User talk:Lexein/Archive 3

DYK for Oil on Ice
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply
Suggest you post further concerns about that issue to WP:SPI and WP:ANI, to get a wider look from multiple admins, and the community of editors at large. -- Cirt (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Return (2011 film)
Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again
Thanks for patiently guiding and helping a Wiki greenhorn like me. Please visit the Norm Macdonald (or Mac-whatever) talk page, as I added a final note. You know, people do say around here that Cajuns are hardheaded, but I don't know why they say that! ;) It's just another puzzle! However, I've never been accused of outright malice before!  Aaeeeee! --RedEyedCajun (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're certainly welcome, but really, it's just our job to help new editors find their way around the harsh mistress that Wikipedia can be. It's always best to not use provocative language, and to ignore it when written by others.  I'm glad it worked out. --Lexein (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for The Prince and the Surfer
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for At the Pershing: But Not for Me
Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

MiszaBot configuration
As you might have noticed, I edited your user talk page to fix your configuration for MiszaBot (auto-archiving). All of the posts "archived" since 18 August 2010 have been disappearing into cyberspace (although, of course, they're still in the page history). The last archived post at User talk:Lexein/Archive 2 is from 14 July 2010. Guoguo12  (Talk)  17:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

3RR Notice
As my related talk page comments indicated, I am filing a notice at WP:3RRN regarding your editing of the Helena Christensen article regarding cheese. Please stop inserting material of dubious noteworthiness against the expressed opinions of all other editors participating in the dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report
Hello Lexein,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.

If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 01:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)
 * Lexein, you risk being blocked if you continue to refuse to accept consensus on the cheese matter at Helena Christensen. Consider asking for a WP:Third opinion or open a WP:Request for comment if you wish. EdJohnston (talk)
 * 1. I have not finished my response. 2. In general, what you say about consensus is correct. However, specifically, two editors, only one of whom is an interested regular contributor to an article, should not constitute consensus, against a long-time contributor. Also, I'm not in vio of 3RR. Please read my response in a few minutes. I will certainly request 30, since that is the next step in dispute resolution. 3. What is your position with respect to WP:AN/EW process? I don't see your comment there. --Lexein (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not closed the AN3 report because the status is not clear yet. You have not made four reverts yourself, but you have apparently announced that you will continue the edit war. Some admins may consider that sufficient reason for a block. It would be better if you will offer to accept whatever consensus is found. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. I have completed my response at AN/EW. I think HW's false characterization of my statement should not override my actual statement - I've responded to that. As for consensus, I will happily abide by the outcome of an RfC. Hopefully several or many more editors will chime in - larger numbers make it easier for me to accept consensus. --Lexein (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing etiquette
Why did you undo my cleanup of the ELs on Death of Caylee Anthony? and why did you not mention such a change in the edit summary you provided? —Eustress talk 23:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was an edit conflict, and there were so many changes I didn't see the EL changes. I mentioned the conflict, and apologized on the Talk page. I'm restoring the EL changes right now, but there was another edit conflict.--Lexein (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Kevorkian
I'm sorry that my attempt at mediation ended in abrupt failure, I hope we made some progress, though it's hard to get past hurt feelings.

Re: pathologists like Kevorkian prescribing controlled substances, I wasn't totally correct. My research shows that pathologists are allowed to prescribe, even get DEA numbers, though doing so may be considered outside their scope of practice and "fishy" in the medical community. This is very much a legal gray area at this time, and regulations may be tightened if high-profile abuses re-occur. So far, medical authorities have reacted by yanking the medical license, like they did in Kevorkian's case in 1991 following the acquittal on murder charges related to the very first time he was discovered using controlled substances to euthanize someone (1989). Also interesting to note: Doctors practicing in the areas of radiology and pathology are exempt from mandatory continuing education courses in the subjects of pain management and controlled substances whereas all other specialties are required to take the courses in order to maintain licensure.  Basically, the truth is what you said, "...'having the right' is not the same as the ethical grounds or training to practice."

Thank you for being a partner in learning. NickDupree (talk) 05:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad for three things:
 * ... that we chatted, and I don't consider it a failure on anyone's part but mine. Sometimes my only recourse is WP:DISENGAGE.  I had intended to suggest that as an option for the warring editors, but actually forgot to suggest it. I hope the the other involved editor gained some understanding of How Things Can Be at Wikipedia with a change in attitude.
 * ... that I'm not one of the warring editors at that article. What is the recourse when it appears that an (apparent) cabal is bullying an editor?
 * ... that the discussion led to some concrete discoveries: what you report above seems like it belongs in a footnote. In fact, the Kevorkian article seems like it would benefit from a Notes[Note 1] section separate from References.[1]
 * That's interesting info about MD's & pathologists. As for what I said, I was paraphrasing that linked article! Chuckle.
 * Anyways, thank you for taking the time in the side chat. --Lexein (talk) 05:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for ERC (IRC client)
I have reviewed your nomination for ERC (IRC client) and there are a few issues I've noticed. Could you address my comments at T:TDYK? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On it. --Lexein (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply. Another comment there. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied & ALT there. --Lexein (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't need Tb's - I use my watchlist. --Lexein (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for ERC (IRC client)
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

On deletionism
In my experience, and I will be happy to discuss this here or on a subpage, aggressively deleting editors have shown the following characteristics in common: I'm no angel, and have been on both sides of the argument in several disputes. It might seem surprising that I agree that sometimes deletion is the only tool which will wake interested editors out of complacency to address an article issue. But the above starred characteristics in combination are, in my opinion, lethal to new editor morale, and have led directly to editor exodus. --Lexein (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * they do not make the effort to find sources, or integrate or ameliorate content which has issues,
 * they selectively act on WP:BURDEN. That is, they delete, without abiding by "it has always been good practice [for a deleting editor] to try to find sources",
 * they eschew citation needed and refimprove,
 * they leave vague edit summaries lacking specific grounds for deletion, which makes improving the article that much more difficult. Two letters like "rm" do not constitute a reason for deletion, or specify what was deleted, nor the appropriate pillar/policy/guideline/essay/consensus/ARB grounds for deletion.
 * they leave impolite, frequently bordering on WP:UNCIVIL edit summaries,
 * they revert reversions of their deletions, with unhelpful edit summaries,
 * they tend not to discuss, and if they do, it's not very civil.

death of caylee anthony
Since it was mine and another editor's references you took out of the Verdict, Sentencing section, why the remark in the edit history? . Our work in that section was complete and thorough and the references sufficient. If you wanted to add on there is no policy that states you cannot. The reverse was actually true. It was you that replaced our perfectly good references. You then proceeded to make an unkind comment in the edit history when I added mine back. If I may make a suggestion, perhaps, a re-reading of WP:CIVILITY and Ownership of articles would not go amiss. Mugginsx (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but all I did was expand raw urls into full refs to include all the usual details, and use a named ref, instead of a raw url repeated twice. No refs were removed. Please study the diff very, very carefully. Count the refs: 6 before, 6 after. This article has been expanded by lots of editors, but only with raw URLs and incomplete refs(no publisher, date, author, title, etc). I was asking all editors in my edit summary, not just you although I see why you got the wrong impression. It's time to simply take on the skill of expanding refs as one adds them, while the source news article is open in front of one, during the edit, rather than assume other editors will chase along behind and tidy up. WP:There is no deadline, and no rush, since Wikipedia is not the news. Please assume good faith. You will notice that I've reverted, since expanded refs, as opposed to raw URLs, are entirely appropriate. --Lexein (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies. Someone must have removed my reference before your edits. I do not see anything added to that section except the bullets. In the past an editor has tried to expand (in their own words) what the judge said so I am particularly watchful of it. It seems I jumped the gun in your case.  Sorry. Mugginsx (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No prob. I try not to bite the newcomers, sorry if it seemed bitey. --Lexein (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Slashdot
Most of the edits I made were restoring the deletions and vandalism of a known GNAA troll. It's difficult to take them seriously and I have a very low tolerance for their kind. As for some of the material being a primary source, there's really nothing wrong with that, as long as the article itself has enough third party sources to balance it out, which I believe it does. WTF? (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Kate Lee
The background field is mandatory and should be one of the values listed in the template's documentation. If you think there should be more values, you should raise it on the talk page. Gnu andrew (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous obfuscatory proceduralism gone mad: parameter "background" which should be named "background_color", color values named as genres or jobs, and other randomness.  I brought it up,  and self reverted after looking at the rest of the history. Take a look. --Lexein (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind, and added a highly revised suggestion there. --Lexein (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)