User talk:Sladen/Archives/2014

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=590788308 your edit] to AC'97 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * signal; combining the maximum four slots provides a 192 kHz, 20 bit/sample, stereo signal.

Traffic Light Tree
Hello Sladen!

Thanks for your help on showing a new picture of the Traffic Light Tree at its actual place. Its also good, that you have replaced the old picture with the former view. If someone has in future a better picture with the lighted(!) sculpture (I was too early) its o.k. to change it. I myself will return next January an try to make then an actual photo picture. If you would like to have further pictures from the sculpture at its actual place (dated January 2014) please give me a notice.

Kindly regards from Germany Günter Trunz (Please give answer to: guenter@trunz.net) AugustLH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.243.26.163 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...
As one of the previous contributors to Infobox film or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
 * This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=609659804 your edit] to Alea iacta est may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 *  Alea iacta est ("The die has been cast") is a [[

Neta Hebrew
Dear Sladen,

We’ve noticed that you have been reverting our entry, so thanks for the opportunity to clarify. We posted a brief factual description of the program with a link to the website. Unfortunately, the alternative entry is not accurate and I am not sure where it originated. The curriculum was not created by Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In addition, while we did grant permission for the research study cited, the study has number of factual inaccuracies, some methodological deficiencies and a tiny sample size.

We respectfully request that our entry be allowed to stand and not be replaced with unsubstantiated content. Please feel free to get back to us with any questions.

Thank you,

Naomi Stillman Associate Director, NETA-CET Hebrew College Newton Centre, MA

NETA, established in 2001, is a comprehensive Hebrew language program for students in grades 6–12, reaching students in over 120 schools worldwide (http://neta.cet.ac.il/Engschools.aspx). NETA offers a wide variety of primary source materials, adapted texts, language exercises, songs, conversations, art, and movies that speak to teenagers. The curriculum explores Jewish and Israeli culture of diverse historical periods, genres, and media. Grammar and linguistics are integrated with content, and the 4 language skills – reading, writing, listening, and speaking – are emphasized.

In 2011, the NETA program partnered with the Center for Educational Technology (CET), an Israel-based NGO and a leader in educational technology. The program is now called NETA-CET. NETA-CET is engaged in an ongoing development process and is adding new technological applications to Hebrew language education, including a website with new media-rich digital textbooks, learning tools, and online teacher resources.

You can get more information about the NETA-CET program at www.neta.cet.ac.il — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayla2014 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for getting in touch Ayla2014; given the large number of times that you have been reverted, I would suggest trying another approach. Several editors have previously raised the need for independent sources documenting the subject of the article; and if you could help locate these references/sources, this would help greatly in being able to expand the article in a way that is suitable for Wikipedia's quantity and neutrality requirements.  Please could we continue the discussion at Talk:Neta Hebrew, then lots of editors have the option to engage at once.  —Sladen (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=623495511 your edit] to Satellite television may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Satellite television is a system for reception by means of signals relayed from communication satellites. The signals are received

Template:citation
You shouldn't be altering documentation in order to get some advantage in a discussion - the advice in template:citation is old and stable eg from 2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Citation/doc&oldid=499756594 quote: Not required for web pages or linked documents that do not change; mainly for use of web pages that change frequently or have no publication date.

It's common sense, and you don't do your good name any help by that edit. please take a step back and read what the docs say - and hopefully realise it makes sense. Thank you.Prof.Haddock (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * , Your account presently appears to have been blocked by another editor. I hope that on your return you will feel willing to contribute in a civilised way to the discussion at Template talk:Citation.  Thank you. —Sladen (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

John Nelson Goulty
Hello. Would you please add an in-line reference to your recent edit on John Nelson Goulty's page? Otherwise, it will be deleted. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for picking me up on it!—I think I'll have to defer to the experts (yourself included). The information is from cross-referencing genealogical sources, whose construction a fear soundly falls under WP:OR!  —Sladen (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Great stuff on obtaining the image – thanks for that! I'll make a note on one my /WIP userpage of the K Books Ltd scans possibility.  Cheers,  Hassocks  5489 (Floreat Hova!)  18:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, the picture is great. I would suggest removing the unreferenced info about his notable descendants as long as we are unable to find a clear in-line reference.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Go for it. It's in the history now, so can be rescued easily.  —Sladen (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could add a note on the talkpage in case someone else is able to find a reference?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer
I don't want to push, but if you're interested I would be more than happy to fill you in on the background. The comment you left on the close review was painfully ironic, it almost exactly describes the majority side. Note that this is a review of two closers going against the majority, after a third closer has already been reversed for giving no-reason for closing against the majority. Alsee (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , it's very hard to know what (my) view point might be in comparison to others'—what is lacking is a high-level overview, like we would write for a good WP:LEAD. What would help everyone (not just myself) would be an introduction showing what these majority/minority/she-said/he-said/she-closed/he-closed arguments might be.  —Sladen (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I always cringe at the huge rambling explanations people give for disputes, I was trying to just focus on the exact close-problem and provide links for background. Here's the timeline:


 * WMF deploys MediaViewer (MV) on tiny wikis, gets decent survey results. Deploys MV everywhere, MWF survey results find only 29% English readers find it "useful". Similar on German. Note that people have been coming forward saying MV is awful, but they answered yes to useful because they though "useful" meant "does it work". The survey had a text response area, but responses like "Media viewer itself is awful" do not fall into any actionable-bug category. Therefore employees filter out those survey responses before sending the results to management.
 * EnWiki, Commons, and German all run RfCs. All say default-off. Our RfC results: 93% say default off for logged in, 81% say default off for everyone. MWF doesn't do anything.
 * Germans run second super-strict-binding-RfC deciding to edit the javascript page to do it themselves. MWF employee gets mad, reverts it, threatens to de-admin the editor who was carrying out the RfC. That WMF employee orders devs to rush out Superprotect, a new page protection level that blocks even admin editing.
 * People get mad, applying page-protect to win a page-content disagreement is one of our most blatant battleground abuses of force. Especially when done against consensus. We're supposed to resolve reasonable disagreements by working together.
 * Petition against Superprotect gets nearly 1000 signatures.
 * WMF sort-of apologizes for Superprotect, gives the javascript pages back to us, including a request (not demand) that we not change MV setting.
 * Along with that statement, the announces a "Community Consultation" on MV, promises "No predetermined outcome".
 * Note - the WMF's actions prior this point had been to invite community input on bugs or requested improvements.
 * WMF runs Community Consultation Process to solve the problem..... the consultation process invites bug reports or requested improvements (exactly what they were doing before). The consultation process explicitly prohibits consideration of opt-in vs opt-out. In other words the consultation had a pre-determined outcome. People upset at sham-consultation.
 * People are upset at blocked-consensus itself. People demanding any admin simply step up and use the javascript to opt-in MV as a simple consensus-action on the MV-RfC. People worry the WMF will re-apply superprotect.
 * I start RfC so the community can debate that question. I specifically want to inhibit anyone from doing it, as it was under formal debate. I want to avoid escalation.
 * If the community wants to implement, Part 2 of the RfC asks if we want to issue a formal request that the WMF do it and place a 7 day ban on the community doing it. This was my attempted solution, again preventing community implementation and hoping the WMF will agree to cool things down. (I've had talks with the Director, she seems to want to improve Community-WMF relationship.) I botch one line of the RfC and it draws heat from opponents - but that line can be harmlessly dropped as no-consensus.
 * So, RfC outcome is more than 2-to-1 want to follow through on the original RfC result to set MV to opt-in. The result on part 2 is is also solid to ask the WMF to do it for us, wait a week, and then we're free to do it ourselves if still needed. Supporters would be happy to work things out with the WMF, they just want the WMF to come to the table in good faith discussion rather than Superprotect and de-admin threats.
 * Some people are rabidly demanding consensus be respected and MV be opt-in (consensus itself has becom the bigger issue than MV), some people are rabidly pro-WMF and pro-MV staying opt-out.
 * Rabid opposer steps up, closes against consensus. I challenge the close, I ripped a hole in his case, he was left with a baseless assertion that anything less than 70% threshold was "no consensus". The close is a joke, it's reversed.
 * Second rabid opposer does a half close on just part 2, sabotages the RfC. He takes-off-the-table the option to work-with-WMF. His explanation for going against consensus? He didn't feel like issuing one. This close is an utter joke.
 * Third closer goes against consensus on part one. Instead of closing on whether we want to carry out the original RfC result, he goes on a rambling explanation of his views that there's no consensus on the media viewer setting itself. It sounds well reasoned, but that's not what we were debating. He changed the question, wrote what he liked, and claims that his no-consensus here has the effect of establishing a new a consensus MV be opt-out. He's claiming his no-consensus on the wrong-question effectively flips the standing 93% consensus for opt-in. And he's going against more than 2-1 consensus in the process.
 * And here we are. Close 1 reversed, closes 2 and 3 challenged.
 * I don't see any way to make a high-level-lead out of that. Alsee (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you help me find the diff for "He changed the question" ("Third closer", if I understand correctly). —Sladen (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * He didn't re-write the question. He ignored the RfC question. The RfC question was whether we wanted to "Reaffirm and Implement" the original RfC result. Instead he analyzed it as if this were an RfC trying to obtain a new consensus on media viewer setting, and issued a "no consensus" result on the media viewer setting. It's in the review request, but I'll grab it exactly.... Alsee (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Question One. Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC: WP:Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC There is a clear consensus that the Media Viewer should be disabled by default for both logged-in (section link) and non-logged-in users (section link).
 * The close is long and rambling, but in the middle he writes " I find that there is no consensus for disabling it by default." Alsee (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, so which diff is the closure that is being referenced here? —Sladen (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:Village_pump_%28proposals%29 Alsee (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In the close review I explain the issue: wp:Administrators'_noticeboard Alsee (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So in summary, ?  —Sladen (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's the close diff Alsee (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The part 2 close was a joke, but it doesn't matter unless the one you're looking at is reversed. And I admit, this one is a tough challenge. It's a kinda subtle issue. Alsee (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * He's exploiting the fact that supports like the following don't discuss media viewer itself:

''Support. WP:Consensus can change, but it is up to someone else - and WMF is certainly invited to do so - to make a new RfC to see if that's the case. Until then, we have a consensus, and it needs to be implemented properly. VanIsaac'' Alsee (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Little or no discussion of media viewer = no basis to render a consensus result on media viewer. Therefore he issues a no-consensus on media viewer. But the question was whether we wanted to follow through on the original RfC. Alsee (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've responded at AN. The point, Alsee, is that whether you want it or not, people commented on the substance and that was the determining factor in answering the question you asked, I had to determine consensus on the media viewer default status in order to determine consensus on the RFC question. Cenarium (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition, I've never claimed that there is consensus for 'opt out'. There is no consensus for 'opt in' in this RFC, but it doesn't imply the former. Cenarium (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Cenarium you didn't say consensus to opt-out, but you did assert that your "no consensus" has the effect of vacating an established consensus, with the same effect as issuing a consensus for opt-out. Alsee (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So you effectively recognize that I answered the RFC question. Indeed, there was a strong consensus for opt in, but now there is no such consensus any more, and together with the fact that the underlying issue changed so much means that the prior consensus no longer stands. Again, it's coming directly from my closing statement. It does not have the effect of issuing a consensus for opt out, it means there is no consensus either way at the moment. Cenarium (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * First, I hope that you noticed above that I called some people on both sides of the issue "rabid", but that I only used that term for the first two closers. One of them explicitly aligned himself with the minority side of the original RfC, and supported the development of superprotect blocking that consensus he didn't like. I kept my mouth shut because I didn't want a lynch mob when supporters heard the superprotect angle. The other wrote a Wikipedia-Signpost story promoting Media Viewer, and commented on the talk-page of the first RfC strongly saying that implementing it was not going to happen. Two closers strongly opposed to the original RfC, both wanting consensus blocked, both step forward to block it now. Not to mention the second closer stating his intense views on this RfC, that he feared rebuke if he closed the RfC his way, and there being no good-faith reason for him to go ahead and close half of a single RfC. (A part-1 closer going his way could simply write "no effect" for part 2.) But I've been trying to avoid the drama of diffing any of that. One close is reversed, the other is toast if examined on its own.


 * I presume you saw the original, successful, close review before you closed. Right? You had to have seen that my objection was that the closer analyzed and issued a close on the wrong question. You had to see that I objected to him issuing a close on media viewer setting, He analyzed it as an RfC on media viewer setting, claimed a 70% threshold based on that error, and when that analysis error was pointed out he absurdly stood by his close. I specifically requested a close addressing whether there was consensus on "Reaffirm and Implement JuneRFC" as the solution to the analysis error. I dunno, did you not read the overturned close-review before closing? I find it hard to imagine you would have deliberately repeated the the cause-for-overturn, but somehow you did. You analyzed it as an RfC on media viewer setting, found absense-of-debate-to-close-on based on that mistake, and issued no-consensus on an absence-of-debate. And again I requested a close addressing whether there was consensus on "Reaffirm and Implement JuneRFC" as the solution to the same analysis mistake.


 * I note that this is an odd page for this conversation, but, shrug. Maybe Sladen will find it of interest. He seems to be just about the only person actually curious about the merits of this case. The other people commenting on the close-review are generally crap. Too many people on both sides are baselessly voting for the outcome they prefer. I'd almost be pleased to see well reasoned disagreement with me. If I were to close the close-review I'd strike Nyttend for admitting he didn't even look at it, I'd strike Sänger for simply ranting, most notably I'd strike Alanscottwalker who only offers the bad-faith argument that my previous valid close review is somehow evidence that this one is invalid. And I'd keep on striking the other crap responses. This whole thing has turned into a damn circus. Alsee (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The people with the strongest feelings on the issue generally comment first on a review; if you wanted a quality review, it didn't help that you notified the respondents in the previous close review, since the result was only to amplify the phenomenon. You did state this as your reason for requesting review of the first close, but nobody followed through on this reasoning, the comments arguing for an overturn were based on other reasons entirely, mostly lack of a proper and convincing explanation. So I took the time to write a detailed rationale, but I couldn't address every single point of detail. And the point that you make is a detail, which only played a minor role in the debate, the more substantial issues had to be addressed. I did address it though, since I explicitly stated that the changing circumstances and lack of consensus on the underlying issue meant the previous RFC result did not hold, which answered the RFC question in the negative. Cenarium (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please to do not blame me following Appropriate_notification policy. Everyone agrees that that this matter warrants strong advertizement and maximum participation. The RFC itself was at Village pump. It was listed on the RFC notification service. I listed it on the Centralized Discussion template. And, as policy states on the talk pages of Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics). And as policy states, I very carefully preformed an unbiased notification of all editors on both sides of the issue. I was seeking to maximize participation, in an unbiased manner. I even asked the WMF Executive director if she had any objection to the current level of advertizement for this RfC, and that I could engage in extraordinary advertizement measures to increase participation based upon her request. She had gave no objection to the current level of advertizement. Alsee (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a guideline about what kind of behavior is acceptable, you are not required at all to do these individual notifications. I am merely pointing out the consequences of you doing so, since it invites early feedback by the most involved people to the detriment of neutral observers. I'm not saying it's against policy, but it is no surprise that you were disappointed by the comments of users you solicited that way. Cenarium (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "disappointed"? I listed the RfC to find out what the consensus was on the debate that I saw in the community, and I found out. I was not disappointed in the results, I was disappointed that you disregarded anyone who gave little or no comment on media viewer itself (because they didn't need to), and you used that to issue a no-consensus on a never-redebated standing consensus. But somehow we don't seem to be able to understand each other on that. Opposers claim to want a new RfC on media viewer itself, supporters clearly want to give it to them, if your close stands then consensus is clear that we need a new RfC on media viewer itself to sort this out. We have a consensus that has been blocked for 6 months now. We've had 5 RfCs so far, (if you count the two on German and the one on Commons), and all of them turn out the same way. People are getting more and more annoyed at the endless blocking and stalling against consensus. Do we seriously need yet another RfC to drag this on another month or two? Alsee (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the close review. Cenarium (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I can see that many editors, and both of yourselves ( & ) in particular have invested a great deal of time into this. I have been reading…  but this will continue to take further time.  —Sladen (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thorough examination. I made assertions above regarding the part-2 closer. I decided it was improper for me to go making baseless assertions. I added it to the close review request with diffs. The new new edit can be viewed in this diff. Alsee (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)