User talk:Lexein/Archive 5

H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds
Thought better of spending time here. Good luck to you.

Cybermonitor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybermonitor (talk • contribs) 02:43, 21 September 2011


 * Yelling, accusing, deleting, and leaving are not the best ways to achieve a positive result. You were invited to discuss on User talk:Cybermonitor, User talk:71.35.140.218, and article Talk, to no avail.  Edit summaries are not the place for discussion, which is why I wrote, "see Talk" each time.  You wrote, then deleted, what might have been the start of a discussion on Mike's page.  Why?  At least read my rationale on the article Talk page. Remember, just because I and another editor disagree with outright deletion, doesn't mean we're unwilling to discuss, to reach some compromise. Perhaps another time, then.  --Lexein (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

 * He's lucky that you happened to notice, as my answer probably would have been a slightly longer version of "It happens; I don't worry about it." I had no idea you could tell if another version of your Gmail was open! And even though I have one, it would never have occurred to me to suggest a committed identity. Bravo! I am seriously impressed and grateful. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was concerned about timeliness, and was feeling slightly guilty about the "covers" kerfuffle. I thank you for your considerable help and always civil discussion with me over the years. --Lexein (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you ever read?
(Discussion moved to Talk:Roomano, where it belongs) --Lexein (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

''(response moved to article talk, to maintain one discussion. ) --Lexein (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

old name pusher is back...
Oh dear... I have all of the article he tries to add himself to on my watchlist - thanks for the heads-up. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

ClicksAndWhistles LSR at TfD
Just a heads up, but with the edit/revert warring going on in the comparison article, while not transcluded, the LSR template for ClicksAndWhistles has ended up at TfD. The CSD history is messy too, take a look at the edit history for who previously attempted to CSD it (while it was still transcluded)... What I find even more odd is the current TfD nom reverted the CSD removal. If the CU data wasn't stale I think I'd be filing a SPI right about now. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Follow up on 3O
There were two issues on Talk:Roomano and the article's history, a content dispute and violations of WP:CIVIL. You can disagree all you want about whether my comment #1 was valid, but please note that what you describe (removal of refs with an edit summary) is explicitly and unambiguously not vandalism (a term which has an intentionally very narrow definition here). A better definition could be disruptive editing, but at two reverts we really have not even hit that level yet. As for you other question, I intentionally did not directly address this issue because it is not relevant to improving the article. The other editor has not pressed the point by, for example, bringing the issue up at a noticeboard somewhere and they appear to have stopped reverting the article. There is no reason to risk a battle by rehashing the history; there is no plausible outcome that is superior to the result of just dropping the issue. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have two reactions:
 * Thank you for thinking it through, and presenting it clearly. And,
 * Ayiyi. I am quite disappointed that there literally is no allowed word on Wikipedia for what the other editor did, no consequences for his abusive, insulting language (where none of mine was), and no real definitive resolution. If he had done that to a new editor, the newbie would have been gone. If he had done that to an admin, he would be gone. Even if I had never used the "v" word, this all would still have happened in exactly the same way. I feel stranded in the middle zone, falsely accused of many things (abuse, threats, harassment, wasting "everyone's" time), forced to do all sorts of extra work (IRC, proxy testing, screenshots, uploading, posting, all while remaining civil) to figure out the other editor's technical problem for him, and allowed no real recourse for the received abuse. Not your fault; just saying. --Lexein (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As a matter of perspective, this was a very minor dispute compared to many feuds that occur here. Don't worry about "recourse" - ultimately, you were able to reference an unsourced article. VQuakr (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to set the records straight, you accused me of vandalism (when was very clearly not the case) AND of "blatant lie". That IS an abusive and insulting. Text that you edited AFTER I answered you. So not just abusive but deceiving. --Dia^ (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You have no standing to set the record straight about anything. Though I am not allowed to use the word here, you know what you did was incorrect, inappropriate (deleting citations due to your lack of verifiability is not grounds for deletion), against good manners and without assuming good faith, then you repeated it. And if you knew what you were writing was false, then that is the definition of lying about it. However, I revised my statement quickly, as is my absolute right, and I have no control over what you read or when or what you type or when.  At the time I was revising my text, I did not in fact know of any of your actions.  Further, anything I said after your two wrong deletions is beside the point, given those wrongly made deletions. To date, you have not admitted that you were using the wrong source, jumped to a wrong conclusion, or committed a wrong action. Admit those things, thank me for figuring out and solving your inability to verify a source for you, back off, go away, and do something positive. Or take it all to WP:DISPUTE - I have zero problem with that.--Lexein (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving other users talk page comments
Hi, I've noticed that you have been moving around people's comments from their talk pages into other pages that you deem more suitable. You shouldn't do this. Per WP:TPO you should obtain the other user's permission before moving or changing comments that are not your own. Regards Polyamorph (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In general I agree with you and WP:TPO. I must correct one mis-statement: it was not "people's" (plural), it was a person's (singular) comments. Where'd the plural idea come from?
 * Against the general agreement, in this specific case, the user was inappropriately insistent on splitting the discussion over three different pages: his, mine, and the article talk page (where it belonged, because it directly concerned article improvement, and a dispute related only to that). Third opinion had been requested, but the user continued to pingpong, which made it that much harder for anyone to follow. Further, the user indicated that he didn't want the discussion on his talk page (as observed by 3O), and now indicates at the top of his talk page that he wants content discussions at article Talk pages. I state on the top of my Talk page that I prefer a single unified discussion, not pingponging across multiple pages, so, in reality, fair warning was already given. I will reword that to make it even more clear, for the future.
 * If the user disagreed with my moving the comment, he was free to revert that.  I do hold User talk pages as essentially private property, but I carefully weighed the priority of that over the sense of the discussion, and made a judgement call. In hindsight, I could have copied the user's comment, in order to preserve the sense of the discussion, rather than move it. Perhaps I shall do so in future. Sense of discussion deserves to be preserved.
 * I'm required to ask: is the user canvassing about this, this long after the incident, and if so, are you responding to that?
 * Cheers, --Lexein (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I just happened upon the discussion, and actually found it harder to work out where you'd moved stuff to, it wasn't clear. Generally we don't touch other users comments without express permission. You can centralise a discussion by adding a wikilink to the talk page and kindly requesting further discussion takes place there. Regards Polyamorph (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, alright, but this is plumb discouraging. I moved them into what I thought was date order on the article talk page. Whatever. In future, I'll copy and include a link (links alone require another kind of pingponging). --Lexein (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we can quote other users comments, so I think copying is ok if it's credited to the original page it was copied from. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know which particular case you all are discussing at the moment, but Lexein did that with me too answering sometime on my talk page, sometime on his talk page, often with different answers, and sometime on the article talk page, then deciding, without asking my permission, to move parts of the discussion from my talk page and all of the discussion on his talk page to the article's one. --Dia^ (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You are the only user being discussed. I was being polite, not referring to you by name. I answered where you posted, then I said, this all belongs on article talk. If you're going to continue to try to misrepresent, we'll go to WP:DISPUTE resolution as often as you like. I have zero fear of you or it. Back off, get off it, do something positive, thank me for figuring out and solving your inability to verify some sources, and move on. --Lexein (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

New template suggestion?
What's the best place to suggest and get checked User:Lexein/Template:Expand-barerefs, as part of the Expand- family of templates? It appears to be desirable, based on discussion at WP:ANI, specifically WP:ANI. --Lexein (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is something similar. I'll try to check. Rich Farmbrough, 22:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC).


 * is the slightly inappropriately named template. Rich Farmbrough, 21:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC).


 * Yep, knew about that one. Hoping to create a less intrusive one which also sets hidden cats. Cheers. --Lexein (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

re Ref Vetting
Thanks for the compliment re WP:RSVETTING, and for your improvements. I want to soon move this into Wikispace and post a notice about it, and perhaps (if it's agreeable to people) list it as a "see also" at the end of WP:RS. I just need to work up a couple of examples (one of a pretty good ref, one of a not-so-good one) I guess, and take suggestions for further improvements. Herostratus (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's looking good. I'd let it percolate a bit more in userspace, taking another pass through for consistency with WP:RS, and perhaps a decision or two from WP:RSN.  There are many subtle things in WP:RS, including internal inconsistencies, which should be either deliberately plastered over or brought into the light - can't decide which.  Small formatting suggestion: stick with wikiformatting, like ";text" for bold non-TOC subheadings.  Cheers overall, though.  --Lexein (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Very good. Yes I removed the === level subheaders to avoid creating unuseful subsections, but still wanted the the text large; I used and yes I would prefer to use wikiformatting but I don't understand the reference to ";text", I don't see it mentioned at WP:FONTSIZE or see a template right off, could you direct me to the right place?


 * Regarding "Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?", this is good, but how does one find this out? Google Scholar seems to list works by the person, is it just a matter of drilling down deeper into Google Scholar or is there other way? Using the Google Scholar advanced search to return items that include the author's name but were not written by that person would possibly do the trick, but I can't find a way to make it do that. Herostratus (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Semicolon bold example
 * It's just a leading semicolon, part of Med.iaWiki syntax http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Formatting, and is used pretty frequently, but it's no big deal - just less typing! About citations, quite frequently a DOI link will show "where cited" for scientific publications. Also, I've had luck in Google Books search, simply searching for the title of a work, to see where it has been cited.--Lexein (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to move it into Wikipedia essay space and post a not at the RS talk page 1) asking for comments and improvements and 2) asking if it should be included in the "see also" section of WP:RS. 17:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 17:31, 15 October 2011
 * Oh, OK. I'm not familiar with Requests for feedback and I don't know as a whole WP:RFC is required. But you're probably right, I guess. Well anyway, it's out there, and you are anyone who wants to edit or rename it can. I'm not seeing any objections to listing it at the bottom of WP:RS, so I'll probably do that, where it'll be available to anyone who wants it. Herostratus (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It'll be fine. "The Wikipedia! it's impossible to know everything!" --Lexein (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hackett
Please see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Hackett_(artist)#The_Madagascar_Institute =//= Johnny Squeaky 00:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ralph W. Moss (writer)
Responded. 86.** IP (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * Yum, thanks! --Lexein (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Script?
Probably a good idea to check out the User:Ohconfucius general cleanup scripts - User:Ohconfucius/script/EngvarB (English spellings) and User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates (date-related). There are likely others hanging around WP, though I don't have a full list. Dl2000 (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (ok, here then) Ah, thanks. Are those the ones you use? --Lexein (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What's your poison? Have a look at WikiProject User scripts/Scripts. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 06:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Belated thanks! --Lexein (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Fruitflies in your nose
I once had a large grasshopper fly into my mouth as I was yawning. It went right into my stomach and never came out. At least not the way it came in... Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Gack (it was just the one fruitfly, btw)! --Lexein (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Thanks - I do hope to get it restored, but it (and every other IRC article) needs more significant book and significant journal coverage. I know some of these sources exist, but I'm crap at library research. Wish you wouldn't leave. Thanks for the beer! --Lexein (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Looking at the sources (two books), and the deletion discussion, it appears that several editors acted in bad faith in misrepresenting and even lying about this article, for the sole purpose of "winning" by getting it deleted. Please do not leave the project. When I've de-stubbed the f'ing article, I'm going to ANI about these clowns. --Lexein (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Further addendum - I expanded the article with two more book sources (one of them extensive) and moved it back to Main space. --Lexein (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)