Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:56, 29 January 2015

Note regarding email: When I tried to register email accounts with my exact username, I found that those account names had already been taken. If you receive emails seemingly from me, please do not assume it is me simply because the email account name is same as my username here. At the very least, please check to make sure that the email comes through the Misplaced Pages emailing system and is coming from this Misplaced Pages useraccount only. Thanks.

Opposition to a strong notion of civility is a tactic for those who know that their ideas cannot stand up to rational scrutiny, leaving bullying and abuse as the only way to win a debate.

Welcome!

Hello, OrangesRyellow, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Misplaced Pages's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! reddogsix (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Please respond

I have replied to your post in the RfC on Caste. Please respond. (See Talk:Caste.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Article drafts on user pages

Please could you move most of the content of User:OrangesRyellow to your sandbox or some other sub-page? Everything from the sentence beginning "This is a list of terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2012." has the appearance of being a draft article and it is inappropriate to have such things on the main user page. Please take a look at Misplaced Pages:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages.3F. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I had picked that markup from some existing Misplaced Pages article (to study it's markup and practice my own markup on it).OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It still should not be on your main user page. If you are unsure how to move it then just let me know & I'll do it for you. - Sitush (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I find it more convenient to have it there and I do not see why it should not be there. Please no not worry about every little thing.OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a breach. Either you move it or I do. You have no choice beyond that. - Sitush (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is your problem? There is not breach. If you do anything there, I do have a choice. I will revert it.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi OrangesRyellow. I moved the article to User:OrangesRyellow/Sandbox. Keeping it on your user page is inappropriate but you can use your sandbox to build on the article if you like. --regentspark (comment) 13:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not see what problem does it cause if it remains on my userpage? Another user had assumed that it is some kind of a draft. It is not, as I have explained above (within this thread). If you guys are too shy of showing things about Pakistan, why do you allow the article to remain in main article space? If it is not a problem there, how can it be a problem here? Is there some rule that the userpage cannot be used like a sandbox etc.?OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not a big deal OrangesRyellow. The material is there in your user space, just not on your user page. User pages are generally meant for information about you as a Wikipedian and material about articles is not encouraged there. In fact, it is not encouraged even in your sandbox but I've moved it there anyway for the time being to give you time to incorporate your material into the article. --regentspark (comment) 14:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a big deal. You have deleted my userpage. And you have still not explined yourself why you need to do this. Bloody Pakistani POV. You are dishonestly trying to make it appear as if it is a draft. It is not. It is a copy of some other existing article. Now restore my userpage.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Looked like a draft - and WP:POLEMIC to me as well. Certainly needed to be moved elsewhere, and if it's not used in an article soon, it will likely need to be deleted fullscale. Beware of the personal attacks you used above, as they can lead to sanctions. Let me know if I can be of more help dangerouspanda 14:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It was not a draft, but a copy of an existing article. This article Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2012. How many times do I need to repeat? If you cannot even understand that much, how can I believe you could see through Pakistani tricksters. I am sorry, but has anyone asked you if you are naive? I am sure you don't have any experience with Pakistanis.OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If it was merely a copy then it violated Misplaced Pages's copyright rules by not having attribution to the original editors. I stated clearly that it looked like a draft ... and appearances are often more important (it sure did not look exactly like any article on Misplaced Pages that I have seen...didn't even match the format we're required to use). As a journalist that has spent time in South Asia, I can guarantee you that I "have experience with Pakistanis" and that I'm not naive. dangerouspanda 09:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If attribution is the problem, then that could be solved. I have no objection giving attribution and credit should certainly be given where it is due. It is just that I did not think that this could be an issue because I was not trying to pass it off as something I had written. But I still have to find out how to add attribution for other eds. I also have a copy of another article in another sandbox. So, attribution may be needed there too. As for that article's format, it is in list format and Misplaced Pages seems to have thousands of articles in that particular format. If you have not seen them, it could mean you have not been around on WP too much. But it does not mean that such articles do not exist. Well, you may have had some experience with Pakistanis, but I am yet to meet any naive person who would not guarantee that they are not naive.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

...and now you see why it had to go into a sandbox. No need to attribute if it's something you're playing around with in order to learn coding, etc. It also is less likely considered to be WP:POLEMIC, and therefore less likely to be immediately deleted without warning. You did not take the entire article - which was your claim; you took portions. Of course I have created articles that include lists, so don't be ridiculous. Before you make bizarre suggestions like that I "haven't been around WP too much", you would be wise to a) check my contributions, and then b) check the contributions of my primary account. Let me know then if your "holier than thou" attitude (or indeed, your now-escalating personal attacks) has any valid reason to continue. dangerouspanda 10:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I am at a loss with your Pakistani stuff. Aside from the nasty racial stereotyping, you seem to be under the impression that I have some sort of connection with Pakistan. I have no idea where you get that from but it looks likely that you have jumped to a conclusion somewhere down the line and now cannot get it out of your head. It is an incorrect assumption and you should withdraw it. - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Stereotyping should not be a problem for you. You yourself have been ascribing "Hindutva" outlook to lots of people at WT:IN and various other places. You say my thinking is incorrect. Well, you tell me, except for the Pakistani POV, what POV could be troubled by a long list of troubles in Pakistan ? Actions speak louder than words?OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I have not racially stereotyped anyone, anywhere (aside perhaps from Drmies, an admin with whom I sometimes share a few light-hearted moments). None of those who have responded to your comments here are troubled by the list of terrorist incidents, as far as I am aware. We are troubled about your breach of community consensus. I suggest that you drop this or at least amend your tone because you are digging quite a big hole for yourself here: each response that you have provided so far is taking you closer to a block for personal attacks. You made a report at WP:ANI, it is still active and the boomerang effect is not uncommon there. - Sitush (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Malala Yousafzai

Love your explanation: "these two fatalities in Pakistan can be neglected". I thought they were interesting, but ok. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortibus (talk • contribs) 02:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I am glad someone noticed. :) OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Persecution of Hazara people in Quetta. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sitush (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You are the one who is edit warring. Stop posting hypocritical warning templates here.OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD, It may be an essay but with the policy support that I have, sorry but you lose. I am off to bed but either you self-revert and discuss or you face the consequences. There is room for discussion and you have admitted that in your last post on the article talk page. I know a POV warrior when I see one and I know the policies far better than you do. So far, all you have done is fail to gain consensus at numerous venues, including WP:ANI. I suggest that you learn to walk before you run: I am happy to help you in that process and would encourage you in it. What I will not do is bow down to someone who has a proven, noted POV agenda (again, as confirmed at ANI). - Sitush (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Brd applies to you as much as it does to me. There is always room for discussion and I welcome sorting out issues through discussion. However, you seem to have an extreme talent for constant fighting. That you have been longer on Misplaced Pages does not mean that only your (agenda driven) interpretation of policy is right. You are the one who is fighting all the time to further your Pakistani POV agenda of whitewashing human rights violations in Pakistan. And do I want to learn anything from shameless people who indulge in lowly practices like canvassing?OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If you accuse me of Pakistani POV or canvassing once more, I'll lead you to your block. As for the remainder of your comment, you clearly have not read WP:BRD: you were bold in inserting Khan's comment, I reverted' you and then we should discuss. Instead, you reinstated the comment. Now, stop it please. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Women in Chad

I am trying to expand Women in Chad that you created. Since you have created the article I suppose that you'd be interested.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yogesh Khandke. Thanks for taking an interest in the article and for providing much more context. ... However, somehow I suspect that editing the article anymore will result in constant fighting and will be unproductive, maybe even counterproductive. ... So, you can make your own decision whether you want to edit it anymore...OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry if I come across as being a bit mysterious/cryptic. You can just go ahead and see what happens...OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh I know, sigh! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Check this out

I would like your opinion and appropriate action on this edit. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't ask for action. - Sitush (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

See. Just as I predicted. The fighting has started already. Better leave the article. I have a great distaste for fighting over trivial matters and am trying to find a way to stop the hounding. Maybe I will just edit a hundred articles and let the hounding continue through all of them and then post it all at ANI. And then, if nothing happens, rub it all in Jimbo's face. What do you think?OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• It was your baby so I brought it to your notice, I understand your predicament. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts. It is just that I do not think it can be good to interact with this user. You know, there are some drugs (like Tramadol) which could make people seek out fights in a zombie robot like fashion.OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want to engage with me then don't post stupid comments when you know I am watching. Especially when they are grossly incorrect speculation regarding editing practices. You really, really need to disengage from Yogesh, imo. Although I (and others) doubt very much that you are a new contributor & so perhaps should be capable of working that out for yourself. You and he are the ones who are getting into trouble, not me, and I'd be surprised if you are not both blocked again before long. Just stick to building the encyclopaedia: you can speculate with Yogesh as much as you wish via email etc. - Sitush (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I could engage more in building the encyclopedia if you would stop interfering with my efforts and with things I am interested in.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, I had your talk page watchlisted weeks ago, before Yogesh came on the scene. I've had his watchlisted for well over a year. Yogesh has a troublesome history here, which is one reason why he has been subjected to blocks and a topic ban etc. Given that history, it is entirely reasonable to keep an eye on what he does.

Similarly, various concerns have been raised regarding your contributions. As with Yogesh, it is far from being the case that I follow everything you do but there is enough reasonable doubt & actual practical outcomes to counter any charge of stalking etc, plus our paths will in any event overlap fairly frequently both in articles and via user talk pages that we both watch/contribute to. I think you were told this by someone else only a few days ago - Qwyrxian or Drmies or someone like that.

You are already contributing to many articles that I have not looked at. I am not going out of my way to do so either. I would strongly advise you against a trip to ANI any time soon, though. You've been mentioned twice there since your arrival in September and on neither occasion did the outcome favour you: that is exactly a part of the pattern that culminated in Yogesh getting into so much hot water. He had too many visits and ended up on the "wrong side" every time - ANI is a fairly high-profile place and having your name popping up there frequently in such circumstances is not going to help your cause. Nor will appealing to Jimbo, I suspect. But, of course, that is entirely up to you. However, not rushing to the defence of Yogesh is probably a good move: defend him when you are sure but not otherwise, else you might end up being another MangoWong, ThisThat2011 or any one of a number of other acolytes who have fallen by the wayside. And that would be a shame because I have no doubt that you have much to offer. - Sitush (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anybody told me that our paths would cross frequently. I am looking far a way to avoid interacting with you. If there are doubts about my editing, there are lots of users who can look through them. I see your activities in some of the articles which I had edited recently as stalking. If you stop stalking my edits, you are unlikely to have complications with me.OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is part of the problem: you have accused me (and several others) of things that are patently not per the definitions used on Misplaced Pages. Just as there is a difference between puffery and WP:PUFFERY, so too there is a difference between stalking and WP:STALKING, and your accusations of a pro-Pakistani POV simply display a gross breach of WP:AGF and research. If you are involved with Indic stuff (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka ... you name it), then you'll likely struggle to avoid me. Your best bet in those areas would probably be music or movies, where I tend only to copyedit and fix the aforementioned puffery etc. Oh, and the various articles on specific deities tend to make my eyes bleed. - Sitush (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Conspiracy theories about attack on Malala

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Conspiracy theories about attack on Malala. First, thank you for your contribution; Misplaced Pages relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Malala Yousafzai#Public reactions. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Misplaced Pages. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Malala Yousafzai#Public reactions – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Misplaced Pages looks forward to your future contributions. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 01:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The deleting administrator has emailed the deleted article as I requested him have another look at the deletion. Please check his talk page for more. I will be creating a sandbox. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Just bear in mind WP:STALEDRAFT. It will likely end up at WP:MFD unless it is developed within a reasonable time (say, a month or two) & a review/move looks likely. - Sitush (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yogesh. I am glad that someone has taken an interest in resurrecting the article. I am sure it can be a stand-alone article in its own right. There is much which can be said about conspiracy theories around Malala attack which cannot be included in the main article on Malala. Looking forward to help from you in developing the article. Best.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I hope you have noticed my reply to your latest comment in an above section.

Actually I considered that application of A/10 used in its deletion inappropriate, so I took it as far as I could, my arguments were more technical/procedural and not related to content. Pakistan isn't one of my favourite subjects, secondly I am terrible strapped for time and this flurry of activity is because of a Diwali time lull in business. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, just felt that you should strike out few sentences here. Just an opinion. --sarvajna (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If it is normal for people to request and offer such substances on Misplaced Pages, I do not see much wrong in me pointing it out.OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Careful

Reflect on the "use" of your responses , have you heard of being forced out of the ring with an uneven enforcement of civility or selective application /amnesia of rules it happens . :) Intothefire (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Be careful, ITF - you are on a last warning regarding this sort of comment. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

JanetteDoe

Have you ever interacted with JanetteDoe before or are you just being a shit-stirrer? FWIW, see User talk:Dennis Brown - another admin. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

And why you wanted to get involved in this spat is beyond me. All it seems likely to demonstrate is what quite a few have suspected for some time, ie: you are either socking or a returning user with a new account. The first is wrong; the latter is ok but it might be best to disclose. I've had involvement with Giano somewhere in the past and also, separately, with Coren: that particular battle is not going to go away and inserting yourself into it will bring more grief than is worth the effort. - Sitush (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to criticize people, you should inform them so that they can defend themselves if they feel like it. Criticizing people behind their backs is not good.OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so it looks like you were stalking. I don't suppose you read my talk archives for September, did you? Or User talk:Dennis Brown? Or perhaps look back to contributions by myself and Orlady around February last year? You are shit-stirring, Oranges, and you are being led down the wrong path by people such as ItF and Yogesh, both of whom do not exactly have great records of getting things right or, indeed, even understanding policy. If you want to be some sort of civility police here then god help you: all you'll get is a load of grief. - Sitush (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You accusing me of stalking? Pot calling the bucket yellow/brown/whatever? Ask yourself, is it not you who keeps sifting through all my edits, and the edits of numerous other users? You seem to be doing it all the time.OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I've had Orlady's page watched since Jan/Feb last year when she helped me with my first WP:GA; I've contributed to various discussions relating to recent events concerning ArbCom and have those watched also. I've also contributed to thousands of articles and have a good few of those watched. That is not stalking.

I'm still waiting to see your response regarding past interactions, and I know I'm not going to get a response to the obvious other point. It is probably best to stick to your own battles and not get drawn into the crap that surrounds your on-wiki friends. One is topic banned for a reason and is consistently proven to be wrong even in areas where their ban does not apply; another refuses to take their complaints to WP:ANI because they know they'll "lose" (they've said as much somewhere, IIRC, arguing that ANI is corrupt/biassed). Getting yourself involved is asking for trouble and, believe me, you would not be the first to either burn-out or be blocked for blindly supporting those people. Just get on with building the encyclopedia and leave the politics to people who seems often to have nothing better to do than promote religious, political and nationalist POVs all over the shop. FWIW, I quite often ignore situations where, for example, Malleus is in trouble yet again - I like the guy and I've met him but that doesn't mean that I have to hang off his shirt-tails or come to his defence on every occasion. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I've checked. As of now, I have 1479 pages watched (excluding talk pages) and there have been 431 changes to those in the last 168 hours. I've been unwatching some of late - the figure was > 2000. - Sitush (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There can be a lot of things which could be "obvious" to lots of paranoid folks. It is not on me to help them out of their problem. I do not understand a lot of what you are saying and you cannot expect me to understand unless you provide background and diffs to explain what you are talking about. This is the end of this conversation as far as I am concerned.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You ask for examples. Take a look at MangoWong, Zuggernaut, Thisthat2011 and Ror Is King for starters. Plus block logs for those people and your friends. Put the name of those friends into the archive search box at WT:INB or WP:ANI also. I'm not saying that you should avoid anyone, merely suggesting that you should choose your battles and perhaps understand a bit more of what you are getting into before you engage. Still not got an answer to my query, have I?- Sitush (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Doncram

I would appreciate it if you would clarify at ANI why Doncram is not at fault for issues detailed at "Doncram at lists of various churches", including ownership, personal attacks, edit-warring based on carelessness, and harassing other editors into months-long departures from the project. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

We have a pot-kettle type of situation there. Is it not hypocritical to take note of problems on one side but ignore (probably greater problems) the other side of the coin?OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yikes, I didn't expect to find Nyttend editing (lobbying?) here. I came here to ask OrangesRyellow to clarify comment at the ANI, "Oppose I have seen enough of Sitush's extreme behavior, including the starting comment on this thread, to think that Don's behavior could be the problem here." That was followed by another editor's "Huh?". I think you meant to say you've seen enough to think that Sitush's behavior could be the problem. Either way, I wonder if you could possibly please edit to clarify, and hope no one takes this as undue lobbying. Also, thank you for some sympathetic comments, including one that I quoted from in a recent comment at what is now the bottom of a long ANI. --doncram 00:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Oranges' comment is certainly nonsensical, probably due to a word or two going missing during the edit (been there, done that!). I have no problem with it being clarified. - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ali Ahmad Kurd

You appear to be confusing "verifiable" with "verified", and probably also "contentious" with "benign". Please do not rip up articles without at least doing a simple web search & take note of what Dr Blofeld said in response to your query of a few days ago. You removed a perfectly good source and some easily verifiable info: that is not a clean up but wanton destruction. If you cannot edit Pakistan-related articles neutrally & sensibly then perhaps best not to touch them at all. Thanks. Sitush (talk) 08:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not think Misplaced Pages is some kind of blog hosting service where people can deposit unsourced info and expect it to survive merely because it looks legit. That they have to provide sources is a basic requirement. If it is easy to find and add proper sources for that info, why was it not added already? If I delete unsourced info, it is not on me to find sources for that info. I am perfectly within my rights to delete unsourced info. If you reinsert unsourced info which I deleted, be sure to add proper sources. The burden of proof is on you. There is nothing non neutral about deleting unsourced stuff. We even had a long discussion at the village pump about unsourced and poorly written Pakistan articles and there was considerable support for mass deleting such articles entirely. I am being lenient in that I am leaving them stubbed. I usually leave properly sourced content unless it is undesirable in some other way and I have also been nuking unsourced stuff from non Pakistan articles. My dislike is for unverified stuff, not with your lovely Pakistan.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no connection or affinity with Pakistan and your wikilawyering will not wash with me. You deleted a valid source & so turned the article into an unsourced BLP, you failed to explain your other deletions and you failed to explain your concerns before rushing off to BLPN. This is not about your rights or mine: you are being careless, and not just at one article. Do I have the will to check everything you have done recently? No, but hopefully someone else has because it concerns me greatly and I am not the only person to have raised concern. In such circumstances, stalking could be justified. - Sitush (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are you talking about stalking? I did not raise it anywhere in relation to the Kurd article. You do not even seem to be reading my comments. Who else is worried about me deleting unsourced stuff? Which valid source did I delete? Stop making false claims. I had to rush to BLPN because you had some kind of fanatical urgency about reinserting contentious, defamatory material without proper sourcing. You have added some sources only after I took it to BLPN. Why couldn't you wait reinserting until completion of discussion at talk page? And I do have a right to delete unsourced stuff, as does everyone else. It is about my rights because you seem to be trying to usurp that right from me and your Pakistani POV has always been obvious to me ever since you were troubled merely by looking at the long list of troubles in Pakistan on my user page. You have reinforced my perception by whitewashing properly sourced negative info about Pakistan from various other Pakistan related articles.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You deleted a valid source (Daily Times) in this series of edits. Even if it did not support the entirety of a statement, it was easy to make an informative statement from it. I've already explained that Blofeld has expressed concerns. The sources were being added even before you went to BLPN, and the statements were being adjusted, eg: here. If you think that I have a Pakistani POV then take it to ANI because, believe me, the last think we want here is more people pushing their POV on Indian and Pakistani stuff. - Sitush (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)You will never stop making false claims, will you? Here is the material "Kurd was arrested on 29 April 2007 in Quetta on the charges of inciting people during an absentia funeral of Nawab Akbar Bugti a year earlier. Upon protests from lawyers, he was released." And this is the sourced which was supposed to delete it and which I deleted. I still do not think it could support the statement it was supposed to support. You can go to RSN/ANI/ARB/DRN/start and RFC/go to FBI/CIA/Mossad/KGB/Cheka/SS/MI5/MI6/UNO/UNESCO/UNICEF/WHO/whatever catches your fancy to get a certificate that the above material could be properly sourced by the given source. I would still say that it cannot. I do not think it is of any use to continue arguing over it. Stop it.

I had myself gone to Dr. Blofeld seeking guidance from an ed who has earned my respect. I value what he said. You need not make a song and dance of it. Period.

You had added that "source" in a further reading section here. I do not regard it as "source" for article content.

I do not see why I am expected to take your Pakistani POV to ani. Is it a blockable offense?

This whole conversation seems unproductive to me. Please discontinue it.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to answer your question, yes, POV pushing is blockable because it is disruptive. They might just give me a stern talking-to but, in any event, you cannot keep making these unsubstantiated accusations of pov pushing - look what happened to Intothefire. - Sitush (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Alhamra Arts Council

I've just rebuilt Alhamra Arts Council using sources that you had removed from the article. I've also removed the tags: I have no idea why you were querying the notability of something that you presumably knew from your reading of the source had won a notable architectural prize, ie: the Aga Khan Award for Architecture. Anyways, the complex seems notable to me but feel free to send it to WP:AFD if you must.

As a suggestion, if you remove copyvio or similar in future, it can be useful to retain the source even if that means placing it in an external links or further reading section. Similarly, sources that obviously have merit but you remove for some other reason might best be placed there. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not think just winning an award (which I never heard of) makes something notable. I could not find too many news sources mentioning it, so I wanted its notability to be checked by others. I have no inclination to pursue it any further.

About leaving sources when removing copyvio, please take your own advice, while removing negative info about Pakistan from an article, you claimed copyvio on much of the deleted content, but did not leave the sources..OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not what I said. I said it was close paraphrasing and "police believe it was a dispute between criminals". That is, it was irrelevant to the article. Yet again, you are accusing me of pov pushing. Put up or shut up, please. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I have given a diff of about 80 edits by you . If you look into the edit summaries of intervening edits, you have claimed "copyvio" in lots of those edits.OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation is frequent on Indian and Pakistani articles. If the sources have merit then they should be retained either by rewriting the violation or by adding to further reading. The latter is easy in an article but less so in a long list. You are well aware that the list you refer to had numerous statements that were both copyvios and of no merit vis-a-vis the purpose of the list, as in the first example that you gave.

I offered a suggestion that I know has the support of sensible people. You can take or leave that suggestion but, either way, if you continue to demonstrate a lack of common sense then you can expect me to follow you around and fixing any poor contributions while the sources are not buried deep in history. I am sure that you do not want me on your back but if that is what it takes to protect the integrity of this project then it is what will happen. - Sitush (talk) 12:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not think copyvios are are particular problems in India-Pakistan articles. If you think it necessary that someone deleting copyvios must retain sources, get the copyvio policy to say that. I think the primary concern is to remove the copyvio and I did that. If someone wants to rewrite the material, they can do so, it is not necessary for me to retain the copyvio source or to rewrite the material. If you seriously believe deleting copyvio along with the source is demonstrative of lack of common sense, take it to ANI and get me blocked, but your extreme demands do not allow you to hound me. I have deleted copyvios, unsourced stuff and improperly sourced stuff and I am going to continue doing so. If you seriously believe doing things like these is compromising the integrity of the project, take it to ANI. I think you are creating hurdles in the way of me fixing serious problems and I see that as a problem.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

That copyvios are a big problem with India/Pakistan articles is well-known here. I didn't say that you should leave copyvio in an article. The policy is clear: rewrite or delete, with possibly the emphasis on rewriting where feasible. What I did say was that there is a halfway house that is constructive rather than being entirely destructive, ie: if the copyvio'd source has merit but you cannot rewrite then delete the violation but retain the source so that someone better equipped than you to rewrite does not also have to reinvent the sourcing wheel. I can deal with the integrity issue without taking you to ANI; my point was merely to explain why it is I will be following you round if you choose not to accept my suggestion. - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I have been through quite a few Pakistan related articles and I do not see copyvios as much of a problem there. Others are free to disagree, but I have my opinion based on what I see. The major problem that I see with Pakistan related articles is that they are mostly unsourced, or improperly sourced, or simply saying defamatory/glorificatory things which are unencyclopedic. Again, others are free to disagree. If you want to resurrect the unsourced content which I delete and provide sources for them, and if you want to fix copyvio sources and material which I delete, you are welcome to do so, but don't land on my talk page or elsewhere saying that I have done something wrong.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't said you have done something wrong in relation to this thread. I do think that you are being less than collaborative by completely removing potentially valid sources and my suggestion was based on the collaborative ethos that is at the heart of this project. If you choose to adopt some less-than-collaborative alternative then that reflects badly on you rather than on me, and it creates more work for everyone else. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

If you were not saying that I had done something wrong, then perhaps I have misread you and there is no problem at all. From now on, I will leave a diff of deleted material on talk pages to make it easier for you or anyone who may want to recover anything from the material which I delete.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be easier for you to do as I suggest because it reduces the number of clicks etc and is accessible to people who often seem not to realise that we even have talk pages (ie: the general reader rather than a contributor). I am sure that you are capable of determining what is or is not a source of merit and to place them appropriately in EL or FR. - Sitush (talk) 15:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion is good in some ways, but does not work for me in most cases. The difficulty is that I have some fixed ideas about what is/isnot suitable for FR/EL sections. Most of the sources which I delete would not be covering the article scope as a whole or not even a major part of its scope. They would usually be used for some small tidbit of info and I would not consider them suitable for FR/EL sections. That is why, I think placing a diff on the talk page is more prudent even if it means a bit of extra effort on my part.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Warning

Your comment here of "admins are clearly engaging in racist behavior here" is completely unacceptable. Accusations of racism, sexism, or just about any kind of "ism" are not tolerated on this project; especially when there is nothing to verify such defamation. Quite frankly, had this been directed at an individual editor, you would most likely be blocked at this point. Please read No personal attacks and understand that this is something this project takes quite seriously. Any further attacks such as this will be most likely be met with block. — Ched :  ?  07:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you retract that comment. I see no evidence of racism from Boing or any other admin (including myself), and find it a very offensive accusation. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I too see no evidence of racist behavior on your part. Actually, I appreciate your efforts on WP very much. You, and others can disagree with what I said because you too have a right to voice your opinion.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

OrangesRyellow, you have frequently voiced your opinion in a manner that is offensive or otherwise detrimental to collaborative editing. As on this occasion, you have even done so at WP:ANI. This is rather like you pinning a target on your back. I suggest that you think twice before doing something similar again, and that you nip over to the ANI thread and apologise. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, there is too mcuh incivil beahvoir on wiki , see also on wikipedia bias https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.wikipedia/u4dJIwvCQc4 --Nvihlhe (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
22		Indo-Sasanians (talk)						Add sources
68		Saraiki dialect (talk)						Add sources
41		Swati (Pashtun tribe) (talk)						Add sources
106		Silk in the Indian subcontinent (talk)						Add sources
105		Mamluk Dynasty (Delhi) (talk)						Add sources
7		Garhi Habibullah (talk)						Add sources
25		Etiquette in Pakistan (talk)						Cleanup
573		Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture (talk)						Cleanup
18		Latif Khosa (talk)						Cleanup
42		Abbottabad District (talk)						Expand
146		Women's rights in Afghanistan (talk)						Expand
4		Women in the Americas (talk)						Expand
3		Chak 17/14L (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
6		Balkhashtsvetmet (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
36		Feudalism in Pakistan (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
108		University of Karachi (talk)						Merge
99		Sarson da saag (talk)						Merge
21		Swara (custom) (talk)						Merge
128		Danny Kedwell (talk)						Wikify
7		Mayumaro (talk)						Wikify
38		Freedom of religion in Pakistan (talk)						Wikify
0		Dallan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (talk)						Orphan
3		Sachida Nagdev (talk)						Orphan
0		Siraj Khel (talk)						Orphan
24		Khosa (talk)						Stub
20		Sonar technician (talk)						Stub
2		Rajdhari (talk)						Stub
13		Mohabbat Khan Mosque (talk)						Stub
19		Jhungail (talk)						Stub
3		Lassan Nawab (talk)						Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Cheeseburger

Hi OrangesRyellow -- thanks for the CB and your welcome re. Oxford sex gang and Telford sex gang. I'm not an expert Wikipedian, so make mistakes in formatting (and wikiquette). So clean-up would be appreciated. I'll try to add more to the articles in time. There's a lot of material, unfortunately, but so it goes at present in the UK. CurrentUK (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi CurrentUK. It is always a pleasure to welcome new users. I too am no expert on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages looks bewildering at first, but things will become clearer with some time and effort. I am aware that there is a lot which can be added/improved in those articles (been through a lot of sources). Will join in as I find the time. Best.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks -- I'm now on the lurning kurve and adding stuff when I can. CurrentUK (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Saw this ? , , , ? God help Britain! Mr T 11:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Britain can help itself without comments from you or help from a god. However, this is a useful comment for me to add to my collection demonstrating your ani-Muslim, anti-Pakistan POV, so thanks for that. - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Template:Z8

OrangesRyellow, you have been warned before about making personal attacks. Your recent attack, here, in which you likened named admins to "Nazis lording it over Jews" was utterly unacceptable - if I ever see you repeat such an obnoxious attack again, you should expect to be blocked for a lot longer. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have mentioned you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review - OrangesRyellow, where I have requested a review of this block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to make any comments at ANI, please post them here and I'm sure someone will copy them over for you - I'm watching this page and will be happy to oblige myself, though I have a busy day and can't promise prompt action. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere have I ever likened anyone to Nazis. You have blocked me by misrepresenting and cherry-picking my words. I was only illustrating the effect of giving paramount power and hearing to people from only one side of an equation and the Nazi-Jew thing is an easily recognizable illustration of that phenomenon. There is nothing nefarious or PA there.OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you want that copied to ANI? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

(And to answer, if you liken A to B, then B to C, then you are still likening A to C. Any analogy that ends in a comparison with Nazi treatment of Jews is still horribly obnoxious, however many steps separate A and C - and even assuming good faith, you surely know that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC))

My apologies: I've already copied it there. I can remove it if you wish. - Sitush (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so you did -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You are falsely claiming that I am likening people Nazis. I am not. I am illustrating the effect of giving paramount power and a hearing to one side of an equation only. Mathsci was saying that some particular people will have more weight (that means it would not matter what people on the other side are saying) at ARB and three out of four are decidedly on one side of the fence. There is nothing wrong with illustrating the dastardly effect of a one-sided hearing.OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC) It is the effect of a selective and one-sided hearing which is obnoxious. You are confusing that with some people. "People" and effect of a selective and one-sided hearing are different things.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you want that copied to ANI? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I have added something to my previous comment. Please do copy.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a reply for YogeshKhandke.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

@YogeshKhandke. There was no provocation. So, why should I retaliate? And who am I supposed to be retaliating at without a provocation? There is no provocation-retaliation or anything like it. Please read my comment in question and subsequent comments. I have now clarified several times that I was not likening anyone to Nazis. Since I made that comment, I should know what I was saying. How can you guys know better than me about what I am saying? If you want an undertaking, I am happy to give an undertaking that I would not liken any user to a Nazi.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. For me to unblock, I would need to see my additional condition fulfilled that you will strive to avoid further hurtful hyperbole -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not salubrious what is being done here. Mr T 11:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at PinkAmpers&'s immensely helpful and insightful comment, particularly the Godwin's Law article, I can see the downside of mentioning "Nazi" even to illustrate a point, even when it is not intended as any kind of PA. Looking into their and some other people's comments, I can also see the benefits of trying to avoid hyperbole and will strive to do so on my own. But I see that you know Sitush personally and have a close involvement with him/her. It seems that you are here only to help Sitush turn these articles into his/her personal fiefdom. As such, I cannot rely on you to interpret "further hurtful hyperbole" in a neutral, balanced fashion and cannot give that undertaking to you. I see that this article sphere is being adminned by a small group of mostly involved admins. That is not how articles spheres are supposed to be adminned. I see this as a failure of Misplaced Pages adminning process. This article sphere is infamous for various problems and I think rather that eds, the problem is due to the failure of adminning process whereby articles are supposed to be adminned by uninvolved admins, rather than a small group of involved admins. If some admin is taking continuous interest in one particular area of articles, they must be having some kind of involvement/interest in the content in that area. That is not respectable adminning and will clearly lead to problems, as indeed it is here. It creates a situation where eds from only one particular orientation will have paramount power on article content and the eds on the other side will get butchered. I do not think this article sphere has any problems that do not exist in other article spheres. Other admins are being kept away by the continuous propaganda that this sphere is problematic and a small band of involved admins continues to occupy "their turf". Thanks and everything.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC) You block summary that I am likening admins to "Nazis lording it over Jews" is misleading (deliberately?)OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm glad to see that you've found my advice helpful. If I may so presume as to give some more...: A point worth remembering here is that most of the Indian-subcontinent articles on Misplaced Pages suck. This isn't the fault of any editor or group of editors; rather, it's a consequence of Misplaced Pages's systemic bias. The majority of veteran users don't care that much about Indian/South Asian topics, which means that a lot of the articles get written by people who, unfortunately, don't have as good a grasp on the English language (or Misplaced Pages policy, or wiki markup) as we'd like. So sometimes keeping those pages readable requires some heavy-handed action, and often it can be maddeningly frustrating to deal with disputes in these arenas. (I once had to stop helping a new Indian editor with an article on his company after he started yelling at me for refusing to "like" them on Facebook.) Long story short, most editors, myself included, choose to just stay away from all this, leaving only a few dedicated contributors to hold up the fort. Obviously this isn't ideal, and definitely can lead to problems where the lines of INVOLVED, WP:OWN, etc., get blurred... but I think it's important to understand why things are the way they are, as, in my opinion, it somewhat mitigates what you're complaining about. In a more perfect world, South Asian articles would be edited by as many competent editors as other articles, but, in reality, they aren't, and sometimes the rules have to be bent in the interest of the encyclopedia.

Obviously this is just my personal view, and I understand if you disagree with it, but I hope you'll consider some of the points I've raised here. Regards. — PinkAmpers& 21:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been thinking about what you have said and I can understand your reasons for saying what you say. I agree most of those articles suck. I feel systemic bias should not to be blamed for the poor state of South Asia related articles. AFAIK, the number of South Asians who can speak good English is greater than the number of people who can do so in most other parts of the world (excluding places like USA, Canada, Australia, UK). IMO, systemic bias should be working in favor of these articles. But it isn't. I think the reason is "a few dedicated contributors". If you look a bit more closely, you may agree that it is this small group of "a few dedicated contributors" who are continuously spreading the false and pernicious propaganda that this article sphere is particularly problematic. This propaganda discourages uninvolved admins from taking interest in adminning this area. I do not see any problems in this area that uninvolved, disinterested admins do not deal with in other article spheres. IOW, this small group of "a few dedicated contributors" is causing this failure of the normal adminning process. (You may also consider the point that lots of eds in other article spheres would want to double up as admins on the articles they edit, for obvious reasons. They are not allowed to do so, for obvious reasons. But some eds seem to have been able to trick the community into allowing them to do so here. Why they would want to do so should be obvious. If eds in other spheres cannot live with INVOLVED and OWN violations, it is unreasonable to expect eds in this sphere to be able to do so. So, you see the reason for a lack of ed interest in this area.) The way to solve this failure in adminning process would be to call their bluff on their false propaganda. With proper adminning, I feel much more people with better grasp of English and Misplaced Pages policies, markup etc. will take interest and ... will not be driven away even when they do take interest. So, calling this bluff will improve article quality. Looking at the large number of articles in this article sphere, it is hardly reasonable to bet on a small group of eds to be able to improve article quality to anything near "satisfactory" level. This so-called small group of "few dedicated eds" has been at it for years now. If they could improve article quality, why is it that these articles still "suck" ? The community has been giving them blind support with the expectation that the articles will not suck, and the expected benefit has not materialized. Clearly, backing this group of "a few dedicated eds" is not working and we should look beyond them. I hope you can give a consideration to what I have said.OrangesRyellow (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The best, indeed probably only way to "call their bluff" is to raise the issue with the wider community. You'd have to name names and provide diffs, of course. If it were a single person then you could initiate a RfC/U or (if an admin) take it to WP:AN. However, since you seem to think that there are several involved and not all are admins, RfC/U is likely to be messy and WP:AN will not apply in toto. That leaves you with WP:ANI or WP:ArbCom, and the latter are unlikely to take a behavioural case unless all other options have been explored. You could, I suppose, try to raise the issue with ArbCom using the existing WP:ARBIPA provisions but I suspect that it would get kicked back unless you have really solid grounds. - Sitush (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

That you question the practicability of what I have said, but do not challenge the reasonability, is telling. The reasonability of what I have said remaining unchallanged means that "their bluff" has been called -- already. And it will be called again and again at every available opportunity. The game is up Sitush, and if you are wise, you know it too. It is only a matter of time from here.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

OrangesRyellow, I'm afraid you have missed Sitush's point entirely - are you aware of the English idiom "Put up or shut up"? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

...all in good time. Just let the opportunities present themselves. Hurry not.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused now: you say it has been going on for ages but you need the "opportunities". What "opportunities" do you need if the evidence is already there? As Boing! says, you need to put up or shut up. After all, you have been making these vague allegations for months now. It looks like I've just called your bluff. - Sitush (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone please copy this over to ANI and also indicate that it is addressed to Boing!SaidZebedee.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. --regentspark (comment) 15:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• As per this, I have now lifted the block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Explanation

The word Nazi is used only when when one runs out of words or in exasperation. No one ought to take such comments seriously. That it was taken meant that it was found offensive. Being offended is the judgement of the recipient of the comment. It is not about what was meant but about what was perceived. I was once blocked for comparing the editing actions of one editor with that of the Norway bomber. It was unfortunate that such a comparison was taken literally, but it was. So I have a little understanding of what could get a person blocked and what ought to get the person unblocked. My opinion is that the most formal and neutral language possible in the situation ought to be used as the debates themselves are quite contentious. I am happy that you've done what it was necessary to get yourself unblocked. Drive safely and happy journey! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

PinkAmpersand's comments are a candid confession. My solution to this problem is to have more competent emic contributors, competence is gained by experience, and experience is gained by participation. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Your comments at ANI and here are a great help and are appreciated. Whether emic/etic, except for the privileged group, I do not think many would take an interest in an area mired with OWN, INVOLVED problems. You may peruse my latest TLDR candidate above for more details.OrangesRyellow (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is permanent, the greatest empires have been forgotten. Good times change, so do bad times. One ought to dig ones' heels in and bide time. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Quote

This is something that I have used several times but would like to repeat it again "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". Things might change.-sarvajna (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Diffs

I am a bit busy nowadays, I am shifting from a country to another one. I will shortly have my flight. Then I will manage the diffs. You need not to worry about them. Faizan 13:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

K-stick's RFA

OrangesRyellow, that's a positively phrased and reasonable opposing comment you made, so thanks for the courtesy of a fair answer. I would say that there's a lot of admins you never see on ANI, though, and that's fine--much of the work has nothing to do with it. When I was admin K-stick ask me to do all kinds of little things that require the tool, and those are important too: cleaning up old sandboxes, moving uncontroversial articles, merging histories. Those kinds of things are easily done with a tool, and I just don't think that Kelapstick is going to get carried away from what he usually does. I hope his RfA is successful, and I am sure you won't be disappointed. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I was almost going to give a Like when I ran into the ANI stats. It is a bit of a relief to see you not going ballistic over my O. I know ANI is only a small part of admin functions but somehow, I am still worried that the candidate could be speeding into extreme positions too soon and too many times. Whatever. My oppose is unlikely to effect the outcome and let's hope for the best.OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think the point Drmies is making is that although candidates are expected to have a broad knowledge of policies, this is not necessarily demonstrated by having worked in all areas. On the other hand, there are a lot of admin wannabes who pester the life out of the AN and ANI boards! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. Regards. That's a fair point. There are so many policy areas on WP that it may be really impossible for any ed to have demonstrated a broad knowledge of all of them. However, I still feel that a candidate should have a larger footprint in this particular area.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

natural admins

"naturals" at adminning have which traits, exactly? ... aa:talk 09:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, that would be a highly subjective thing. I could not give a scientifically quantifiable or provable list of attributes. But I can try giving a rough idea based on my personal idiosyncratic opinions and observations.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well, I would rule out those who join Misplaced Pages with the express intent of becoming an admin, and those who are too eager to get the bit and constantly ply admins offline to nominate them. A 'natural' is probably someone who generally gnomes away creating or adding good content, knows how to handle content disputes with articles they are working on, does not comment profusely to 'managerial' areas ostensibly to get themselves noticed, is polite, calm, and reserved, and who through a long experience of simply working with content has accumulated a broad knowledge of policies and guidelines and knows how to apply them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I too would rule out those who seem to have joined Misplaced Pages with the intent to become an admin. I agree with most, but not all of your attributes for a "natural" admin. Where I differ is that I would prefer an admin who is outgoing, helpful to others and takes much interest in helping the project in avenues beyond the scope of his/her article level interest. Someone who has experience with problem/dispute resolution, mediation etc. Someone who also has experience with the messier side of things. Someone with great diplomatic skills which were demonstrated while resolving some intractable looking problems. A person who has a demonstrated ability to convince others by explaining things clearly, by quoting policy (not just giving policy links) or otherwise. My idea of "natural" admins would be users like Dennis Brown, SlimVirgin, MzMcbride and the newly hatted Anna Frodesiak. And yes, Kudpung too. I am sure there are many more admirable admins, and I apologize for my failure in naming them all. I have had little or no interaction with any of the users I name, but I admire them all. I am not saying that our current candidate is bad. He isn't. All I am saying is that I think the mop should be given to folks with a more outgoing disposition and with a bit more experience in handling disputes/mediation etc.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC) I share Kudpung's irritation with folks who just make comments on admin noticeboards to get themselves noticed. But I might not mind if they were helping out with investigating, or explaining things or helping resolve the issue by using their diplomatic skills. Of course, people who just calculate which way the wind is blowing and add a pile-on support/oppose comment simply repeating things that have already been said by other users would not be appreciated.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to pardon me for this discussion being very "meta." My concern is that we, as wikipedia, have a sort of "phenotype" in our administrators. There's a lot of group-think, and there's a lot of the same sort of behavior. While I don't pay a terrible lot of attention to RFA, when I do, I am always troubled by the notion that people wish to become administrators to "fight vandalism." The word "patrol" is used a lot. In days of yore, we described adminship as "a mop and a bucket" and used "a badge and a gun" for comparison. My substantial involvement in the project ended when people switched from the mop-and-bucket type to the gun-and-badge type. I want to say this was 2006-ish. Of course we need to have people reverting changes that are vandalous (er, I am not sure that is a word), but it seems that the number of administrators far outweighs the number of administrative tasks to be done. I can think of a couple solutions for this (and I realize someone will point out here some horrid backlog of administrative tasks to be done; I can elaborate on that if anyone cares).

Anyways, the reason I mention this is (I forget the name of the user)'s RFA seemed to be one of somebody who genuinely was out to sort of ease their editing tasks, rather than fight back against some tide of vandals, et cetera. Which was refreshing to me. And then I saw your comment about a natural editor, and wondered whether there was consensus on what such is, or whether you had a well-defined idea. Call it "taking the pulse of the bureaucratic community on the encyclopedia." Thanks for humoring an old lady. I can be something of a curmudgeon. ... aa:talk 16:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I assure you interacting with you and Kudpung was a pleasure. If anything, I should be the one to express gratitude. Your question, and Kudpung's input have helped me further crystallize my ideas on a "natural" admin. So, I think I have a better defined idea now, even if I did not have a "well defined" one earlier.

My view on the changes in Misplaced Pages is that all things are prone to constant changes. So, the thing to do is to understand the change and work out some fruitful and interesting way to live with the changing environment. As far as I may be allowed to, I would humbly urge you to continue your participation in the project. Surely one can find something of interest on WP. Regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

is mutual. i do poke around my tiny corner of the encyclopedia, and try to steer clear of the dramas. so far i am doing okay. <3 ... aa:talk 14:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

VE newsletter

Hey OrangesRyellow

We just deployed another VisualEditor release; bugs fixed include:

• Firefox 13/14 has been temporarily blacklisted, to avoid the insertion of broken links ] (50720)
• Changing a reference in a template should no longer produce the bright red "you don't have a references block!" error (bugzilla:50423)
• Notices are now shown if you're editing a protected or semi-protected page (bugzilla:50415)
• The template inspector will no longer invite you to insert parameters that are already being used (50715)
• Same as above, but with aliases (50717)
• Parameter names in the template dialogue now word-wrap (50800)
• The link inspector will not show in the top left if you hit the return key while opening it (49941)
• Hitting return twice in the link editor will no longer introduce a new line that overwrites the link (51075)
• Oddly-named categories no longer cause corruption (50702)
• The toolbar no longer occasionally covers the cursor (48787)
• Changing the formatting of text no longer occasionally scrolls you upwards (50792)

Not specific bugs, but other things; cacheing is now improved, so people should stop seeing temporary breaking when the VisualEditor updates, and RTL support has received some patches. I hope this newsletter is helpful to people; I'll send out another one with the next deployment :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

VE newsletter

Hey OrangesRyellow! Another set of patches :). Today we have:

• Required template parameters are now automatically added to new templates (50747)
• Templates with piped links now display correctly when you alter them (50801)
• If your edit token expires, you're now informed of it (50424).

  You still won't be able to save - that's due to be fixed on Monday :).

More on Monday, I suspect. Hope you have a good weekend :). I should also have some news about the IP launch pretty soon. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

(if you're seeing this and aren't the newsletter recipient - please do sign up here)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding me unblocking Pudeo. The thread is Bwilkins' response to my unblock of Pudeo. Thank you. -- tariqabjotu 22:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

VE newsletter

Hey OrangesRyellow; hope you had a decent weekend :). We've got a pile of patches, some of which went out on Monday, some yesterday:

• If you insert wikitext such as links or section headers, you get a notice in the top right corner (over the save button). It doesn't go away until click, though once dismissed you don't get another one that edit. (49820)
• If your edit token expires, VE fetches a new one for you so you can save. (50424)
• If the page is empty of content but does have something non-content (like a category or an HTML comment), VE no longer crashes on load - (50289)
• sub tags are no longer removed ((49873)
• If you type at the end of links, they now extend
• Templates now only take a single click to insert
• Clear annotations clears links (50461)
• The link inspector stays open when you click to another item (50895)
• Typing after multi-byte characters no longer creats pawn icons (51140)
• Resizing thumbnails that have a default size set now works (50645)
• References made by tag:ref now display properly (bugzilla:50978)
• The VE is integrated with the spam blacklist (50826)
• Feedbacl link goes to the right language (bugzilla:47730)

There are a lot more improvements coming, but that's it for Monday and Tuesday. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Indian news search

Hi, just wanted to say that currently the Indian news search engine is working for me. Why don't you tell it to the user concerned that it doesn't for you? I think you should reconsider your edit on the project page. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ugog Nizdast. Thanks for the update. It still does not work for me. But I have reverted my tag on the project page. If it is working for you, and not for me, I guess there must be something wrong with my internet connection. Will try again tomorrow and report to TitoDutta if necessary. Cheers.OrangesRyellow (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, so it still doesn't work for you? Strange...anyway good day to you. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

VE newsletter

Hey OrangesRyellow. The newest updates:

• Links now don't extend over space/punctuation/workbreaks when you type (bugzilla:51463)
• Users with the "minoredit" preference set get working functionality (bugzilla:51515)
• You can tab to buttons in dialogs, including the save dialog (bugzilla:50047)
• We now show the <newarticletext> (or <newarticletextanon>) message as an edit notice (bugzilla:51459)
• You can scroll dialog panels like in transclusions' templates' parameter listings (bugzilla:51739)
• Templates that only create meta-data and no display content at all (like Template:Use dmy dates) now can't be deleted accidentally or deliberately, but still don't show up (bugzilla:51322)
• FlaggedRevisions integration (bugzilla:49699)
• Edit summary will get the section title pre-added if you launched from a section edit link (bugzilla:50872)

Along with some miscellaneous language support fixes. That's all for today; as always, let us know if you spot more bugs. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit wars or abusive reverts by an uninvolved party?

Perspective is everything. I wrote a civil comment in reply to what could be described as an uncivil response. I explained the reason for that edit. You then took it upon yourself to revert that change with a spurious edit reason - yes, people are allowed to remove what they like from their talk pages, but there is no rule that says it is wrong to respond to that civilly in an appropriate fashion. Essentially you have taken it upon yourself to censor a discussion which you have assumed that Sue would not like. So be it. I think that there is a big difference between someone removing a comment and hiding that comment and putting a derogatory characterisation to it. In doing that I believe that Sue left herself open to having that challenged.

Are you saying that you want a Misplaced Pages where sexual innuendo and abuse is considered the normal way of interacting with people and is acceptable? Don't you think it is reasonable to ask Sue to lead by example? We have to take it as tacitly accepted that she disagrees with that, but with your interference that's all we have.

I would like you to think about how you have interfered with a reasonable discussion and if you consider that my comments are inappropriate then so be it, but if you set aside Sue's characterisation of my comments as trolling and can see that they were meant constructively, then I would like to suggest that you revert your intervention and let people make their own mind up. Other than that, I'll let it drop. 94.169.24.206 (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not necessary, and even unlikely that Sue was describing your comment as trolling. I am not sure. But she had hatted the discussion. So, it is clear that she did not want to continue the discussion, and her wish should have been respected, not disregarded, even if politely. I did not give a spurious reason. It is a long-standing rule that once a user tells you to stop, you should stop posting on their talk page. Otherwise, the poster can be blocked for harassment. You can get this much confirmed from almost any admin. I certainly do not want sexist comments on Misplaced Pages. The comments were not on Misplaced Pages in the first place and were not sexist at all. I see no evidence that anyone was being harassed or insulted due to their gender. It is just some friends talking jovially about each other and the one getting poked happened to be female. But there is no indication that she was being targeted because of her gender. Perspective is everything, as you say. Please put it in the correct perspective and see it as some light conversation among friends, which it is. I think it is unreasonable for third parties to insert themselves into a friendly conversation and begin to see ghastly innuendo in their absolutely friendly conversation. Please try to see friendly conversations, joshing etc. as such. It is unreasonable to take these things seriously. I appreciate that you have decided to let it drop. Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments on User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Hi OrangesRyellow, could I ask you to not to post any more comments on User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz? From my perspective, your comments appear to be unnecessarily confrontational. PhilKnight (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter for 06 August 2013

It's been almost two weeks since the last newsletter, and a lot of improvements have been made during that time. The main things that people have noticed are significant improvements to speed for typing into long pages (Template:Bug), scrolling (Template:Bug) and deleting (Template:Bug) on large pages. There have also been improvements to references, with the latest being support for list-defined references, which are <ref>s defined inside a <references> block (Template:Bug). Users of Opera 12 and higher have had their web browser removed from the browser black-list, mostly as a result of work by a volunteer developer (Template:Bug). Opera has not been fully white-listed yet, so these users will get an additional warning and request to report problems.

Significant changes were made to the user interface to de-emphasize VisualEditor. This has cut the use of VisualEditor by approximately one-third. You can read about these at Misplaced Pages:VisualEditor/Updates/August 1, 2013, but they include:

• Re-ordering links to the editors to put "Edit source" first and VisualEditor second
• Renaming the link for VisualEditor to "Edit"
• Disabling the animation for section editing.
• Changing all labels for the classic wikitext editor to say "Edit source", regardless of namespace.

There have also been many smaller fixes, including these:

• Horizontal alignment of images working correctly on more pages (Template:Bug)
• Categories with ':'s in their names (like Category:Misplaced Pages:Privacy) now work correctly (Template:Bug)
• Magic JavaScript gadgets and tools like sortable tables will now work once the page is saved (Template:Bug)
• Keyboard shortcut for "clear annotations" - now Control+\ or ⌘ Command+\ (Template:Bug)
• Fixed corruption bugs that led to duplicate categories (Template:Bug) and improper collapsing when multiple new references were added in a row (Template:Bug).
• Improvements to display elements: The save dialog in Monobook is restored to normal size (Template:Bug), pop-up notices on save now look the same in VisualEditor as in wikitext editor (Template:Bug), and the popup about using wikitext has a link to the definition of wikitext that now opens in a new window (Template:Bug)

Most of the Wikimedia Foundation staff is traveling this week and next, so no updates are expected until at least August 15th. If you're going to be in Hong Kong for Wikimania 2013, say hello to James Forrester, Philippe Beaudette, and the other members of the VisualEditor team.

As always, if you have questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Misplaced Pages:VisualEditor/Feedback and ideas at Misplaced Pages talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 23:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages, as you did at Indians in Bangladesh, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Zayeem 16:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the content I had deleted and I had explained the reasons in the edit summaries. The material was coming from obvious non RS, user-generated, irrelevant, hoppingly biased non RS sources/ opinion-pieces or is simply unsourced. You seem to have a serious misunderstanding about sourcing policies and seem to think that sourced content cannot be deleted simply because it is sourced. Not so. The material was all improperly sourced and is POV (non neutral). Due to utter ignorance of sourcing policies, you have even reinserted usergenerated source like , and ironically, are calling my editing "disruptive". You have restored the improperly sourced, anti Bangladeshi nationalistic POV content saying Restoring referenced contents and you have done nothing to overcome my objections to the content. You have not used the article talk page to overcome my objections before restoring the content. You have posted this faux warning on my talk page while you are violating several Misplaced Pages sitepolicies by inserting improperly sourced content. Moreover, you are violating WP:CIVIL by posting uncalled for warning message on another user's talk while actually you are the one who is being disruptive by inserting improperly sourced content and by posting uncalled for, uncivil warning message. If you want to contest my deletions etc. on the article, try to make your case at the article talk page, without being uncivil. If you think my actions are disruptive, take in to WP:ANI and get me blocked. Don't come here to post your uncivil, ill informed warnings describing my editing as disruptive while ironically, actually your editing is disruptive. Clear?OrangesRyellow (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

My recent RfA

I should have said thanks for your support sooner. ```Buster Seven Talk 03:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Opting in to VisualEditor

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit ") is currently available on the English Misplaced Pages only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Misplaced Pages:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter—September and October 2014

TemplateData is a separate program that organizes information about the parameters that can be used in a template. VisualEditor reads that data, and uses it to populate its simplified template dialogs.

With the new TemplateData editor, it is easier to add information about parameters, because the ones you need to use are pre-loaded.

See the help page for TemplateData for more information about adding TemplateData. The user guide has information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing team has reduced technical debt, simplified some workflows for template and citation editing, made major progress on Internet Explorer support, and fixed over 125 bugs and requests. Several performance improvements were made, especially to the system around re-using references and reference lists. Weekly updates are posted on Mediawiki.org.

There were three issues that required urgent fixes: a deployment error that meant that many buttons didn't work correctly (bugs 69856 and 69864), a problem with edit conflicts that left the editor with nowhere to go (bug 69150), and a problem in Internet Explorer 11 that caused replaced some categories with a link to the system message, MediaWiki:Badtitletext (bug 70894) when you saved. The developers apologize for the disruption, and thank the people who reported these problems quickly.

Increased support for devices and browsers

Internet Explorer 10 and 11 users now have access to VisualEditor. This means that about 5% of Wikimedia's users will now get an "Edit" tab alongside the existing "Edit source" tab. Support for Internet Explorer 9 is planned for the future.

Tablet users browsing the site's mobile mode now have the option of using a mobile-specific form of VisualEditor. More editing tools, and availability of VisualEditor on smartphones, is planned for the future. The mobile version of VisualEditor was tweaked to show the context menu for citations instead of basic references (bug 68897). A bug that broke the editor in iOS was corrected and released early (bug 68949). For mobile tablet users, three bugs related to scrolling were fixed (bug 66697, bug 68828, bug 69630). You can use VisualEditor on the mobile version of Misplaced Pages from your tablet by clicking on the cog in the top-right when editing a page and choosing which editor to use.

TemplateData editor

A tool for editing TemplateData will be deployed to more Wikipedias soon.  Other Wikipedias and some other projects may receive access next month. This tool makes it easier to add TemplateData to the template's documentation.  When the tool is enabled, it will add a button above every editing window for a template (including documentation subpages). To use it, edit the template or a subpage, and then click the "Edit template data" button at the top.  Read the help page for TemplateData. You can test the TemplateData editor in a sandbox at Mediawiki.org. Remember that TemplateData should be placed either on a documentation subpage or on the template page itself. Only one block of TemplateData will be used per template.

Other changes

Several interface messages and labels were changed to be simpler, clearer, or shorter, based on feedback from translators and editors. The formatting of dialogs was changed, and more changes to the appearance will be coming soon, when VisualEditor implements the new MediaWiki theme from Design. (A preview of the theme is available on Labs for developers.) The team also made some improvements for users of the Monobook skin that improved the size of text in toolbars and fixed selections that overlapped menus.

VisualEditor-MediaWiki now supplies the mw-redirect or mw-disambig class on links to redirects and disambiguation pages, so that user gadgets that colour in these in types of links can be created.

Templates' fields can be marked as 'required' in TemplateData. If a parameter is marked as required, then you cannot delete that field when you add a new template or edit an existing one (bug 60358). 

Language support improved by making annotations use bi-directional isolation (so they display correctly with cursoring behaviour as expected) and by fixing a bug that crashed VisualEditor when trying to edit a page with a dir attribute but no lang set (bug 69955).

Looking ahead

The team posts details about planned work on the VisualEditor roadmap. The VisualEditor team plans to add auto-fill features for citations soon, perhaps in late October.

The team is also working on support for adding rows and columns to tables, and early work for this may appear within the month. Please comment on the design at Mediawiki.org.

In the future, real-time collaborative editing may be possible in VisualEditor. Some early preparatory work for this was recently done.

Supporting your wiki

At Wikimania, several developers gave presentations about VisualEditor. A translation sprint focused on improving access to VisualEditor was supported by many people. Deryck Chan was the top translator. Special honors also go to संजीव कुमार (Sanjeev Kumar), Robby, Takot, Bachounda, Bjankuloski06 and Ата. A summary of the work achieved by the translation community has been posted here. Thank you all for your work.

VisualEditor can be made available to most non-Misplaced Pages projects. If your community would like to test VisualEditor, please contact product manager James Forrester or file an enhancement request in Bugzilla.

Please join the office hours on Saturday, 18 October 2014 at 18:00 UTC (daytime for the Americas; evening for Africa and Europe) and on Wednesday, 19 November at 16:00 UTC on IRC.

Give feedback on VisualEditor at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback. Subscribe or unsubscribe at Meta. To help with translations, please subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact Elitre at Meta. Thank you!

— Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter—November 2014

VisualEditor is also available on the mobile version of Misplaced Pages. Login and click the pencil icon to open the page you want to edit. Click on the gear-shaped settings in the upper-right corner, to pick which editor to use. Choose "Edit" to use VisualEditor, or "Edit source" to use the wikitext editor.

It will remember whether you used wikitext or VisualEditor, and use the same editor the next time you edit an article.

The user guide has information about how to use VisualEditor. Not all features are available in Mobile Web.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has fixed many bugs and requests, and worked on support for editing tables and for using non-Latin languages. Their weekly updates are posted on Mediawiki.org. Informal notes from the recent quarterly review were posted on Meta.

Recent improvements

The French Misplaced Pages should see better search results for links, templates, and media because the new search engine was turned on for everyone there. This change is expected at the Chinese and German Wikipedias next week, and eventually at the English Misplaced Pages.

The "pawn" system has been mostly replaced. Bugs in this system sometimes added a chess pawn character to wikitext. The replacement provides better support for non-Latin languages, with full support hopefully coming soon.

VisualEditor is now provided to editors who use Internet Explorer 10 or 11 on desktop and mobile devices. Internet Explorer 9 is not supported yet.

The keyboard shortcuts for items in the toolbar's menus are now shown in the menus. VisualEditor will replace the existing design with a new theme from the User Experience / Design group. The appearance of dialogs has already changed in one Mobile version. The appearance on desktops will change soon. (You can see a developer preview of the old "Apex" design and the new "MediaWiki" theme which will replace it.)

Several bugs were fixed for internal and external links. Improvements to MediaWiki's search solved an annoying problem: If you searched for the full name of the page or file that you wanted to link, sometimes the search program could not find the page. A link inside a template, to a local page that does not exist, will now show red, exactly as it does when reading the page. Due to a error, for about two weeks this also affected all external links inside templates. Opening an auto-numbered link node like with the keyboard used to open the wrong link tool. These problems have all been fixed.

TemplateData

The tool for quickly editing TemplateData will be deployed to all Wikimedia Foundation wikis on Thursday, 6 November.  This tool is already available on the biggest 40 Wikipedias, and now all wikis will have access to it. This tool makes it easier to add TemplateData to the template's documentation.  When the tool is enabled, it will add a button above every editing window for a template (including documentation subpages). To use it, edit the template or a subpage, and then click the "Edit template data" button at the top.  Read the help page for TemplateData. You can test the TemplateData editor in a sandbox at Mediawiki.org. Remember that TemplateData should be placed either on a documentation subpage or on the template page itself. Only one block of TemplateData will be used per template.

You can use the new autovalue setting to pre-load a value into a template. This can be used to substitute dates, as in this example, or to add the most common response for that parameter. The autovalue can be easily overridden by the editor, by typing something else in the field.

In TemplateData, you may define a parameter as "required". The template dialog in VisualEditor will warn editors if they leave a "required" parameter empty, and they will not be able to delete that parameter. If the template can function without this parameter, then please mark it as "suggested" or "optional" in TemplateData instead.

Looking ahead

Basic support for inserting tables and changing the number of rows and columns in tables will appear next Wednesday. Advanced features, like dragging columns to different places, will be possible later. The VisualEditor team plans to add auto-fill features for citations soon. To help editors find the most important items more quickly, some items in the toolbar menus will be hidden behind a "More" item, such as "underlining" in the styling menu. The appearance of the media search dialog will improve, to make picking between possible images easier and more visual. The team posts details about planned work on the VisualEditor roadmap.

The user guide will be updated soon to add information about editing tables. The translations for most languages except Spanish, French, and Dutch are significantly out of date. Please help complete the current translations for users who speak your language. Talk to us if you need help exporting the translated guide to your wiki.

You can influence VisualEditor's design. Tell the VisualEditor team what you want changed during the office hours via IRC. The next sessions are on Wednesday, 19 November at 16:00 UTC and on Wednesday 7 January 2015 at 22:00 UTC. You can also share your ideas at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.

Also, user experience researcher Abbey Ripstra is looking for editors to show her how they edit Misplaced Pages. Please sign up for the research program if you would like to hear about opportunities.

If you would like to help with translations of this newsletter, please subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Subscribe or unsubscribe at Misplaced Pages:VisualEditor/Newsletter. Thank you!

— Whatamidoing (WMF) 20:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Just because!

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Oops!

I accidentally reverted your comment. Completely unintentional, I think I misclicked somehow in an unfortunately clumsy way. Sorry! __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I too could have done that. :-) Thanks for the concern, although, I think an apology is too kind, and was not required for an accident like this. Thanks anyway.OrangesRyellow (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for helping me appeal my block extension. You put a lot of thought into it and maybe helped others to think it through, too.

Lightbreather (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter—December 2014

Did you know?

Basic table editing is now available in VisualEditor. You can add and remove rows and columns from existing tables at the click of a button.

The user guide has more information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has fixed many bugs and worked on table editing and performance. Their weekly status reports are posted on Mediawiki.org. Upcoming plans are posted at the VisualEditor roadmap.

VisualEditor was deployed to several hundred remaining wikis as an opt-in beta feature at the end of November, except for most Wiktionaries (which depend heavily upon templates) and all Wikisources (which await integration with ProofreadPage).

Recent improvements

Basic support for editing tables is available. You can insert new tables, add and remove rows and columns, set or remove a caption for a table, and merge cells together. To change the contents of a cell, double-click inside it. More features will be added in the coming months. In addition, VisualEditor now ignores broken, invalid rowspan and colspan elements, instead of trying to repair them.

You can now use find and replace in VisualEditor, reachable through the tool menu or by pressing ⌃ Ctrl+F or ⌘ Cmd+F.

You can now create and edit simple <blockquote> paragraphs for quoting and indenting content. This changes a "Paragraph" into a "Block quote".

Some new keyboard sequences can be used to format content. At the start of the line, typing "*  " will make the line a bullet list; "1.  " or "# " will make it a numbered list; "==" will make it a section heading; ": " will make it a blockquote. If you didn't mean to use these tools, you can press undo to undo the formatting change. There are also two other keyboard sequences: "[[" for opening the link tool, and "{{" for opening the template tool, to help experienced editors. The existing standard keyboard shortcuts, like ⌃ Ctrl+K to open the link editor, still work.

If you add a category that has been redirected, then VisualEditor now adds its target. Categories without description pages show up as red.

You can again create and edit galleries as wikitext code.

Looking ahead

VisualEditor will replace the existing design with a new theme designed by the User Experience group. The new theme will be visible for desktop systems at MediaWiki.org in late December and at other sites early January. (You can see a developer preview of the old "Apex" theme and the new "MediaWiki" one which will replace it.)

The Editing team plans to add auto-fill features for citations in January. Planned changes to the media search dialog will make choosing between possible images easier.

Help

• Share your ideas and ask questions at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.
• Translations of the user guide for most languages are oudated. Ukrainian, Portuguese, Spanish, French, and Dutch translators are nearly current. Please help complete the current translations for users who speak your language.
• Talk to the Editing team during the office hours via IRC. The next session is on Wednesday, 7 January 2015 at 22:00 UTC.
• File requests for language-appropriate "Bold" and "Italic" icons for the character formatting menu in Phabricator.
• The design research team wants to see how real editors work. Please sign up for their research program.

If you would like to help with translations of this newsletter, please subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Subscribe or unsubscribe at Meta.

Thank you! WhatamIdoing (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Priya's Shakti at WP:RSN

I have started a discussion about Priya's Shakti at RSN.

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Some Quality Streets for you!

	Some Quality Streets for you!
	Thanks for supporting me at my RfA. It didn't succeed this time, but I'll keep editing as much as I can. Rcsprinter123 (discuss) @ 12:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

NP:-) It was a pleasure supporting you. What happened there was almost comical. Supposedly serious and responsible folks demanding perfection in the candidate, while other supposedly serious and responsible folks ( big hats ) were themselves making clueless comments. I don't blame them too much though. They are an overworked and harried lot. All this brings the seriousness of our community processes in question though. So, I hope you will not take all this too personally. It all says something about our community processes, rather than you. What I find most disturbing is that people seemed to be sticking to their already expressed positions even after the weakness of that position was pointed out. Whatever. Cheers.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I now have a clearer definition of what disturbs me. My difficulty is with folks who go like -- "OK. I accept the basis for me saying X is all wrong, but I still say X because...blah blah blah", Obviously they have great difficulty admitting mistakes and are making it up.OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Confirmation of request for additional account

This is to confirm that I have requested an additional account to be created.OrangesRyellow (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Women's rights in 2014 has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, OrangesRyellow. Women's rights in 2014, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated for Did you know consideration to appear on Misplaced Pages's Main Page. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 02:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Mansqueezing

Hi, Oranges. Did you happen to see the Daily Show on January 8, where Jon Stewart assured viewers that "Out of respect for the new mass transit ordinances here in New York City, behind my desk I am actually mansqueezing"? :-) I tried to find a video link (I don't exactly do Facebook), but failed and didn't want to spend too long on it, as I don't really think it's useful for your article. Pretty funny, though, if you perhaps have more luck finding a clip. Stewart wasn't making fun of the campaign against manspreading, but rather supporting it. His message was "Play with your boys in the office, not on the subway!"

This note is an expression of the fact that I have just got myself a lot more TV channels, and am actually able, for the first time ever, to watch the Daily Show from these distant shores. Great show, and I feel so updated! Bishonen | talk 15:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC).

Ha Ha Ha Ha. Hi Bishonen. Sorry, couldn't help laughing at that word. I tried finding the link, same here. Found a funny looking cartoon, and some more man-isms along the way though .OrangesRyellow (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Comment on request for a culture of kindness

I fully support a "culture of kindness". However, in my experience, I have seen very little kindness on Misplaced Pages. The most kind act we can do involves our personal, daily choices. For example, earlier today, I noticed an editor make the passing comment that they had suffered a panic attack due to all the stress another editor was giving them. I then left them a personal message wishing them well on their talk page. To me, that's what a culture of kindness is truly about, not random chiding. Viriditas (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas. Please don't take my comments personally. I am completely sure that you mean well, and are a helpful guy. What Djembayz, and myself were trying to say is that being an ANI regular could have led to some level of desensitization to low level incivilities. Characterizations like dick, kid, son, immediately look uncivil to non-regulars like me, and lead to further confrontations, as can be seen in the present case. That is why it might have been better to have caused a course-correction already. I have replied there with more details. Regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion was closed when I returned. Your closing comment, to me at least, gives the appearance of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, which harkens back to my original concern about logic. Your attempt to connect the failure to "chide" with the subsequent slur against autistic people is specious, in my opinion. In any event, I am one of the few males on public record who came out against the use of the "Dick" essay title many years ago, before it was fashionable to do so. I do not (nor have I ever that I can recall) use the term in either public or private discourse. Nevertheless, I am fully aware that all of us are at different levels of biological development. Because of the anonymous working environment, this can lead to problems, and I would like to suggest, that this is the root cause. Not the anonymity, but the virtual, textual interface. I think that the increasing use and adoption of virtual and augmented reality will solve this problem once and for all in the next five years. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I have seen it happen many times. I am not going to provide diffs of example cases because it is going to take several man days / months to collect them, and I have slow internet connection. I guess we will have to agree to disagree then. I am grateful that one of those users has been given a talking ( might have liked it more if both got something, and if it had a bit less of "school boys defusing tension" type tone, and focused more on the importance of WP:CIVIL, and the drawbacks of not following it ) so that the user may be saved from going down the same wrong ( cul de sac ) road that Russavia and a certain gentleman from a former industrial town in Northern England have been led into. I think their friends are their worst enemies because, except for these friends, both of them would have become excellent contributors we could all have been proud of. There is no denying that both of them are highly capable individuals ( but with attitude problems) . If they did not have dogmatic supporters, there is a good chance that their attitude problems would have been rooted out early-on, and easily, without acquiring severe forms.OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC) I think there is much substance in your theory that anonymous working environment can lead to problems, but I doubt that new virtual reality technology will help us because anonymity is a vital part of our project, and I don't think we could / should leave out this part even if technology allows.OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

My point, for which I am at fault for not taking the time to explain, regards the limits of social interaction constrained by the medium of the textual interface. For example, if we were communicating by voice, you would have additional communication layers to work with, giving us both more information about our meaning. Civility, therefore, emerges through clearer interpretation, since it helps to increase sending and receiving content. Add additional layers, such as images and video, and meaning is encapsulated and communicated with even more accuracy. Finally, add immersive qualities such as telepresence, and civility is basically required by the medium, just as it would be in RL. My argument is now, I hope, a bit more overt. Rude, uncivil behavior arises from the limits of the communication medium, which dehumanizes both parties into just words on a screen. The medium is, as Marshall McLuhan famously wrote, the message. The great problem facing the global technology sector has been the same for many decades. The goal should not be to focus solely on automation, on making us more amenable to the machine, on turning people into machine thinkers. Contrary to the driving force of the industry, which seeks to blend us with the machine, to make us more machine-like, the goal should be exactly the opposite—to make us more human, to allow us to reach the ultimate potential of our humanity. The transhumanists got it wrong. They believe that the very qualities of humanity are faults, misunderstanding the deep connection between people and disregarding it as an afterthought. We are more than just our minds, more than just words on a screen, and as you can see from the limits of this discussion, the engineers are to blame. This is because the human factor has been removed from the equation, quite deliberately, to make us more pliable and easy to control. Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Although I understood the broad message in your earlier comment, the latest comment does crystallize things better. On the web, anonymity emboldens people to say things they wouldn’t otherwise express. In the absence of physical and time restraints, cybermobs form quickly. Your points do seem do have scholarly support there. However, I would argue that the anonymity of internet has its upsides too. The internet anonymity which lets people do vile things is the same anonymity which lets people exercise their freedom of speech more fearlessly in a constructive manner ( than they would if their words could be easily pinned on them.,) So, textual mediums, and more visual, realistic mediums, seem to have their own strengths and weaknesses.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC) I understand that the dehumanizing effect of a text only environment is more central to your point, but it seems to me to be same as the dehumanizing effect of anonymization.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I predict you'll find the same problems with incivility and cybermobs in Facebook discussions, where the participants are named and known. I have never really bought into the anonymity rationale. My point is that all of the things that make us human are gone, reduced to minds represented by words. Yet, that is so far removed from who we really are, it's absurd. Think about a cherished memory you might have; is it a word, a sentence, or a paragraph? Of course not. It's a feeling, an emotion, the smell of lilac, the soft embrace of a loved one, the sparkle in their eyes. The smell of a wet dog shaking its fur, the sound of laughter, the cool breeze after sunset. This textual interface dehumanizes us at it's very core, it's a virtual prison, where we are chained to a keyboard (or touchscreen), forced to watch little symbols scroll by as the world turns. We've been sold on a lie, where we are taught to ignore the sunlight outside this cave and to favor the shadows flickering on the wall. Civility issues arise out of the dehumanizing textual interface. Without social cues, without "knowing" what you mean without seeing it expressed, or hearing the intent, we become minds symbolized by words, flattened by the linear experience. Who we are is reduced to what we write or what we read. What we read determines how we think. How we think identifies who we think and who others think we are. Words on a screen. Is there anything more dehumanizing than that? Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You make it very clear now, and I am in complete agreement that the severe dehumanizing effect of a text-only environment completely dehumanizes us, and takes away the human instinct to be civil with other people ( because we do not see "people", we only see words and ideas ). I accept that much. I also accept your contention that facebook, with it named and known structure is just as uncivil. However, having a name and known identity should make us more civil according to your contention ( because seeing a face and identity with those words constitutes a layer of humanity ) ? That we are just as uncivil with that added layer of humanity probably means adding layers of humanity does not make us civil, and leads me to suspect there may be something more at work here. What could it be ? Are we more uncivil on the net because of the physical distance, and improbablity of consequences. If I rain invectives on someone sitting right next to me, I may have to face physical retribution, or worse, but that is highly improbable if I rain expletives on someone on the net. If I do it in RL, it takes brawn, but how much muscle does it take to type some %$#@& on the net ? I think this lack of consequences is also a factor in incivilities on the net. If "lack of consequences" is a factor, it means we can control incivilities if we can create consequences for incivilities. I have seen it happen in real life too. Where I live, there is a region which had an anarchist elected chief administrator for some years. This guy practically announced that there would be no consequences for murderers, dacoits and rapists etc. Before we knew it, the whole area under him was deep in crime and violence, and was being ruled by gangsters ( patronized by him ). Then the anarchist fellow lost elections, a strictly law enforcing administrator was elected, and the region was back to normal like magic. I take it to mean that if laws have teeth, and if they bite, there will be peace, and absent this, there will be anarchy. That is why, I believe strict and even-handed enforcement of WP:CIVIL is important for us. IMO, If people know their will be consequences for their incivilities, they will be civil, otherwise, they will be uncivil. If this is correct, it does not matter much whether we have a de/humanized environment.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Break

Your counterargument is interesting, but having a name and face isn't enough; we have to also have a connection to others as likeminded beings. You touch upon this when you mention the physical distance problem, which is part of what I was getting at in terms of the limitations of the medium. However, where we differ is your appeal to consequences, which is an older, fear based paradigm with significant cultural implications rooted in a conservative approach known as retributive justice, which I dare to say has failed as a philosophy. I realize you disagree. More importantly, you've pointed out one of the unanswered questions in jurisprudence, sociology, and psychology. Some aspects of this question have good answers already. The death penalty, for example, has been shown not to deter crime in a significant way. In fact, it is meted out disproportionately and in some cases, to innocent people. It also gives the ultimate power of life and death to a government, which can make politically-motivated decisions in spite of the evidence. I'm using this as an extreme example, but it is the inevitable outcome of your proposed argument for enforcing the law. You bifurcate between peace and anarchy, as if those are our only choices, setting up an ultimate authority to enforce the law, such that its bite is worse than its bark. Sadly, history has shown the fruits of this approach, and it's a strange, bitter fruit indeed. No, what is needed is the end and cessation of retributive justice, and a new way of doing things. We already see this new way forward. In many countries, for example, drug addicts are no longer being treated as criminals, but as patients who need medical attention. While many may still argue over nurture and nature, with both sides cheering and claiming victory, there is good evidence that both can influence human development. I will not discuss free will, as that is a can of worms in and of itself. Suffice it to say, no man or woman is an island; we must live alongside each other in peace for the good of all. This means we must make the right choice. To be civil, therefore, is the correct choice, no different than drinking water when thirsty, or bathing when unclean. To do otherwise would be a sign of some kind of disorder or disease. But we cannot be at peace as a society through the strict enforcement of law as you propose. In some cases, this may seem to work for a time in homogenous cultures, but little by little the cracks will appear, the black market will form, and the law will be undermined by those tasked with enforcing it. Peace comes from within the individual as a result of their relationship to their environment, and expands outward. You will never find it outside yourself, nor will you ever be able to enforce it. That is simply another form of totalitarianism, fascism, and any other failed ideology you can name. The real question then becomes, why are people not at peace with themselves and their fellow humans? And we can extend that question to non-humans as well. And when you begin looking hard at the question, really examining it in the light of day, the answers will appear. I think John Lennon and Yoko Ono said it best: "War is over, if you want it." The question is, why don't people want it, and why are they at war with themselves, others, and even nature itself? Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No no !. You let it slip, and I caught you :-) Facebook has an added layer of humanity without making us more civil, you have said this. Be a good sport, and accept that added layers of humanity do no make us civil. At best, it is only a marginal factor. I think I should clarify that I was not suggesting a totalitarian regime of any type, no fascism, no dictatorship, etc. There are more civil options available. Most of the world has lived under some king of laws for centuries now, without major ill effects, and relative peace and development in law enforced areas. Peace does not come from within. Humans just do not work that way. Facebook, twitter and reddit have little enforcement, and if peace could come from within, why is there no peace there ? Why did I find the region with no law enforcement sink into crime and violence, and snap back to peace when law was enforced ? Your contention about punishment being meted out disproportionately or to innocent people seems to be a form of Nirvana fallacy. My conclusion is clear, enforcement results in peace and development, and non enforcement leads to anarchy and regression. If peace can come from within ( without law enforcement ), and the scenario is not wishful thinking, please show some real world example ( an example which is not a very small test case ).OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You're funny. In a good way. :) Like I said, I found your counterargument interesting, and you did an excellent job attempting to refute my central point. However, communicating with other users on Facebook is still, for the most part, text-based. As I pointed out, the addition of real names and faces hasn't changed the civility level. Civility is limited by the text. Your counterargument assumes that Facebook has a higher level of telepresence or that the lessened anonymity of a registered account disproves my point. The problem is that neither is true. The core of my argument, that technology has a tendency to dehumanize and weaken civility, is still sound, after all Facebook is an extension of this dehumanizing process. Ask yourself, has social media dehumanized us or rehumanized us? According to the latest studies, it continues to dehumanize us. " basically renders the person the other side very flat, like a one or two dimensional character rather than a live three dimensional character," Dr. Lee Keyes, the executive director of the Counseling Center at the University of Alabama said. "So you lose out on all the nuances, those kind of get flattened out. It's easy to react to what is an incomplete interpretation of another person. We tend to filter things out a bit when we're dealing with a live human being." As for the rest of your points, peace can only come from within the individual, it cannot be effectively enforced from an external source. Crime and violence are symptoms of a greater problem. No amount of law and order will solve them. Looking outside oneself for answers is fruitless. Your appeal to enlightened absolutism is historically interesting, but says more about biological and cultural influence than anything else, particularly primate dominance hierarchies and behavior. That the kind of "strict" punishment you favor is disproportionate in application is not a fallacy. Ethnic and religious minorities, women, journalists, artists, and anyone who criticizes the government are common targets. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and a strict law may become oppressive in just a short period. Anyone guilty of the most minor infraction may be labeled a subversive, and just like that, disappeared. Read your history and watch the news. We will eventually look back at retributive justice and shake our heads. Its time has come and gone. In the modern world, new approaches, such as restorative justice, are very slowly replacing the old, broken practices. To learn more about why the death penalty is a complete failure, and only serves the interests of repressive societies, see our article on capital punishment. You are also free to read more about inner peace. If you are truly concerned about civility on Misplaced Pages, the best thing you can do is write a very brief essay on the topic, and begin sharing it with the community. The current guideline does a very poor job of communicating the concept. If you can write a convincing essay that encapsulates the problem along with recommended approaches, the more people who read it, the more they can cultivate civility into their own practices, thereby expanding throughout the encyclopedia. Heavy handed punishments and strict interpretations are the way of the past, not the future. Your conclusion up above, that "If people know there will be consequences for their incivilities, they will be civil" assumes that consequences deters crime. Many studies have shown that the deterrent effect of laws is very minor. On the other hand, people who are at peace with themselves, have no need to commit crimes. Do you pay for your food because it is illegal to steal it, or do you pay for it because you know the vendor provides a service to your community, and must also feed their family? Why don't you rob or mug people for money? Is it because you are afraid of the consequences, or is it because you would never do such a thing because of your respect for other people and your finely tuned moral compass? How about tossing your trash outside your window? Would you not do that because there's a law against it, or is it because you want to live in a clean place, free of debris and health hazards? Laws have little to nothing to do with why people commit crimes. I realize this must be strange to hear. But it gets even stranger. There is good evidence showing that many laws encourage crime, and make it easier for people to commit them. Still other laws make it easier for the authorities to round up and arrest certain types of people. So, the creation of laws and their enforcement can be used as a control mechanism to enforce the will of the state, rather than encouraging the peace you so desire. How many despots, how many dictators, and how many tyrants, started off with good intentions? And how many "peace loving" countries in the world make enormous profits manufacturing armaments, selling weapons, and fighting foreign wars on behalf of their upstanding laws? And yet, what happens to peace loving people who take a stand and who don't want wars, who peacefully protest against corruption, intolerance, and other state ills? The laws are designed so that they get arrested and put in jail for "disturbing" the peace! In other countries, they may be tortured or even killed. But the laws were well intended, of course, designed to prevent anarchy, as you would say. So the laws become another means for the state to control its people, to prevent dissent, and to enforce its will over the individual. But, it's all in the name of law and order, you reply. Yes, I'm sure every warlord says that just before ethnically cleansing thousands of people; and I'm sure every general and civil servant says that just before ordering a drone strike on a wedding party. But this is the end result of the dehumanization process; it's the end result of lacking inner peace, and the ultimate act of incivility. Civility begins and ends with the individual. You cannot control or enforce it from outside yourself. Although it's very hard, and I struggle greatly with it myself, remaining civil in the face of incivility is a wondrous act, as it requires us to draw upon the greatest humanizing force for peace on the planet. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Unwarranted and disgraceful comment

"To suggest that she is behaving as if she has been raped is a grotesque PA." You call for a culture of kindness and then make the most mind-blowingly idiotic comment like this. No one mentioned anything to do with rape, but that's the exact point your mind went to, which I think speaks volumes more about you than anyone else. I strongly suggest you strike that comment from the page and feel as ashamed of it as you should do. - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Great one, you've caused one of our best editors and reviewers to retire from the project. Hope you're proud of what you said.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody can "cause" anyone to do anything. We are all responsible for our own actions, decisions, and ability to make choices. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Utter bollocks and I'm sure Dennis Brown and many at the editor retention project would agree. A comment like that is more than enough to make any editor who is already fed up with the project to persuade them to leave. Editors leave on a daily basis and those who "retire" usually do so as a direct result of some insufferable fellow editor/s. If you can't see that the behaviour of many on here is directly responsible for people leaving then you're a prime example of what is wrong with the website. People do directly influence other people to retire, and while it is up to the editors themselves how they respond to it, clearly it has a direct influence on what they do and their whole mindset towards the project.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Far from being "bollocks", it's a universal truth that people continue to rediscover as individuals in times of great crisis. We have the power over our circumstances, even in the darkest pits of despair. Once you give up that power, you fall into the trap of the "blame game". Nobody can influence you if you refuse to play this game. If your principles are sound, if you have a moral center that guides you to make good decisions, "blame" is an alien notion. If, however, your principles are unsound and your moral center is off, then you will look to "blame" as a friend in time of need. But it's not a friend, it's an enemy, and it will suck you dry, deprive you of your personal power, and even worse, spread itself like a memetic virus to others so it can survive. Viriditas (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oranges, making false accusations like that has a way of blowing up in your face. Nowhere did Cass liken the editor to a rape victim. "To play the victim" is a common expression, such that we already have an article on the strategy it refers to. Please recant your accusation and apologize to Cass, or this is liable to get much bigger. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• As a man, and as someone who disagrees with OrangesRyellow's position on civility (as evidenced by this page), I'm going to step in here and defend her. She did not make a "false accusation". She merely misinterpreted what Cassianto wrote, which is very easy to do in this text-based environment. In other words, she misread the phrase "fucking victim", which can be interpreted as a "victim of rape". She's wrong, but there's a larger problem here. In addition to the "fucking victim" misinterpretation, there's also the blaming of the victim common to rape culture implicit in Cassianto's statement when he writes, "let's not forget, it was her who waived the bait under Eric's nose". So while we can disagree with OrangesRyellow's interpretation, she had good reason to think it. I would encourage all parties to drop this. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Your position would be much stronger if Oranges were to apologize and strike the offending comment. Letting it stand conveys the attitude that Oranges doesn't recognize it as a misinterpretation, but considers it the correct interpretation. That makes her comment an accusation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• 'she misread the phrase "fucking victim", which can be interpreted as a "victim of rape",' and "blaming of the victim]] common to rape culture": that is utter semantic nonsense (or total BS, if you prefer – and there are stronger things I am thinking of when I say that). I repeat my strong suggestion: strike the comment you made, as that will be the only way to ensure all parties forget this and move on. – SchroCat (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think it's "semantic nonsense" at all; I think it's a reasonable explanation. It is very easy to think of rape when one sees "fucking victim" and "it was her who waived the bait" under a man's nose in a sentence. I also think the attempt to blame her for another editor leaving is another misinterpretation of Cassianto's comments on the matter. Looks like a lot of victim blaming going on here. Please stop demanding that this editor do anything, as nothing needs to be done. This is approaching the level of intimidation and harassment. Repeatedly demanding an apology, a retraction, or anything else, is rarely effective. Complaints have been posted, points have been made, and anything else is up to the user at this point. Please let this go or take it to another venue. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The delete was a mishit, which I tried to revert. There is no intimidation or harassment here, but your defence of the indefensible here is laughable. Of course this idiot should apologise. Your excuses on their behalf are paper thin bollocks which carry no weight, and any half decent individual would strike the original comment and apologise. - SchroCat (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC).

I assumed as much, considering the proliferation of touchscreens. I realize you are angry and upset, but is there any good reason to launch into a tirade of personal attacks? Can you please take your concerns to another venue and leave this user alone now? Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

AFTER AN APOLOGY. If this editor is incapable of doing the decent thing they will strike their comment and apologise. There is something for them to apologise for, despite your denials to the contrary, so why don't you pipe down the defence for a whole and them have a say? - SchroCat (talk),

Because that's not how it works. You cannot demand anyone apologize for anything, and repeatedly doing so is considered by the Misplaced Pages community to be disruptive, and a form of harassment. You've been warned twice now. If you persist, I will report you on ANI. Now, please stop. To remind you, the Misplaced Pages policy on civility states, "you can't demand an apology from anyone else. It will only get their back up and make it either less likely to happen, or to be totally insincere if you do get an apology." It also says that "immediate blocking is generally reserved for cases of major incivility, where incivility rises to the level of clear disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing." Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I repeat, just so you cannot misunderstand again: my comments are for OrangesRYellow, not you, so pipe down and stop threatening me with ANI and let them speak for themselves. Your constant bludgeoning is what is prolonging this, DO NOT RESPOND: LET THE EDITOR IN QUESTION RESPOND. Hopefully even you will get the message this time. - SchroCat (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, members of this community are tasked with respecting each other and if need be, defending each other. You cannot be allowed to come here to harass this user, demand apologies, and make personal attacks. Our civility policy forbids it. This is your last warning. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You may bluster, bludgeon and threaten to your hearts content: I will await to see what the editor in question has to say. - SchroCat (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is SchroCat. Thank you. —Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out that OrangesRyellow has not made any edits since this comment. It is possible that the user walked away after writing it and has not seen this talk page yet. It is also possible that the user was confused when they wrote that and will quickly remove it when they realize what they said. I suggest we wait for a response before we pile on further. Chillum 18:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This has already been discussed up above and on ANI. Given the incivility, hostility, anger, aggressiveness, threats, intimidation, and harassment against OrangesRyellow, I can see no good reason why she should respond to anything. In fact, I would encourage her not to respond. Cassianto should think twice about making uncivil comments that could be misinterpreted, and OrangesRyellow should refrain from responding to such comments to avoid further problems. If she feels strongly about such comments or behavior, she should take her concerns to the appropriate noticeboard. But continuing to demand that she respond here is just another form of harassment. Viriditas (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. This is about intimidation now, and these users want to make it clear that no one is to tangle with the incivility warriors lest they suffer the wrath. I think Schrocat needs to stop acting as Cassianto's proxy and leave ORY alone. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like we can both be right

It turns out Martin Luther King, Jr. made a good argument back in 1964 defending both of our positions on civility. I would like to share it with you:

Now, the other myth that gets around a great deal in our nation and, I’m sure, in other nations of the world is the idea that you can’t solve the problems in the realm of human relations through legislation; you can’t solve the housing problem and the job problem and all of these other problems through legislation; you’ve got to change the heart. We had a presidential candidate just recently who spoke about this a great deal. And I think Mr. Goldwater sincerely believed that you couldn’t anything through legislation, because he voted against everything in the Senate, including the civil rights bill. And he said all over the nation throughout the election that we don’t need legislation, that legislation can’t deal with this problem. But he was nice enough to say that you’ve got to change the heart.

Now I want to at least go halfway with Brother Goldwater at that point. I think he’s right. If we’re going to get this problem solved in America and all over the world, ultimately, people must change their hearts where they have prejudices. If we are going to solve the problems facing mankind, I would be the first to say that every white person must look down deep within and remove every prejudice that may be there, and come to see that the Negro, and the colored peoples, generally, must be treated right, not merely because the law says it, but because it is right and because it is natural. I agree with this 100 percent. And I’m sure that if the problem is to be solved, ultimately, men must be obedient not merely to that which can be enforced by the law, but they must rise to the majestic heights of being obedient to the unenforceable.

But after saying all of that, I must go on to the other side. This is where I must leave Mr. Goldwater and others who believe that legislation has no place. It may be true that you can’t legislate integration, but you can legislate desegregation. It may be true that morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law can’t change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law can’t make a man love me, but it can restrain him from lynching me. And I think that’s pretty important also.

Have a great day. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

ds alert

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Gender gap task force, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 NE Ent 18:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Re : please either provide a diff where Cassianto said the editor was behaving like a rape victim or redact the comment using {{rpa}} markup. NE Ent 18:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

We've already addressed this up above and on the ANI report. She doesn't have to provide a diff or redact the comment as Cassianto's comments can be interpreted either way because of the language he used. Furthermore, this discretionary sanction warning appears to be bogus, as it has nothing to do with her comments. Please don't misuse the discretionary sanction system to threaten, intimidate, and harass other users. Viriditas (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

While a diff is not required if this is indeed a misunderstanding the comment does need to be redacted now that it has been explained that this interpretation is very wrong. No comment on the use of DS. Chillum 18:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Chillum: I think all reasonable people agree it's a misunderstanding. And, I've left an explanation for this misunderstanding in the above thread. However, as an admin, could you comment on the misuse of the DS warning here, and NE Ent's attempt to connect Orange's comment to arbcom enforcement? I think he should be warned that this is not acceptable, and if necessary, the DS warning should be removed, or at least not connected to this current incident. NE Ent's use of the two things appears to be a form of intimidation. Viriditas (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"I think all reasonable people agree it's a misunderstanding": just not true. Opinions are divided with reasonable people on both sides of the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not true. Nobody has defended her comments, and there aren't two sides. Please stop turning a simple misunderstanding into a battle. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am turning nothing into a battle. Stop bludgeoning every comment that appears and wait for OrangesRyellow to comment. Your behaviour in regards to this whle situation has been uestionable and I strongly suggest you await developments without commenting further. - SchroCat (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, this is a battle for you. Orange is not required to answer or reply to anything. This isn't a court of law, and she isn't in the dock. Please treat your fellow editors with respect, even if you disagree with them. The right to speech is also equivalent to the right to silence. Orange is free to say something or nothing. It's her choice, so stop trying to harass and intimidate her. I suggest she say nothing, because right now, we have a group of editors who will twist and distort anything that she says. For example, I left a very polite message on Cassianto's talk page expressing sympathy with his position and explaining the message I left here. He now claims I was "grave dancing". This is ridiculous. No, based on this atmosphere of incivility, I suggest and recommend that Orange say nothing. Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"Clearly, this is a battle for you." Once again I have to ask you to please stop your continued lies about me. I see you advise she says nothing: it's abysmal advice, and your lack of perspective in this matter is something she should be extremely wary of. I have no intention of continuing to discuss anything with someone like you as it's an utter waste of time. As I have said since my first comment on this matter I will await a comment from OrangesRyellow, and your constant bludgeoning and battlefield mentality will not stop me awaiting that response. - SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

To remind you, Orange is not required to make a comment on this matter. Her freedom to comment is equivalent to her freedom of silence. Again, please stop intimidating, harassing, and threatening this user. They do not have to comment so there is absolutely no need for you to continue posting here saying you are "awaiting" their comment. Please go "await" somewhere else. Anywhere but here. Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't tell me what to do. Go and troll on someone else. I am not harassing anyone: I have informed you that I am awaiting someon else's statement, as you seem incapable of understanding that. - SchroCat (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Viriditas I am not familiar enough with the underlying dispute to comment on the DS warning. Chillum 19:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Schrocat. Just stay off my talk page. You are not welcome here anymore. And I am male. I don't mind that misunderstanding. Part of the joys of using a text-only medium.OrangesRyellow (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Anyone interested. I had offered a compromise solution to Cassianto and they have refused . Since they have refused the offer, I am also withdrawing my compromise offer.OrangesRyellow (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

OrangesRyellow, I am disappointed. Looking at what you've been working on in userspace, I believe I can see why you jumped to a wrong conclusion, but you failed to assume good faith and mistakenly made a very serious attack on a fellow editor. Now that you've had time to see that you were mistaken, the right thing to do is not to require the person you inadvertently deeply hurt to modify their comment, it's to strike yours. Please show that you did not intend to be abusive by doing so. No more is required, but such a mistake is really not a matter for conditional offers. With thanks in advance, Yngvadottir (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not very helpful. You don't get a clap with one hand. If you want to help resolve the situation, maybe convince Cassianto to adopt a less uncompromising stance. I have offered a compromise and at least one other user at ANI thinks it is a reasonable solution.OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that you cannot admit you made a grossly hurtful attack based on a mistake. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This seems ridiculous. Cassianto could simply strike his uncivil, unnecessary use of word "fucking" before word victim, since Orange indicated that is what caused the misunderstanding and agreed to delete then. That would solve and end this entire misunderstanding. However, Cassianto has refused and made clear on talk page that goal here is not to resolve the misunderstanding but rather to get OrangeRyellow blocked. Too much wp:battleground. Seems others should maybe stop feeding all this battleground drama. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

ani update

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Update NE Ent 23:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice

You don't know me, so I don't expect you to take my advice, but after yesterday I think the only amicable way out of this would be for you to strike your comment that seems to imply Cassianto is unsympathetic to rape victims, which is patently ridiculous, even if you honesty think he meant that. I think the "waiving the bate" line was an intentional button-pushing, but to read into it any further is a mistake. At any rate, even if he did mean what you say he meant, and I don't buy that for a minute, the community will never agree with you, so you look incorrigible by refusing to strike-out the comment, which is obviously misguided and probably a personal attack.

Take the high road and avoid this crew as much as you can. You make them out to look like the victim whenever you do something that could be seen as trolling or baiting. If they are as hostile and aggressive as they sometimes appear, the community will see that in time, and uninvolved people will complain. But when people like you or me try to get involved we just look like provocateurs with an agenda, which makes it harder to hold them accountable, defeating the purpose of standing up to them in the first place. I hope this hasn't been too preachy, but if it has please know that my intentions are only to help. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Editing another user's comments — A warning

It pains me to have to speak to you as I find you repulsive, but do not edit comments again. This is an action only I or an admin can carry out. Fortunately, you are neither. Cassianto 12:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)