Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Light current (talk | contribs) at 17:21, 2 February 2007 (→Straight and narrow: What does it have to do with Friday). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk Archive:

• 2004 and January to March 2005
• April and May 2005
• June 2005
• July 2005
• August and September 2005
• October and November 2005
• December 2005 to February 2006
• March to May 2006
• June to August 2006
• September and October 2006

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of (56/0/2). It was great to see so much kind support from such competent editors and administrators as commented on my RfA. I know I have much reading to do before I'll feel comfortable enough to use some of the more powerful admin tools, so I'll get right to it. Again, thanks; └  / talk  13:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Moral obligation

Hello. I have no argument with you opposing my RfA on the basis of your opinion on my question at the Reference Desk - that is entirely your right. However, if i may point out two things. Firstly, that the situation i'm referring to is not actually one that i am involved in personally. I used the first person as a proxy for the individual involved in the transaction as it was easier to recount (rather than "my friend..."). I appreciate that is misleading, but i didn't envisage the question would turn into a referendum on my morals based on, what for me personally, is only a hypothetical situation. However, it is true that i concur with their moral take on the situation, thus that probably doesn't invalidate your concerns.

My second comment is a request. I would ask that if you are going to quote my comments made on the RD to my RfA, then could you do me the courtasy of recounting my position in full? You appear to have replaced what, in my opinion, is the moral crux of the situation with "...": specifically the qualifier " I have no intention of trying to actively avoid paying the agreed fee, but" prior to "i really don't see why i should go out of my way to help a business". Thank you, both for taking an interest in my RfA and for your input to RD. Rockpocket 19:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It was not my intention to alter the sense of your remarks, only to condense them so as not to take up too much space on the RfA. (The use of ellipses to denote removed text is, of course, a very standard editorial practice.) I linked to both the full Ref Desk discussion as well as to specific diffs of your comments so that other individuals would be able to independently verify my statements (or argue with them, as the case may be).

For what it's worth, I read the 'moral crux' of the situation as the passage that I did quote—you feel no obligation to draw attention to the oversight, and imply that it's all right to do so since it's a large and faceless corporation. While it is somewhat reassuring that you affirmed a desire not to engage in active deception, that's really beside the point. If you feel that I have misrepresented your position, please feel free to comment as appropriate on the RfA. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, but accept you have not purposely tried to misrepresent me. Its no big deal though. If individuals are interested they can, as you say, read more in the links you provided.

I guess I was more concerned that with the suggestion at RfA that is a "real life" ethical situation I am currently engaging in, rather than a hypothetical debate for me personally (which is the premise on which I was commenting at RD). I'm aware that this is impression i gave with my question, but i didn't consider that relevent, or that such a question may end up as evidence regarding my personal morality at RfA. That said, i appreciate, your opinion of my moral fibre does not depend on whether the situation is real or not, but i'm sure you can understand I would rather disclose fully the situation. Now i have done that, i'm currently happy to stand by my moral position and, if the consensus deems that such reasoning is innapropriate for an administrator, then its perhaps best that my RfA does not succeed. I must say, having considered myself quite a moral person, your comments have given me some food for thought. Challanging one's values is always a good thing, i think and i'll certainly muse over it further. Best. Rockpocket 23:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

November Esperanza Newsletter

Rebecca Wilson

You deleted Rebecca Wilson (content was: '{{del}}Rebecca Wilson played by Kelly in 1994 Barney video: (Barney Live! in New York City)') I found an IMDb listing for this person at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1959858/ If you think that this is an adequate proof of notability, could you please restore the article and add the IMDb reference? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the article because it was nearly completely free of content, and a grammatical train wreck to boot. (The sentence in the deletion log is the entire article.) I have serious doubts about whether appearing as a dancer (not even a speaking role?) in a Barney video clears any kind of notability threshold. Nevertheless, I'm going on vacation in about ten minutes, so if you can actually put together a decent stub – and you feel that this person is worth the effort – I'm not going to come back in two weeks and nuke it.

Out of curiosity, how did you even come across that deletion? Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I came across a deletion of Rebecca wilson (different capitalization) and while trying to see if that one was salvageable, checked to see if there was an article with the correct capitalization. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi TenOfAllTrades. I wanted to thank you with flowers (well, flower) taking the time to participate in my RfA, which was successful. I regret that I was unable to earn your support at this time, but I respect that you took the time to fully research my contributions and gave due consideration to your comments. I'm afraid I can't promise I'll change my moral perspective, but I can assure you I'll continue to provide full reasoning for any decision I make here at WP, with the aim of bettering the project. You can be assured I have taken your comments seriously and will bear them in mind in future. Please do let me know if I can be of assistance and especially if you spot me making an error in future. Many thanks once again. Yours, Rockpocket 08:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Ten,

I was just checking up on some old friends, feeling sad over all the good friends who are no longer with us on Misplaced Pages, and I wanted to stop and say how happy it makes me that you're still here, doing good work. Whether you know it or not, my trips down Wiki-Memory-Lane often cause me to think of you, and that makes me smile. Have a great day! Essjay (Talk) 08:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity...

Are you still thinking you wouldn't have time to be on the Arbitration Committee? Your not running is still a noticeable absence this year, I think. Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 12:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the vote of confidence. Nevertheless, I'm still not in a position to devote an appropriate amount of time to the job. (I'm a graduate student, and I'm hoping to crank out a couple of papers in the next six months or so. Things are going to be crazy, and the last thing I need is an excuse not to be writing.) In any case, I haven't even been able to stay on top of the article work I've been hoping to do. If all goes well over the next year, I'll probably be willing and able to stand come next December. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, a pity you won't be joining us. (But I understand: last thing I need myself is an excuse not to study, but of course here I am...) In any case:

Hear hear! Essjay (Talk) 03:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Font?

How about like this?__Seadog 21:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Four net votes

I've posted this to the thread on RfAr talk, but in case you don't see it there, a link to a relevant discussion (in the context of the first rejected case in which this was the deciding factor) is here. You'll see my comments (my view is the same as yours) and those of two of the arbitrators. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ref desk cleanup, help needed

As a user who has expressed interest in dealing with misuse of the reference desk, you may be interested in my comments at Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk#Where we stand and my new strategy for dealing with the problem at User:SCZenz/Reference desk comments. It will take help from many people in order to make it clear which behaviors aren't appropriate. -- SCZenz 03:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

RfARB Policy Problem

Hey, I applaud your efforts at trying to spotlight the problems with the policy, and especially your approach to it. It really seems like no one is paying attention (not least of which is ArbCom itself). Wholly not an entity I want to piss off, and this is high-profile enough that I worry about staining my wiki-reputation, HOWEVER... do you think this is worthy of an RfC or village pump query? The scope seems such that it will affect all of wikipedia, and so such a significant change (in my mind) seems to need extraordinary consideration. Thoughts? /Blaxthos 17:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As someone who was involved in the last discussion of this issue, I think this could profitably be brought up again once the new arbitrators are selected in a couple of weeks. I have a couple of other nits in the arbitration policy I plan to raise at the same time as well. I think an RfC or village pump discussion would not draw widespread comment (most users don't think about these issues until the user is involved in a case) and in any event the newly constituted ArbCom should be invited to review the matter first. (Apologies to 10oAT for intruding here.) Newyorkbrad 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

LC Unblock

It seems that you and I think alike (see my comment, edit conflicted with yours, on the Friday talk page). Thanks for stepping in. Let's hope it all calms down now. --Dweller 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Just another word of thanks from me for taking a balanced view. I will try hard not to let you down 8-)--Light current 16:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My Talkpage

• Hey, thanks for getting rid of the vandalism on my talk page. I have a small favour to ask though, would you be able to roll back this and this so they don't appear in the edit history? Thanks. -- Chabuk 20:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Rules for deletion

Would you care to comment on my proposed Ref Desk Rules for Deletion:  ? I would like to build a consensus on which rules should be followed. StuRat 07:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the cleanup of my userpage, I suspect the user was intending to go on another vandalism spree and wanted to delete my test links. Agathoclea 21:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How to prevent spammers

TenOfAllTrades,

I have a weblog that has the largest amount of information on surety bonds. The 'surety bond' page in wiki had a link to the blog for quite some time. As of recent another webmaster continuously changes the url address (no anchor text). Since their website is commercial the link is then removed. This is unfortunate as I try to change it back now and then, but sometimes it gets deleted before I correct it. I would re-create the link, but do not want to be mistaken for a spammer as well.

What to do?

Thanks, Webmaster - Surety Bond Blog —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.224.34.220 (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Frankly, I don't see the encyclopedic value of the blog—it's seldom updated, and its purpose is to drive traffic to JW Surety bonds. While I'm sure that your company enjoys the Google PageRank and the direct link from Misplaced Pages, I don't think it's worthwhile for Misplaced Pages. Besides, I'm tired of you and your competitor warring over the link. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That is unfortunate. If you were to search for information on suretyship online you will find that the blog is the most informative source on the subject. I guess it is difficult to judge these things w/o knowing the industry. The blog use to be updated more often, but the surety bond industry does not have changes. Would you make the same argument for a historic site?

It is discouraging to lose a great link due to a competitors tactics, as the link benefited myself and the rest of the Wiki community. By handling all spammers in this manor, Wiki will only be able to provide generic links that have little value to visitors.

Health Wiki Research

A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Misplaced Pages on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Misplaced Pages Foundation.

Thanks, Corey 15:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Science Desk "Odd Nausea" meta comments

I removed the following metacomments today from the aforementioned ref desk page because they are talking about your response rather than answering the original question. I felt that your response was a reasonable one and that the comment from Ike bordered on incivility:Edison 17:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• "::Hey Ten - If you don't have anything concrete to add, why write anything at all? ike9898 18:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Ten. Just say 'Go to a Doctor, it sounds serious'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.10.127.58 (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

I think that was a little bit unnecessary yourself ike. His reply was fine. X (DESK|How's my driving?) 05:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)"

I did this per the rule someone stated that comments about comments should be on the Ref Desk Talk Page page or on the editor's talk page, not on the public side of the reference desk. If Ike, Hagermanbot and Mac Davis feel strongly that they are an answer to the original question, and if the consensus on the Ref Desk Talk page agrees, then I apologize and they can certainly be moved back. Edison 17:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

They're not my comments; I have no comment. :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

You have the patience of a saint. Thank you. Friday (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti

"(The particular straw that broke the camel's back was his threat to report Willmcw to the FBI and have him prosecuted under the PATRIOT Act for adding Sarfatti's date of birth to Sarfatti's biography.)" This is a complete fabrication. It's ridiculous. Where did you get this from - Calton (talk · contribs)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.121.162.87 (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Sorry about the edit, I should have hit "preview" first, but I was in a bit of a rush. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with 2 socks

Thanks you for dealing with these 2 socks (RussianPatriot and NapoleonBon). :) These belongs to Bonaparte of course, so there is no question. As for the RfC, just for information, it is copypasted from a one that is one year old, so it is abusive. -- Grafikm 16:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Refdesk

Note that Hipocrite's proposal is being reverted off the page for some reason. Please keep an eye out. (Radiant) 13:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• True, but then what do you propose we do? His behavior is not conductive to the functioning of the refdesk. (Radiant) 16:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I recieved your email and took appropriate action thereon. My good faith action was promptly jumped on as a way to weaken my position - review my talk page. I have stopped "discussing" with people that are acting in bad faith. I suggest that you consider taking strong adminstrative action against people who are not here to WP:ENC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Balducci levitation, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup. If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Misplaced Pages's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page. You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.

Block

I put a three-hour block on your bot; do you have a script running to restart it periodically? It doesn't seem to be turned off. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no script starting the bot periodically. It should stop running whenever it detects a block (it always has in the past). It did sotp once you implemented your three-hour block. It is possible that someone else set it running after the first block (the bot can be set running by anybody). The bot is now withdrawn and will nt be runn again. Thank you for your patience. - PocklingtonDan 08:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

RFC

I have filed an RFC on StuRat and THB here. Unless another user certifies the RFC, it will not remain listed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

your Jack Sarfatti comment re: Patriot Act

Hi, I know Jack and I see no evidence for the truth of your remark about Jack and the Patriot Act. It makes you and Wiki look silly. Jack is well known as a satirist and he confirmed my suspicion that anything he may have said along those lines was meant as a joke and that should have been obvious. Also he denies making any stink about his birthday. That was his brother Michael Sarfatti not Jack himself. Best wishes. K. Caffe Trieste, North Beach, SF. I attended Jack's talk last night at Henry Dakin's Pacific Heights home. You may be interested in http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.125.49.144 (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Your RD thoughts

Hi TenOfAllTrades. I greatly appreciate this approach, got it printed out, and will study it on my way home with the phone turned off. ---Sluzzelin 18:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Lol, it's a welcome reason. ---Sluzzelin 18:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I must congratulate you on your RD guideline proposal: well written, easy to understand etc. I think its a good alternative starting point but I think some of the specifics (like how to deal with deletions etc) from the original (StuRats) version need to be incorporated to make it more practical.

When I recover more fully from my recent period of chastisement I shall apply my thoughts to this task 8-)--Light current 16:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

RD response to Light current - a friendly note

TenOfAllTrades - I know you have been trying hard to find common ground in the current debate over RD best practice, and you obviously know that the RD is a sensitive and rather hostile environment at the moment, and you are familiar with Light current's behaviour and background. So I was surprised to see your sarcastic response to LC's question Being fat or grossly overweight on the Misc RD. It could give the impression that you might be trying to provoke LC when he has only just returned from his lengthy (and punitive) block. Would you perhaps consider rewording your response to give it a more neutral, less humorous tone ? Or maybe move it to a less public place ? We all need to be very, very careful about what we post on the RDs at the moment, in case it is misused or misinterpreted. Gandalf61 11:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ouch ... well, that puts me in my place. I seem to have touched a nerve - I'm really sorry about that. Gandalf61 16:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

David Ruben RfA

TenOfAllTrades, thank you for your support in my RfA which passed on 13th December 2006 with a tally of 49/10/5. I am delighted by the result and a little daunted by the scope of the additional tools; I shall be cautious in my use of the new tools. I am well aware that becoming an Admin is not just about a successful nomination, but a continuing process of gaining further experience; for this I shall welcome your feedback. Again, many thanks for supporting my RfA, feel free to contact me if you need any assistance. :-) David Ruben 01:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

RD bold move

In the interest of moving this along I have moved EVERYTHING, including your draft, to one page. Please take a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/Proposed policy for the reference desk --Justanother 15:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Another editor took umbrage at my bold move and has further obfuscated the issue by again moving everything to the main RD space. Please see User talk:Ned Wilbury#ALL?? and Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk for a discussion of my reasoning. We could probably use your help now in untangling this. --Justanother 17:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And to add to the pot, hipocrite moved everything again and introduced the confusion of Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/guidelines vs. Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/guideline. Is it a problem? I don't know. I thought initially that if I did a standard move and standard merge that the histories and talk pages would be taken care of by others. Now it is tangled. My only real point is let's get going again and get this done. I don't care about the details of where we do it either. I just saw that drafts belong in talk space. --Justanother 19:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

New nobots template - replacement for opt-in or not?

Thank you for your comments during PocKleanBot's recent bot RFA. I'm (manually! no spamming! :-P ) contacting the bot operators and admins who commented on the bot's RFA to find out what their position would be to running the bot obeying the new nobots template but not using opt-in. Would this be acceptable to you or not? I think the nobots template is a great idea and I wish it had been introduced years ago and was more widespread. The only problem I can see running the bot this way is that there's going to be a whole lot of people out there who haven't heard of the nobots template and a few of those more violently opposed to bots adding a message to their tlak page will doubtless get irate just like last time. I would be interested in hearing your comments. - PocklingtonDan 15:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work, Ten!

I'd just like to say, good work at removing the prognosis comments at the reference desk for Shampoo Swallowing. Misplaced Pages should NOT be an emergency help desk. I've seen forums go way downhill because they've allowed posters to talk about suicide more than objectively. That's all :) Xhin 23:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove other people's comments from the Reference Desk. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a good removal. But put this on ten's talk page not here. --froth 21:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I'm sorry, what? This is his talk page. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Petition for everyone to be nice to each other on the Ref Desk in the New Year

We hold that things have been unnecessarily nasty on the Reference Desk and its related talk pages recently. Mistakes have been made.

We call on editors of good faith and good will to attempt to mend fences and build bridges in the new year.

We wish everyone a happy holiday season and a merry Christmas.

We urge everyone to have a happy and productive 2007.

The following editors endorse this position.

• -TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC) No need to be nice to ignorable trolls - just ignore them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Friday (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Petition to POV-fork an entirely new wiki-encyclopedia to be called "Nicepedia" where all the articles are NPOV and all the editors are kind and caring human beings, sensitive to each other's positions. Happy Holidays --Justanother 20:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Petition to point out that that's wikipedia (it's supposed to be anyway) --froth 21:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Does the above mean that all the endorsees are actually going to try to be more restrained in their activities in the new year and try not to upset so many people?--Light current 17:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently not, if you look at Hipcorite's next two posts after endorsing the above. Very unpleasant. Gandalf61 18:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I notice hes also just deleted the pettion on Fridays talk page. 8-(--Light current 19:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is because he has one more week before 2007. Think that deletion of the petition will get him blocked? The other deletion was justified. --Justanother 20:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Striking comments not because I think I am one of the "utter dicks" but because this is Ten's house. --Justanother 21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Way too full of turkey, gravy, roll, butter, sweet potato pie, mashed potatos with more gravy, green bean/mushroom casserole with onions and fruit salad to have much patience with people squabbling like 7 year olds in the back seat of a car on a long trip. "He touched me! "He put his foot in my side of the floor!" He said 'NEENER' to me!" If I hear ANY MORE COMMOTION LIKE THE PREVIOUS I'm turning this Misplaced Pages around. Edison 00:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Petition to act based on consensus, not unilaterally, in the new year. StuRat 02:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is embarrassing

Would anyone who has opted to be an utter dick in his or her remarks above consider striking or withdrawing them in light of the purpose of the petition? If you want to take cheap shots at one another, do it on someone else's talk page. For the record, I endorse Edison's statement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistancy

I see lots of other people on RD making "medical" comments no better or no worse than StuRat's. Why don't you delete their comments, as well? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Because they aren't on his hit list. StuRat 02:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zoe, thanks for dropping by to comment. To answer your question, I haven't been editing anything for the last few days, and I'll probably only be online sporadically over the next little while. (See my note below, next to the red wine glass.)

Before my break, I removed comments offering medical diagnosis and advice for another thread dealing with an emergent medical problem. I described the situation in detail on the RD talk page; I don't have time at the moment to dig out the thread. (Those comments were made by Vranek and Bowlhover.) At the time, there was no objection made, and it didn't precipitate any edit warring or handwringing.

A few days later I removed a comment by StuRat, for similar reasons. That time, the shit hit the fan (pardon the expression). I haven't removed any further comments because I haven't been online or reading the Desks since then. I sincerely hope that the interested parties have hammered out some kind of resolution to how medical advice should be handled while I've been away.

As to StuRat's comment about a 'hit list', I can only say that such a comment doesn't make sense—unless he believes I have some sort of vindictive grudge against Bowlhover and Vranek. (For the record, I think they're both reasonable and helpful editors, and I applaud their calm, rational, and reasoned replies and responses to my removal of their comments.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hey Ten, just dropping by to say Merry Christmas, old friend. Hope everything is going well for you! Essjay (Talk) 22:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Seasonal Goodwill

Very much, how I like to see things done. Cookies for all.

--Santa on Sleigh 01:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been away

Hello all! Just got back from Christmas with the family and I'm full of turkey, stuffing, and cheer.

Sorry I haven't been replying here, but I've been away from the Internet for the last four days or so. I'll probably be away quite a bit over the next handful of days, too. I'm working my way through answering questions on my talk page now; but it's a busy time of year. If I've missed something urgent, you can try to ping me here or by email; I'm not ignoring anyone deliberately but I can't guarantee that I'll be back on top of every discussion thread for a while.

If you're waiting for me and I'm not around, help yourself to a glass of wine, or dig some leftover egg nog out of the fridge. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

How to disagree on the Ref Desk

Note that I disagreed with your statement Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Science#retrovirus_and_telomerase:

"Having telomerase active in all the body's cells is apt to significantly increase the risk of cancer."

However, rather than telling you to either list sources or retract that statement, I merely added my reasons for disagreement, and allowed the OP to decide. This is how I think disagreements should be handled. StuRat 16:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Er, you seem to be bringing a fight you had with someone else to me. When have I told you to list your sources – though you really should – even when you're mistaken?

In this particular instance the statement follows reasonably from the previous material (which, unlike any of your response, is wikilinked to material which includes detailed sources). In any case, it's qualified with 'is apt to', as it would be a tad unethical to actually perform the experiment to confirm the point absolutely.

Please don't lecture me on how to handle disagreements. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect this message was meant for SCZenz, and is in relation to user talk:StuRat#Elephant graveyards. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I suppose the remark makes more sense in that context. Still, truly outstanding chutzpah to lecture me about handing disagreements civilly given his remark a couple of sections up on this very page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

New StuRat RfC - use of the term 'deletionist'

For those who would like to comment on the appropriateness of lumping other editors under pejorative labels like 'deletionist', your comment is sought at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/StuRat 2. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Any chance of someone else certifying this? Can I certify it and incorporate my outside response into the lead of the RfC? It would be a shame to lose this RfC since I am getting the sense it might lead to a contructive discussion. David D. (Talk) 16:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No.

I am done playing games with him and his ilk. If you cannot get him to stop playing games, I see no reason to take your warning seriously. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going away for 2 days to give you a chance to see if you can redirect his endless creativity into not trying to test limits. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you start spending some of your 48 hours on dealing with the users causing the problems, as opposed to the users who you think might be overzealous in fixing them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that you have failed miserably, I look forward to an apology and retraction on my talk page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Come on, there's no call for such hostility. We're all doing our best. Friday (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"If you don't stop calling him a 'troll' or engaging in other personal attacks on him or other editors (trolls or not) I will resort to blocks for persistent incivility." Hipocrite - «Talk» 08:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you and Light current both engaging in personal attacks requires an apology from me. As it stands now, I intend to block either one of you if you engage in futher gross incivility. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you wont. Feel free to prove me wrong any time. You can start with, oh, this, or perhaps this or possibly this or maybe this? No - you will not block him for persistent gross incivility. You will coddle him in the hopes that he will become responsible. But he will not. I, apparently, am not permitted to WP:SPADE, because he is protected due to not crossing the line - he's never been on the right side of it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean the remarks for which I issued his warning? If you think I'm being too lax with him or too severe with you, then take it to WP:AN/I. There are other admins, and I'm not the only one with a block button. You're not in a good position to be asking me to be more liberal with issuing incivility blocks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

/ Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as i can tell there is a concerted effort being made to get blocked. In this way they can continue with the us against them argument that has been prevalent from the begining od the ref desk dispute. Is Steve Summit (talk · contribs) an admin? I suggest he deals with it so it does not allow THB to polarise the issue even more. David D. (Talk) 22:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Take it to WP:AN/I. There would be a conflict of interest if I blocked THB, because he's been so opposed to my recent opinions on RD reform. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've asked THB to reconsider his use of the term. I've never had a direct interaction with him before and, should he continue using such language, am content to deal with him without a COI. Rockpocket 09:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you take it to IRC so the RD Administrator Guild won't be accused of being a cabal. -THB 12:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Show me where I have been working with Friday, TenOfAllTrades, hipocrite and Rockpocket to suppress the creativity of other innocent users in wikipedia. Otherwise, I can only asume you are being intentionally disruptive with a goal to antagonise the situation further. Whether this is wilfully or you're just naive i do not know. David D. (Talk) 13:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/StuRat 2#TenOfAllTrades' response

I am thinking of propagating your 8 points (along with some of mine at Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk#"on Holy Wars, and a plea for peace") to Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk/guidelines, as a prelude to making sure they're well-reflected in / incorporating them into the evolving RD guidelines. Would you object? —Steve Summit (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Help requested

Hi there and sorry to bother you about this but I am slowly getting backed into a corner by this editor and now he is enlisting others to assist him with his conspiracy vendetta against me. I see that you have dealt with this other user NuclearUmpf before for exactly the same issue. my userid is Mobile 01 and am being victimised by User:Travb, please look at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01 and User talk:Travb/m. I have tried to communicate with this user but he just deletes my messages from his user talk page. I replaced them but still they got deleted, He then got one of his associates to message his talk page to tell me I was not allowed to put messages there if the user did not want them and I would be reported for vandalism. This user was NuclearUmpf. I see from his talk page that you have had dealings with this user before on exactly the same issue and am wondering if you could take a look at the whole thing for me if you have time.

Copied from talk page NuclearUmpf

I have blocked you for 48 hours for either falsely accusing editors with whom you are in a dispute of socking and conspiracy, or for participating in an obnoxious conspiracy (take your pick from ), and for being just generally and deliberately obtuse and unrepentant when confronted with it .

Please, just stop it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And this also copied from talk page NuclearUmpf showing that he is a known associate of user Travb.

Maybe you took my stories of alienating both your allies and non-allies to heart. (Bad move if you are--I think a true Machiavellian would never be as stupid as I have been alienating everyone)

Anyway, keep surprising me, it is entertaining. :) Best wishes, Travb (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I am tired of alliances, I decided to just state my opinion on the matter as it relates to Misplaced Pages, no agendas. This includes no lies or miscommunications etc. --NuclearZer0 12:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, continue to surprise me. I still owe you a barnstar. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate any assistance you can offer if you have time to look into this. Best Regards. Mobile 01 10:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, this matter is being discussed at WP:AN/I, and getting lots of attention there. Please don't try to recruit me into an edit war. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks much on your information on the radiation request it really gave me the information i was looking for =) 100 times the leathal dose to acctually feel the effects in real time wow i am really curious about the issue and well i wish there was a way to feel the effects without dieing but well i guess unless someone writes their experinces here while being in contact with the substance i guess we wont know for sure what exactly happens =( one more question that i dont belive i saw in the article what is the range of radiation? is it always imminate distance or can you be like a mile away from it and still get posioned? Maverick423 20:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your very kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 21:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support on my recent RfA. I've felt it best to withdraw on this occasion, but your comments were appreciated. Jakew 19:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's ok.

I mean, it's all fine and dandy for you, Wizardry Dragon and HighBC to be waiving the "be civil, damn you, be civil to the trolls" at me, but it seems you missed a step. And to think that the autoblocker would have saved me 24 hours of further trolling. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi Ten. Happy New Year. Would you please help me out with an admin/editor question? If I am having trouble with another user and think that they might need a bit more forceful warning as to their inappropriate behavior than I, as an ordinary user here, can give; in that case is it considered appropriate to ask an admin directly to take a look at the situation or should it always go on one of the admin notice boards? Reason I ask is that I have seen both methods used but I don't know the etiquette of the former. Thanks. --Justanother 19:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. My reply is on my page. Thanks. --Justanother 16:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Autism

Hello TenOfAllGrades From your interaction with the Autism article in the recent past I infer you wish to see that it complies with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines as do I.

I am writing to you about an edit to the introduction section of Autism made by Q0 (whom I believe to be a valuable contributor) and I have no wish to get into a edit war with that person). In my opinion, the altered text presents problems (see my rationale in the discussion section on the 'Introduction').

Q0's edit may only be a minor change from one POV, however it reads as a bit amateurish and clumsy (possibly written in a rush as we are wont to do, a matter of style which may or may not be a POV). It is also an alteration of published fact from the reputable sources cited. I have proposed a change to carry the factual original statement to acknowledge the balance that may be needed --which is absolutely ethical in science to be sure. I readily concede that the DSM and the ICD do represent a theoretical perspective, which must be questioned to remain scientific.

There is also the issue of POV versus NPOV. Science, no matter how loudly people shout to the contrary, is still riddled with POV and much of the debate can be rendered as simply politics. The original Introduction statement in Autism can be considered POV but ironically has been altered to another POV. Technically we may only be able to be fair by providing a balance. My POV anyway.

If you have time and you are interested, take a look and give us some objective feedback. Ta. Malangthon 02:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

On the MFD

I would strongly support an RFCU of the user who nominated the reference desks. My innter hypocrite would bet 10-1 that it's some who is watching my recent contributions and is concerned that I will take this live. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and have made the request: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser#ParK_Ragnor. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocks

Thanks for letting me know. You may not be aware, because he removed the notice, but I extended THB's block to one week earlier today; thus I'm not particularly worried about him disrupting Misplaced Pages in the immediate future, and we can hope that Light current will have settled down by then. These two (and to some degree others) have formed a self-reaffirming club that apparently allows them to believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong... except.... if they really thought they were right and we were wrong, wouldn't they file a request for comment or a note on the administrators' noticeboard? -- SCZenz 18:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not real sure what to make of any of this, but, if either of these two get blocked for the same kind of behavior again, I'd be inclined to say they've exhausted the community's patience. Friday (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's perhaps possible to exhaust the community's patience even when blocked. Friday (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've protected THB's page for the rest of his block, to keep him out of trouble and to keep me from having to watch whether he continues editing others' comments there. When he comes back, we'll see. The situation with Light current is a bit more complicated in some ways; each offense is certainly smaller. -- SCZenz 18:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it would seem that THB may have a dynamic IP; hopefully he will shortly calm down and realizing that swearing at people "anonymously" is not going to improve his situation here. (Sorry to turn your talk page into a clearing house for information on all this, Ten!) -- SCZenz 18:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I fully support THB's block. Personally I probably wouldn't have blocked LC for that particular transgression. However, I would have engaged in discussion with him about it and - I'm absolutely convinced - that would have led to escalated tension from him, which would have ended up in a block anyway as he lost his temper. Thats the pattern that we have seen again and again, and so there is a strong argument for blocking early to prevent the inevitable disruption that will follow. I also agree that, since there are no signs of lessons being learnt, they are coming close to exhausting the community's patience. I would be for a very clear and explicit explanation to them that that is the situation they find themselves in, and give them one last opportunity to take that on board. Rockpocket 19:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If there was any doubt, you have my support on this. David D. (Talk) 20:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Predictably enough, LC has started namecalling again. This edit summary anfter being warned about this edit , was the straw that broke the camel's back for me, and earned him an extension to his block. If anyone thinks this is harsh, or is brave enough to try and rehabilitate then feel free to unblock. Rockpocket 23:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You were right

I knew you were right as soon as you said it, and this response illustrates your point rather well. -- SCZenz 16:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:NuclearUmpf

I notice that you've had prior dealings with NuclearUmpf, so I thought I should request your help in dealing with his current disruptive behavior. As you may know, NuclearZer0 has a history of tendentious editing on articles involving the War on Terrorism. A prior Arbcom case against him found that he has "engaged in editwarring and other disruptive editing" and has "failed to negotiate in good faith, engaging in repetitive assertions and circular logic". Since being placed on probation, he has notheless been blocked repeatedly for violations of policy. Now NuclearZer0 again resumed disruptive edit-warring on Iraq War and related pages.

In doing so, he has also falsely-cited a "25-2" poll which he knows is the result of vote-stacking. Two different administrators have declared that poll to be entirely invalid. . To my thinking-- citing a poll you know to be the result of vote-stacking is just as bad as actually engaging in the practice. Worse, in fact, because he's been warned repeatedly the poll was invalid, but continues to cite it.

(I have also posted about this matter at Arbitration Enforcment)

Anything you can do to help stop these behaviors would be greatly appreciated. --Alecmconroy 12:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You would be best to post requests like this to the admin's noticeboard, at WP:AN/I. I don't have the time to police him myself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk page

I would prefer that you didn't remove messages from my talk page. Everyking 04:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I know what it is; it was posted there because I've been reverting them. But that's irrevelant. I prefer to decide myself whether or not to remove messages on my talk page. I had already seen that and had decided to let it remain. Everyking 05:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And some context for those following at home—I rate somewhere below a persistent vandal on Everyking's talk page: . Ah well. No good deed goes unpunished and all that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Photo help

I appreciate your comments about the photo I posted and conflicting copyright info. How do I go back and make sure its correct information? Boston24 17:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boston24 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Attention seeking?

copied from talk scz for info--Light current 11:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW my Q on the RD about whether its better without me is a genuine one prompted by attacks from a few admins (mostly). Te fact that you cant see that reflects more on your minds than on mine. The purpose of the experiment was to test feeling of whether I should recuse myself altogether from the Rds. So in one respect it is attention seeking, but only to guage editors opinions of my contributions to RDs. I said I was goung to undertake the experiment and even asked to be selectively blocked from the RDs. The experiment has concluded. Im awaiting comments on the results. So far they are inconclusive. If the majority of editors feel the Rds would be better without me, Im prepared to give up editing there. I cant say fairer thasn that can I?--Light current 10:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Straight and narrow

If you wish to discuss my welfare on your own or someone elsess talk page, that is up to you. But please dont post it on AN/I under my complaint about Friday. Its not on topic- is it? Taenks!--Light current 15:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It is absolutely on topic. Your post is part of an ongoing pattern of behaviour. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What does it have to do with Friday stalking me?--Light current 17:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)