User talk:Alanyst/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~

snoyes 18:00, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

You may want to check out List of articles about Mormonism and help fill in the missing holes, since you seem to have some expertise in the area. Please add to the articles already there. Keep up the good work. -Visorstuff 22:09, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Whether one can, and if so how to, link to a specific section within an article

You can do this by using a hash (#) followed by the section title after the page title. So, for instance, Calvin and Hobbes#Supporting characters. --Taak 04:44, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Slide rule peer review

Hi, you nominated Slide rule for peer review. Can you help taking care of the comments and requests there? Thanks - Taxman 20:22, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, my input without someone that is able to do some of the work is not too helpful. I'll try to contact some of the people who authored some of the material. Thanks for your comment. - Taxman 22:30, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your contributions to the debate at Talk:Jesus. They are among the most sensible. Chameleon 21:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

My proposal

I appreciate your comments. Look, we disagree. But if you think I misquoted or misrepresented you in the text of my proposal, please let me know how so I can correct it, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

my proposal

Hi,

I just announced I am stepping away from the proposal discussion for several days. I know I have polarized the discussion, which I didn't want to do. If you are willing, I hope you will visit the page periodically and do whatever you can or think is appropriate to facilitate discussion between both sides.

Thanks

Steve

BC/AD

Actually I've talked out of both sides of my mouth on Thursday, and my position has evolved on the whole issue. Most simply, I'm not sure that Thursday is anything more than a day dedicated to Thor. The "existence" of Thor is not disputed (although whether he was/is real is another matter altogether). So on one level, a day or a month could be seen as "named after" someone or something. There is also, of course, the argument that Thor is no longer a major deity, but that argument is rather weak. There is also the little matter of lacking a viable alternative.

On the whole BC/AD issue it seems to me that the argument that makes most sense in terms of keeping BC/AD is one of dilution. The idea that BC and AD have been used so widely that the meaning of the word is lost. I don't agree with it, but i see it as a viable argument. I remember when I first discovered what AD meant. I was about 10 years old. My first thought, my first words were "so non-Christians can't use that term?" I'd think that on a matter like this, a child's thinking, the simple uncluttered analysis of the words, is the ideal starting point. If you take the words at face value, then BC and AD are POV. To move beyond that, I would need evidence.

On the other hand, if you want to discuss the meanings of the NPOV policy, I wouild love that. Since few people have challenged me on that I have not had to take it apart the same way as I have the BC/AD issue. It would be equally interesting to see where that would go. Guettarda 14:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You said: "Since many non-Christians comfortably use the term in an identical manner to how Christians use the term, one cannot tell whether a particular usage of BC/AD is, by itself, expressing a Christian POV or not"

As I see it, POV or NPOV is not a function of the intention of the writer, but in the possible interpretations of the readers. As with any written communication, nuance and expression are absent. Written communication (in an encyclopaedia!) only means what is written. What the writer meant to say is irrelevant. What the writer said is all that matters. That is why my starting point is that of a naive child. We need to write literally. Metaphors aren't terribly useful - metaphors depend to much on cultural context. Majoritarian POV (like BC/AD) would only work if we circumscribe our audience. That is decidedly not the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is there for the impoverished school in Africa, in Jimbo's vision. For that reason, couples with the centrality of NPOV, I don't think see BC/AD as a dating system that meets the needs of Wikipedia. Guettarda 06:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Calvin and Hobbes at WP:FARC

Hi, can you help fix some of the issues that are brought up there. I'd much rather see this kept that removed from featured status. The biggest issue I have is the lack of references. If you used any references in your work on the article let us know, or ask the other major contributors if they did. Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 12:05, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Re:Calvin and Hobbes references

Taxman, I just wanted to let you know I've added some references to the Calvin and Hobbes article. More can be added still, but I think the article's much better sourced now than it was before. Have a look if you like. Alanyst 2 July 2005 07:15 (UTC)

That is an excellent improvement, thank you. - Taxman ^Talk July 2, 2005 12:23 (UTC)

Thanks from me too (the guy who put it on WP:FARC). —Anville 18:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Calvin and Hobbes images: fair use?

Hi Alanyst, thanks for the heads up. It was my understanding that images cropped from cartoons and with their resolution reduced (as these are) were suitable for fair use, but reading the Wikipedia:Fair use guidelines you point to I can find no mention of this (they seem to be mostly concerned with photographs). Given this, perhaps they should be tagged to be deleted. --Ngb 29 June 2005 22:39 (UTC)

Jesus

The very Name Jesus is to a degree POV, as it means "Saviour." While the title Christ is arguably more biased in Our Lord's favour, I believe that it may be used neutrally and interchangeably with the Holy Name; consider if a Buddhist were to refer to Siddhartha Guatama as the Buddha. Now, neither of us would agree that this man was truly the enlightened one, but the title can be used; it indeed is on this website. Mohammed has occasionally been referred to as a prophet. And with respect to the question of capatilising pronouns, etc., I must mention that this is ordanarily permitted when referring to God the Father; examples of this phenomenon abundantly exist. Pax Christi.--Thomas Aquinas 22:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus

Sorry, seems like I made a mistake there. I thought I was making a comment on a newly reactivated topic - obviously not. Thanks for correcting me, jguk 19:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

re Eric. D. Snider

You make good points, and you may be right. This was the toughest AfD close I've done yet. It really was on the bubble. By all means, I have no objection at all to your taking it to WP:DRV. Herostratus 05:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Added source

It isn't nonsense, I've added my source.

Eric D. Snider Album Art

I don't have any objection to you removing it but I do see it as somewhat useful. I've always looked at Wikipedia as an all knowing source and so thought i should have all information on everyone. At the time that the article was nominated for deletion, it did not have any album information and it was a personal biography. I added the album information after the deletion nomination and that prompted many people to change there votes. When it was restored it had a lot of notable information and I thought that the other information just added to it. --Jasonlesliewright 05:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright issue with Temrec.png

Your imput was given at Wikipedia:Copyright problems regarding the image Temrec.png. The image is currently up for deletion, and thought you'd like to wiegh in your opinion at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2006_December_5#Image:Temrec.png_.28talk_.7C_delete.29. Cheers. -Visorstuff 22:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Unhelpful comments?

I admittedly have a difficult time with comments that are without logic, backwards, and just plain false. It is impossible for something to be the opposite of itself. I am not sure how best to handle these type of edits. I suspect the best way is just quit feeding the trolls. There is much wisdom in such a statement, but lately I have noticed a surprising coincidence where no comment becomes interpreted as acceptance of the statement as fact. Of course this mindset can easily turn into a need to respond to everything perceived as negative, which I don't think is necessary. My objective is to determine the stage most important in which to take a stand; Village pump seems like a stage that would have the most impact on the community at large. Do you think it would be better to just ignore those types of comments, those that are obviously lacking in thought, and move on? Your comments are appreciated and I can use some direction in this regard. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. alanyst ^/talk/ 05:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving a conversation

If you expect me to continue a dialogue with you, then I expect you to move the conversation that we were having back to where it originated. It seems that if it was the correct place for you to question me that it is also the fitting place for you to answer my questions. This appears to be another case of one editor dictating the circumstances of where, when and how a problem will be addressed; I consider this a case of you editing my comments on a talk page, which is, at best, poor form. It isn't your job to determine what is appropriate for that page (at least not after I answered your questions there). Duke53 | ^Talk 14:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved it because, after seeing Visorstuff's comments on the original page, I decided he was right and it wasn't the correct place for me to question you. I should have started the whole tangent on your own talk page, but as I didn't realize that until I saw what Visorstuff wrote, I did what I thought was the next best thing and corrected the problem as soon as I became aware of it. I have not changed any of your comments, and I have endeavored to leave a trail behind so it's clear where the discussion originated and where it went to, so that if anyone besides you and I are following this discussion they can stay with it without too much effort. Cleaning up talk pages by moving discussions to a better venue is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia and in no way is it poor form. I mean to be dictating nothing; if you think the discussion belongs back on the Village Pump or somewhere else, by all means move it yourself. I decline to do so since I am now of the opinion that it is where it belongs, but if you feel strongly enough to move it back then I will not obstruct your efforts to do so. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

See my response at my talk page. Duke53 | ^Talk 16:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Warnings

If you take a look you can see that he removed your warning. When I went there the talk page was empty; there were no warnings. I am awfully sick of your crap. You edit as you see fit and I will edit as I see fit; I need no advice from you. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record of future editors investigating this issue, User:Duke53 did in fact remove the warning given to User:Davicavalheiro that Alanyst asked Duke53 about here with this edit. As always, editors should remember to spread Wikilove and seek to be civil. -Visorstuff 22:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

When I went to that page, it was blank; I do not lie, unlike some other editors here at Wikipedia. If there is / was a software glitch, okay; but the page was completely blank when I posted the warning. You can have anybody you choose 'investigate' but I know how the page was when I visited it. Duke53 | ^Talk 23:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking anyone to "investigate," Duke53, merely keeping for historical purposes - a common practice at wikipedia - by simply pointing out the facts for those who want to see what happened to warrant your particularly over-dramatic and harsh response.

Software glitch or not, you could have double checked why Alanyst was complaining about the blanking and offered the software glitch explanation as an alternative. This is much more productive than using phrases such as "I am awfully sick of your crap. You edit as you see fit and I will edit as I see fit; I need no advice from you," which is similar to many other statements you've made to others in your editing history.

Check when someone complains to you personally why they are complaining instead of over-reacting (I do). Most of the time they see edits like this and really can't assume anything else - which is why he contacted you directly. This is what it means to assume good faith. With Wiki software it is easy to check yourself and why people assume things about your edits.

Putting aside our editing philosophies and religious differences, I'd be happy to help you learn wikipedia culture, how to use the software, build consensus, and make the most of your wikipedia experience. We could work together on non-LDS-related pages if you are interested in taking me up on my offer. I am pretty easy to work with, and have a good reputation for working with others. Let me know. -Visorstuff 23:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: Incidentally, we should report the software glitch so this unfortunate exchange doesn't happen to other editors. Duke53, would you like to post the problem to the Village Pump? -Visorstuff 23:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

You're right; I wanted this here.

I am so very happy that you're keeping such good track of me. When editors are joining Wikipedia to edit one (and only one) article and aren't seen again anywhere else it gives me a pretty good indication that their edits are simply vandalism or censorship. You worry about your style of editing and I will worry about mine, okay? Some of the things you do here don't exactly thrill me either. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Alanyst, thanks for providing context. Hope all is well. -Visorstuff 17:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows

Heya, I agree SR was a bit over the top but ever less than Duke IMHO. If you're gonna delete SR's comments I think you should delete Duke's because the latter's comments implicitly hint that editors who don't tag along with his references to "evil" are "evil" themselves, WP:No personal attacks and so on. Thanks for giving a luzz though! Gwen Gale 16:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Undergarment

Thanks for your nice message - I'll consider it - but frankly - the cries of censorship are bullshit. That is like the truthers who claim that 9/11 was a government coverup. If that was really true - then they would be silenced as part of the coverup. The picture is available in the linked article on Temple Garments, there is no reason for it to be anywhere else - and quite frankly I don't care if I get blocked again - it just shows that Duke53 continues to own that section of the article and does not address any substantive issues raised regarding its use on that page. 24.252.101.35 03:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your view - but that day will never come - when a rational discussion can occur over the undergarment issue. 24.252.101.35 04:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a depressing viewpoint. Even if it proves to be true, though, you'd personally lose nothing by taking the high road. Now that your block has expired, I urge you to go edit some non-controversial articles, perform cleanup, etc. and let the Undergarment article stay as it is for a while. There are other articles in Wikipedia that could use your attention, I'm sure, and it won't do you any good to resurrect the dispute that led to your block in the first place. Cheers, alanyst ^/talk/ 05:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Beat me to it.Proabivouac 06:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Alan

Hi alan,

let's try to work together better, but please be aware of attempting to exercise unrighteous dominion over others on this site by trying to use the framework of policies to bully people off articles. You may not feel you are doing this or intending to, but it feels that way. Let's try to work together instead of against each other. Please. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

Please explain to me where I have violated any copyright laws. The history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a open source of religious knowledge for mormons insomuch as the Bible is. It is the same as the Doctorine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and Book of Mormon. Quotes from these documents appears throughout Wikipedia as well as the internet. Please bear in mind that you have been reviewed by others as attempting to 'exercise unrighteous dominion over others'. I feel this statement is true in my case as well.

I appreciate you taking the time to explain your opinion. Thewayandthelight 21:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You have asked me to explain my opinions of several Wikipedia policies. You'll forgive me if I do not do that as I feel that it is clear what Wikipedia desires in the conduct of people on this site. Here is what my real problem has been. I have been attempting to place pertinent, factual information on pages that just happens to contrast the opinions of the LDS religion. My input has be continuously suppressed by agents of the LDS church seeking to maintain dominion of matters that they obviously feel belong to them. I also pointed out the agents of this suppression to the rest of the users of this site in an effort to expose what they are doing.

Do I feel that NPOV can be maintained by those that only support one side of an opinion or belief? No, several inputs are needed to maintain NPOV. Do I feel that all factual information pertinent to a subject should be allowed to be included in that subject? Yes, regardless of ones belief in that information. Do I feel that suppression of factual information on this site to further ones objectives is the ultimate policy violation? Absolutely!

As I feel that you have been pulled into this situation by others that have manipulated the facts, I am attempting to understand your opinions on this matter without assuming that you have an agenda. I would appreciate it if you would address your accusation that I have violated some copyright. As I have left your comments on my talk page, I would appreciate it if you would address it there.

Much Thanks. Thewayandthelight 21:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC) PS thanks for the sig tip!

Mediation at Talk:Cherokee

Dear Alan,

I'm contacting you've actively taken part in the discussion at Talk:Cherokee. As you already know, a Mediation is currently undergoing at that Talk page. I thank you for taking part in the debate, and I wish to notify you that we're moving on to a stage of proposed solutions. Your input, either to suggest new proposals or to comment on the ones being made is welcome and will be appreciated. Have a beautiful weekend, Phaedriel - 06:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi again! As you know, the stage for proposed solutions at Cherokee has been going for a week now. The proposed solution you commented on, which we had the chance to discuss, is currently supported by all involved parties with your exception, and I've left a lenghty comment to your last concerns. Considering all parties have had ample time to express their thoughts on the matter and so far a consensus to implement said solution appears to exist, I intend to close the discussion soon. However, it'd be on very poor form on my part not to notify you of this move and give you a little more time to comment on it, taking into account my latest contribution to the debate, which I feel addresses your concerns; in fact, I agreed to your suggestion of renaming the proposed Category, while explaining other facts you brought up. I await your input, and once again, thank you for taking part in the discussion. Best regards, Phaedriel - 08:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: POV issues on FAIR

Was getting to that, distracted by a few issues off-wiki. Was going to improve the article myself as soon as I've managed to do a bit of research into the point/counterpoint on the organisation. Drop me a line if you've got any further suggestions for improvement on the article. Cheers, Thewinchester ^(talk) 22:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

FAIR article

Thanks for that, i've been heavily sidetracked this evening performing a major re-write of an article, which my local project was notified of that it was the subject of an WP:OTRS complaint ticket. Will look at it ASAP and remove accordingly. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Trolling?

1) I am baffled why you deleted my comment at the incident board. When a drama queen describes almost anything he chooses as dangerous I feel that it is my right to point it out to other editors. 2) Are you allowed to delete comments on talk pages? Seems to me that there is a rule against that. 3) I take your comment about me 'trolling' as a personal attack. Consider this a warning about that. Duke53 | ^Talk 23:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Baffled? I think you could easily guess why your comment was deleted. It was wholly unrelated to the issue being discussed, and referenced a ten-day-old archived discussion in a way that nobody besides Blueboy96 would likely have had a clue what you were talking about (I had to look it up). It was evident that you were goading him, not trying to further the discussion at hand. That's trolling. Or heckling, if you prefer. My characterization of your edit as trolling was an accurate description of this one instance of your behavior, and does not say anything about your overall character—that depiction I leave for your own edit history to paint. alanyst ^/talk/ 00:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I was 'goading' no one ... I was pointing out the pattern a certain editor has for over-dramatizing perceived 'danger. Other editors should be able to determine that also.

You forgot to address the question of whether you have the right to delete comments from a talk page. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I was right to do so, and that it was consistent with the spirit of WP policy. Nobody else has complained about my action. If you think I violated a rule then take whatever action you think best. I have no qualms about admin scrutiny of my actions, if that's the type of thing you have in mind. Or, if you just wanted to voice your displeasure with what I did, then congratulations; you have succeeded. alanyst ^/talk/ 04:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more of the following:

• Editing comments

Others' comments It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Do not strikeout the comments of other editors without their permission.

Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing others' comments is not allowed. There are exceptions, however. Some are:

• If you have their permission
• Removing prohibited material such as libel and personal details
• Removing personal attacks and incivility. This is controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable; please read WP:ATTACK#Removal of text and WP:CIVIL#Removing uncivil comments before removing anything.
• Unsigned comments: You are allowed to append —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) or one of its variants to the end of someone's comment if they have failed to sign it. The form is —The preceding unsigned comment was added by USER NAME OR IP (talk • contribs) DATE AND TIME., which results in —The preceding unsigned comment was added by USER NAME OR IP (talk • contribs) DATE AND TIME.
• Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or by a headline (if the contribution introduces a new topic). In that case, add "Headline added to (reason) by Duke53 | ^Talk 04:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)"). In such cases, please add —This is part of a comment by USER NAME OR IP , which got interrupted by the following: before the interruption.
• When a long comment has formatting errors, rendering it difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible.
• On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others, although archiving is generally preferred and removing comments without any reason is generally regarded uncivil. The text of another user's comment, however, may never be directly edited to misrepresent the person or change the meaning of the comment.
• If a signature violates the guidelines for signatures.

Perhaps you think that these rules are only for other editors? Duke53 | ^Talk 04:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with the rule quoted and think it, and the exceptions, apply to all editors equally, myself included. (So does the rule about civility.) And I think the spirit of the rule, together especially with the third exception in the bulleted list, is to treat others' comments as their own, but removal of incivility, personal attacks, and other obviously disruptive behavior may be permissible, depending on whom you talk to, in the interest of furthering the overall aim of building an encyclopedia cooperatively. I have employed my best judgment and common sense in applying the letter and spirit of this rule, together with the other WP policies and guidelines, to the situation today. You obviously don't like what I did; neither did I like the tenor of your original comment. Thus it is, and now you may have the last word if you like, or take whatever action you deem best, if it troubles you too much to just let it drop. alanyst ^/talk/ 05:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Day of the week and the Mountain Meadows massacre

I have proposed a change to the MMM introduction which deletes the mention of the weekday of the killings. I know you have been involved in this discussion previously, and invite you to watch or join the discussion here. Thanks in advance --Robbie Giles 17:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

NOR

Hi! If you are right then I would think the thing to do is to archive the whole talk page and create two sections on the talk page, one for (a) what constitutes a primary, secondary, or tertiary source, and the other for (b) to what extent Wikipedia policy should discourage use of (or reliance upon) the different kinds of sources, and then try to develop a consensus for each one separately, and try to keep people focused on these two questions until some consensus emereges. However, I am not sure that other active editors will agree that these are the principal, or only, issues under debate. I think it is important for you to check with other active people inolved in the debates to see if these two cover it. But if you are right, I think this provides a sensible way to start working towards a resolution. By the way, I see that one section on the talk page is "NOR is stupid" so while I am sure that there are editors on both sides of the conflict who are acting in good faith, it seems plausible that at least a couple really are opposed to the policy itself. --Slrubenstein | Talk 18:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahem ... is there going to be 'administrative action' because of someone's edit?

"I support the proposed compromise. And I have warned both Duke53 and Tom/Threeafterthree that any further edit warring over the word in the lead by either of them will result in my asking for administrator intervention. This silly edit war has got to stop. alanyst ^/talk/ 17:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the edit that I am referring to:(cur) (last) 13:17, August 30, 2007 Threeafterthree (Talk | contribs) (83,923 bytes) (→Day of the week in opening paragraph - reply) (undo)

Firstly, Duke53, please be careful to balance your HTML tags if you must use them instead of wiki markup. That way you won't leave everything following italicized or bolded.

Secondly, my warning to ask for administrative intervention was aimed at making you and Threeafterthree stop the edit war, whether voluntarily or not. You both did stop voluntarily, to your credit, and I thank you for that. If either of you had not, I would certainly have asked for administrator intervention to make you or him stop involuntarily (read: finite block). The idea of a block would not have been to punish but to end the edit war.

That was what, almost two months ago? Now after a long period of calm, Tinosa comes in and re-adds the day of week in complete disregard of the attempt on the talk page to come to a resolution. Then Threeafterthree unfortunately involves himself again and reverts Tinosa. One single edit each by two editors—what am I to do? Ask an administrator to get involved at this point? Though Threeafterthree's relapse is certainly troubling, I don't see what an administrator would do about it beyond asking/warning him not to do it again, and that's something I could just as easily do (and plan to do).

So, I guess I'll let you make the call: I can ask/warn both Tinosa and Threeafterthree to avoid making their respective edits to the lead anymore, with a warning that any further action by either of them will result in a request for admin action, just as I did when the edit war was between you and Threeafterthree. Or, if you prefer, I can ask for admin action right now. But if I do so, I will ask the admin to look at Tinosa's actions as critically as Threeafterthree's, since Tinosa instigated this round. You seem to be sympathetic to Tinosa, so if you'd rather this not happen then I'm happy to keep things at the warning level. What do you suggest? alanyst ^/talk/ 18:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"what am I to do? Ask an administrator to get involved at this point"? If you check the edit history you can see that I did as you asked, but the other guy apparently decided to do what he wanted ("You both did stop voluntarily" ... well, he started again, voluntarily. You made the statement at that time ... now it is up to you to either do what you threatened to do, or to stay completely out of the situation. I did not notice any 'statute of limitations' when you made your threat. The time has arrived to fish or cut bait; don't attempt to put it on me ... you were so authoritative then, do the right thing now or distance yourself from the situation and stop making idle threats. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

...do the right thing now... And at this point in time, the right thing is... what? Ask for admin review of Threeafterthree and Tinosa? Or warn them? Or do nothing and wait to see if the edit war is perpetuated? I'm happy to do the right thing but the right thing to do back then might not be the right thing to do now. alanyst ^/talk/ 18:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You used a threat about 'administrative involvement' against 'Tom' and me to not revert this passage; he reverted the passage ... either you were bluffing for some reason (?) or your threat was only directed towards me ... which is it? If you say that you are going to do something, then just do it ... really a simple concept, I'd say.

Tinosa was not involved in events leading up to your threat, but you get points for throwing that red herring into this conversation. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If you say that you are going to do something, then just do it. Is your purpose here to help me prevent the edit war from recurring, or is it to hold my feet to the fire out of some sense of vindictiveness? If the former, then please share what you think would be a good approach, given that Tinosa indeed has also participated in the edit wars over the word Friday (though I did not include her in my warning back in July). If the latter, then please go make your WP:POINT elsewhere. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Your non-answers confirm exactly what I suspected about you .... Duke53 | ^Talk 22:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You complain so vehemently about one person's behavior and then have a mirror turned on yourself and see the same thing: you have refused to answer just as many questions/demands as I have, and the diff I linked to shows the blind eye you've turned to your own unfulfilled threats. I'm sure you had your good reasons for not following through on the threats you made in the diff above; I likewise feel I've got good reasons now not to follow through on my warning about the edit war, which I've tried to explain above.

You seem to seek the proverbial pound of flesh from me, as you do with anyone who ever opposes your idea of How Things Ought to Be. Whether the subject is Mormonism, Mustangs, Duke University, former UNC alumni, the Wild Center (not its official name!), or anything else that you hold an opinion about, you seem to feel it appropriate to sneer and jibe and provoke and attack and assume bad faith of anyone who expresses a contrary opinion or who tries to neutralize your POV. I don't understand what motivates such a boorish approach to editing here at Wikipedia, but in complete frankness and without any anger towards you I assert that this is the persona you have put forth here, and Wikipedia's better off without it. If you could learn to appreciate differing perspectives and opposing opinions, and to respect those who hold them instead of trying to beat them down, you'd be a great asset to Wikipedia with your obvious intelligence and wide range of interests. You might fear that you'd lose some sort of moral high ground or weaken your ideals, but you'd really be strengthening them and you'd probably find allies and friends in unexpected places, where you currently seek only enemies (and, by seeking, create them). Maybe confrontation is the only type of online interaction you are comfortable with; if that's so, I'm very sorry for you. It's much happier to be nice to people. alanyst ^/talk/ 23:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's always okay to ask for outside review

I'm afraid that I'm going to be taking a long weekend well away from any sort of Internet access, so I can't really get involved with this situation.

I will offer a few points that I think are worthwhile to keep in mind on Wikipedia.

• The admin buttons are tools for improving Wikipedia. Before taking any admin action, ask yourself if Wikipedia will be a better or worse place for it. You're allowed to be wrong – you're human – but don't do deliberately do something you don't think is going to be productive.
• All editors on Wikipedia, including the ones with an admin bit, are volunteers. You can't be compelled to do anything – from taking an administrative action to rewriting an article – that you don't want to do.
• In a dispute, it's always permissible to seek neutral third-party advice if you're not sure of the right course. A very few editors abuse this principle through forum-shopping and abuse of process, but generally other editors are more than willing to give you their two cents. Particularly if you're concerned about using your admin tools in a dispute, third-party consultation in an appropriate forum (AN, AN/I, RFCU, etc.)
• Sometimes an editor in a dispute will have difficulty letting go of a grudge. Sometimes both editors will. Sometimes it can be difficult to tell which editor has this problem.
• People like to fight for bloody stupid reasons.

I can't say which of the above apply to your present concerns—but I imagine that at least some of them are on target.

I will flatly state that Duke53 has a long history of...let us say, stretching the bounds of the civility policy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Latter Day Saints

I'm afraid I have been ranting on the talk page of this list, primarily because I am fed up with the aggressive tactics of our newest batch of policy enforcers and with how policy is developed and disseminated. I noted that you tried to explain a more reasonable perspective and method to our enforcer in your comments, and I admire your patience. I would appreciate your comments to my rants, if you have any interest. But I am sorry to take up extra space with my most recent "tilting at windmills." Best wishes. WBardwin 01:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

re: your note

Hi, alanyst. I actually submitted the complaint before he left and placed a notice about it on his talk page -- just to be clear that this was not done behind his back. I'm sorry he can't respond, but I feel evidence of the disruption needs to get on the record while the issue is fresh. I didn't detect any willingness to compromise or acknowledgement of having done anything wrong on his part -- quite the contrary -- so perhaps this is the only way to get his attention. I fully expect that absent some kind of censure he'll just carry right on.

Furthermore, while I'm a pretty good sport, his comments were abusive, and it's clear from the example you cite that it's not the first time it's happened. I've never responded to another editor like that -- I'm sure you haven't either. It's just not acceptable.

Besides, for the moment it doesn't look like the ANI report is going anywhere anyway, so it's probably not going to result in anything. But at least it will be on the record to refer to if the pattern later reasserts itself.

Cheers. --Rrburke^(talk) 21:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, alanyst. I admire your username, by the way -- and I have no quarrel with your kind of busybody. :)

What I will say though is that the situations were not really parallel. The differences are that I didn't violate a widely-applied policy deliberately after being made aware of it, which is disruptive (please see WP:POINT and especially WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT); I also didn't refer to anyone as an "anal" "ignoramus" "on a power trip".

What I did was place a very innocuous note on an editor's talk page, a perfectly reasonable and, as it should happen, justified action the editor decided to escalate into a shrill tirade together with a spate of deliberate violations and a capping, disruptive spite-edit. As for my demeanour, you'll note that by contrast I was civil at all times, though frosty at the end. What's the basis for any comparison? --Rrburke^(talk) 22:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OT:I found this a little confusing. --Rrburke^(talk) 00:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that. Hopefully Jossi will clue us in on what was intended. alanyst ^/talk/ 01:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: AN/I

I don't think opening a thread over at RfC is necessarily forum shopping -- as long as the thread at AN/I is closed with a note that the conversation has continued over there. I would recommend that everyone involved -- Duke53 & Masamage -- are informed of the move. However, at this point I don't know what I can do as a third-party: all three of you have turned the thread into a mudfight, & I honestly can't tell at this point who is right & who is wrong. -- llywrch 20:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, put up a note that it's been moved. If the conversation does move over there, someone will close the thread & it will be archived after 3 days. If it does not, then we'll deal with it. -- llywrch 20:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My oops on FV

You are correct, the deleted paragraph was almost but not exactly a duplicate. I should have looked more closely before reverting. Thanks for catching that.

BTW, John Foxe has acknowledged that the Walters assertion on the lack of revivals 1819-1820 is disputed, and needs to be attributed. I'm still questioning his labeling of Walters as 'non-Mormon' vs 'Reverend', but it's civil so far. 74s181 (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all; I nearly undid the anon's edit myself before noticing that the prior paragraph looked suspiciously similar. :)

I agree with you on the label for Walters; "non-Mormon" seems overly broad for someone who, according to a Google search, was pastor of a Presbyterian congregation and wrote several books about Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other heretics. I am interested in learning more about Walters's academic credentials and whether his work was peer-reviewed, as that would shed light on whether his work is any more credible than those whom JF likes to label as apologists. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC

You were right, I should have provided evidence to back the statements you pointed out. I actually had those diffs and didn't post them in my attempt to be brief...but it's definitely important. I've posted the evidence here. Let me know if this addresses your concerns about bad faith and where the comments came from. 19:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I realize that you saw your RfC comment as a response to other comments, but could you treat it as a RfC comment (and not just as talk) anyway? After all, it still addresses the RfC. Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

C&H

Quoted from User talk:Anomie:
“	Hey, I appreciate the input on my recent Calvin and Hobbes edits. I don't mind in the least that you think I cut too heavily, and I'm glad you restored what you thought was important. I'm sure we basically agree on what parts really ought to have gone, and it's good to have a critic to keep me honest. :) BTW, I tried to rewrite the "Noodle Incident" section but all my attempts seemed to lead into OR territory. It's hard to say anything about it that isn't conjecture or else excessively-detailed verbatim quotes of the sort that I've been trying to reduce in the article. If you can come up with something that strikes the balance, I'd be very happy. Another paragraph I tried to rewrite but had trouble with was the second in the "Social criticisms" section. There again, if you can improve it where I could not, that would be great. Or maybe someone else will come along, who knows? Anyhow, thanks for the feedback and the continuing watchful eye over the article. alanyst /talk/ 16:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)	”

I'm glad to see someone copyediting the article; sure it's featured, but all this would need to be done anyway if someone ever came along and decided to WP:FAR it. Better for us to get it done ahead of time. I would appreciate it if you would check my attempt at rewriting the section; I guarantee it has no OR, and it uses no direct quotes from the strip, but I'm not sure if the detail is excessive. I'd like to include some reference to the fan speculation about these topics, but I can't find anything in even halfway-reliable sources.

===The Noodle Incident and Hamster Huey===
Both the Noodle Incident and the book Hamster Huey and the Gooey Kablooie are mentioned several times in passing, but Watterson left the details to the reader's imagination "where [they're] sure to be more outrageous." Noodles are first mentioned in connection with a report on the brain, and later Calvin worries that Miss Wormwood told his mom about "the noodles", but it is never stated whether these are related to each other or to the Incident. Even Santa's research department cannot discover the particulars of the Noodle Incident itself; only references to Calvin's denials are presented in the strip.

More details are given regarding Hamster Huey and the Gooey Kablooie: it is a children's book written by Mabel Syrup, it has a sequel titled Commander Coriander Salamander and 'er Singlehander Bellylander, and it includes squeaky voices, gooshy sound effects, and the "Happy Hamster Hop". Nearly all references to the book show Calvin's dad's frustration at having to read the story to Calvin every evening.

I'll watch here for replies. Anomie⚔ 02:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant! My only criticism is the "Even Santa's research department" bit, which at first seemed to me like a creative but odd and somewhat jarring bit of hyperbole, until I recalled the strip that showed Santa's elves trying to get to the bottom of the matter. I think to a person unfamiliar with the strip that bit will be even more confusing without some sort of context, so I'd either drop it or find some way to convey how Santa figures into the whole thing. Otherwise, I think you've done an outstanding job of making it informative without the OR. Tweak the Santa bit and then by all means drop it into the article. alanyst ^/talk/ 18:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to adjust it, though, and it is cited (Watterson (2005), vol. 3, p. 477, originally published 1995-12-24). There's not much more to say: Santa says "Ohhh yes, the 'Noodle Incident' kid..." and the elf replies "That was a while ago, boss. He says he was framed, and we've had trouble verifying the particulars. Accounts seem to vary." And then they go on to discuss other things related to Calvin's behavior.[1] Anomie⚔ 00:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe this? "The strip even depicts Santa's research department having trouble discovering the particulars of the Noodle Incident, [ref here] and every mention of the incident brings forth vehement denials of involvement from Calvin." What do you think? alanyst ^/talk/ 01:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! I'm going to put it in the article now. Anomie⚔ 01:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As the person who tagged that section, I thank you both for doing an extraordinary job rewriting that section. I wish more editors could respond as promptly and effectively as you have. ALTON .ıl 08:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Reformed Egyptian

See Talk:Reformed Egyptian#POV tag added. Noleander (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the POV tag inadvertently. More work needs to be done. Nothing to do with Snocrates edits. See above reference. Noleander (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wild Center discussion

You are right, I am new. Here is the issue with the Wild Center. It changed its official name in 2006 to The Wild Center just before it opened. The old name is still retained as a sub name to avoid confusion. It's pretty clear the name is official when you look at things like the web site wildcenter.org, and its brochure, and all the different parts of its website.

I have pasted this from the About Us section of their website:

The Wild Center is a not-for-profit organization overseen by the Museum's Board of Trustees with the assistance of its Advisory Board. The Museum is located on a 31-acre site in the Town of Tupper Lake, NY near the geographic center of the Adirondack Park. The Adirondacks are unique in the world. Surrounded by people, they house great expanses of nature interspersed with small towns and communities. They can be a model for a future where man and the rest of the natural world find better ways to coexist.

This new Museum, dedicated to understanding this rare place, is committed to helping people explore not a small collection, but one that lives and breathes across the entire expanse of the Adirondacks.

The Wild Center is science-based, and its experiences, exhibits and programs are designed to open new ways to look into the latest discoveries made by natural scientists.

The Museum was once called The Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks, but that was before it was opened. It is now called The Wild Center, if you look it up in I Love New York, or in any news articles it is also called The Wild Center.

Wikipedia should be up to date on this, and not using the old name, which is confusing for someone looking for The Wild Center.

Thank you for our civility in this, and sorry I haven't figured out how to communicate, my first foray into the wiki world made me a little gun shy.

888fortune —Preceding unsigned comment added by 888fortune (talk • contribs) 21:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Here is the issue with the Wild Center. It changed its official name in 2006 to The Wild Center just before it opened". Well then, it seems like someone dropped the ball on informing the New York State Office of the Attorney General concerning this 'official' name change [2]. Apparently the AG's office is confused, as they continue to carry Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks as the official name for this museum. Duke53 | ^Talk 14:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. a search for The Wild Center brings no hits when searching for non-profits in New York State's official database of such organizations. Duke53 | ^Talk 14:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

As I said on the talk page of the Wasatch Front article, thank you very much for your encompassing edit based on my query.

In recognition for this, I have awarded you:

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Awarded for a diligent edit involving the head section of the Wasatch Front article. - Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 19:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

GWH

Perhaps a similar comment to him? His lengthy post directly almost solely to me is, well, disturbing. Bstone (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

a thank you note

		Thanks for participating in my RfA!
		Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Your support and remarks contributed so much to this. If you followed my RfA you know what happened. Most of the editors who posted opposing opinions have never edited with me. Some articles I edit deal with controversial topics and with respect to a very few of these, editors who didn't know much about me had some worries about confrontational editing and civility. Since I support their high standards I can easily (and will gladly) address this. The support and ecouragement to run again soon has been wonderful, thanks again. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"as per"

That's good. I didn't notice because "per" is pretty common. "as per" is somewhat rarer, I think. I think I'm going to take a break from adding these (especially because it takes time to go through the other accounts as comparison. If others find the evidence useful, I'll add maybe a few more. Cool Hand Luke 01:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

thank you

For responding to the editor who keeps on going against consensus on the Phil Ford talk page and does not even respond there. I would also comment on the incident board but I can't edit that as anonymous editor? No matter. Thanks again, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit collisions

How did you get edit times for so many users? Can I get a copy? Cool Hand Luke 09:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the data dump... I thought that hadn't been updated in ages for some reason. Cool Hand Luke 09:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That's amazing work. If you have a delimited file of all of the edit times for the 1000-2000 edit user, I would be interested. In particular, I would like to make correlations for all of them, and check those against the number of collisions. I suspect that the accounts with no collisions will nearly all be in distant time zones, but I'd like to check. Cool Hand Luke 09:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Very nice work. Cool Hand Luke 18:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		I award you this da Vince Barnstar for innovating perhaps the most creative and thorough sockpuppet test ever conducted—entirely free from personal observation biases, and rigorous to unprecedented levels. Cool Hand Luke 14:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• support - I fully support this award. Excellent work. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support, Endorse, Agree, Bravo, Bravissimo Noroton (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your test

Can you run your test for a few other randomly selected pairs of users, to see if there are substantially lower values where there is no suspected sockpuppetry? I'm concerned that showing only MM and SH's results lacks rigor; i.e. there's no "control group". I'm otherwise convinced, personally, but I think this may help address other people's objections. I'd also like to see the top- and bottom-20 views for myself, just for fun. —Random832 19:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe also do it for known sockfarms - as I understand it there have been a few high-profile ones uncovered recently, including one that gained adminship. —Random832 19:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, though I'm running out of spare time to devote to this. I'll see what I can do. How many pairs do you have in mind, and do you want them all from the same 1K-2K pool of editors or from some other subset? Also, I should emphasize that even a high degree of similarity does not (at least in my mind) imply sockpuppetry necessarily. It's just one possible clue that can be reinforced or undermined by other pieces of evidence. The Piperdown result shows that shared interests can influence the similarity rankings quite a bit, so it's not just a matter of looking at rankings and crying "sockpuppet!"

I would like someone other than myself to suggest specific known sockpuppets to compare as a control group, so that I do not bias the selection. I can do random selection of pairs, of course. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If the suggested editors are outside the 1K-2K range set will a completely different vector analysis need to be done, recalculating a vector set that includes the suggested editors? I recommend you ask checkusers like Lar or Alison for a set; they probably know of some non-disclosed sockpuppets to include in the set. GRBerry 20:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be within the 1K-2K range, in case other ranges would have different "baseline" results. There aren't likely to be many known sockfarms where the accounts have 1k-2k edits each in 2007, though, are there? I'd recommend against trying to go for including non-disclosed sockpuppets - they're probably non-disclosed for a reason. —Random832 20:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, but I will need someone to point me to specific accounts to run the comparison on. I will not search for them myself, both to avoid tainting the results and to avoid overspending my already overspent time. As long as the editors are within the 1K-2K range, it should be a matter of minutes for the comparisons to be run after I start them. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Do the counts/data set include deleted contributions? GRBerry 21:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It contains whatever is included in the database dump that I linked to on one of my research pages. Even if it doesn't, I think there's enough data in what is included to give a solid foundation for analysis. But if you really want to know, you could probably find a developer and ask, either directly or by posing the question on the wikitech-l mailing list. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The question was more aimed at seeing which users might be in the data set. I know one admitted sockpuppet that has 900-1K non-deleted 2007 contribs, but enough deleted contribs to put them in the 1K-2K range for 2007. Now I could name the name, but since the master is over 2K contribs we can't use that pair anyway... Very, few known and disclosed or outed puppets have over 1K contribs, much less 1K in a given year. Unless someone comes to volunteer themself as a test case, I doubt we'll see known sockpuppet pairs with both members in that range. It is even more doubtful we'll see the sizable number needed to provide a statistically meaningful sample of known sockpuppets. GRBerry 22:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am informed that you provided copies of your vector analysis code to arbcom and showed it to Cool Hand Luke as well. It might be good to put it into public evidence in some form on the arbcom case. Whether you're comfortable with doing that or not, I am also curious about seeing the code personally, and will not redistribute it myself if you provide it for me to review and comment on, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy to oblige. alanyst ^/talk/ 04:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! In retrospect I should have asked before posting a concern about it, I apologize if that appeared rude. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken, no need to apologize. Please send any questions about the files my way. alanyst ^/talk/ 05:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your honesty about the correction

I appreciate you being forthcoming about detecting your error and making it public. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

re-test

Hmmm. I'm glad you've kept at the data and found the errors. Would you have time to do this analysis on some other "determied" to be sock account pairs? thanks for all the hard work! --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The data sets are large and take a fair amount of time to process. I have kept some of the intermediate files, so if the data for the other editors in question already exists in one of these intermediate files, some of the work is probably already done and it won't take quite as long. The best bet is if the editors have between 500-3500 edits during 2007, and the desired scope is to look only at the 2007 edits. alanyst ^/talk/ 05:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for updating.

1. Could we use Mantanmoreland's 2006 edits as a query for similarity? Or just add them to the data set and requery MM2006, MM2007 and SH against the set? I think nobody will argue that MM2006 and MM2007 are different editors. (Or if they do, we have a whole 'nother problem...)

   I'm working on getting all 2006-2007 edits for all users, and re-running from there. It will take quite some time to process them since it's roughly twice the amount of data. alanyst ^/talk/ 05:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

2. Can you give us a sense of how many terms likely comprise the top 10% of the weight for similarity from SH to MM? And similarly how much weight is coming from the top 20 terms? GRBerry 01:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

   Interesting question. I'll work on that. alanyst ^/talk/ 05:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the new evidence

Thanks for the new evidence section. I think you have a slight error in the paragraph on "rply"; you mention Samiharris twice and Mantanmoreland zero times. I think one of them should be switched. GRBerry 04:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly how I feel. This will not be the last sock puppet case, and we should have actual guidance. Conflicted arbitrator opinions that illuminate the crux of the case are much more useful to the community than unanimous mush. Thanks again for all your work. I really like your new evidence. Cool Hand Luke 06:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. To be honest, I hadn't wholly subscribed to the MM=SH hypothesis until I did that last study. The editing time patterns, the similarity, and the lack of factual support for the mimicry defense all point to sockpuppetry. Re the case, I'm hopeful that Arbcom's approach is to start from the consensus findings and conclusions, but then boldly bring into the open those points on which there is internal disagreement, for a public accounting of each arbitrator's judgment. I also hope my evidence doesn't get lost in the hubbub. We'll see how it goes. alanyst ^/talk/ 07:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking more closely and when more awake; I retract the comment about the error. I missed a MM reference in the middle of the bullet. GRBerry 11:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

BYU Lead

I found some more official sources referring to BYU as the "flagship" or the primary school. They are on byu.edu and the quotes are from Karl G. Maeser, Spencer W. Kimball, Merrill J. Bateman, and Marion G. Romney. JackWilliams (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Smith disambiguation page

Hi, Analyst. The manual of style for disambiguation pages specifies that there should only be one navigable link per entry on dab pages. So, I left the text you added but removed the overlinking. Best wishes. -Gwguffey (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the note. I wasn't aware of that style rule, so it's good to know for the future. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. Thanks for all of your efforts. Happy editing. Gwguffey (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

my RfA - Ta!

Gwen gleans, wending keen by the wikirindle.

Thanks for supporting my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Informal Mediation Requested: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-07 Children of Joseph Smith, Jr.

FYI. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes

I saw your "To learn" section on your user page. How about User boxes? --WikiWes77 (talk) 05:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. To be honest, my user page is horribly out of date and I have little vision for what to do with it, so I've left it to say pretty much the same thing for the last four years or so. I do thank you for pointing me in that direction; perhaps there are some userboxen out there that I could use to spruce up my userpage and give other editors a bit more clue about the odd character they're forced to deal with occasionally. :) alanyst ^/talk/ 05:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

re 74.138.170.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Thanks for the heads up at my talkpage. I have reblocked for 2 weeks - perhaps they will get the message. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Lazarus syndrome

On 5 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lazarus syndrome, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

AN

Please undo your actions in refactoring my comments. Pedro :  Chat  22:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I sympathize with your feelings about the editor, but I strongly believe that calling names is harmful to the encyclopedia, even when the object of the name-calling is a blocked or banned editor. You are at liberty to revert me and I will not repeat my action (because edit warring is also harmful), but I decline to restore your comments to their original state myself. I regret that we cannot see eye-to-eye on this. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

On balance I've reverted my last comment. Let's agree to disagree on this. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  22:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh! I loved your section title! No, of course no resentment. It's just that refactoring of others comments really is onyt done as a last resort and my statments were hardly of the "f'ing c'ing" variety. Please feel free to step all over my toes when needed!! - However "fool" is, on balance, not too bad in comparison to a lot we see on WP (not that it's an excuse) so I did feel rather indingnant at your removal of the words. Pedro :  Chat  22:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No need

I'm sorry but I fail to see why on earth there would be the need to waste a disinterested party's time mediating at Nauvoo Expositor. Normally I would see the logic in having a mediator - I'm a mediator myself. However, this isn't the usual Mormon vs. anti-Mormon situation - this is NPOV vs. POV. The other editor wants to highlight something about an individual merely to diminish the credibility of that person. That user isn't a Mormon, and neither am I. My dispute is about POV, not about defending anything or serving my own agenda. In fact, there appears to be consensus that this user's edit is incorrect. Therefore, why would there be a need to mediate, and what exactly would they do? Either the edit is relevant or it isn't. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Temple garment

Let's see: edit warring, meat puppeting, lying in the SPI report, lying in edit summaries, and NPA violations. I'm not too inclined to be gentle, but I won't raise a fuss if you put a note at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:24.8.64.63_reported_by_User:Kww_.28Result:_.29 and at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wildernessflyfisher indicating your willingness to try to talk sense into them. If others are willing to hold off, I won't push them into action. But these guys must stop editing the article in the meantime.—Kww(talk) 00:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the users have definitely crossed lines they shouldn't have. I'm hopeful that by having some common ground with them I might be able to share a perspective they'd be willing to heed. I do agree that staying away from the article is an absolutely necessary first step. Your patience is appreciated. alanyst ^/talk/ 00:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I need to set the record straight. Kww has accused my of many things, all of which are false. Most upsettingly, however, he has accused me of lying on an SPI report. He does so by referencing these two statements I made: here, and here.

I would like to point out that these two statements do not contradict each other. In the second statement I changed the wording to reflect that the other user is acting independently from me. I felt like this was an important clarification to make in an SPI. I did not deny knowing the other user in any way, shape, or form. The statements do not contradict, and I was not lying. Kww is sensationalizing the issue and making up accusations. I believe that his frenetic mudslinging constitutes harrassment. I am happy to let this go, but if he continues this offensive behavior I think things should be taken up to the next level. Thanks for your time. Wildernessflyfisher (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Help

As you're aware, I have opened an RfC here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Duke53_2. I would appreciate your input so it can be certified. Thank you Hoopsphanatic (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool word

Alanyst, I admire how you defused the edit war and improved content of the C&H article. Knowing now that the article began as your work, I appreciate it even more. I loved the word "sesquipedalian," which I immediately looked up and am trying to memorize. I also looked up a word I thought I understood, "wanker," and was surprised that it has a different meaning in the U.S. than in Britain. It's just as well I didn't know this one because it could have been even more insulting to Prof. Phil. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I must regrettably correct you in one regard: the Calvin and Hobbes article pre-dates my activity here by some amount, although I was heavily involved in it at one point getting it to Featured Article status. (Not sure it would meet the higher standards of the present day though...) Anyhow, I'll wait a day or two to get others' reaction to the re-wording and then hopefully get a version of it into the article that everyone can be comfortable with. And yes, sesquipedalian is one of my favorite self-describing words, and I rarely pass up an opportunity to use it. :-) alanyst ^/talk/ 06:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

think tanks

I know your proposal is well-intentioned and in good fatih. My problem is with the whole seal of approval thing. Who is to determine who gets the seal of approval? This automatically creates a hierarchy at Wikipedia that I consider unnecessary and unjustified. If someone forms a think tank that never gets a seal of approval, all it means is that some editors do not like it. But so what? Wikipedia is premised on the idea that there will always be one editor who dispproves of what another editor thinks, and at least one group of editors that diagrees with what another group belives.

I do not mind the idea of having all cabals come out of hiding. But we will never be able to force this. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Successor

~~You may know much on comic strips and old Star Terk episodes, but your comment on Brigham Young vs. The Community of Christ Church is illogical. You do not know enough of the LDS church to comment sensibly and believeably.70.171.235.197 (talk) 17:01, 8 August 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) 08:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User: Routerone

Every time I think I've 'seen it all' here at WP I get a surprise; just TODAY this guy did a 7RR violation, deleted items from my talk page and deleted a legitimate 3RR report and he gets a block of about 4 hours ! His history is as shaky as anyone here, but he keeps getting handled with kid gloves; always an excuse, either by him or admins (mistake, etc.) ... why is he above the rules ? I guess that the 'block' will really teach him. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

... for your comments on my talkpage the other day. Having support from at least one person was much appreciated, and it was kind of you to post it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Behind this door, there's a barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For bringing a spot of humour to the Arbitration-requests process[3], I award you this barnstar of good humour. Thanks for the chuckle :). AGK [•] 23:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) alanyst ^/talk/ 00:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Full Support --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Me, too. Thanks for the laugh. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem opened

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @145  ·  02:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply on Bushman

You have (effectively) reverted BFizz once and me twice, against the clear evidence cited by me and BFizz on the talk page from the sources. Page 47 and page 52 of Bushman both refer to Joseph working for Stowell doing farm labor; they have been directly quoted for you. Your denial of the plain language cited and your willingness to edit war to keep out cited facts that you don't like are very good reasons for you to step away from the article for a couple of weeks to reacquaint yourself with NPOV. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Bushman's language is unclear. If he is suggesting that Smith worked for Stowell as a farm laborer, he provides no evidence. (The citation refers only to the court trial.) Perhaps Bushman is only suggesting that Smith worked on his own family's farm. Is there any evidence that Smith was ever hired to do farm labor?--John Foxe (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Duke Apology

I hope my intent is not being taken as baiting. I was not looking for an argument. I was merely anticipating an apology in good faith.

Duke openly accused me on the arbitration page (publicly) of numerous alter egos. I had nothing to do with the arbitration, I didn't even enter a statement. The worst I ever did to him was make a trite comment back in October (A short entry in which I wrote simply, "Look, a shiny thing."). Once a neutral editor pointed out the inappropriateness of the comment I immediately apologized in full sincerity and withdrew from the discussion page for a number of months. I have had nothing to do with his comments since. And so I was caught off guard when he singled me out most critically in such an offensive way. I believe the term is a sucker punch.

I am not sure what channel I need to go through to defend my wiki integrity, but I thought his talk page was the least confrontational place for it.

He opened the accusation, I am just trying to protect my user name.

Perhaps you could advocate for me as a neutral body.

I will gladly leave him alone in his comments. All I ask for is a retraction on his talk page of the alter ego accusation, as well as a correction or edit on the arbitration page. I've been working really hard to build credibility since my first foray into the world of WP about a year ago.

Thanks in advance,

199.60.41.44 (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Arbitration request

Hello Alanyst. This is just a friendly note to let you know you that I have closed the arbitration request regarding Duke53 (talk · contribs) that you, as filing party, have withdrawn. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

using warning templates

Hi Alanyst, when reverting vandalism like this, please place a warning template on the IP's talk page. As an admin, I can sleep better at night if I've blocked a user who has received four levels of warnings and continues to be disruptive. You can read more about the rationale of this on the following policy page: WP:BLOCK#Education_and_warnings. Thanks, tedder (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay. alanyst 18:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for self-reverting here. When I reviewed the article earlier for an AN3 report, I did not see your recent edits as part of the problem, but anything that reduces the back-and-forth reverting is welcome. Joseph Smith, Jr. is currently on 589 watchlists, but only a handful of people actually edit. Do you have any clever ideas for how to get this article into a more normal editing mode? - 2/0 (cont.) 00:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Analyst

A perfect proposal at JSJ. Sorry if I was often TLDNR. And sorry if I got a little aggressive. I like to think I would be just as aggressive defending the beliefs of another group or religion when they are faced with cynicism or discourtesy. To your credit, you have been both sensitive, open-minded, and fair.

--Canadiandy talk 05:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I've also been rather a scold lately, and I'm feeling a bit self-conscious about that. I am not as good about sincerely praising people for the good they do. Thanks for the good example in that regard. alanyst 06:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If you scolded me, I didn't catch it (but then I miss a lot of things). Just to let you know, I'm stepping away from the article for now. I have heard us LDS accused of having a thin skin here, but I think that is actually another unfair stereotype. I do admit that I have felt quite incensed over some of the unfair character attacks against our Prophet, (liar, swindler, adulterer, con-man, traitor...). On the other hand I have also seen a great many on here who are not LDS, like yourself, who understand that this article should not be controlled by apologists nor polemics.

As I tune in to John Foxe's last argument, I notice he is still not willing to allow it to be written that the Smith family were practicing (only professing) Christianity. His only argument is that there are no records of them on any church records. But given the unstable religious conditions, the transient nature of many of the religious leaders of the time (more of a tent revivalist climate) and the fact there might have been internal family conflict if one or more had aligned with one sect of the local faith communities, I would tend to assume good faith that the family records are accurate as to their Christian orientation. If there is evidence that the Smith's denied or opposed Christianity I have not seen it even from the most severe cynics. And still Foxe is pushing the 'fully practiced folk magic but only professed Christianity' mantra, and I can only wonder why he does, because I am supposed to assume good faith. After all the pointed religious attacks, I simply can not assume good faith any more. And that is why I am withdrawing. I will not be dragged into unethically trying to fight this article into balance. And I refuse to be the only one standing up against what is best defined as blatant bigotry. Thanks for taking the higher ground and trying to be a peacekeeper. See you in the real world some day, I'll be the guy in the blue t-shirt with a Canadian accent.--Canadiandy talk 05:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		This may seem strange, because I have not really interacted with you at all. But I have been on the fringes, watching the Mormon controversy, where I am increasingly impressed with your patience and level head. The amount of clue and diplomacy you have displayed is simply phenomenal. Because of that, I hope you will accept this barnstar as a recognition of your role keeping the peace here on Wikipedia. PrincessofLlyr royal court 16:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I share the sentiment you expressed on John Foxe's talk page and think you phrased it very well. Best wishes, alanyst 16:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Request

I would appreciate your input here if you have a few minutes. -- Adjwilley (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I was actually hoping that the status quo would change over the next week (that instead of gridlock, we would get a large number of productive edits from a neutral POV, and possibly a slight expansion of the article). Based on your feedback, though, my current inclination is to not make the post. -- Adjwilley (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :)

In reviewing some old arbcom cases, I came across this. I haven't laughed so hard in weeks. Thanks for the levity. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Alanyst. You have new messages at DeltaQuad's talk page.
Message added 03:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Again, commenting this time though that I would like you to comment as an interested party. -- DQ (t) (e) 03:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I know you just got one of these, but I wanted to compliment you on your ability to keep a cool head when things get heated. You have been a good example to me, and many others I'm sure. Thank you for your civility and diplomacy. -- Adjwilley (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I request an explanation for how my comments on the Calvin & Hobbes TALK PAGE constitute a personal attack worth deleting? You may disagree with me (or how I chose to phrase things), but that, in of itself, shouldn't be cause for deletion -- it should be cause for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.190.216.2 (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Humor and Wikipedia

I am rather intrigued by your comment [4] at WP:RFAR. In what way does the presence of humor on Wikipedia create a systemic bias against straight men? Nsk92 (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Because straight men don't get to tell the jokes. (Sorry!) alanyst 00:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Scotty Berg

Ok first of all ill explain my view. I think that for the arbs to turn down removing the block of a editor in good standing they would have to have very good evidence so therefore i think the likelihood of them being wrong is low. Im under the impression there was some arb involvement with the initial block however i may be wrong. However I'm still of the same opinion Scotty has appealed and said he is innocent they have now turned it down and advised that an appeal is unlikely to be successful unless he admits guilt. He isn't doing that he is maintaining he is innocent so any appeal to the arbs will fail one because they are certain the first time and two because he insists he is not guilty. Therefore he has no options in situations like this there has to be a route of appeal that dosent include the arbs and that can only be the WMF they may well be of the same opinion but that is a separate line of appeal just like a court of appeal is in law they don't go back to the original judge. Now in regards to silvers comment if they are keeping data off wiki then thats a clear breach of trust. My opinion is there needs to be a dissuasion into what roles the arbs take in a situation like this they can't be all conquering.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I have checked with AGk and confirmed they were consulted on the original block. I asked about an appeal to the WMF and its unprecicdented but he could try.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope it's okay to chime in here. Per the Foundation's legal advice, it's perfectly acceptable to retain checkuser data on abusive users. In order to evaluate an appeal fully, ArbCom must consult such retained data; that is a primary reason why it is ever retained. Whether the data in this case was retained by an individual checkuser who dealt with Mantanmoreland socks, was retained by an ex-arbitrator who retains CU access, was retained by an active arbitrator, or was logged on the checkuser wiki for future reference is not, I don't think, an important issue. The fact is that ArbCom is the main body of oversight of CU and OS operations, and although we have a great team of community checkusers, sometimes we have to deal with this stuff ourselves. AGK [•] 22:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course you can reply. To me it depends where it was retained if it was off wiki on an arbs computer then that not right if its retained within wiki in a secure source then thats no problem as i see that as being valid.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Work available if you're interested

I see you posted extensive statistics in the Mantamoreland ArbCom case some years ago. I wonder if you could do the same for the dispute surrounding BarkingMoon / Rlevse. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Interchange neologism template

Please see my talk page for my reply. Mapsax (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Tool that compares edit histories

Alanyst, I seem to remember you as having written a tool at one point that compared things like edit patterns/edit summaries for different users, in an effort to identify potential sock-puppets. If this is correct, I was wondering if this tool is available somewhere, and/or if you'd be interested in further developing the tool. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Alas, the code is long gone. It was really just a motley collection of Perl scripts and bash commands that I used ad hoc to do comparisons. The overall approach I took is documented at User:Alanyst/Vector space research, though the server and the artifacts it hosted that are mentioned therein are no longer online. The vector space approach is perhaps a bit dated now; it's a fairly elementary algorithm that apparently has been superseded by more effective ones. (On that page there is a useful comment by User:High on a tree that offers avenues into the newer research.) You might also check out User:Alanyst/Edit collision research, which used a completely different metric for assessing the likelihood of sockpuppetry. No code available for that either, but you might ping User:Cool Hand Luke, who developed a pretty elaborate toolset to analyze edit timestamps based on this approach. alanyst 18:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I asked because I recently had an idea (explained at length here) that I thought might need a similar type of code. Would you mind terribly reading over what I wrote to give me an idea of how feasible something like that might be? ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yasin al-Qadi

Thanks for taking a look at that article. It has been on my watchlist and I have shuddered with dread at how quickly it has grown but not had the stomach to actually go and check it out again after working with the editor and thinking we had come together about the requirements for content. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's gotten totally out of control, and I actually have a bit of free time to tackle it. Feel free to chip in to whatever extent you like, and thanks for the kind words. alanyst 22:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Alanyst. You have new messages at Jburlinson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Alanyst. You have new messages at Jburlinson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I will be updating the Patrick M. Byrne article and would like your support

His article seems famous on Wikipedia and a high point of controversy, I would like your support, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhalluka (talk • contribs) 09:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

TFA instructions

Following our earlier conversation, I've had a go at rewriting MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-TFA (this is what it used to look like). I'd be interested to know if you think it's clearer now, or what else could be improved. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 15:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your initiative on this, and this is definitely clearer. I think it could be even clearer, as below:

• What I've done is reordered the bullet points to make corrections and improvements the top item, followed by comments to the article and FA process, and put general info about the FA administrative process last. The aim is to prioritize the actionable items, and is not intended to slight those who administer the FA process. :)
• I also added emphasis to the action parts of the bullet points to make it easier for someone like myself to locate the applicable bullet point.
• Finally, I changed the order of the "general comments" bullet point so the (IMO) more common scenario of commenting on the article is mentioned first, followed by comments on the FA process itself.
• What do you think? alanyst 15:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Excellent, and I've changed MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-TFA accordingly (crediting you in the edit summary, naturally). Many thanks for your help. Bencherlite^Talk 15:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you

Thank you for what you've done for me this past week, and thank you for your example to me in the past. I've always looked up to you, and I'm pretty sure I always will. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops and thanks

I inadvertently restored a whole bunch of archived material on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Thanks for fixing it again! Barnabypage (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Those things happen. alanyst 15:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

One note

Analyst,

I hope you saw my note, and apology in response to you. I noticed a change that was made (not sure it's still there) where you did try to resolve the protests estimate problem. The note added read in part, "A few sources reported numbers in the hundreds of thousands" with the oranges article as a ref, followed by the protesters number and AP/CNN/RT/Yahoo/Al Jazeera's wording. I'd like to attempt one last try at explaining the issue here, though I'm not concerned with "winning", just clearing my head.

The "sources" seem to be equal in terms of weight, going by the wording. I would never assume from the wording that you're speaking of literally two articles on the low end: one from a small town outlet that diverged from every single other bit of coverage, and wasn't "reporting numbers". I think you said this yourself. It must be noted that their outlying number matches the given projected estimate to a T, which after these considerations, does not constitute a properly used source. The second "source reporting numbers" was instead a source for nothing other than GMOranges, and at most could be summarized as "in a passing mention of the march, the NYT said ___". Again, I can't see why this deserves inclusion. When making a statement that is fringe, with a dearth of higher quality sources using a different number/wording, the requirement for this source is much higher. By no means can we elevate this blurb to support the idea some other estimate was ever made. In fact, at the MAM article, I have stayed so safe in my sourcing and wording (because of the contentious environment) that I have not used one article that was not entirely or directly about the protest.

So to turn these two sources that have little place in the article to begin with into the idea that we have a range being reported in RS is to me a gross violation of some basic tenants. We are allowing cherry picked, weak sources to say something they don't, whether individually or together. If either one had given us the source for their number, that would be an entirely different story. That would fall under "reporting numbers".

In this wording, we are not indicating the difference in quality and number of sources referenced either, we are indicating that they are indeed equal.

When good, high quality media cover the protest (I'm talking about more than a wee blurb), they absolutely never have mentioned anything about another number, or range, or questioning of the organizers. I am not claiming the organizers were right, nor do I suggest wikipedia does, but it is far beyond the scope of wiki editors to try to prove they were wrong if it is not found in RS - and it is not.

Al Jazeera covered the recent march, and in their mention of the first one, used the same wording all other good RS has, and (for this reason) the wording I have been suggesting for 3 months. I am still scratching over why we are supporting what amounts to OR instead of simply saying what RS says. petrarchan47tc 20:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Petrarchan47, I did see your response on your talk page and appreciated it; I accept your apology and offer my own for assuming you were referring to me in the remarks I complained about. I'm happy to continue the discussion regarding the sources here, as you say not in the interest of winning any argument but in discovering where we agree and where our perspectives diverge.

It seems that these are the critical questions at issue:

1. Which reputable sources actually gave a figure for attendance/participation in the MAM?
2. Of those, which gave it in their own voice and which attributed it to another source? (Put another way, who are the originators of those figures as far as we can tell?)
3. Of the (apparently) independent originators of the different figures, which are reliable?

My answers to these questions are:

1. Aside from the CVT source which was ambiguous, all other sources I reviewed were clearly talking about attendance at the MAM and gave a quantified estimate for it. All sources I reviewed, including CVT, were published by organizations with sufficient reputation for newsgathering and fact-checking that they could not be excluded from consideration on that basis.
2. The NYT "Oranges" article and the Miami New Times article gave figures in their own voice; the rest attributed the two million figure to the march organizers (except in headlines in some cases, which I did not regard as authoritative). Thus without speculating further into the actual internal processes used by the news sites to produce the figures, we have three independent originators of an estimate for the attendance: the NYT, the MNT, and the protest organizers.
3. The march organizers have an interest in showing that their cause is popular; thus on their own they cannot provide an authoritative estimate to be used in Wikipedia's voice. This leaves us with the NYT and the MNT as the two presumably independent originators of any estimates. At this point I felt to go further in questioning the figures of those two sources would be to intrude on the presumption of reliability that the NYT and MNT should be given.

If we allow ourselves to cross the line into educated guessing about how our sources came up with the figures, then we should do it consistently for all originators of the number. If one suspects that the NYT reporters skipped the fact-checking for that part of their article and simply obtained their "hundreds of thousands" from an earlier version of the Wikipedia article, then one must equally suspect the MNT of having obtained their figure from the march organizers and failing to attribute it to them as the rest of the sources did. Moreover, to be utterly fair, one must also question how the organizers came up with their figure of two million, especially in light of the reasonable argument that the per-location figures seem too small to make the overall figure plausible.

Thus crossing that line leads us into a situation where no figure ought to be cited because none can be believed according to our educated guesses. But providing no figure would be less informative to a reader than providing both figures with citations to the NYT and MNT, along with a concise note explaining why a more solid and singular figure cannot be provided. And that is why I came to advocate that outcome.

I understand your objection is primarily based on weight: that the NYT figure was given in passing, deep down in an article on a related subject but not focused on the march itself; and that the organizers' figure was widely reported on and (for the most part) attributed to them. From this perspective it seems that the two should not be given equal weight; but where the question is not the notability of the figures but the reliability of the sources providing them, the reputation of the NYT gives it weight that only the MNT, and not the organizers' claims nor the uncritical repetition of them by the other sources, can match.

An analogous scenario is a corporation putting out a press release that they gained 50 million new customers in the past quarter, and that figure being widely reported and (mostly) attributed to that company; whilst the NYT mentions deep within a lengthy article that the corporation gained "a few million" new customers in that quarter; and from the few per-city counts of new customers that the company provided, the 50M figure seems unlikely to those who are willing to engage in original research. Did the company exaggerate their claims as a marketing ploy? Did the NYT make a mistake? Who can say without violating OR in either direction? Is it not best to cite both numbers and let the reader decide, until/unless some new source weighs in?

I hope this makes my reasoning clearer, but if you think I've failed to address part of your argument then please feel free to point it out. alanyst 22:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

In all my time here at Wikipedia I've applied the rules, and observed them applied, in the way I am arguing they be at MAM. I have never tried to use, nor have I seen any other editor get away with using, references in the way they are being used at MAM. I cannot make sense of the completely novel editing practices I encounter at the MAM page, and observe at other Monsanto and GMO related pages. (The trouble over saying exactly what RS says regarding the protest turnout is only one example.) The amount of time spent arguing with an endless group of rotating editors, some who are socks, some who appear to 'wake up' every so often just to revert me or to iVote, and some who are just literally the meanest people I've come across on Wikipedia... it just makes no sense to me. In no other article would quoting Al Jazeera, CNN, Yahoo, et al be insufficient for the encyclopedia. I, and other editors on pages besides Monsanto's, defer to the professional journalists and respected media outlets to determine coverage here.

It might make perfectly logical sense to us that by no means can we trust some silly protesters and their numbers. Maybe the large media outlets thought the same thing, but - here's the important part, imo - the major media outlets that *covered* (not coughed out a mere mention) the protest ALL decided to go with the protester's number. And the way Wiki works, is that we don't override this with our own motivations, OR and SYNTH. However, because these folks show up in droves to noticeboards, and because scientifically speaking, 'troll' comments seemingly have more influence over our beliefs than content, novel editing practices are ensconced. My guess is that the preponderance of voices exclaiming the validity of using this CVS source (posted whilst march was ongoing) and the blurb in the NYT oranges article, can override common sense. Again, the reason I say this is that I have simply never run into this type of behaviour before, it isn't supported by the RS guidelines in any way, it is a violation of OR/ SYNTH, and really should be investigated for the possible teamwork towards some goal that is NOT in the interests of the innocent Wikipedia reader. Please remember, I have not been arguing that we state the protesters' number in Wikipedia's voice. Though the Miami press and others have chosen not to attribute the number to the organizers, I have only argued we say what MOST of the largest media outlets have said in their coverage of the protest. Also, we are quoting an estimate. Therefore, we can immediately throw out any sources that aren't talking estimates, and that includes the CVS and the NYT.

So, like the recent Al Jazeera coverage (there was no US coverage this time around), my conclusion after studying all of the sources on this topic and taking them as a whole, was to say "According to protesters, bla bla". The fact that this has been an impossible process points clearly to a larger issue, one that I have been trying to show Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, I am the only editor to thoroughly research the available literature on this topic. The interest other editors have shown has been manic, dedicated and laser-focused on controlling the message in a way that is very obviously beneficial to Monsanto, but none have researched and helped build the article about the protest itself. We value 'experts' who improve our articles and breathlessly defend their continued editing here, as seen in recent dramaboards. Although I have become, by default, the expert regarding coverage of the protests, we are allowing a team of editors to control the article who are not interested in the subject, but have only focused on maintaining a front-and-center "GMOs are definitely safe" section (beginning here, using completely unrelated sources and more OR/SYNTH, as well as on minimizing the event (the page has been up for deletion twice). You would have had to watch this process in real time as it unfolded over the past three months, or you would have to dedicate a few days for reading the archives to see what I am talking about.

As for the NYT, no. It is not best to cite both numbers when one is an estimate and one is a mention, and doesn't claim to be an estimate. It is a mention in an article that regardless of its parent, does not constitute RS for the statement being made. One can at best say "Once, the NYT mentioned..." - to which any reasonable reader would say "SO?" and wonder what the motivation was behind this addition. The motivation is not to inform, it is to plant a doubt - one that doesn't exist elsewhere in media - about the protesters' estimate. And that is where Wikipedia editors are crossing a line. The CVS source is equally ridiculous to use as a source or to mention at all. Realize the NYT may have lazily found their number by reading Wiki, which quoted a bogus source because no one would listen to me. Another note, although the NYT has been around a long time, it is not the shining beacon of truth and fairness we may believe it to be. The outlet has multiple times been found to be not entirely independent, but indeed a mouthpiece for the US government, much like state TV. It's not all bad, but it's not all good.

Aside from all this cerebral BS, happy Saturday to you! petrarchan47tc 21:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Last note. On the NYT.

• Such a severe outlier should be thrown out on those grounds alone. To see in a glance what an outlier this claim of "hundreds of thousands" is as it appears in RS, look at the references section in this early version of the MAM article (also compare it to the heavily spin-doctored version we have today). The coverage was scarce, so this is essentially a list of all of the coverage that exists. The titles alone say a lot.
• The article doesn't cite a source

Also, here is a piece from a local news source covering the recent march. It quotes the protesters and leaves it at that. From what I have observed, this is common practice. (On a side note, the numbers really aren't that hard to believe. Look at Africa alone: link. petrarchan47tc 23:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

And, even the note left (by you?) explaining no other estimates were made was removed per a 'trend on the talk page'. petrarchan47tc 14:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

re: Curations

It does sound like a good plan, and something needed for years to back talk-page issues which need extensive summary of sources to clarify the topic. So, I am thinking a page would be tagged as {curation}, similar to {essay}, or could also be a subpage of a talk-page, such as for a crime article where a new witness was noted and people could read a curation about related sources and aspects of the witness activities related to the crime article. I worry that people might create "too many" curation pages, so perhaps include some restrictions to note a "curation is NOT a blog" so as to avoid too many forum-style speculations or unbounded "opinion pieces" being written. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like an interesting idea, and I think it fills a void that the watchlist and sandbox don't. On my reading, I'll admit that I didn't really understand what the idea was until about halfway through (when I got to the applications/user stories section). The understanding that I had at the end of the first reading was that it would be kind of a private sandbox that could be used as a watchlist. If that's accurate, perhaps it might be helpful to say something like that upfront.

If I were editing the proposal I'd delete the last sentence from the 2nd paragraph (side note about deleted content being restricted) since it kind of distracts from the main topic IMO.

By the way, there are some toolserver tools that can be used as specialized watchlists. They work by creating a watchlist for all pages that have a given template transcluded on them. For instance, [5] shows the last 500 recent changes to all articles falling under WikiProject History. These are handy, but aren't the best solution because whenever the user's toolserver account expires you get a big 403 message. Also, I remember hearing rumors about some sort of new enhanced something or other that's supposed to replace the watchlist. (They're also supposedly working on new software for talk pages to make it more like a traditional forum.) I don't remember the source of the rumors, but it might be worth checking out, just to know what else is happening in the future.

Overall I think it's a good idea, and is worth a shot. (I don't know what kind of response you'll get...trying to get people to read an entire post before forming a snap opinion and voting can be tough sometimes...at least I have trouble with it, as you've probably seen ;-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Mises

See my edit summary here. Please revert your hatting. - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it was a misstep to hat the thread without a determination. True, the thread started off poorly because the issues were not well defined and other discussions, elsewhere, complicated it. But it did BOOMERANG when one editor said what many others had been thinking. "Enough is enough." We saw the WP:SNOW-storm and Admin TP had a solution which should have worked. MM would have been free to edit on other topics (and thereby incur more animosity). But it was also a misstep for TP to reopen the thread, as is obvious with the benefit of hindsight. As we have a (pending) [WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#ANI: BLP violation at Ludwig von Mises Institute], I think the better course of action is to get an admin closure, with a definite "no action" or sanctions determination or whatever. (I had started off this comment as a request to unhat the thread, but I see Arzel has already done so. I agree that the thread is off the rails, but we really need a more definite and authoritative closing.) Still, I do thank you for helping out. Truly. – S. Rich (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, even the hatting and unhatting is controversial. I'll restart my request (which is the second request, per the above). You now have three editors who want an admin determination. Please un-hat the discussion. The thread really, really, really needs an admin closure. – S. Rich (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

[After edit conflicts, consolidating sections and formatting.] I understand where you guys are coming from. My sincere feeling is that the section was simply attracting more unconstructive bickering and that actual resolution of people's concerns would have to happen in a more formal venue. That I don't have the admin bit is IMO fairly irrelevant; I've been involved with WP long enough that I can tell when a discussion is off the rails. BUT, that said, I wouldn't have the least objection if an uninvolved admin (TParis or anyone else) were to decide that my action was premature and to undo it. alanyst 17:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That is not the way NACs work: you are not supposed to close controversial discussions. It is unfortunate that there is a lot of heat being generated by what seems to be more or less a filibuster attempt (some people are quick to seek a close when it suits them, eager to ramble on when it does not) but this is not an issue where you should have attempted a closure. It is ANI: there should be enough admins hanging around there, surely? - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Then by all means please ping an uninvolved admin and see if they will undo my action. I won't object. alanyst 17:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That is not how it works and you know it. I'd run a risk of canvassing. Just revert, please. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the NAC & canvassing comments. I'd love to see the thread closed. You'll see that various off-topic & personal snipes are made at me in the guise of furthering the discussion. It is hard to resist defending myself in the thread, but I rather that it remain open so that we can get a determination. Let the mess be closed by an admin. And to accomplish that you really should unhat the discussion. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not welcome continuation of the interpersonal dispute on my talk page. alanyst 17:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"That is not how it works and you know it." Way to imply that a good-faith user is deliberately stating falsehoods about policy. You're just furthering the (correct) impression Sitush that the thread is characterized by incivility and PAs. Steeletrap (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Yet more pointy deflecting, Steeletrap? If you've got a problem with me then discuss it at ANI. After reading WP:BRD and the stuff about NACs. Alanyst has been here long enough. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I've asked TParis to review my action. alanyst 17:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Et voila! No hard feelings, guys, I hope; none for my part anyway. Thanks, TParis. alanyst 18:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

None at all. I think we all accept that it has become tiresome and unfocussed. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Medical disclaimer

I like template B. If you go with the larger point size for type in template A, you need to reduce the number of words to cut down the size of the footprint. Template C goes too far in this direction, however. My 2 cents... Carrite (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)