User talk:Lexein/Archive 14

Lulua Mosque
Thanks for your note on my talkpage. Now I know. Some times the simplest of abbreviations escape my memory. I will address the issues and reply on the talkpage of DYK. You may also see the other articles of the same third Caliph period posted by us - Al-Mansuriya, Fatimid architecture, and Atiq Mosque (Awjila) -- Nvvchar . 01:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You have accepted the chnages but not put a tick of keep.-- Nvvchar . 08:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The conflict between sources is still of concern to me. I have the sense that the article should acknowledge that his order (3rd or 6th) is a matter of some dispute among historians. --Lexein (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Neethane En Ponvasantham.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Neethane En Ponvasantham.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 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) 04:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Tone it down please
Do you think you could possibly try to be a little less obnoxious? Prioryman (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Stop supporting, and disavow the practice of, spamming DYK with undue emphasis based on paid support for a project to promote some specific person/place/thing outside the scope of GLAM, forever, and I promise, I will. --Lexein (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You're doing it again. Lying about the project and attacking its contributors is not positive behaviour. Knock it off and find something more useful to do. Prioryman (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You're lying. There's not a false syllable in anything I wrote. I'm speaking truth to bully, that's all. --Lexein (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you're lying and you're bullying other contributors. Look in the mirror some time, why don't you? Nobody is "spamming" anything. There is no "paid support" going on for anything - if you hadn't noticed, the article-writing contest ended last December, and nobody was earning a penny for contributing articles. Your response to Jane023 was rude, undeserved and uncollegiate. If you can't be bothered to contribute positively, go away - this project doesn't need obnoxious bullying behaviour of that nature. Prioryman (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't need you, or your continued lying, on my Talk page, you. I'm not bullying anyone. She declared that she would spam, and I called her on it. Nothing uncollegiate there. Spamming DYK puts undue emphasis on basically undeserving, overexposed topics, and you know it. I'm shocked that any Wikipedia editor would support such a thing. So you do, as far as I can tell. Big deal. Own it. Or disavow it, forever. --Lexein (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * She said nothing of the sort, and as far as I can see she has no previous involvement in the topic area. That's why I'm calling you out for bullying her. Ask yourself what can possibly be gained by attacking her publicly in the way that you did. The fact that she's said she will contribute DYKs out of sympathy goes to show how counter-productive the bullying already is. Trying to bully and intimidate her into not contributing is vile behaviour, frankly, and is completely the opposite of the attitude you're supposed to show as a fundamental principle. You should strike your comments and apologise to her. Prioryman (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * LOL. If what you said were true, you'd be right. But it isn't, so you're not. Pay attention to the words: "submit to the DYK queue each and every stub". The intention was to spam, and disrupt. Sorry that you get it so wrong, so often, but that's not my fault. Get your facts straight before you come to my talk page. Your tactics are transparent, everybody knows what you are, and what you do. Nice try, again, but you fail. Go fail somewhere else. I'm obliged by my appreciation of the encyclopedia to protect it from insidious perversions like claiming undue attention to already overexposed topics. The Five Pillars are about writing an encyclopedia, not a writing a brochure for a paid project. Sorry you're so tone-deaf that you still after all these years don't get that. Thanks. --Lexein (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You see that triangle-shaped thing near the top of this page? You see your undertaking underneath it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, visitor. Excuse the long explanation. I'm not obligated to suffer fools. An independent investigation found the whole Gibraltarpedia escapade to be deeply, troublingly improperly handled. A very, very large number of Wikipedians agree with me that Prioryman did act and continues to act improperly in re excessive placement of DYK notices for Gibraltar-related topics. His actions, and those of his friends, damaged, and continue to damage the encyclopedia's reputation and appearance of editorial independence. Here, he continued to post falsehoods, against plain, obvious, easily checked evidence, after being asked to leave my Talk page. Did you happen to see the discussion with someone else which triggered his snide post here? Read it! He literally could not help himself - he had to pretend to "defend" someone I'd "wronged".  Gee, shocker, his gallantry doesn't seem to have been needed! My offer of civility at top is conditional upon the efforts of correspondents, and shall continue to be so. And check my history to see if I really deserve such comments by you.  --Lexein (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Conditional civility? Now that's really cool. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

That report
Hey Lexein. Do you happen to know where I can find that independent assessment that was published related to gilbralter(sp?) and related items? There is so much junk and speculation around these issues, sometimes it's hard to find out what actually happened, but I never got a chance to read it and wasn't sure where to find it. We talked about it previously (briefly) and I figured you would know where to find it. CorporateM (Talk) 18:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Overview, with sources, here: Wikimedia_UK and section following. The Signpost announced its commencement here: WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-10-01/News and notes, and its publication, with a decent summary here: WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-02-11/News and notes. The report itself is here in DJVU and PDF formats.  --Lexein (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much!! Reading the material now, even though I should be writing some website copy I owe to a client.


 * BTW - I saw your post about the difficulty with Chevron and I'll bring up what I mentioned about BP before the controversy. Why not just write it yourself independently? This would actually take less time than reviewing the content and poking holes in it, to instead use the draft as a reference point. CorporateM (Talk) 15:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to say that Chevron was being difficult (and perhaps neither did you). I meant that it's difficult for me alone to determine which sources and facts are biased and which are not. Chevron contests some things offered as facts by the environmentalists, and vice versa. On this topic, even academics don't seem to be neutral, and some press "news" reports are better termed advertorials, and both partisan sides trash the news as being biased for the other side. So I throw up my hands, and I'll take a few slings and arrows for that, I'm sure. --Lexein (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, that should be interesting... CorporateM what is your interest in BP and Chevron? Gandydancer (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yup, you got my meaning Lex. I suppose it would take a subject-matter expert to know, but even they may be bias, so maybe we're stuck with the general issue that neutrality is difficult to assess on complex controversies, COI involvement or not. However, when a COI is involved, we feel the stakes are higher in getting it right and we distrust the content generally, etc. On the other hand, if the controversy is currently horrendous, starting from scratch is really the only sensible option for the PR. I haven't looked at the Chevron article to know the circumstance.


 * My frustration is that where a COI is involved, the community tends to shove responsibility and ownership of the entire article onto the COI, often against their intention, and I would prefer the community continue to own the articles themselves and take what is valuable from a PR participant. It's very unnatural to only publish corporate-approved versions by involving the PR in the consensus process.


 * Gandy, I find that by participating in discussions I gain perspective (and sometimes the discussions are just interesting). Also, editors often tell me that they find value in getting perspective from the other side of the fence sort of speak. CorporateM (Talk) 17:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW, someone just forward this to me. You are mentioned. CorporateM (Talk) 21:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, how about that? I come off as an abandoner :(. --Lexein (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Or the only one responding to a desperate plea for help. ;-) That's ok, Jack O'Dwyer made me famous with a whole series of articles on how I was unresponsive to his POV pushing on the Public Relations Society of America article. But that's why we edit anonymously. CorporateM (Talk) 00:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough
Have you considered opening an AN or ANI thread to try and get him unblocked?  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C  •  AAPT ) 16:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know everything, but I know what stinks, and the Arbcom decision and followon interpretations of it, and blocks based on all of that, against Farmbrough, are IMHO pretty stinky. If even one editor agrees with me that seeking an unblock (or reduced block) is a) the right thing to do and b) can possibly succeed, I'll go for it. Barring that, I'll just publicly register my profound displeasure in the appropriate venues, as I have already done, and let the automatic archivers consume my plaints silently. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and be done with it. --Lexein (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

At Jimbo's page you said he received this for " arguably, IMHO, manual editing with typos ". Is it possible you missed that the reason was that it is incomprehensible that it was, in fact "manual editing with typos"?

Farmbrough has made enormous contributions, but some things he does simply create enormous messes for others to clean up. He has been warned, and told in no uncertain terms that he must desist. He did not. What would you propose? Simply warn him every time he makes a mistake?

Would you be willing to promise to review every single on of his edits, and clean up the mistakes? Keep in mind he made 500 edits in roughly 5 days, do you have the times to do this? If not, what else do you propose?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hm, my reading of the block reason was that it was decided that it was "likely" to have been automated offline by the use of a global search and replace, and "not likely" to have been done manually. I assert that the same errors are easily committed by manual online step-by-step search&replace, if one is tired, or in a hurry, or whatever. Gaffes aren't vandalism, nor are disruptive, but are careless, so we'd need a new class of revert+warning combo. Solutions other than blocking for a year include FGR: for Farmbrough gaffes, revert with the edit summary: Farmbrough gaffe: reverting. Redo more carefully. This is the correct social approach, and it's superior to blocking for all concerned. I'd join a FGRS (Farmbrough gaffe revert squadron) rather than see him blocked. The obsessive insistence that every edit be perfect is the fruit of just that: obsession. Just as Wikipedia is no place for passion, it's no place for one person's inability to cope, or one person's dogged pursuit of victory or damage to others, at the expense of overall good editors. --Lexein (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * According to the block notice on Rich's page, this block be amended or overturned, "following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page". So—for the block to be changed—there needs to be a concrete proposal, like "the block discussion should be reopened" or "the length of this block should be reduced to not more than ..." that a majority of "uninvolved editors" will vote for. LittleBen (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well, since revert (as in BRD) is the obvious, simplest, least damaging solution for Farmbrough's gaffes, when gaffes they are, and Arbcom is dead set on the block only course, there's really no point going to AN, since AN can't do a damn thing about Arbcom. And I'm not a masochist. So I went to the broader community. Oh well. Shrug. Seriously, wtf. O_o. --Lexein (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on a photo in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion
At Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything/Archive 1. --Lexein (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Yworo is angry at me, and he moved the page back to "Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything" as part of what I suspect is a WP:WIKIHOUNDING campaign which began after he became angry with me: I've posted some evidence here. I have noticed many of his recent words and actions to be stubborn and/or vengeful.
 * I looked at the talk page you pointed me to. Like you said, there was indeed pre-consensus and post-consensus for moving the page to "Wikipedia:Notability (summary)". It must be immensely frustrating for you that he moved it back and then forum-shopped. You made good arguments on the project page's talk page; I unfortunately have thought of nothing more to add to them.
 * Cheers, &mdash;Unforgettableid (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Tokyo Journal Issue 270.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Tokyo Journal Issue 270.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 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) 04:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks
Reverted and placed warning templates on the SPA's talk page. He looks to be ripe for a block under WP:NPA, WP:POINT, WP:WAR and is working toward WP:3RR. One more vandalistic edit and I will block him myself.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * sorry for being abrupt, but this is most annoying.
 * you only linked reviews that are overwhelmingly negative and none of which pointed out the lies, flaws and dangerous liable that the film is soaked in.
 * tried to add one VERY important review, by alexa obrien. you not only deleted my entries but did not retain the obrien article. write it in there yourself if you want. but dont make out like this entry is unbias.it is not. at all.


 * and you did include bias in your own editorial as well..it wasnt just the terrible, establishment-stroking reviews.


 * this film is a menace to investigative journalism, to whistleblowers and to WL, Assange & Manning. if you are not being paid to manipulate this entry, and are doing it off your own back, with no vested interest, then you really are terribly misinformed. but i dont think you're ignorant of the real problems with this film, or with the bias in your entry, i think you are well aware. which makes it worse. hence the abruptness.   this isn't about a wikipedia entry, this is about truth, justice & integrity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oojamaflipper (talk • contribs) 00:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Having never before contributed to the article, I simply reverted to the last sourced version which existed before your series of edits. Please review WP:NPA. What is not helpful in civil discussion, is your calling Lexein a nasty name by writing "stop being a cunt". Read WP:WAR. What is entirely inappropriate is in a fit of pique to delete sourced content from the article and replace the content with rants toward another editor. Read WP:VANDAL. That is NOT how we do it here. When two editors disagree, they begin as calm a discussion as possible, or seek a neutral third party to intercede. If you feel the article is negatively slanted per WP:NPOV, go to the article's talk page and discuss. Seek a compromise. If most reliable sources give criticism of the film, it IS proper to note atoverwhelming poor acceptance by those critics, even if you feel it is too much negativity. WP:NPOV means we do not offer our personal opinions, but simply report what was written by others elsewhere. .  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)