User talk:TenOfAllTrades/archive16

This page is an archive of talk page comments for the months of November 2009 to May 2010.

'''Please add any new comments to my current talk page at User talk:TenOfAllTrades. Thanks!'''

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice
A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)  You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

Reference Desk archiving interval
There's a discussion running on the RD talk page about decreasing the archiving and transclusion thresholds to reduce the page size, perhaps to as few as four days. I don't care one way or the other, but I'd like to make sure any consensus includes input from some long-time regulars, so I'm dropping this note on the talk pages of a few that pop to mind. (I hope no one feels this is improper canvassing.) —Steve Summit (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding "banned editor"
I'm a bit confused about your recent edit to Gerontology, for which you referenced "rv banned editor". I assume this is because the original poster, Shustov, has been indefinitely blocked. However, I'm confused why his/her block would make any content s/he uploaded unusable. Assumedly if there's a problem with the content, it should be deleted from Wikipedia. Otherwise, it seems reasonable to use it in Wikipedia articles. Is this a flawed assumption? Many thanks for any clarification you can provide. —Zach425 talk / contribs 15:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense, thanks for the clarification. I'm not a fan of empty self-promotions, so I can certainly empathize with the cause. Sounds like quite a large job to monitor, though! Anyhow, I've put up a new, related picture on the gerontology page that I think is equally, if not more, appropriate for the tone of the page. Thanks again! —Zach425 talk / contribs 15:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Brews/IAR and all that
I cannot explain the point I was making in just a few lines. The basic problem is that Brews' topic ban is so huge that one has to be careful with this. Physics is a huge field and Brews is an engineering professor. So, his topic ban would be similar to a topic ban on all politics pages for some editor who is a politics professor for having made trouble on one or two pages. If such a topic ban would mean that nothing even remotely related to politics could be mentioned at all, it would lead to problems.

I've been in contact with Brews for a while now and from everything I told him it should be clear that I am not now saying that Brews should violate his topic ban. Brews, I think, could be persuaded to work on wiki policy. Now, we have to understand that the real reason why Brews ended up in trouble leading to his topic ban was that Brews has/had a tendency to dominate discussions, to argue more or less the same point over and over again against consensus.

So, from a pragmatic POV, one would have to see if Brews is not going to dominate discussions in the same way as he did on the speed of light page. That's where the real potential for disruption lies. As I made clear a few times, the physics nature of the speed of light discussions had little to do with the problems. Now, on the NOR talk page, the regulars there asked Brews, me and other participants to give concrete examples of problems, and Brews gave a link to a relevant previous discussion that happened to be physics related. But he did not re-open that old discussion. Then, given that we don't want never ending discussions, I don't think that was such a bad thing.

This is one aspect of what I really mean by IAR right now: Brews sticking to his topic ban to the point of not even being allowed to give that concrete example, would not have been helpful at all. And I think that Admins like you, not Brews himself, should be the ones to invoke IAR under such circumstances.

Another aspect of IAR is different and has nothing to do with Brews. I explained that on the NOR talk page. That has to do with local consensus being able to overrule core policies. That can then be used to make better guidelines that would not have the necessary support to become official policies. Nevertheless editors of certain articles can always decide by consensus to stick to such unofficial guidelines.

It is here that I can see Brews contributing constructively. Brews seems to have a lot of time and energy, so he could draft alternative versions of the NOR, V, Synth, etc. policies that would be more suitable for some science articles. You then don't have endless discussions. Also, when he does that then we should not put all his contributions under the microscope to see if maybe something in there can be construed as being related to physics in some way. That's then another appeal to IAR that the Admins should stick to, i.m.o.

So, in conclusion, I would say that in these cases it should be the Arbitrators and Administrators who should invoke IAR to let Brews contribute in a constructive way. I'm not saying that Brews should make trouble by violating the topic ban in a non-essential way and then invoke IAR himself. Also, Brews should not shoehorn whatever else he is doing in order to violate his topic ban (e.g. he should not correct typos on physics pages). Count Iblis (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It was bad enough that you tend to ignore things that people (including me) have told you, and that you tend to repeat the same arguments over and over again. Why on earth are you expecting me to listen to you now that you've moved on to implying that I'm a vandal, troll, or malefactor?  Let me be very explicit.  I don't want to hear from you about Brews ohare any more, unless it's to tell me that he's spent a reasonable span of time – let's say at least a month – making uncontroversial, productive contributions to Wikipedia.  Until you can tell me that with a straight face, I am extraordinarily unlikely to be persuaded that his restrictions should be relaxed &mdash; and there's no reason for you to continue to try to argue with me.  Period.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, I quoted Rickk who said that: "There is a fatal flaw in the system. Vandals, trolls and malactors are given respect", and that clearly means those troublemakers who get off with a minor slap on the wrist. Count Iblis (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Without fanfare
Hi, re your comment about my edit to wp:sock, may I draw your attention to the thread that I first started on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. As well as my edit summary when I restored that example.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, I didn't see that edit on the talk page. Still, I think it was rather deceptive to omit any mention (at the time) of exactly why you decided to add that passage in. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Essay contributions
I'd appreciate some further feedback about your comments. The essay has been modified considerably. I hope you can oblige. Brews ohare (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

typo
Hi Ten, seems you made a little typo here: You point to this diff twice. I'm sure the first referral should be to this diff instead. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Fixing now.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Page move
Hello can you help with a page move Airport Express Train to Flytoget. reason "Article was called Flytoget when it received good article status, pagename was moved without discussion. Flytoget is used as english language name (english version of company website, general reporting etc) Discussion on talk page reveals no strong reason for the original page move. Also 'Airport Express Train' requires disambiguations as per Airport Express Train (disambiguation) - specifically with respect to HongKong airport train service"

Basically a page move needs reverting, I have the disambiguation page. Discussion of page move (to original status) is here Talk:Flytoget.

Shortfatlad (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me why you would specifically ask me to make this page move for you &mdash; as far as I know I have no experience in the topic area or knowledge of the discussion. In any case, I'm not prepared to barge in and impose a solution on what appears to be some sort of content dispute on the basis of the very equivocal discussion that you linked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Question
Are you exempt from the policy of NOT editing editors' comments on talk pages ?? I can live with what I wrote ... it should have been left in place. Duke53 | Talk 06:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Signpost?
Monday's Policy Report is going to be on WP:Civility, but we don't have enough quotable material from the talk page yet, so I'm beg ... er, soliciting opinions from people who have spoken up on that talk page recently. If you have something quotable, or if you don't, feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Civility. P.S. Good point about WP:DICK. - Dank (push to talk) 22:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Civility
Thanks for this breath of fresh air. Keep it up, and may get promoted to 'jack' someday. ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Building consensus on copyright issue
You were involved in a discussion regarding the use of copyrighted architectural designs on Wikipedia pages and I'm trying to find community consensus on a gray area. If you can, please let me know at what point you feel these images should be replaced here. Thank you so much! DR04 (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

RHMED
Please allow this editor acces to his talk - at least for a while. Pedro : Chat  21:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think that would be wise. He was being deliberately disruptive to prove a point, and being incredibly abusive in his comments to do it.  After he was blocked, he was continuing to use his talk page to taunt and soapbox, rather than finding something productive to do.  If he regrets his conduct and wishes to request an unblock, then there are several avenues open for his to do so.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh well. Incidentally, Malleus does not care FWIW. I'm not fussed either way. Pedro : Chat  21:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Advice?
Hi - I'm involved in a situation I'm not quite sure what to do about. There's a long standing content dispute involving several editors, including me, that has mostly been confined to a talk page. So far, so good. But one of the editors on the "other side" views me as the "enemy" and has been become increasingly disruptive (on the talk page), to the point of even driving away another editor (one he basically agrees with!). Since I'm involved, I can't directly do anything as an admin and any time I bring up any policy related issue this editor seems to think I'm only doing this as part of the content issue. I have mostly tried to ignore the continuing bad behavior, and there is a pending mediation cabal case, but the behavior seems to be worsening. Any ideas? -- Rick Block (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So, do you think asking an individual uninvolved admin to look into this is the best approach? I'm actually asking about approaches (meta level), not for your individual assistance. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close de-adminship process proposal
Hey sorry for the response, it wasn't very sporting of me. TBH I was making fun of the proposal in general. It is only fair that an attempt to shutter it should be cloaked in somewhat bureaucratic language. The proposal is nothing if not byzantine. Protonk (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

WMC COI
That clown is an admin? Sheesh. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well at least he isn't on arbcomm. Assuming we mean the same person William M. Connolley (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Does he have a history on these articles, or is he just gullible? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Brews at AE
If you don't mind, it would add clarity to your post at WP:AE if you preceded it with Oppose. Some people scan the supports and opposes first. Or, would you object to my adding it?—Finell 23:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (copied from User talk:Finell for continuity):
 * Re: . Yes, I would mind – very much – if you decided to turn my comment into a vote.  One of the reasons why the arbitration enforcement process is so damnably unpleasant is because of the lining up and taking sides, coupled to the assumption that people reading the discussion aren't bright enough to get past the first word.  In my experience, the posts to AE (and to other boards seeking admin action) which are preceded by bold text tend to be from the angry fringe, and tend to be accorded less weight than the comments which simply make their point clearly and concisely.  Heck, I'd prefer to avoid having bullets in front of each point, because it prevents the use of paragraph breaks in comments &mdash; but those were unfortunately present when I commented.


 * If you don't mind, it would add nuance depth to your comment at WP:AE if you didn't precede it with a bold vote text. Competent, neutral individuals read the entire discussion before jumping to a conclusion.  Or would you object to my removing it? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You make very cogent points. I am certainly aware that we don't vote in discussions. I still think that a bolded heading (a run-in sidehead in typographer's terminology) is an aid to the reader, but I respect your reasons for not doing so, and may reconsider my practice in the future. I never suggested that I would make such a change to your, or anyone else's, comment without your authorization. I was tempted to remove all the bullets, but I restrained myself.—Finell 10:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Tznkai just scolded us (not you) for the boldface, and for exactly the reason you gave. Therefore, I acknowledge:
 * You told me so.
 * You were right, and I was wrong.—Finell 02:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not interested in Dialing things back.
The title says it all. My comment was within the guidelines for inclusion, maybe if the brews target practice is finished I can move on. If the enforcement requests are dumb expect them to be treated that way. I don't like cheap moves like that. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Curious inquiry
Given this can I assume that you would have voted Oppose to this? As an experienced editor you know full well that the is not to point out weasel words as your edit summary implies, but more importantly, there is no evidence that I implied any weaselry was afoot. Your edit summary, goes on to state ''the footnote links directly to the case page. WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP discourage us from an extensive discussion and analsyis of the Arb Case in this article.'', indicating that you either fail to understand why I put the tag on there, or intended to denigrate my statement by your action. Have you read the ArbCom case? Do you know why the action was taken? Couldn't you have, instead, replaced the tag with the phrase "for violation of Wikipedia policy"? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision#William_M._Connolley_desysopped cf. this] Would that have been "extensive discussion"  in your opinion? The way it reads right now it sounds embarrassing like a cover-up, not of any misdeeds by the editor/admin, but of backroom decisions made by Wikipedia. It's clear from what precedes that sentence that he's clearly violated Wikipedia policy, so I don't think stating that that was the actual rationale in any violates any tenet of WP:BLP, nor of any other policy or guideline. Regards, Tomertalk 05:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Starting with, no I was unaware that the effect of template had been changed, thanks for the update.  On the subject of my making assumptions, if you reread, I did not make any assumptions, I asked whether such an assumption would be valid.  I asked "Why?" because I know the subject has been an area of contention, and felt asking the question rather than wading in was a better-advised course of action.  As for the subject in question, the way I read the ArbCom decision, it was not a result of how WMC "handling a[n] ... editor" with whom he was in dispute, but rather that he abused his administrator tools to do so.  Finally, whatever your personal views are, biased characterizations of me (as you did in your edit summary and again on my talk page), or Abd or any other editor are unnecessary to open discussion, and I would ask you to desist from such activity in any future discussion, at least with me.  Regards, Tomertalk  06:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Bureacracy
Despite the tone of WP:BUREAUCRACY, there is something to be said for respecting procedure. WP:AIR exists specifically so procedure can be thrown out in "duh, of course we should suspend the rules" cases, but Deletion_review/Log/2009_December_28 is not such a case, as evidenced by the number of objections to the early closure. At one point, WP:IAR or one of its related pages said something like "you don't know if you applied it correctly until after the fact." Had there been only 1 or 2 objections, then IAR would've been the right thing to do. I count 6 relists and 11 endorsements, but I could be slightly off. Of the 6 relists, the article author provides several non-procedural reasons to relist. Another editor says you should relist procedurally because it will be better for the project if you do, even if the article winds up being deleted anyways. I agree, but several other editors and the deleting admin, Rd232, do not. Also, Rd232 and possibly several other editors seem to believe that certain types of forks should be eligible for speedy deletion. This may mean that the newly created speedy criterion WP:A10 needs to be re-worked. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  16:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Acharya S
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Acharya S. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Acharya S (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

arbitration notification
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Requests for arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Requests for arbitration;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Please comment at the arbitration case or on my talk page- I'm notifying a large batch of editors. tedder (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, sorry if I drug you into this inadvertently. I did a survey of the pages and obviously dredged your name up by accident. tedder (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

HAPPY NEW YEARS
You just have to imagine me being drunk shouting that in your face. (Note, I'm not drunk) but I wanted to send you a happy new years video which is coincidently my the song from which I got my username.! Happy Wishes to you in 2010.[] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Your tone at Community de-Adminship - WP:CDADR
RE here (and above it too). Tone it down please - you wouldn't have written half of that if you had levelled yourself first. You could perhaps take your own advice on where respect might lie. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

RfA
That question to Coren had no relationship at all to the issue you cited regarding WR. I have repeatedly expressed regret for that thoughtless comment&mdash;say I have bad judgment if you like, but please don't accuse me of standing by that comment or rehashing it. Far from wishing to rehash it, I would dearly love to never hear about it again. Everyking (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten what exactly I asked Coren there. Now that I look back at it, I see that it did concern that WR issue&mdash;I was referring to an accusation, which was made earlier that year, that I had played some kind of active role in the situation beyond that one wrongheaded comment. I think you can understand that it would be upsetting if someone wrongly blamed you for instigating or, even worse, actually conducting harassment. Everyking (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

PA concern and collapse
Hi, I have addressed your PA concerns and removed the collapse. Let me know if I missed something. Providing a warning on a talk page for discussion is constructive. Your final warning to me seems inappropriate now that I seek to correct things without facing an enforcement action. Now, I invite your comment on grieving enforcement in the articles, since you seem to have implied that it may as well applied to me too. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Was there something else you didn't like about the changes I made and you reverted?  Apologies for mixing up with my IP and no edit summary.  I would like to keep the talk open for it's stated purpose to help prevent greifing disruptions. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I attempted to correct your concerns again so as to restore civility.  I would appreciate if you would remove the collapse box and your final warning.  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

TOAT, I find your actions in this matter highly inappropriate. Please take a step back. ATren (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:WASTEOFTIME?
''Oh, and I've deleted your creation of WP:WASTEOFTIME. Don't pull a stunt like that again'' - shame, I was thinking of creating it myself. Could you let me have a copy of the contents, to satify my prurient curiosity? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Closeing AFD's
Hi, do you close AFD's? I have a couple I think are ready for closing? This is one Articles_for_deletion/DJ_Quicksilver Off2riorob (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Current question
Thanks! Appreciate the response. Edison (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback about CDA poll page format
Thanks for your message at my talk. I've replied in detail there. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input - it is now live at Community de-adminship/RfC. Ben  Mac  Dui  11:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've reverted you move outside of consensus to start the rfc now. We have to finish the proposal first. Abiding by the rules of consensus is a hundred times more important than CDA. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies
If you had posted your comment before minimised the discussion, I would have left it open. The world NEEDS TO KNOW about Google's suppression of the bananaphone and Star Wars Kid! :) Guettarda (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

A belated apology
I saw and appreciated your well-taken comments about Matt Lewis at AN/I, and it got me thinking that I am really very overdue in offering you a formal apology for the time I implied that you were trolling. I apologize. What was happening at the time, ironically, was that I thought that by saying that I could convince Matt to stop engaging in what was clearly counterproductive badgering on his part. And we can see now how well that worked for me. So, although you and I have differing views on CDA, I wish you happy editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You apologise to him now, because he is joining in attacking me at your AN/I?? That is just the pits. All you did when I made those comments was tell me to ignore him! Matt Lewis (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Warning
Do not treat another human being on Wikipedia with the unceasingly-negative and totally unwarranted content-based abuse you have done to Matt Lewis at CDA. Who knows, even an admin from the early days of Wikipedia may actually get told off? You have just never let up personalising your intense dislike of CDA onto my head. I've simply had enough of it. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For the peanut gallery: [].


 * Matt, I know that you're here in good faith. Unfortunately, you just aren't very good at maintaining your own emotional distance in disputes.  Your approach to dispute resolution is disruptive and lacking in self-awareness.  Your recurring threats to bring RfC/Us against all and sundry are not helpful.  Your repeated assertions of incompetence and malice directed indiscriminately at Wikipedia administrators weaken your credibility.  Calm down, take a deep breath, and find someplace on Wikipedia where you can focus your attention constructively.  Policy development does not appear to be an area where you are able to contribute successfully.


 * Finally, please don't leave any more messages on this talk page. Your condescending tone is unwelcome, as are your continued attacks on me here and elsewhere.  If you feel that you need to pursue formal dispute resolution you may of course do so &mdash; but I would strongly advise you to discuss any such course of action with a trusted third party first.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Praise
Your analysis of CDA at Community de-adminship/RfC is nothing short of phenomenal. Yes, I'm biased, but your methodical approach to this has left CDA in a smoking heap. You, myself, and others warned what would happen and our warnings were not heeded. The result is now being seen, thanks in large part to your excellent analysis. I am already very much opposed to CDA, but I felt very moved by much of what you said in your analysis. In particular, the fact that bureaucrats were placed in their roles not to weigh evidence or for dispute resolution. That was very powerful. Also the mirror analogy flaws are particularly sharp failures of CDA.

These and many other issues could and most emphatically should have been discussed about CDA long before this RfC came to be. Honestly, I gave up trying when I felt the bulk of the proponents were being intellectually dishonest and failing to understand even a basic approach to process development. Thousands of books have been written on process development, but such talk was written off as unneeded, and answered FAQ #7 and #10.

I've been taking notes and had thought to create something along the lines of what you created. Your efforts largely obviated my intent to do this. Thank you for saving me all the effort :)

A couple of points not addressed; from what I can tell, ArbCom, Bureaucrats and Stewards have not been asked their opinions regarding this process. In a professional approach, these three categories of people should have all been approached for their input long before the RfC, long before the procedures for CDA were dreamt up. Also, the proponents of this concept never identified where in this dispute resolution process this is supposed to fit in. They latched on to a nebulous idea that "a great number of Wikipedians agree that the community needs some sort of desysopping process" and therefore it must exist. There's a number of smaller points as well.

Again, fantastic analysis. You've changed the course of Wikipedia (and thank for that). --Hammersoft (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of a Science Refdesk query
Hi, Ten. I just spent about an hour composing a detailed reply to a seemingly unexceptionable Science Refdesk query about frogs and toads (which had already had one routine but brief answer from regular contributor Kainaw), only to find that when I Save Paged, the whole question disappeared. As far as I can tell from History (which I'm not very conversant with so forgive me if I'm mistaken) you were 'reverting a banned user.' I'm sure you had a good reason for the action, but for my own curiosity:
 * was the banned user the OP?
 * can you link me to the reason for the ban?
 * what tipped you off given the innocuousness of the query, and
 * is there a handy list of banned users I should check before answering apparently innocent queries to avoid future wastes of time? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Stem cell
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some serious concerns which you can see at Talk:Stem cell/GA1. The artcile appears to contain many copyright violations. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are addressed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:OUTING
Thanks. Damn that was fast. -- samj in out 00:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
In the calm light of day things were not as bad as they seemed, but I thank you, you did right by me and I sincerely appreciate it. Guy (Help!) 16:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy TenOfAllTrades's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference desks - troll hunts
OK. I'm fed up of one aspect of the ref desks. I regularly contribute to the reference desks and main space, and very rarely have any problems with other users, yet according to the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk it would seem that trolls and other unpleasant things are a continuous issue.

Amongst other things I think User:Kainaw has begun (obviously unintentially) to use the desks as a What_Wikipedia_is_not - specifically against - un-loggedin IP's and generally naive users.

As a random example : the rapid banning of editors eg User talk:Delvenore apparently a block resulting from this  - since when did making a joke constitute a banning offence. (Also note that there is some truth in what they say). I see that this is a silly post, but this makes me worry

It looks to me like a vendetta or coming close to bullying of other editors. I know from personal experience that Kainaw randomly has accused me of being a sockpuppet just because I wasn't signed in. I really thing they (and maybe others) have issues about working constructively with other users. Specifically allowing previously banned users to reform.

Personally from the tone of their posts and actions (over several years) I have come to view Kainaw increasingly as an aggressive arrogant bully, and truly pitiable. (Clarify strong words: I find it likely that in real life Kainaw is likeable - but I am talking about the user/editor) Whether or not you agree with my negative view I hope that you will appreciate that the "troll hunt" behaviour is totally counterproductive.

As you are an admin and sometimes do your admin work on the reference desk I ask you to look at this, or pass it to another admin. There definately is a problem here. I'm not denying that people like the 'Avril troll' haven't caused problems or need to be banned.Shortfatlad (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Banned users can appeal through WP:ARBCOM, ArbCom can present it to the community for consideration. That is the established process and we don't need another one consisting of individual editors deciding one by one that someone "deserves" another chance. Kainaw is not an admin or checkuser, so they are not the one making the blocks. They are just presenting evidence and other people are evaluating it against a long-term pattern of behaviour. Long-term pattern. It's quite easy to get a "second chance": disappear completely and create one single account that you only ever use for productive editing, that no-one would ever dream was you because it never shows the same problem behaviour. The "problem" is mostly that every time this comes up, someone at the RD's unfamiliar with the situation demands to know the whole story and thinks that this time will be different. Franamax (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. Really though the 'complaint' was about the User:Kainaw not a naive appeal for the unbanning of an editor I happen to feel sorry for.
 * You could look at Kainaw's long term pattern of behaviour, (as you are fairly regular at the ref desk you might be aware of minor complaints about their attitude (a bit 'bitey' etc) in the past.
 * I also note that numerous common sayings point to the dangers of association with bad guys - morally etc (eg "He who fights demons must be careful..."). Personally I occasionally think that the long term pursuit of editors who where banned years ago looks very much like long term bullying... (Still they have themselves to blaim "Dig your own hole and..")
 * No doubt a logical application of 'the rules' doesn't give an justification for 'admin action' against Kainaw, (though I did consider suggesting a topic ban for them on the ref desks for the greater good I don't think that would be justifyable for you). I don't and can't suggest a course of action - but I need to say something.
 * My hope was that I should bring it to someones attention (someone who has in the past shown a reasonable degree of 'sensibility') might eventually lead to an improvement. Perhaps you or TenofAlltrades has a magic wand that makes grumpy, bitey, or over zealous editors suddenly better.?? I hope so.
 * Best wishes.Shortfatlad (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Roll your own
Felt bad adding OR to the section, but I was truly amazed at what would eventually be put in peoples mouths. Feel free to delete my unreferenced comment. 68.28.104.241 (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No need to strike; I just though it worthwhile to remind a) the OP that his question hadn't actually received any sort of reliable response, and b) the editors at the Desk how we're supposed to answer questions seeking factual information. Incidentally, I don't even know which editor you are, even if I were in the mood to delete your remark.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

GoRight
For some reason Trusilver didn't notify you about his AN/I for GoRight but I have nonetheless raised your suggestion of an MYOB sanction ala Abd. I think he has some potential on WP:RCP and in quiet areas of main space but many/most of his edits in project/talk space are problematic. -- samj in out 02:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Johanna Budwig
Someone is proposing that the English Johanna Budwig article should be deleted. You might wish to offer your opinion. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Johanna Budwig (2)
Thank you for your note. The article says, "Budwig claimed this diet would cure or prevent many forms of cancers." This sentence is neutral in tone and that she made the claim is uncontroversial.

Editor Rod57 added a reference for this claim from the American Cancer Society website; the ACS page reads, "In the 1950s, a German scientist named Johanna Budwig, PhD, discovered essential fatty acids and developed a diet that she said would fight cancer. Dr. Budwig claimed that many of her patients experienced tumor reduction within 3 months, and she stated that some experienced even more dramatic results. Dr. Budwig has reportedly used omega-3 fatty acids in combination with other nutrients to treat thousands of people with cancer and other diseases." Note that this ACS statement is also neutral in tone and not an endorsement of the diet. I have no reason to believe that the American Cancer Society (founded 1913) is anything but a legitimate body. The editor Twiga Kali keeps deleting this reference on the ground that the ACS is unreliable.

If you look at Twiga Kali's editing history, it is almost exclusively destructive edits deleting chunks text from the Budwig article. A typical example is this set of edits on 22 October 2009 where he deleted almost the entire article, including all the papers and books written by Budwig. He also added the unreferenced claim that "She died of cancer in 2003.", presumably either to discredit Budwig or to attempt humour. This strikes me as being little more than vandalism. Consequently, I have little time for Twiga Kali. Twiga Kali's whole attitude seems to be that Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on Budwig because her 'anti-cancer' diet has little credence. I take the opposite attitude. If the English Wikipedia article is deleted, then English-speaking people will get their information about Budwig only from quack health sites. As above, I hope you will offer your opinion about the deletion proposal. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 07:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Elevated building foundation
My point is that the images all show such foundations, so either (1) other people have embraced the term originated by Shustov, or (2) he didn't originate it. I have no opinion on its notability.

By the way, in what way are you an intermediate administrator? Or is the infobox simply meant to be humorous? Nyttend (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Voltage
You cautioned two editors about an edit war at Voltage. I do not agree that the caution given Wtshymanski was appropriate since he and two other editors, Prari and Jc3s5h  had repeatedly removed the text inserted by Wdl1961, on grounds of "relevance,"  "vague off topic trivia," "remove nonsense", expanding off topic, see main article: hydraulic analogy. When three editors are telling one that his additions are not relevant, why do you issue a 3RR warning to the one inserting the text and only one of the editors removing it? Edison (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved adminship
Hey TenofAllTrades. Here you ask Lar to recuse himself as an involved admin on the basis of alleged biases. I just wanted to note that bias doesn't have anything to do with one's status as involved or uninvolved (rightly so, IMO, as everyone necessarily has them). You can find the working definition here: General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation. If you want to refactor or remove that comment it'd probably be appreciated. Happy editing!--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I can't post in the admin section of the enforcement request, I'll do so here, since I'm not sure if you read my comments above that section. There's a big difference between WMC and editors like Mark Nutley.  WMC has been employing a double standard regarding AGW BLPs for years.  These diffs are from last year and the year before.  This one is from last month, where WMC inserts negative material sourced to a blog to the BLP of another skeptic. Cla68 (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Erm. In the first list of diffs you linked, the first diff seems to source Singer's opinion to the web page of an organization that he founded in 1990, remains president of, and writes on behalf of. The second, fourth, and fifth diffs source an assertion about Singer's past beliefs (regarding the origin of Phobos, while serving as an advisor on space science issues to President Eisenhower) to a letter which Singer wrote to – and had published in – a scientific journal.  The third diff sources a claim about Singer's consulting work to a copy of Singer's own resume.  After that, I got tired of checking.  It appears that WMC was committing the cardinal sin of attributing statements verifiably written by Singer and his advocacy group to Singer.
 * The "throw-a-bunch-of-diffs-and-see-what-sticks" approach is deceptive and disrespectful to other editors who have to investigate spurious claims. Please don't waste my time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh give me a break. Did you notice that he was revert warring to keep that information in the lede for that article?  Also, what about his edit to the Booker article?  Furthermore, what about his personal attacks on the Curry talk page?  Please give an opinion on those also. Cla68 (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

RD/M: Can one live off bonds
I had originally posted this to the actual desk but decided to post here instead since you evidently feel that I'm somehow giving the OP dangerous advice:


 * The answer to this question is "No, not over the long term". The OP is not asking us to plan his retirement for him - he just wants to know if you can live off bonds. Inflation-linked bonds are typically issued by investment grade governments so they give you no scope to outperform any benchmark. They hedge inflation but they don't give you a risk premium. The reason I didn't talk about them is because, in the Philippines, one would need to have a diversified portfolio of linkers which would expose them to all manner of currency risks etc. There are also various other risks associated with (sovereign or not) inflation-linkers - e.g.: the index used is never applicable to every individual and you end up underperforming normal bonds when inflation is lower than expected. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I ignored inflation-linked bonds for a very good reason. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello, Ten. You kindly equipped me with the rollback feature a while back. Now I am asking you to remove it. Reason: I am and, for the next six weeks, will be using someone else's computer whose settings are such that even the slightest touch of the touchpad equals a click. I don't want to change their settings, and I'm worried about rollbacking stuff by accident. Thank you in advance, and sorry for bothering you; I wanted to apply at the rollback permission page, but it all looked so formalistic, and I didn't know how to apply for removal there. ---Sluzzelin talk  14:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! (I will probably take you up on your offer in June) ---Sluzzelin talk  11:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Michael Dutton Douglas
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Michael Dutton Douglas. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Michael Dutton Douglas (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Other accounts
No, I edited different Wikia wikis in my past.--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 23:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Motto of the Day
Hi there, TenOfAllTrades! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottos. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottos there or just pass this message onto your friends.

MOTD Needs Your Help!

Delivered By –p joe f (talk • contribs) 12:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/New questions
Hi. I made a subpage to discuss new standard questions for RFAs. Real life has been calling me, but I think your idea has a lot of merit. Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)