User talk:Wikidemon/Archive 4

Template:Book cover fur
Hello. I was wondering what the story is with. I made a userscript (FURME) to add furs to images and was asked to add some more templated furs. I was wondering if this template was something that was going to be worked on (or was it replaced with ?). Basically just looking for a progress report. Thanks - AWeenieMan (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I haven't gone anywhere with it because it started getting difficult. You're free to take over development on it if you want.  I don't think it's in use.   One thing to note, when I created it (and also "logo fur" and "album cover fur"), the atmosphere was more hostile to templates so I took a lot of steps to try to explain things.  With the subsequent clarification from the Wikimedia Foundation, it's possible that some of the use rationale can be implicit or assumed.  So I would probably concentrate on making a simple version for the obvious, normal cases, and just warning people to only use it for those cases and not for all book covers.  The complexities have to do with alternate editions, how the book is scanned or photographed, year published, whether it's part of a single book, a series, a magazine, something that's not quite a normal book.  Then who the copyright holder, edit, publisher.  I don't know how much info is needed but you can see it's a little more complex than album covers or logos.  Hope that helps.  Wikidemo (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. At the moment I am not motivated enough (or talented enough in template design) to add functionality for all the odd cases. But I think I will tackle trying to get it ready for the very simple cases. Thanks for the advice. - AWeenieMan (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Notification of new post in "resolved" ANI thread
I've made a point about custom edit summaries in an ANI thread. See here. Notification left because the thread was previously marked "resolved" (I've removed the resolved label as I felt the issue is not resolved). Comments would be welcomed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Modifying other users' comments
Hi. I'm not sure this is something you've practiced before, but it cannot repeat. When you modify someone else's comment without attribution, even when it is for "corrections," you make it seem as if the author was the one who struck off something and replaced it with something else. It's a bad idea (etiquette-wise) to change someone's comment even with a little small-font note added below that comment, with a diff documenting the change, but if you do go that, frankly, needlessly confrontational route, that's the least that you are required to do. Thank you. El_C 08:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry, it was a complete mistake and I never would have done that on purpose. It was a strange combination of circumstances, but I thought I was editing a comment I made myself last night on that very same thread.  I was perplexed as to why I would have mentioned Kintetsubuffalo instead of Maglev Power.  My own comment began "In all fairness" or something very close, but it never showed up thanks to a bad Internet connection that shut me down for the night.  When I saw yours i assumed it was mine without reading it fully and simply tried to correct what I thought was my own mistake.  I should have looked more carefully.  Sorry again.  Wikidemo (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, in that case we have no problem. No worries; zero harm done. El_C 09:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk on WP:V
I want to take this off the policy talk page, but I do not think that this comment was really helpful. Sorry if I've distressed you, but your comments on that page simply have not related to the question I was asking as far as I'm concerned. SlimVirgin and Brimba have actually replied about the "Redflag" policy specifically, while you confined your comments to problems you had with the "Allegations" article. Perhaps you technically "gave a policy answer" to my question, but you did it by citing policies like NPOV and OR that I was not asking about, and only as a way to explain why you think the article in question is a poor one. I don't see how you think commenting about how a specific article is an "embarrassment" on a policy talk page is going to get anything accomplished, or why someone who comes to the policy talk page to ask about a general policy and not the article would be interested in your comment.

Of course I would be interested in your comment on the article talk page which I why I suggested you bring up your points there (though I understand that you might not be interested in doing that since the environment there is not so pleasant, but I'm afraid I don't have much control over that). I find it more than a bit beyond the pale that you deem my suggestion (invitation really) that you come to the article talk page as "telling me to get lost" and "making it personal." The main place to address your concerns about the article - I assume you would agree - in on the article page itself, not on the WP:V talk page. And of course I have said absolutely nothing personal about you whatsoever. I simply tried to redirect the WP:V thread toward the question I was asking - which apparently worked for now - and asked you to take your concerns to a better forum. This kind of thing (trying to keep a conversation focused, suggesting editors take their concerns to more appropriate pages) happens on Wikipedia all the time, and I find it a bit bewildering that you would accuse me of telling you to get lost and making it personal when anyone can plainly see that that is not the case. I sincerely welcome your participation on the "Allegations" page in whatever fashion you find appropriate (though I myself will probably quit working on that fairly soon). I also still welcome your specific comments about the redflag policy on the policy talk page. I'm afraid I don't know how to be any more collegial or anti-telling-you-to-get-lost than that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe my response was the most appropriate and best answer to your question. You're free to disregard it but again, chastising me both there and here for saying what I think rather than what you want to hear is uncalled for.  You don't WP:OWN the policy page any more than you own the article.  Perhaps you're so used to the incivility that goes on in the article, and trying so far to keep the discussion focused, you don't notice you've been rude.  It's a perfectly valid policy point when someone asks to focus on something to comment that the question focuses on the wrong thing.  I know what I'm doing by condemning the article, and my WP:OR and WP:POV comments certainly relate to WP:V.  Most would agree it is severely out of kilter, and probably an embarrassment to the project.  Yet its defenders have built one of the more fortified  gardens around and have so far repelled any attempt to do something about it.  Every outsider who actually says plainly what they think instead of playing into the impertinent micro-debates going on in the article is doing some good.Wikidemo (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Really, I am not at all trying to chastise you and apologize if it came off that way. I do wish though that you would assume a little more good faith of me as I do of you. Before reading your comment here I just replied to your last comment on the article talk page where I said "I agree that this talk page can be extremely hostile to new voices and that that is not a good thing. It has always had a rather vitriolic tone to it but that does not excuse anything" and also "...the article could certainly use more editors like yourself who are skeptical of the claims being made." I do resent the accusation that I was rude as I think that is simply not true (also I would note that I have not made any comparable accusation toward you and as a rule do not think calling other editors "rude" is ever helpful). I also resent being implicitly grouped with everyone who has ever edited that page and much of the bad behavior that has happened there. I've worked on it on and off since last summer and think I am probably one of the few editors who has worked effectively with "both sides" of the dispute. Also I have always encouraged outside voices (which is why I opened an RFC recently, and why I posted on the WP:V page asking for help from neutral parties on the main policy sticking point). I'm very willing to listen to your point of view on any question and regret that a simple request to keep discussion on a policy page focused on the main issue has blown up to this degree. I'll leave you alone here though since you view my last comment as uncalled for. I don't want to bother you any further.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see you mean well and you're working earnestly. Thanks for the effort.  Wikidemo (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ang Lee
Hi, you seemed to had wanted to RV my edit (RV on possible IP Vandal). I just restored back to the agreed version and add or subtract nothing more. If I made a mistake, please let me know. Thank you. TheAsianGURU (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I beat you to it - I reverted my own edit. But thanks for the courtesy of a notice.  Wikidemo (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, bot
If that's not vandalism, then what did you mean by putting such a meaningless post on that talk page? --SMP0328. (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a little rude. Do I really have to explain the obvious?  Wikidemo (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me for not knowing what is meant by "Hello, bot." What purpose is served by posting "Hello, bot"? --SMP0328. (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I commented on the talk page itself.Wikidemo (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ....and now that I've cleared the image from the main page I've deleted the whole discussion, which does not seem worth keeping on village pump (no point archiving a deletion tag for an image that should not have been there in the first place). Wikidemo (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Your accusations of "poor" sources in Willie Brown article
...Wikidemo, would you please explain to me what is point of view or "poorly sourced" about my latest critical mass crackdown edits on the Willie Brown article? If you believe that...the San Francisco Chronicle, respected investigative reporters (not editorialists) Phil Matier and Andrew Ross, PBS' MacNeil Lehrer New Hour/Jim Lerhrer (who has moderated major presidential debates just before general elections) and Time Magazine...are "poor" sources that could you please explain to me what your idea of an objective, respected, "good" news source is? Besides, those are about the only news sources out there with an historical record of Brown's 1997 crackdown, besides those in Critical Mass related books, 'zines, Police chat board sites, and other more POV sources on both sides of the fray. Brown --was-- criticized in a --national-- news sources, unless you consider Time Magazine to be the SF Weekly. On Brown's "threats" to jail the riders and impound their bikes, that has multiple sources and my wording is directly from the Time article...I will try to clean it up a bit to address your POV concerns, but please explain your claims that this article is poorly sourced.

Also, Wikidemo, you seem to be strongly concerned about the length of this article, why so much, Willie Brown was no small town dog catcher, he was a big city mayor and Assembly speaker of the most populous US State. He's no small potatoes. He's also an eclectic, complex politician whos world view cut across several ideological directions. he at least deserves an article on par with Byron Rumford and maybe one as long as a prominent US Senator, or State Governor, or Presidential Cabinet offical, maybe not as long as President. Yet I digress.Critical Chris (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

...Wikidemo, I've copied some of my "poor sources" here to simplify the discussion. Can you please explain to me how the following are "poor sources:"

(reformatted to fix format errors)
 * 1) MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour (29 August 1997). MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour Transcript. PBS Public Televison.
 * source does not support claim


 * 1) Jim Herron Zamora, Chuck Finnie and Emily Gurnon, OF THE EXAMINER STAFF Examiner wire services contributed to this report.. Brown: Take bikes of busted cyclists. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved on 1997-07-27.
 * I did not challenge that


 * 1) Steve Lopez (11 August 1997). The Scariest Biker Gang Of Them All. Time Magazine.
 * Op-ed piece written by activist, not reliable source


 * 1) Glen Martin, Henry K. Lee, Torri Minton, Manny Fernandez, Chronicle Staff Writers. S.F. Bike Chaos -- 250 Arrests: 5,000 bikers snarl commute. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved on 1997-07-26.
 * I did not challenge that source


 * 1) Matier, Phillip and Ross, Andrew (18 July 1997). CRITICAL CHUCKLE: Lots of chuckles down at the Hall of Justice over San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown's demand that Critical Mass cyclists start obeying traffic laws.. San Francisco Chronicle.
 * Humorous editorial comment in scandal column reported as fact; source does not support claim


 * 1) Anastasia Hendrix and Rachel Gordon, OF THE EXAMINER STAFF (1 August 1997). Mayor again criticizes Critical Mass bicycle riders. San Francisco Examiner.
 * Weight problems - selectively reporting "weenie" comment is simply taking a potshot at the person


 * 1) Paul Krassner (24 August 1997). YOU CAN'T GET A PERMIT FOR THE REVOLUTION. San Francisco Examiner.
 * Not reliable source - should not reprint partisan editorial attack on a living person

The last source, I do mention that Krassner is an "editorialist." All the others are hard news sources that you can try to chop away at if you think your axe is sharp enough, but have you actually checked the sources before calling them poor. I've spent quite a bit of time on my documentation here, ferreting out POV horse poo from mainstream news sources and I'm quite frankly offended by your characterization of these as "poor sources."Critical Chris (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Bold textItalic textInternal linkCritical Chris (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll explain in more depth in the article. I have checked this all and it is improperly sourced, either not reliable or not supported by the sources.  It is also POV - best to take it to the talk page of the article, which I am preparing.Wikidemo (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Malakov affair: New Information
Dear Wikidemo:

As you will recall about two months ago you & I disagreed on the validity of a Daniel Malakov encyclopedia article on Wikipedia. Many WP:Notability and WP:BLP claims were made by yourself and other gentle administrators. Try as I could, there seemed way to convince you that the murder of Daniel Malakov was a significant event requiring a Wikipedia page. The page was deleted. No discussion on the merits was permitted, IMHO, by the "Administrator echelon."

In view of the above, I wish to direct your attention to a New York Times article as follows:

February 9, 2008 Man Accused of Killing Dentist Exchanged 91 Calls With Dentist’s Wife By CHRISTINE HAUSER and DARYL KHAN

You are free to go to nytimes.com and read the article, but perhaps the salient details are as follows:

Those details about the killing of Dr. Malakov on Oct. 28, 2007, emerged Friday from an indictment and at a news conference held by police officials and prosecutors.

As the families of both Dr. Malakov and his estranged wife looked on, Dr. Borukhova, 34, was arraigned and pleaded not guilty on Friday to charges including first-degree murder and second-degree conspiracy in an emotion-filled hearing in State Supreme Court in Queens. Mr. Mallayev, 50, faces similar charges.

The defendants could each be sentenced to life in prison without parole. They were ordered held without bail until their next court date, Friday.

At the time you folks decided to ditch the article, this information was not available. Now that it is, and more information ostensibly is to come out as the NYPD and AG begin to make their case in court, I want to know whether you will reverse your position and support an article on Daniel Malakov, or alternatively "Murder of Daniel Malakov."

If not, what would you need to see to support such an article? If you demand a conviction, then I plan to hold you to your promise.

Eileivgyrt (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for reaching out.  It's been so long that I don't remember things very clearly.  Do you have a link to the deletion debate?  As a non-administrator, my power there and now is limited to simply saying my opinion and trying to convince other people.  My concern with a number of articles like this is severalfold:
 * While a trial is still going on, you don't know if the person will be declared guilty or not, so you cannot really say they are a murderer. The fact that they're on trial is public information, along with the statements made, but that changes so quickly that it's very hard to keep up.  That's one of the reasons we avoid "news" style coverage.  We just can't keep Wikipedia accurate and up to date as news emerges.  And then all that effort gets lost when there's a long-term outcome and the day-to-day updates become irrelevant.
 * Many of these current events seem very important at the time, and in fact would meet the notability standards. But most one-time news events fade so much over time that after the event is done nobody is interested anymore, and we're left with a long article that nobody cares to read or keep up with.  There's a maintenance cost to keeping articles around here, not a technical cost but a human cost because people have to keep a watch on them, make sure the links work, etc.
 * The way people sometimes write these articles has timelines, bullet points, summaries of legal theories, and lots of other stuff that just doesn't fit in with our style norms. It doesn't link right, it's hard to edit, etc.
 * Again, I don't really remember the specifics but I'd be happy to look at them. If you do re-create the article, please consider these things and try to make it as much as possible meet the standards of our good encyclopedic articles.  The two biggest hurdles are (1) WP:BLP, that we do not allow speculation, argumentation, derogatory information without strong sources, etc., for living people, and (2) the "not news" section of WP:NOT, that says that to cover a person or event it must have sustained interest and not one-time current news notability.  Hope that helps.  Wikidemo (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

vandalism
yeah i was confused and pissed off too. nothing i did was vandalism. i just thought i'd try and be funny. that IP address is me. but what can i do? i have also recently been being warned for adding IPA pronunciations and fixing spelling errorsBoomgaylove (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. Life on Wikipedia, I guess.  Wikidemo (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

do you really think the laci peterson info is totally unencyclopedic? i mean Point Isabel is where her body was found. The Laci Peterson case is still mentioned as often as the lindberg baby is. It was a crime of the century type of event. And the park is where she was found. Since there is an article about her and the events regarding her death. I think its very notable. Not inappropriate.71.142.64.177 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think my quick take says it all, we're not a body locator. There are so many crimes.  I wouldn't say crime of the century.  Every year there are half a dozen that get in the news like crazy.  There's one or two going on right now I think.  And each one has a body somewhere.  I really think that belongs in the article about the event, not the place.  It's really a matter of balance.  Like, as famous as Jimmy Hoffa is, do people really think about his body being in Giants Stadium?  Well, I guess so if you look at the article :).  So maybe I prove myself wrong.  I wouldn't have removed it if I realized there was a discussion going on, and I'm not going to revert again if anyone adds it back.  I guess the question is, if you think about Point Isabel, is that an important part of the history of the place.  I know google is a loose test but if you google "point isabel" together with "california" you get 13,600 hits but if you add "peterson" you get 1,700.  Does that mean people associate the place with the crime?  Maybe.  I don't know.  My opinion isn't that strong.  Wikidemo (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

your thoughts would be welcome
I posted my plans for BCbots next phase on ANI, your thoughts would be welcome. βcommand 18:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. Wikidemo (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I just came here to tell you about this. It seems that Betacommand does advertise his phases, though I don't see any notice in places like WT:NFC. It would have been nice as well if he had confirmed that phase 3 was over. I had to prod him several times to get that out of him. Beta, if you are reading this, sorry for the tone of voice I'm using, but it is the same old communication issues coming up time and time again. Have you considered getting someone else to do schedules and notifications for you, allowing you to concentrate on bot operating and programming? Carcharoth (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The current phase is not over and will never be over, it is just nearing the point that a majority of the work is done and whats left will be maintance. I just wanted to give a forwarning heads up and get input prior to starting. βcommand 16:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed...though maintenance should be a lot simpler and smoother than cleaning the backlog. We still need accuracy, good message templates, a way to point people to places they can learn why it happened and how to do it next time.  But smacking people on the hand a few hours or days after they upload an image isn't going to generate nearly the same issues as telling them weeks to months after the fact that their image is noncompliant and may be deleted.  I'll get to it when I can but don't expect any big objections or complaints from me anymore on this.  Wikidemo (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I left a note about the original plans (back in June) here. Does that refresh you memory enough for more discussion about phase 4? Carcharoth (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Public domain data and derived rights from using that data
Hi Wikidemo. The title says it all really. Would you have time to comment at Media copyright questions and WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Proposals? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

i'm not edit warring
plus edit waring doesn't get you blocked, breaking the 3rr rule does. you are the one that's edit warring. TWO USERS are reverting your silly edits. let it goBoomgaylove (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't understand the rules around here. Please take some time to figure them out, and cut it out.  My edits are solid, and yours don't count.  I'm reverting bad faith edits.  Wikidemo (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Mine don't count? Hah. Read this! Biographies of living persons: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomgaylove (talk • contribs) 16:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)  I reiterate, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia article"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomgaylove (talk • contribs) 16:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am well-aware of BLP policy. The information and the source are an interview in a magazine conducted with the subject himself where he apparently talks about his own drug dealing, for which he was arrested and convicted.  That is relevant to his bio as a rap musician, and hardly violates BLP.  You are not defending BLP anyway by blanking the entire article while nominating it for deletion.  Wikidemo (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Point taken
- my humour was probably not wholly appropriate. Still, we do tend to have opinions from different ends of the spectrum, and for them to converge it suggests the issue is pretty crystal clear. Neıl ☎  14:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't offended at all. I am not keeping score, but I think you and I agree on many things if not all; most importantly a dedication to keeping Wikipedia running as a good project.  Thanks for the communication.  Wikidemo (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

ERP Vendors and shortening barnstars
Thanks for the backup over here: Articles for deletion/List of ERP vendors

I think its futile to keep arguing with him, The majority of the votes (Well, actually all, not counting his own) are for keeping the article, and frankly he just keeps repeating his own arguments. Im pretty sure that there is no violation of whatever rule at all, and seeing the WP:Point statement you just made, its save to assume there is nothing wrong with this in the first place.

Now for some more lightweighted stuff. I noticed this line under your barnstars:

Now how do I make these a little smaller?

This is actually pretty simply. Just add a HTML break tag  in the text. Text will be broken  Before the end of the actual line (BR just signals that everything should go to the next line). The above text is obviously a demonstration of this, so just edit this text to see how its done :). Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 18:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to give you some background on where I'm coming from. Perhaps I tend towards a confrontational style - I don't mean to. I'm also sometimes very exact and technically a nitpicker. Apologies. About me: If you look at my edit history, although I also contribute, you will see that mostly I try to clean up articles, mostly by removing links to companies where the mention doesn't contribute to the subject matter. For example, if you look at the CEP article, I argued strongly to keep vendor links off the page, and I encouraged the creation of the List Of page. My motivation at the time was to keep the article 'clean' so to speak, and to see if a "List of XX Vendors" page could become a separate encyclopedic article. When the article was nominated for deletion, I argued to keep the article. It was deleted, and I didn't understand the precise reason why, and I didn't believe a consensus had been achieved. Therefore I asked for a review as I believed strongly at that time that the article should be kept. But during the review, I found that the policies quoted and the arguments made against me were technically correct, and strong, and I found I couldn't justify keeping the article. This was the key moment for me - understanding! Perhaps I should have held back a little while before nominating List of ERP Vendors, but I came across the article very soon after, and so I nominated it. I don't think that WP:POINT is applicable - I am not trying to make a point or get the original article reinstated. I agree with the ruling that I originally objected to... I'm more than happy to put my hand up and step back from taking part any further in the List_of_ERP_Vendors deletion debate. And apologies if I offended. Bardcom (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll assume good faith that you've really changed your position in a several-hour period.  The wise man is the one who can admit the error of his opinions.  But perhaps you can give other people a little more room to have their own erroneous ways.  It was overbearing and unusual to argue so strongly in AfD, and it resulted in a sprawling discussion that's probably offputting to people who would participate.  I am not entirely sure what we should do as a project to list articles overall.  There are many kinds of lists so probably many different answers.  One thing that is clear is that the AfD process creates inconsistent results.  The shining example of that, in my opinion, is the cell phone model wars, where it seems about 1/4 to 1/3 of the AfDs succeed and the others don't, with the outcome often being more a factor of who participates and closes each discussion than anything else.  There is a time when you want the possibility of split results, when a matter is new and we want to try it out.  But at some point a trend should emerge and maybe there should be a clarification or addition to the guideline instead of case-by-case consideration.  The general preference is that articles should be improved rather than deleted if there is a core of encyclopedic content.  That particular article could be fixed.  But maybe we'll find list articles don't get maintained so they're a bad idea.  That's the heart of the WP#NOT family of prohibitions, I think, that some types of material, though useful, just don't lend themselves to our way of doing things so we can't do a good job at them.  Thanks for taking the initiative of commenting here.  Wikidemo (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Bardcom (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Jimboquote
Template:Jimboquote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. скоморохъ 03:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Troll patrol is hard work

 * One day a sockpuppet came to town..

edit warring
are you out of your mind? this edit is perfectly legitimate, requesting citations for uncited content is a legitimate edit. removing them arbitrarily is vandalism, no editor has the right to remove a citation request for uncited material. Please be reasonable and less confrontational. You seem to have a vendetta against me, even removing my questions on the the reference desk and you have repeatedly accued me of vandalism, unjustifiably and i believe you even apologized for it. Now i'm not calling you a vandal. But reverting someone who adds or  is vandalism. be careful, you don't want to get blocked yourself. Also you should see that the article now has citations for his home-neighborhood and his original name, all because i requested the material be cited. My edits have resulted in a productive outcome, yours have led to drama and butthurt.Boomgaylove (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:VANDALISM, and stop being uncivil and making stuff up. Save it for AN/I. Incidentally, the information was already sourced, and your reference request resulted in a citation fork that I had to fix.  Wikidemo (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * note: the above user is now blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing; one of his tactics was to remove citations then attack material as uncited. I did not want to argue with him at the time he made these unfounded allegations but in the course of dealing with his trolling I never accused him of vandalism nor did I ever remove or even see any questions of his a "the reference desk." - Wikidemo (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Afd

 * ..nominated a bunch of articles for deletion..

AfD nomination of Cypress Village, Oakland, California
An article that you have been involved in editing, Cypress Village, Oakland, California, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Cypress Village, Oakland, California. Thank you. Icamepica (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove

 * ..got caught..

Hi Wikidemo,

Given your past (extremely well-documented) interactions with the user, I thought you'd like to know that I've filed a sock report at the above link. Thanks! -- jonny - m t  03:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was, and am, pretty sure this user already has sockpuppets and will set up more.  I was letting them go unchekced for a little while to see how badly they behaved.  Intervene too early and you might not have enough to stop them.  Wait until there's a clear violation of WP:SOCK and there's recourse.  I'll check again to see what is going on.Wikidemo (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I am Icamepica SqueakBox, BoomGuyLove, ILIke2BeAnonymous.Icamepica (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your hard work--I was just informed of a diff linking Icamepica to one of the suspected IP socks, which I've added to the report. I'd like to do a little bit more groundwork, but it might be time to start thinking about WP:RFCU. -- jonny - m  t  08:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of J Stalin
An article that you have been involved in editing, J Stalin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/J Stalin (2nd nomination). Thank you. Icamepica (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Accidental archive edit
Um, yeah, you probably should. I can't because I'm on a sort of topic ban right now, but yeah, go ahead. -- Gp 75 motorsports  REV LIMITER  14:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I'll take the safe road though and wait to see if any administrators on AN/I think it's a good idea.  It's their board and I'm just a guest there, so I don't really want to start mucking around in archiving and unarchiving things.  Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning

 * ..stirred up some heat..

Stop sending me silly warning messages in order to promote a POV. if the person is a sock you can make a sock report and get him blocked but your accusations against me will not be tolerated any further. And it is a BLP violation, I don't need another user to tell me what is and isn't a BLP violation, you appear to be harrassing the subject of the article and I hope you will stop. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You appear to be trolling me for disagreeing with you. Please desist, this is not acceptable or civil on your part. If you believe a user is a sock puppet you know what top do and when he ios blocked that will be that. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comments above are a civility violation over a content dispute that you are edit warring on. If you believe the content is a violation of WP:BLP you should join in the WP:AN/I discussion.  The edit you keep trying to make is in support of an abusive sockpuppet, and the material you removed is fully sourced per WP:BLP and WP:RS.  If you follow the various links we are dealing with the sockpuppet issue in appropriate fashion.  Please follow the available dispute resolution procedures and do not edit war over this.  I have no POV and I am not trolling or any of the other uncivil accusations you care to make.  Wikidemo (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please keep it real, ANI is not the place for this discussion to take place. Stop trying to silence other users who disagree with you by trying to shut down discussions in bad faith based on unproven accusations and your own opinions. Squeak is not edit warring with you at all. And don't misrepresent things. BLP states that content should be removed without any debate. Not going to an AVI. Your comments and views here are to misuse another rapers name Ludacris! You've stated that you don't have a position on J Stalin but you vote for it to be kept ignoring policy using a nonsense argument ignoring the nominations points.Icamepica (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is rather pointless for me to engage in endless discussion with likely sockpuppets and disruptive editors. The discussion is on AN/I.Wikidemo (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This editor asked for my help and I gave it, then you reacted and started accusing me of God knows what. If he is a sockpuppet fine but when you start accusing me of meatpuppeting for someone you believe is a sock merely for wanting to help them then we have serious problems on this project. Accusing marginally notable subjects of drug dealing does the project no good whatsoever, please remember that do no harm is one of our 5 pillars, and that I came with good intentions and then had to put up with your harrassment. You well know that warning me on 3 levels is as uncivil as you can get then you accuse me of being uncivil, and all this becauser I tried to help a newbie. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The editor's request was not in good faith. You have been edit warring in support of a sock puppet who canvassed you, that's the facts of it.  You may be doing so in good faith, but to continue edit warring after you've been made aware of the situation is disruptive.  I have been asking repeatedly that we keep the status quo, deal with sock puppet issues first, and then deal with any content issues once the dust settles.  You continue to be uncivil, accusing me of trolling, POV editing, and now harassment.  In the process you are opposing my attempts to deal with the likely ongoing sockpuppetry.  Please don't let yourself get sucked into things.  I am trying on AN/I to encourage administrators to take a look and deal with the matter.  Wikidemo (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You made me aware of your suspicions. And I used my own judgement. You cannot start to claim this person's point of view has no validity because he is a sockpuppet. Harrassing good faith users for helping other new users while using their own judgment does not excuse. I will continue using my own judgment re this article while awaiting to see re your allegations, please let me know when there is a result, but the BLP issues remain whatever and certainly cannot be superseded even by proven sock allegations. J Stalin has to be our first concern in this issue, he to me is more important than any of us or our wikipedia politics, remember that he might be looking for a job on Monday morning. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A sockpuppet's edits are presumptively invalid. It is not a BLP issue - he has a drug selling conviction, the fact is part of his public personality, it is reported in the newspaper, and he promotes it on his own album.  Keeping the sockpuppets away from his article is the best service we can do.  Wikidemo (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I am not a sockpuppet and I disagree with you re J Stalin. I suggest we stick to debating BLP and drugs and J Stalin and avoid talk of sockpuppetry, though this will only be valid anyway if the article survives BLP, if it does I suggest we continue the dialogue, in the meantime I wont be editing the article at all, though I would suggest that if in the meantime you could prove through a third party source (not a record cover etc) that it is a part of his CV, if you like, a la Bob Marley, Peter Tosh or Pete Doherty, then I would be open to changing my mind, as its Stalin's reputation that is what is at issue here. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me!? You are warning ME for calling you on "bad faith"? You have accused me of being in bad faith dozens of times, and of disruptive edits, and of sockpuppetry, and meatpuppetry, and I think vandalism, canvassing, and I don't know what else. Thanks for biting me for trying to dialog. But you have a lot of audacity to make the outlandish claims you do. I'm just another user you are apparently harassing, please stop.Icamepica (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I certainly am. Your incivility is one among the many problems.  Tit-for-tat accusations are rather lame.  But so is disruptive editing.  Wikidemo (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * back it up with some diffs!Icamepica (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Down the rabbit hole....

 * ..a little support..

It seems that has now been indefinitely blocked along with  for incivility and sockpuppetry. I'd been keeping my eye on the latter for a while, but it looks like User:Morven noted a connection with Boomgaylove in the block summary. How closely they're related I don't know, but it looks we may have to chalk up one in your column here :) -- jonny - m t  02:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You've been very busy in the last few hours. Very, very nice work :) -- jonny - m  t  12:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a lot of work. I'm getting accused of BLP violations and edit warring by otherwise legitimate editors for reverting the sockpuppet edits, people who don't seem to know what's going on (even a few established editors) are falling for the misrepresentations about sources and history, and either thinking I started it or that the sockpuppets are right, the article subjects are non-notable, etc., and everyone seems to be such a hot head that they want to edit war with me right now instead of waiting until we sort out who is a sockpuppet and who is not.  The socks and legitimate users are tag teaming each other to drive me to 3RR, including gaming the AN/I page to try to create forks.  And this nut case has just left four or five "warning" messages on my talk page including a fake block message.  It's like Internet 101 lesson in how not to deal with trolls.  And I should be sleeping.  Thanks for the kind word though.  That, and getting someone banned for life, will make it worthwhile.  Wikidemo (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Squeak

 * ..some stuff I'd rather not know about


 * Welcome to the world of the SqueakAttacked. One may note that you join a long list of people who become harassed, name-called, and personally attacked for the capital offense of daring to disagree with Squeakbox. This user's behaviors have been duly noted many times and nothing ever done to permanently fix the problem. For that matter, a highly distinguished littany of blocks seem to have no effect either. His mentoree was indef blocked/banned even for the same behaviours. Anyway, best of luck to you in that. Not to fear, the name-calling only gets worse... Right now, you're "only" at the "troll" level. Wait until you get to "rude brat" and "twat" and "Nazi scum" and then the hints/allegations of pedophilia. Have fun with that!   • VigilancePrime   •    •    •  05:12 (UTC)  26 Feb '08

Warning

 * ..left a bunch of fake warnings..

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please do not be a hypocrit by accusing other users of being disruptive for claiming you have bad faith after doing so to them beforehand as you did on here.Icamepica (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A personal attack warning from a sockpuppet? How quaint. Wikidemo (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

2nd warning
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. -Do not move my comments to where you see fit! Stop it!Icamepica (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

3rd Warning
Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you will be blocked for vandalism. Please stop removing my comments.Icamepica (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Block

 * ..even a fake block message..
 * [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]] in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for . Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions.  If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below.  , please never remove peoples comments again.Icamepica (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * hmmm...a fake block message...Wikidemo (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. , you made edits in violation of WP:CON here.Icamepica (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW

 * ..tried to report me for vandalism..'

Hi WD, just for the record, Icamepica reported you at AIV, (diff) :-) it has been removed. R. Baley (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like he/she is headed for a flame-out in the next few minutes given the increasing frequency and desperation of potshot attacks and random wikigaming. Wikidemo (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Icamepica has been blocked for 24 hours, and any further asshattery will result in a much longer block. Neıl ☎  13:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. Hmmmm.  Rude comments seem so much nicer when directed towards disruptive editors.Wikidemo (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

J Stalin article

 * ...and triggered some bad blood with well-meaning editors...'

Re J Stalin article: See my comments to you on my talk page. Please do not re-insert the disputed material. It violates WP:BLP, and your edit without providing counterarguments or links to counterarguments ("I don't care to get into that right now") violates WP:CONSENSUS. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with your statement is that you're wrong on all fronts. The material does not violate BLP, I have provided counterarguments many times on the subject, there is no consensus for deleting the material, and deleting it is editing in support of an abusive sockpuppet.  Did you read my comments?  I've got to say that your stubbornly repeating out of context -- three times now, I think -- a statement I made to a sockpuppet borders on misrepresentation.  You really ought to hold off and not be a hot-head over this.  Wikidemo (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My mistake
Sorry but I added one too many colons in my reply on the EL page. I was replying to para, not you. I corrected it now, so I hope you will remove your comment beneath mine. Thanks. 2005 (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops. I have come to expect intelligent civil edits out of you and would normally give you the benefit of the doubt.  I've had a testy wiki-day dealing with sockpuppets and edit wars as you can see above.  Thanks for mentioning it.  Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox is accusing you of trolling now
I have SB's talkpage on watch for a variety of reasons, and I just thought I'd let you know that he's accusing you of trolling in removing your request to him to stop accusing you of bad faith. Bellwether B  C  03:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm giving him a fifth warning in a moment.  I'm not sure what we can do about it but he's editing in support of a currently blocked sockpuppet, and he's got a woefully misguided and confused canvassed user on his side who the sockpuppet dragged into an AfD.  Given that the admins are slow to shut down the bad faith AfD or block the long and growing list of sockpuppets I doubt they'll jump in to defend someone like me who is on troll patrol.  But I really don't appreciate being opposed, and accused of bad faith, when dealing with trolls.  Wikidemo (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * SqueakBox thinks those who dare oppose him are trolling. I'd probably just let it go now, as he has powerful friends who protect him from any block for his personal attacks. It's probably safer for you to just let it go. Bellwether B  C  03:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

To Wikidemo and SqueakBox
Re these comments by the two of you: "appears not to be acting in good faith either." and "Just what we need, a frequently blocked disruptive editor to jump in." etc. at Talk:J Stalin: Would you please keep your comments on the article talk page focussed on article content, not on editors? Thank you. I'm putting a similar message at User talk:SqueakBox. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue at the moment is behavior, not content. I do appreciate your persistence and even-handedness even if I have been disagreeing with you.  The main difference is that I'm on the side of cleaning up the problem.  Wikidemo (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for appreciating some things about what I'm doing even though we're on opposite sides of a content dispute. I feel that you're extending a hand of friendship to me and it really helps in this sort of situation.  I appreciate the work you've done helping to develop the sockpuppet report;  I hope I've helped a tiny bit with that, too.  When the issue is behaviour, I believe there are more appropriate fora than an article talk page for working those things out, and that space on the article talk page shouldn't be taken up with such issues (except perhaps for very brief mentions with links to discussions in other fora). --Coppertwig (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ERP Vendors and CEP Vendors
The decision on ERP Vendors was keep. You expressed an interest in opening a wider conversation on this - as you say, how can two nearly identical articles result in completely different results? I posted a question to one of the other editors Hu12's Talk Page here, but his reply doesn't make sense (so far). You've waaaayyyy more experience than me on Wikipedia - how do you suggest we proceed? Bardcom (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ping? Any appetite for this? Bardcom (talk) 09:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible misunderstanding on Cypress Village, Oakland discussion
In that discussion, you said:
 * When it was built it was officially segregated. Only African Americans were supposed to live there, and they weren't supposed to live other places.

On rereading this discussion, it struck me that I might have misunderstood what you meant. My assumption was that you were referring to the neighborhood in general (which, as I pointed out, was originally built for white folks), but now it seems as if you were referring to these particular housing projects. If that is the case, then I do owe you an apology, as my subsequent comments were due to a mistaken premise. I assume you'll let me know if that was the case (I'll watch this page for replies). +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 01:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. Yes, I was speaking specifically of Cypress Village, not the neighborhood generally.  If I am ever wrong for real instead of a misunderstanding I'm not afraid to admit it - so just leave a note or explain or something, no need to call me an idiot to get me to listen.  You're a strong editor and it's good to spend time working with you instead of fighting.  I see from the AN/I discussion that (one of) the sock(s) is using our disagreement against us.  The main reason I'm being testy and stubborn on these articles is to shut the door on the sockpuppets because they're so disruptive.  I'm not so stubborn about the content issue, not in these articles anyway.  Perhaps best to make up at this point and declare our disagreement resolved.
 * Once the socks are gone I do like your suggestion about merging sub-articles and reorganizing the Oakland neighborhoods along the lines of the Oakland Public Library map. I think there are many different ways it could be done, and no absolute right answer, but that's a very clear neighborhood map and it's best to choose one and be consistent with it.
 * If you agree we should announce on the Cypress Village talk page that we've come to terms, and probably close down the part of the boomgaylove AN/I disucssion (the box archive, not deleting anything) relating to me and you disagreeing. I'll wait to hear what you think though.  Wikidemo (talk) 02:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Matt Gonzalez photo
Hi, thanks for posting the photo into the Matt Gonzalez article. There's also a portrait posted by the Ralph Nader campaign: with the same license. I'm still new at adding image -- do you think you could add this one as well? I think it would be an improvement to the top of page infobox. Thanks, --Sfmammamia (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed that one too. I'm dubious about the license because it looks professionally done, and it's from a page with several people's images, so I emailed the flickr account-holder where that came from. I wanted to get a response first before I uploaded it.Wikidemo (talk) 17:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I noticed a blanket permission here, but this may not cover WP, so your action was probably wise. Perhaps note on article talk page? --Sfmammamia (talk) 17:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the flickr permission contradicts the statement that the images can only be used for certain purposes. To be considered "free" wikipedia requires that there be no restrictions on commercial use or use in any format - see WP:NFCC.  The goal is that Wikipedia content can be freely used anywhere, even commercially.  Wikidemo (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence
You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.

The proposal can be found at: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 01:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ivan Rohach
Please make a comment Bandurist (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

An editor has nominated Ivan Rohach, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).
 * Actually, I haven't worked on that article and it now appears to have been speedily kept, but thanks. Wikidemo (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet?
Do you recognize ? Jehochman Talk 16:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed the user because I haven't been involved in the cluster of articles I've dealt with. Hmmmm.  Peculiar editing pattern for sure and has a boomgaylove vibe but it's not so obvious that I can form an sure or instant conclusion.  Wikidemo (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not the same person as Cholga/Qrc2006/Boomgaylove, etc.; I've tangled with that editor and her socks enough to smell her a mile away, and this is not at all the same one. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The account is definitely sockish, and made an inviting comment at WT:BAN. Hmm. Jehochman  Talk 18:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

deletion of strawberry shortcake article
Greetings, Wikidemo. Re your post at User talk:Mikkalai: note that Mikkalai has posted a notice on his talk page that he doesn't want any communication with anyone. He also has a general notice there suggesting that people with questions about his deletions bring them up at WP:DELREV. He has not been replying to posts on his talk page. You might want to consider deleting your message from his talk page in light of his notice. I hope this information is helpful to you. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the arbcom request and surrounding issues regarding Mikkalai and, though I am not trying to prove any point and do not mean to provoke or upset him, I do believe that deleting this particular article is exactly the kind of administrative action he is required to explain, and communication he is required to answer, if he is to use an administrative tool. The deletion is unexplained, against process (no justification cited, no speedy tag, and no apparent speedy criterion), and not obviously correct.  I'm not saying it isn't the right thing in the end to delete the article, only that we should have the opportunity to understand what is being done and why.  I don't intend to escalate this either way, and will simply await his answer.Wikidemo (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine: I just wanted to be sure you were aware of his notice. I apologize for having temporarily forgotten that you had put a statement in the arbitration request.  In any case it was not my intention to criticize your post in any way, and I thank you for your polite response.
 * As for reasons for deleting the article: I suppose Mikkalai probably just thought it was vandalism – I can see how one could rapidly come to that conclusion and delete it under G3, whether or not that's correct.  If some terms for sexual acts have been considered notable, that certainly doesn't mean that all terms for sexual acts are necessarily notable. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies: I didn't think things through before writing the above.  I was assuming you were particularly interested in the deleted article.  Now it occurs to me that perhaps you raised the issue of that article for similar reasons to my mentioning Poon:  i.e. as an example.  Would you mind clarifying the situation?
 * I'm sorry if I'm telling you about another thing you've read already, but I'd like to make sure you're aware of the Mikkalai thread at WT:RFAR, particularly my calls for creative thinking, for at least temporary acceptance of an arrangement which appears to me to be reasonably satisfactory, and for compassion. If you disagree with some of the things I said there I'd be happy to discuss it with you.  I'm also happy to try to answer questions about Mikkalai's admin actions. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you've posted again to Mikkalai's talk page. first second. I had already composed the rest of this paragraph just in response to the first post. Although it was not your intention to cause Mikkalai stress, I fear that that has probably been the result. I ask you to please avoid posting to Mikkalai's talk page as long as it has a notice that says that posts will be perceived to be a grave disrespect, or similar notice.

Although your posts are motivated by a hope of ultimately achieving some good result and are civilly worded other than the fact of being posted on a page that states that such posts will be perceived to be a grave disrespect, unfortunately I guess and fear that they happen to be precisely the kind of posts which have been causing Mikka stress and have brought us to the current situation. I guess and fear that the impact of such posts on Mikka is even worse than some obviously uncivil ones such as that of User:90 1 AQ, which I would have reverted if I've gotten to it first, and for which (among other posts) the user has been indefinitely blocked.

Rather than posting to Mikka's talk page, please merely use the alternative remedies which Mikka has suggested. I see that you haven't stated disagreement with my assertion that those remedies are reasonably satisfactory, nor have you provided arguments to support such disagreement. If you're strongly tempted to post to Mikka's talk page, please discuss it with me first: we may be able to come up with creative solutions to achieve your goals without causing Mikka stress in this way.

I appreciate the sentiment you expressed in your second post that it would be nice if Mikkalai would say something. I'm sure we will all be happier about the situation when Mikkalai feels comfortable talking to us, but I'm pretty sure a post such as yours only contributes to making that day more remote. See the fable of The North Wind and the Sun. What Mikka needs now is some sunshine or to be left alone, not more North Wind of direct persuasion.

If he removes his request not to post there, please still think long and hard about your ultimate purpose and the likely ultimate effect of your post before posting there. Again, feel free to discuss it with me. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If Mikkalai wants to be an administrator on Wikipedia he needs to follow the rules. They are not hard, or complicated.  They exist for the benefit of the project, not the whims of a single person.  If dealing with being an administrator is too much for him (I doubt that anyone could be that fragile) then his obvious choice is to not take that role until or unless he is ready to do so.  The "alternative" method that he is asking people to use is an imposition on everyone, and a rules violation at that. Wikidemo (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a valid opinion, and I was at least tentatively of the same opinion recently. However, I contend that Mikkalai does not have to follow the rules, per WP:IAR.  Furthermore, even if what you say is true, it is also true that posting to someone's talk page when they've asked you not to is a serious imposition – much more disruptive to that person, I believe, than the minor inconvenience of following the suggestions he gives.  In other words:  even if Mikkalai ought to communicate, it does not logically follow from that that it's OK for you to post to his talk page under the current circumstances.  I think "everyone" is somewhat of an exaggeration.  I don't consider those suggestions an imposition on myself, but a creative solution to a serious problem.  Any additional work created can be left for those (such as myself) who don't mind doing it.  Re your statement, "I doubt that anyone could be that fragile":  perhaps you've never seen an extremely emotionally stressed-out person.  I assure you, people can be that fragile.  Please, leave him alone. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for having gotten one or two things wrong when I posted the above messages, and I apologize for not apologizing earlier when I noticed that. I had been under the impression that Mikkalai at the time still had a notice on his talk page that posts there would be perceived as a grave disrespect. Actually, he had removed that message a few days previously when he shortened the notice on his talk page. After posting the above messages, I read some of the background material, and my thinking on the situation evolved (see User talk:Coppertwig.) Nevertheless, I still urge you  not to post to Mikkalai's talk page messages similar to the ones you posted. The goal is to reach a situation where Mikkalai feels comfortable restoring "normal service". I believe your posts take us in the other direction. If you're genuinely interested in an article for its own sake and just happen to coincidentally encounter Mikkalai editing the same article, that's one thing. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ted Frank talk page
I archived that talk page, as a compromise. Those discussions were old and stale anyway, but I've included a historical link in case anyone wants to get back to them. Hope this helps resolve the conflict. ATren (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

American Apparel page
I am unsure as to why you keep removing factual information from this page. The additions that have been made are cited and not POV. I think it's very important for people to be able to read the whole story in regards to this unique company and I have done a lot of research on them and feel like they are being unfairly represented in regards to the union story. It appears that you have a bias by continuing to remove these facts. Please explain why the changes were made and how you think I can improve on them if you truly feel they do not meet wikipedia standards. igloo1981 10:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that the recent editing is a WP:SOCK and/or WP:MEAT attack. This is a subject of general interest so I will respond on Talk:American Apparel, in just a few minutes.  I have reverted your edits again for now.  Please do not contentiously try to make disputed changes; wait until this issue has been resolved.  Wikidemo (talk)


 * How can we resolve this so that the factual information that was added can be reinstated? The information regarding the union drive is very informative. After doing a student paper on the company, and both visiting and researching the place I feel that a lot of the information about both American Apparel and wikipedia has been extremely biased in the past. I would like to work together to make this page as comprehensive and informative as possible. igloo1981 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 19:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Quixote Winery
Do you really not feel that the tone is non-encyclopedic? This is one of those winery articles that started as a spam by their PR firm, and I think a lot of the adjectival content is inappropriate in tone. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please be more specific? I revamped the article considerably several months ago and I think I took out what I believed to be unencyclopedic.  The fact that the architecture is "unique" is critical to its notability (and well-sourced, it's the only US building by a very odd designer).  "Super-premium" is an official designation for wine by price.  The awards, recognition, previous success of the winemaker and owners, are what people look to in the wine world when evaluating these boutique wineries, so that's relevant to notability as well.  The place gets lots of press and it's usually over those issues: unusual fanciful building, owner and winemaker with a history of success, and awards and recognition for the wine itself.  That's why winning an award, or having a famous executive, is relevant to wine industry articles where it might be fluff in, say, an article about a software company.  Napa Valley, and to a lesser extent Sonoma and the other wine areas in California are built on this image of unique maverick high end winemakers.  It's a star system and part of a fairly significant business culture.  One side of the industry, and the image the world has, is these quirky family farmers.  The other side is mass production as an agricultural commodity.  Wikidemo (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Default tag
Template:Default tag has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Logo tag
Template:Logo tag has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Non-free image
Template:Non-free image has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jovan Smith
An editor has nominated Jovan Smith, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at and 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

check out discussion on ayers page first
new info, please look at the NEW articles before reaching old decisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.90.42 (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have. Thanks,  Wikidemo (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

i'm sorry for the copyright thing. i didn't think it was an issue if you source it. however do you think the information of his recent life involving obama is note worthy ??? like its not a side thing, he is on the Woods Fund. is his job not notable for his biography ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.90.42 (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that he is on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago is probably relevant to the life of Bill Ayers and encyclopedic (the standard for inclusion), as is a brief mention that Obama was previously on the fund too. However, you need to find a WP:RS reliable source, and an editorial doesn't really count.  Also, stuff about who gave money to whom as honoraria, and a less notable Palestinian member, has almost nothing to do with Ayers, and is just a very weak attempt by anti-Obama people to chip away at Obama's credibility (and by newspapers to cover the fact that this is happening).  Wikidemo (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Washington Times good ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.90.42 (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's a respected paper even if medium level circulation and conservative - often quoted for political news. Just be sure to use a real article, not an opinion / editorial.  Wikidemo (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ayers serves presently on the board of the Woods Fund, a leftist foundation. Notable members have included Barack Obama who worked there from 1999 to 2002

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080401/NATION01/603988821

good ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.90.42 (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not the final judge of Wikipedia, I'm just an editor like anyone else. But I would not object to that statement.  It seems to be true and with proper sources that's good and inormative to the Ayers article.  Thanks for working with me on that.  Wikidemo (talk) 08:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

no problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.90.42 (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD closue of Michael Bounds
I just thought I'd let you know that I took the AfD of the above subject to drv. Sockpuppet or no, the subject doesn't seem notable. Celarnor Talk to me 14:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I've responded there.  Wikidemo (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

re: recent AFD?
In this edit, you said there was a relevant AFD "a month ago". I have been unable to find any such discussion. The last formal discussion that I've been able to find was back in 2006. Could you please return to the Talk page and provide a link? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was totally confused. It was a month -- and two years -- ago, in late February, 2006.  You've just added some links to archival stuff so you're on top of it (but it would be nice to use the templates).  I'll refactor my comment.  Thanks for catching that.  Wikidemo (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

American Apparel
Feel free to remove the COI tag if it has been cleaned. Perhaps the puppetmaster or leader of the associated editors has realized that they should not try to spin Wikipedia. However, I think it will be good to confirm sock puppetry via RFCU just in case the problem resumes. Jehochman Talk 17:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm all for that. Maybe we should leave the tag on for a little while longer until the dust settles.  Give it another few weeks and if nothing resurfaces and it doesn't turn into PR fluff again we can remove the tag. Wikidemo (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Wikidemo. I left a message at User talk:TheRegicider to see if he would like to do anything more to clean up that article. I thought we could thereby discover if there are any company defenders who might come forward to oppose further improvements. Let me know if you have any other ideas, and thanks for your past work on this. EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

AirCraft Casualty Emotional Support Services
Just a note to say I did not appreciate being called silly and would recommend you read WP:CIVIL. In my opinion on reading WP:ORG non-commercial organisations and the article it did not appear to demonstrate notability, it is just another minor charity. It may well be notable but the article does not assert that. A simple statement on why it is notable added to the article would have sufficed. I want add the tag again I will leave it to others to judge. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Bill Ayers article
Regarding Bill Ayers article and my addition of the Barak Obama link and the news coverage. How can I improve my edits? Thanks for your help it is me i think (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. Strictly on edit quality you created two "reference" sections, and the mention of Obama in a new "controversy" section duplicates a mention already in the text. There might have been some other formatting issues.  But we've had a lot of trouble in that article with people pushing a political agenda by adding stuff that really doesn't have to do with Ayers (or that's just a rehash of some silly speculation and political attacks).  Frankly, I don't think it's a controversy at all but if it is, it's Obama's controversy, not Ayers'.  He's already thrown bombs.  After that, meeting a Senator is a step up not down for respectability.  Wikidemo (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you feel the press coverage of Ayers (Washington Post, Washington Times, Politico is noteworthy) especially given the interest in the election? It seems noteworthy Ayers, a man who through his own admission involved with bombing US government building, who has a "friendship with Barack Obama" according to Obama's campaign spokesman. Obama is the leading (according to many polls) presidential candidate.

The multiple press coverage should this is noteworthy, or why else would it be covered. Is this appropriate to try and build a consensus among wiki users, given so many are interested. it is me i think (talk) 8:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, Wikidemo, where do you recommend I go to learn about editing on wiki, I am a fairly new user, and have been going to various articles, learning how to add links to website, news stories, and adding links to categories and other wiki articles. But my feeling is, I am probably not doing all this correctly, but I would like to learn. I have been going to random articles and looking at the formating of the pages. thanks, it is me i think (talk) 8:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

NFCC 8 revisited
You were involved in this discussion last year, so I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content.  howcheng  {chat} 20:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE ASSIST Continued vandalism by User:Blist14 on wiki article about Bill Ayers
New user, Blist14, continues to delete biography, references, external links, and categories from Bill Ayers wikipedia page, user has no other wiki history other than deleting items from Bill Ayers article, please assist and advise. It is me i think (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Blist14 has been blocked for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, when it's that blatant someone will usually notice and then block the user.  If it happens again and nobody notices you can report it to one of the administrator's noticeboards - on vandalism in this case.  Wikidemo (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you help me understand why Bill Ayers connection to Barack Obama is not notable for his article
Here is major news coverage I found on the issue:

Politico.com article

Washington Post fact checker article

UK Guardian article on US President candidate Barack Obama's connection with Bill Ayers

UK London Times article on US President candidate Barack Obama's connection with Bill Ayers

Boston Globe article

New York Times article

FoxNews video coverage

New York Sun article

Chicago Sun Times article

Los Angeles Times article

HuffingtonPost.com article

ABC News article

Bloomberg.com article

The Australian article

African Crisis.co.za article

National Post Canada article

Pittsburgh Tribune article

CBS News article

2 major UK newspapers and 1 major Australian newspaper has event covered the story. In the US, you have ABC, New York Times, Washington Post, and the other listed. It seems to me, this is not worthy and not POV given all the many storie in the press. Please help me understand how this relationship between Obama and Ayers should not be mentioned in Ayers' article. thanks so much for your guidance It is me i think (talk) 07:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not had a chance to review all the articles. However, all that I have read from reliable sources describe the event solely as a partisan attack on Obama.  None independently say that the circumstances show that there is a relationship between the two, and logically, they cannot based on the circumstances they describe.  I don't think a person's name being used in a minor partisan ploy to taint a political candidate is particularly relevant to that person or to the candidate.  Possibly an article about a particular round of political partisanship. Wikidemo (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How can the situation be viewed as a partisan attacked when it was brought up at the recent debate by Stephanopoulus (a democrat) and Hillary Clinton (a democrat)? Also, Obama people mentioned they have a friendly relationship.  So I would see it reasonable to mentioned they serve on a board together and Obama describes their relationship as friendly.  Also, because of the perceived POV, the comment could be cited by 10-15 new articles listed above.  Also, doesn't the new coverage show the notability of the relationship?  thanks It is me i think (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Attacks by two candidates within the same party are also partisan. It misconstrues Obama's comment to use it for the proposition they had a relationship.  The news coverage, again, is all in the context of the actual and presumptive criticism of Obama by his opponents.  If the story develops enough traction in the press the story itself may be notable but the events underlying it are not relevant of their own accord.  A good, extreme example of this is the Willie Horton matter. Wikidemo (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost forgot, thanks for your courtesy in discussing a potentially charged issue so civilly. Wikidemo (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I do understand what you are saying about how it could become noteworthy if the story develops enough traction. But I, your point about it being a political attack, is more appropriate for consideration for does the story have enough weight to be on Obama's profile.   In regards, to having the mention of the relationship on Ayers' article, he clearly is getting significant coverage about his relationship with a leading presidential candidate and his connection to the candidate has, i feel, made noteworthy enough to be mentioned.  What I am trying to say is because Ayers' profile is lower than Obama, it may be worth mentioning the connection, where mentioning the connection on Obama profile may not be appropriate.  Does this make sense?  Oh, and the reasons, I am having the discussion on you talk page versus the Ayers talk page, is I am trying to avoid fueling the fire of the discussion, but at the same time understand better how the information is presented.  thanks It is me i think (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Great call on the new article about 2008 presidential controversies and attacks
This should allow users to be able to explain what is being said and provide a great opportunity to provide endless documentation of the facts. Thanks so much, you are brilliant. It is me i think (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wanted to give you a heads up, I removes the McCain receipt section under the 2008 election controversies
It just seemed silly. While, UPI and the Guardian did report it appeared Cindy McCain copies Rachael Ray's receipt in her piece which she submitted to the NY Sun, and the McCain campaign said the posting on its campaign website was the mistake of an intern, it doesn't appear significant. the articles by the Guardian and UPI were quite brief and the Huffington Post, I think it is a blog, so I am not sure if is meets the standards of a credible news source (not really sure because I don't know much about them). It was the comment of a candidate spouse about a recipe. It seems so insignificant that I am not even sure it is worth debating whether or not we give her benefit of doubt. Let me know if you have any thoughts. Wanted to just give you a heads up. It is me i think (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean recipe? Well, it was because I did one controversy for each to start it off balanced so nobody would say I'm playing favorites, and I really wasn't in the mood to try to dig up dirt on McCain.  Most of it came from his wife's article, and then I added the bit about the Giada connection and the pasta, which I think is kind of funny.  Surely there is some bigger scandal about McCain in this election, but perhaps he has had fewer than others.  The Huffington post article only stands for the fact that it's the first place where the story broke.  The info is reliable and sourced, a number of mentions in major publications, so the question isn't verifiability, it's what you said, is this really important and relevant enough to be in Wikipedia or is this trivia?  I think it's an interesting story worth knowing about, but it says more about candidate websites and interns, and doesn't really impugn McCain himself.    Incidentally, I think your Tony Rezko section is really long.  Perhaps that scandal deserves its own article, or a pointer to a longer treatment, then a few sentences so people can pick up the main facts and then follow the link if they want.  It's going to be a long election season and if every one of these controversies gets that much treatment the article is going to become huge!  Wikidemo (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, what I did was copied the Rezko story from the Tony Rezko article. though it would be more NPOV if I just copied what others have been right, copied most the other Obama controversies from either the Barack Obama article or the article from the campaign. Hoping this minimizes conflict and also the pieces appear well-cited, which is helpful. Should we just do seperate articles for each candidate? It is me i think (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)