User talk:Skyerise/Archive 2017

Wikipedians who read categories
Hello. A little while ago, I divested myself of all Wikipedians who read categories where I was the only user in the category and put them all up for deletion. If I divest myself of all Wikipedians who read categories, that will leave you as the only member of Category:Wikipedians who read Elfquest and Category:Wikipedians who read the Incarnations of Immortality. As you know, user categories like these have come under scrutiny off and on over the years, so I am finally giving up the fight on this front. So, I hope you don't mind if I put some of these others up for deletion after I leave them. The only other category we share is Category:Wikipedians who read Frank Herbert, but one other person is in that category with us.

Also, are you still using Iceweasel now that Debian has come to an arrangement with Mozilla so we now have Firefox again? LA If you reply here, please &#123;&#123;Ping&#125;&#125; me. @ 11:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry to take so long to reply. I've been living rough on the Big Island for five months, only making an occasional edit when dropping into the kava bar while in town shopping. Now wired again in California...


 * I've removed the categories you mention. Though you have a subpage still in the Elfquest category. At least the Wikipedians who read AUTHOR pages still seem to exist. :-) Skyerise (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Outing BMK
Why did you choose to out BMK's account from seven years ago, which is his real-life identity? What possible reason was there for you to do so? I redacted it, by the way. El_C 06:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Because he was doing the same messing with images under that previous identity, inserting "<!- Spacing ->" comments, and otherwise acting in the same kind of provocative manner as he is now. That and it is clearly stated in the oldest entry in his block log, so I can't possibly be outing something anybody can easily find. Plus neither the sockpuppet cases not the WP:AN discussion have been deleted so it's not like he's had it scrubbed! Skyerise (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Anyway, please don't refer to it as "OUTing", it isn't, because there is a public record of all of it on Wikipedia. You can't out something that isn't hidden. Also, I had no idea it was his real name. If he hadn't told us, I'd have continued to think that it was a reference to the song, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald", which is what I had assumed. Skyerise (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's fair enough. But BMK was correcting edits made by Elisa.rolle (ANI/Elisa.rolle), he was not stalking you. So all that digging up the past was for nothing. El_C 06:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I am afraid I can't agree with that. He's done it before. I try to improve an article's image layout because it sucks, not knowing that he is involved with the article, and he not only reverts and edit wars, he always goes and does something to an article I've been working on for years in retaliation. I have learned just to take "his" articles off my watchlist when he does this, because ever since I have edited Wikipedia, this behavior has not changed. So I have no way of knowing whether what you say is true, or whether he watchlisted the Taos article the last time we tangled. I want to stay out of his way, but when he shows up in an area I have edited since I first started editing in 2009/2010 (Taos in particular and New Mexico in general), I can't simply take it off my watchlist. Skyerise (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You two will either have to learn to work together on image layouts or stay out of each other way. The edit warring and the ANI drama are not acceptable. El_C 06:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am quite happy to stay away from "his" articles when I stumble upon them. Will he do the same? Skyerise (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So option A is a no-go, then? I don't know. Keep me appraised. El_C 06:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, from experience if we tangle he will typically push it into an edit war, even with compromise edits. Usually he gets blocked. Or sometimes both of us. Occasionally I do, depending on how the admin counts reverts. It's just not worth it to even try to compromise when you can't count on an admin taking the obvious meaning of "3 reverts", sometimes choosing to apply some more subtle method of counting. Skyerise (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Dalai Lama - Chinese interferences
Hi Skyrise. I appreciate your contributions in the past to the Dalai Lama article. I did a fair bit of work on it myself last year but haven't paid much attention since then. Now I see that someone called Eipviongll has been inserted lots of edits based on untranslated Chinese language sources to 'prove' that all the Dalai Lamas were approved and appointed by the Chinese emperors. Rookie that I am, I am not sure how to tackle this, perhaps you would know? What are the rules in such cases? To my knowledge (and I am no Tibetologist but I do have all or most of the classic English language Tibetan histories) none of the statements that Eipviongll mentions appear in standard English sources. If you cannot advise, to whom do you think I should apply? Many thanks and best wishes, MacPraughan (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC) PS on review of some of his/her changes at least one Shugden publication is cited. So it might be Shugdenites stirring it here. MacPraughan (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit reverted on 14th Dalai Lama
Hi Skyerise, I received a notification about my edit reverted on the said page. Can you please confirm if I removed the URL under guise of fixing it? For your refernce : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=14th_Dalai_Lama&oldid=prev&diff=778019231 - Jn045 (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

We're on Twitter!
RachelWex 18:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Village pump (policy)

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:


 * 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:


 * 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Please see my proposal to speeedily rename the category
Category:New Jersey distilled spirits to Category:Distilleries in New Jersey to match other content of Category:Distilleries in the United States Hugo999 (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)