|
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Stéphane Sansoni move request
Hi, Ed. You closed a move request at Talk:Stéphane Sansoni. In your closing statement, you say: "It is widely known that certain tennis bodies routinely strip diacritics, as pointed out by User:Bobrayner." But you seem to use it as evidence against removing the diacritic. If reliable English sources such as these "certain tennis bodies" remove them, then so should we? Isn't that the basic advice of WP:AT, which overrides WP:FRMOS? Powers T 01:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Some English-language newspapers and some sports organizations never print accents. It is unwise to accept a tennis organization as a reliable source for *spelling* of a player's name if we know they censor the accents. We need to find out how third party sources (that do allow accents) refer to the player in English text in actual practice. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- But that's assuming your conclusion. You're assuming that accents are appropriate if you only look at sources that include them. Powers T 17:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- If you believe that official tennis organizations are a reliable source, you could post at WP:RSN and see what they think. An organization that systematically removes accents as a matter of policy is probably not a good one to ask whether the player normally has accents in their name. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see any way an official tennis organization would not be considered a reliable source. I mean come on -- if not them, then who? And again, you're assuming the conclusion: you're assuming that an org that doesn't use diacritics must be wrong, therefore unreliable. This is the exact same circular reasoning used in the discussion, and it's still flawed. Powers T 11:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Feel free to ask this question at WP:RS/N. EdJohnston (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have done so, since you insist. Powers T 20:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Feel free to ask this question at WP:RS/N. EdJohnston (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see any way an official tennis organization would not be considered a reliable source. I mean come on -- if not them, then who? And again, you're assuming the conclusion: you're assuming that an org that doesn't use diacritics must be wrong, therefore unreliable. This is the exact same circular reasoning used in the discussion, and it's still flawed. Powers T 11:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- If you believe that official tennis organizations are a reliable source, you could post at WP:RSN and see what they think. An organization that systematically removes accents as a matter of policy is probably not a good one to ask whether the player normally has accents in their name. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- But that's assuming your conclusion. You're assuming that accents are appropriate if you only look at sources that include them. Powers T 17:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
ANI notice re Mhazard9
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. I have filed a block evasion complaint against Mhazard9, who you blocked yesterday on a 3RR complaint. You may wish to comment. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Fan user
Hi, over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariah Carey's fourteenth studio album, there is a user called User talk:Hashtag beautiful who is just an obsessed fan who is trying to say that an article he has created, a recreation under a different name, should stay over the original, and is being personal toward me, saying that I have an "agenda" against Mariah and that for that reason my vote doesn't count. To the contrary, I love Mariah and have edited several of her articles. But I can see that what he is doing is wrong. I have explained further on the AfD. Can you do/say something to this user please. — AARON • TALK 21:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I suggest letting the AfD run for at least 24 hours and then ask at WP:ANI for a speedy close. You left a message for User:AuburnPilot who did the last protection and he may have an idea of what to do. The article doesn't appear to qualify for WP:CSD#G6 speedy deletion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
YourHumanRights
YourHumanRights (talk · contribs) was recently topic-banned from everything related to abortion, at WP:AE ([1]). He's already been blocked once for violating his topic ban ([2]). Since that block has expired, he's immediately resumed violating his topic ban at Talk:Preterm birth ([3]). He's obviously got no intention of respecting his topic ban, and rather than go through another filing in triplicate at WP:AE I thought I'd notify you to ask whether you'd be willing to enforce the sanction for this unambiguous repeat violation. MastCell Talk 03:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks much for the quick response. MastCell Talk 05:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Decision at AN3
Hi. I am seeking clarification regarding your decision at AN3 here [4]. Based on the diffs provided, it should not be unclear what is going on in this situation. The user who filed this AN3 report was acting in response to his original block. If admins are not going to hold editors accountable for making spurious reports complete with misleading information, then they will continue to abuse Wikipedia processes and other editors. Thanks. Taroaldo ✉ 01:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- We are used to a high percentage of spurious reports. People misunderstand the rules all the time. It is likely that the complaining editor is going to be in trouble soon, but an unclear report is not the best place to be taking action. It was noteworthy that there was little or no talk page discussion about the disputed points. Surely this is something you would have time to do. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Communication is challenging in this case: I got a snarky response from him [5] to a talk page comment in which I was supporting an edit he made. When editors disagree with him, things like this Wikiproject talk thread happen. But your points are well taken. Thank you for the quick reply. Regards Taroaldo ✉ 02:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Sông Công RM
RMs are supposed to be closed based on discussion and guidelines rather then the agenda you had when you came in. The RfC you linked to was closed as "no consensus". The "mass moves" argument is just a lot of hand waving. Most diacritic titles on Wiki are where they are because at some point someone "mass moved" them there. Nobody has even put forward an argument in favor of putting Sa Dec at Sa Đéc town. This was part of a set of bad faith "mass moves" that were made back in September.[6] Kauffner (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- The 'brand new editor' User:TenMuses was reponsible for the mass moves, so there was an argument for undoing them as a straight admin action. Regarding the merits of diacritics (or not), there seems to be a recent trend among move discussions, and not just for Vietnam. It takes time to find and link to all of them, but if you think I missed some recent ones that went the other way, let me know. Those within the last twelve months are most relevant. If you think there is a case to be made for Sa Dec, why don't you open a new RM just for that. EdJohnston (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- You have could taken "a straight admin action," but you didn't. The voting on this issue has always been very close, so I am not seeing any "consensus". Britannica and National Geographic use diacritics for many languages, but make an exception for Vietnamese. The English-language Vietnamese media once used these marks, but no longer does so. Kauffner (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't recommend any more unilateral mass changes to add or remove accents. Given the state of the controversy, any mass changes with no usage of RM would be seen as edit warring. User:TenMuses does not seem to have continued their campaign; otherwise a block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't worry about that kind of thing. If my Wiki-stalker is busy with this issue, he's not attacking my articles. Kauffner (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't recommend any more unilateral mass changes to add or remove accents. Given the state of the controversy, any mass changes with no usage of RM would be seen as edit warring. User:TenMuses does not seem to have continued their campaign; otherwise a block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- You have could taken "a straight admin action," but you didn't. The voting on this issue has always been very close, so I am not seeing any "consensus". Britannica and National Geographic use diacritics for many languages, but make an exception for Vietnamese. The English-language Vietnamese media once used these marks, but no longer does so. Kauffner (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Decision at VPP
Your decision at VPP appears to not have been fully informed[7]. I request that you rescind your decision accordingly. My objection is explained in further detail here:
Your attention to this matter is appreciated. Thanks. --B2C 00:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- We make progress through discussions. My closure was intended to reflect the views expressed in the original thread at WP:VPP. Possibly you just want this reversed. If instead you are open to a revision, it would help if you propose your own wording change for WP:DAB in the thread you have opened. EdJohnston (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
How to best add/not add this news report
Hi Ed, you have in the past blocked me from editing, and I feel you are an impartial person to ask for help. Is there anything wrong with this news article:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Falun-Gong-Derided-as-Authoritarian-Sect-by-2783949.php
I can't seem to add it to the Falun Gong wiki. Please help. If you agree with the other editors this is not relevant or notable to the wiki I will not insist on adding it.
Thanks! Bobby fletcher (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's up to the other editors at Falun Gong as to whether this material belongs. You're proposing to add to our article a statement that Margaret Singer made to a newspaper in the year 2000. In my personal opinion this is a stretch. If you read the Margaret Singer article you'll see that she had some problems convincing her professional colleagues that her judgment on cults was valid. She used to give expert testimony in court cases, but at a certain point the courts stopped being receptive to her theories about cult brainwashing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
RE: La jaula de oro
Close it, this shouldn't be treated as a different RM (I can open a new one in some days anyway). The real reason why these targets are like this is that the film page was created in a red link page and the album page was incomplety moved. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- In the meantime, someone else has closed the RM. How often does that happen? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey Ed. The proposed 'Odds of Winning' section has been up on the Talk page for a week and I think was supported by Bilbo. Regarding the changes I made, he said "I'm fine with that" but never gave me explicit permission to move it into article-space. Thought you might have some input on the best way to proceed, as I'm not sure it's quite non-controversial enough for me to make the edit without more direct permission. It's about two-thirds of the way down this string. CorporateM (Talk) 20:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 10:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Oda Mari (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
AfD discussion
Hey man, I noticed that you also supported deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith regarding the use of Nikah Mut'ah after Muhammad. Two other editors have suggested that since there are about a dozen articles on individual Hadith regarding the same topic, we scavenge what we can from them and simply merge everything into one place. The idea sounds like it has some promise and since you showed interest, I would like your feedback on the idea. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Move
FYI your move here was reverted. The edit summary is incorrect, since although this article, like 7-800 other db6 (admins Edgar131 and Graeme Bartlett's count) was indeed moved by placing db6 uncontroversial move templates, there still remain some Vietnamese rulers who have not been moved. The SPI Checkuser has concluded a possible match, but no admin has yet commented on action. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Re: Indian Hindi television hoax information
Message added by Tito☸Dutta 10:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC). You can at any time.
Talkback
Message added 12:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
GedUK 12:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Need your help
Hi! I filed a request at WP:AE. I hope I filed it correctly, but if there's something wrong, please let me know. I'd like to correct it. Or should I ask for an Arbcom clerk to correct? Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
deadmaus/deadmau5
I would like to ask you to please reconsider your decision to close the Deadmaus/Deadmau5 case. Ke$ha and Se7en can be validly renamed Kesha and Seven because they also go by those names. People use the name Kesha, and people use the name Seven to refer to the film. They weren't exclusively Ke$ha or Se7en. The reality is that Deadmaus is not a word. It was invented by wikipedians and this is a great example for why wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable source - because wikipedians can create and publish total nonsense. Deadmaus is not a word. I understand the argument against Deadmau5, but Deadmaus is absolutely NOT a viable alternative. This is quite frankly embarrassing to wikipedia. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- From the discussion, it seems people could not agree whether '5' was part of the spelling of the artist's name or was an 'unpronounced decorative character.' Note that my closure at Wikipedia:MRV#Deadmaus (closed) linked to an RfC which is trying to change the MOS in this area. An effort to change the MOS would focus people's energies better than a continued struggle over 'Deadmau5'. My personal opinion would be to keep the '5', but it is hard to construct a stable policy rationale for that. There is an article called Kuro5hin (pronounced 'corrosion') which has been there since 2005! It has miraculously escaped any criticism of the title. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think using WP:COMMONSENSE should go without saying, and if you need a policy, WP:IGNOREALLRULES. I am trying make wikipedia as high quality of a source as possible, and this guideline is hindering that. That's what WP:IAR was designed for. Note that at the top of WP:MOSTM it says:
- This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Some people would see the advice to ignore all rules as saying 'Ignore MOS:TM whenever it is convenient to do so.' How should discussion closers proceed when they see this kind of argument? 'Vote for my side even though it's against the guideline, because I personally think IAR applies?' If you want Deadmau5 to become legal, you will probably have to let in Ke$ha and a bunch of other stuff. That's fair, if consensus can be found to change the rules. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- But Kesha is actually a more popular name than Ke$ha. Deadmaus is not a name at all. I agree that Deadmau5 is not an ideal title, but Deadmaus is wiki-created nonsense and it's an utter embarrassment to wikipedia! MidnightRequestLine (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- In fact, as an admin, may I suggest that you temporarily change the article's title to "Joel Zimmerman" for the time being? Once we come to a consensus on the Deadmaus/Deadmau5 dispute, then it could be changed back, but Joel Zimmerman is accurate and uncontroversial in my opinion. It certainly isn't his WP:COMMONNAME, but then again neither is Deadmaus. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I support the above. Ed, see my message at BDD's talk page. It's shows some problems with comparing it to the Ke$ha move requests. Insulam Simia (talk/contribs) 20:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please don't continue the discussion here unless you see a flaw in my WP:MRV closure. I have no authority to move the article any more, since the MRV has closed. Under our rules User:BDD has more discretion and you can address reasonable questions to him. Still, if you just want to refight the original debate it may not be very helpful. The RfC is one avenue you might consider. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I understand. Can I start another proposal on the Deadmaus talk page to move the page? Are you basically saying that if there are no "flaws" in the move review, then this name is final? And we can't propose another move on the talk page? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- If you try to start another move request it may be summarily closed, like RM #2. You are better off participating in the RfC, or offering some brand-new option to BDD. The point of the RM and MRV process is to give some finality to disputes that would otherwise be endless. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I understand. Can I start another proposal on the Deadmaus talk page to move the page? Are you basically saying that if there are no "flaws" in the move review, then this name is final? And we can't propose another move on the talk page? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please don't continue the discussion here unless you see a flaw in my WP:MRV closure. I have no authority to move the article any more, since the MRV has closed. Under our rules User:BDD has more discretion and you can address reasonable questions to him. Still, if you just want to refight the original debate it may not be very helpful. The RfC is one avenue you might consider. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- I support the above. Ed, see my message at BDD's talk page. It's shows some problems with comparing it to the Ke$ha move requests. Insulam Simia (talk/contribs) 20:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Some people would see the advice to ignore all rules as saying 'Ignore MOS:TM whenever it is convenient to do so.' How should discussion closers proceed when they see this kind of argument? 'Vote for my side even though it's against the guideline, because I personally think IAR applies?' If you want Deadmau5 to become legal, you will probably have to let in Ke$ha and a bunch of other stuff. That's fair, if consensus can be found to change the rules. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- There would be nothing wrong with a Joel Zimmerman RM. While multiple RMs in short succession with the same target will generally be reviewed as disruptive/WP:IDHT, there's nothing wrong with discussing an alternative. I can think of a few pages offhand where things like that have happened recently. Any editor closing such a discussion would be pretty clearly wrong, and I won't hesitate to tell that to him or her. If you're hell-bent on getting rid of Deadmaus, this is probably your best option, followed by the RfC to modify MOS:TM. --BDD (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the support BDD. Yes, getting rid of Deadmaus is on the top of my list. As I said, I agree that Deadmau5 is not an ideal name, but Deadmaus is not a viable option. Wikipedians should report events, not manufacture them. That's all there is to it. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry BDD, I must say I disagree with your note above "there's nothing wrong with discussing an alternative". As you can see, the new RM is quickly becoming an RM to move back to Deadmau5 - as with all RMs, any new names can be proposed, and in this case, it would be silly to !vote for Zimmerman when one could vote for Deadmau5. Thus, it effectively becomes a 3rd RM on the same subject. I wish you would not have encouraged this, and I hope you'll reconsider and shut that discussion down early.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't intend for it to become an RM about Deadmau5. I wanted to discuss Joel Zimmerman. Maybe a better option would be to make it clear to the other editors, as an admin, that Joel Zimmerman is the only other alternative besides the current title of course. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- I realize that, but it doesn't matter. It's impossible to constrain an RM discussion, at least, I haven't seen it done, and it's rather silly, and the participants would revolt anyway. So you either let it run (which IMHO is disruptive), or you kill it early, gather your forces, and come back in a few months. Life will go on either way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't intend for it to become an RM about Deadmau5. I wanted to discuss Joel Zimmerman. Maybe a better option would be to make it clear to the other editors, as an admin, that Joel Zimmerman is the only other alternative besides the current title of course. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry BDD, I must say I disagree with your note above "there's nothing wrong with discussing an alternative". As you can see, the new RM is quickly becoming an RM to move back to Deadmau5 - as with all RMs, any new names can be proposed, and in this case, it would be silly to !vote for Zimmerman when one could vote for Deadmau5. Thus, it effectively becomes a 3rd RM on the same subject. I wish you would not have encouraged this, and I hope you'll reconsider and shut that discussion down early.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the support BDD. Yes, getting rid of Deadmaus is on the top of my list. As I said, I agree that Deadmau5 is not an ideal name, but Deadmaus is not a viable option. Wikipedians should report events, not manufacture them. That's all there is to it. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Teramo
Ciao! Unfortunately, the Teramo guy returned. Is there anyway to have him stop forever restoring his very poorly formatted version, losing all the improvements of years? Ciao and sorry for harming you again with this sad story. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi! I'm really bored with this matter at Teramo. He's an unreasoning guy who likes only Teramo, and likes only the Teramo version that, whatever he wrote in, is a mess not respecting many of the rules we are used to follow here (POV, wrong dates, bulleted lists everywhere, not to speak the poor English clearly from an Italian writer - even if in this case it's my same situation, although I always welcomed help for my language; etc). In my opinion, he never looked at the others' work here at all, or nearly, not to speaking of Wikipedia editing guides, despite (at least initially) I gently invited him to do that. He's a frenzy tornado who cannot live the next day knowing the poor Teramo page is not AS HE LIKES, with no perception this is (hope you agree) a collaborative work where, sometimes, it can happen that more experienced editors revert what you did in good faith (and it happened sometimes you did that with me). But I think you got also bored of this matter. Hope you can help us by just looking at the state of the two versions, look at the work (one article) and I (29th overall for bytes added in Wikipedia history, a lot of barnstars etc... did I boast too much? Ehm... :D) did here in the past years, and take a decision, perhaps involving somebody else. Thanks and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
NYC Wiki-Picnic: Saturday June 22
Great American Wiknic NYC at Prospect Park | ||
You are invited to the Great American Wiknic NYC in Brooklyn's green and lovely Prospect Park, on this Saturday June 22! We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck :) -- User:Pharos (talk) |
A Favour
Hi Ed, I'm sorry in advance for asking this becuase it is a bit onerous. I was wondering if you could review my decision to Topic Ban[8] User:HighKing. The probation under which he was sanctioned is The British Isles probation, this is his second ban (I'm terming this a reimposition of the ban as it was indef last time). The first ban with a discussion of its context is here[9] from August 2011. He asked for the ban to be lifted after 6 months but had breached its terms[10][11]. He successfully appealed 6 months later[12] and I lifted the ban. For additional background a) see the block log for edit-warring blocks from 2008 to 2010[13]. Can you give me a sanity check here and if you think I'm going overboard let me know--Cailil talk 21:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- The series of June 9th edits at Races and factions of Warcraft beginning at [14] are clearly a 3RR violation, regarding deletion of the term British Isles from an article. Even if the claim in the Warcraft article is actually unsourced, there is no exception from 3RR for removing stuff that you think is unsourced. The sanction at WP:GS/BI has a specific clause about edit wars over addition and removal. The spirit of the GS/BI sanction is to discourage a long term pattern of edits focused on occurrence of the phrase 'British Isles', and HighKing is still following a pattern of such edits. So I agree that your reimposition of the topic ban is justified. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Reverting a known block-evading banned editor is generally acceptable and doesn't count towards 3RR. IP blocked and filter set up here --HighKing (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at this Ed--Cailil talk 14:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)