.-- Nvvchar . 12:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think for the purpose of the DYK the ref is now fine, since it now shows and goes to the right page. It's up to you if you want to improve the rest of the article's refs, to make them at least show the right page. I would. Thanks for pointing me to that tool and template. I've been using the shortened format manually for too long - I forgot about sfn. --Lexein (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

New hook added for DYK
Hi Lexein, thanks for your comments on my DYK nom, Did you know nominations/Le Pont de l'Europe. I added another hook to try to address your concern. If you have a moment, could you take a look and comment if it's an OK alternative? Thanks! Cmprince (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

an observation
Based upon earlier AFDs and his suggestion to redirect the article on Jenna Rose to the one on Rebecca Black, I can only surmise that the ardor with which he wishes the Rose article gone means he must indeed be a strong Rebbecca Black fan... or could certainly be part of her entourage. But while being a fan is certainly allowed, and a fanboy wishing the article on the artist he favors to be kept and advocating the deletion of the one he does not is a type of conflict of interest, fanboy interest in a topic is allowed. Just means we'll have to watch carefully for SPAs, socks, or meats who might visit the article to edit after this AFD's keep. I chuckle at a recent ploy to suggest a redirection or merge to an article which does not exist. Thanks for returning to the discussion. Dealing with an WP:BLUDDING editor who repeatedly does not WP:LISTEN was getting tiresome. Discredited as his arguments are, he has shared them and remained polite and courteous throughout. I wish he would simply drop the stick, walk away, and let others reach a consensus. Though after the early appearance of SPA editor USER:Olderon, I think we might look for a series of SPAs or Puppets to arrive after they get autoconfirmation. And no doubt his response to you will (check the history) involve 10 modifications. Best of luck,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)