User talk:Sleddog116/Archives/2012/April

Mohamed Nadjib Khiar
I have removed the prod tag from Mohamed Nadjib Khiar, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. The player has played in a fully professional league & therefore passes WP:NFOOTBALL see Soccerway If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Articles for deletion. Thanks! &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 20:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

War and rumours of war at Columbo
Jeez, I really need help and did not know where else to go. I have a great problem with User:B3430715 and the whole article is in disarray. Three of us were in mediation, which broke down but that was due to the mediator. Now, two of the editors are edit warring at Columbo and B3430715 is up to his old tricks: pretending not to understand English well when you can see here he understands all too well, disrupting everything, pretending he can't read the posts, and being belligerent about questions that have been resolved long ago. What do I do? Can you look for me? I tried an ANI against B3 for past troubles like this, but he got off scott-free because I guess the admins love him or something - and they hate me.— Djathink imacowboy  03:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC) What remains to be seen is whether B3 will vanish again as he did before, or if he'll remain with his pure insanity.— Djathink imacowboy  04:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarifications: The pattern belonging to User:B3430715 is so egregious and revolting I am not providing diffs so they may be dismissed. Here is what we have suffered from User:B3430715
 * 1) A deliberate hiding behind WP:COMPETENCY by pretending a lower English fluency level than he really has.
 * 2) Persistent wikihounding about settled article decisions and as examples.
 * 3) Disruptions so subtle yet so numerous I can't begin to report them all, all over again (an ANI decided B3 was harmless).
 * 4) Accusations of disruption and other violations when he disagrees with what we post. (Mostly happens to me.)
 * 5) A diff I can offer: admin User:Qwyrxian has officially warned B3 and Q. and I discussed it a bit.

Well, Djathink - I feel somewhat strangely privileged that you turn to me when you have nowhere else to go (not that I have a problem with it, or anything, but I'm not uniquely qualified to help). I'm glad you came to me for help, but I'm not sure what sort of help you're wanting me to give. Could you give me a little more indication of what exactly you would like me to do about the situation? Keep in mind that I'm not an admin (I'd like to be, but I'm not there just yet) and therefore don't do any sysop work.

What I'd say, first of all, is that I agree with what User:Tgeairn said at the end of the page. You disagreed with him, but I think you misunderstood him - he said that they were straying to personal remarks; he never accused you (or anyone) of incivility. All he did was (correctly, imho) point out that the conversation had drifted away from resolving the content problem and had turned into "he did this"/"he did that". Addressing editor conduct is not going to get anything accomplished in this case; it's better to address edits.

As far as the "admins love him and hate me" bit is concerned, whether it's true or not, I can practically guarantee that following it as a line of thought won't accomplish anything useful. (I can't say whether it's true or not, but I can say that pursuing it as an argument will get you nowhere. If you don't believe me, look at this ANI incident.  It was so bad that it had to be put on its own separate page, and it was decidedly unpleasant for all of the parties involved.)  The people at ANI quickly get fed up with editors who consistently argue with one another - no matter how valid the arguments might be. Dragging it to ANI (especially when it's done repeatedly) often leads to blocks, interaction bans, topic bans, and a host of other unpleasant things.

I'm not going to weigh in on B3's conduct yet (if at all) because as someone with a mediator mentality, I prefer not to take sides at all if I can help it, and if I can't help it, I don't like to take sides before I know all the facts. Right now, all I know about B3 is what you've told me and what I've seen from the links you provided. I'm not accusing you of lying or assuming bad faith or anything like that, but at the moment (without reviewing B3's contributions and editing pattern a little), I'm simply not knowledgeable enough about the situation to make an informed statement.

Like I said at the beginning, I think I'd be able to help you a lot more if I knew what kind of help you were looking for. Still, always glad to help where I can. The other thing - just food for thought; not meaning to cause any offense here - why does it always have to be Columbo? I mean sure, Peter Falk was a great human being, but is Columbo really worth all of this aggravation? Maybe this is just me being picky, but if this were me, I'd just find something else interesting (that is in desperate need of attention) and work on cleaning it up. I'm not suggesting that you abandon the topic altogether or go on a self-imposed topic ban or anything drastic like that, but if it's bugging you this much, maybe you should just walk away from it (not permanently, but for a day or three) and find some other interesting thing to work on in the wide wiki-wilderness. Again - that's just friendly advice; don't take it any more seriously than intended. I'd comment more, but this is getting tl;dr, and I have other things to do at the moment, but please keep me informed and I'll help as much as I can. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sleddog, I felt that I can trust you. I feel I can trust you with this since it is 'preliminary information' about a very sneaky editor who has fooled some admins - but not all. About Tgeairn I certainly appreciated the advice from that quarter - I know T was not accusing anyone. And I thanked him for telling us to get back on the ball.


 * T. needed to know we've been on the ball and this editor B3 keeps throwing us off - we're too sensitive about it to ignore him now. You are very right about ANI - I apologise for my 'gallows humour' when I said they hate me. (A few of them do hate me though.) I would never go to ANi and just say, "you all hate me." Sorry for that, bad joke.


 * Well, I can see your concern about Columbo, and I said I was taking off from the whole subject for a while. It's a bit difficult knowing B3 is always right there with that single purpose, but I've moved on for now. So your advice is very sound there too. All I wanted, I suppose, was a place to present this and maybe a nice sounding board. You've done that, and I am very grateful for your graciousness and the time. It was all I wanted. Thank you, Sleddog.— Djathink imacowboy  23:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, many thanks for consulting Qwyrxian: it is good because it creates a 'cross-flow' with regards to the general info. It seems that, although Q. has been quiet about this lately, reserving judgment, Q. is reliable and trustworthy to deal with goofs like me. Whatever happens I will leave it to him, as he instructed me to do. Meaning the technical stuff: Q. has already warned B. about his editing and Q. has asked me to report to him anything reverted by B. that shouldn't be. Otherwise, Q. says I am not to worry about B3. You see, all this helps me a lot. Because I have always said I only want to be sure WP sees what is happening and does what is right. I think that is the case now, and because of that, now I can afford to ignore B3.— Djathink imacowboy  23:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your vote of confidence (and the barnstar). I think that what you're saying right now demonstrates a much more level-headed approach.  Take a few days off from the Columbo topic, as you said.  Keep in mind, too, that if B3 continues even when consensus is against him, just trust WP's consensus process (however much it may have let you down in the past) and trust that the article will get sorted out.  Don't take this the wrong way - your contributions are valuable to Wikipedia, so don't hear me saying something I'm not - but I do believe that Wikipedia would survive without you or me.  In other words, if B3's edits are truly that problematic, he'll be dealt with in due process, and (thankfully) you and I don't have to be the ones to deal with him.  For now, I'd say let it sit with Qwyrxian.  He's a good admin, and he'll take care of what needs to be taken care of (even if not as quickly as you'd prefer).  You seem willing to do that, right?  And as I've said before, Wikipedia is just not that important.  To quote from that page, "Editors shouldn't and needn't get worked up about things. If you're feeling strong negative emotions towards Wikipedia, an article, or a user, you're taking things too seriously, and it's time to back off."  That's a guideline, not a policy, but it's a good guideline, and it puts things in perspective nicely, I think.  Have a nice evening (or morning or whatever it is in your neck of the woods).  Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, again, and by the way I did not thank you for mentioning your role as a sort of mentor to Qwyrxian (Q's a good egg). That, I really appreciate. If someone, anyone, here were viewed by me as a mentor it is you. Many worthies are here, true, but so far, no one quite like you and I think it fair you should know that.— Djathink imacowboy  01:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey
✅. Sleddog116 (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Something you should see
Did you see this Do you now understand what I have to endure, why I joke about admins hating me? I couldn't even award this one a star ... and he's not the 1st to make me regret awarding a star. (Of course I do not mean you, Sled.) BY the way, whilst I said I appreciated your 'mentorship' remark and stated the respect I have for you, I am not and never was seeking a mentor. So please do not assume the ugliest faith on earth like Q did.— Djathink imacowboy  05:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In light of this being construed and treated as an insult, I think you and I had best sever our connexion - whatever that may be. You don't want to be black-flagged like everybody else who has had contact with me.— Djathink imacowboy  10:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Well you halfway tried ...
...but like all the others, it's only words. I sincerely hope you strive to grow up to be as good as you pretend to be. Also: What a sad bunch. Did anybody see how damned fast TParis came to indefblock me? And still there are (probably unintentional) grave dancing words aimed at me, like "if you want an indef block, better not to go out in bad terms with people" (like that is some curse on the rest of my life), 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) 16:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Severe weather
Thanks for your edits, they look very nice. Unforunately I don't have much time to do much this week, but I'll try as much as I can. There are plenty of sources out there, but the obstacles to making this a nice article are A) "severe weather" is a broadly and vaguely defined term, with many reliable sources contradicting each other on what exactly constitutes severe weather, and B) even the phenomena which clearly fall under the purview of the term overlap, so organizing the article into sections is hard. It still needs work in my opinion, and if you would like suggestions and help I'm more than willing to provide them, I'm just a bit busy at the moment. The most problematic section right now is the "heavy rainfall" section (which I just renamed) because it should cover
 * 1) River flooding
 * 2) Coastal flooding/storm surge...these are sort of the same thing but not really
 * 3) Flash flooding
 * 4) Landslides

And these terms/phenomena aren't mutually exclusive. Consider it a challenge! I hope to help improve the article soon. Let me know if you have questions. - Running On Brains (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)