User talk:OohBunnies!/Archive 3

Something for you to enjoy :D
Pesky (talk ) 08:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI The Grump
Would you please look this over: from, and then tell me I need to back off and cool down? I told Andy, we all have a right to an opinion, that it was indeed giving ANI a bad name when he stumps over to my talk page pretending the ANI is about me, just because I posted what he didn't like. He needs to learn to take criticism on the chin just like the rest of us do, and back down when he's the other half of the problem.— Djathink imacowboy  04:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)



A thank-you
This, though no surprise from someone like Andy, really hit me like an atomic blast ... jeez, I have to thank you for the defence. I had no idea Andy had done this to me: he never gave me the slightest notice or had anyone inform me in his behalf. What machinations here! And you noted how he made a few false accusations. I'm sad the discussion was closed with Andy successfully accusing me of being a troll. However, you are a doll, and I send a WP:WIKIHUG in all sincerity for your expert defence of me. That was sweet and it was fair. Here I was looking for the archive of an old ANI because I have raised a new one .... — Djathink imacowboy  12:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Less smiley faces!
No offense! But can you please give us less smiley faces (especially in serious discussions). --Deathlaser (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

too bad
What a sad bunch. Did anybody see how damned fast TParis came to indefblock here? And I still see grave dancing words like "if you want an indef block, better not to go out in bad terms with people", and "I think you interpret a lot of things to be attacks against you when they are not, which is a pity. I would hope that you could come back in future and we could talk more, maybe see about ways to communicate without so much drama." A bunch of pompous twaddle. Don't get brainwashed by this stinking swamp. Please. Listen to you, all of you sound like cultists. This place will not last, and you all fail to realise you count for nothing here. Then I have to listen to an admin who is being attacked like me, but is too slow to catch on, and a sanctimonious edit warring fool who pretends to like me. That is what this place does to you! I'm old! Too tired to take all this - but I know at least 95% of you are kids. Get away whilst you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.85.118 (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

For those familiar with George Orwell's novel 1984: you, on WP, you're all like Winston, in the torturous grasp of O'Brien. It is not enough for you to tell him what he wants to hear. He expects you to truly believe it. You know why Winston was being tortured: too many thoughtcrimes racked up, then they got him for a sexcrime.76.195.87.205 (talk)

Change that to 'battleground' or 'incivility', change the arrest to 'block', and O'Brien becomes WP. And guess who Big Brother is? What does it matter! He has you all to himself already! And if you threaten him, he won't threaten you - he'll indefblock you! It even sounds like Orwell's DoubleSpeak!76.195.87.205 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC).

Because

 * *nom* Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message 16:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

wow
you know how to hurt the ones you pretend you care about...76.195.88.197 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Sorry if I've hurt you. But some of the comments you made have hurt people too. Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message :) 18:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Too much AGF!
You assume way too much AGF :( :0 :[ :@ :/.--Deathlaser (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean by that. Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message :) 08:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Rfa
I have nominated you at RFA. We need more admins like you.--Deathlaser (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

William Blair
I've just finished writing the William Blair, surgeon, article and posted it. I hope its OK. It was sat in my sandbox all morning as I was working on it and not saved on the main WP site and I can't imagine how it was picked up for comment. Can you take down the page requesting attention. I can't find it. Blair was contributor to Rees's Cyclopaedia and I am updating the article I wrote about it in 2004. Nearly all the 100 or so contributors have WP articles and I am writing those (like Blair) who don't and categorising them. A number need disambiguating -- which will keep me busy for quite a while yet.

Kind regards

Apwoolrich (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No Problem!! Its good to know people are reading my stuff!! Kind regards Apwoolrich (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant!! Yes, please!!

Kind regards Apwoolrich (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. It looks very good. It must be Henry Hoppner Meyer, so I will link accordingly.

I shall welcome your advice. If you look at Rees's Cyclopaedia and then go to the list of contributors page you will find links to all the names. A number are red-linked and I have not written them yet. Amongst these is a W. Symonds. He is listed in the Philosophical Magazine article (1820) which is the basis for the list, but is simply noted as being a contributor, with no clue as to what he wrote or more importantly who he was. I propose writing a page saying he was a contributor, and categorise him, but nothing more.I have failed so far to uncover any candidate. The only famous W(illiam) Symonds was a Naval Architect who was probably too young. I am worried that such a meagre peace may be classed as not notable and so for the chop. I have no wish to get involved in a spat about this. Is there any way it can be protected? The problem might also arise with some of the artists and engravers, but I have not researched these yet. I have a friend who is an expert on the engravings of the period, so I shall ask her when I get round to it.

Just now I am working down the list adding to each page a note about the Rees involvement and categorising it. It will be a while before I begin to write new articles.

Kind regards

Apwoolrich (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Very wise. The way round to for me to add a bit of text listing the unidentified names and no page links. The information will be recorded that they were involved, so if new info comes to light later adjustments can be made.

Apwoolrich (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hullo, An update on Rees, is that I have decided to add a section to the Contributor's page headed 'Pseudonymous and unknown contributors'. and add to it George Glover, (who has just been flagged as non-notable, so delete, and the names I cannot identify. The writing of pseudonymous technical books at this period is not unknown. They seem to re-cycle material from encyclopaedias. Rees writer Richard Watson Dickson wrote a book on gardening under the name of MacGregor. Another was 'Thomas Martin', The Circle of the Mechanical Arts, 1812, and 'John Nicholson', The Operative Mechanic, 1825. Both these writers describe themselves as Civil Engineers, both are quite unknown in the profession and wrote nothing more, so I deduce they were pseudonyms. AFIK nothing has ever been written about works like these, so I can't create a WP page about the topic. Apwoolrich (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Congratulations and best of luck! Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message 16:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

milk!


 Puffin  Let's talk! has given you a large glass of milk, for assisting with a very messy article. Milk somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a glass of milk, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, cool, refreshing goodness of milk by adding {{subst:Glass of milk}} to their talk page with a friendly message.  Puffin  Let's talk! 18:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks! :D Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message 18:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Article Rejection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/PutLocker

I've spoke to someone in the chat, and they informed me that the TorrentFreak and Wired articles were good sources, not just mere mentions. Alexa shows the sheer size of the website.

Why was the entry still removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.19.141.74 (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Response
OohBunnies, thanks for responding and giving me actual reasons. I added the reference because I thought it was needed for verification, since my first attempt without a reference was taken down. Again, what I added was purely factual, and not promotional (unless you consider the reference link promotional, which wasn't my intent). I understand taking it down if it's because the book hasn't been released yet (although ARCs have been sent out), but you should be consistent and then remove the other novels that haven't been released yet, like the one due out in 2013. Anyway, I do appreciate your more civilized response than what I received earlier.DaveZeltserman — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveZeltserman (talk • contribs) 00:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * OohBunnies, I've got a question. I didn't originally create the Wikipedia entry for myself, but when I found it I completed my bibliography, and added a few citations (the NPR best books selection, WaPo best book selections, etc.), and I noticed that yesterday that it was tagged to be deleted if stuff wasn't done. This morning I added references to everything. What more needs to be done? Thanks.DaveZeltserman
 * Hello again! I'll have a look through those refs and format them correctly if needs be. Those tags doesn't mean it will be deleted if things aren't done. Wikipedians sometimes just go through articles looking for problems, tag them, then move on and the article is often just forgotten about. I will see what I can do to improve it. As you have a conflict of interest people would likely...discourage you from editing it. (This isn't necessarily a viewpoint I share). I can see that the changes you're making are neutral. I'm sure you're able to continue editing neutrally so I'm not going to tell you to stop, or anything like that, just letting you know that COI editing is discouraged. I'll take a look at that article now. Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message 14:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with all this! I appreciate it!!DaveZeltserman


 * OohBunnies, I've got a lot of interviews on the web about craft of writing, but I'll sort through them and see if I can find some that I consider neutral and not promotional. Here's an article that's probably too promotional,

http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2010/02/23/who_might_pick_up_robert_b_parkers_mantle_as_bostons_crime_fiction_master/ DaveZeltserman — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveZeltserman (talk • contribs) 16:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Wow, thank you for the barnstar, that's very kind of you. Improving those articles is a nice idea, keep up the good work. :D Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message 13:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That article
I asked someone in IRC who reads Polish and they found some links about that guy, you'll have to use Google Translate on them to get the gist (his name is Uładzimir Kumiec in Polish). This Polish-speaker I asked in -en said that in their opinion it would not be worth their time to try to find any more refs for this guy. Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruch_Przyszłości ...the group he was VP of, but he is not WIkilinked in the article about his group.
 * http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uładzimir_Kumiec ...removed multiple times after discussion
 * http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2011:12:12:Uładzimir_Kumiec (The person who wrote the following at this link is a senior editor, admin, CU and oversighter or the Polish Wikipedia) "Selfpromoting total failure. The user even had it explained to him on IRC that he has no accomplishments worthy of Wikipedia inclusion.  Throw it out and block for spam."
 * Gack. Thanks anyway, you're a star. Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message 14:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * It was no trouble at all. That's very lovely of you to give me this, thanks a lot! Made me smile. :D Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message 03:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry.
I am very sorry for my actions and/or arguing with you :).-- Deathlaser : Chat  15:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sharon Burch entry arguments against proposed deletion
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Burch Actually I can see why the Sharon Burch article got stamped "proposed for deletion". When I wrote it I wanted to know more about a person who had made some music and events or speeches (I don't remember) relating to Native Americans. Now I can see that there must be a limit for notability, more so in order for Wikipedia to survive, maybe?

I wanted Wikipedia to be able to give honest answers about people who had published literature or music, and I think Sharon Burch falls into that category. However, even publishing today is not what it once was, a guarantee that some people had made a review and found the stories, novels, art, music or textbook interesting enough. Well I need to read more about GNG. What does this translate into: "significant coverage in secondary sources"-

For now I add references and then remove the proposed deletion.

I am shocked by your name on Wikipedia, and I wonder if you are a serious person, but for now I am not digging into that. You may have seen a controversial (very religious bio-article which I tried to write) was criticized, and you may think that this author was an easy "target". I have once before been up against an editor who really only wanted to get power over Wikipedia in order to spread some political issues, so therefore I am going into details about this later. --d-axel (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I have revised the article. Actually I had hoped other people would have done more to revise the article. The First Nation Initiative seems very important to me, recognizing the true history of America with all its contradictions and problems, so I think it would be wrong, very much so, to delete this article. --d-axel (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't make assumptions about me. I have no idea who you are so I couldn't have thought you were an easy target. I don't edit with any agenda. If you have references to add then that's great. It's also a BLP, and needs a lot more refs to back up the content per the BLP policy. It makes no difference to me whether it's deleted or not, and I honestly could not care less. It just needs to be within policy. Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message 16:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Thank you for your comments about Andy at ANI. Although I have a lot of respect for the contributions Andy makes to Wikipedia, that doesn't give him license to go on a tirade like that and attack other editors in an extraodinarily vulgar fashion. Someone had to say something, and at least you had the guts to do so. I had stopped commenting on the topic quite a while ago after a vain attempt to get someone to close the thing and put it out of its misery. We really need to learn how not to drag things out just because we're upset.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this message, it's really appreciated. I was quite surprised when hardly anyone seemed to find fault with that rant. I'm not normally one to take umbrage with people venting, but there's a line and he seriously crossed it. It's a shame to lose any editor that contributes well to the site, but someone should have forcibly shut that thread down days ago. The people who randomly joined in the argument and continued to try and assign blame and find faults with the involved admins did absolutely nothing to help the situation, I feel. All in all, a very sorry affair. Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message 01:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish I were surprised. Unfortunately, I've seen incredible incivility at ANI with no one objecting, let alone imposing sanctions. I have also, though, seen occasions when users are blocked for statements made at ANI. Seems to depend as much on whim as anything else, although some editors may have their reasons, but they just don't express them. In this instance, my guess is that because Andy was wronged in the first place, others were cutting him a fair amount of slack - in my view, too much, but it's a line drawing exercise. I would have actually supported your comment at ANI, but at the point I saw it, the discussion was (finally) closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to be down to luck. Different admins have different ideas of what crosses the line into a clear breach of NPA. Whether or not you get away with making an offensive or attacking statement seems to depend on who actually sees it, and when. It's a shame that it took a rant of that caliber for someone to finally close the thread. Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message 01:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy was exploding because the off-topic commentary in the report had prevented any clear consensus from emerging. Due to the outburst, the section was closed with a claim that consensus said it was a bad block, but that claim is not clear since lots of people did not comment on the case at all—they just added distractions along the lines of "do something else if you want X desysoped". Such commentary was particularly irritating because it missed the fact that at no time did anyone ask for such results, and the matter is important—a good editor (actually I think two good editors) was blocked for no supportable reason at all, and there is now a precedent that anyone reverting nonsense being added to an article could be blocked a couple of days later because the editor "was engaged in a slow edit war". They would probably get unblocked on appeal, but the stain (and ill feeling) would last forever. Combatting nonsense being added to articles is a very important job, yet it is very difficult because we have to pretend that each newcomer might be an excellent contributor one day, if only we would spend enough time educating them. The ANI discussion should have clearly confirmed my description of the situation, with a solid consensus saying the blocks were bad, and the attempt to extend WP:EW to cover such situations was wrong. The correct way to respond to Andy's misguided rant would have been to post at his talk page, then add a very brief comment at ANI to the effect that a discussion about the offensive remarks had started elsewhere. Of course if someone made a report regarding yet-another dispute, and then used offensive language, they should be slapped in situ. In this case, however, it was not helpful to put a long objection on ANI due to the fact that Andy's report was important, and that it had been derailed by silly commentary by people who did not look at the issue. At the very least, if (correctly) wanting to object to the rant, some time should have been spent on adding thoughts about the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with a few points there. For a start, you're right that the case could've been a good starting point for figuring out how better to handle blocks and edit warring. It's obviously an area that needs looked at and clarified so that we have clear cut ways of dealing with the problems that don't result in unfair blocks. But that's not exactly what Andy was arguing for, was it? Tiptoety apologised and Fluffernutter explained very concisely the actions that led up to Tiptoety looking into the history of that article, but Andy seemed to want them to join in the drama-filled ANI thread and...what? Grovel? I don't know. All I know is that he came across like he wanted blood more than he wanted any kind of reform.
 * Mostly though, my point is that there is no excuse whatsoever for ranting about another user like that. This is something I feel very strongly about. Fluffernutter is a person, and under no circumstances should anyone get away with basically calling her a cunt on a public forum like ANI. No circumstances. Ever. It was a horrible way to talk about a user and inexcusable, no matter how wronged Andy was in the first place. Two wrongs don't make a right, and one bad block does not give you free reign to write a horrible tangent like that about another user. Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message 02:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * An additional point: I don't agree with your "correct way to respond to Andy's misguided rant". The correct way to respond to a barrage of personal attacks is to tell the user they can't get away with speaking like that. Not to pander to them. And "misguided" is not the term I would choose to apply to someone dedicating a paragraph to smearing shit over someone's name. You've thought about Andy felt - wronged, but why don't you think about how Fluffernutter felt when she logged on and saw that? That sort of thing, along with bad blocks, is something that can easily drive editors from the project. (And, to address your insinuation that I should not have addressed his rant without weighing in on the rest of the issue - I had actually spoken earlier in that thread, to say that I didn't think Tiptoety required desysopping. There is nothing, anywhere, that says you can't address someone's personal attacks without having addressed everything else they might have said in a thread first.) Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message 03:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good stuff, but no useful outcome (Andy would have removed it if asked). Still, we don't have to agree on everything. If you could stand looking at another disagreeable topic, some more people watching FGM would be good (it's mainly me handling the comments on the talk page). Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't know that he would have removed it if asked. Considering his quitting very shortly after it seemed more like a swan song than anything else. I'll take a look at that article and add it to watch. Are there any content disputes going on with it? Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message 04:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no activity at the moment, but in the past there have been flurries of excitement when POV pushers get tired of battling the regulars at circumcision, so they come to FGM to claim that male and female circumcision are equivalent, or that "mutilation" violates WP:NPOV. Hmmm, I see you are already hard at work—thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * POV pushers, everyone's favourite. I'm happy keeping problem articles like this on my watchlist. Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message 09:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Just one comment. Something good did come out of Andy's complaint, although like many policy issues, it may take some time to be resolved. See this discussion.