User talk:Lithistman/Archives/2014/October

Barnstar for you

 * Thanks! Particularly interesting to me was being accused of lying, dishonest editing, and some other nefariousness which escapes me as I type this. LHMask me a question 05:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome, Frank! If you run into any further questions you don't know how to answer, feel free to drop by my talkpage. If I don't know the answer, lots of times I'll know people who do. It's been a pleasure helping you thus far! LHMask me a question 15:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Lithistman/Evidence
Sorry LHM, but I've gone ahead and deleted this evidence page as an Attack page. While you can keep such a list in preparation for an imminent or ongoing arbcom filing or similar proceeding, it's not an open ended thing. I did e-mail you a copy of the text of the page, wikicode and all, as it was at the time of the deletion, so you can keep it for your records. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did the same at User:Lithistman/WCM diffs. Again, I e-mailed you a copy of the text, though I imagine that proceeding is much less pressing or timely than the first one. Best, UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Thanks for the note, and for going to the extra effort of emailing me the contents. I had already saved that info as a Word doc, anticipating that NE Ent's efforts to have them deleted would succeed based on how such things go on WP in most cases. What concerns me is how s/he even found out they existed, given that I don't recall ever having interacted with NE Ent in the past. If such matters are being coordinated off-wiki, that is a serious concern, in my opinion. (Note: I'm not saying you were notified off-wiki, just that I'm suspicious that was how how NE Ent may have found out they existed.) LHMask me a question 15:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And, for the record, they weren't actually "attack pages" or any sort of "enemies list." I nearly requested deletion of the WCM diffs page myself, as it was rather stale. But the other page was simply a record of the interactions I had with one specific admin, leading up to him forum-shopping in an attempt to get me blocked. It wasn't an attack page, just an evidence page. LHMask me a question 15:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not wrong - and note that I didn't in any way suggest (nor would I support) any sort of sanction for posting either page in the first place. As far as the "Attack" bit, neither page attacked as such. But the G10 criteria is the one that covers pages evidence pages not being used for imminent or ongoing matters, such as these - and the G10 criteria is the same one as Attack Pages, so that's what got used. (There may be a more precise criteria, and I can redelete or note the record if I should have used that instead.) Sorry for the confusion. As to the other question, it would not surprise me to find that there was an editor going through your edit history, perhaps to find a recent comment of yours on some matter of dispute. They saw the page labeled "Evidence", clicked over, and reacted. In and of itself, it doesn't scream off-wiki shenanigans. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It just seemed sort of "odd", given that I'd just seen NE Ent's name pop up having a conversation at the talkpage of the editor whose diffs were contained in the "Evidence" subpage. I'm probably just being overly-conspiratorial. LHMask me a question 20:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a good reason I added the template to the evidence page. If you don't have that template, then any admin can delete your collection as an attack page.  When you removed the template, it was only a matter of time before it was targeted for deletion.  Next time use the template and fill out the necessary parameters. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I put it on there, I just moved it to the bottom of the page. LHMask me a question 22:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

List of deprogrammers
Hello! Please note that I have restructured the layout of the RfC at List of deprogrammers. Please review and make certain your comments are in the intended section(s). Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't remove my talk page contribution.
Don't remove my talk page contribution. 24.21.151.167 (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When you place rumors on the talkpage of a BLP article, your comments will be removed. Please refrain from doing that. LHMask me a question 05:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't remove my comments 24.21.151.167 (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for solisiting help for me
Hi Lithistman. Thanks so much for soliciting help for me. Cas Liber has come on board. I'm going to further expand Andrew R. Heinze just a tad and also get Luther Adler's citations in order, and then I'll ask Cas Liber to check them out. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad to help! There's lots of good editors on this project, if you know where to look, and most of them know a lot more than me about the inner workings of GA/FA and all that. I'll keep an eye on the articles you're working on, and pitch in where I can as well, but Cas is very good, so I'll probably just leave him to it. LHMask me a question 15:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see already how good Cas is. And now (mentally) I'm "into" getting my articles up to snuff. Onward and upward.  EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm looking forward to seeing what you guys get done! LHMask me a question 04:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi LHM. Did you see that Cas promoted the Andrew R. Heinze article to C class? I only saw it a little while ago (by accident). I'm pretty excited about it. Thanks again for asking him to help me. Also... I hope things are going well for you.  EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did notice that--and was glad to see it! Keep up the great work! LHMask me a question 02:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding about hatting IPT at the BLPN?
The consensus was that it was a BLP issue. Why did you close it? Atsme &#9775;  Consult  19:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion had devolved into a rehashing of the merge and delete discussions. The thread was not addressing any BLP concerns, as the placement of the Islamophobia tag is more of a content dispute than a BLP concern, given that the IPT isn't a living person. LHMask me a question 19:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In regards to the same issue and regarding your close, I would like to ask you to reevaluate your close. Your close indicates to me that there was no BLP issue at all. What I would like to ask you to review is the very first question posed. Is the Islamophobia template a BLP violation? Was this question answered with an affirmative consensus that this template is a BLP violation? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No it was not. Except for you and one other editor, all the comments supported the BLP issues.  7 days have not passed since the discussion was first opened. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  22:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It's been reopened, at the request of of you two. Further discussion should occur there. LHMask me a question 00:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  00:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This was the suggestion of Arbcom that the matter of the template be taken to BLPN. However you are right that the rehashing of AfD has no place in it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What you don't seem to understand is that some of the BLP violations occur because of the other related violations. Why is it so difficult to understand the concept of WP:BLPGROUPS??  It starts there, then moves into the self-published and biased sources that bleed over to Emerson - the constant referring back to Emerson which makes the article exclusive to him.  Would you add the Islamophobia template to Steven Emerson?  It's time to stop skimming over this information, and try to understand it.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  01:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

My apologies
I do offer my apologies for all of this.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. LHMask me a question 01:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it always like this?
LHM, I have avoided on-wiki political content disputes like the plague in the past, but the manipulation of process seemed so egregious in the case of The Federalist article, that I disregarded my usual good sense and got involved. Like you, I am a strong proponent of our BLP policy, but I have never witnessed anything like what I have seen in the last 12 hours -- an attempt to misuse BLP as a club to win a non-BLP content dispute. Do you have prior experience in political content discussion involving living persons? Is this a typical typical "political" content discussions? I'm especially taken aback by the degree of personalization (completely unprovoked) in ongoing talk page discussion. . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Only very recently have I dipped my toe in these waters. From my experience, what is happening there is not at all uncommon. An editor goes from "uninvolved" to a supposed "POV pusher" simply for pointing out problems in the reasoning of a group that is desirous of a certain outcome. I'd tread very lightly now, as there are admins willing to use their blocking and protecting tools in such debates and discussions. LHMask me a question 21:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can sympathize with your point: I am a previously uninvolved editor who is now being accused of being a POV-pusher -- and numerous other things -- for simply pointing out the obvious problems with the attempt to misapply BLP policy to a situation where BLP policy is marginally related on the flimsiest of pretexts. It really does offend my sense of fair play and procedural fairness.  I am also extremely disappointed in the repeated mischaracterizations of editor statements and the attempt to cast discussion participants as BLP violators, using the inherent threat of ArbCom sanctions to intimidate discussion and the normal BRD process.  It's a mess.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I experienced similar issues regarding Chelsea Clinton's baby's name and the use of a source for uncontroversial material on the John Barrowman page. The latter ended up with me blocked for "edit warring" after an admin reverted against consensus, opened an ANI on me for "personal attacks" (that didn't exist), and then, when that didn't work, filed a specious RFPP that got me blocked briefly. Unfortunately, too many play the "BLP Trump Card" just to keep out info they don't like. LHMask me a question 21:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

On second thought...
I guess you probably already figured this out, but recent activity at that BLP thread has made me reconsider the feeling that it would be safe for me to step away from the "debate". I'm not even sure what's being argued at this point. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 14:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think many on both sides of the discussion there have lost the plot. I tried to find a middle ground with some compromise text, but it seems we would rather keep fighting. LHMask me a question 15:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Corbett
I knew he'd respond like that, so I just choose to ignore his ad hominems by making an actual suggestion. And no, I'm not a troll. You may want to look for these in YouTube or your garden. =) – Epicgenius (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you know that a particular post you're about to make will anger the person it's directed at, and you make that post anyway, you're trolling. You may not be a "troll" (I don't know you well enough to say whether that's the case or not) but in that instance, you are certainly trolling. LHMask me a question 15:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, I apologize if I have offended you. I wasn't trying to make him angry, though. (I am not as old as other Wikipedians, so I may occasionally come across as rude.) – Epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You haven't "offended" me. What you did (knowingly posting something you knew would elicit an angry response) was wrong. It's not about being "offended", it's about doing what's right. LHMask me a question 15:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I won't do it again, in any case. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk page stalker: "No, I'm not a troll. You may want to look for these in YouTube or your garden." I'm going to steal that. LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Jody Hice
I added a lot to the Jody Hice page and remodeled the "Political Views" section to what I view as more a appropriate "criticism" section. I would love to get your thoughts on the changes!! CranberryCash (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
 * With respect to this obviously very carefully studied and thought-about edit (not), the editor said "outdated" material is in the lead . That makes two tags covering the same problem, (A) lead rewrite and (B) outdated material.   To comply with the lead section at Template messages/Cleanup, "Don’t insert tags that are similar or redundant", please self revert.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The two issues are related, but distinct. You need to step back from this, in my opinion. Your tone here is hostile, and there is no need to be. Also, I will not be self-reverting, because your removal of tags was, in my view, inappropriate. LHMask me a question 23:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Big sigh. Its a pity the arbcom process was sorta quick shot, Adam could have done a better job on that. My impression is, they are not interested in discussing the lists failure, but defend their turf against intruders. That said, I invite you and other authors (,, | ) to contribute to User:Serten/IPCC consensus. The funny thing is, that the current climate change articles do not at all refer to the IPCC consensus process per se, they deal with an abstract notion of "scientific opinion", but leave out anything the humanities/social science has to say in regard of climate change. That said, there is a vast market niche for a generic article, and one would have no prob at all to base it on peer reviewed sources predominantly. Serten (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 30, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Regarding, I believe that you may want to put it here instead or it is likely to be missed now that the case is open. Please note that I am a complete novice in ArbCom, so the Clerks ( and ) might be able to direct you more accurately.
 * I know we have not always agreed, but there's good work in both of us - so if you're bowing out of this then I'll say thank you now for everything that moved things forward. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the location is fine. No editor is required to participate in an Arbcom case, not even named parties. I urge you to watchlist the case. I'm not yet fully conversant with your involvement in the underlying incident, but it may be that some editors will discuss your edits as part of the evidence phase. You do not need to respond, but you may want to be aware of it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm certain at least one will. He has basically accused me of being an anti-Landmark POV pusher at various points in the process. I don't think even those who have some areas of agreement with that editor content-wise, though, will support such allegations against me. However, I have watchlisted some of the relevant pages, and will keep half an eye on what transpires, particularly with regards to how Astynax is treated by the process. LHMask me a question 13:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Admins gone wild
I dunno if you're familiar with the attempt to delete The Federalist's entry, but Mitchell's policy response is wildly off point. The version that was reverted to is not remotely "an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists". I've pointed this out, but am not expecting much. I guess he was funnin' me. Andyvphil (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC review
I linked to one of your edits in the RfC review:. aprock (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I could use your assistance
Hello. I've notice your work on the List of wars involving the United States page and was wondering if you could help me on the List of wars involving Mexico page. I am having problems with the user HMWD who keeps on adding a man's expedition and a massacre to the list of wars. I keep on explaining to him why they shouldn't be there (obvious one: they're not wars) but he ignores the reasons, comes up with "both incidents involved hundreds of men and lasted from weeks to months" as a reason (they could last however long, that still wouldn't make them wars) and keeps on adding them there. I'm sure you understand why a expedition and a massacre doesn't belong. This would be the equivalent of adding the Lewis and Clark Expedition and the Boston Massacre to the list of wars involving the United States. I don't want to edit war with him. We've already had an edit war before on the Border War because he insisted that Mexico and the German Empire defeated the United States in that war and kept changing it. It took us a while to resolve that and I guess ever since then he's had a personal vendetta against me because he won't listen. He seems to have created his profile just for editing on the Border War and List of wars involving Mexico with his own biased editing and doesn't show any signs of stopping. I was wondering if you could help and explain to him why a expedition and a massacre doesn't belong in the list of wars and end his behavior. AbelM7 (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I wish I could help, but I don't have the stomach for it. What I will do, is point you to WP:3O, where editors sometimes can help in situations like this. If he's been a persistent POV-pusher/edit warrior, you could also take him to ANI, with a list of diffs showing his prior behavior as well. Sorry I can't be if more help, but I've too many irons in the fire as it is. LHMask me a question 23:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Editor HMWD here, just here to point something that AbelM7 didn't mention:In the article of "list of Wars involving Mexico" there is already entries that aren't "real" wars and that don't involved any real confrontation and or way less men, such as the "Dirty War" and "Las Cuevas War" the later was over cattle and involded fewer men than the conflicts i want to include yet AbelM7 has no problem with them. The conflicts that i want to include are attemps of filibusters to annex Mexican states to the United States, that's more relevant than cattle. HMWD (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @HMWD Nowhere does it says it was to annex Mexican states to the United States. AbelM7 (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "He (William Walker) began recruiting from amongst American supporters of slavery and the Manifest Destiny Doctrine, mostly inhabitants of Kentucky and Tennessee. His intentions then changed from forming a buffer colony to establishing an independent Republic of Sonora, which might eventually take its place as a part of the American Union (as had been the case previously with the Republic of Texas). He funded his project by "selling scrips which were redeemable in lands of Sonora."[2]" & "At the time the Crabb Expedition was regarded by many Mexicans and Americans as being an outfit of filibusters, organized to conquer Mexican territory, but it was sanctioned by the rebel government in Mexico, which would eventually win the Reform War in 1861. Cardwell himself wrote that "Mr. Crabb left here about January last, ostensibly for the purpose of mining in the Gadsden purchase, and settling there; but really intending to conquer Sonora, and in process of time add it to the slave states."[4][5]" HMWD (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It doesn't say it was to annex Mexican states to the United States. It says William Walker wanted to establish an independent Republic of Sonora (his own independent country). It also says it might eventually take its place as a part of the American Union which is pure speculation and as we know, didn't happen. You forgot to mention that Ygnacio Pesqueira is the one who invited Henry A. Crabb to colonize the northern frontier region in the state of Sonora. It also says Crabb's journey was of a private nature and did not involve the American government or the military. Whether Crabb's intentions was to eventually conquer Sonora and in process of time somehow convince the United States and congress to accept Sonora to the union as a slave state, he was brought on the basis that the colonists would help Pesqueira fight in the civil war and against the Apache. The basis wasn't to annex Mexican states to the United States. AbelM7 (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That we "weren't sure what was going to happen" is not an excuse to leave an entry out, and several conflicts there, including the ones i mentioned to you before that are already in the article didn't involved the Mexican government in any way but yet i see them there. HMWD (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not an excuse, that's fact. You made the assumption that the United States was going to annex the land. The reason why they're out is because they're not wars, they're an expedition and a massacre. They don't belong there. In a history page, sure but in a war page, no. AbelM7 (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Two questions need to be asked on this kind of article: It's really as simple as that. Now, some common sense needs to be applied, for cases like the "War on Drugs" in the United States, which was only a figurative "war", not a real one. But this isn't a complex problem, and now it needs to be taken back to the talkpage of the article. LHMask me a question 23:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it a war? If the answer is "no", then you proceed no further, and it is not included. Period.
 * 2) Did it primarily involve the country named in the title? If the answer is no, then it is not included.
 * Thanks for the input, would you support to remove all the entries that aren't large scale conflicts and don't involved directly the governemnts of the countries? HMWD (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I supported doing so at the U.S. article, but was stymied in the attempt. Now it's all I can do to keep it from expanding even further. LHMask me a question 03:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence
It would probably be a good idea if you replaced the "your name here" section with your user name in your Landmark arbitration evidence. John Carter (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops! I'll do that shortly. Thanks. LHMask me a question 18:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Manhattan Christian College
I do not understand why you are telling me that I am wrong and I am vandalizing Wikipedia, I am simply helping you all out. Consult the link below, and thank you for allowing me to prove my point and show you that you were wrong.

http://mccks.edu/new-athletic-tradition-begins
 * The first time you did it, you put "Thunder Thighs" as the women's mascot. The next time, it looked like the same edit, so I reverted it. When you make test/vandalism edits, followed by decent ones, sometimes that happens. LHMask me a question 21:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Bureaucrat request
Hey Lithistman, as a request for being adopted to a bureaucrat on the English Wikipedia, should I make a request via WP:RFB? -- Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 04:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure what you mean by "being adopted to a bureaucrat on the English Wikipedia." LHMask me a question 04:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I must tell the bureaucrats that I wish to be a bureaucrat on the English Wikipedia by a request at this page. -- Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 04:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Because you're not an administrator yet, you have no possibility of becoming a bureaucrat at this time. LHMask me a question 04:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * While it's not actually firmly written in policy that you must be an admin before you become a 'crat, the community has made it very clear that they expect any 'crat wannabe to be an admin (and a fairly experienced one, too). -- Biblio worm 19:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)